The search for more meaningful aircraft noise analysis in support of more effective airport planning

摘要

The current state-of-knowledge on aircraft noise and effects is either a dilemma or opportunity depending on one’s perspective. The Federal government adopted Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) because it is the best single system of noise measurement to apply uniformly in the communities and around airports. This faith in DNL led to the multiagency promotion of guidelines for land use compatibility. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved millions of dollars of federal grant funding for noise mitigation around airports based on the DNL. Various federal actions have reduced the number of people exposed to “significant” levels of aircraft noise from several million to fewer than half-a-million, which should signal great success. However, concern about aircraft noise persists as the number one detriment to airport expansion. Recognizing public dissatisfaction with DNL, the Federal government approved the use of other measures of aircraft noise to supplement DNL in environmental assessments, but not to substitute for DNL in deciding the significant noise impacts. Countries, such as Australia, have claimed great success using supplemental metrics, such as number of events above a noise level threshold (NA). NA and other metrics have popular in domestic airport noise analyses and are touted as being effective with the public. But how is this effectiveness measured? Does providing a measure in terms the public can understand guarantee the information is more meaningful for the public, the airport authority, and the federal policy or decision maker?