Study Group Meetings

NCSG MEETING #5a

Meeting #5A
Preliminary Meeting Notes

Date: October 18, 2001

Location: Masterson’s Restaurant-Nicholas Room

Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting:

J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Robert Brown, Director of Engineering, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Mike Clancey, Chairman, Study Group Chair

Dorn Crawford, Audubon Park Council Member, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing

Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #5A

The meeting was called to order by Mike Clancey, Study Group Chair, at 7:00PM. He explained that the meeting was postponed due to the national tragedy of September 11and asked that everyone take a moment to reflect on the events and on those who lost their lives.

Clancey discussed the proceedings for the meeting. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved as well as the notes from Study Group Meeting #5. He recognized a number of the community representatives including Jim Wayne, Dorn Crawford, Greg Handy, Denise Bentley, and the Chairs of the Committees.

Clancey began with a brief overview of where the study stands today, as well as what the previous noise study revealed. He reviewed the base case, the three runway use alternatives, common measures, and projected noise impacts. Clancey explained that the Committees would present their proposed alternatives. Before further steps can be taken, the Study Group participants would need to reach a consensus regarding a suitable alternative.

Environmental Committee: Pete Levermore

The Environmental Committee Co-chair, Pete Levermore, gave the first report on the consensus recommendations of this committee.

The Environmental Committee recommended Alternative 3 in regards to arrivals and departures in the north. Their reasoning for picking Alternative 3 was a 75% reduction (2,170+) of the population inside the 65 DNL as compared to the base case, and a 74% reduction (1,050+) of housing units inside the 65DNL versus the base case. He also commented that to the north, Alternative 3 was 80% better than the next best alternative, when it came to reducing the population and housing units within the 65 DNL.

The committee’s recommendation regarding the arrivals and departures in the south was Alternative 1. Their reasoning for picking this alternative was a 23% reduction (290+) of the population and a 23% reduction of housing units inside the 65 DNL as compared to base case figures. Levermore added that Alternative 1, in the south, was slightly better than Alternative 3 due to its reductions of noise at the 60+ and 55+ DNL zones. Levermore also stated that due to the small impact of these alternatives in the south the committee felt more flexible about the recommendations between Alternative 1 and 3 for the south.

Sensitive Facilities Committee: Donna Lawlor

Donna Lawlor, Chair of the Sensitive Facilities committee, began her report by defining facilities considered as "sensitive" back in June 1999. Schools, churches, daycare centers, hospitals, funeral homes, and nursing homes are usually defined as sensitive facilities. Lawlor briefly touched on items discussed by the Study in 1992, as well as their request to Leigh Fisher Associates to isolate the impacts of Alternative 3 during the daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM.

Lawlor noted that the University of Louisville was the largest sensitive facility in the area and the importance of its needs, especially during main operational hours. She continued by discussing noise mitigation and suggested that they go beyond the federal minimum of 65+DNL and extend such benefits to facilities within the 60+DNL zone.

Lawlor stated that her committee recommended Alternative 3 due to its 71% noise reduction on sensitive facilities (compared with the 44% and 58% of Alternative 1 and 2 respectively). She continued by listing other items that could be explored in the future such as reverse flow of traffic during daytime.

Metrics Committee: Bill Simpson

Bill Simpson, Chair of the Metrics committee, began by giving an overview that included comparisons of the alternatives, along with accompanying concerns and recommendations. He explained the comparisons and made it clear that Alternative 3 had the best results regarding the reduction of noise on the largest amount of people, as well as on sensitive facilities. Simpson discussed some of the concerns the committee had regarding the use of an offset flight path, changes in flow, and the capacity of the airport during simultaneous operations.

Simpson stated that the committee recommend the use of Alternative 3 based on the fact that it was the only alternative that provided substantive relief to the northeast corridor. He noted that contra-flow and other common measures were included in their recommendation. Simpson explained that the airport was split into the north and south with 80% of the flights coming from the south and 20% from the north at night, as opposed to 20% of flights arriving from the south and 80% from the north during the day. The exception to the 80/20 rule is in cases of bad weather.

Navigation Committee: Dorn Crawford

Dorn Crawford, Chair of the Navigation Committee, asked Study participants to take into account the conflicting expectations of a project like the Noise Study. He illustrated this point by referring to the difference between the noise exposure map approved by the FAA in 1997 verses the actual 1998 conditions. Keeping this in mind he, presented the projected noise impacts for 2005 using the base case and the projected results of all three alternatives.

Crawford explained that the Navigation Committee recommended Alternative 3 in the north due to a potentially dramatic reduction of non-compatible land use. Because common measures alone have the most impact in the south, Alternative 1 is recommended there.

Crawford commented that the committees had an institutional oversight through the Noise Officer, Bob Slattery. He explained that different measures are still to be developed before even getting to noise mitigation.

Crawford gave an overview of the next steps to be taken including: Flight track management, enhanced standard arrival and departure specs, evaluating prospects for "reverse flow" at selected times, displaced arrival thresholds, noise-abatement flight procedures, and the implementation and documentation of the program. He emphasized that measures like these are the necessary and pertinent way to treat remaining noise abatement concerns that aren’t addressed by runway use.

Following committee presentations, Study Group chair Clancey reassured the Study participants that they were trying to come up with the best possible way to achieve the Noise Study’s stated goal of impacting the fewest people with aircraft noise. He then introduced Larry Owsley from the University of Louisville. Mr.Owsley read a letter that was sent to the Sensitive Facilities chair earlier that day. He stated the University wasn’t objecting to the prospects of Alternative 3, but asked that the University of Louisville be taken into consideration especially during peak operational hours to benefit the students. He also stated that the population of the facility during operational hours could account for 21,000 people.

Comments and Responses.

Clancey opened the floor for comments and questions from the public regarding the alternatives recommended by the Committees.

• One participant commented that he lived in the West End and had to put up with a lot of issues. The participant wanted to know why they wanted to push more problems to the West End. Crawford commented that the Study Group’s goal was to force the planes into as narrow a corridor as possible, so the least amount of people would be affected.

• The same participant asked why the suggested alternative was targeted at West Louisville. Crawford commented that they were looking for noise reductions in all areas of town.

• One participant commented that she couldn’t read the maps. And she wanted to know where the planes would be located when they make the curve. She wanted to know whether they would be west of the railroad tracks or west of Southern Parkway. Mary Rose Evans personally reviewed the map with her.

• A representative of the Chickasaw Federation asked why they were continuing to depreciate the quality of life in the West End. Clancey explained that the Study Group’s goals and recommendations are aimed at affecting the fewest homes when looking at the Louisville area as a whole. He also pointed out that the flight map was three-dimensional and the planes would be at a higher altitude over the West End. Clancey reminded everyone that the Study Group was open to everyone. The Study Group did not exclude anybody or any area and it chose the corridor with the fewest homes.

• Alderwoman Denise Bentley wanted to know why there were no noise studies conducted in West Louisville until 3 days before the meeting. She inquired as to how many meetings were held in West Louisville and also wanted to know why no one who lives in the West End was consulted about the new suggested alternative. Clancey responded that whenever a meeting was scheduled, multiple measures were taken to get as many people as possible but people have to take the initiative and come to the meetings.

• Bentley responded to West Louisville's poor attendance at the other Study Group meetings by referring to the "digital divide" and the resulting inability for many to access the project Web site for information. Clancey said that the Web site isn’t the only method used to reach people. People are welcome to call or ask to be put on a mailing list to find out more about the meetings.

• Bentley invited the Study Group to have a meeting in the West End. She wanted to know whether the Study Group would explore more alternatives especially over less populated areas in the East End. Last, she requested there be more time dedicated to noise studies in the West End. Clancey agreed to consider the request.

• Denny Rued, Chair of the Noise Monitoring committee, explained that the West End was not monitored because no requests were received from anyone in that area. He then expressed his empathy for the gentleman from the West End and said that he had been waiting for the last 7 years for the government to take his house.

• Bentley appreciated Rued’s comment but her concern was that the suggested alternative’s route could affect an entire community that she felt hadn’t been given much consideration.

• One participant commented that she was unaware that they could choose noise- mitigation reductions. She added that she thought that 60 DNL should be the standard for everyone. Ms Lawlor commented that federal law only provides for 65 DNL on individual homes for mitigation purposes. She suggested that Louisville consider making the 60 DNL the standard for Sensitive Facilities.

• Clancey reminded the participants that the evening was about debating and finding solutions to issues.

• A participant questioned why they didn’t try to find a representative from the West End. Clancey again stated that the Study Group was open to everyone but people have to take the initiative and get involved with the Study.

• One participant wanted to know who the person was who laid out the airport and how they could think the noise wouldn’t affect anyone.

• Clancey commented that the Study Group was digging deep to find the right answers and that nothing would be done until the Study was finished. Slattery gave the direct line to his office (502-375-4546) and assured people that they can call him with questions at any time.

• One participant commented that Dorn Crawford, from the Navigation committee, was the only presenter who mentioned West Louisville. The participant then wanted to know how the committee obtained the noise levels. Clancey commented that there was a committee, formed at the beginning of the study, that chose the sites to be monitored. The actual monitoring was done by a Study consultant.

• The same participant wanted to know whether they had any noise data from West Louisville. Mr. Rued said that the closest noise data was collected at 5th and Main Street. Clancey confirmed that the final decision on the areas chosen for noise testing was made by the Study consultants, Leigh Fisher Associates.

• One participant thanked all the Study volunteers for their hard work. He then commented that the airport wasn’t going anywhere and that some people were going to be affected. He suggested that they develop a plan to penalize the pilots when they didn’t follow the flight paths. Clancey said that currently the airport couldn’t issue penalties and that this matter needed to be discussed with the FAA.

• One participant commented that she lived under the noise and found that the airplane noise was the worst on nice days when the planes weren’t suppose to use the runway set aside for bad weather. She also complained that she couldn’t sleep at night because of the noise.

• The Chairman of the Floyd County Planning Commission commented that Southern Indiana had been trying to get involved with this study for some time now but that no one had responded to their requests. He also listed a couple of people that they tried to contact. He felt that it was important that Southern Indiana get some considerations as they get a lot of noise from the incoming planes.

• One participant commented that he feels empathy for the residents who are working on this project.

• A participant commented that one of the noise monitors was placed in his backyard and rated as the 6th highest area for noise.

• A participant commented that there should be some kind of penalty in writing for airplanes not observing the rules.

• One participant commented that he heard that the study would end in early 2002 and wanted to know how many meetings were still on the schedule. Clancey said that there were two major Study Group meetings left, but the smaller committee meetings could be held at any time.

• One participant from Southern Indiana commented that she lived high in the Knobs where the planes were suppose to be high in the air, but due to the high elevation of the Knobs, the planes are noisy when coming in for landings. She also commented that people shouldn’t assume that there was nothing but pumpkin patches on that side of the river.

• A participant expressed his concerns regarding the fact that Louisville was becoming UPS’s only hub. Simpson, chair of the Metrics committee and a UPS employee, commented that it was not the only hub, but one of the largest.

• One participant asked if there was anything the airplane companies could do to their planes that would reduce the noise on the runways. It was explained that there wasn’t anything at this time, but technology is likely to improve in the future.

• Clancey asked everyone be responsible for their actions and step up to the challenges of crafting a plan that affects the fewest people.

Closing Remarks

Mary Rose Evans made a motion for the approval of the incoming chair, John Sistarenik. It was seconded and approved.

It was proposed that the next meeting be held in November, either the week before or after Thanksgiving, depending on availability of new study results.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.


				STUDY GROUP Meeting Notes
BACK to Meetings Notes				NCSG MEETING #5a Meeting #5A Preliminary Meeting Notes Date: October 18, 2001 Location: Masterson’s Restaurant-Nicholas Room Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting: J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Robert Brown, Director of Engineering, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Mike Clancey, Chairman, Study Group Chair Dorn Crawford, Audubon Park Council Member, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #5A The meeting was called to order by Mike Clancey, Study Group Chair, at 7:00PM. He explained that the meeting was postponed due to the national tragedy of September 11and asked that everyone take a moment to reflect on the events and on those who lost their lives. Clancey discussed the proceedings for the meeting. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved as well as the notes from Study Group Meeting #5. He recognized a number of the community representatives including Jim Wayne, Dorn Crawford, Greg Handy, Denise Bentley, and the Chairs of the Committees. Clancey began with a brief overview of where the study stands today, as well as what the previous noise study revealed. He reviewed the base case, the three runway use alternatives, common measures, and projected noise impacts. Clancey explained that the Committees would present their proposed alternatives. Before further steps can be taken, the Study Group participants would need to reach a consensus regarding a suitable alternative. Environmental Committee: Pete Levermore The Environmental Committee Co-chair, Pete Levermore, gave the first report on the consensus recommendations of this committee. The Environmental Committee recommended Alternative 3 in regards to arrivals and departures in the north. Their reasoning for picking Alternative 3 was a 75% reduction (2,170+) of the population inside the 65 DNL as compared to the base case, and a 74% reduction (1,050+) of housing units inside the 65DNL versus the base case. He also commented that to the north, Alternative 3 was 80% better than the next best alternative, when it came to reducing the population and housing units within the 65 DNL. The committee’s recommendation regarding the arrivals and departures in the south was Alternative 1. Their reasoning for picking this alternative was a 23% reduction (290+) of the population and a 23% reduction of housing units inside the 65 DNL as compared to base case figures. Levermore added that Alternative 1, in the south, was slightly better than Alternative 3 due to its reductions of noise at the 60+ and 55+ DNL zones. Levermore also stated that due to the small impact of these alternatives in the south the committee felt more flexible about the recommendations between Alternative 1 and 3 for the south. Sensitive Facilities Committee: Donna Lawlor Donna Lawlor, Chair of the Sensitive Facilities committee, began her report by defining facilities considered as "sensitive" back in June 1999. Schools, churches, daycare centers, hospitals, funeral homes, and nursing homes are usually defined as sensitive facilities. Lawlor briefly touched on items discussed by the Study in 1992, as well as their request to Leigh Fisher Associates to isolate the impacts of Alternative 3 during the daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM. Lawlor noted that the University of Louisville was the largest sensitive facility in the area and the importance of its needs, especially during main operational hours. She continued by discussing noise mitigation and suggested that they go beyond the federal minimum of 65+DNL and extend such benefits to facilities within the 60+DNL zone. Lawlor stated that her committee recommended Alternative 3 due to its 71% noise reduction on sensitive facilities (compared with the 44% and 58% of Alternative 1 and 2 respectively). She continued by listing other items that could be explored in the future such as reverse flow of traffic during daytime. Metrics Committee: Bill Simpson Bill Simpson, Chair of the Metrics committee, began by giving an overview that included comparisons of the alternatives, along with accompanying concerns and recommendations. He explained the comparisons and made it clear that Alternative 3 had the best results regarding the reduction of noise on the largest amount of people, as well as on sensitive facilities. Simpson discussed some of the concerns the committee had regarding the use of an offset flight path, changes in flow, and the capacity of the airport during simultaneous operations. Simpson stated that the committee recommend the use of Alternative 3 based on the fact that it was the only alternative that provided substantive relief to the northeast corridor. He noted that contra-flow and other common measures were included in their recommendation. Simpson explained that the airport was split into the north and south with 80% of the flights coming from the south and 20% from the north at night, as opposed to 20% of flights arriving from the south and 80% from the north during the day. The exception to the 80/20 rule is in cases of bad weather. Navigation Committee: Dorn Crawford Dorn Crawford, Chair of the Navigation Committee, asked Study participants to take into account the conflicting expectations of a project like the Noise Study. He illustrated this point by referring to the difference between the noise exposure map approved by the FAA in 1997 verses the actual 1998 conditions. Keeping this in mind he, presented the projected noise impacts for 2005 using the base case and the projected results of all three alternatives. Crawford explained that the Navigation Committee recommended Alternative 3 in the north due to a potentially dramatic reduction of non-compatible land use. Because common measures alone have the most impact in the south, Alternative 1 is recommended there. Crawford commented that the committees had an institutional oversight through the Noise Officer, Bob Slattery. He explained that different measures are still to be developed before even getting to noise mitigation. Crawford gave an overview of the next steps to be taken including: Flight track management, enhanced standard arrival and departure specs, evaluating prospects for "reverse flow" at selected times, displaced arrival thresholds, noise-abatement flight procedures, and the implementation and documentation of the program. He emphasized that measures like these are the necessary and pertinent way to treat remaining noise abatement concerns that aren’t addressed by runway use. Following committee presentations, Study Group chair Clancey reassured the Study participants that they were trying to come up with the best possible way to achieve the Noise Study’s stated goal of impacting the fewest people with aircraft noise. He then introduced Larry Owsley from the University of Louisville. Mr.Owsley read a letter that was sent to the Sensitive Facilities chair earlier that day. He stated the University wasn’t objecting to the prospects of Alternative 3, but asked that the University of Louisville be taken into consideration especially during peak operational hours to benefit the students. He also stated that the population of the facility during operational hours could account for 21,000 people. Comments and Responses. Clancey opened the floor for comments and questions from the public regarding the alternatives recommended by the Committees. • One participant commented that he lived in the West End and had to put up with a lot of issues. The participant wanted to know why they wanted to push more problems to the West End. Crawford commented that the Study Group’s goal was to force the planes into as narrow a corridor as possible, so the least amount of people would be affected. • The same participant asked why the suggested alternative was targeted at West Louisville. Crawford commented that they were looking for noise reductions in all areas of town. • One participant commented that she couldn’t read the maps. And she wanted to know where the planes would be located when they make the curve. She wanted to know whether they would be west of the railroad tracks or west of Southern Parkway. Mary Rose Evans personally reviewed the map with her. • A representative of the Chickasaw Federation asked why they were continuing to depreciate the quality of life in the West End. Clancey explained that the Study Group’s goals and recommendations are aimed at affecting the fewest homes when looking at the Louisville area as a whole. He also pointed out that the flight map was three-dimensional and the planes would be at a higher altitude over the West End. Clancey reminded everyone that the Study Group was open to everyone. The Study Group did not exclude anybody or any area and it chose the corridor with the fewest homes. • Alderwoman Denise Bentley wanted to know why there were no noise studies conducted in West Louisville until 3 days before the meeting. She inquired as to how many meetings were held in West Louisville and also wanted to know why no one who lives in the West End was consulted about the new suggested alternative. Clancey responded that whenever a meeting was scheduled, multiple measures were taken to get as many people as possible but people have to take the initiative and come to the meetings. • Bentley responded to West Louisville's poor attendance at the other Study Group meetings by referring to the "digital divide" and the resulting inability for many to access the project Web site for information. Clancey said that the Web site isn’t the only method used to reach people. People are welcome to call or ask to be put on a mailing list to find out more about the meetings. • Bentley invited the Study Group to have a meeting in the West End. She wanted to know whether the Study Group would explore more alternatives especially over less populated areas in the East End. Last, she requested there be more time dedicated to noise studies in the West End. Clancey agreed to consider the request. • Denny Rued, Chair of the Noise Monitoring committee, explained that the West End was not monitored because no requests were received from anyone in that area. He then expressed his empathy for the gentleman from the West End and said that he had been waiting for the last 7 years for the government to take his house. • Bentley appreciated Rued’s comment but her concern was that the suggested alternative’s route could affect an entire community that she felt hadn’t been given much consideration. • One participant commented that she was unaware that they could choose noise- mitigation reductions. She added that she thought that 60 DNL should be the standard for everyone. Ms Lawlor commented that federal law only provides for 65 DNL on individual homes for mitigation purposes. She suggested that Louisville consider making the 60 DNL the standard for Sensitive Facilities. • Clancey reminded the participants that the evening was about debating and finding solutions to issues. • A participant questioned why they didn’t try to find a representative from the West End. Clancey again stated that the Study Group was open to everyone but people have to take the initiative and get involved with the Study. • One participant wanted to know who the person was who laid out the airport and how they could think the noise wouldn’t affect anyone. • Clancey commented that the Study Group was digging deep to find the right answers and that nothing would be done until the Study was finished. Slattery gave the direct line to his office (502-375-4546) and assured people that they can call him with questions at any time. • One participant commented that Dorn Crawford, from the Navigation committee, was the only presenter who mentioned West Louisville. The participant then wanted to know how the committee obtained the noise levels. Clancey commented that there was a committee, formed at the beginning of the study, that chose the sites to be monitored. The actual monitoring was done by a Study consultant. • The same participant wanted to know whether they had any noise data from West Louisville. Mr. Rued said that the closest noise data was collected at 5th and Main Street. Clancey confirmed that the final decision on the areas chosen for noise testing was made by the Study consultants, Leigh Fisher Associates. • One participant thanked all the Study volunteers for their hard work. He then commented that the airport wasn’t going anywhere and that some people were going to be affected. He suggested that they develop a plan to penalize the pilots when they didn’t follow the flight paths. Clancey said that currently the airport couldn’t issue penalties and that this matter needed to be discussed with the FAA. • One participant commented that she lived under the noise and found that the airplane noise was the worst on nice days when the planes weren’t suppose to use the runway set aside for bad weather. She also complained that she couldn’t sleep at night because of the noise. • The Chairman of the Floyd County Planning Commission commented that Southern Indiana had been trying to get involved with this study for some time now but that no one had responded to their requests. He also listed a couple of people that they tried to contact. He felt that it was important that Southern Indiana get some considerations as they get a lot of noise from the incoming planes. • One participant commented that he feels empathy for the residents who are working on this project. • A participant commented that one of the noise monitors was placed in his backyard and rated as the 6th highest area for noise. • A participant commented that there should be some kind of penalty in writing for airplanes not observing the rules. • One participant commented that he heard that the study would end in early 2002 and wanted to know how many meetings were still on the schedule. Clancey said that there were two major Study Group meetings left, but the smaller committee meetings could be held at any time. • One participant from Southern Indiana commented that she lived high in the Knobs where the planes were suppose to be high in the air, but due to the high elevation of the Knobs, the planes are noisy when coming in for landings. She also commented that people shouldn’t assume that there was nothing but pumpkin patches on that side of the river. • A participant expressed his concerns regarding the fact that Louisville was becoming UPS’s only hub. Simpson, chair of the Metrics committee and a UPS employee, commented that it was not the only hub, but one of the largest. • One participant asked if there was anything the airplane companies could do to their planes that would reduce the noise on the runways. It was explained that there wasn’t anything at this time, but technology is likely to improve in the future. • Clancey asked everyone be responsible for their actions and step up to the challenges of crafting a plan that affects the fewest people. Closing Remarks Mary Rose Evans made a motion for the approval of the incoming chair, John Sistarenik. It was seconded and approved. It was proposed that the next meeting be held in November, either the week before or after Thanksgiving, depending on availability of new study results. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.
				back to top