News

Palo Alto launches airplane-noise study

Council approves $237,500 study to gather data about airplane noise, respond to FAA's initiative

With the topic of airplane noise recently soaring toward the top of Palo Alto's priority list, the City Council moved ahead this week with a new study that officials and citizens hope will arm the city with the necessary data to effect change.

The City Council approved on Monday night a $237,500 contract with the firm Freytag & Associates Inc. to review a recent proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for alternative air traffic routes -- a proposal that was prompted by a growing chorus of complaints from Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and other areas that have seen a radical increase in air traffic as a result of the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Known as NextGen, the recently implemented initiative required aircraft to travel along a narrow lanes and resulted in a surge of complaints from communities lying along these routes.

The troubling trend has given rise to the new grassroots group, Sky Posse, which has been lobbying local and federal officials to demand relief from the air noise.

In November, the group scored a minor victory when the FAA agreed to re-evaluate plane routes and consider other mitigation strategies for reducing the noise. One of Freytag's first tasks will be to assist city staff in responding to the FAA with comments about the initiative.

The consulting firm will also conduct an analysis to quantify Palo Alto's increase in air traffic and undertake studies relating to sleep interference, classroom disruption and property valuation.

The new Palo Alto study will be one of several recent analyses commissioned by cities concerned about the noise above them. Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills recently hired the firm Williams Aviation Consultants to respond to the FAA's initiative on their behalf. In recent weeks, Palo Alto has been coordinating its efforts with those two cities, as well as East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Menlo Park and Mountain View.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, who serves on the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, has also become increasingly involved in the topic. In the past two months, she has been urging local cities to respond to the FAA initiative and to unite behind a "regional solution." In a Jan. 25 letter co-signed by Eshoo and Rep. Sam Farr, the two legislators asked the various airplane-noise groups to form a coalition that would span their respective districts.

"If the final recommendations from the majority of your organizations are clear and do not contradict each other, we can be firm and clear with the FAA about next steps and implementing change sooner," Eshoo and Farr wrote. "We welcome one letter signed by each of your organizations stating for the record what you think the FAA can do to implement change."

Since then, representatives from Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills have held a conference call to discuss the issue and receive a status update from Eshoo's office, according to a new report from the office of City Manager James Keene. City staff also met with Sky Posse representatives in Jan. 28 to discuss legal and legislative matters.

Residents, for their part, have continued to demand more action. On Jan. 26, more than 50 residents attended the City Council meeting with signs urging the city to make airplane noise a top priority. Carrying signs that said, "TOO LOW, TOO MANY, HELP!!" and "Make Aviation Impacts a City Priority 2016," the residents asked the council to get the needed data, consult with aviation experts and forge the needed partnerships to mount an effective response to the FAA.

Rachel Kellerman, speaking on behalf of the group, blamed the FAA for concentrating "damaging airplane superhighways over Palo Alto."

"You have seen and heard the planes over our homes, our parks, our places of worship and our places of work," Kellerman said. "You are hearing our community. We are losing sleep. We are having an unprecedented disruption to our quality of life.

"Because of the rise in complaints from the citizens, the FAA is doing something it's never done before, which is to issue an action plan to address our concerns. This is a golden opportunity happening right now that our city cannot afford to miss," Kellerman said.

Comments

12 people like this
Posted by midtowny
a resident of Meadow Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 8:54 am

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 9:00 am

I wish they would put traffic on the ground top of their priority list rather than traffic in the air.

We have serious traffic and parking issues around town and CC are doing nothing constructive to address these issues.

SFO isn't going away and those making a noise about Palo Alto airport are as time wasting as those wanting to change the name of Jordan Middle School.

It is about time that the real issues were the ones that we were concerned with.


9 people like this
Posted by Noise, what, noise???
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2016 at 9:08 am

Thanks, gennady, another biased and one sided article that passes as news from the weekly. I think we know where the weekly has been told to stand on this issue


10 people like this
Posted by Marroll
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 10, 2016 at 9:20 am

When you don't focus on true priorities and issues, and have the luxury in life to mull over something like this.


41 people like this
Posted by Thank You!
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:20 am

This is great, and much needed. Huge thanks to the folks at Sky Posse and others who have done so much work to find ways to undo this change. The increase amount of low and loud air traffic over the last year is really awful.


2 people like this
Posted by Priorities from Bill Shuster
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:30 am

Speaking about priorities

These are the priorities from Bill Shuster.

It includes his "ideas", and concerns.

Saving the industry money seems to be the leading priority.



T&I Committee

OPENING STATEMENT


Shuster Statement from Hearing on ATC Reform Proposals


For Immediate Release: February 10, 2016
Contact: Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hearing on “Review of ATC Reform Proposals”

February 10, 2016
Opening Statement
(Remarks as Prepared)

Last week, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo and I introduced the AIRR Act: the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016.

This bill provides transformational reform of the U.S. aviation system – something that is absolutely necessary to modernize our air traffic control system, ensure the system is both safe and efficient, and ensure America leads the world in this industry.

A key reform in the bill takes ATC out of the federal government, and establishes a federally chartered, independent, not-for-profit corporation to provide that service. This corporation will be governed by a board nominated by the system’s users.

Today’s hearing focuses on the ATC reform piece of the bill.

I believe Ranking Member DeFazio and I agree that the status quo at FAA is unacceptable, and that real change is necessary. We’ve worked together on large parts of the bill, in the same bipartisan spirit as other bills this committee has passed and sent to the President. I think we’re on the same page on many reforms and provisions.

We do have an honest policy disagreement on the approach to fixing ATC.

I have been talking about my ideas for improving ATC for some time, and I’ve put them on the table. I know the Ranking Member has some ideas as well. Today is an opportunity for the Committee to discuss the ideas that have been put forward.

As I said, we have to do better. Delays, congestion, and inefficiency cost our economy $30 billion a year. One billion passengers a year will be flying in another decade or so. Without real improvement, the system is only going to get worse.

Unfortunately, FAA has proven it can’t modernize the air traffic system. Delays, cost overruns, and setbacks have been going on for over 30 years. Another recent report from the Inspector General highlighted more problems with NextGen.

The IG has also testified here that, while initial cost estimates for NextGen were about $40 billion, that cost could double or triple, and take a decade or more longer than expected. So instead of costing $40 billion and hopefully finishing in 2025, realistically we’re looking at up to $120 billion, with completion in 2035 or beyond.

Without a doubt, Congress and political interference is part of the problem. But the basic problem is that the FAA is a huge bureaucracy – it’s not a high-tech service provider.

Congress has tried procurement and personnel reforms at FAA, but the agency has failed to implement them.

The time for piecemeal reform is over. Otherwise we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The AIRR Act takes air traffic control out of the FAA and transitions to the new corporation over three years. This corporation is completely independent of the federal government. This is not a government corporation, a quasi-government entity, or a GSE. The federal government will not back the corporation’s financial obligations.

The corporation will simply provide a service. The bill doesn’t give the airspace to the corporation – that remains in the public trust. And the FAA remains absolutely responsible for regulating the airspace and aviation safety.

We do this in a way that protects general aviation and rural communities. Non-commercial GA is exempted from fees or charges, and the corporation can’t tie airspace access to what users pay.

This structure gets ATC away from the budget process and political decision-making. I know that notion goes against the establishment, but we can do what’s best for America’s aviation system if we show the political will.

This isn’t a new idea. The Clinton and Bush administrations proposed it, and since then, an independent ATC provider has become the global standard. More than 50 other countries have successfully done this, with benefits across the board in safety, modernized systems, efficiency, service, and costs.

We will see more effective use of the airspace, more direct routes, increased capacity, shorter flight times, reduced delays and cancellations, and reduced pollution and noise. With the operational efficiencies, I believe we can save billions of dollars.

And again, FAA will focus on what it does best: safety.

We started this process over two years ago. We’ve worked with stakeholders throughout the aviation community to address issues they’ve raised. In this bill, we’ve worked to streamline the certification process, address safety issues, improve the passenger experience, provide robust funding for the AIP, and address the safe integration of drones into the airspace.

Taken as a whole, the AIRR Act does what’s best for all users of the system, and the future of U.S. aviation. I want our country to have the safest aviation system in the world, as well as the most efficient, cost-effective, and advanced system. We don’t have that today, but I believe we will under this bill.

Click here for additional information from today’s hearing, including testimony, video, and background information.


27 people like this
Posted by Lisa
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:38 am

Being awoken at 11:25 pm every single night due to noise may be a 'first world' problem, but that doesn't mean it is inconsequential.

It's the Tragedy of the Commons - like water and air quality, sound is something we all share, and is easily abused by individuals/corporations if not valued and protected by the public.


4 people like this
Posted by KT
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:44 am

[Post removed.]


25 people like this
Posted by Night Owl
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:01 am

Even being a night owl does not help - every night about 0:30 am there is a loud noise from something huge flying overhead ...
Does anyone know what it could be?


11 people like this
Posted by Allen Edwards
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:23 am

As we know, the problem of airplane noise is that the approach routes were changed so that instead of spreading the noise more evenly across all communities, now the noise is concentrated in a few with Palo Alto being one of them. I sympathize with people being awakened by noise but most of this airplane noise is during the day and for that it is, imho, dwarfed by the leaf blower noise which can go on for an hours. At least an airplane is fast and the noise gone fairly quickly. Personally I am shocked that this is considered a high priority for Palo Alto. This is a problem all across the country with the new changes to airport approaches and just seems a bit big for Palo Alto to take on. But the leaf blower noise problem just needs enforcement. I would prefer to see the $237K go to that.


44 people like this
Posted by PA dad
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:24 am

Thank goodness. I realize that this may not seem like a problem to other in the community, but please spend a day in our shoes before leaving the negative comments. We hear the train noise, but it isn't bothersome because it's only every 30 or so minutes and ends around midnight. The airplane noise we experience is non-stop and can be quite extreme at times. As I'm writing this comment, I've heard three different planes fly overhead. We really appreciate the support of these community leaders!


23 people like this
Posted by DifferentViews
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:28 am

Night Owl
Go to stop.jetnoise.net - then sign up and use it to record airplane flights you deem too loud. In most cases it will tell you the flight information.

To others who think we are 'too sensitive', let me assure you that to us the noise is a real intrusion, particularly when it has not been there for decades and when there are other viable solutions to eliminate or at least mitigate the noise.

And, yes, I agree that there are other issues that might have high(er) priority. Yet that does not mean that some attention cannot be directed to this issue as well.


3 people like this
Posted by BlowerNoise
a resident of Palo Verde School
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:30 am

to Allen Edwards
If the leaf blowers are not electric, then take a photo of the offenders along with truck, business name (or license plate) and make a formal complaint to the police. There is a Palo Alto ordinance against gas blowers and restricts times when even the electric can be used.


10 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:44 am

The winner on this is the guy who got the $238,000 contract.


6 people like this
Posted by Knowhere
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:56 am

Too much traffic is a first world problem. More office space is a first world problem. We should all get over those issues as well.


29 people like this
Posted by Andy
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:05 pm

Low, loud flights fly over our house every morning starting around 5:00 a.m. And low, loud flights fly over our house every late night at around 1:00 a.m. And they didn't before NextGen. And this is just plain unreasonable. It's one thing if one bought a house next to SFO or next to the train tracks -- they knew what they were getting. But we've been in our home for 30 years and have never, ever experienced this sort of jet noise at all hours of the day and night. It is simply an abuse.


17 people like this
Posted by Sylvia
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm

I don't notice plane noise, but this could be because of the air cleaner running in my bedroom because of allergies.

But I know several of the people involved in Sky Posse, as well as a friend from a class I take. They describe being awakened at night and then having trouble falling back to sleep.

They have also described for me warm nights when one wants to have all the windows open and/or sit outside and enjoy their patio. These planes appear to be quite loud and disturb my friends.

I think the issue is that, in the past, before NextGen, people in our community enjoyed the benefits of a peaceful neighborhood.

I don't understand why the negative comments. Apparently Anna Eshoo doesn't think this is trivial or she wouldn't have spent time on the issue.


1 person likes this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:53 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

All that money for a study?

For that study to work, there had better be people out getting sound measurements from every area tied directly to the individual aircraft that makes the noise.

The 5 Ws and an H will make the study an honest gathering of data.

If the recorded db levels and continuous levels are high enough, OSHA may get involved.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Community Center

on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


28 people like this
Posted by Early morning
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:49 pm

I am awakened at around 4:30 a.m. almost every single morning by the same low-flying cargo plane en route from LA to SFO. (You can identify the flight by using stop.jetnoise.net) 4:30 a.m.!

A first-world problem perhaps, but we do live in the "first-world." Trying to improve the quality of life in our own community does not take away from our efforts to improve the quality of life for others around the world.


7 people like this
Posted by Midtown
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2016 at 2:23 pm

Don't forget the helicopter training at the airport where the helicopters hover for minutes at a time next to the Baylands nature preserve for birds. This can easily be fixed and it won't cost 200 Large to measure.


14 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 2:49 pm

Go stand in the parking lot of Byxbee park at the end of Embarcadero, or on the far side of the golf course in Palo Alto for 20 minutes and try to have a conversation with someone or listen to music with headphones on.

We say we have a Nature Center, but what it really is is just a cover for some of the best land, our scarce waterfront propert in Palo Alto that has been used as a dumping ground since anyone alive can recall.

It is time to reclaim the skies of Palo Alto for the people, and the environment. You can tell just by being out there that there are far too many planes to ever regulate such that people and animals can coexist out there without simply being forced to bear the burden of the noise and the toxic lead that is settling down onto all of us every day from the aviation fuel.

The Baylands would be a really great place if we got rid of the airport and did whatever is needed to process our sewage in less stinky and polluting way.


20 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Allen Edwards, leaf blower noise is no comparison.
No one fires up their leaf blower in the midnight to dawn hours.

I have to wonder about the integrity of a post by someone that tries to use this comparison, or someone who suggests dismissing the problem by saying "most" of the noise is during the day? That's probably true of "most" of the bombs in Syria too ... so what?

The idea that this is somehow the price of progress of modernity is butt-backwards ... the idea of modernity is to solve problems and create a win-win for all. We have seen what results all over country where we have spread pollution to the point that many if not most Americans have some environmental health issue because of toxic chemicals in their environment their families were forced to put up with for progress ... while others could live far away and just collect their money and dismiss the problem.

Airplanes are supposed to be quieter today - so we should be hearing less noise even if those planes are going at the same levels they used to in the past ... so the FAA has to really be working hard to make things worse for people and then stall to fix it or deny it.


24 people like this
Posted by Jonathan Brown
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 10, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Addressing this issue can't move fast enough. Godspeed. Ms. Kellerman speaks for me when she says, "We are losing sleep. We are having an unprecedented disruption to our quality of life." Our sleep is impacted every night due to the plane noise.


23 people like this
Posted by Jonathan Brown
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 10, 2016 at 3:48 pm

"First world problem," you say? Absolutely, we live in the first world, so all of our problems here are "first world problems." And we should address them! Identifying it as "first world" doesn't make it go away or mean it is not a problem we in the first world should ignore.


12 people like this
Posted by Low flying
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 10, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Glad to see this being studied. Hope conclusions are drawn quickly. I have noticed the biggest issue for us, living in an Eiclher, is the low flying helicopters and the double propelled choppers from the old air force base. My large slider doors and windows have been rattling because of it, and it is unerving any time of day or night.


12 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 10, 2016 at 4:38 pm

In addition to measuring the raw noise levels, a usable study must also quantify the noise impacts on humans exposed to it at representative levels, durations, and times of day. Thus, in addition to the usual broadband dBA intensity measurements, we need concurrent power spectral density analyses for the various noise sources as a function of their proximity and aspect angle, evaluated against the corresponding human psycho-physiological reactions. A noise effects study that omits the human dimension is meaningless.


29 people like this
Posted by too low, too loud, too many
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2016 at 5:48 pm

Thank you City Council for contracting with Freytag and Assoc. to study the noise and work for a comprehensive solution that the FAA wants before it will change the routes. Having lived in Palo Alto for 55 years, Midtown for 11, I know how peaceful and quiet it was before the routes were changed. I hear planes constantly......taking in the newspaper, going to my car, talking to a neighbor, sitting at my computer, gardening outside, walking to Safeway and also the 4:20 am United Airlines plane from Hawaii to SFO wakes me up daily!!! This is intolerable and a complete degradation of life here in Midtown from what it used to be 1 year ago, 2014. During sping and summer before 2015, we ate every supper meal outside to enjoy our lovely patio/barbecue area. Starting in 2015 Iwe never go outside because of the constant roar and rumble of planes flying directly over our home. I also try to walk at Bol Park, Greer Park and the Baylands. It is no longer a peaceful time in nature........planes every 2 minutes assaulting the beautiful landscape/environment. I don't see the point of setting aside land in the Baylands as a nature preserve when the noise is so prevalent and overwhelming. Our City Fathers would never have allowed the PAO Airport and SFO arrivals to hijack our skies and ruin our quality of life.


7 people like this
Posted by Dave
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:19 pm

I highly encourage the study to conduct measurements in dB(C) and NOT dB(A) which is fails to represent noise as a measure of undesirable sound pressure. When ultrasound can be used to break up kidney stones inside the body and when vibrations a.k.a. low frequency noise has been proven to be very damaging to your health, it seems inappropriate to continue using the outdated metric of dB(A) which completely ignores it. Even SFO's own documented study on infrasound identifies the low frequency noise as having a significant impact and pervasiveness on residents.

I would also encourage taking measurements from both on the ground and in the air since reflections and other ground effects tends to attenuate the noise making it even louder.


Like this comment
Posted by noise
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm

While they're at it, they should study the insane amount of all-night low-frequency rumbling and all-frequency roaring noise which comes from Stanford's newer power plants (such as the 16 megawatt turbine at Stanford's Central Energy Facility) as well as construction projects!!

It's very similar to running jet engines all night long, except they're on the ground.


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 10, 2016 at 7:35 pm

I forgot about dBC. Excellent proposal.

"... all-frequency roaring noise which comes from Stanford's newer power plants (such as the 16 megawatt turbine at Stanford's Central Energy Facility) ..."

Those turbines amount to stationary jet engines. The roar likely originates from the same mechanism: turbulent vortexes where their exhaust streams mix with the ambient air a few meters above the building. Stanford has work to do.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Feb 10, 2016 at 7:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Melinda
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:50 pm

On top of the constant train whistle blowing and rumbling throughout the day and night and the traffic gridlock on Alma with the pollution from the car and train exhaust, we now have the constant air traffic noise. Something needs to change!


9 people like this
Posted by Bass-Tribble
a resident of Mayfield
on Feb 11, 2016 at 1:16 am

Night Owl, you're hearing the sound of an air freighter, probably a 747 loaded to the gills. These tend to operate during off peak air travel hours, ie late at night or very early morning. These planes are particularly loud because they land with a lot more weight than a typical passenger plane and need to use more engine power, hence higher noise level. You can learn a lot about air traffic patterns and even identify individual flights (who/what) by looking at a live air traffic website like flightradar24 or others. Best wishes.


Like this comment
Posted by Marrol
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 11, 2016 at 8:33 am

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Priorities from Bill Shuster
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2016 at 8:57 am

Noise from 3 highways to land the load of Bay Area travel at one of the largest airports in the country is a first world problem which demands first world solutions.

Prioritizing saving $$$$ for airlines and related industry will not lead to first world solutions.

Putting people first is a good start to solve this problem.


4 people like this
Posted by Luanne
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 11, 2016 at 10:56 am

Melinda, I'm with you! Our neighborhood streets have become over flow cut throughs with fast speeding cars, huge semi trucks that can barely get around the roundabouts, traffic lined up at our 4 way stops, exhaust entering all of our windows on the street side of our home, and not to mention the loud traffic down our street starting at 5am in the morning. It's horrible enough with this and to top it off we hear loud whining airplanes over our home every 3-4 minutes during many hours of the day. We literally can't open our windows or sit on our patio anymore for enjoyment. Something has got to be done.


4 people like this
Posted by bob evans
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 11, 2016 at 11:16 am

NEWS I JUST DISCOVERED ABOUT NEXTGEN:
Many of you know that I founded the Fiber Internet Center in Palo Alto 15 years ago. Yesterday, at the North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) meeting in San Diego, I spoke with the AT&T consultant that built the network piece of this NextGen system for the FAA. He said the problem is not the new paths or systems directions given to the plane for guidance. The pilots are in control fo the plane altitude. Piolets are simply not following the proper altitude guidelines for flying over neighborhoods and no one -not the FAA nor the Airports -are enforcing our 5,000 feet.

WHAT I AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN DOING:
Before we spend my tax money and yours on yet another city study....why doesn't the city simply review all the flights and the altitude records of the complaints from people that reported to Web Link . This is accomplished via a cell phone with GPS turned on. I and many neighbors have been clicking when jet noise is disturbing. Each click provides the flight number, airline, altitude ... it also tells us when there are so many flights in the area that the system can not figure out which plane the complaint is about. I discovered that almost all the noisy flights are in fact much lower than 5,000 feet when I click to report one. I learned that a flight at 5,000 rarely makes disturbing noise. Most that are noisy are all in the 3,800 or below range.

WHAT OUR POLITICIANS CLAIM THEY DID FOR US:
Our politicians, Simitian and Eshoo, meet with the FAA (previous news stories) and 5000 foot limits were suppose to occur. The fact most of the noise is produced by jets are lower than 5,000 feet. So now we need to spend a quarter million on a study to learn this fact we already know - that the noisy jets are not near 5,000 or above. Gee, our city politicians sure sucks when it comes to making simple business decisions. Palo Alto's solution is always to spend more money on a study....sure that will be more effective than common sense.

Time for the newspapers to ask those same politicians that received newsworthy exposure, why they can't have a meeting with the data reported from stop.jetnoise.net and ask why the planes are not at a 5,000 foot noise level. Please, let's do that before we spend more money.

Our city can't manage a car traffic study properly. Remember, that the car traffic congestion, time delays in Palo Alto is better now than 5 or 10 years ago. Now we expect the staff to oversee and manage an air traffic study ?






12 people like this
Posted by Luanne
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 11, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Planes can still be heard by residents on the ground at 5,000 feet. It a combination of altitude AND frequency that is the problem. Next Gen has 5 flight paths and Palo Alto bares the burden of 3 of these flight paths. The study is needed to collect concrete data that will allow our city some leverage in negotiating a solution.


4 people like this
Posted by Old Alum
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 15, 2016 at 5:38 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Atherton
on Feb 15, 2016 at 11:29 pm

Noise?

SURF AIR


Like this comment
Posted by Tenant
a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm

[Post removed.]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 27 comments | 2,718 views

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,306 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,359 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,092 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 5 comments | 262 views