Study Group Meetings

February 23, 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: LFA/Bill Willkie, Project Manager

FROM: 150 Study Group/Lt Col Tom Marks, Chair

SUBJECT: Noise Mitigation Measures and Screening Criteria

The attached noise mitigation measures are a consolidated listing of those adopted by the 150 Study Group at its February 3 meeting. Most of the committees who reviewed measures proposed last month found them thorough and comprehensive. Consequently, the attached list essentially reiterates, with minor enhancements, the accounting in your January 13 presentation. Note that the list also omits any characterization of measures as "mandatory" or "voluntary", to avoid any prejudice to the analysis.

Because of the breadth of the measures to be considered, screening criteria have been expanded and refined to provide for full and fair initial evaluation. Please let me know if any of the changes you see needs further clarification.

A couple of collateral points deserve special emphasis. As noted in the Study Group’s previous memos on noise abatement measures and strategies, documentation of evolving prospects remains a critical study task. Effective implementation demands that the Group accumulate all available information on emerging technology and policy that may affect future options and directions. We therefore reiterate that measures that show promise, but may not yet be mature, must be fully documented for continued monitoring and reconsideration as circumstances warrant. We surmise that a couple of the remedial measures listed may ultimately fall into this category.

Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that any on-site mitigation project must be systematically planned and executed. This would include measuring the noise reduction potential of existing facilities; designing and specifying mitigation standards; re-examining facilities to verify and adjust required remediation; certifying attainment of standards; and qualified management and oversight.

Both measures and criteria are listed in abbreviated, ‘bulletized’ form. Should any require elaboration beyond that provided at the Study Group meeting, please contact me without hesitation. We look forward to your consultation in moving this process forward.

February 23, 2000

Noise Compatibility Study Group

Noise Mitigation Screening Criteria, as Adopted

Consistent with study goals & objectives

• Study goals

• Study Group issues

Provide noticeable noise reduction

• Quantitative assessment

• Evaluate with suitable metrics

Offer suitable restitution for noise exposure

• Assess risk factors

• Compare experience elsewhere

Reduce/prevent non-compatible land use

• Minimize incompatibilities

• Availability of compatible alternatives

Consistent with local policies

• Interactivity – influence, as well as be influenced by, other programs

• Consider major concurrent initiatives

Watershed management
Community development
Transportation planning

Feasible

• Technically

• Economically

• Timeline

Remedial measures

• Purchase in fee simple

• Business incentives/acquisitions*

• Residential soundproofing

• Institutional soundproofing

• Hush houses

• Noise barriers

• Counter-frequency generators

• On-site sound absorption media

• Neighborhood relocation (current program)

• Purchase assurance/transaction assistance

• Potential of emerging technology

* Example attached, as formulated and presented by Denny Rued

Compensatory measures

• Easement purchases

• Tax policies

Preventive measures

• Comprehensive planning

• Compatible land use zoning (conventional)

• Overlay zoning

• Subdivision exactions (easement dedication)

• Building code requirements

• Disclosure ordinance

• Public information program

Proposal

United Parcel Service to purchase land from homeowners south of Louisville International Airport within the geographical boundary marked by Stinnet Road to the West, Minors Lane to the East, Outer Loop to the North, and South Park Road to the South. The Regional Airport Authority would concentrate on those affected in areas other than those described above and soundproofing, etc. This action would allow relocation to be complete in a more reasonable manner of time.

City / County / State governments – To set up a "tax free" zone in this geographic area. All developed land in this area will be eligible for tax credits up to and including 100% of all employer paid payroll taxes. In the event United Parcel Service were to lease the land to other transportation interests, they would be eligible for a tax credit of 50% of the leased amount. These credits would be available until 2015 or they total $500,000,000, whichever comes first.

United Parcel Service – Would purchase the land described above. Development would not be allowed to begin until there is a 90% vacancy rate. Would be eligible for above credits.

Regional Airport Authority – Would stop purchasing all land described above and concentrate on homes located in all other relocation zones in chronological order. Any land already acquired in said area would be leased to United Parcel Service en total for $1.00.

Community Groups – Give vocal and often praise to United Parcel Service for being a "good corporate neighbor" by increasing community quality of life.


				Noise Mitigation Measures and Screening Criteria Memo
BACK to Meetings Notes				February 23, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: LFA/Bill Willkie, Project Manager FROM: 150 Study Group/Lt Col Tom Marks, Chair SUBJECT: Noise Mitigation Measures and Screening Criteria The attached noise mitigation measures are a consolidated listing of those adopted by the 150 Study Group at its February 3 meeting. Most of the committees who reviewed measures proposed last month found them thorough and comprehensive. Consequently, the attached list essentially reiterates, with minor enhancements, the accounting in your January 13 presentation. Note that the list also omits any characterization of measures as "mandatory" or "voluntary", to avoid any prejudice to the analysis. Because of the breadth of the measures to be considered, screening criteria have been expanded and refined to provide for full and fair initial evaluation. Please let me know if any of the changes you see needs further clarification. A couple of collateral points deserve special emphasis. As noted in the Study Group’s previous memos on noise abatement measures and strategies, documentation of evolving prospects remains a critical study task. Effective implementation demands that the Group accumulate all available information on emerging technology and policy that may affect future options and directions. We therefore reiterate that measures that show promise, but may not yet be mature, must be fully documented for continued monitoring and reconsideration as circumstances warrant. We surmise that a couple of the remedial measures listed may ultimately fall into this category. Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that any on-site mitigation project must be systematically planned and executed. This would include measuring the noise reduction potential of existing facilities; designing and specifying mitigation standards; re-examining facilities to verify and adjust required remediation; certifying attainment of standards; and qualified management and oversight. Both measures and criteria are listed in abbreviated, ‘bulletized’ form. Should any require elaboration beyond that provided at the Study Group meeting, please contact me without hesitation. We look forward to your consultation in moving this process forward. February 23, 2000 Noise Compatibility Study Group Noise Mitigation Screening Criteria, as Adopted Consistent with study goals & objectives • Study goals • Study Group issues Provide noticeable noise reduction • Quantitative assessment • Evaluate with suitable metrics Offer suitable restitution for noise exposure • Assess risk factors • Compare experience elsewhere Reduce/prevent non-compatible land use • Minimize incompatibilities • Availability of compatible alternatives Consistent with local policies • Interactivity – influence, as well as be influenced by, other programs • Consider major concurrent initiatives Watershed management Community development Transportation planning Feasible • Technically • Economically • Timeline Remedial measures • Purchase in fee simple • Business incentives/acquisitions* • Residential soundproofing • Institutional soundproofing • Hush houses • Noise barriers • Counter-frequency generators • On-site sound absorption media • Neighborhood relocation (current program) • Purchase assurance/transaction assistance • Potential of emerging technology * Example attached, as formulated and presented by Denny Rued Compensatory measures • Easement purchases • Tax policies Preventive measures • Comprehensive planning • Compatible land use zoning (conventional) • Overlay zoning • Subdivision exactions (easement dedication) • Building code requirements • Disclosure ordinance • Public information program Proposal United Parcel Service to purchase land from homeowners south of Louisville International Airport within the geographical boundary marked by Stinnet Road to the West, Minors Lane to the East, Outer Loop to the North, and South Park Road to the South. The Regional Airport Authority would concentrate on those affected in areas other than those described above and soundproofing, etc. This action would allow relocation to be complete in a more reasonable manner of time. City / County / State governments – To set up a "tax free" zone in this geographic area. All developed land in this area will be eligible for tax credits up to and including 100% of all employer paid payroll taxes. In the event United Parcel Service were to lease the land to other transportation interests, they would be eligible for a tax credit of 50% of the leased amount. These credits would be available until 2015 or they total $500,000,000, whichever comes first. United Parcel Service – Would purchase the land described above. Development would not be allowed to begin until there is a 90% vacancy rate. Would be eligible for above credits. Regional Airport Authority – Would stop purchasing all land described above and concentrate on homes located in all other relocation zones in chronological order. Any land already acquired in said area would be leased to United Parcel Service en total for $1.00. Community Groups – Give vocal and often praise to United Parcel Service for being a "good corporate neighbor" by increasing community quality of life.
				back to top