|
Burbank Neighbor
|
Good, it's about time. This airport and a few of its carries, and FedEx, are extremely rude and inconsiderate not to abide by the voluntary curfew. The curfew must be made mandatory by their own actions. Perhaps the large commercial carriers should be banned all together since the airport is in such a highly populated area. It's a major greenhouse gas polluter in the San Fernando Valley, too.
|
|
not happy
|
When those planes go over before 7 am and after 11pm, it is just hard to deal with. I understand, when it is windy, they are over us with in the agreed times. But come on, let us sleep.
Thanks
|
|
Nedly Mandingo
|
Wow that's a little stiff I guess we can all say goodbye to cheap flights from Burbank and get ready for longer drives to LAX. I hope glendale pasadena and burbank are ready for the decrease in passenger Revenue. I wonder if the FAA will approve it?
|
|
sensible
|
It is time that people were responsible for their own actions and accept the consequences. If a person moves near a railroad track, freeway, airport, etc ... why are they surprised at the noise? As the city grows and traffic increases there will be increased noise. Does it take a rocket scientist or expensive studies to figure that out? Come on people, with population increase, comes growth and all the consequences good and bad that are associated with it.
These same people will then complain when it becomes even harder to get a seat on a flight to get to a business meeting or begin their vacation because of the curfews.
Do we stop all growth? Let's stop building more apartments, condos, homes, malls,... because they all contribute to more people moving in, more traffic, more noise, more time spent in getting to our destinations, more accidents ...
Now people are trying to curtail traffic at an airport that they well knew existed before they moved into the area. Growth is inevitable as long as people continue to procreate (specially when they can't be afforded, now that's a whole different topic, but not unrelated, and will have to wait for another time). Everything has consequences, both good and bad or not so desirable. We have to weigh them carefully and start looking at long term solutions. We tend to not plan for the future and then try to fix problems that were in the making for a long time with short term solutions. Be careful because they may cause even more long term problems compounded.
Bottom line: quit complaining if you are going to move to an area near a highway, railroad, airport, schoolyard (are they going to start to complain because children are making too much noise during recess as more children attend the school?!), transportation corridor, mall, etc ...
Take responsibility for your own choices / actions and live with the consequences.
|
|
sensible
|
Oh, and if you are going to live / build a house near an airport, and you want to minimize the noise, insulate better and use improved products as they become available (ie, triple pain glass, improved sound insulation techniques ...) just as the airplane manufacturers use quieter engines as they become available.
|
|
sensible
|
ooooops, triple-pane glass is what I meant to spell. Although I could have enjoyed a pun using "triple-pain"
It seems as if too many people always want to take a quick fix to a long-term problem ... ie a quick fix pill for obesity, which didn't manifest itself overnight (News flash), and it's not going to be able to be fixed overnight either. If we ignore future potential problems by not planning for the long term solutions then when we do try to fix them we are only going to compound the problems by creating numerous new ones.
Think of the consequences before rushing in, and if you do rush in then don't complain down the road as the people who chose to live near an airport are.
|
|
sensible
|
Note: Public airports (even more so if they accept federal money, as most do) are governed by federal law.
I like to play "devil's advocate" and get people to think a little more as well as working on better arguments to back their positions with more logic and understanding (of both sides).
Now before too many people start "shooting" at me / my post ... I agree that some sort of arrangement / compromise can be made by both sides. Maybe limiting the number of flights after a certain time, or only allowing quieter planes during certain hours ( I think the 6:59 a.m. time is too late and should be 6 a.m. to allow travelers to be able to get to destinations on time). In addition, the residents can perform some sound insulating. There are going to be costs incurred by both sides and it isn't going to be perfect.
Costs vs benefits.
A resident always has the choice to move if the noise gets to be too much. This is no different than if the traffic / crowding becomes too much for them (as compared to when they first moved to a location) becomes unbearable.
Remember:
The "music" of children playing can become "noise" as we age and no longer have children of our own and now appreciate the quiet. If so, then it is time to move for we changed, the sound of the children did not.
Now feel free to comment.
|
|
sensible
|
In response to "Burbank Neighbor's" comment regarding: "It's a major greenhouse gas polluter in the San Fernando Valley, too."
What do you think would create more pollution? A flight out of the San Fernando Valley or now the added cars transporting all the passengers to L.A.X.?
Hmmm increased traffic (and in both directions, as I'm sure many of the passengers will be dropped off by family members / friends who have to turn around and go back home to the SFV) and this leads to:
INCREASED drive times (for everyone on the freeways)= INCREASED POLLUTION, INCREASED USE of FOSSIL FUELS,...
See how a quick, "easy" short-sited "solution" only compounds the problem.
As for the comment to ban the airport as it is in the center of such a highly populated area. Let's see, I think the airport was there before it became so highly populated and the airport helped make it so. If the population hadn't increased the airport traffic wouldn't have increased either.
Care to debate which came first, the chicken or egg now too? Could be fun, I'll get you thinking on that one for there is one answer that is more logical and makes sense.
|
|
|
|
sensible
|
Bottom line: Long term planning before no solutions will be available to us.
We need to make the sacrifices to improve the public transportation infrastructure.
|
|
Reason Is Right
|
Actually, there was population in Burbank before the airport. And, the airport was built before the age of noisy, polluting jet engines. This airport is a noise, pollution, and hazard nuisance for a wide swath of communities including most of the SFV, Santa Clarita, Valencia, Glendale and Pasadena. Its operations really should be reasonably limited in this highly populated urban area and a mandatory nightime curfew is no unreasonable at all. I personally could live without the airport and its pollution without inconvenience and I don't even live in the flight path. If Californians can spend billions of tax dollars to build sound walls for people who purchase homes near busy freeways rather than fixing freeways and building new ones, there's no valid reason for this airport operating with reasonable restrictions that protect the health, safety and comfort of millions of residents.
|
|
Burbank resident
|
Nooo, this will only mean longer lines and more stress to just get on a flight, more anticipation about whether your flight will leave or not. Burbank is one of the only airports that make boarding a breeze. I don't want to see that affected. It's the reason I don't use LAX.
|
|
Reason Is Right
|
Burbank resident wrote: Nooo, this will only mean longer lines and more stress to just get on a flight, more anticipation about whether your flight will leave or not. Burbank is one of the only airports that make boarding a breeze. I don't want to see that affected. It's the reason I don't use LAX. Gee, we wouldn't want to inconvenience a few tourists and business people just so that a few million people can sleep sounder and breath healthier air, would we?
|
|
sensible is right
AOL
|
hey, i bet the same people will complain about their packages from fed ex taking a day longer too. pollution?! give me a break. look at the LA basin, tell me the air traffic going into lax, santa monica, and hawthorne put all that smog up there. quit whining and move somewhere else...
|
|
sensible
|
In reply to "Reason Is Right" ...
Of course there was "population" in Burbank ... otherwise there would be no need for an airport. The airport opened in 1930 and the SFV population was less than 100,000 (for all of SFV). It was the largest and most modern airport until 1946 when LAX opened. From 1930 to 1946 there was a large population increase into the SFV. I'm sure the airport played a big part in the growth of the SFV and now they want to get rid of the airport.
The history of the SFV growth shows poor planning on its part. This has led to problems today. Lack of adequate park space in many parts of the valley.
You can research the history of the SFV, its growth and planning as well as the now Bob Hope airport.
As for your ability to "live without the airport" ... are you so sure? How about the commerce that flows through the airport and its affect on business' and thus prices that you pay? Or the increased productivity it provides to business' in many ways? How about all the jobs that it supports? Tax revenue it generates, etc ... These all affect the residents of SFV in positive ways. Of course there are costs associated with the benefits too.
As for noisy jets ... the jets have gotten quieter. Have you heard the old radial engines? They are loud and didn't have the climb rates that the jets have so they would impact an even larger area. I suppose you'd like to go back to the horse and buggy days too. Although I'd say, that may one day happen. LOL
As for your "noisy polluting jet engines" ... do you realize why the jets became popular over the reciprocating engines? It is because they are MORE economical. The fact that the jets were also faster was a plus but NOT the reason for the airlines to turn to the jets. The "pollution hazard" would be increased substantially due to the increased automobile travel to LAX and the increased travel times due to now the even more overcrowding of the freeways.
I agree that with population increase comes new problems. The irony is that most if not all of these problems could have been avoided through better long term planning. Let's start building a better public transportation system along with better planning of new growth instead of what is good for the short term and a few peoples' pockets.
I'm sure some reasonable solution / restrictions may be viable as a short term (relatively speaking) solution. The population, its demands and traffic of all types will only increase.
|
|
sensible
|
FYI
The population for all of SFV by 1940 had reached 112,000, 10 years AFTER the opening of the airport. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to say with such a statement as "there was population".
|
|
Burbank Neighbor
|
To "sensible:" Nothing you wrote negates the reasonable and sensible request for a mandatory night time curfew at the Bob Hope airport. Also, it contradicts your earlier assertion that the airport was built before the population of the SFV existed. Lastly, just because modern jet engines are more efficient doesn't negate that fact that the airport, through larger commmercial aircraft and increased flights, is producing more greenhouse gas pollution in a highly populated area.
|
|
Nedly Mandingo
|
I am all for a ban if Glendale Burbank and Pasadena agree to change the flight path so that they get to fully enjoy the full force of the Jet Aircraft. Currently most flights into the airport fly over the west valley down Sherman way, or from the east valley, down San Fernando road glenoaks blvd. they take off the same way. Taking all flights and diverting them to take off over Burbank and Glendale and flying over the mountains and down through Pasadena into the basin to land. Then you will get your tax moneys worth of noise and pollution. Either that or give up the airport and control of it so that LAX World Airports can maintain it and enjoy the rewards since it already deals with the consequences. I so enjoy reading people cry about the Airport but it's revenues allow you to enjoy a comfortable tax stream. While SFV valley residents get the Brunt of the Noise and Pollution. Eventually SFV residents will have enough and file for an injunctionwith the FAA and end your free ride.
|
|
Flava Flav
|
Nedly Mandingo: You only support the nightime ban on flights if the flight path is changed? You're complaining that the rest of the SFV is harmed by the airport so you should support minimizing flights and shutting the operation down at night.
Remember that Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena are "islands" surrounded by other cities. No matter which way those airplanes fly, other cities will be impacted by them. And the pollution just flies with the wind.
|
|
sensible is wrong
AOL
|
burbank is a regional airport. Not a national airport they want to make into. there is nothing wrong with making a curfew. especially when airplanes come screaming in at 4:30, 5 oclock in the morning. Sometimes three right in a row. I bet sensible does'nt have kids. Try getting them back to sleep at 5 in the morning. it's not easy. Yeah..soundproofing...sounds good, but not very practical. especially when the kids just keep taking the soundproof muzzle off. LOL
Anyways...the new terminal they HAVE to build(by law) was (from the plans I saw a few years ago)going to be at least 20 gates, expandible from there. Now...after a few complaints they"reduced" the size of the terminal to 14 gates expandible to 20. Year right... like they are going to build a terminal that has less gates than it has now (it has 16 gates now)
If you have been listening to what has been said, they want to expand the number of flights from 120,000 or so to over 180,000 flights a year. thats right ...180 THOUSAND flights a year.
Now, according to Sensible "what's a little noise. Just get some soundproofing ( and maybe a gas mask or two) It's just a little inconvenience. no big deal" If you can't handle it just move. Yeah right... have your priced gas masks lately, let alone the price of a 3-bedroom house.
What about long term planning? Sensible asks. Well... what happened to El Toro, It was an airbase that already existed. ALREADY EXISTED... Just had to build a modern terminal and you have fantistic airport that would relieve the congestion at LAX and Burbank.
What about an airport in the Lancaster/Palmdale area? It would be closer to the people in the Santa Clarita area than LAX and probably a lot easier to get to.
Come on Sensible... Lets get real. You are probably one of those people who works for the development companies, parks in the handicap zone because "its only for a few minutes", and has their head up their a** while they are driving because you are on the phone. Maybe we should put up some soundproofing around you, because you sure had a lot say, but you sure didn't know what you were talking about.
|
Judge it!
76°F
Most Popular
