Micstatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
what's up folks,
How is it possible that people who live around airports that were there before they got there, and will be there after they are gone, can have such a say in shooting down new runway plans and such? It is time for the government to stop letting individuals control the future of our infrastructure. It seems almost every other major area of the world is updating their airports. Just a thought
Catflap From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
It isn't just airports. Suppose you live next to a little used lane. If a developer wants to turn it into a six-lane highway, you have the right to object to those plans. It isn't that you are against progress and it isn't that you wish to detroy employment prospects. It's just that your home will crumble with the vibration from the the six-lane highway and the noise will keep you awake all night. People who live near airports aren't NIMBY's. They are just people trying to get on with their lives and they don't understand why a developer should be able to expand the airport devaluing their home and making their life a misery, particularly if the developer concerned stands to make large amounts of money from doing this. You say "Why do these people live next to an airport if they didn't expect it to expand." I say, why didn't the developer outline his expansion plans before they moved in ? If it's so easy to predict that an airport will expand, then this seems perfectly reasonable.
Micstatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1081 times:
I agree with most of what you are saying. For little airports you are exactly correct. But if you move next to an airport like ORD, you know that the airport will have to expand, unless another is built in another area. Also, take an airport like SFO. It is greatly affected by weather delays. But if my memory serves me right, environmentalists are stopping the airports development. Correct me if I'm wrong
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
AMS and LHR are extreme cases.
At AMS environmentalists stopped expansion for almost a decade by buying land slated for the airport. Took a courtorder and police intervention to remove them in the end.
They used pay people all over the country to call in complaints as well. Originally it was thought the complaints were from people living nearby, but since a new phonesystem was installed allowing the callcenter to see the calling numbers it has been found out that most are from areas that cannot possibly have suffered from sound (like a call 100km in a direction the aircraft is not going 5 minutes after takeoff).
Cmk10 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1051 times:
Down here at HPN (Westchester County, NY) we have the worst case. We cant expand and they limit our use of terminal space. We also have installed 19 RMT's or Remote Monitoring Terminals at $200,000 a pop. We also have a $3.5Million RACAL system for montironig the planes plus softwear and computers. We have a hotline and two emplyoees always workng on noise abatement plus a noise abatement officer and me the intern. We have to send out letters to each person who logs a complaint, its not fun
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2074 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
Dallas/Fort Worth and Chicago O'Hare are great examples as well. When DFW was built in 1974, most of the land around it was pastureland. In the last three decades -- and particularly in the 1990s -- development has found its way right up to the boundary fence. Look out the window the next time you land at DFW, and chances are you'll see lots and lots of expensive-looking neighborhoods sliding by underneath. The people who live in these neighborhoods gush about the convenience to the airport, but complain endlessly about the noise. When the east runway opened in 1996, residents whined that the planes - flying over flight paths THEY had approved - were noisy. Most of these complaints were coming from the 'new' neighborhoods. Now the folks near the proposed west runway are doing the same. In my opinion, the bottom line should be if the house was built after 1974, then complaints are not logged.
GD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Micstatic, I completely agree, NIMBY's up here in New England are really bad. For instance, BOS wants to build a commuter runway that will reduce delays and ease air traffic, but the residents of East Boston and Winthrop have convinced themselves that the new runway will only bring more planes and more noise. Of course there is also ORH, which needs an access road and PVD which just needs more land. But the worst NIMBY's of all are in Connecticut. The Hew Haven-Bridgeport metro area is quite large, with Bridgeport and New Haven's populations each over 120,000 and several other small cities in the area. Tweed-New Haven Airport (HVN) and Bridgeport-Sikorsky Airport both are great airports and just need runway extension, but the NIMBY's there are fighting it so damn hard it is unbelievable, the state should just say "screw them" and build a runway anyways!
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
The NIMBYs here in the Atlanta area have made a lot of noise too. Several of the smaller airports in the Atlanta area have been proposed as either cargo airports or as a second/reliever airport, and everytime, the NIMBYs got up in arms. The one group that really got me was of group fighting against turning Tara Field down in Hampton into a cargo airport. What's really funny is that there are not many people that live in the area around that airport. It sits next to Atlanta Motor Speedway and is bordered on the other side by forest and farmland. So essentially, people who live within a 10 mile radius of the racetrack successfully fought against expanding an airport that was basically in a rural area. These same people also managed to get a great airshow to move to another location. Other NIMBY efforts have focused on expansion and possible airline service to FTY, LZU, PDK, and McCullum Field. A startup in the 1980s and later Southwest in the early 90s tried to launch service of out FTY and/or PDK. The neighbors started to complain about this. What is funny about these two airports is that they essentially lie in the middle of commercial development, not residental areas, although there are several older neighborhoods near PDK. In the early 1990s, the FAA gave the government in Gwinnett County money to do improvements at LZU. These improvements were the to lay the foundation of making LZU a reliver airport and quite likely the second Atlanta Airport. The NIMBYs in Gwinnett rose up severely, because they were already up in arms about the county building the new jail nearby as well. Now 10 years later, the area around the airport has changed, the majority of the properties in a 5 mile radius of the airport is now commercial, and many of the NIMBYs that fought the airport expansion sold their properties because of the increasing growth made their land worth a lot more money. The City of Atlanta actually has a site for the second airport picked out, they bought the land in the early 1970s with the sole purpose of making a second airport on the land up in Dawson County, which at the time was the sticks. They originally were going to build the new airport there, but there were some issues regarding the acquistion of the land from Lockheed, so that tied up things in the legal system, so they had to go with Plan C, build a new facility along side the current airport. They had to do land buyouts and essentially bribe the government in Clayton County in order to build the new terminal. By the time the Dawson County land issue was settled, the new facility was almost open, and the city just let the proposal to put an airport up in Dawson County be shelved. By the late 1980s, the city knew that ATL was reaching a critical point in its' operations, and that they could only expand the facilties so much. It was around this time the fifth runway project was launched, and at the same time, the reemergence of the Dawson County site for a second airport. The problem this time was not just the NIMBYs, this time the County Commission in Dawson County told them they would not allow any permits to build anything on that site as long as the City of Atlanta owned it. That ended that idea for a while. With the current expansion project at ATL being more than likely the last, the Dawson County site will be revived within the next decade or so. With the projected cost of just acquiring the land to expand the airport past its' current boundries somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-5 billion (they would have to displace over 20,000 people, numerous businesses, infrastructure an so on), it will definitely put pressure on the folks in Dawsonville to let them build the second airport on land that they have owned for over 20 years.
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 962 times:
The book "Airport" by Alex Hailey covered some of this pretty well. I think people are kidding themselves when they move next to an airport, what are they going to expect? My complaint is when they change the flight plans for these malcontents and it creates noise where there never was any as well as making aircraft "strain" for "noise abatement."
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 939 times:
It's just that your home will crumble with the vibration from the the six-lane highway and the noise will keep you awake all night. People who live near airports aren't NIMBY's. They are just people trying to get on with their lives and they don't understand why a developer should be able to expand the airport devaluing their home and making their life a misery, particularly if the developer concerned stands to make large amounts of money from doing this. You say "Why do these people live next to an airport if they didn't expect it to expand." I say, why didn't the developer outline his expansion plans before they moved in ? If it's so easy to predict that an airport will expand, then this seems perfectly reasonable.
I'm sorry, Catflap, this argument simply does not fly (pun not intended but happily noted). People are responsible for where they move, bottom line. Look at the damn map around your proposed house. Gee, there's an airport nearby. That means I'd better not move there if I can't live with noise. That isn't rocket science. Take, for example, idiots who bought houses north of Dulles Airport in late '90s.
Of course the greedy developer didn't tell them the winds changed at night, and Loudoun County wanted the developers' fees. Some of these people told the Washington Post that they *literally had never been to the property in the evening until they moved in.* Then they saw Air France landing over their posh new houses and freaked. I'm sorry, these people made their bed and can lie in it. Maps of where you're going to live cost $3 at the 7-11. Do your damn homework.
As far as I can tell, there is virtually *no* justice in most airport neighbor complaints. They are NIMBY's pure and simple. Their idea of "getting on with their lives" does not take place in a vacuum. All of the people employed by airports and airlines, and all of the local companies who depend upon good air access, are affected by these peoples' so-called desire to 'get on with their lives.'
The aircraft manufacturers have bent over backwards to make quieter airplanes. Airports strain to design landing approaches to impact the fewest people possible. It's time for the airport neighbors to step up to the plate and do their part--stop opposing reasonable and needed expansions.
The laws in the USA are stacked in favor of NIMBY's--overlapping and duplicating state and federal environmental reviews, zoning, etc. It seems to me that the Federal government should consider federalizing the air carrier airport runway selection process, much like the Congress handed off military base closings to a commission. The airport system is national, as well as local, and it affects the national common good. The rest of the United States should be able to tell the O'Hare NIMBYs, for example, to stuff it.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Tbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 910 times:
We had the same problem here on Long Island. Years ago the town wanted to expand the runway to 7000 feet and they got killed by the surrounding community. The runway did get expanded but not after a entire list of do's and do nots. If your to stupid to research where your moving you deserve what you get.