Anonymous
02/05/2023 10:25
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
It’s a modeled average. The real noise is far worse.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 08:39
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I really think if people were willing to be honest and vocal, we could have a chance at positive change.
For some reason in DC it’s too high of a bar! There are still people in the Spring Valley refusing to have their lots addressed. If you ignore it, it’s not there, right? And you can punk the next buyer.
Look DC does not have congressional representation. The planes have to fly over someone house and DC will cause the airport authority the least problems.
That fact that they don’t have the balls to take real decibel readings in Bethesda is telling. Put the device on top of every school, especially the ones up on hills, and report back. Simulated decibel studies are BS, as are ones from a boat on the river. Do the actual tests. What are the lawyers waiting for?
There’s something to that. Areas in DC under the flight path are apparently 55-65 dB average. But here’s what that average really means:
A 65 dB average “is equivalent to 87.5 dBA [dBA is a weighted measure of what a human hears even though the noise might be greater] with 500 events, 94.4 dBA with 100 events, and 97.4 dBA with 50 events. A single event at 97.4 dBA, while considered somewhat “acceptable” under the 65 DNL threshold would actually be equivalent to the noise from a power mower or a newspaper press. In other words, because of the “averaging” effect of DNL noise measurements, a person could be abruptly aroused from sleep every night, but the remaining 24 hours of quiet would result in a DNL measurement that would be very low, yet erroneously suggesting that there was no annoyance.”
What??
They are averaging the decibel level of the air traffic??
Or they are averaging the decibel level of every minute in a 24-hr day and providing that? Which would be pathetically F’d up and misleading.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 08:36
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I really think if people were willing to be honest and vocal, we could have a chance at positive change.
For some reason in DC it’s too high of a bar! There are still people in the Spring Valley refusing to have their lots addressed. If you ignore it, it’s not there, right? And you can punk the next buyer.
Look DC does not have congressional representation. The planes have to fly over someone house and DC will cause the airport authority the least problems.
That fact that they don’t have the balls to take real decibel readings in Bethesda is telling. Put the device on top of every school, especially the ones up on hills, and report back. Simulated decibel studies are BS, as are ones from a boat on the river. Do the actual tests. What are the lawyers waiting for?
There’s something to that. Areas in DC under the flight path are apparently 55-65 dB average. But here’s what that average really means:
A 65 dB average “is equivalent to 87.5 dBA [dBA is a weighted measure of what a human hears even though the noise might be greater] with 500 events, 94.4 dBA with 100 events, and 97.4 dBA with 50 events. A single event at 97.4 dBA, while considered somewhat “acceptable” under the 65 DNL threshold would actually be equivalent to the noise from a power mower or a newspaper press. In other words, because of the “averaging” effect of DNL noise measurements, a person could be abruptly aroused from sleep every night, but the remaining 24 hours of quiet would result in a DNL measurement that would be very low, yet erroneously suggesting that there was no annoyance.”
They need to actually test UNDER the nextgen pathway in MoCo and NWDC .
Making up fictitious points in a model and not accounting for altitude or parks or schools or pool (ie not leafy tree cover over those), is disingenuous
Anonymous
02/05/2023 08:30
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do people live right near airports, under flight paths, and expect zero airport noise?
Have people become this lazy?
The planes flew over the Potomac River and more if Virginia land until 2014.
Then two things happened: NextGen gPs autopilot landing was installed all over the country for billions of $. And simultaneous with that, McLean VA community and local politicians were quick and smart enough to lobby DCA FAA to not have any flight paths over them and mainly over MoCo and NW DC.
This took the 1000s of landings and concentrated them all on the same path for the last 5 mins if their southbound approach.
Many cities with rivers are angry. There are a few solutions: create a few more GPS node flight paths so certain neighborhoods aren’t always harassed by Josie and pollution from 6am until midnight, plus the 2-4am FedEx landings. Or, go back to the Flying over the River approaches.
Really?
Bwi campaigned against it
Austin tx
Not sure what came of it but some may have made real headway and changed the routes back to post-NextGen.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 08:29
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It concerns me when it seems like it’s a necessity to be able to sleep and stay asleep. It’s one thing if I’m thinking ok I’m willing to ignore the health concerns and deal with constant noise and rattling, and I’ll take a risk on resale, but at least I’m getting a great discount on a house price. It’s another thing altogether when there’s no discount and I’m being told I’m crazy on top to think this could be a problem. No thanks.
Then move. Do you even drive/fly? Then you are part of the problem.
What aren’t you understanding?
The problem is the Approach Route and how concentrated it is.
FAA and local govt CAN change that back to be an over the River approach like it was before for 10 miles.
Or they can disperse the routes from 1 to 3-4. MoCo lost momentum in doing this during Covid shutdown, which nicely shut down DCA too.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 02:12
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I really think if people were willing to be honest and vocal, we could have a chance at positive change.
For some reason in DC it’s too high of a bar! There are still people in the Spring Valley refusing to have their lots addressed. If you ignore it, it’s not there, right? And you can punk the next buyer.
Look DC does not have congressional representation. The planes have to fly over someone house and DC will cause the airport authority the least problems.
That fact that they don’t have the balls to take real decibel readings in Bethesda is telling. Put the device on top of every school, especially the ones up on hills, and report back. Simulated decibel studies are BS, as are ones from a boat on the river. Do the actual tests. What are the lawyers waiting for?
There’s something to that. Areas in DC under the flight path are apparently 55-65 dB average. But here’s what that average really means:
A 65 dB average “is equivalent to 87.5 dBA [dBA is a weighted measure of what a human hears even though the noise might be greater] with 500 events, 94.4 dBA with 100 events, and 97.4 dBA with 50 events. A single event at 97.4 dBA, while considered somewhat “acceptable” under the 65 DNL threshold would actually be equivalent to the noise from a power mower or a newspaper press. In other words, because of the “averaging” effect of DNL noise measurements, a person could be abruptly aroused from sleep every night, but the remaining 24 hours of quiet would result in a DNL measurement that would be very low, yet erroneously suggesting that there was no annoyance.”
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:42
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
The same study also says the following, which is a pithy summary of this thread:
A significant portion of the population will not live in a home that is impacted by airport noise at any cost or discount. On the other hand, some of the population seems more or less impermeable to airport noise.
A significant portion of the population will not live in a home that is impacted by airport noise at any cost or discount. On the other hand, some of the population seems more or less impermeable to airport noise.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:39
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
This is a really great article even if a bit old from the National Quiet Skies Coalition.
https://nqsc.org/downloads/REALESTATE.pdf
The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate:
* dB measures don’t fully capture the noise effects because they don’t capture the annoyance or frequency for example (oh, that whistling early morning plane set)
* There are only three ways to mitigate noise: (1) quiet the source, (2) put more distance between the source of the noise and the receptor, and (3) build or create a barrier to the noise.
* Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy, utilizes hedonic regression to show that NNI 50 properties sustain a diminution in value ranging from approximately - 7% to -12%. While tremendous economic benefits and revenues clearly are associated with a large airport, those under or nearby the flight path tend to suffer a net negative impact.
* (A but extreme but I had no idea this happened). There are many instances where adequate noise mitigation was simply not possible and the highest and best use was indeed impacted. For example, large residential neighborhoods were demolished near Los Angeles International, Sea-Tac, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airports. At the Las Vegas International Airport, a large subdivision, with noise levels under the 65 DNL levels established by the FAA were purchased and subsequently rented by the County.
And so on…
A really good read.
https://nqsc.org/downloads/REALESTATE.pdf
The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate:
* dB measures don’t fully capture the noise effects because they don’t capture the annoyance or frequency for example (oh, that whistling early morning plane set)
* There are only three ways to mitigate noise: (1) quiet the source, (2) put more distance between the source of the noise and the receptor, and (3) build or create a barrier to the noise.
* Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy, utilizes hedonic regression to show that NNI 50 properties sustain a diminution in value ranging from approximately - 7% to -12%. While tremendous economic benefits and revenues clearly are associated with a large airport, those under or nearby the flight path tend to suffer a net negative impact.
* (A but extreme but I had no idea this happened). There are many instances where adequate noise mitigation was simply not possible and the highest and best use was indeed impacted. For example, large residential neighborhoods were demolished near Los Angeles International, Sea-Tac, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airports. At the Las Vegas International Airport, a large subdivision, with noise levels under the 65 DNL levels established by the FAA were purchased and subsequently rented by the County.
And so on…
A really good read.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:18
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
To add that my fear is that at some point the music stops and the house just doesn’t sell at all. I guess that may be overblown because there’s a price for everything?
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:16
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
This is just an example from a much earlier period, with fewer planes and in a far cheaper real estate area. But it’s still very instructive.
I’d be very curious if someone were to repeat the analysis on DC sales data now and in 5-10 years. I think it’s a major factor and that there’s a lot more room for adjustment in DC than the 2.5-5.5 spread this study suggested, especially as this issue is more broadly known and impossible to ignore, inventory improves and people invest more carefully under the inflationary pressures.
“The regression output confirmed that airplane noise had statistically significant negative impact to SFR sale prices in Raleigh. For example, homes located within the 65–70 Ldn noise contour, sold for 5.1% less than unimpaired homes (control area transactions) within the one-mile control group area. Furthermore, homes within the 55–60 Ldn noise contour sold for 2.3% less than unimpaired homes.”
I’d be very curious if someone were to repeat the analysis on DC sales data now and in 5-10 years. I think it’s a major factor and that there’s a lot more room for adjustment in DC than the 2.5-5.5 spread this study suggested, especially as this issue is more broadly known and impossible to ignore, inventory improves and people invest more carefully under the inflationary pressures.
“The regression output confirmed that airplane noise had statistically significant negative impact to SFR sale prices in Raleigh. For example, homes located within the 65–70 Ldn noise contour, sold for 5.1% less than unimpaired homes (control area transactions) within the one-mile control group area. Furthermore, homes within the 55–60 Ldn noise contour sold for 2.3% less than unimpaired homes.”
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:07
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The point is that the way to enact change is to agree there’s a problem. If your neighbors are volunteering their time and resources to protect your investment and improve your life, it’s counterproductive to claim that there’s no problem at all and they are crazy.
Unless you really believe that despite all the facts to the contrary. If you do, fine, but I don’t see how that’s possible??
Based on all of the posters on this thread, there is clearly a problem.
Hopefully the flightpath can be "distributed" instead of the lazer-focused next gen which focuses all of the noise on a single narrow line.
+1
* “distributed” back over the river because the Palisades/Foxhall is too narrow for any meaningful difference with just redistribution given the current traffic volumes and the no fly zones to the East and South
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:05
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
It’s really hard to argue on facts with someone who appears to be drunk or dishonest.
The facts are there, the accounts are by different people and actually I didn’t share mine although I have plenty of stories, because I prefer the facts. And the motivation is not a revenge by one crazy person.
Unless… are you perhaps the only defender of the “there’s no plane noise” in the Palisades?!
The facts are there, the accounts are by different people and actually I didn’t share mine although I have plenty of stories, because I prefer the facts. And the motivation is not a revenge by one crazy person.
Unless… are you perhaps the only defender of the “there’s no plane noise” in the Palisades?!
Anonymous
02/05/2023 01:01
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:Looks like it’s just airplane noise guy in his (her?) many avatars now.
What do you mean? It is me, myself and I.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 00:58
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:The point is that the way to enact change is to agree there’s a problem. If your neighbors are volunteering their time and resources to protect your investment and improve your life, it’s counterproductive to claim that there’s no problem at all and they are crazy.
Unless you really believe that despite all the facts to the contrary. If you do, fine, but I don’t see how that’s possible??
Based on all of the posters on this thread, there is clearly a problem.
Hopefully the flightpath can be "distributed" instead of the lazer-focused next gen which focuses all of the noise on a single narrow line.
Anonymous
02/05/2023 00:58
Subject: Airplane noise concerns overblown?
Anonymous wrote:We used to live off MacArthur near the reservoir and the plane noise was absolutely terrible. If you were outdoors (or indoors with windows open) you had to pause conversation until the plane passed. We could sometimes see the flashing of the lights move across our floors at night and often could see people in the plane windows. I loved that little house but man did we hate the air traffic.