Aircraft, noise, and land use W
W
Worried local planning authority has no options left Landowners pay taxes on land they cannot reasonably use The aircraft noise-urban development conflict is unresolved The September issue (€S&T, September 1976, p 872) carried an interesting article entitled “Cities Spread to Once Remote Airports.” The description of problems and circumstances surrounding airport compatibility planning as well as the author’s summary of what must be done to address the issue prompts me to relate the following experience in that sphere of planning. Fairfax County, Va. shares Dulles International Airport, noise and all, with Loudoun County, Va. Consequently, Fairfax planners have faced the issue of airport/aircraft noise and land-use compatibility planning with what seems to be the best available analytical and administrative procedures. The result, despite the hard and costly work involved, has been that the problem of aircraft noise in conflict with urban development does not seem to be nearing resolution. Some facts A short history of land-use planning around Dulles would list a report, put forth by citizens, professional planners, developers, and involved local and federal officials, which proposed restricting land uses in the Dulles noise impact area, objective criteria for permitted noise zone development, and a program of complementary zoning to implement a policy of planning for compatible land use. Following the adoption of the report and implementation of its provisions, a consultant was hired to reassess the probable noise impact under what seemed, in 1973, to be probable conditions with regard to future aircraft fleet size, mix, and noise emission characteristics. Roughly 3900 acres were predicted to fall within the noise exposure forecast (NEF) zone of 30 NEF or greater; Fairfax County proceeded to plan and rezone land accordingly. Industrial and commercial zoning replaced the unsuitable single family and low density residential uses originally planned for the area. The County took these steps with some reluctance, as it was then
left with approximately a 150-year supply of land for those uses classed under historical levels of demand. Meanwhile The advent of Concorde SST service to Dulles from London and Paris prompted a review of the noise exposure forecast zone. The County has determined that, in the intervening years, economic, technological, and political factors have effectively thwarted Federal programs of aircraft noise attenuation retrofit, noise impact reducing take-off and landing procedures, and aircraft fleet changeover to newer, less noisy aircraft. New U.S. Department of Transportation noise exposure forecasts show approximately 8500 acres of Fairfax County are now included in the noise impact zone deemed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) as being generally unsuitable for most residential uses. To date, neither the airport owner (in this case the FAA) nor the aviation regulatory agency (againthe FAA) has proposed a remedy for the problem as perceived by the County and area residents and land owners. New starts The recent proposal for implementing noise standards within the US. air fleet, announced by President Ford on October 21st, 1976, does not appear to address the problem of Dulles Airport noise. It excludes provision of control over international flights-a major use of the airport. The viability of the proposed control program for the domestic fleet must be considered questionable for reasons that include funding and a possible change in policy direction brought about by a change in administration. While the possibility of an 8500 acre industrial park is not in the future for the entire Metropolitan Washington area (to say
Robert 0. Otto University of Sussex Sussex BN 1 9RF, England
nothing of surburban Fairfax), the County cannot be expected to set aside the Constitutional guarantees to private property owners while a large urban area remains fallow. The County’s position with regard to the impacted area must be viewed, in the longer term, as untenable. The existence of such an immense block of land makes a coordinated and orderly industrial development plan for the Dulles area quite impossible. The County could attempt to impose its own standards for interior noise levels as a means of addressing part of the noise problem in the impact area. However, it is quite possible that State courts will disallow the initiative until the State of Virginia reluctantly includes such standards in the state-wide mandatory building code, a move it is reluctant to make. There are other strategies for aircraft noise impact reduction, in use at other world airports, which may be of partial benefit, and deserve consideration in the Dulles context. The strategy used at Ringway Airport, Manchester, England involves a partial rebate of landing fees for “quiet” take-offs and landings. This is contrasted with a Japanese noise abatement strategy which imposes fines for operating emissions exceeding established standards. Further, various individual air carriers have implemented company policies of using noise abatement operating procedures to some effect. Liaison Talks with FAA officials, which have run the gamut of urgent pleas for Federal implementation of noise abatement flight procedures to threats of legal action, have been met with the suggestion that action could not be taken at this time. While it is not desirable to oversimplify the situation with regard to Federal control of airport noise, air transport interest groups seem to command an inordinate amount of respect from the FAA, its principal regulator.
So there you have it; a number of impatient landowners who pay taxes on land they cannot reasonably use, a concerned local planning authority with no more options to exercise in the airport compatibility planning game, and a seemingly diffident FAA. Without a serious effort to implement effective emission standards for existing aircraft, and the coupling of this with noiseabating flight patterns, the best land-use planning strategies available will not suffice in the Dulles situation. Author Major Terino is correct in stating that a “multifaceted, multilevel approach” is required for airport compatibility planning. One facet that must be seen now is the FAA’s earnest effort at implementing approach and departure noise abatement strategies and a retrofit of noise abatement materials and equipment on older, noiser aircraft types. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the County of Fairfax, Va.
Robert 0 . Otto is a visiting fellow in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, England. He is on leave-of-absence from Fairfax County, Va., Office of Comprehensive Planning.
“The addition of the proposed two Concorde daily flights at Dulles would not greatly increase the number of people within either (the
fions at Dulles will be hardly perceptible. ”
F
Secretary of Transportation Coleman
Volume 11, Number 2, February 1977
149
I_
