6 ms·

I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But fligh

by c54 8y ago

I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about the noise then you should’ve done your homework. Or.. move somewhere else? Again— all this only applies to people walking in to buying homes under takeoff paths. If the airport did this to existing homeowners that’s a prolem, and I think complaints are justified. (This case also runs into NIMBYism, which is also a problem, and so on)

binarycrusader 8y ago
Flight paths change sometimes. Airports expand, etc.
- happertiger 8y ago
  This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.
  - Carpetsmoker 8y ago
    Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
  - chii 8y ago
    Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
    - sargun 8y ago
      Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
      - chii 8y ago
        Not if they could put in good mass transit to and from the airport. Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.
        bobthepanda 8y ago
        The problem is that access to the airport becomes a location amenity for some businesses, which in turn will draw housing for workers, and eventually the city will envelop the airport.
        Symbiote 8y ago
        It's easy to forbid residential (or all) development under the flight paths.
        gambiting 8y ago
        By that logic, London should build their airport about 2 hours by train away from the city, because anything within <2h radius is still within highly populated zones.
        Retric 8y ago
        2 hours by HSR is a very long way ~300 miles from London. In reality, 50 miles north east of London is farm land. The core problem is when you build an airport you decrease the value of all nearby property. If people building airports directly compensated people say 50,000$ each property they would build airports in the middle of nowhere and opposition would likely be minimal. Instead people suddenly hate where their living but can’t afford to move.
- picklebutt 8y ago
  Not really, runways are really expensive, long, wide roads, they may get lengthened slightly or have safety devices installed on the ends but their location is so fixed that few have changed since they were built, and most were built during the war years.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  Airport expansion, or addition of new runways etc. are usually a tediously long process, and usually with a lot of community feedback and approval etc. (at least, here in Australia it is). Not something that can happen overnight without anyone knowing. Flight path changes are more common. But then again, those are usually departure pathways. The worst noise issues are on final approach or on the takeoff run on runway heading, which rarely change. Most turning points are above 1000ft AGL where the noise levels are a lot less.
  - masonic 8y ago
    usually with a lot of community feedback and approval Has "community approval" ever been a prerequisite for commercial jet airports in the US?
  - pongogogo 8y ago
    You would probably use the buttons as part of a campaign to prevent the expansion of an airport further, to prove that aircraft noise is already louder than the authorities say it is. I doubt the current measurement of aircraft noise at ground level over wide areas and long periods is that great, and airport operators have a heavy incentive to understate the levels of noise pollution.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
> flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. I think it's not so unusual for people to just ... forget about this. Especially if they've never experienced it, or if the house isn't close to an airport at all. Moving can be a stressful experience; not infrequently moving has some sort of time constraint (family expansion, new job, etc.) or is due to a bad experience (divorce/breakup being a common example). There are loads of variables, and can't possibly check up on every one of them. I once lived in an apartment where I couldn't properly open the windows. Of course I had a viewing before I agreed to rent the place, but it never occurred to me to check if I can open the windows. Not being open the windows is annoying on hot summer days. Not being able to sleep at night had a massive impact on the quality of your life. There have been a number of studies about the effects of noise pollution, and it's a lot more harmful than people think. Housing and a good night's sleep are basic human needs; even more so than health care. As I said before, we can't always need to accommodate everyone, but I don't think that concerns about them should be dismissed lightly. Ideally, the landlord/agency should have an obligation to find out and tell people these sort of things. Maybe that's already the case in some jurisdictions? IMHO selling people a house above a plane route without informing them is like selling people a house where you know the roof is leaking but aren't telling people. Do you check if the roof is leaking? Do you ask? Probably not. And the roof is just one example, there are many more things to check. To have a free market you must have good access to information, so you can make an informed decision. Also remember that situations change; here is actually an example from the D.C. area (not sure how related that is to this one, perhaps it is?): https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Other airports have massively expanded, and/or are misleading about the information they give out. A good example of this is Amsterdam airport (Schiphol), which had expanded a lot in the last 40 years, and has been misleading people about how much noise the planes make. Honestly, I think blaming the tenants for "not doing their homework" is just not very constructive. As I mentioned before, someone will live there, and someone will have the draw the shortest straw. I don't have a good solution for airplane noise, but I don't think that "just don't live there" – which is basically your proposed solution – is really a solution at all. It's just waiting for the sucker who will forget to check the airplane paths, or the person who just can't afford anything else. > Or.. move somewhere else? Not always so easy depending on the area and requirements (e.g. closeness to job etc.), and not everyone has the money to just move whenever. In my case, the housing market is crazy in the city I was living in (Bristol, UK); I tried finding something else but there wasn't too much on the market that fit my requirements, and it was a lot of effort.
cyberferret 8y ago
Once again - anecdotal evidence from my own experience - when we bought our house, which was the biggest purchase of our lives, we made sure that during the cooling off period before final settlement, we spent a lot of time parking our car on the street where our house was and walking around. Day time, night time, weekends, working hours, we spent at least 30 to 60 minutes in the neighbourhood on multiple occasions to see what the noise and traffic levels were like amongst many other factors. I cannot believe that most people don't do this more often when looking to settle in a family home that you are going to live in (and possibly raise children) for a large chunk of your lives.
- GFischer 8y ago
  There are some markets where the real estate business is insane, you don't get to make those studies. I once had 30 minutes to make an offer on a flat, I actually matched the asking price... and was outbid an hour later. Current price for that flat is 50% higher now. I'm still renting :( . And it was a sketchy part of town with known crime (mostly theft, not violence).

by c54 8y ago

binarycrusader 8y ago

Flight paths change sometimes. Airports expand, etc.

happertiger 8y ago
This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.
- Carpetsmoker 8y ago
  Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
- chii 8y ago
  Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
  - sargun 8y ago
    Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
    - chii 8y ago
      Not if they could put in good mass transit to and from the airport. Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        The problem is that access to the airport becomes a location amenity for some businesses, which in turn will draw housing for workers, and eventually the city will envelop the airport.
        Symbiote 8y ago
        It's easy to forbid residential (or all) development under the flight paths.
      - gambiting 8y ago
        By that logic, London should build their airport about 2 hours by train away from the city, because anything within <2h radius is still within highly populated zones.
        Retric 8y ago
        2 hours by HSR is a very long way ~300 miles from London. In reality, 50 miles north east of London is farm land. The core problem is when you build an airport you decrease the value of all nearby property. If people building airports directly compensated people say 50,000$ each property they would build airports in the middle of nowhere and opposition would likely be minimal. Instead people suddenly hate where their living but can’t afford to move.
picklebutt 8y ago
Not really, runways are really expensive, long, wide roads, they may get lengthened slightly or have safety devices installed on the ends but their location is so fixed that few have changed since they were built, and most were built during the war years.
cyberferret 8y ago
Airport expansion, or addition of new runways etc. are usually a tediously long process, and usually with a lot of community feedback and approval etc. (at least, here in Australia it is). Not something that can happen overnight without anyone knowing. Flight path changes are more common. But then again, those are usually departure pathways. The worst noise issues are on final approach or on the takeoff run on runway heading, which rarely change. Most turning points are above 1000ft AGL where the noise levels are a lot less.
- masonic 8y ago
  usually with a lot of community feedback and approval Has "community approval" ever been a prerequisite for commercial jet airports in the US?
- pongogogo 8y ago
  You would probably use the buttons as part of a campaign to prevent the expansion of an airport further, to prove that aircraft noise is already louder than the authorities say it is. I doubt the current measurement of aircraft noise at ground level over wide areas and long periods is that great, and airport operators have a heavy incentive to understate the levels of noise pollution.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

> flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. I think it's not so unusual for people to just ... forget about this. Especially if they've never experienced it, or if the house isn't close to an airport at all. Moving can be a stressful experience; not infrequently moving has some sort of time constraint (family expansion, new job, etc.) or is due to a bad experience (divorce/breakup being a common example). There are loads of variables, and can't possibly check up on every one of them. I once lived in an apartment where I couldn't properly open the windows. Of course I had a viewing before I agreed to rent the place, but it never occurred to me to check if I can open the windows. Not being open the windows is annoying on hot summer days. Not being able to sleep at night had a massive impact on the quality of your life. There have been a number of studies about the effects of noise pollution, and it's a lot more harmful than people think. Housing and a good night's sleep are basic human needs; even more so than health care. As I said before, we can't always need to accommodate everyone, but I don't think that concerns about them should be dismissed lightly. Ideally, the landlord/agency should have an obligation to find out and tell people these sort of things. Maybe that's already the case in some jurisdictions? IMHO selling people a house above a plane route without informing them is like selling people a house where you know the roof is leaking but aren't telling people. Do you check if the roof is leaking? Do you ask? Probably not. And the roof is just one example, there are many more things to check. To have a free market you must have good access to information, so you can make an informed decision. Also remember that situations change; here is actually an example from the D.C. area (not sure how related that is to this one, perhaps it is?): https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Other airports have massively expanded, and/or are misleading about the information they give out. A good example of this is Amsterdam airport (Schiphol), which had expanded a lot in the last 40 years, and has been misleading people about how much noise the planes make. Honestly, I think blaming the tenants for "not doing their homework" is just not very constructive. As I mentioned before, someone will live there, and someone will have the draw the shortest straw. I don't have a good solution for airplane noise, but I don't think that "just don't live there" – which is basically your proposed solution – is really a solution at all. It's just waiting for the sucker who will forget to check the airplane paths, or the person who just can't afford anything else. > Or.. move somewhere else? Not always so easy depending on the area and requirements (e.g. closeness to job etc.), and not everyone has the money to just move whenever. In my case, the housing market is crazy in the city I was living in (Bristol, UK); I tried finding something else but there wasn't too much on the market that fit my requirements, and it was a lot of effort.

cyberferret 8y ago

Once again - anecdotal evidence from my own experience - when we bought our house, which was the biggest purchase of our lives, we made sure that during the cooling off period before final settlement, we spent a lot of time parking our car on the street where our house was and walking around. Day time, night time, weekends, working hours, we spent at least 30 to 60 minutes in the neighbourhood on multiple occasions to see what the noise and traffic levels were like amongst many other factors. I cannot believe that most people don't do this more often when looking to settle in a family home that you are going to live in (and possibly raise children) for a large chunk of your lives.

GFischer 8y ago
There are some markets where the real estate business is insane, you don't get to make those studies. I once had 30 minutes to make an offer on a flat, I actually matched the asking price... and was outbid an hour later. Current price for that flat is 50% higher now. I'm still renting :( . And it was a sketchy part of town with known crime (mostly theft, not violence).