It’s interesting you moan how none of the people you mention cares about PR but here’s my question.

What do you expect them to do?

As I said so many time at the PRU site when the demand for air travel goes up, which I assume has happened they probably feel they have so other choice to increase air traffic and expand the airport.

You also mention if they use 9L27R the other 2 won’t be used as much.

Well I was out and Brickton Park yesterday afternoon and they were using all 3 routes.

Mike Touhy –

D’oh.

So what if they were using all three yesterday.  Do the math.  Flights using the new runway don’t use the other two, and vice versa.

Well I disagree with that.

I live in between the Bell Plane and Kennedy routes and I often see both being used at the same time even 22L when I get the chance to look.

Bravo P.W……nail on the head on all counts!!!!

Mike and Fred, do you realize that in different ways you are both right?!

They actually are using all 3 east/west runways, usually at the same time. O’Hare intends to use ONLY e/w runways from here on out, which is why it might be important for P.R to get someone,anyone to consider the future expansion to move to the most southern end of the airport and possibly give some relief to our three e/w runways. It will most certainly NOT eliminate plaines over P.R. but perhaps eliviate using only 3 (our three) e/w runways.

I couldn’t agree more that we as a community-of- the-whole, should be united in this battle. Althugh we realize that once a problem is removed from one area, there are those who are more than happy to pass the buck if you will, on to someone else. However I believe there are more than enough of those who will look at this as a community problem and not just a neighborhood one.

Noise monitors… really. Do we need to spend 25k on something that doesn’t take more than a few residents to tell us, for free. PLANES ARE NOISY!!!! There… that didn’t cost a penny!

Sunny:

Good call on no more monitors. PW is right, we’ve got to get rid of the DNL.

I live in the 1st ward and during about 3 hours that I was sitting outside there may have been 2-3 planes fly over the whole time. So I’m going to guess that the people near Belle Plaine were getting buzzed (by airplanes, that is).

Mike:

Just keep repeating your belief about “demand for air travel going up” and maybe some day it will come true. You always make that same statement and yet you never back it up with a single fact. Believe what ever you want, but demand for air travel has been and continues to go down.

As an example, during the month of January in 2009 the number of flights was 59,219, down 8.16% from the total number in 2008 (64,798). As a reference point, the total number of flights in Jauary 2000 was 65,364.

years ago (when Wietecha was still the mayor), I remember someone asking whether he would be so obsessed with O’Hare if airplanes were 100% percent quiet, clean and safe. The point, as I remember it, was that the problem we experience isn’t tied to O’Hare as much as it’s tied to planes with noisy, polluting engines; and some concern about safety.

Does anybody know if the airlines have any new engine technology coming on line soon?

Pubdog – It’s refreshing when people come up with constructive, forward thinking ideas (instead of playing the blame game). You made some very good points. Maybe it’s time for our city government to get involved. How about conducting some kind of a Town Hall meeting that includes citizens from all areas of Park Ridge. Our Park Ridge government could, through a mass mailing and their web site, notify all residents so they all are aware of the meeting. The importance of this issue needs to be stressed. Have members of the various groups, that have been working for relief, give presentations on what information they have been working on and what they were hoping to accomplish or have accomplished. There is a lot of research that these folks have been doing. How many residents really know what’s going on at O’Hare or what is coming? I’m sure that as a community, together, we could come up with some kind of reasonable action that would bring us some relief. Like you pointed out in Reality #2, it must be the whole community that comes together on these issues. In response to Anon 11:57, apparently the airlines have been working on retiring the MD-80 planes, which are the loudest aircraft. This, however, is really just a drop in the bucket.

Anon11:23

I believe what Mike may have been suggesting about the increase in air travel, refers to something beyond the past 24 months. (jump in Mike if I’m incorrect).

I read it as, over say the past decade or two.

If you are someone who bought a house in Park Ridge (or our other airport neighboring communities) say 20 or 30 years ago. I’m quite sure those folks have seen a substantial increase in air traffic.

The decrease in flights in the last year is problably a result of the down-trend in the economy. And as soon as that begins to recover, so will the travel industry which will include air travel.

Big Picture.

Until we reach a technilogical way of beaming ourselves to where we want to go, planes are still the fastest and safest way to go, so I wouldn’t count on air traffic to subside or decrease in any kind of permenent manner.

On a sunny day:

I am sure there is data out there from 20 yrs ago buy I have no luck finding it. I stated the January information I found from 10 years ago in the prior post (2000: 65,364 2009: 59,219)and it represents a significant decrease,

I am sure that the economy played a role in air travel as I am sure that 9/11 did as well. Having said that, I also think that there are other issues at play. The advent of technology, e-mail, web cams, web meetings etc. has changed the dymanic of business travel. I used to fly 30-35 times a year in the late 80’s and 90’s. The number of trips I take today has dropped by over half. I can stay in touch and in the minds of clients without as much actual “face to face” time. Business travel makes up a huge portion of the “filled seats”. If this number stays down and even coutinues to decrease (as I believe it will), Airlines will continue to reduce the number of flights. They need the planes as full as possible to make money.

I read Mike’s message at least implies that the new runway is to handle new, additional volume. What is actually happening is they are moving existing volume to the new runway.

The new runway was built as part of O’HARE EXPANSION! Every new runway is intended to increase volume so that (per PubDog) Daley makes more money. But until the economy improves, they get to divide flights among the runways as they please.

Good point about talking to these federal officials, however, because if they aren’t willing to push for us it isn’t going to happen.

The Ord-Rest group, (which was started by concerned Park Ridge citizens), mentioned in Reality #4, has a website that gives some information about what they’ve been trying to accomplish for Park Ridge. For those who are interested (and if you live in Park Ridge you should be), the website is http://www.ord-rest.com. If you register on the website, you can get email updates about their activities and what they’ve been working on. As of this date, this group has been the best chance at acquiring some relief. They are also a good source of information. Their efforts are commendable. One of the changes they have been working on is to have the DNL method of measuring sound (as mentioned in Reality #5)changed to the SENEL (single event noise monitoring exposure level) It’s now time for the City to start putting some weight behind the airport issue. Thank you to PW for posting useful, positive information.

Anon

Agreed. I also believe the specific runway Mike is refering to has been put into place as part of the expansion in place of another runway. Again as I stated earlier, All in and out going air traffic will be on east west runways only, because as part of the expansion that is what they are building, east west runways.

Sunny,
Not all traffic will be E-W (but most of it)…The existing 22L and 22R runways will remain and be used when winds/weather dictates but the plan would be to use the E-W (at the moment, runways 28, 27L and 27R) as much as possible.

There seems to be some confusion over what “our 3” runways people are talking about. The 3 streams that are seen from Brickton Park would probably be the 27L/27R/28 traffic. These are the primary E-W ones (for now, the only E-W ones). When these are being used, 22L/22R are not. Those are the “other 2”

So don’t be confused about seeing 3 but the other 2 arent being used. “WE” have 5! The 22L, 22R, 28 and 27L have been there for years and 27R is the new one.

Those 5 will be used and are not going anywhere. But another is planned to be added right between 27L (Higgins) and 27R(BellePlaine)! (aptly to be named 27C [center])
This is the one that should receive some focus as it will add another parallel traffic stream pretty much right over Brickton Park!

Whatever efforts you want to put forth, this may be where to aim. (start the ‘NO 27C’ sign printing now!)

But I agree that promoting the other 2 proposed (28L and 28C) southern runways may be one way to alleviate some traffic along 27R.

“Start the ‘NO 27C’ sign printing now”??? Are you a printer trying to make a buck on signs?

I think you people are missing the point of the PW piece. Putting signs on our lawns isn’t going to get anything done because that’s not how this game is played. If we can’t get several federal officials on our side who are willing to go to the mat to help disperse this airplane traffic, school’s out.

If you want to stop 27C, you better start calling Schakowsky, Roskam, Bean, etc. NOW, because that looks to be then most logical next runway that they build.

Anon, I believe the 27(c) has already been affectionatly named “the Grandville” runway. I agreed this is where the immidiate focus should be. Which is where I mentioned suggetsing any addtional runways be located to the southern most end.

Thanks for the in depth explanation for those folks out there, who otherwise didn’t understand
or don’t live in any of these runway paths. For those uf us who do…we get it!!!

i agree with anonymous 06.02.09 4:34 am.

many of the people commenting on this post seem to think that we can micro-manage the whole o’hare expansion. you are deluding yourselves, just like you deluded yourselves about the effectiveness of soc.

we in park ridge are a mosquito on the elephant’s (o’hare’s) rear end. unless we get some political firepower in our corner we won’t even get a seat at the table – in part because we smugly scoffed at the o.n.c.c. and fought the fool’s fight with soc. by the time we finally bailed on soc, the o.n.c.c. members weren’t about to defer to anything we want.

so if anybody thinks we’re going to get special treatment because we’re park ridge and a strip of our community now has noise it didn’t have before, you’re self-esteem needs a “reality check.”

Well, I’ve been saying it for a while, and I’m thrilled PWD is saying it too. The solution to this problem is work on decreasing the current acceptable levels of noise, not the aircrafts. We’re never gonna win that fight.

anon 10:48:

I need you to flesh out your post for me. It has me confused. I mean I do not think that any rational person actually expects the new runway to be closed but how, in any reasonable timeframe, do you reduce the noise over a given area (the Belle Plaine area for example) without reducing the number of air craft flying over?

I absolutely agree that the “DNL” measurement is a joke and said so at the town hall meeting at Maine South. I also think the placement of the measurement devices is a joke. The closest devise is about 3/4 of a mile up the landing path from Maine South.

But if you change the acceptable level changes to one which is more reality based, the solution to the problem is to reduce the number of flights over a given area. No??

Anon 12:06 PM

No. The solution is to change the AIRPLANES.

OK…So you are saying we should have our elected representatives tell the airlines to stop flying super80’s or other planes that fit into a high noise catagory? Our elected officials will not do that unless it is over time (a long time) because it will screw the cost structures of the airlines who are already getting killed. I see many newer “low noise” planes landing right down Belle Plaine – 767, 777 and the Airbus 320(?). They are still very loud. Or are you saying that there is some super quiet engine technology that I am unaware of? If so it will take decades for that to make any difference.

After reading the PubDog post and the comments, I’m not sure where this leaves us.

I agree that unless the FAA noise measure changes, we are not going to get any serious noise relief because the DNL standard tells the government that our noise levels aren’t all that high.

I just checked out the ORD-REST website, and I’m not sure exactly what it’s trying to achieve that is, realistically, achievable. Mulligan’s HB322 doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere. And if you check out Kotowski’s website O’Hare is barely mentioned, so I have no idea where he stands on anything other than getting three noise monitors which aren’t going to do us a darn bit of good so long as DNL is the standard.

So I guess my “take-away” from all this is that PubDog’s suggested plan of action makes the most sense to me, because nobody else seems to have one.

Hoover:

I completely agree with PD’s suggestion. I just find it pathetic that this would have to be suggested to those we elect. Is it not common sense that if the people of PR communicate to our elected officials that we have a problem on an issue that has local, state and national implications (it would appear that we have on this issue), one of their first action steps would be to meet with those up the political food chain to see what they can and would be willing to do for us?

This has to be suggested to them???

When Daley on a volunteer basis – reduces the amount of planes overhead – then I will believe it.

Until then – Rep. Jan and her bootlickers here can put up all the window dressing the want.

With the 2010 senate seat coming up on the power curve…..anything will be promised!

I don’t care if you carried her books…..you’re being lead down the path.

Anon 12:57PM

Where would we be today if the automotive industry weren’t FORCED to alter how motor vehicles were built? Sure, we’d have cheaper cars. But they’d be louder, dirtier, and much less safe.

Is there not an exquisite parallel between ground vehicles and air vehicles? All the arguments you make about the cost and duration of change were made by the auto industry and by their sympathizers. But, are we better off now as a nation and a species for the newer land vehicles with noise and air pollution reduction and significant betterment of safety features? (That’s a rhetorical question, I hope.)

Yes, many technologies DO now exist to make aircraft quieter and cleaner. (Check you noise-canceling headphones next time you use them. Check SCRAMJets.) The point is that NONE (or few) of these will be included on aircraft until the builders and buyers are FORCED to take into account something other than just dollars.

Whose job is it to demand those changes? First ours, as the ones being affected. Then that of our REPRESENTATIVES, who must be made aware that the airplane/airline industry MUST be brought into human conformance — as the automotive industry has been. This is a populist problem, and it must be framed as such, as the changes to the automotive industry were. There will still be objectors. (Do you think anyone on the High Plains is concerned with airplane noise, pollution, or safety?) But they must be made to see that the benefits EVERYBODY gets from better cars is something that they get too from better airplanes, and is something that’s good for all of us.)

ORD-REST is an exercise in futility. Have at it if you have nothing better to do with your time. But, want change? Recognize what the REAL problem is, and attack it, head on.

This (OMP) is an AIRPLANE problem, NOT an AIRPORT problem. No??

Anon @12:06 sorry, I see how my post is confusing. What I mean since you can’t change the number of planes, (although in theory they could reduce when the other runways open, maybe???), you have to deal with the amount of noise the planes make. If I’m understanding the issue correctly, a single plane can be as loud as 65 DCBL. That’s really loud! Wouldn’t the better solution be to work with the FAA, or whomever is appropriate, on lower that to say 45 DCBL? The FAA right now is saying that for right now, quieter planes can’t be manufactured. I really, really doubt that. I also really, really doubt that existing planes cna’t be altered somehow to be quieter. I know it’s not a “quick” solution, but I think in the long run, it’s the best path to take. It would not be difficult to get evidence that residents, including children, are suffering permanent hearing loss. Add that to the ever expanding evidence of the negative health issues associated with lack of sleep, and you may actually have something to fight with. Fighting because you’ve lost the enjoyment of your backyard or value in your property is not going to win it. Just ask all the people that live around Midway.

anon 2:57:

I have no problem with improvements to planes to reduce noise. My problem is that it does not solve my immediate problem. I no nothing about exactly what technology exists that could be used on planes to reduce noise but I do know that even if is on the drawing boards right now it will take 10+ years to implement and then god knows how long to be worked into our air fleet so that it would exactly make a difference. I will probably have already booked the loss on my house by then. To use the auto analogy that a previous poster mentioned. The air bag was invented and developed in the late 1950’s and 1960’s. It was federally mandidated in 1998!! I would argue it was compitition that drove the airbags – Benz had them long before the mandate.

By the way, just to clarify. The issue is not the 65db. It is the way they measure it. That 65 db represents a 24hr average. If the measuring devices in PR are at or below 65db average for a 24 hr period that is deemed acceptable. As a reference 60-70 db is the level of normal conversation. The problem is even overnight hours when there are no planes are included in this average. We could have 200+ planes a day all recording 80+ db and as long as the 24 hr average is less then 65 it is OK.

Anon 2:27 – The noise from airplanes can far exceed 65 DNL. The following was taken from the FAA website: “4.1.2 Noise Impact Criteria
The FAA has defined the threshold levels above which aircraft noise causes a significant adverse impact on people. In residential areas, 65 DNL is the threshold above which aircraft noise exposure levels are considered to be non-compatible.” This is where the noise monitors come in. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required as part of the O’Hare Expansion Project. It is my understanding that the EIS was based on predictive data meaning they essentially guessed what the DNL noise levels would be when planes started flying over Park Ridge. It is my understanding that the actual DNL levels in some areas are much higher than what was predicted in the EIS. (No surprise that it would include false and misleading information.) Where the DNL is actually 65 or higher would probably qualify more homes for soundproofing. Changing the standard from the DNL to SENEL would probably qualify even more than that. I don’t know what that means for areas like the Maine South athletic where the planes are coming in extremely low and where kids are outside for all sorts of school activities. Noise monitors may be the only way of determining what the actual (real) DNL levels are.

Another goal that is on the ORD-REST website is the suggestion that they do not decomission (remove) the 2 angle runways that run northwest to southeast. These are the two runways that take off/land over the most highly industrialized area that surrounds the airport. (You can see just how industrialized it is by looking at the “Existing Off-Airport Landuse Drawing” that was part of the OMP documents) Of course, the two runways that would have the least noise/pollution impact on the population are being decomissioned and they added/are adding runways in the areas that have the highest, single family residential population. Brilliant! Keeping these runways active is a good suggestion. I can’t see a reason why they need to be decommissioned, but then I’m not an aviation expert. If I have given any inaccurate information, please correct me.

Anon @ 3:57

Assuming you’re right about the DNL exceeding 65 dbl, will you be satisfied solely by more soundproofing? If Jan Schakowsky, or Dick Durbin, or Peter Roskam, got federal money to soundproof all of Park Ridge, would your objections to the current status of O’Hare cease?

I’m betting “no,” because you’re also concerned about noise at Maine South when kids are outside for sports and other activities. So what’s your plan to correct that, other than by pushing planes to other runways or cutting flights?

And do you or ORD-REST know WHY the OMP plan is to decommision those 2 northwest to southeast angle runways that run over industrialized areas rather than residential ones? Until you know, you have no idea whether that’s carved in stone or negotiable.

Believe me, I’m anti-OMP. But I’m also a realist, and it seems like the target(s) for the anti-OMP groups keep shifting so that nothing will satisfy them other than flights over somebody else’s houses.

Suuny Day.

Baisically I was referring to the addtion of the new runway and proposed runways because I can’t see any airport building a new one unless they reaaly need it.

It’s beyond me how something like air travel continues to increse and I sometimes wonder how true it is but if you look at history these things do increase over time.

The airpost opened in 1955 and it was expanded in the early 60’s which at that time everything was moved to O’Hare from Midway. I don’t know everything, and only know about a couple of runways.

The east/west runway south of PR was opened in 1967 or 68. I learned about the date of that 1 in a 1968 PR Herald article where a collumist mentioned it and suggesting it would relieve anyone on the south side of air noise from the Kenedy route. Altough I wasn’t around then myself in my lifetime inspite seeing there being times when 1 route was being used, there’ve been plenty of times that I’ve seen both used at the same time.

The SW route over PR was added in 1971. Of course that has not been used as much and the other SW route which is kind of strange considering how the new Bell Plaine route is used all the time.

If all this, including the new Bell Plaine route and the proposed runways is not enough to prove that
air traffic is growing then I don’t know what is.

I do think it’s kind of silly how they want a few more runways and eliminate the diagnal ones but for everything else. I can’t really or even be angry and anyone

Mike:

You did not see my post above in this thread?? 6/1/09 @11:23AM

Anon 4:32 – You’ve asked some good questions. I have always had airplane noise over my home but mostly from take-offs. There were times they were loud but because the planes weren’t always coming along the same path and weren’t as frequent, they didn’t bother me as much. (I moved here knowing I would get some plane noise). I don’t know why those runways are being decommissioned. Maybe someone out there knows. I just think that with additional runway options available, the noise can be distributed.

You’re correct that I wouldn’t be satisfied with soundproofing. I have my windows open all the time. My home doesn’t have air conditioning and I never felt I needed it. But there might be people out there that use air conditioning, work from their homes, or spend a lot of time indoors that would benefit. There are many people further west from me that have noise levels a lot higher than I do. I would be happy if they just wouldn’t run those planes every 2 minutes (or less) when they’re coming in. That constant, high-pitched whining sound is what bothers me the most.

As far as the Maine South athletic field goes, I don’t know what the answer is. If at least we knew what the DNL levels were there, we would at least know whether there is a higher risk to the students. (I have children that will attend there.

What many fail to realize when they talk of the 2 decommissioned runways is that they could not all be used simultaneously.

The runway configuration (prior to Nov 08) had 3 pair of parallel runways but almost all of them cross one or more others. The most they could usually use was 2 or 3 at a time…

So they hatched a plan to create a set of 6 runways that were ALL parallel. Obviously you would pick 2 that already exist and build 4 others parallel to it…The decided direction was E-W since this would satisfy much of time that winds would be favorable to use all 6 and the current airport grounds could accommodate much of it (expansion is sort of limited to the east and north by 294 and 90!) The 2 being decommissioned would be used very rarely…

what if you were trying to change the Uptown Touhy/NW Hwy/Prospect intersection into a 6 lane highway with no traffic light…

We are all doomed!
More planes,
more runways,

Yes – living on the dark side now
is not where it’s at.

Darth Vader