by Frank Schroth
Residents are voicing concern and opposition to the FAA’s proposed flight path over Milton. The topic came up informally at a focus group during yesterday’s Master Plan forum at Tucker School and an online petition has been started urging the FAA to stop runway 33L from flying over Milton.
The issue came to light when the Selectmen posted a notice on the town web site. In the notice Judy Kennedy, the Town of Milton’s Massport liaison notes that “Milton is already heavily affected by 2 other airplane runway flight paths – Runway 4 arrivals and Runway 27 departures – and therefore Milton does not need to have an additional flight path added from airplane departures on Runway 33.” (See full post here.) Ms. Kennedy will be appearing before the Selectmen on February 7th.
Sound studies included in the draft environmental assessment (view full assessment here) indicate that the north side of Milton bears the brunt of the noise.
An article in the Boston Globe, Satellite-guided flight paths will cut Logan Airport noise, officials say (online subscription required), points to the goal of reducing noise. This is not providing much solace to residents like Beth and Sheryl Fleitman. They have initiated an online petition which can be found here.
Concerned residents are encouraged to attend the February 7th meeting of the Board of Selectmen.
Related article
- FAA proposes new flight path over Milton, Canton Randolph – Patriot Ledger
Here is a partial snapshot of Figure 1-4 referenced in Mr. Malmstrom’s comment below. Click on the image for a larger size. Consult the report for the full illustration.
When you read the Environmental Assessment Draft prepared for the FAA you will see that the assessment never addresses the impact of this flight pattern over various communities.
It defines the FAA and MassPort’s concerns for affected communities – none !
Wait a minute, hold on !
I just spent time reading the attached report, and from what I can see, homes in Milton will be exposed to LESS noise under the new proposal !
The number of flights leaving via runway 33L will not change. The flight path the big jets will have to take is “tighter”, and for the portion flying east and looping over Milton, they will be flying further south than they do now. Look at Chapter 1, Figure 1-4. The light blue lines, which are spread out all over Milton, will be replaced by the thick yellow line, which is down near Canton, Randolph and Route 128.
Also, in Chapter 4, Page 4-5, Table 4-5, it indicates the number of households in Milton that will be exposed to the 45 – 65 DNL level will DROP from 16,890 to 15,970.
That works for me !
Of course, there will be no change in the noise due to the landings we currently have to deal with, but after 18 years I’m used to that.
Rick Malmstrom
The problem with the FAA and MassPort is that once they have established a pattern of departure flights over Milton it will be open to further expansion and impossible to stop. Neither agency has much credibility.
Again, if you read the “Environmental Assessment Draft” you will see that none of the affected communities were consulted or participate in the so called “Environmental Assessment”. How can you conduct a legitimate environmental assessment and not include the environmental affects on those cities and town. It make that entire enviromental assessment more than questionable.
First thing, there are 27,000 residents of Milton. Table 4-5 does not account for the other 10,000 residents of Milton. The solid yellow line in Chapter 1, figure 1-4 is one nautical mile which is more than one mile. This particular graphic also does not account for the fact that there will also be a corridor one to two miles east and west of that solid yellow line. This will cover a large portion of Milton in addition to Canton and Randolph. How this appears on paper and how it actually plays out is very important in protecting the entire town of Milton. Please do not be fooled by an incomplete noise study conducted by the FAA.
Laurie,
The table (and my comment) stated households, not residents.
My main point was that this new flight path does not increase flights over Milton, it only moves them, further south. Most Milton residents are located in the middle and north part of Milton.
I have to plead ignorance on the “incomplete noise study”, please elaborate for us.
Thanks for your work on this, Rick
Dear Rick,
The table 4-5 states population exposed to noise levels by community. It is not by household, it is by population. The table states only 920 people in Milton will experience a decrease in noise. Do we know this number for sure and who are those lucky 920 people out of the 27,000 residents? That is the point I’m trying to make. People live all over Milton not just in particular areas. If departures from 33L are not bothering Milton right now, why take the chance of an unknown procedure and the effects it may have on any part of our town?
Laurie,
Please accept my apologies, you are correct, it is population not households !
While we may not know who exactly the 920 folks are, it seems from everything I’ve read that the noise will certainly not be worse than it is now, and a little better for some.
In response to your statement “If departures from 33L are not bothering Milton now, why take a chance of an unknown procedure and the effects it may have on any part of town?” The whole point of this procedure is to upgrade the air control system so flying is safer. My family and I fly out of Logan whenever we can afford to, I’m sure many many other Miltonians also do. I like it when flying gets a little safer !
I have yet to see anything negative about this new procedure, yet there are folks who are calling it “unacceptable”, and starting a petition to “stop flights from 33L from flying over Milton” Where do these folks want the planes to go ? Do they realize the planes having been flying over Milton for years ?
I do agree with Mr. Yovino and others that the public comment time frame is a little short.
I’m sure once the proposal is analyzed carefully by our elected officials, they will conclude that there is little, if any, effect on our town.
Thanks, Rick
Rick, I am positive that you have the best of intentions but as a past member of the Milton Airplane Noise Committee I can see you are following the train of thought that the FAA and MassPort want you to follow. Specifically, that these new procedures are all in the interest of the safety of the flying public. To accept logic is to accept that the current departure flight patterns over Hull, Hingham and Cohasset have put the flying public in danger. I have questions about the FAA but I cannot believe that the current departure lanes are any less safe than the proposed departures over Milton. More likely the FAA has initiated the departures off 33 L to quiet the vocal complaints from Hull, Hingham and Cohasset. Milton has not complained for years. It’s as if the FAA is saying,’let’s send the planes over Milton for a couple of years until their complaints get to loud.’ The new computerized system is just a cover.
The FAA is also trying to sell you on the fact that because the system is all computerized it is therefore safe and fool proof. That would make the assumption that pilots in the cockpit cannot override the computerized system. They can and do. So, that nicely defined blue line you see on the charts for departures over Milton while not quite fanciful is also not quite the way things work in the real world.
I wish I had logged the number of times I have called MassPort’s Noise Abatement Number on a summer day when I am out in my yard only to looked up to see a pilot correcting his final approach to Runway 4 Left with a quick right turn to Runway 4 Right. Frankly, it looks like a driver on the expressway changing lanes without signaling. Clearly he or the tower at Logan are overriding the computer.
In addition to this you have to take into consideration a departure off 33L is at sea level. When that plane flies over Milton it immediately encounter the “foothills” to the Blue Hills starting at Milton Hill / Adams Street. Although we may not think of the Blue Hills as high in comparison to a mountain range they are high enough and there are enough homes on the “foothills” to the Blue Hills that you are going to encounter two factors. One, the planes are going to be closer to you and two the noise factor of planes gunning their engines on take off are going to reverberate off the hills increasing the span of the noise far beyond the narrowly defined flight path. We encounter both those factors here in the Cunningham Park area on arrivals.
The FAA sets the altitude of the plane at sea level and while air safety is not compromised planes on departure and final approach are closer to the ground than a sea level measurement. Also, the engine noise of a plane either increasing or reducing its airspeed will reverberate off the hills increasing if not the decibel level of the noise the breadth of the noise. At times the noise bounces off so many locations that unless you actually see the plane you are not sure the direction of the noise.
All those factors will come into play if the FAA is allowed to use 33 L for departures over Milton.
None of these factors are considered the Environmental Assessment.
Finally, it comes down to a quality of life issue here in Milton and accepting our fair share of airplane noise and pollution but no more than our fair share. We are accepting our fair share with the high percentage of arrivals in Milton’s airspace. It would be unfair to impose on this same community the noise and pollution of departure flights over the very same airspace.
We will accept our fair share but no more and our steadfast position does not and will not impinge on air safety. That is an FAA scare tactic and it must be rejected in its entirety.
My understanding of the document is as follows.
1. The goal is to allow instrumentation departures from runway 33L, which is now the only major runway at Logan not capable of this.
2. Departures from this runway that impact Milton will take off toward the North/Northwest, circle around to the West and then to the South before splitting into three major routes out of Boston.
3. Table 4-5 indeed measures the impact on residents of the proposed change versus the status quo. But it does not measure the number of residents exposed to noise, as Laurie Kennedy states, but the number of residents exposed to a certain level of noise – 45-65 DNL. The number of residents exposed to this level of noise will decrease under the proposed change. This makes sense when you consider that exposure to these departures are at a higher altitude than flights than might depart Logan and gain altitude directly over Milton. The impact shows an increase in noise at the 45-65 DNL level over communities such as Winchester, Malden, Medford, Arlington, Belmont, and Waltham as the aircrafts take off at lower altitude. By the time they reach Milton, they are at higher altitudes than current flights over the town.
While I agree that too little time has been allowed for comment, and questioning, the claims that have been made against the proposal do not seem to be based on actual evidence. Comments that merely dismiss the accuracy of FAA data do not add to people’s understanding.
Here’s my interpretation of this confusing report with respect to the 920 and the rest of us. Those 10,000 or so Milton residents are counted as being in the <45 DNL category in the "No Action" scenario. The report estimates that 920 more Milton residents will move into this category under the "2015 proposed action". What the report doesn't tell us is what happens to the noise level for the 15,970 residents that are already in the 45+DNL categories and who remain there when the changes take place. (Note the heading for Table 4.5 should read "Between 45 and 75 DNL" in its 2nd line.) From the report we do know that no Milton census block currently in the 65+DNL categories is predicted to have an increase of more than 1.5 DNL in the proposed plan, no Milton census block currently in the 60-65 DNL category is predicted to have an increase of more than 3 DNL, and no Milton census block currently in the 45-60 DNL categories is predicted to have an increase of more than 5 DNL. All of the 15,970 residents predicted to remain exposed to 45+DNL could have an increase in DNL when the new proposal takes place.
The report doesn't tell us.
We spoke with Judy Kennedy, Milton’s FAA liaison last evening. She made several points. She feels the map above is misrepresentative. It does not include all of Milton. We are going to keep the map in the post and encourage all interested to read the actual report and complete set of tables and illustrations. Ms. Kennedy explained that she learned the specifics of the proposal when the public did and is seriously concerned about the short window in which the public can comment. She will explain her concerns in a letter to the Milton Times that she also agreed to submit here.
Paul,
The new procedure does not move flights from Hull, Hingham etc to Milton. These flights will be coming at Milton via Dedham and the northwest, not over Milton Hill/Adams Street (See Figure 1-4).
Phil,
I agree with all your points, you stated it much better than I did.
Frank,
Figure 1-4 shows the issue at hand very clearly, can that one be posted ?
Thanks, Rick
Hold everything, how many of you lived here in the 1970s? Well we had a big meeting at that time with the planes flying over our houses. It was the most unbearable noise to live with. you could not open windows in the summer time, you could not hear your television nor talk on the phone, in 1978 the meeting was held at the old high school auditorium with standing room only and we won that battle. That is why runway 33 was not used as much. So people becareful in what you beleive. I certainly do not want to live through that again.
Vivian is correct.
It is the old adage of the animal getting its nose under the tent is true. Once the overflights begin the “minor” alterations will begin. The FAA and MassPort Noise Abatement will give you excuses that they had to change the departure flight patterns to more populated areas over Milton because of wind and weather.
Having dealt with the agency I am far less trusting of them.
Remember, Milton is just a dot on the map or a blip on the radar to them. They answer more to the airline conglomerates than to communities. The airline industry has far more influence on Logan than Milton will ever have. Once the flight start they will never stop and the will expand.
Past dealing with the FAA and MassPort is prologue.
I live directly under the flight path for runway 4 arrivals. I find that it is impossible to contact the FAA to get answers to questions that I have. Why is it that public servants are so inaccessible to the public? How can we get access so that we can share our concerns and get information? If officials can make changes but don’t have to address the public will those changes always benefit the public? I believe that we, all town residents, should do everything in our power to let our elected officials in congress know that a decision maker from the FAA must attend our February 7 Selectmen’s meeting. In that way we can be educated about the options and we can have a voice that could impact the final decision.
Vivian, the world that you described continues to be my world every day. Depending on where you live things may be better. Things in my world, the world under runway 4 arrivals hasn’t improved at all. I would hate to see one more person living in my shoes. We don’t even know who is benefitting from the change. We don’t know why the change is being made at this moment.
We need to demand an explanation for what the FAA is doing. The FAA should speak to us person to person in order to justify their actions. We need to do everything possible to protect our town, our way of life and our property values from further deterioration.
Stephen Lynch’s office in Boston told me to write to terry.english@faa.gov. I was asked to copy sarah.revell@mail.house.gov. I urge all of you to contact Terry English in order to get an FAA official to our Board of Selectmen’s meeting so that we can speak our minds to someone who is actually involved in this issue.
Frank,
I see you posted the map that best describes the new flight path. Thank you for that.
Folks,
Look closely at the map. Today the jet flights leaving Logan on runway 33 follow the thin light blue lines. They basically take off, fly for a few minutes northwest, then bang a left and fly towards Europe. As you can see, the light blue lines cross over pretty much all areas of Milton, so much so the the whole town looks light blue.
The proposal would have these flights follow closely to the thick yellow line. It only barely nicks the southern part of Milton, so most all of us would experience less fly over. And, as Mr. Mathews stated, they would be at a higher altitude.
Those who are referring to the landing pattern for runway 4, this proposal has nothing to do with those flight paths.
Thanks, Rick
We need the data. I’ve sent an email to Terry English asking for the DNL estimates before/after the proposed change by census tract centroid, but I haven’t heard back from her. The Town also has asked for the data. If we have the data we will know where estimated noise levels are expected to change and by how much – without having to rely on interpreting the figures in the report. Of course, we have to trust the estimates but I think that’s a reasonable thing to do. I know planes have to fly somewhere, and we are all for increased safety, but we need more information (the data) to better assess whether decisions as to how to spread the noise-burden across communities have been made fairly.
Cindy L. Christiansen, Pct. 7
Actually, I think we have the data. We know that the number of people exposed to 45-65 DNL will decrease. We know that no one in Milton is exposed to more than 65 DNL, under current practice or under the proposed change. We know that no residents are exposed to any significant change in DNL. Ms. Christiansen noted in a prior comment: “All of the 15,970 residents predicted to remain exposed to 45+DNL could have an increase in DNL when the new proposal takes place.” That is true. It is also true that they could have a decrease. In either event, the change will be minor. Nothing in the draft FAA report justifies a a negative judgement on the plan. However, we should have the time to seek more information and the best subject of communication to the FAA should be based on more time to have more questions addressed.
Mr Mathews, if we have the data, what is the estimated DNL for my census tract before and after the change? What about the levels for my friends on the west side of Milton and my family in Quincy? You agree with my statement that all exposed to 45+DNL could have an increase and I agree with you that they could have a decrease but we don’t know w/o looking at the data – the report doesn’t tell us. The negative judgement of the plan comes from lack of information – that’s why I’m asking for more.
Philip
We are doing everything we possible can. We have contacted all politicians that cover our area and all are with us. Please do not insult me by saying i do not know the hell you are living under, i most certainly do if you read what i wrote.
Hope to see you attend the selectmens meeting this coming Thursday
What we do know is that any changes, increases or decreases, are minimal. I have no problem getting more data. I have great doubt it will change minds since some(not you) obviously reached their conclusions without reading the actual report.