Small planes fly low over my house, (Channing/ Waverley...), neighborhood, between 3:45am-4:30am daily. Not cool. So low, so loud. I sure would appreciate flying times to be more prominent during daylight hours.

At the risk of making some locals angry, I can only say that I have never met a single other resident of this city who considers this a relatively important issue. We have horrible traffic (which fouls the air we all breath) that grows worse at an exponential rate, zero affordable housing, and we are saying that airplane noise is ruining our quality of life? Really? Rather than starting expensive litigation, could our city please consider spending our tax money on the real issues that are degrading the quality of life here for everyone?

Note that the city of Santa Monica has pursued legal action regarding the Santa Monica Airport - a regional airport and is successfully working a resolution. This is an airport that has a contingent of larger private jets related to the Beverly Hills/Bel Air and corporate/other citizens. Many are being moved to the Van Nuys Airport in the valley and the Burbank Airport has expanded their footprint to accommodate the private sector. San Jose has a newer private sector area in what used to be the parking lot on the west side.
Note another problem exists for SFO at peak traffic hours when arriving planes are directed to fly a go-around over the bay area to wait for a space in the queue of arriving jets. So any one plane at peak times can over fly more than once to wait for an assigned open gate. Staging of the traffic queue enters into the equation for resolution. Most airlines to be competitive need to arrive at peak times.

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Thank you Council member Tom DuBois for asking about legal options and adding teeth to the City recommendation to work on airplane noise, and Karen Holman for saying that this is about Health. Council members Fine and Wolbach asked important questions about data and what more can be done to strengthen Council's ability to work on this.

Another resident speaker last night put it well - FAA has been dishonest with us. It's on those terms that we are now, surely we can do better with the billions spent on navigation technologies to route the planes over the Bay!

Web Link
Traffic Noise Linked to Increased CVD Risk

"An updated evidence review strengthens the concept that exposure to environmental noise from road traffic and aircraft may increase the risk for heart disease and gets at the potential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms.[1]
Traffic noise has been shown in many studies to increase the risk for heart disease, but the precise mechanisms that lead to noise-induced heart disease have been unclear.

On the basis of their evidence review, Dr Thomas Münzel (Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany) and colleagues say it's becoming clear that transportation noise is associated with oxidative stress, vascular dysfunction, autonomic imbalance and metabolic abnormalities—potentially contributing to the development of cardiovascular risk factors, such as arterial hypertension and diabetes, as well as progression of atherosclerosis and increased susceptibility to cardiovascular events.

"Our review includes new studies with respect to epidemiology, noise, and cardiovascular disease with focus on new translational studies trying to explain why noise is causing vascular damage," Münzel told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. "I think there is no doubt anymore that chronic noise exposure, in particular nighttime noise, can cause coronary disease, heart failure, stroke, and arterial hypertension."

"New, in particular, are studies demonstrating that even one night of aircraft noise exposure can cause vascular (endothelial) dysfunction in healthy subjects," said Münzel. Nighttime noise has also been shown to decrease sleep quality and increase stress hormone levels.

"In patients with established coronary artery disease, the adverse effects of nighttime noise on vascular function were, as expected, even stronger," Münzel said.

In addition, the authors say a transcriptome analysis of aortic tissues from animals exposed to aircraft noise revealed changes in the expression of genes responsible for the regulation of vascular function, vascular remodeling, and cell death."

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

TBH, seldom do large jets bother me any more. There aren't any more Stage 1 or 2 jets flying into SFO these days, even the Stage 3 aircraft are gradually being replaced by Stage 4. I've -seen- new super-jumbo A380's glide over that I could barely detect by ear, what with all the traffic noise. Smaller regional jets are still sometimes fairly noisy, but, not bad if they stay at 6000 feet.

I'm puzzled, though, by the info in the article about what the FAA said about a 5000 ft ceiling at the point, because aircraft landing at SFO fly over at 6000 feet all the time. Since the FAA is solving a 3D problem, perhaps they could produce some images showing what they are doing.

In any case, I think smaller general aviation aircraft flying into/out-of Palo Alto and San Carlos seem to be what actually annoys people. At this point in time, noisy old small aircraft seem to be grandfathered in forever, and, because the airports are close, it sure would be nice if they could stay over the bay. Presumably that isn't always possible.

The reason I posted this is that I think it is important to identify which problem you are talking about: large aircraft approaching SFO, or, small general aviation aircraft to/from Palo Alto and San Carlos.

For someone who has "never met a single other resident of this city who considers this a relatively important issue" you sure found it important enough to chime in

As have "Anon" "AllYouCanEat" and "commonsense"

For the big picture - check out the news about how this is not just a Palo Alto problem, it's affecting cities around as far as the Sanat Cruz mountains and around the country.

Web Link

We moved to Palo Alto in 1970. No airport/airplane problems then and for many years following. I live between Embarcadero and Channing. The planes are so low on occasion that it is frightening. I will give you that the noise is, in general, less loud, though still very noticeable. Still, our house seems to be point central for jets. It is constant. For the first couple of years, I recorded the fly overs at Jetnoise, but it became all I was doing and I needed to get on with life. Still of great concern. Fortunately, some of you have been spared luck of the draw....

Some people are not bothered by it because they work outside of Palo Alto during the day. I live off of N. California/Louis Road and am a stay-at-home mom and began reporting the noise 3 years ago. Seriously, it's every 2 minutes. I cannot nap without the jets waking me up. They are too low, too often, too loud. It really is like living right next to an airport. The noise affects phone calls, television. The pollution and noise are adversely affecting our health, disrupting sleep and causing stress.

Notwithstanding some dismissive comments here, the City is capable of tackling multiple problems at once - and SFO (and SJC) jet noise is a serious concern. Just because some people don't hear the planes proves the point: you probably aren't under an FAA-designated superhighway (or may be going deaf). Under NextGen, the FAA moved flight paths (with the accompanying noise AND emissions) from other cities to Palo Alto. The FAA did not properly warn us this was happening, nor conduct transparent and appropriate environmental studies. And the burden is measurable and severe. THREE flight paths converge over Palo Alto, accounting for 60% of SFO arrivals. According to SFO data, that's 300 planes/day. And I have logged some as low as 2,500 feet - well below the FAA's specified minimum altitude of 4,000 feet. The FAA's November report cited in the article was a joke and deserves to be challenged. The health and well-being of many in Palo Alto (even if you don't realize it) depends on it.

We have been woken from early morning sleep by the planes. This never happened 3-5 years ago. This is a very disturbing trend. We are happy others in our community are concerned about it as well. The planes fly fairly low and are quite loud, even frightening at times.
The pollution noise and chemical they disperse is not measured, but should be. This situation seems to increase in the summer months. We hope this is investigated by our council members.
Thank you

Sorry, but I think this is the most ridiculous, NIMBY issue I have ever heard from this community. I grew up in Palo Alto so I am a long time resident. I am retired so I am home most of the day and all night. And, yes, there is more airplane noise but there is also more traffic noise, more train noise. We live in an urban area that is getting more crowded all the time. Where would you have the planes go? If not our over our community, then where?

To long-time resident: you prove my point. If you don't live under the approach path, you aren't bothered. Nor do you have friends who live in the North PA neighborhoods. This isn't a NIMBY issue.

I live in south PA and the planes are directly overhead. They are using the PA Airport as a turn point both for San Jose when the wind direction dictates and a guide point for the SFO directed traffic. The overnight planes fly a lower altitude and the vibration goes to the ground. It is not just hearing it - it is feeling it vibrate. The inbound Hawaii night flights are around 4AM. Even if you are retired and deaf you can feel it. For what it is worth I like the Railroad noise.

There are worse problems in Palo Alto, far worse than infrequent airplane noise. The never-relenting noise we experience in residential neighborhoods where large, for-profit, offices, ultra exorbitant rental units, and mega mansions are under construction, is way more disturbing than intermittent planes flying over the city. This noise is ongoing between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on a daily basis (oops, we should be thankful for an hour less on Saturdays!), and in many cases, such obscene, for profit, construction also contributes to traffic snarls (we need to "share the road," for construction that is to no one's benefit except the developers). None of this construction is aimed toward providing lower-income housing, for making Palo Alto a city that is a welcome home not only to the super rich but also to regular folks who work in the area. That's the really disturbing noise permeating our neighborhoods.

PA isn't the sleepy suburb of the '60s & '70s. Congratulations, growthers. You got what you wanted- more business, more housing, boom & bustle that make PA a SilVal center of influence. Hoorah!!

Gosh, funny that it means grocery stores have vanished along with small retail. And lo & behold, there are more cars, trains, buses, & airplanes feeding & supplying the megalopolis, getting the wealth-earning residents of the area in & out so everything can grow more & become even more important.

Oh, you didn't notice or anticipate that this might have unwanted effects on what we used to consider a lovely quality of life? [Portion removed.]

Rethink your votes for a development-oriented City Council . How many of these constant complainers work in & for businesses (or have spouses who do) which require air travel & transport? [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

Whoever said the planes are "infrequent" may not know there are three commercial grade highways on top of Palo Alto.Four if you count SJC traffic.I

Nobody heard these planes before Nextgen

And you don't have to hear the noise to be affected by the problem.During public comment during the Select Committee an aviation professional commented,

"Over 10 million passengers fly over Palo Alto each year. Over 1 million gallons of fuel are burned (or partially burned) over us each year. That's the equivalent of 3000 18-wheeler diesel trucks thundering across Palo Alto every day!"

The Palo Alto Weekly is dredging up this silly nonsense again? Sounds like muckraking to me, especially given that the paper has already visited this issue many times before.

Take a look at the December 2017 SFO Airport Director's Report. Looking at the Noise Reports section, it can bee seen that in almost every case, a tiny number of people are filing a huge number of complaints. [Portion removed.]

Web Link

Past commentary on the subject has included individuals rushing to the computer to track each and every airplane in the region. [Portion removed.]

The problem of airplane noise is not new to the area. For all of the annoyance, anger, frustration, and now pending litigation focused on planes flying low over Palo Alto homes, the residents of East Palo Alto have to put up with excessive noise from airplanes taking off and landing at the Palo Alto Airport. The beautiful new Cooley Landing Park in EPA is right in the path and the airplanes are loud and persistent. If Palo Alto really wants to solve the problem of airplane noise, the City should look in its own background and make changes to the Palo Alto Airport flight patterns, factoring in the noise pollution this airport causes to the residents of East Palo Alto.

"At the risk of making some locals angry, I can only say that I have never met a single other resident of this city who considers this a relatively important issue."

Other than here on Town Square, I have never heard anyone even mention it. Zero mentions in real life over several decades. That means it a non-issue for most people. The city should focus its time and energy dealing with more important issues.

Airplane noise was a non-issue several years ago. We’ve lived here over a dozen years, so we know.
Then suddenly all these low planes were overhead. For a couple if years it was very bad.
Recently, it hasnt been that bad. I still don’t agree with the shift that occurred to place arriving aircraft square over Palo Alto before they turn up to SFO.
A definite change occurred. Someone (Southern San Mateo County like Atherton!?) pushed the route to Palo Alto. Those who mock Palo Altans for their justifiable reaction, or pretend this change didn’t occur, are flat out wrong. It is not ok, and the Palo Alto government officials should fix it. Someone powerful made this change, and it ought to be changed back to how it was previously.

(Ambiguous name said some stuff)

I wrote:

>> The reason I posted this is that I think it is important to identify which problem you are talking about: large aircraft approaching SFO, or, small general aviation aircraft to/from Palo Alto and San Carlos.

I still think that. However, in the following discussion, people were clearly talking about SFO.

>> For someone who has "never met a single other resident of this city who considers this a relatively important issue" you sure found it important enough to chime in

>> As have "Anon" "AllYouCanEat" and "commonsense"

You are welcome!

>> For the big picture - check out the news about how this is not just a Palo Alto problem, it's affecting cities around as far as the Sanat Cruz mountains and around the country.

Thanks for the pointer. I will read it.

In the meantime, those with cell phones can download apps to both check on the altitude and flight path of monitored aircraft, and, measure their sound pressure level. In the discussion, it would be nice to know this information. For SPL, there is "Decibel X". For flight info, Flightradar24 and FlightAware have the needed info.

In my personal experience, diesel trucks (and diesel construction equipment), are the loudest and most polluting things I am exposed to. Aircraft do fly over constantly, but, they are not that noisy. Garbage trucks, for example, are extremely noisy, but then, many kinds of diesel trucks are. And, I am much more aware of their immediate pollution than the 300-500 jets that fly over every day.

P.S. An annoying small plane just flew nearby. I'm turning on the dB meter. A 777 is approaching on Flightradar24, now right over me, now peaked at a low rumble 35 dB. I now hear a diesel truck in the street nearby. The meter, which is set to dB(A) weighting, isn't perfect-- I still find small planes much more annoying at the same SPL than the rumble of jets. But, that's me. Here comes another 777 on Flightradar24, I'm waiting, now I can hear it, again at about 35 dB, altitude 4600 ft right here.

And, I am reminded again that street vehicle traffic, vehicle noise, and vehicle pollution are much more of an issue for me that these new, quiet jet transports. I would appreciate finding out from people at what dB level they really find disturbing.

The residents of south Los Altos & Mountain View had it much worse during the period of active flights in & out of Moffett Field. Planes coming in from Asia routinely dumped excess fuel over that area, filled with homes, before landing.

[Portion removed.]

@Chip. Of course everyone can research the existing conditions. But you're missing the point. Many of the commenters clearly state that they've lived here many years. And they know exactly when the uptick in planes flying over their homes happened.

I live in Midtown. I am one of those who work during the day. I also have an air purifier on high to keep my allergies at bay. So I don't notice the noise myself. But it's not true that the only place this is discussed is on Town Square. I have friends in Midtown and other parts of Palo Alto who talk about it a lot. One friend and her husband say that they can't carry on a conversation at the dinner table in the summer when the windows are open.

I think it's a false argument to say that there are other issues for City Council to concentrate on. Of course there are other issues. There's no reason City Council can't work on this as well.

Posted by Novelera, a resident of Midtown

>> I have friends in Midtown and other parts of Palo Alto who talk about it a lot. One friend and her husband say that they can't carry on a conversation at the dinner table in the summer when the windows are open.

It would be useful to know what the sound pressure level (e.g. measured using Decibel X or another cell phone app) is that causes disruption, and, what the source is (airplanes, traffic, etc.), as well as the neighborhood or street. I, for one, would like to see specifics.

Lan,

If you are concerned about East Palo Alto from PA airport noise, you should advocate opening up Moffet Field.

By closing Moffet, Mt View moved the noise to Palo Alto.

Personally as a resident who lives across the freeway from Palo Alto airport I find the small planes and helicopters more annoying. Last night there was someone practicing touchdowns and takeoffs from 9pm to 10pm. Ugh!

Anon, and local guy

The City must tackle both ground and air traffic issues.

See recent article (link below) about the health hazard from Transportation sources.

Unlike EIR's that are done for ground traffic, the standards for evaluating impacts from jet traffic need to be challenged because they woefully miss the target of what is an impact.

If you read to the end of the Washington Post article below

"Münzel is calling on lawmakers to change policies."

This makes sense because as is also noted in the article.

long-term noise pollution may also be linked to depression and anxiety disorders as well as problems with cognitive development in young children

This is no joke


See "Why car horns, planes and sirens might be bad for your heart"

Web Link

>>The roar of a jet plane, the rumble of a big rig, that shrill scream from the siren of a speeding emergency vehicle:

The common but loud noises that keep you awake at night and agitate you throughout the day may have a notable effect on your cardiovascular health, experts say.

Researchers say noise pollution may increase the risk of heart disease, such as coronary artery disease, hypertension and heart failure, according to a review paper published this week in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Why? The authors, who examined research on noise pollution and heart disease, say that loud sounds not only disrupt sleep, which can lead to health problems, but can also ignite the stress response, releasing a rush of hormones that, over time, can damage the heart.

“Ten years ago, people were saying that noise is just annoying, but now I think there’s considerable evidence that noise makes you sick, and one of the predominate diseases is cardiovascular disease,” lead author Thomas Münzel said Tuesday in a phone interview with The Washington Post.

The research does not prove that loud noises cause heart disease. But Münzel, with the cardiology center at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, told ABC News that noise pollution — or unwanted environmental noise — is a risk factor for heart disease in the same way that high cholesterol and obesity may increase the odds.

Those confronted with noise pollution, which causes disturbances to communication during the day and sleep at night, may have increased stress hormone levels, he said.

Over time, Münzel said, it can take a toll on the body — increasing cholesterol, blood pressure and heart rate. “If this persists for years, then you have a risk of coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure and arrhythmia,” he told The Post.

Münzel added that long-term noise pollution may also be linked to depression and anxiety disorders as well as problems with cognitive development in young children.<<

I live near the San Jose airport, but hear very little airplane noise. I am willing to trade houses with a homeowner in Palo Alto who finds the airplane noises to be offensive to them. I believe that it is called a "Win Win"

There have been thousands of calls over the last few years re airplane noise confirmed by SFO via a phone call to me several months ago. Commercial, commuter (and the weekend private joy-riders), flights are for-profit businesses expanding and prospering at the expense of residents. It's a fact that ever-increasing flights are flying lower (therefore louder)over residential areas vs. higher and over the bay causing human and environmental damage; savings of time and fuel are minimal in comparison. This is a huge and growing problem impacting quality of life and without recourse for the ordinary citizen under criscrossing flight paths. It needs to elicit a regional response. Other cities have sued and won a reprieve. The FAA uses delaying tactics so those impacted will just give up over time. There's a large group of Palo Altans actively engaged in combating this growing assault.

Posted by E. Preston, a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove

>> There have been thousands of calls over the last few years re airplane noise confirmed by SFO via a phone call to me several months ago. ... It's a fact that ever-increasing flights are flying lower (therefore louder) ... This is a huge and growing problem impacting quality of life ... The FAA ...

Specifics?

Just this afternoon, while I was waiting for an appt I measured a gas-powered leaf blower at 75 dB about 150 ft away (I didn't stand that close or stay the whole time.) It lasted at least 20 minutes (and blew up a huge cloud of dust also).

Here is the ordinance, but, I don't know what the ambient SPL was, since the leaf blower was going the whole time. You couldn't hear the jets flying overhead.

Web Link

[Post removed.]

Our local elected representatives have been pretending to care about SFO bound aircraft noise for nearly four years now, while slow-walking concerned residents down a long garden path into a dark cave full of vampiric FFA bureaucrats.

The Democratic Party is not a democracy. The Party is an almost military like hierarchy where Party rank is determined by the ability to raise money and dole out endorsements. On the Peninsula the politicians with the real money and power to are in San Francisco, and they like the low-loud flight paths right where they are... over Los Altos, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Union City.

And just where do you propose the planes fly over? If one looks at a map both the SF Airport and SJ Airport are surrounded by populated areas. If this NIMBY campaign is successful I guess the flights will go over other people's homes. Of course that will be fine with the Palo Alto complainers. Geez, get a life!

Congressional Anna Eshoo advises to report any excessive aircraft noise
Web Link

"As we work to resolve this issue, I first and foremost encourage you to report any excessive aircraft noise complaints to the SFO, SJC and OAK Noise Abatement Offices to ensure that your report is officially documented. The SFO Noise Abatement Office can be reached at (650) 821-4736, or via email at [email protected] You can file an online complaint to the SJC Noise Abatement Office here. You can file a complaint to the OAK Noise Abatement Office here, or by calling (510) 563-6463. Your call will become part of the official record and official documentation."


A Noun Ea Mus,

" Of course that will be fine with the Palo Alto complainers. Geez, get a life!"

This issue is unfortunately not a mere annoyance problem, so when you say "get a life" for many of us - your neighbors this issue is real, it's about life itself.

Sleep deprivation from can cause serious damage. See "Why car horns, planes and sirens might be bad for your heart" Web Link

San Jose Airport enjoys a curfew at night from a grandfathered agreement so (in theory) the traffic in San Jose should not be a conflict to put the SFO planes over the Bay.

It is absolutely ridiculous (and totally indicative of the complete and total lack of competency of our elected officials) that this issue has been going on as long as it has and has cost so much $ to research, examine, study blah blah blah.

JUST PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE NEXTGEN.

Palo Alto residents chose to live near two major airports ( 3 if you count Oakland), multiple smaller regional airports, two widely used freeways (101 & 280), a choo choo train that cuts through the middle of the city, streets congested with traffic because senior city management and city council seem to think more housing and closing off streets is a good idea, compulsive residents who feel it's necessary to keep the appearance up and hire folks to blow leafs around their property and mow their lawns every 3 days, not to mention the dang neighbor dog who barks all day and night because someone thought it would be a great to add that into the mix.
Golly, so many things to complain about and so little time.

Cassidy
I totally agree but be prepared to have your post removed because it docent adequately sympathize with the fragile needs of the few who have little concern for the needs of many ....

In reality the traffic on Embarcadero is a far larger concern than ANY AIR Traffic.
Oh and by the way most if not all of the decision makers and politicians are flying weekly on both commercial and private air !

Like or comment quickly because the overly sensitive moderator is on the prowl ;-)

Posted by Cassidy, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> a choo choo train that cuts through the middle of the city

Hi Cassidy, maybe you can answer a question I've had for a while. For the last decade or so, right-wing folks have referred to trains as "choo-choo trains". Do you know who popularized this usage and when? Back in the day, "choo-choo train" was affectionate, but, now it is used in a derogatory way. Is there a reason why right-wing folks particularly like to deprecate rail transportation?

--

Back on topic: several people have pointed out inconsistencies in what the FAA apparently has said about NextGen:

For example, the San Jose airport seems to have been operating just fine before NextGen routing, so why is it now unsafe to return to the previous flight paths?

Previous flight paths had aircraft gradually descending in idle over the Santa Cruz mountains and approaching SFO on a generally steeper descent (according to one article), so, how can NextGen be both faster and more fuel efficient if descents are sooner and then there is more powered flight at lower altitudes closer to SFO? It doesn't seem to add up.

Does anyone have a web link for some kind of FAA or other report which illustrates how the new NextGen routing works?

This impacts many people, probably mostly those under the narrow flight paths.

Even three blocks away, the impact is far less; and beyond that, often almost negligible.

I am trying to grasp the perspective of those who do not experience this problem, and seek to belittle the issue and berate those who are trying to do something about it.

My house is 20 miles from sfo. It’s about as far away from an airport as one can be on the peninsula. Any other place will be closer to one major airport or another. I bought it because it was quiet.

Is there an argument that says everyone who lives on the peninsula should expect no quiet mornings or afternoons? Quiet nights? Or a constant increase in jet fuel pollution and resulting cancer risks?

[Post removed.]

To Anon of another palo alto neighborhood who recommended Decibel X:

I've just installed it. I live in the Gardens neighborhood in East Palo Alto and the jets over my house are registering in the 60-80 DB range, as measured outside. The planes are often below 4000 ft. During peak hours they are easily every 2-5 minutes. Without the jets, the outdoor noise level is around 45 DB. I just got the app, though, so it's possible I don't have something set correctly.

I too live directly under the flight path and while lately it has not been much of an issue, over the past several years there have been times that it's unbearable. Unable to keep windows/doors open, can't hear TV/radio let along have a phone conversation. It truly is awful and I really don't understand those of you who are belittling this issue.

And as others have said repeatedly, this is NEW noise, it wasn't this way prior to the NEXTGEN change. If it had been this way since we moved here we wouldn't be complaining but this is new and it's affecting lives.

The FAA in early February started a short trial of a new flight path for planes coming from the east and south so that they enter the SFO flight path near Big Sur, over Monterey Bay. This was a change advocated by residents of the southern Santa Cruz communities such as Aptos. I'm sure it gives them some relief, but for residents near the MENLO waypoint it has zero effect. I track overflights most evenings. The typical flight elevation near the Menlo Park/Palo Alto border near 101 is 3,500 to 5,000 feet. The noise is incessant and is bad at all hours. Even enforcing the 5,000 lower elevation would be an improvement, but dispersing the incoming flights and raising the elevation is the only solution that will help.

To *commonsense* (and others belittling the jet noise problem) -- it's interesting how little regard you have for the real suffering of many of your neighbors (assuming you in fact live in Palo Alto). It is a fact that the FAA concentrated and moved flight paths over our heads. We do not expect to do away with all noise, we just ask for a fair and reasonable solution. I actually agree with your point about Embarcadero traffic; so what are you doing about it other than just playing the 'what about' game in this forum? I myself recently spoke at Supervisor Simitian's hearing re my concerns with Stanford's latest growth plan, and specifically about increased traffic on Embarcadero. Again, the point is there are a number of health/quality of life issues in this City that can be addressed concurrently. And no, I don't need to move out of the Bay Area if I don't like it (especially since I grew up and have family here).

It always give me a chuckle when those who are not bothered by the noise feel such a need to chime in. If you are not bothered by the topic of the article, then perhaps you could find an article somewhere else worthy of commenting on.

Thank you to Palo Alto online for the airplane noise article and monitoring this important topic negatively impacting not just Palo Alto but the bay area region as well as across the United States such as Phoenix, Baltimore, Newport Beach, and more. This has been going on for years and we appreciate your continuing coverage of what matters to citizens. Kudos!

The FAA website for NextGen is here:

Web Link

The FAA description seems to suggest that NextGen would result in more dispersed approach paths, rather than the more concentrated paths that people here are describing. From what we are reading in this thread, it sounds like almost every plane on approach to SFO converges on a path over the Gardens neighborhood in EPA.

Does anyone know of an analysis available online that explains the discrepancy?

This might be the main issue to people on the ground:

THE FAA IS DESIGNED TO HELP PROMOTE AVIATION; The only time the FAA gets involved with people on the ground is when an aircraft falls to the ground. An example of this is the TESLA Engineers lost when their aircraft hit the power lines and literally fell into my former backyard in EPA.

You might have better luck by talking to the NTSB which can order the FAA to make changes.

" The Sound of Freedom " was an issue when we bought a house near Moffett Field. I understand that a plane actually crashed near the location of our present day house in Mountain View. Many much noisier aircraft were tested there as part of the work done by NASA. I could identify older warbirds from the sound their engines made when they flew over our house in Mtn. View.

When I went to Aviation Ground School ( back in my day, ultralight aircraft needed no pilot's license to fly an ultralight ), I quickly learned how all the airports had the " inverted wedding cake ATC controlled air space. Flight Control is handed to the Oakland Air Traffic Control Center that controls the " Highway in the Sky " . Again, these people are responsible for higher flying airplanes. I got to tour the SFO tower and both the Oakland and Longmont ATCCs. ( this was before 9/11 changed the rules )

Remember that the FAA's job is to promote aviation, NOT LISTEN TO NOISE COMPLAINTS!!! Anything that hinders their goal of promoting flying MAY NOT BE HEARD. Since the NTSB deals with SAFETY issues, you might have a better audience.

NEXTGEN is removing the over the bay option for landing the " heavies " that used to fly over the bay to land at SFO. One of the landing beacons was atop the San Mateo bridge. Flying below 1500' over residential areas was strictly forbidden. the only way you could do this Landing Part is by an ATC in their controlled airspace. NEXTGEN is to streamline the SFBA airspace.

The real problem is someone wants to keep the way things are being done, that may mean the NTSB must get involved. The NTSB has broad powers and are called into actionat any railroad or flying accident; ultimately, the NTSB CAN make changes the FAA MUST follow. This is what I was taught in Aviation Ground School.

One thing I am certain of; if a drone is flying at 1500 feet and it gets into a turbofan engine, the first question asked by the NTSB on the accident scene is " Who told the pilot to fly so low? " THEN there would be changes in the NEXTGEN system. Four years is a long time for our government to ignore the people they are supposed to serve.

Don't fly or ship by air unless your back is to the wall - funeral, boss says you're fired if you Skype rather than flap your jaws face to face, etc. This industry will do "the right thing" - fly like it used to - if those running it get the message, the MONEY message, that doing this to us will have financial consequences. Our "elected" officials (come on, what are our ballot choices really? this isn't democracy, it's a plutocracy) have overall sold their constituents down the river on this. We don't need them to get the message. HIT THE MONEY PEOPLE! Do you care about flying and shipping by air on demand more than living a long healthy life? Your choice.

@Karen said

"It always give me a chuckle when those who are not bothered by the noise feel such a need to chime in. If you are not bothered by the topic of the article, then perhaps you could find an article somewhere else worthy of commenting on."

So only those who agree with your point of view are allowed to comment here? Those who are intolerant of dissent would do well to avoid Town Square, where dissent seems to be the order of the day.

Hey everyone, we live in the heart of Silicon Valley, the largest scientific-industrial complex in the world. It has been so for 40 years. Does anyone seriously expect that there will not be a high demand for air travel and plenty of planes in our skies? If so, that would be a very unreasonable expectation. [Portion removed.]

The jetliners currently flying over Palo Alto are much, much quieter than aircraft that were flying overhead 40 years ago. Even way back then, nobody mentioned anything about airplane noise in Palo Alto. If it really is an issue, I would expect to have heard complaints about it in the real life. I have not heard even one. That tells me most people in town could not care less about the issue. [Portion removed.]

In reply to Karen (a half dozen posts above).

It's a matter of priorities for our community. If you start talking about litigation (not just private citizens lobbying the FAA) paid for by our tax dollars, then anyone (bothered or not by the airplane noise) is allowed to chime in on the topic, not just those who are bothered by it. When I drive to work in the morning I routinely see homeless people who have spent the night on our streets freezing at this time of year. Is their welfare (in this city of overpriced housing with limited resources) less important than the noise put out by the jets that are headed into SFO? Well, if we are headed to court on this matter, that's the kind of question you have to think about this evening when you go to bed in your comfy Palo Alto home.

priorities,

It's not a competition. Someone suffering from health issues aggravated by SFO noise will care about homelessness and other serious problems and priorities, possibly work on these issues. We have generous and engaged people in Palo Alto who lead on local, national, and world issues.

Something as simple as getting sleep matters for productivity, especially in a knowledge economy. There are youth, and children and elderly affected.

Noise pollution being imposed on Palo Alto and neighbors with the new Nextgen system is not a minor inconvenience.

See news from other communities - and concerns about air quality

Web Link

"Face to Face with the FAA"

"AIR QUALITY

It has long been recognized that air quality is significantly better in the mountains than in the cities and suburbs extending from the Pacific Ocean to the foothills. The mountain air does contain ozone, but has been notably free of particulate matter – until recently. With low-flying airplanes, the air is now affected by the presence of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter from jet engine pollution.

The microscopic particles in particular are carcinogenic. They can’t get out of the lungs and, subsequently, pass into the blood stream, circulating throughout the body. They threaten to cause cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, while exacerbating existing conditions such as asthma.

Larry Reider is a professional engineer who focuses on chemical engineering, health risk issues and air emissions. He estimated that, eventually, the numerous planes per day over Lake Arrowhead will burn 3,400 tons of fuel and will create 1/4 ton of carcinogenic soot that will descend upon the mountain below.

Jerry Maloney, Ph.D., emphasized that the particulates contribute to premature death in people with heart or lung disease; nonfatal heart attacks and irregular heartbeats; aggravated asthma and decreased lung function; increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficultly breathing; skin rashes and tumors."

Boeing has been my best investment over the past 12 months. Up 100 percent!
How else can I keep up with cost of living here?

Does anyone remember when the Democratic Party was the Party that protected people from polluting industries? Now the Democratic Party IS the polluting industry.

SFO is a for-profit industrial facility owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco that contributes $45+ Million per year into the City and County of San Francisco's general fund. The low-flying aircraft spraying the communities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Los Altos and Union City with noise and un-burned hydrocarbons are a byproduct of the operation of the industrial facility also known as SFO.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is essentially the board of directors of the industrial facility also known as SFO and the Mayor of San Francisco is the chairman of SFO's board. San Francisco's board of supervisors are all Democrats and they are the only local politicians that can do anything about SFO arrival pollution because they ARE the industry the FAA was chartered to serve.

In the the nearly four years since the noise pollution started with the implementation of the FAA's airport friendly "nextgen" scheme, has perennial Democratic Party functionary and current Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kniss ever called the Mayor of San Francisco (or any SF Supervisor) to see what they could do end the polluting of Palo Alto and other Santa Clara County cities by SFO?

Why not?

For those claiming folks who are impacted are NIMBYs.

You're missing the point-- the issue is not the number of planes.
The issue is where and how they've changed their routes.

They fly much lower (this has a *squared* effect on noise and vibration).
They fly in a much more concentrated path (the planes used to be spread out across Palo Alto, now they repeatedly fly over the same homes most every time).

Whereas before you'd get a loud jet once every hour or so, now you get the, once every 5 minutes.

It isn't about the number of jets (hint: it didn't change). It is about how they've changed where they're flying

The change in the aircraft jet noise affecting Palo Alto is actually worse than Professorville Resident says. The approach pattern to SFO used to be spread out not only in Palo Alto, but even more significantly, across the entire north Peninsula. Years ago, San Mateo County residents and cities (including most prominently Atherton). The various lobbying, political agreements and San Mateo city efforts resulted in the air traffic that used to be spread out over the entire San Mateo and north Santa Clara County area to be concentrated in the first city south of the SMC/SCC line: our Palo Alto.

Professorville Resident is correct that the nextGen system concentrates flights over a smaller subset of residents, but it's not only the traffic that used to be spread out over Palo Alto that we get here; it's also most of the traffic that used to bother politically powerful and richer Atherton and other San Mateo county cities.

That's why those here who complain that we who are objecting to jet noise are trying to stop flights into SFO, or etc are wrong. The proper solution to this vexing issue is to dilute the impact of SFO now destroying Palo Alto's peace and quiet by re-spreading some of it back over San Mateo County from whence it came.

@Mary.

The FAA is never going to spread the planes out all over the Peninsula because that would defeat the whole purpose of the FAA's "nextgen" scheme.

The whole reason the "nextgen" scheme exists is to increase airport throughput and profits by organizing aircraft into nice orderly, evenly, and closely packed lines before the planes even enter the Bay Area airspace managed by SFO based air traffic controllers. The FAA believes "nextgen" will eventually let air traffic control reduce the minimum spacing between SFO bound aircraft from 6 miles to 2 miles.

The City and County of San Francisco collects a landing fee from every commercial plane that lands at SFO and an airport tax from every passenger.

Cha-ching!

If it's a slow news day, just dump an airplane noise article in the paper...

"You're missing the point-- the issue is not the number of planes.
The issue is where and how they've changed their routes."

No, you're missing the point. Why should everyone's tax dollars be wasted on a lawsuit for an issue of importance only to a tiny handful? The money and spending priorities should be aligned towards things that impact large numbers of community members. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.

That link you posted was from a San Bernardino newspaper. Let them deal with their own problems, Palo Alto has enough on its plate as it is.

"The FAA description seems to suggest that NextGen would result in more dispersed approach paths, rather than the more concentrated paths that people here are describing."

True, but if the anti-airplane folks here were to admit that, then they wouldn't have anything to complain about. I think that you are quite correct in asking for real world data on airplane noise.

"There are youth, and children and elderly affected."

Can you quantify that? How many people are affected? Two? Three? 50,000? From what study was this data gathered? A few people going bananas on a forum somewhere does not constitute a valid study.

[Portion removed.]

Donster,

Pollution is usually weighed against economic interests or the "greater good."

A few people suffering may not be worth the trouble to you. Nobody can show a majority affected by SFO noise because SFO/Nextgen pollutes selectively.

A well funded aviation lobby that is all powerful stands with the majority.

If Palo Alto goes to court, it won't be for the majority, it will be if it stands to protect lives.

There’s no hope when this far into NextGen people are still saying the same things (nationwide problem people).

Pro unfettered aviation expansion:
Move if you don’t like it
NIMBY
The airport was here first
First world problem
Buy earplugs
Turn up the TV
It doesn’t bother me…

Con noise and air pollution from unfettered aviation:
Our street, neighborhood, community is unfairly burdened
Spread the burden
Spread the pain
Spread the suffering
Spread the noise and air pollution more fairly

So far we’ve got no problem with what’s proven to be a detriment to human health or those who want that detriment spread around more.

NextGen trashed abatement procedures like humane altitudes and ascent/descent angles, curfews, capacity limits and so on. Politicians are mainly in the pockets of industry. And too many people want to fly and ship by air on demand and suffer none of the consequences. Our skies are packed throughout our country will low altitude aircraft because flying ultimately matters more than human health.

At least for now… But we keep hearing our politicians talking on and on about climate change, and flying all over the globe to drone on about it.
Lawsuits where the FAA uses public money to fight the public on behalf of a private industry is not going to solve this. Planes don’t fly without passengers. No lawsuit required.

To *anon* and *donster* -- where exactly on the FAA website does it say NextGen is intended to result in more dispersed flight paths? The only relevant reference I find is: "Satellites enable the FAA to create optimum routes anywhere in the NAS for departure, cruising altitude, approach and arrival operations" -- that's federal agency-speak for the "optimum routes" are now right over our heads, at increasingly lower altitudes. And if this issue is only important to "a few, or one" -- why was "airplane noise" by far the most oft-cited concern noted in the online survey conducted before the City Council's annual priorities meeting? If you had attended any of the Select Committee's hearings, or even read its report, you would have seen the "real world data" on jet noise. [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Palo Alto is not intolerable, the SFO and airport noise noise dump is.

Not a waste to make Palo Alto skies quiter and cleaner.

If Newport Beach sued, Palo Alto is worth it too.

"Not a waste to make Palo Alto skies quiter and cleaner."

They are already quiet and clean.

"If Newport Beach sued, Palo Alto is worth it too."

[Portion removed.]

Donster,

No monkey business, just pointing out that other cities have found it not wasteful to sue.

Is your worry about cost?

First it was the majority are not affected, now it’s denial of a problem (which does not affect you), you need “world data” to prove that others hear what you don’t.

That’s a lot of time you are spending on this.

@Professorville Resident, re: altitude *squared* effect on noise and vibration --

May be technically true regarding an idealized point-source, but a flyover is more like a line-source, where the noise integrated along the entire path falls off as 1/R rather than 1/R-squared. Light intensity will do the same thing as you move away from a long fluorescent tube rather than a discrete lightbulb.

What's more, if the entire sky were filled with aircraft paths over a prolonged time interval, it becomes an area-source, where the integral is mathematically independent of R. Of course other attenuation effects will always make higher altitudes quieter, but improvement may not be all that's expected.

"First it was the majority are not affected, now it’s denial of a problem (which does not affect you), you need “world data” to prove that others hear what you don’t."

I simply said that the skies are quiet and clean. I am not the one making the claim that a problem exists. Since those who claim there is a noise problem have yet to provide any hard evidence, their claims remain unfounded. And yet people are expected to believe such claims. They could always commission a study (on their own dime, not ours) if they want this proof.

Yes, for me it is about the money. More than that it is about draining time and resources from solving more pressing issues.

You say I am spending a lot of time on this, but it is a try fraction of the time that a select few spend trying to clear airplanes from our skies. Is there something more to all of this than airplane noise? It seems that way to me. What is this really all about?

@Donster,

"I simply said that the skies are quiet and clean."

We have numerous spare the air days every year. I don't think that would be necessary if the 'skies' were clean.

I posted that I get readings of 60-80 dB when SFO jets fly over my house. Why does that not count as hard evidence?

@Anon, why after saying you would consider measurements with Decibel X to be close enough, do you ignore my results? I went to the trouble of paying $5 for the app and taking measurements, but because you don't like my results and are determined to insist there is no problem, you then pivot the conversation by putting words in my mouth that 'every' SFO plane flies over my house. You have no credibility at this point, at all, whatsoever.

Just like there are Russian trolls on social media, I believe that we might have FAA/airline industry trolls on this discussion thread.

@Donster,

You are lucky you cannot hear the jet noise (for whatever reason), but for the people who who have a commercial jet whining or rumbling over their home every 5-10 minutes, it is all about the noise.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that local scientists have proven the shifting of flight paths from southern San Mateo County to Palo Alto and the shift from higher to lower altitudes through the analysis of over a decade of digitized radar flight data obtained from the FAA through a FOIA request. Yes, the FAA continuously records and stores the flight path and altitude of every commercial flight entering bay area airspace.

The noise has also been measured by a team of local volunteer scientists with advanced degrees and professional equipment, and the measurements proved the noise is real, frequent, and in many cases well in excess of 65dB.

You don't seem to get it. You are the one that is isolated, ill informed, and making claims unsupported by scientific data.

If you have an alternate theory to explain the noise, what is it? Do you think the people reading your posts can also read your mind?

bemused in East Palo Alto,

"I posted that I get readings of 60-80 dB when SFO jets fly over my house."

the app STOP JET NOISE at stop.jetnoise.net will show what overflights are causing the raucus, at what altitudes

With over 300 planes going over the same area, this is neither quiet or clean or fair!

Which part of town is experiencing this problem? I see planes flying (large commercial jets and small prop planes); however, I haven't felt that the noise is a big problem. I hear the traffic and train more than anything flying overhead (other than the occasional helicopter).

Are people saying that they can hear the planes inside of their homes? At night?

I live in Midtown close to Alma. The noise from CalTrain, the freight trains and morning/evening commute is loud (particularly from those driving 55-60mph on Alma's 35mph speed limit). Yes, I can hear a plane every once in a while. However, it isn't even remotely as loud as other noises that are much more frequent.

Nayeli,

"the problem" which may not affect you is something that has been debated hotly on these threads since "the problem" began in 2014. After some investigation, the "problem" has been acknowledged by the Federal Aviation Administration and they are working on it.

Because select paths affect select areas in multiple cities in several counties and several congressional districts, there is another sort of "problem" about how to go about fixing the problem. The City of Palo Alto is in a ground zero situation (with three paths) so it can't exactly bury their head in the sand. It's not a simple problem to resolve, it takes time. Someone in a part of East Palo Alto, may have more in common with someone in Old Palo Alto than someone in Midtown with someone in Old Palo Alto - just depends where you are.

The particulate matter pollution has not been studied enough yet, could be that you get particulate pollution (when the wind blows it affects different people differently) or not.

If you consider some of the problems that are out there - achievement gap, russian interference (no offense to russian friends), fake stories on social media attracting young minds with garbage, guns, sexual harassment, they are not a problem for everyone, but they are taken up as a problem as a society and HOW we deal with the problem says much about who we are and what we care about.

Denial is not an option with some problems and one that is in your ears and in your face day in and day out is not simple to ignore. For many people - elderly, youth, and sick people you can't even just pick up and move.

SFO has a noise abatement section on the website. (I don't know how useful it is, just noting it.)

Web Link

@Anon, the "Live Flight Tracking" at that SFO link appears to be 16 minutes delayed. I prefer the Flightradar24 site which is practically real-time so you can find the airplane going overhead "right now".

[Post removed.]

Here is the link to the SFO Airport Director's Report, which is also above:

Web Link

@Donster, misplaced virgule in that web address, try Web Link

Yes I have way too much time on my hands...

I know it's been said many times, but the noise is real. Folks who think we report one plane every two hours obviously don't get it. Folks who think we have too much time on our hands also don't get it. And folks who think we enjoy moving the phone from the kitchen to the nightstand so we can report the late-night ones -- also don't get it.

It would be so nice if people who don't experience the noise would quit insisting that no one else is either. I report just a small fraction of the planes that bug me, because it is such a pita. Consider that.

The rule is that less than 1% of affected people complain.

Complaints are required for FAA to identify problems and elected representatives ask for complaints as well.

If laws are broken, or abused, our federal government is better for it if challenged. Lawsuits are not a waste if it makes government better.

I don’t want my taxes to support law breaking.

[Post removed.]

Wait until it warms up and you have your windows open again to say it's nonsense. The late night / early morning flights are particularly annoying.

"The rule is that less than 1% of affected people complain."

That "rule" is known to be the case where? So few people complain therefore a lot of people are affected?

Look, you guys make assertions unsupported by facts. You have been given the means to back up those assertions with real world sound measurements. Why would you not do so? If you could demonstrate that plane noise is at problematic sound levels, then of course I would support spending money and doing whatever it takes to fix the problem.

"Wait until it warms up and you have your windows open again to say it's nonsense. The late night / early morning flights are particularly annoying."

I nearly always sleep with my windows open in the summer. The most noticable noise is the AC from surrounding residences and housing towers. The planes only make the occasional whoosh as they throttle down their engines.

@Wasting my breath?, yes you are wasting your breath, and I am wasting mine. There is no point in debating this further until you come back with the Decibel X measurements.

Donster, come on over to my neighborhood where you can look straight up and see the belly of the plane. I'd be glad to stand with you and explain the detailed logistics of the new flights paths however it would be difficult to have the conversation over the noise.

Seriously. Until you come stand at the Dell/Victory intersection in Monta Loma during a busy flight time you have no right to post another word

After 3 years serving time filing complaints, 1 per day for my household because if you don’t complain then there’s no problem, right?, and if you complain for every low and loud flight that passes over your roof it’d be a 24/7 job and you’d be a "whiner" and a "loony" etc.--well, not at the beginning would you be mad but you’d go mad if you did this, and if you do your bit, the 1 per day per household then there really isn’t much of a problem right because the numbers don’t lie. Is anybody seeing how you can’t win here? The airport says the FAA controls the skies, but you’re supposed to complain to the airport... You complain to the FAA and they say their responsibility is safety and efficiency in airspace use and design. Elected officials say they need you to file complaints with the airport so they know there’s a problem or to complain to the FAA. Round and round they make you go as they cater to the aviation industry at the expense of human health and the environment. Don’t even get me started on these time-wasting roundtables and committees, another eat up constituents time and energy and call for endless studies.

Bombard your elected officials if you bother complaining at all; the veneer of representation is very thin you’ll find. Did that for 3 years too. This is the United States or Industry of by and for profit. Engage your “reps” long enough on this serious nationwide issue and it’ll get harder and harder to delude yourself that we’re represented, that this is democratic rather than plutocratic government.

While posters want to point out how few people complain, how about the shamefully low voter turnout? Because people don’t care or because they see that the vote in itself is meaningless, is in itself powerless, if it doesn’t translate to representation for the greater good of society as a whole?

From personal experience, I will not waste anymore of what little energy and time I’ve got after sleep is trashed as well as concentration and relaxation from this endless pummeling above from aircraft. And oh, don’t you love the talk of insulation and shutting your windows and running a fan/AC etc. as a solution like we have no right to any kind of quality of life except to be shut-ins. Home, car, office, car, home shut-ins. Work and consume products is your sole destiny.

Don’t fly or ship by air unless your back is to the wall. Hit this industry's profits, the only thing it cares about, and see how fast you get results. A little sacrifice can go a long way. They don't like to lose a dime, but millions of Americans can lose their quality of life and health so they can make more and more money.

Flood elected officials with complaints if you bother at all. And if you’ve got the resources, or pulled resources, sue the airlines and flight schools and chartered flight companies etc. It’s their money and influence pushing this endless hell. And its their poodles in Congress that have legislated so we're powerless to stop it unless that same Congress finally legislates for us instead of this industry and turns this around.

Donster,

"Look, you guys make assertions unsupported by facts. You have been given the means to back up those assertions with real world sound measurements. Why would you not do so? If you could demonstrate that plane noise is at problematic sound levels, then of course I would support spending money and doing whatever it takes to fix the problem."

Ditto for FAA.

FAA does not measure noise
FAA does not have real world metrics
FAA does not have facts to support a 65 DNL threshold for noise harm while the rest of the world uses 55 DNL. See World Health Organization
FAA looks only at "annoyance" impacts, not health, not sleep, not impacts on children

With this backdrop, FAA/airlines/airports plopped a "modern" system which had people noticing that somethings was foul right away.

In 2014-2015 when noise complaints shot up in Palo Alto, it was a year when SFO operations were down. You should do this research yourself. Go to the SFO Noise Abatement website you are posting about (do you work there?)and look for SFO Arrivals Operations.

The increase in noise was not explained by increase in traffic.

Don't let this knowledge go to waste, keep getting more informed. You won't find any Health Info on the SFO noise abatement office though.

BTW, I'm not knocking the sue FAA approach. Just saying people need to recognize that this agency is captured, it's a tool, but if that's the only way to get members of Congress to respond, to legislate to right the wrong they unleashed then so be it. Those complaining about wasting public money need to do a little spreadsheet and calculate public money spent suing the FAA vs. public money propping up the aviation industry. This industry is subsidized to the gills. Or, as is said about the common person, it's been riding the welfare gravy train a LONG time...

So, lawsuits against the FAA pale in comparison. Those frequent flyer programs? You think you're getting a deal? Only on the surface.

Congress is floating your billions to the FAA which in turn floats those billions to this industry. What a deal! And your seats get smaller and smaller, your "leg room"--what's that?, people with animal allergies too bad, while airlines are designing hotel rooms on planes for the 1% or anyone in the 99% foolish enough to drop that kind a cash on this ostentatious nonsense.

Anyway, seeing Phoenix sue and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agree with the city's claims, ruling the FAA’s changes to flight paths and procedures, as part of the nationwide NextGen program, arbitrary and capricious was the first satisfying taste of what can happen when people stand up. Yes, a minority. But then wasn't it a minority that has made up every significant movement in history, civil right's and the environmental movement that resulted in the establishment of the EPA in the 1970s that's being eviscerated. So here we go, the most polluting form of transportation is running amok. The court in the Phoenix case also held that the FAA violated the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Transportation Act, its own rules under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 by categorically excluding the procedures from environmental review, even though the actions were likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds. Instead, the FAA found the NextGen procedure were not likely to be highly controversial for the environment and therefore did not merit an environmental review. The court rightly found the determination arbitrary and capricious, and noted that the idea that a change with these effects would not be highly controversial was so implausible it could not reflect reasoned decision making. And when the FAA argued the Phoenix sites were not generally recognized as quiet settings because of their urban location, the court disagreed. "That isn't enough. Even in the heart of a city, some neighborhoods might be recognized as quiet zones," the judges wrote.

The FAA's budget having to be spent on fighting us is a hell of a lot better than it subsidizing this industry's flagrant abuse of our health and the environment.

Still waiting for Maryland's Attorney General to get busy suing the FAA as requested by the state's governor. And for Georgetown's lawsuit results... Whatever it takes, this industry and Congress members need to know we're not going away. The fight will continue. So stop this injustice sooner rather than later.

The fight is global against NextGen procedures under different names in different countries (pushed by ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization, captured agency on worldwide scale), but people are fighting this global industry's abuse backed by too many holding political office legislating for the industry rather than the common good. A recent example, not in major media outlets (too much ad money from aviation and fear of political backlash maybe):

Web Link
Les pollués de Montréal-Trudeau announce the date of the hearing of the application for authorization to proceed with a class action.
The hearing of the application to institute a class action on the issue of aircraft noise pollution will be heard before the Honourable Chantal Tremblay, Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, November 20 and 21, at the Montreal Courthouse, Room 14.07, at 9:30. Les pollués de Montréal-Trudeau are represented by Gérard Samet.
The judge must determine whether the request meets the criteria provided by law to declare the class action admissible.
The Court, after the hearing of the application, has a maximum period of 6 months to decide on the admissibility of the application.

Web Link

Aircraft Noise and Air Pollution over Montreal: citizens ask for an epidemiological study by the Public Health Department of Montréal Français
________________________________________
NEWS PROVIDED BY
Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau
Feb 22, 2018, 07:00 ET

MONTREAL, Feb. 22, 2018 /CNW Telbec/ - On the initiative of the Les Pollués de Montreal-Trudeau Citizens Committee (LPDMT), 70 citizens have signed personal letters to Dr. Richard Massé, Director of Public Health (DSP) of Montreal. These letters are delivered today to the DSP of Montreal.
These citizens state in their letter: "In order to ensure my health, I must know the facts. Facts will also raise awareness of the entire population and elected officials. To achieve this goal, scientific data is needed. Citizens demand that the impact of aircraft noise and air pollution on health be documented by the DSP: which part of the population is affected, by which intensity, and with which consequences for health.
About us:
LPDMT is a citizens group incorporated as a non-profit organization in the Summer of 2013. Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau calls for transparency in airport management in Canada, exemplary and modern management of environmental impacts resulting from airport activities and a substantial improvement of the soundscape, which includes a strict curfew between 11 pm and 7 am, among other things. More information at www.lpdmt.org

If your neighborhood has been experiencing more ( or less) SFO arrival noise for the last month, it might be because on February 1st an FAA "vendor" accidentally shifted flights from the new "nextgen" SERFR route back to the legacy Big Sur route. The FAA says routes cannot be changed without months or even years of studies, yet the route was changed without notice, without extensive FAA study, and without incident.

"Did a ‘Vendor Error’ Reveal FAA Arbitrariness on NextGen?
AIReform ~ February 22, 2018 Web Link

Here's my log for one hour this morning using stop.jetnoise.net:

20 planes, 15 seconds to 2 minutes apart. There is no break from the noise. Even with the TV blasting, can still hear them whirling above. To those to "can't hear it", this is quite real to me. Perhaps you who don't care are not right under the flight path. I live off of Louis Rd./Embarcadero Rd.


Feb 27, 09:20:17 MU 767 (TAO:SFO A332 172k, 4046ft)
Feb 27, 09:18:01 (could not pick a flight)
Feb 27, 09:16:59 UA5997 (PSP:SFO CRJ7 211k, 3925ft)
Feb 27, 09:14:25 CX 870 (HKG:SFO B77W 187k, 3903ft)
Feb 27, 09:13:21 (could not pick a flight)
Feb 27, 09:12:52 AS1935 (LAX:SFO A320 249k, 3925ft)
Feb 27, 09:10:02 AA6016 (LAX:SFO E75L 200k, 4991ft)
Feb 27, 09:08:11 UA1863 (LAX:SFO B739 199k, 4821ft)
Feb 27, 09:03:40 WN6311 (SAN:SFO B737 241k, 4125ft)
Feb 27, 09:01:21 DL4902 (LAX:SFO E75L 204k, 4475ft)
Feb 27, 08:56:27 (could not pick a flight)
Feb 27, 08:54:59 UA5186 (ONT:SFO CRJ2 248k, 4103ft)
Feb 27, 08:54:45 NH8 (NRT:SFO B77W 252k, 7988ft)
Feb 27, 08:54:44 UA5186 (ONT:SFO CRJ2 246k, 4997ft)
Feb 27, 08:50:14 WN1468 (SNA:SFO B737 242k, 3924ft)
Feb 27, 08:42:48 UA 294 (SEA:SFO A319 237k, 5616ft)
Feb 27, 08:38:47 UA 209 (SNA:SFO A319 242k, 4438ft)
Feb 27, 08:30:37 (could not pick a flight)
Flight used speedbrakes
Feb 27, 08:21:02 UA 259 (BUR:SFO A319 265k, 5014ft)
Feb 27, 08:19:07 AS1595 (PSP:SFO A319 211k, 4392ft)

Let me add that I was not actively listening for planes, so there were actually more planes than I have recorded. These were just the planes that I could hear over my TV.

@Mom,

I feel your pain. Monday night through Tuesday morning was one of the worst periods since "nextgen" was implemented. Probably a perfect storm of aircraft flying low and slow due to weather, plus an strong inversion layer reflecting sound back to earth.

By the way... Palo Alto's frequent inversion layer was not accounted for in the FAA's computer noise model used to justify the FAA's finding of no significant impact (FONSI) that allowed "nextgen" to implemented without an environmental impact report (EIR).

Posted by Mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis

>> Here's my log for one hour this morning using stop.jetnoise.net:

>> 20 planes, 15 seconds to 2 minutes apart. There is no break from the noise. Even with the TV blasting, can still hear them whirling above.

Mom, thank you for posting some data. Next time when it is this loud this long, could you check the Sound Pressure Level (I assume you have a cell phone?)? I am curious at what general SPL you find it objectionable. And weather conditions?

@Mom, your post is a perfect example of how the noise level differs dramatically by neighborhood and by flights. I did not hear any of the planes you've referenced however I don't discount your issue, I'm sure it was unbearable. When I first became aware of the increased noise, several years ago and up until recently, I assumed most residents in the general MV/PA area were being affected.

I am learning that's not so. There is an amazing difference even in just a few blocks! I know. I live directly under the SJC south flow path and when they're coming in that way it's absolutely unbearable. And yet I've been at friends just blocks away and the noise is dramatically less.

So we all need to keep fighting this issue. Are you aware of the Peace and Quiet and the Quiet Skies NorCal initiatives? Have to say I'm very confused about who is who and who does what but at least they're both trying to do something!

Anon,

"..Next time when it is this loud this long, could you check the Sound Pressure Level (I assume you have a cell phone?)? I am curious at what general SPL you find it objectionable..."

For most people, the answer to what is objectionable is in the part about

"20 planes, 15 seconds to 2 minutes apart."

Noise is not just loudness, but the cumulative effect of loudness and frequency of interruptions.

Posted by MVresident2003, a resident of Mountain View

>> I am learning that's not so. There is an amazing difference even in just a few blocks! I know. I live directly under the SJC south flow path and when they're coming in that way it's absolutely unbearable. And yet I've been at friends just blocks away and the noise is dramatically less.

I understand why people don't necessarily want to post their specific addresses, but, it would be helpful to understand the issue if people could be specific enough that someone might try to understand better. e.g. 2500 block Channing Ave, Palo Alto, or, 1000 block Myrtle, East Palo Alto, etc.


>> Posted by Health Risks - no joke, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> For most people, the answer to what is objectionable is in the part about

>> "20 planes, 15 seconds to 2 minutes apart."

>> Noise is not just loudness, but the cumulative effect of loudness and frequency of interruptions.

I agree. I've measured small general aviation planes and super-jumbo A-380's that in a particular location, had the same dbA-weighted SPL, yet, to me, the small plane is a lot more annoying. At the same time, at a location near "The Market" at Edgewood, I've measured peak SPL of jets overhead and traffic going by, and, the traffic is louder AND more annoying AND much more frequent. In order to have a rational discussion, there needs to be some way to measure quantitatively the annoying/disturbing aspect. Otherwise, it just comes down to someone, like me, hating traffic noise most, small planes next, and big jets least, while someone else places those things in the reverse order.

Nobody remembers fingernails on the chalkboard. Aggravating at any volume.

Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde

>> Nobody remembers fingernails on the chalkboard. Aggravating at any volume.

The brakes on at least one of the GreenWaste garbage trucks is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard, at 90 dB. Shudder!

Anon,

"In order to have a rational discussion, there needs to be some way to measure quantitatively the annoying/disturbing aspect."

There are "some" ways to measure and to quantify noise.

See "The Basics of Noise Metrics" Web Link

The World Health Organization has guidelines Web Link

"Noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term health problems, such as for example sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, poorer work and school performance, hearing impairment, etc.

Noise has emerged as a leading environmental nuisance in the WHO European Region, and the public complains about excessive noise more and more often."

@Anon, feel free to come on over to the intersection of Dell/Victory in Monta Loma. The problem is coming when we’re under the South approach, hard to tell when that’s going to happen.

I don’t know if this will copy, going to try to link to a map that shows the path
Of these flights and why I and “mom” are so directly affected

Web Link

I’m not sure how quantitative data will be used in this essentially political issue. The FAA does not seem to care at all about the impact of their decisions on people living under their flight paths. Their priorities are elsewhere,

As for people looking for data to back up their belief that there is a cult of posters claiming to be impacted by airplanes when there is no such impact, they will find such data one way or another.

But on the handful of nights when the weather is very bad in certain parts of the country or world, I can actually sleep through the night because there are few to no planes.

It emphasizes how much my quality of life has declined. I’d forgotten what it feels like to get a good night’s sleep.

Moving will be very tough (we have specific needs for which we have found partial help over the decades), but I don’t see an option.

Well, I am having my 15 minutes of fame right now. For the past 30 minutes there have been planes coming over every 2-3 minutes. As soon as one flies over my house I see the lights from the next one in line coming. I tried reporting on stopjetnoise however interestingly each time I get “could not pick a flight”

I downloaded the free decibel app and the max I’ve gotten is 76.8. Not sure how accurate that is.

Will Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kniss dip into a lifetime of accumulated political capital to save Palo Alto and neighboring communities from SFO bound aircraft noise pollution?

1. As a long-serving loyal Democratic Party functionary Kniss has a deep reservoir of connection to Peninsula Democrats who benefit from aviation commerce, especially powerful women in the Party like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Jackie Speier. San Francisco and San Mateo County Democrats are the industry the FAA was chartered to serve.

2. Liz Kniss acquired a deep understanding of aviation politic while serving as a Santa Clara County Supervisor. As a County Supervisor Kniss played a key role brokering a deal ending the deadlocked airport noise dispute between Santa Clara County and the FAA that ended PAO's eligibility for FAA development funds. The FAA actually likes to give money to airports because the money comes with strings and the strings give the FAA control.

3. After her term as a County Supervisor Liz returned to a seat on the Palo Alto City Council where she played a key role in the City's effort to return Palo Alto Airport to good standing with the FAA, making the City eligible to continue receiving FAA Airport Improvement Grants which were subsequently used to develop Palo Alto Airport into a "reliever airport" or an airport that relieves major international airports like SFO of unprofitable general aviation traffic.

Mom, Mvresident2003:

You (and others?) seem to interpret my remarks as being "pro noise" or "don't care". Actually, I am quite interested in this issue. But, I'm also a bit frustrated. Here is why:

I personally know how to measure SPL, and, I know both of your locations. I will say that, pointing to the WHO document, the "new" guidelines are quite a bit lower than older guidelines, and, will be very difficult to meet because of surface motor vehicle traffic noise. There is a lot of traffic noise around here.

But, if I may play devil's advocate (FAA advocate?) for one short paragraph here, why should airplanes be held to a stricter standard than motor vehicles? Because, in most measured locations, motor vehicles are at least as loud, and often louder, than airplanes?

I ask people to make their own measurements and record the types of aircraft and altitudes that are most disturbing. Perhaps some kind of useful pattern will emerge. I note that, in "Mom's" list, there are a number of E75 and CRJ jets listed. Those are small regional jets and are handled different in FAA regulations than larger jets. In my experience, small regional jets are significantly louder and more annoying. If these are mainly your issue, it might be important to draw that distinction when communicating with the authorities about the problem.

In my case, I find the most annoying vehicles noises are motor vehicles, rated from most to least annoying: garbage trucks, other diesel trucks, motorcycles, sporty cars with modified exhausts, average sedans. For aircraft, I find helicopters and regional jets (E75, CRJ) about like diesel trucks, small general aviation planes are about like motorcycles, smaller (e.g. B737) transports like sporty cars, and large transports (B767, 777, 787) about like average sedans. Did I mention leaf blowers? Leaf blower restrictions are violated constantly, and, these are about like garbage trucks. In general, traffic noise is more of an annoyance to me than SFO traffic, despite my exposure to plenty of SFO traffic.

At the moment, I am sitting indoors. Planes fly overhead every few minutes, and, I can hear them if I listen for them, but, traffic noise is much more dominant.

My confusion can be summed up thus: I find it difficult to understand how, near Louis and Embarcadero, a location that I am quite familiar with, SFO-bound aircraft are a larger problem than traffic noise. My ears, and my SPL meter, tell me that motor vehicle traffic noise is much more dominant in that location.

Last night, Wed. Feb 28 was horrible. I live near Louis and Colorado, there was lots of SJC traffic, really low flying planes under 3,000 feet along with the other flights from --Bodega and Srfer. What has happened here in Palo Alto is criminal and a health risk to my family and neighbors. Thank goodness Tom DuBois stood up to Molly Stump to find out what legal actions our City can pursue. I agree with Jetman, the Democratic party, along with Liz Kniss is not going to ruffle any feathers and push for any redistribution of noise. It is only be pursuing a legal case will our rights to a clean and livable environment be restored.
For the deniers of noise as a problem, come hang out at Seal Park or Greer Park if you aren't able to hear any jet noise!

The loud part of airplane noise from a passing airplane lasts about 10 - 20 times as long as the loud part of road vehicle noise from a passing road vehicle. Loud airplane noise also lasts significantly longer than loud train noise.

Often, the loud portion of road vehicle disturbance is sub second.

Anon,

It seems like what you are saying is that noise is annoying. Agreed. Noise is unwanted sound.

That you personally find noise from car vehicles "most annoying" is kind of irrelevant. Some other person can cross you out by saying they find trains or planes "most annoying."

Transportation noise as a whole however has health consequences, see the coverage of the recent review in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Web Link

As far as standards - which standards are you referring to? The rules for building a 101 or 280 highway over your house are surely more stringent than building an aerial highway.

What would you say about noise standards for parks and open space? What standard would you apply to car, train, or airplane traffic over parks? WHO guidelines wouldn't be "too" quiet for parks.

Posted by Health Risks - no joke, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> That you personally find noise from car vehicles "most annoying" is kind of irrelevant. Some other person can cross you out by saying they find trains or planes "most annoying."

Obviously, I'm not getting my point across. I don't like noise any more than anyone else. What I'm saying is that by only talking about airplanes, and, by only "complaining", people are actually weakening their case. People need to record and present quantitative data, with SPL, time, location, and source (diesel truck, B737, E75L), altitude for the planes.

People sometimes post here as if the only source of noise around here is airplanes. Even at Embarcadero and Louis (!)

I'm -guessing- (note: conjecture) that the biggest source of noise stress is at night. Possibly in warmer weather, when people have windows open. Also, it may be that during storms when SJC approach is from the north.

>> Transportation noise as a whole however has health consequences, see the coverage of the recent review in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Web Link

I agree. I miss the days when Palo Alto was quieter. I recall a friend visiting here who had been living in New York and San Francisco "complaining" that it was too quiet here. The data show that people are not as healthy in noisy environments, although figuring out details regarding what the stress-causing noise patterns and sources are seems to have eluded the researchers so far.

>> As far as standards - which standards are you referring to?

Link here: Web Link

Anon,

The articles is "flustered over airplane noise" that is why people are posting about it here.

That seems to fluster folks who want to get attention away from airplane noise or need to play FAA advocate.

The details of "stress-causing patterns and sources" are most likely related to how much exposure. The more frequent and intense the pattern, the more hazardous.

As far as complaints, FAA, airports, and Congress operate on complaint systems as regards airplane noise.

See Airplane Noise in the 18th Congressional District

Web Link
Message from Rep Anna Eshoo
"As we work to resolve this issue, I first and foremost encourage you to report any excessive aircraft noise complaints to the SFO, SJC and OAK Noise Abatement Offices to ensure that your report is officially documented. The SFO Noise Abatement Office can be reached at (650) 821-4736, or via email at [email protected] You can file an online complaint to the SJC Noise Abatement Office here. You can file a complaint to the OAK Noise Abatement Office here, or by calling (510) 563-6463. Your call will become part of the official record and official documentation."

@Anon, your conjecture is incorrect, the stress of noise is every single time the flights from the “new” flight paths come directly over our homes. At this point it doesnt matter whether it’s day or night, summer or winter, rainy or dry. When the flights are directed by this new Nextgen initiative directly over our homes it is unbearable.

This is all well documented. The FaA and everyone who’s heard anything about noise complaints from the Nectgen initiative knows very well what this is all about. They are just choosing to deflect, ignore and do nothing about it. Our politicians are playing possum, thinking if they hide their heads (or give double speak and act as if they’re doing something when really they’ve done NOTHING). Unfortunately it is leading to a lawsuit and now even more time, effort and $ expended in what should be a very simple correction.

Put the planes back on the original path prior to Nextgen. That’s all it will take and yet not one official will answer directly as to why this isn’t happening.

I just reported this:

Mar 2, 13:07:14 DL5828 (LAX:SJC E75L 216k, 2422ft)

Why is a flight from Los Angeles to San Jose passing the SJC Airport and flying here? A U-turn?

@Anon: I don't understand why you don't grasp the noise issue, unless you are just bored. The difference between garbage trucks, diesel trucks, and motorcycles is the frequency. Diesel and motorcycles are rare and garbage trucks are 10 minutes (at most), once per week. The airplane noise is every 2 minutes from morning to 12 Midnight daily and it's not background noise like traffic on 101, which is more like white noise.

The difference is also that residents chose to move next to the train tracks or off the highway. We did not choose to have planes disrupting our days when we bought our houses. And yes, my double-paned windows are closed so when they are opened, it's even worse. Moreover, I am at risk for lung disease due to genetics.

Posted by Mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis

>> Mar 2, 13:07:14 DL5828 (LAX:SJC E75L 216k, 2422ft)

As I start typing, 14:25:50, I can see an Embraer ERJ-175LR flying into SJC. It is about to fly over ~your house at ~2958 feet. All this from flightradar24. OK, flew over your house, did a U-turn over the Dumbarton Bridge, and is now on approach to SJC. Landed. Flightradar24 can show you the flight path and elevation, and help you understand how the landing patterns work.

>> Why is a flight from Los Angeles to San Jose passing the SJC Airport and flying here? A U-turn?

Exactly. Landings usually take place into the wind when feasible, and, SJC is landing north-south right now because the wind is from the south, which it is when a cyclonic storm is approaching. (It is raining-- in this type of storm, the wind is usually from the south-southwest general direction. There is a weather-physics reason for this.). So, planes have to approach from the north, but, since SFO is to the north, they typically will approach from the side and turn south over the bay. It isn't that far to SJC, so they are kind of low at that point.

>> @Anon: I don't understand why you don't grasp the noise issue, unless you are just bored.

What is it that you think I don't grasp? I think it is important to understand the basics of airline operations to understand why the planes are flying where they are at the altitude they fly at.

>> The difference between garbage trucks, diesel trucks, and motorcycles is the frequency. Diesel and motorcycles are rare and garbage trucks are 10 minutes (at most), once per week. The airplane noise is every 2 minutes from morning to 12 Midnight daily and it's not background noise like traffic on 101, which is more like white noise.

I find the constant roar from 101 much more annoying myself. I don't find the sound of diesel trucks benign like you do apparently. But, that's me. I'm not sure whether planes flying overhead, or, 101 traffic, have the same effect on blood pressure.

>> Moreover, I am at risk for lung disease due to genetics.

During unstable weather, the atmosphere's mixing layer is so high, and the air so unstable, that the amount of air pollution reaching you from overhead planes is quite negligible, because pollution disperses so widely. "Spare the air" type days, when the air is stable and still, are when you should worry. I myself have been dismayed to see how many trucks are traveling on Middlefield these days. If you sit on the outside deck by the street at the new Mitchell Park Library, you will see that soot from passing diesel trucks accumulates pretty quickly.

I, also, would like to see the FAA modify the current flight patterns. But, I want people to submit actionable data, though, including SPL measurements, rather than just "complain". If, -for example-, people can show that SPL readings above 70 dB are common, then there -could- be a real basis for a health-based action, based on the current medical literature.

@ Anon

It seems you live close to a freeway. Given how long the freeway (101 presumably) has been here, chances are you moved to an area close to the existing freeway at the time.
Some of us moved to Palo Alto after doing a lot of research on quiet areas. In our case, we ruled out houses close to the freeway or major arterial road and also houses close to the train tracks. We wanted to avoid noise. We settled for a smaller house on a small street to get this. This was in the 90s. Not that long ago. There were some airplanes but few. Some very predictable P3s out of Moffett Field and some GA traffic out of PAO, but it was well disciplines and respected noise abatement procedures at the time.

Then lo and behold, several airplanes freeways were built right above our heads. First airplanes were moved from San Mateo County to Palo Alto. Then SERFR was created, with the collateral vectored traffic. We now have three major routes above us. SERFR/and vectored, BDEGA, oceanic, into SFO. This is madness. Cherry on the cake, when the weather is stormy, we get SJC (reverse flow) bound jets at 2,000 above us, all those flights merrily crisscrossing above us.

I would like to point out that no car freeway and no railroad track could be proposed in our neighborhoods without major studies and discussion. Yet, this is what happened with the airplanes freeways above us. Next to no studies, next to no consultations. Ridiculous, and really maddening on top of the intolerable noise.

I would also like to point out that the FAA goes to great length to tell us that they cannot modify routes around here in part because SFO bound planes cannot encroach on SJC airspace. Yet, it has no problem sending SJC reverse traffic over us in SFO airspace when it suits them. Today I had a SFO bound plane above me at 4:17 PM at the same time as a SJC bound plane. They had only about 1500 feet vertical separation and not much horizontal separation. Is this safe? There is a lot of double talk coming from the FAA on these issues in my opinion. They can't do anything supposedly, until it suits them to do the very thing that was impossible.

In my opinion, we are just being played.

Oh, and one more thing, about garbage trucks. They are in your neighborhood once a week for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes a most. How does this even start to compare to the HUNDREDS of DAILY commercial jets smack above our heads? Same thing for trucks. Very few of them in my neighborhood. However, we are subjected to large numbers of jet planes every day.

@Anon, are you being purposefully obtuse? You say:

"What is it that you think I don't grasp? I think it is important to understand the basics of airline operations to understand why the planes are flying where they are at the altitude they fly at."

It's very clear that this has nothing to do with basics of operations causing planes to fly where they are. If that were the case then why were they able to fly the previous paths that DIDN'T CAUSE THIS HUGE NOISE ISSUE? It's political and even more it's all about $. And shame on our local politicians for not doing anything to help us. SHAME ON THEM.

Tonight I looked up in the sky and it was a veritable highway of planes criss-crossing in different directions at varying altitudes, most of them very low. And the last three nights they've been going as late as 11:25...I thought there was an 11pm curfew???

I'm over in Marin county and for about the past 2 weeks there has been jets flying low over head three or four times a day. I have no idea why and I once went outside to look at them to see how low they were and they were certainly lower than they should have been, under 2000 feet. The odd part though is that there was 2 of them (they looked like lear jets) flying very close together (within 500 feet of each other) and moving very fast for that altitude. They should have been following the FAA regulation of a 3 mile lateral minimum distance from each other, which makes me think they're military, but its also just annoying and loud. We usually get seaplanes once or twice a month but those are much quieter and only fly during the day. These jets fly all hours. I'm glad there's people actively trying to petition against this and find out more about it. I guess all I'm trying to say is keep it up cause I don't want this to become the new norm.

@Homosapiensapien,

Older Learjets with low bypass engines emit a very loud high pitched whistle. Many of these older jets are being used by overnight auto parts services flying in and out of SFO.

The dramatic increase in jet noise due to "nextgen" flight profiles was noticed by the National Park Service in the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness area (see link below).

"Superhighways in the Sky"
East Bay Express ~ June 24, 2015 Web Link

Posted by MVresident2003, a resident of Mountain View

>> @Anon, are you being purposefully obtuse? You say:

Not purposefully.

>>It's very clear that this has nothing to do with basics of operations causing planes to fly where they are. If that were the case then why were they able to fly the previous paths that DIDN'T CAUSE THIS HUGE NOISE ISSUE?

I can assure you that since forever, at SJC, when the the wind has been strongly from the south to southwest, the landing pattern has been north-to-south, rather than the standard south-to-north for SJC. The last few days, the weather was the cause of the different pattern. There is a good reason for it. Since forever, aircraft normally land into a strong wind.

>> And the last three nights they've been going as late as 11:25...I thought there was an 11pm curfew???

There were some delayed flights lately (delayed at departure from various airports due to weather). Someone I know was on one.

However, I believe, according to this:

Web Link

the official curfew -policy- does not apply to Stage 3/4 aircraft, only Stage 2, and, there should be zero Stage 2 airplanes at SJC any more. (Stage 2 helicopters are still possible.) However, night traffic is minimal at SJC anyway, even though the aircraft will be Stage 3/4. There may be other policies or reasons regarding that.

I checked FlightRadar24 and there are three flights scheduled to arrive tonight after 11:00 PM, one at 11:14, and two between 1:00 and 2:00 AM, and, zero departures between 11:00 PM and 5:30 AM.

According to this page, the FAA is focused on locations where aircraft noise is above 65 dB.

Web Link

According to this document, there might be some health justification for an interim goal of 55 dB rather than the FAA's 65 dB:

Web Link

"I checked FlightRadar24 and there are three flights scheduled to arrive tonight after 11:00 PM, one at 11:14, and two between 1:00 and 2:00 AM, and, zero departures between 11:00 PM and 5:30 AM."

I just reported this for early Monday morning:

Mar 5, 01:22:56 UA 506 (EWR:SFO B752 227k, 3479ft)
Mar 5, 01:10:37 KE8213 (LAX:SFO B748 183k, 3625ft)

It's so peaceful that I don't want to go to sleep. The constant noise every two minutes during the day is stressful and draining.


Last Thursday night, I recorded all these flights after 11:00 PM, and again, I am not actively listening for them, just hearing them while I am watching TV:

Thu, Mar 01, 11:58 PM Flight: B6 833 [BOS-SFO]
Thu, Mar 01, 11:54 PM Flight: AS1193 [EWR-SFO]
Thu, Mar 01, 11:44 PM Flight: AS1042 [KOA-SFO]
Volume was "very loud".
Thu, Mar 01, 11:42 PM Flight: AA 85 [JFK-SFO]
Volume was "very loud".
Thu, Mar 01, 11:34 PM Flight: AC 781 [YUL-SFO]
Volume was "very loud".
Thu, Mar 01, 11:23 PM
Thu, Mar 01, 11:21 PM Flight: AC 568 [YVR-SFO]
Volume was "very loud".
Thu, Mar 01, 11:13 PM Flight: UA 455 [AUS-SFO]
Thu, Mar 01, 11:08 PM Flight: WN 859 [AUS-SJC]

@Anon, of course there have been flights on a North/South approach during inclement weather for years but you conveniently omit the altitude levels at which they flew in the past vs what they fly since Nextgen. Purposefully obtuse I'd say.

I uploaded a decible app and have been measuring 70-75db....to whom do I report this information if it is indeed a fact that FAA is concentrating on levels above 65?

Pressure has been put on banks for lending to “climate destroyers”, i.e. the fossil-fuel industry, city government swearing off, or rather boycotting, Wells Fargo for instance for not breaking its "pipeline habit." These types of acts known as the fossil-fuel divestment movement. Big Oil is taking the hit for impact on climate change in major media outlets and politicians are flying all over, addicted to the most inefficient, polluting, fossil-fuel burning means of transportation, to talk about the devastating impacts of climate change to our planet and the peril it represents citing hurricanes, floods, mudslides, etc. While at the same time overwhelmingly claiming impotence to act against the aviation industry that's running amok with its unfettered expansion projections destroying human health and the environment as it lays the groundwork to meet those goals building future capacity goals from the bottom (hence low altitudes) upward. And yet city and state officials are saying that as with the lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the 1990s and the current lawsuits against the makers of OxyContin, cities and states will again force a change in Congress still too beholden to Big Oil by waging lawsuits against this destructive industry, divestment, and boycotts of those who don't divest - so basically the argument for forcing change sooner rather than later is to hit the money...

I'd like these politicians spouting off about climate change and its destructive effects on the environment and human life to make public their air miles clocked and explain how unfettered aviation expansion taking place nationally, and globally, supported by these same politicians, squares with a genuine concern about the planet and human life. With such shameless hypocrisy on public display for years, I can't help but think that the push for "renewable energy" (particularly wind power) has more to do with the fact that Big Oil isn't making investors the profits year on year that it used to, that it's been underperforming and investors are salivating for the profits they'll reap from a nationwide energy infrastructure remake. And it's interesting that the word conservation has been replaced by renewable, the former's connotation being resources are finite and the latter's that they're infinite. But if we're not constantly consuming products, including the energy, then investors won't obtain their year on year profit gains.

We need the notion of conservation, limits to make a comeback or this hypocrisy and reckless treatment of the environment and human health will continue to get worse.

Again, don't fly or ship by air unless absolutely necessary. At minimum reduce inessential usage. Divest from aviation so long as it continues this destructive course. Put the planet and human health first. And don't vote for anyone who isn't taking substantive action about this.

And media outlets, please continue coverage but stop using words like "annoyed" and "flustered" etc. in your article titles to describe citizens thereby minimizing their just concerns about aviation noise and air pollution which constitutes a mortal danger.

Again, it's not like the white noise of Highway 101. Even though the plane noise is clocked at every 2 minutes, one can hear the plane coming, flying over, then flying away, or circling. So it's faint, loud, louder, fainter . . . it's howling and screeching all day long, no break but maybe 30 seconds of silence between planes on average. It's worse than 4 years ago.

" . . . stop using words like "annoyed" and "flustered" etc. in your article titles to describe citizens thereby minimizing their just concerns about aviation noise" Agreed, this is very, very stressful.

@Mom, couldn't have said it better!

Has anyone else noticed an increase in jet engine noise over the past several days?
It seems like a jet passes over every few minutes - and it is relentless!
Perhaps it has something to do with our weather pattern.
We don't know, but our family has felt rattled by it.
We hear it laying in our beds all throughout the night.

Resident, Old Palo Alto

"Has anyone else noticed an increase in jet engine noise over the past several days?"

Yes, very LOUD at night and early morning, all day, horrible

To those of you who have noticed the airplane noise in the last couple of days, please know that the most egregious of it is from flights headed to San Jose International (SJC), not SFO. When the weather is stormy, SJC bound planes change from their normal landing pattern to a "reverse flow" pattern that flies over Palo Alto, albeit at much lower altitudes than SFO bound planes ever are above us. In the best cases, SJC bound planes over us are at 3,000 feet, but they often are at about 2,000 feet because they have to dodge under SFO bound planes when the latter are still on their normal route.

Anon said, above, that we have always had SJC reverse flow. Maybe so, but what he fails to note is that we used to have SJC traffic in reverse only when SFO traffic was itself in reverse, and thus not above Palo Alto. Nowadays, we have SJC in reverse when SFO is NOT itself in reverse. This means that the flights to both airports cross above our heads and SJC bound flights stay under SFO bound ones. This is a fairly recent phenomenon and it has added insult to injury.

Please, do not mistake SJC bound planes for SFO ones. When you hear egregious SJC bound flights, such as last night between 10 and 11 PM, please report them directly to SJC if needed. Here is their complaint reporting site.

Web Link

In this ever more crowded area, noise and congestion are on the rise and courtesy and community values are on the decline. I saw this happen in my rural childhood home town as did my parents before them. I saw farmers (like us) harassed as the tract homes spread across the valley - driving us out of business. The tract home folks wanted a country life without the animal smells and crop management (spray and dust during harvest). We had a pond which filled with frogs in the spring. The tract home people complained endlessly about the "deafening" noise at night. They couldn't sleep with their windows open. One year, the frogs abruptly stopped arriving and we believe a tract home person poisoned the pond. We could never prove it. We also had pigs, which they complained about. We started having a lot of sickness and mortality abruptly and once again, we could not help but think it was the neighbors putting something in their feed. My parents talked about the negative changes they saw happen to their hometowns as the populations exploded.

I wish there was some hopeful example to offer the plane noise folks, but there is none. I will only get worse and cannot be stopped. This is a very very old problem that happens over and over again. Learn from history. There is no way to stop the growth and changes causing your loss of privacy and control over your environment.

If you find the problem intolerable now, then your best option is to move somewhere else that has more of the environment you desire. Know however, that this new place you've moved to will change due to population growth as well. It is inevitable and efforts to limit it are futile.

Futility,

Since your days when growing up in a rural area, you've probably also seen improvement in health care, increasing survival rates for diseases. Improvements to rise above futility.

In Europe and other parts of the world, there are protections from excessive noise. A notorious noisy Korean Airlines flight wakes up the Peninsula on many nights, as it speeds to SFO to make it to Seoul on time for the CURFEW.

It used to be you could tell folks near the airport to move, but now you would have to tell millions of people to do that.

Hong Kong Airport was moved.

About the HK airport move in 1998

Kai Tak Airport (IATA: HKG, ICAO: VHHX) was the international airport of Hong Kong from 1925 until 1998. It was officially known as Hong Kong International Airport from 1954 to 6 July 1998, when it was closed and replaced by the new Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok, 30 kilometres (19 mi) to the west.[1

Web Link

I recall flying in to the old airport, you could watch the TV program in the buildings the plane flew over.

@Health risks.
Unfortunately, you miss the point of my post.
Moving the airport (as you suggest above), just like rerouting the planes simply moves the problem to somebody else's neighborhood.
I assume you might propose to relocate your offending airport to, say, a more rural area...invariably next to some farms. That would change your noise levels I suppose, but if you were one of the farmers who lived by this relocated airport, I have to believe (based upon your posts) that you would not be pleased. I would wonder why any like-minded people of the bay area would think they have the right to push their congestion and overcrowding problems (be it their airports, planes, trains, or bedroom communities) onto relatively helpless rural populations.
Our health care was fine BTW. Dad lived to 98, Mom was 93. I'm told grandpa was over 100 but I could never confirm that.
WRT you relocating... I simply suggest that you could find an area where you could have more control over you personal environment by finding another location for yourself. You have very little control in the Bay Area over these things that anger you so. Why stress yourself so much ? They'll never close the airports - only expand them. All the proposals and work by the FAA is aimed at increasing capacity - not reducing it.

@Futility: Very nice postings, kindly written, thank you. I grew up in Palo Alto in the 70s and it's difficult to see the change. Embarcadero Road had very few cars and there were no traffic signals between Paly and T&C (besides at El Camino). Middlefield had even less cars. When we would walk to the only food business, The Cheese House, we would stand on a triangular island (still visible on the street where it was) and wait for a few cars to pass, then proceed.

Futility,

"I simply suggest that you could find an area where you could have more control over you personal environment by finding another location for yourself. You have very little control in the Bay Area over these things that anger you so."

The reaction I feel towards airplane noise isn't anger. It's more physical, I get jolted, and sometimes it's closer to feeling injury or fear which I guess could make you angry but it's first a physical jolt, then a sense of effort to overcome the jolt. It's been described "like a stab in your brain" LA Times Web Link

I may find another location for myself, but that doesn't change the fact that what's going on is massive amount of noise pollution (with real heath effects, as you note, stress) and it's happening because of a botched system change that I still hope can be made less noisy.

See the Washington Post report "Inspector general’s report says the FAA has bungled a $36 billion project" Web Link

"Inspector general’s report says the FAA has bungled a $36 billion project
By Ashley Halsey III March 8 Email the author
The Federal Aviation Administration has mishandled a $36 billion project to modernize the antiquated aviation management system, according to a harshly critical inspector general’s report released Thursday.

It was the fourth inspector general’s critique in as many years of a program known as NextGen, on which more than $7 billion in federal funds has already been spent.

This latest report says the FAA lacks “a clearly established framework for managing the overall oversight of NextGen.”

Around 8:00am this morning it felt and sounded as if I lived at the airport!

@ Futility

Some day, some expert at the FAA/SFO/(SJC) will have to explain to us the logic by which it was OK to move airplane noise to Palo Alto and vicinity starting in the 1990s, with no consultation and next to no studies, while undoing any the harm done would not be OK under the premise that we cannot move noise to other people. I personally do not see the logic there.

Note that official numbers do show airplanes being moved to our area, with the number of planes overflying us increasing when overall traffic was flat for example through the late 2000s, and a large part of the 2010s.

First, if this is not a problem for some people, why don't you just be quiet. I am sure there are places in Palo Alto where airplane noise is not a problem, but it is totally thoughtless and selfish to assume or dismiss things that other people say are problems for them. This is a complete lack of empathy and responsibility ... to the point of sociopathy ... the main way in which Palo Alto has changed in the last 30 years. Airplane noise is a recognized quality of life issue for people in many place for many decades.

In Crescent Park there is rarely a time of day or night when I get the complete quiet I used to experience in Palo Alto. From once or more times a day to several times a week I have planes flying over my house that are so loud and at such a frequency that they rattle my whole house. More often they will wake me up in the middle of the night from a deep sleep.

Read some books about sleep and the stress noise can induce on living organisms. I have seem studies where they give stress to a lab animal, and when the include noise or force lack of sleep that stress can be fatal.

When are we going to learn there is no need for progress to reduce our health or lifespan ... if it is true progress it should do the opposite. There is always a way.

During this rainy weather, I've noticed more SJC flights overhead. Have they shifted the northern approach path farther north due to south Palo Alto complaints? In the past I really had not noticed them flying over East Palo Alto. Of course, that could just be normal variation in what I'm home to hear, but given the lack of transparency of the FAA in changing flight paths, I can't help but be concerned.

Also, stop.jetnoise.com just listed a jet that I heard as being at 2,000 feet (DH8D aircraft) heading to Sacramento from Boise. That definitely seems out of the ordinary. If you know the details of what route or storm system avoidance it was on, please let me know. I'm curious.

Posted by bemused, a resident of East Palo Alto

>> Also, stop.jetnoise.com just listed a jet that I heard as being at 2,000 feet (DH8D aircraft) heading to Sacramento from Boise. That definitely seems out of the ordinary. If you know the details of what route or storm system avoidance it was on, please let me know. I'm curious.

At first glance, FlightRadar24 says that flight, Alaska AS2141, was diverted from Sacramento to San Jose, possibly due to weather.

Thanks, Anon, that makes sense and I didn't even consider it. Whoops, where's my brain these days?

Oil companies are being sued by a few cities for damage they cause even though they are regulated and acted within federal regulations.

Can airlines also be sued for damage they cause, even though they act within federal regulations?

I think pressure from both sufferers and airlines on the FAA will be more effective than the relatively weak leverage from sufferers alone.

I would like to raise awareness about the association between increased air pollution "Spare the Air Days", and air traffic every few minutes.

People are driving less, and driving vehicles which pollute less.
However, our air pollution levels have increased due to increased air traffic and marine traffic at the port of Oakland. Low grade marine bunker fuels, and diesel to power trucks, and crane equipment are contributing to our area's poor air quality.

If you enjoyed the air tracker, perhaps you may enjoy the marine tracker at the port of Oakland.

Web Link

@Jetman

That explains a lot. They are still annoying though. Just as an update they're still flying with the same regularity. Also that's interesting, I didn't realize this had been going on since 2015. Some people are talking about pollution caused by jets but really modern jet airplanes are extremely fuel efficient.

Homosapiensapien,

One of the goals of the new "nextgen" approach profiles is to eventually have aircraft approach airports with their engines at or near idle speed.

"Idling jet engines produce more harmful pollution than previously thought"
Phys.org ~ May 12, 2011 Web Link

"Donster, come on over to my neighborhood where you can look straight up and see the belly of the plane. I'd be glad to stand with you and explain the detailed logistics of the new flights paths however it would be difficult to have the conversation over the noise.

Seriously. Until you come stand at the Dell/Victory intersection in Monta Loma during a busy flight time you have no right to post another word"

I can look straight up after stepping out the front door and see the bellies of the planes. They are not that loud at all.

Seriously, until you post sound measurements to back up your assertions, you have no right to post another word.

Decibel X
Web Link

iPhone
Web Link

Android phone
Web Link
Web Link

Now you have no excuses.

"A well funded aviation lobby that is all powerful stands with the majority."

A conspiracy? So you can't quantify the numbers of people affected. At least you admit that the majority don't have a problem with airplanes.

"I posted that I get readings of 60-80 dB when SFO jets fly over my house. Why does that not count as hard evidence?"

OMG, finally! At least you provide some evidence to back up your claims. Kudos and thanks for that! OK, so now we know it is pretty loud over your specific location. Now if the others who complain could be bothered to get off their backsides and do the same, we would have a clearer picture of the sound levels over the rest of Palo Alto. If they fail to do so, there is no reason to believe their claims.

@Donster,

There is no need for amateur noise measurements by you or anyone else.

A local team of volunteer professional scientists has already proven the shifting of flight paths from southern San Mateo County to Palo Alto and the shift from higher to lower altitudes through the analysis of over a decade of digitized radar flight data obtained from the FAA through a FOIA request. Yes, the FAA continuously records and stores the flight path and altitude of every commercial flight entering bay area airspace.

The noise has also been measured by local scientists with advanced degrees and professional equipment, and the measurements prove the noise is real, frequent, and in many cases well in excess of 65dB.

"@Donster,

There is no need for amateur noise measurements by you or anyone else."

Based on the discussions in this thread, and in numerous past threads on the issue, yes there is.

"A local team of volunteer professional scientists has already proven the shifting of flight paths from southern San Mateo County to Palo Alto and the shift from higher to lower altitudes through the analysis of over a decade of digitized radar flight data obtained from the FAA through a FOIA request. Yes, the FAA continuously records and stores the flight path and altitude of every commercial flight entering bay area airspace."

Do you have a link to that study describing the original data, methods of analysis, and conclusions? Ok, so the flight paths and altitudes were charted. Did the source data include noise measurements on the ground?

"The noise has also been measured by local scientists with advanced degrees and professional equipment, and the measurements prove the noise is real, frequent, and in many cases well in excess of 65dB."

Again, do you have a link to that study?

@Donster,

The studies have been written about in the Palo Alto Weekly and discussed ad nauseam on Town Square. The studies have been presented to Palo Alto residents in multiple public meetings over the last several years. The studies have been presented to various Palo Alto City Staff, the Palo Alto City Manager, the Palo Alto City attorney, and individual members of the Palo Alto City Council. The studies have been presented to the entire Palo Alto City Council in session, on the record, with a representative from SFO in Council Chambers. The studies have been presented to Congressional Representative Anna Eshoo and the FAA.

If you were deeply involved in your community or sincerely interested in this issue you would have already seen the studies, or you could easily find the studies online with a minimum amount of effort, if you really cared about being informed.

This whole idea that there are tons of people in Palo Alto who do not
hear the undeniably loud airplane noise, or who do not care about the
issue of airplane noise mirrors every big public debate in the country.

Thoughtful people would at least realize that enough people care
about noise that they would rule out buying or living in an area that
has more noise than other areas, or where the majority seem to not
care or be conscious of the noise issue and it would affect demand
in a significant way for Palo Alto real estate.

This is a factor in the prices of homes in Palo Alto as sure as the
school system or crime stats, so one would think if these were real
thoughtful people they would at least care about that - but the
right-wing arrogant attitude does not. That is why I discount the
voluble and nasty comments from these people and the many
"likes" they get. We readers are being played.

In fact one has to start to put 2 and 2 together and consider that
maybe since Facebook, Palo Alto has been used as a test bed for
manipulation of social networking, starting right here with Palo
Alto Online, in the proffering and propagandizing for right-wing
attitudes that make no logical sense and yet still seem to
permeate both Palo Alto and the country at large.

@CPA, so you want Palo Alto real estate to become even MORE unaffordable?

I was not aware that sensitivity to airplane noise was a right/left thing, and in fact the idea seems a little "out there" to me. Maybe the Era of Trump has made everyone a little crazy, but I don't find it credible or helpful to think that right wingers are propagandizing on Palo Alto Online about airplane noise. On this issue, shouldn't people of all political persuasions be considered allies in the fight against something that affects us all without respect to politics. Why make pretend enemies on an issue where we're all in the same boat?

>> @CPA, so you want Palo Alto real estate to become even MORE unaffordable?

If you had read with comprehension, there was no connection between how I
feel personally about Palo Alto real estate prices, and what I said.

The universe of people I was referring to were the people who poo-poo the
idea that there is airplane noise, profess not to hear a single airplane, and insult
others who - hear it, complain about it, and demand improvement.

Since my posts here were among the first to mention airplane noise as a problem
to see if others shared my experience, they did, I am not in those who I was
questioning the motives of.

Try and read more closely next time, or at least be more clever and funny?

Hey Mary ... guess we disagree. We can do that still amicably, right?
Just out of curiosity, would you care to reveal if you are Dem, Rep or Independent?

I'm curious how much of the annoyance of a sound is related to its loudness (decibels) vs other characteristics, such as frequency, irregularity, pitch, and other. I'm all for metrics, but over-simplifying isn't helpful. I'll say, for example, that a mosquito whining about my head drives me nuts, not because it is loud, but because it is high, irregular, fairly frequent, and goes quieter/louder/quieter. The every-two-minute planes bug me because they are frequent, more irregular than a constant hum of traffic, and loud enough to catch my attention and disrupt the quiet, but it's not like they are a lawn mower. There is the occasional flight < 2000 ft that is so loud it scares the bejeezus out of me, but that is the exception, not the rule.

KALW had an informative radio show on CrossCurrents yesterday ( Monday April 30th 2018 ) called "The Noise Police", URL here: Web Link

This show centered mostly around trains, but also tries to qualify the many laws in America about noise. Federal Law says that Americans are entitled to be free of noise that "jeopardizes their health and welfare".

In California that means you house has to be built so that when you are inside with doors and windows closed the noise isn't excessive. Excessive is a noise level that averages out to be more than 45 db over the course of a day. 45 db is about as loud as a normal conversation, or quieter than a dishwasher running the next room.

That is a completely inadequate measurement. For instance a relatively quiet location would not qualify if there were explosions taking place at night because it would be averaged out over the course of the whole day and night. Useless! There has to be different standards for night time, but then we leave out people who do shift work and sleep during the day. Our whole city seems to not bother with any of this.

One big problem in the hot, and getting hotter, Bay Area summers. Who wants to be imprisoned in their house without the ability to open their windows for fresh air without being drowned in construction, traffic, airplane or train noise?

So the first question is what are the exact laws and where do we find them, how can we change them?

Second question might be how do we apply these laws and get them enforced?

Another aspect of this is not just noise but vibration as well. Some airplanes as they fly by cause my whole house to shake and the windows ( modern dual-glazed and newly installed by the way ) to rattle. Acoustic experts measure both noise and vibration. Noise can prevent sleep and vibration can even cause damage to buildings.

The radio show talks about how many cities in the Bay Area of building new housing right along the train tracks where it is very noisy, and particularly at night. Sleep disturbance can be linked to heart disease and stroke. Children that do not get proper sleep do not do as well in school. A study in Sweden indicated that people who live closer to noise sources have more belly fat that those farther away.