Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-- WYL_ RESEARCH REPORT
! WR 91"4 :/"i
- ANALYSISOF ALTBRNATZVB "
NOISE METRIC_.'FOR- " . " ..AIRPORT NOISE ASSESSMENT' " "
L,, ,
',., BOOZ-ALLEN'.'& _HAMX_.'TO_, INC,'l'ranspoi'tatlcln'Consd!t_t/driDivision
Q Bethesda,4330.?Mafylan._ '. 20814.,
,_ Subcontract No: .09073_i_0_P.0702-88 .,,. ":<,__ ,. _..i
l --
.' Pr'epared.By._..! , :'. ,. --. • ,........... , . _
• . "ao_.z we,_....'_ .'- ". .... . '_'• :.....:_ " J
_: 2001..'Jeffemo_Sav_,Hlghway - " ,: -
{JIN 3_4091 "_" .... ._'..
' ' _ February 199.1 '_ !
'I_' _.._!_,.-"
.i
-= WXI._ RESEARCH REPORT! _ 91-4
-_ ANALYSIS OF ALTE_A_
-_ NOISE METRICS FOR
AIRPORT NOISE ASSESSMENT
.?
Prepared For
BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON. INC.Transportation Consultation Divlslon
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland20814
Subcontract No, 09073-150-P0702-88
"_ Prepared By
V/Jay R. DesalJohn E. WeslerKevln A. Bradley
WYL_ RESEARCH
'-I Wyle Laboratories2001 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22202
(J/N 39409)
r
i February 1991
!
i
, ; Pflffe
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................. 1-1
i 2.0 AN._FSlS P_.OCEDt,rRE ....... 2-1
i "_ 2.1 Purpose ................. 2-I
-, 2.2 Description of the Data Base ...... 2- I
2.3 Description of Alternatives Analyzed ......... 2-3
_t
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SOFTWARE 3-I
3.1 Introduction ............. 3-tb-Jr
3.2 Numbers of Opcratlons- Program DNI._EL ..... 3-I
"_ 3.2.1 Dcscriptlon .......... .r . . . 3-2: 3.2.2 User's Guide ............ 3-2i'J
3.3 Ma._mum SEL Contours - Program SELCOMP ....... 3.5
i ,' 3,3.1 Description 3-53.3,2 User's Guide .............. 3-6
l'-_ 4.0 CAI_UIATION OF IMPACTS ............. 4-1
I _ 4,1 Introduction 4.1
4,2 Technique to Determine Population Impacts ....... 4-2
4.3 DNL Analysis Results ............. 4-5
I _ 4.4 SEL Results .............. 4-18
" It2
I¢, 5.0 COMPARATIVE DNL/SEL ANALYSIS ........... 5-I
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ........... 6-I
7.0 REFERENCES ................. 7-I
_'_ APPENDIX A: DNL ContourPlotsforAllCandidateAirports(AllScenarios) A- l
_ APPENDIX B: SEL Contour Plots for All Candldate Airports (All Scenarios) . B-I
"I-_ us-ro_T_L_S
Table
4-I Summnry of Areas Impacted by Levels Exceeding DNL 55 dB ..... 4-6
"T 4-2 Summary of PopulaUons Impacted by Levels Exceeding DNL 55 dB 4-8
4-3 Sunmm_ of Areas Impacted by Levels Exceeding SEL 90 dB ..... 4-20
i i
I
m
-- LIST OF TABLES {Continued]Table
No. Pa_e
4-4 Summary of PopulaUons L,'npac{ed by Levels Exceeding SEL 90 dB 4-22
_' 5-1 Summary ofAreas Impacted by Levels Exceeding DNL 55 dB and SEL 90 dB 5-2
": 5-2 Summary of Populations Impacted by Levels Exceeding DNL 55 dBand SEL90 dB ............. 5-4
-- 5-3 Comparative Changes in PopulaUon Impact Using DNL and SEL[Relative to Base Case) ............... 5-7
5-4 Comparative Changes in Impacted Areas Using DNL and 5EL-- (Relative to Base Case) ............ 5-9
5-5 Comparative Changes in People Impacted Using DNL and SEL[Relative to Base Case): Nlghrtlme Penalty Imposed on People-lncldents . 5-10
LIST OP FIGURE8-- FIg,
No.
4-I Los Angeles International Airport (LAX): Area Impacted by Levels-- Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-10
4-2 Boston Logan InternaL[onal Airport (BOS): Area Impacted by Levels-- Greater than DNL 55 dB ............. 4-10
._ 4-3 Nashvtlla International Airport [BNA): Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-11
4-4 Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL): Area Impacted by levels"; Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-11
'- 4-5 Cincinnati International Airport [CVG): Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB ............. 4-12
4-5 T.F. Green State Airport [PVD): Area Impacted by Levels-- Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-12u
4-7 Palm Beach International Airport (PBI]: Area Impacted by Levels.... Greater than DNL 55 dB , 4-13
-- 4-8 Los Angeles International Airport (LAX]: People Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB ........... 4-14
4-9 Boston Logan International Airport (_OS): People Impacted by Levels-: Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-14
4-I0 Nashville International Airport [BNA): People Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-15
4-11 Fort Lauderdale International Airport [FLL): People Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-15
iI
m
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued): Fig.
No. Pa_c
4-12 Cinclrmatl International Airport ICVG): People Impacted by Levelsi
i Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-16
4-13 T.F. Green State Airport Airport (PVD): People Impacted by Levels-- Greater than DNL 55 dB ............... 4-16
4-14 Palm Beach International Airport (PBI): People Impacted by LevelsGreater than DNL 55 dB .............. 4-17
_i 4-15 Los Angeles International Airport [LAX): Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB ............. 4-24
"_ 4-16 Boston International Airport (BOS}: Area Impacted by LevelsLogan-- Greater than SEL 90 dB ............... 4-24
4-17 Nashville International Airport [BNA): Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB .............. 4-25]
4-18 Fort Lauderdale International Alrport (FLL): Area Impacted by Levels-_ Greater than SEL 90 dB ............... 4-25
-! 4-19 Cincinnati Iv.temational Airport(CVG]: Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than SEL 90 OB ............... 4-26
.._ 4-20 T,F. Green State Airport Airport (PVD]: Area Impacted by LevelsGreater titan SEL 90 dB ............... 4-26
"7 4-21 Palm Beach International Ah-port (PBI]: Area Impacted by LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB ......... 4-27
4-22 Los Angelos Internatlonal Alrport [LAX]: "People-lncldents" for Levels' _ Greater thanSEL90 dB 4-25
4-23 Boston Logan Internatlonal Airport (BOS]: "People-lncldents" for Levels"_ Greater than SEL 90 dB ............... 4-28;I
4-24 Nashville International Airport {BNA]: "People-lncldents" for LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB ............... 4-29
-?_ 4-25 Fort Lauderdala International Alrport [FILl: "People-lncldents" for Levels
Greater than SEL 90 dB ............ 4-29
i 4-26 Cincinnati International Airport (CVG): "People-Incidents" for Levels-- Greater than SEL 90 dB ............. 4-30
4-27 T,F. Green State Airport (PVD): "People-lncidents" for LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB ............ 4-30
4-28 palm Beach International Airport (PBI): "People-lncidents" for LevelsGreater than SEL 90 dB................ 4-31
5-I Comparative Chazgges in Impact Relative to Base Case -: DNL Greater Than 55 dB. SEL Greater Than 90 dB ........ 5- l l
-- 5-2 Comparative Changes in Impact Relative to Base Case -DNL Greater Than 60 dB, SEL Greater Than 95 dB ........ 5-12
r Ill
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 authorized the
establlshment of a voluntary program of local airport noise compatibility planning,
-- and directed the standardization of the procedure for representing and evaluating
airport noise. Specifically, the Act directed the Secretary of Transportation.
through regulaUons, to:
a Establish a single system of measuring noise, for which there is a highly
"" reliable relationship between the projected noise exposure and surveyed
-" reactions of people to noise, to be uniformly applied in measuring the
nolse at airports and the areas surrounding the airport_:J
b. Establish a single system for determining the exposure of individuals tom
: _ noise which results from the operations of an airport and which
includes, but is not limited to, nolse intensity, duration, frequency, and
time of occurrence: and
e, Identify land uses which are normally compatible with various exposures
of individuals to noise, (Public Law 96--193, Sec. 102.)
-_ In response to this legislative mandate, the Federal Av_atlon Administration
{FAA) issued Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning (14 CFR 150) in 1980, and adopted A-welghted Sound
-_ Level as the "single" unit for measuring noise, and the Day-Night Average Sound
Level (DNL] as the "single system" for determining the exposure of individuals to
airport noise.
.... The selection of A-weighted Sound Level, and especially DNL, was based on
' the best scientific information available at that time [References I to 3). In
general. DNL was also adopted by the FAA for its environmental assessments
_ under the National Environmental Policy Act (Reference 4). and by most otherfederal agencies in their environmental reviews.
_ Thus. ten years ago, the issue regarding the appropriate metric for
: determining community noise impact was apparently put to rest, and DNL was
, generally accepted as the most practical measure of noise exposure and the extent
l-I
_.
• of incompatible land uses, Recently, however, that consensus is being called into
question, largely as the result of dissatisfaction with the use of DNL in areas of low
ambient noise level, People who llve in such areas, and perceive that they are
_ adversely affected by noise sources of relatively low noise level, will not accept the
, use of any metric which does not "prove" their dissatisfaction. Thus, for example,although such instances may actually involve DNLs well below the levels normally
i considered compatible with residential land use, those affected will object to such' evaluation because it does not substantiate their own perceptions and expecta-
tions. Many airport neighbors object to the energy-averaglng concept inherent in
-_ DNL, and believe that their annoyance is more directly related to single events
rather than an average sound level. In addition, the use of logarithms to represent
environmental noise levels seems to be too diMcult and confusing for proper
understanding by the general public, As a result, some metric other than DNL is
being sought for airport noise assessments.
It is generally accepted that an individual's reactions to envlronmcntal noise
"_ within a community will depend on a number of factors, both non-acoustJcal and
acoustical in nature. For example, a large part of that reaction will depend on the
._ activity in which the listener is engaged, his or her expectations of the relative
quiet and serenity of the surroundings, his or her attitude toward the source of
' i the noise and the ability to control that source, and his or her feelings of
apprehension about the potential danger represented by that noise source. Only a
_"_ part of the reaction will depend on the physical characteristics of the noise - its
-- spectral intensity, duration, and frequency of occurrence.
: Each of these physical characteristics can be measured directly and
represented quantitatively, The psychological characteristics of an individual are
"I far more difficult to measure, and are usually unknown. Consequently, metrics
"-" have been developed to represent overall eommuni_,y reaction, based on the
--_ physical parameters, and are not considered reliable in representing the reactions
of individual members of ttmt community.
Over the past 40 years, during which environmental noise, and espectaUy
- that from transportation vehicles, has become a serious community problem,
there were many" metrics which were proposed to represent community reactions
- to environmental noise. All of these metrics are based on the physical
I-2
m
characteristics of the noise events involved - those characteristics which can be
- measured directly and stated quantitatively. In all cases, the goal was a single.
unambiguous "figure-of-merit" which reasonably represents the short- or long-
term noise impact on a communlty as a whole, and not necessarily on specific
individuals within that community.
_- Single-event noise metrics are primarily of value in Judging the relative
noisiness of individual vehicle operations, and measure either the maximum noise
_ level or the time-integrated noise level of a single event. Time-averaged noise
metrics are primarily of value in attempting to measure the long-term annoyance
of comrnunitien (not individuals) to environmental noise, by taking into account
the number of noise events along with the noise levels of those events.
Interestingly, in the U.S.. the first cumulative noise metric was the initial version
": of the Composite Noise Rating (CNR-I), developed about 1955 by Bolt Beraneki
-_ & Newman, Inc.. for the U,S. Air Force. That metric ranked the octave band
spectrum at maximum overall noise level against a template representing human
hearing efficiency, and incorporated an approximate energy-average addition to
account for the number and duration of noise events, along with a 5 dB addition
for nighttime events, another 5 dB penalty for each 6 dB decrease in ambient_Jnolae level below about 50 dB. and a third 5 dB penalty if a community had little
-7 prior experience with thls type of noise.
The concept of penalties for prior experience, background or ambient noise
level, evening and/or nighttime noise events, and even seasonal adjustments
appears intuitively valid, but most such penalties are often difficult to implement
in practice. Subjective tests such as "prior experience" are diI_cult to apply, since
different interests will interpret such guidance quite differently. Consequently.
-_ the CNR-I evolved into CNR-II, then into Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF] for
-- aircraft noise, Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in Californ_. and most
-! recently into the rather rigid DNL, with exactly defined nighttime hours, As each
_. of these metrics evolved, fewer subjective Judgments were required to eliminate
ambiguities and differing interpretations.
In reviewing concepts for the efficient control of environmental noise by
regulation, several basic philosophies are apparent, For the regulation of
--- community noise, there is the need for a single value "figure.of-merlt". which
t-3
¢
(I} is directly determined by well-defined measurement or calcutation procedures
-- using physical parameters, (2) is unambiguous in its determination and
interpretation by those who must employ it, (3} is relatlvely understandable by
_ non-technical people, and (4) provides a reasonably accurate representation of
the manner in which the community as a whole reacts to the noise being
controlled. This last goal is probably the least important of the four so long as the
general tendency indicated by the selscted metric represents the same tendency
• in the Judged environmental noise (that ts, if the metric decreases numerically,
-- the noise also decreases roughly in the same retationship}. In general, DNL meets
these goals, despite continued criticism of its use. Recent research has again
_ supported this position (Reference 5).i
Inevitably. once a suitable metric has been adopted, numerical standards or
guidetlnes must be established for that metric to represent "normally acceptable"!-- conditions. The adopted "normally acceptabic" level must provide a delicate
-_ balance between that which is economically and technically achievable without
unduly reducing the benefits derived from the noise source, and that which is
properly protective of the public health and welfare. Noise regutators face this-?balancing act constantly. Any practical noise regulation consists of a method for
measuring noise effects and an "acceptable" level of those effects which balances
the benefits and costs.
This point is especially pertinent in the light of the apparent dissattsfaction
with DNL as a metric for regulating community noise. Community members oRen
contend that a single-event noise metric is most meanlngful in controlling their
-_ noise, and, of course, that level should be the magic 65 dB. They lose sight of the
practical matter that a different noise metric will necessarily result in a different
numerical value of noise acceptability. This new combination of metric and
acceptable criterion in turn will probably represent approximately the same
i balancing of the benefits and costs as they affect the viability of the noise source.
2.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
-" 2.1 Purpose
"the purpose of this report is to provide a quani.itative analysis to determine
: if a single-event noise metric will provide additional insight and sensitivity in the
assessment of airport community noise impacts, in comparison with the accepted
DNL, and whether such a metric would lead to a dUTerent decision regarding theadoption of alternative noise abatement actions, By comparing noise impacts
- around representative airports, determined through the use of a single-event
.i noise metric based on Sound Exposure Level (SEL), with those determined
through the use of DNL, and in turn comparing both with an intuitive Judgment oft
t those noise impacts, it was intended to determine if the SEL-based metric
provided advantages over DNL, primarily on those communities with DNLs less
"_ than 65 dB,
-- 2.2 Dc_crlpt/a n of the Data
-" To provide a realistic basis for comparing the efficacy of the two metrics,
-- the study selected eight U.S, airports for analysis purposes, An earlier FAA study
:-- (Reference 6) had analyzed the noise characteristics of the U.S. airports providing
commercial air service, and had grouped those airports into five categories for
analytical purposes, These were:
• Large-size, Long-range airports (LLR) - 6 major airports with average
--i daily operations ranging from 166 to 789;
• Large-size, Medium-range airports (LMR) - 22 major airports with
i average dally operations ranging from 153 to 791;
: • Large-size, Short-range airports (LSR) - 44 major airports with average
._ daily operations ranging from 139 to 628;
• Medium-slze, Short-range airports (MSR) - 111 airports with average
-- daffy operations ranging from 14 to 72; and
• Small-size, Short-range airports (SSR) - 64 airports with average daily
operations ranging from 6 to 29.
2-I
N
Using these categories as a guide, eight airports were selected for analytical
-- purposes, providing a representative sampling of the U,S, airports included above.
These selections were also influenced by the amount of information on hand for
each, to facilitate quantitative analysis. The selected airports were:
: Large-size, Long-range:
-- Los Angeles International Airport (LAX]
-, Large-slze, Medlum-range:
Boston Logan InternaUonal Airport (BOS)I
-. Large-slze. Short-range:
Nashville International Airport (BNA]
o_ Fort Lauderdale International Airport {FLL)
Greater Cincinnati International Airport (CVG)-i_! Medlum-size, Short-range:
T,F, Green State Airport [PVD}
t Palm Beach InternaUonal Airport (PBI)
Small-size, Short-range:
-i Bridgeport Airport [BDR}.
Sufficientdatawere on hand foreach oftheseairportstoallowcomputer analysis• withthe FAA'sIntegratedNoiseModel.
,.=_
I IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE SELECTION AND USE OF
THESE EIGHT AIRPO_¢_S DO NOT IMPLY ANY UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS
-_ OR OTHER IMPORTANCE IN REGARD TO THEIR NOISE IMPACTS, OR T'HAT
-- THE NOISE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THIS ANALYSIS ARE HIGHLY
-. ACCURATE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ACTUAL COMMUNITY NOISE
CONDITIONS THERE. THESE AIRPORTS WERE SELECTED SOLELY TO
PROVIDE SOME QUANTITATIVE REPRESENTATION OF ACTUAL OPERATING.-i
CONDITIONS. SOME OF THE PERTINENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE
AIRPORTS WERE PURPOSELY ALTERED AND SIMPLIFIED FOR COM-
i PUTATIONAL CONVENIENCE, SO THAT THE RESULTS CANNOT BE TAKEN
-- TO REPRESENT THE AC"I_AL AIRPORT CONDITIONS.
2-2
m
2.3 Description of Altarn_tlv,_ Analyzed
To provide a basis for the comparison of noise analyses employing the two
different metrics, a base case was assumed for each of the eight airports,
approximating the latest available operations information appropriate to each. As
noted above, some simplifications were made to facilitate the computations.
-- Inasmuch as the results are intended for comparison purposes only, the absolute!..- accuracy of the assumptions was relatively unimportant. For direct comparison to
_ the base case, four alternative actions were applied at each airport, intended to
I alter the noise impacts on surrounding communities in a predictable manner, so
that the changes in the noise impacts as represented by the metrics could aiso be
compared with the intuitive changes expected. "the alternatives used were:
-- • Alternative #i - All nighttime operations (those from 2200 to 0700 the
.: following morning) were converted to daytime operations, with the total
number of operations and mix of aircraft types held constant; because of
..J the nighttime penalty of I0 decibels included in the definition of DNL,this alternative was expected to reduce noise impacts around all
airpo_:i
• Alternative #2 - An air cargo hub operation was added to each airport,
] representing a "Federal Express-like" operation such as that currently
present at Memphis International Airport: the addition of a large
'7 number of nighttime operations was expected to increase noise impacts
-' substantially around all airports:
_. * Alternative #3 - All operations of Stage 2 airplanes at each airport were
converted to Stage 3 models of similar performance (but inherently-_quieter, of course], with the same number of total operations; the
substitution of quieter airplanes was expected to reduce noise impacts
-_ significantly around all of the airports: and
_ • Alternative #4 - Flight tracks were altered as judged beneficial to take
! advantage of less noise-sensitive areas around each airport; no attempt
was made to assure that such changes were practical or to determine if
2-3
i m
i --
' they affected air traffic safety or airport/airspace capacity: the purpose
.--: was ordy to make changes in community noise Impacts which should
. provide some small reductions in those impacts,
Air traffic patterns at B0S have been reviewed and studied in considerable
'"_ depth during recent years, because of noise problems there. In attempting to
apply Alterrmtlve #4 to BOS. it was not possible to find any better flight traclcs than
,-! those already in use there. This alternative was not used for the analyses at BOS,
,.j
g
r
L
L
3.0 SIJ'PPLICM/_lq'TALSOFTWAR.E
This section desc_'ibes the supplemental soft'ware that was developed for
this analysis. TWo programs - DNLSEL, which computes numbers of operations
that exceed specified SEL levels, and SELCOMP. which generates contour plots of
maximum SEL - are described in detail.
i
3.1 IntroducUon
- In Its current form. the Integrated Noise Model (INM). VerSion 3.9. enables
-- the user to generate DNL contours as well as perform Grid Analyses at specified-_ observer points. The detailed Grld Analysts report lists the 20 noisiest aircraft at
those points (ranked in descending order of noise contribution} as well as the
m,_ximum SEL associated with each flight and the numbers of day. evening, and
nighttime operations.
In order to perform a comparative DNL/SEL analysis, more detailed
-i information is required- first, contour plots of maximum SEL, and second, the__ numbers of operations that exceed these ma_mum SEL levels at regularly spaced
intervals. This information can then be overlaid on a census tract map of the
affected area, and the populations impacted can be estimated. A similar impactanalysis can be carried out with the DNL contours, and the results can then
"_ be compared,! --
Thus a set of programs was developed to supplement the INM. This
software essentially performs the two taslcs described in the previous paragraph.
Sections 3,2 and 3,3 describe the programs DNLSEL and SELCOMP. respectively,-i
3.2 Ntunbers of Operations - Program DNLSEL
The program DNLSEL was developed in order to compute the numbers of
day, evening, and nighttime flight operations that exceed specified maximum SELlevels, This section describes the program and also includes a brief User's Guide.
-!
3-I
?
3,2,1 Deseriotion
"_ The program DNLSEL is intended to be used as an additional tool in
performing INM analyses, The INM package has not been altered in any way,- Briefly. DNLSEL is a modiflcatlon of the subroutine "EXPOSR" in the INM's
iCOMPUTE module that performs the computations for regular Grid Analysis,
DNLSEL does a number of additional computations and generates the follow-i
trlg reports:
7 * Standard SEL Report - This shows the numbers of day, evening, and
nighttime operations that exceed a specified SEL level at a set of
_ observer points. The SEL level and the observer coordinates are
' specified by the user in the input file SELGRID.INP. It also gives the
DNL values at each of these points, This report is generated by default at' the end of each run,
• Detailed SEL Report - This shows the numbers of day. evening, and
nighttime operations that exceed the five user-specifled SEL values at
the specified set of observer points. "I_pieally, these five SEL values
would be those whose contours are being generated by programSELCOMP (Section 3,3). Only those points where the DNL value is
between the minimum and maximum DNL values specified in the input
file are reported, In addition to rids information, the report also shows
"_ the maximum SEL level encountered at each point, This report isI-- generated only if the user asks for it by using the "DETAIL" keyword in
the input file SELGRID.INP,
....i 3.2.2 User's Guide
Installation
I In order to install the software, copy the executable (extension .EXE} and
batch (extension .BAT] file on "INM Supplemental Disk #1" over to the subdlrec-
_ tory where INM output resides, Thus, if the INM is currently running in a
subdirectory called \INM, use the following steps to install the software:[
__ 1. "Ofpc CD \INM <enter>.
2. Place "INM Supplemental Dlsk #I - DNLSEL" in drive A.i
3-2I
3. 1_Ipe COPY A:*,EXE <enter>,
-- 4, "I_pe COPY A:*,BAT <enter>,
The software is now installed and ready for use,
Instructions For Use
l
i. Run INM Just as you would for the airport under consideration. You may
or may not choose to perform a Standard Grid Analysis and/or Contour
I Analysis, If you do so, it MUST be for DNL analysis, The file FOR31.DAT
generated by the INM's FLIGHT module is the only file used by DIV/_EL.
l
: 2. Create/modlfy the input file SELGRID,INP using any text editor, This
file should have the foUowing structure:
.2 CASE TEST RUN
AIRPORT EXAMPLE MHA_._ MILES
GRID
"_ 20-20 i 1 I0 I0SEL
7 85.0DNL
45.080,0l,
-- DETAIL
.... 85 90 95 I00 105
i END
Each entry is described below.
Keyword "CASE" is followed by a brief description of the case beingJ
; analyzed [the description can be up to 70 characters long),
i Keyword "AIRPORT" gives the name of the airport for which the
-- analysis Is being performed,
Keyword "FEET" (or "MILES") denotes the units of the GRIDi
parameters,
3-3
Keyword "GRID" signifies that the following l[ne contains the
followingparameters: XSTART, YSTART, XINC, YINC, IXSTEP.
IYSTEP. These are the same parametersthatare used for INM's
Standard Grid Analysis. XSTART and YSTART are the X- and
! Y-coordinatesofthestartingpaintfortheregulargridanalysis;_NC
and YINC are the incrementsintheX- and Y-dlrections.respectively,
and IXSTEP and IYSTEP are the number of points in the X- and
-" Y-directions that the analysis is to be performed. These values can be
-- in real and/or integer form, but all of them MUST be present. They
-_ must all be expressed in the units specified previously- namely, feet
--. ormiles.
Kcyword "SEL" signifies that the next llne contains the SEL value
"] above which the numbers of operations will be computed. This level
-" is SELIN. and is expressed in decibels, It can be In real or integer
-_ format, and must be present.' 1
_4
Kcyword "DNL" signifies that the next line contains the minimum
"_ and maximum DNL values between which the SEL analysis will be
"" reported, The values are DNLMIN and DNLMAX, respectively, and
=I are expressed in decibels. They must be present, This is included inI
order to reduce the amount of printed information.
-" Keyword "DETAIL" is optional, and should be used only if a detailed
SEL report {described in the previous section} is required. If so,
then the next llne must have the five SEL levels for which the
detailed analysis is required.
Keyword "END" signifies the end of the input file.
3. A separate batch file has been created to run the program. Enter
_ SELGRID <enter> at the DOS prompt in order to execute it. The file
STDSEL.PRT {standardSEL report]willalwaysbe generated. Ifthe
_: "DETAIL" option was specified in the input file, DTLSEL.PRT will also begenerated.
,4
Notes
1. DNLSEL wiU always use the file FOR31.DAT created during the last INM
run. This file is unique to that particular airport analysis, and is over-
written if INM is rerun for a different case. Thus it is important that
DNLSEL be run IMMEDIATELY following the appropriate INM run.
Alternately, the file FON31.DAT can be renamed to something else and. used later on (taking care to rename it hack to FOR31.DAT).
2. In a similar vein, DNLSEL wlU always use the existing file SELGRID.INP
for the SEL analysis. Before running the program for a different airport,
make sure that this file has been appropriately edited.i
3. The output (extensinn .PRT) files can grow quite large depending on the
.i step size and number of analysts points. Thus make sure that you haveample space on your hard disk before proceeding with a run,
[
__ 4. INM's Standard Grid Analysis module limits the number of points that
can be analyzed to 20 (from a given start posiUon), DNLSEL has no such
_j llmltation. Any number of points can be specified,
i
3.3 _lrn-_-4rn,,nsBEL Contours - Program SELCOMP
The program SELCOMP was developed in order to generate contour plots
of specified maximum SEL levels, This section describes the program and alsoincludes a brief User's Guide,
3.3.1 Description
The program SELCOMP is a modification of the subrouUne "EXPOSI" in
-: INM's COMPUTE module. It performs the calculations necessary to generate
• contours of maximum SEL rather than DNL (or CNEL). It uses the same pre-
-- processing software as the INM - namely, the INPUT and FLIGHT modules. These
have not been altered in any way.
f
3-5
In theory, a commercial plotting package (e.g., PLOT88) could have been
- used to generate the SEL contours. Although this Is quite attractive in terms of
better contour smoothing, reduced computation times, etc., there are some draw-
backs to this method. Using a commercial package necessarily means entering
into a licensing agreement, something that is best avoided. More Importantly, it
was felt that both the DNL and SEL contours should be generated using similar
algorithms, Thus it was decided that the existing DNL contouring logic would be
used to generate the SEL contours,
3,3.2
Installation
In order to use this software, files SELCOMP.EXE and SELCNTUR.BAT
should be on the hard disk in the subdlrectory where INM output resides. Thus, if
the INM is currently running in a subdirectory called \INM, use the following"" steps to install the software:
"_ I. _pe CD \INM <enter>,
2. Place "INMSupplemental Disk #2 - SELCOMP" in drive A.
-_ 3. "l_/pe COPY A:*.EXE <enter>.
"" 4. "I_fpeCOPY A:*.BAT <enter>.
i The software is now installed and ready for use, The rest of the files are for
informational purposes only, and need not be copied,
Instructions for Use
-- I. Create the input file FOR02.DATJast as you would for a normal INM run.
--_ However, in the PROCESSES section, specify the maximum SEL contourlevels that you wish to generate (for instance. 85 to 105 dB in 5 dB
.. increments), The statement should read: "CONTOUR LDN AT 85 90 95
I00 i05". Note that the key word '_DN" is used instead of "SEL". This
3-6
m
• _ is because the INPUT module has no[: been modified, as it would have to
-- be if the key word "SEL" needed to be added.
2. A separate batch file has been created to run the program, TypeSELCNTUR <enter>. The INPUT and FLIGHT modules will first be
executed, followed by SELCOMP. The results will be stored on a disk file
-- called SELINM.OUT. The SEL contour file, FORS3.DAT, can be plotted
-. in the normal manner using INMPLOT or INMDRAW.
7w_
_ :i
-- ?
_l3-7
1
4.0 C.A/_IJI_TION OF IZdtZPA,C'I_
This section describes the technique used to compute the areas and total
number of people impacted by aircraft operations around the candidate airports.
It also describes the results of these computations.
i 4.1 lnL,-oduct.lon
The areas enclosed by the DNL and SEL contours are calculated by the
COMPUTE and SELCOMP module, respectively, and are printed at the bottom of
" the contour plots as well as in the output files that these programs generate
--_ (INM,OUT and SELINM.ODT, respectively). Thus tabulating these data is a
straightforward tssk, It should be noted that these areas do not distinguish
between land and bodies of water. Thus, in the case of airports near major bodies
of water, the actual populated areas m_pacted can decrease substantially.
On the other hand, determining the populations impacted by aircraft
operations is a time-consumlng and labor-intensive task, Several methods can be
_ used to analyze the impacts for the DNL and SEL contours independent of each
other. However, the method finally selected had to be one that would allow a
correct comparison of the two different noise metrics. The alternate techniques
that wore tried as well as the one that was eventually chosen are described in the
I foUowing section.i
-- The results for BDR (Bridgeport) have not been considered in this analysis.
i This is due to the fact that the contours associated with this airport are very small
in relation to the scale of the census tract map (1 inch = 2 miles), making it
difficult to accurately determine the populations impacted by operations at
this airport.
At an early stage of the analysis it became evident that extending the SEL
population impact computations to 85 dB was extremely tlme-consuming, since
these contour_ extend outward [or very" large distances - far greater than even the
lowest DNL level (55 dB) contour, Since this study seeks to compare the two
i metrics, it was decided that the analysis would be limlted to the region affected by
DNL 55 dB and higher. It was therefore agreed upon by all the part.los involved in
J
m
this study to limit the analysis to SEL levels of 90 dB and higher - although the
- 90 dB SEL contour also usually extends beyond the DNL 55 dB contour,
4.2 T¢chnAque to Dctarm_-e Populnflon Impaetoi
The techniques described below were used to determine the populations
._. impacted by aircraft operations around each of the candidate airports and for allthe scenarios described earlier,
- In all instances, the 1980 census tract maps and the associated "Census of
_ Population and Housing" document prepared by the U.S, Census Bureau were used
__ to determine the impacted populations. The maps are generally drawn at a
standard scale where 1 inch represents 2 miles, However, densely populated
I areas are sometimes drawn at a more refined scale. Insofar as the eight candidate
airports are concerned, all the maps were at the standard scale except Nashville,
-7 which is represented at a scale of I inch equals 4 miles.
The coordinate system that is used in the INM is normally a right-handedi
one with the origin located at some prominent feature, such as the end of a
runway or the Intersection of two runways, However, this choice is entirely
arbitrary and is determined by the user, Thus, before any analysis was attempted,
- each of the candidate airports' runways was accurately located and drawn on the
associated census tract map at the appropriate scale. The origin of the coordinatei
- system was consistent with the INM input flies,
: All the noise contours were plotted at the same scale as their associated
census tract maps, They were then copied onto transparent sheets so that they
could be overlaid on the maps,
In the previous chapter it was noted that the program DNLSEL generates a
detailed report that gives the DNL value as well as the numbers of opemtians that
exceed certain maximum SEL values at regular intervals. For the purpose of this
analysis, all the cases yielded detailed reports at one-mile intervals, Thus a
regular square grid was prepared on a large transparent sheet such that it could
-' be overlaid on the census tract maps and the information in the detailed reports- could be used.
#-2t •
Technique #i
For a given DNL contour plot, the following method was used to determine
the impacted population.
: First, the contour plot was positioned on top of the map. with the runways
._. correctly aligned. All the census tracts that lay within the contours were deter-.j mined. The total population for each of these tracts was then determined from
the "Census of Population and Housing" publication.
-- To determine the populatlon within each contour range of a census tract:
.... i. A one-eighth-inch grid map was overlaid on the census tract and thetotal number of grld cells within that tract was determined.
_J ii, The total population of the tract was divided by the total number of grid
ceils determined in step I, above, to obtain a populatlon-per-grid cell.
lil. The number of grid ceils within each contour range in this census tract
was determined, and this was multiplied by the population-per-grid cell
to obtain the population impacted within that contour range.
! Once the population impacted within each contour range had been
-- computed for all the census tracts, they were summed to determine the total
-" population impacted in each contour range for the alrport and scenario being
- analyzed.
; This method is possibly the most accurate way to determine the numbers of
people impacted by the different DNL contours, However, this technique is not
appropriate for the ms.mum SEL contours, since what is required is not merely
the number of persons that lle within each contour range, but rather the "people-
incidents"- that is, the number of persons that are exposed to a given SEL level
multiplied by the number of operations that exceed that level. For this analysis,
what was eadled for were the "people-incidents" that exceed 90, 95, 100, and105 dB.
However, for completeness the techr_que described above was also used for
-- the SEL contours to determine the number of persons that are impacted within
#-3I
each contour range- that Is, without the additional computation of the "people-
-_ Incidents". A comparison of the two results (DNL and SEL) yielded no meaningfulinformation.
Technique #2
i The first step in this technique was the same as in the previous one-
nsmaly, the contour plot was positioned on top of the map, with the runways
correctly aligned. All the census tracts that lay within the different contour
ranges were determined. The total population for each of these tracts was then
determined from the "Census of Population and Housing" publication.
To determine the population per square mile within each contour range of
a censustract:
i. The census tract was overlaid with a one-eighth-inch grid and the
_J number of grid squares within that tract were counted,
"_ It, The total population of the tract was divided by the total number of gridsquares to determine the total population per grid.
I ill The population-per-grid square was multiplied by 4 or 16 if the census
tract map scale was I inch = 2 miles, or 1 inch = 4 miles, respectively, to
! obtain the population per square mile,
-_ In order to obtain the "people-incldents", the detailed report generated l)y"
_. the program DNLSEL was entered into a computer spreadsheet, As described
.. previously, this report contains the numbers of operations that exceed each SEL
: level at the centers of one square tulle areas. The census tract in which each of
these points lay was identified, and the population per square mile for that census
tract (determined earlier) was multiplied by the numbers of operations in each
-- SEL range {that is, greater than 90. 95, 100, and 105 dB} to yield the eorre-
• spondtng "people-incldent" count. These are then summed over each of the SEL
- ranges to obtain the total people-incldents for the airport being considered.
: Since the numbers of operations in the detailed report are cumulative, the result
_ of these computations is a table of cumulative "people-incidents".
The same methodology was adopted to compute the populations impacted
-. within the DNL contours. Apart from the SEL values and numbers of operations,
the detailed reports also llst the DNL value at the centers of the one-square-mile
areas, The population within each of these areas had already been tabulated in the
computer spreadsheets while performing the computsUons of the "people-
incidents". It was then a relatively straightforward procedure to sum up these
populaUons based on whether the points lay within 55 and 59.9 dB. 60 and
-' 64.9 dB. and so on up to 80 dB. _'he totals that were generated at the end of this
-" analysts gave the populations impacted within the DNL 55-60 dB, 60-65 dB. etc,,
-_ "bands". These were then appropriately summed to obtain the cumulative totals
-, that are shown in the following sections.
._ 4.3 DNL An.h_si8 Result8
-_ The results of the DNL analyses, for both the areas and populations
._ impacted, were consistent with that which was expected, The relative changes
from the base case agreed intuitively with the expected changes for all of the
-7 seven airports, especially for those areas outside the DNL 65 dB contour. These
trends are tabulated in Table 4-I (impacted areas) and Table 4-2 (impacted
, populations), and are presented graphically in Figures 4-I through 4-14. The DNL.,£
contours are included in Appendix A. Note that the areas and population counts
are cumulative; that is, the values shown represent the totals enclosed within each
--: noise contour. And, because of the small noise impacts found for BDR, its results
-_ are not considered meaningful and are not included in the following discussion,
Although the noise contours axe displayed for DNLs from 55 through 80 dB
in 5 decibel increments, the areas and populations counts are tabulated only for
- 75 dB and below. For all of the airports analyzed, no residential populations were
• impacted by DNLs above 80 dB. Thus this level of impact was disregarded.
-. Addressing each of the alternatives examined:
• Alternative #1 (no night operations): Because of the 10 dB nighttime
-- penalty incorporated in the DNL, the elimination of ixighttime operations: at an airport should reduce the extent of the DNL noise contours,
-" depending on the proportion of nighttime operations in each case;
4-5
Table 4-1
Summary of Areas Impacted by__ Levels Exceeding DNL 55 dB
Impacted Areu, Square MilesAh'port Scenario Day-N_ :it Ave.rage Sound Level (DNL)Greater Than
-- 55 _"n 60¢[B _dB 70dB 75dB
LAX BASE 183.5 77.0 32.5 16. i 9,1
"_ ALT #I 115.3 48.8 22.0 11.9 6.5--_ -37% -37% -32% *26% -29%
ALT #2 279.2 118.2 46.9 21.9 11.4'-- 52% 54% 44% 35% 25%
ALT #3 78.5 _3.3 13.8 6.7 2.2-57% -57% -58% -58% -76%
ALT #4 181.1 77.0 32.6 16.2 8.8r -1% 0% 0% 1% -3%
BOS BASE 119.8 58.1 28.0 11.9 4.4
__ ALT #1 86.8 42.4 20.3 8.0 3.0; -28% .27% -28% -33% -32%i
'-', ArT #2 246.1 106.7 52.0 26.0 10.5i, ! 105% 84% 65% 118% 139%
ALT #3 29.5 10.5 4.2 2.1 1.0-75% -82% -85% -82% -77%
-__ ALT#4 NA NA NA NA NA..J
BNA BASE 71.3 35.9 15.9 5.3 1.9
ALT #I 62.2 31.7 13,8 4,8 1.7-13% -12% -13% -9% -11%
-= ALT #2 222.2 99.8 49.3 25.8 9.9! 212% 178% 210% 387% d21%
-- ALT #3 16.8 6.4 2.8 1.2 0.4-75% -82% -84% -77% -79%
ALT #4 66.9 35.5 16.3 5.3 2.0-. -6% -1% 3% 0% 5%
FLL BASE 26.8 14.4 8.0 3.5 1.4
ALT #I 22.0 11.9 6.4 2.6 1.0*18% *17% -20% -28% -29%
ALT #2 44.4 25.0 14.4 7.8 3.8-- 66% 74% 80% 117% 157%
ALT #3 14.8 7.1 3.0 1.3 0.7-46% -51% -63% -64% -50%
ALT #4 25.4 14.2 8,2 3.7 1,3-5% -1% 3% 3% -7%
t_-6
1, ,
Table 4-I (Continued]
Impacted Are_, square MileaAirport Scen_-io Day-_i_ ]at Average Sound Level (DNL} Greater Than,,,. 85t93 60dB 68dB 70dB ] 75dB
CVG BASE 129.4 54,7 °_,1 10.5 4.1
ALT #I 65.2 30.7 13.5 5,3 2.1
--: -50% -44% -46% -50% -49%ALT #2 245.7 118,8 54.6 27.9 10,9
"'_ 90% 117% 118% 166% 166%ALT #3 34.0 13,2 4.9 2,3 0.7
: *74% -76% -80% -78% -83%_; ALT #4 130.3 53.9 25.2 10.6 4,1
1% -1% 0% 1% 0%
i pVD EraSE 39.1 16.9 6,3 2.2 0.7
ALT #1 24.5 9.3 3,3 1,1 0.4
I -37% -45% -48% -50% -43%ALT #2 84.4 40.9 19,4 7.3 2.4
116% 142% 208% 232% 243%ALT #3 7,4 2.6 0.9 0.3 O.1
._ -81% -85% -86% -86% -86%ALT #4 36.6 17.3 6.7 2,2 0,8
.-_ -6% 2% 6% 0% 14%i
PBI BASE 37.4 17.8 7.6 2.9 I,I
"_ ALT #I 36.7 17.4 7,5 2.9 1.1/-2% -2% -1% 0% 0%
ALT #2 182.3 81.7 39.2 19,0 8.1
-: 387% 359% 416% 555% 636%ALT #3 13.1 5,3 2,3 1.0 0.5
-65% -69% -70% -66% -55%ALT #4 37.5 17,8 7.9 3.0 1.1
0% 0% 4% 3% 0%!'
BDR BASE 4,3 i .8 0.7 0,3 O,1
: ALT #1 4.1 1.7 0,7 0.3 0.1-5% -6% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 62.9 31,8 15.3 5.9 2.01363% 1667% 2086% 1867% 1900%i
ALT #3 4,3 1.8 0.7 0,3 0. I0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #4 4.8 1.8 0.7 0.3 0,112% 0% 0% 0% 0%
t_-7
- Table 4-2
Summary o£ Populatlons Impacted by_ Levela Exceeding DNL 55 dB
Impacted PopulaUonaAirport Sce_c DQ_-N_ ht Avr._e Sound Level (DNL)G_ter Tl:_tn
"_ _dB 60dB 6_dB 70dB [ 75dB
LAX BASE 482,325 263,354 99.594 38,416 13,504
-" ALT #I 385,612 185,484 71,034 38,416 0-20% -50% -29% 0% -i00%
ALT #2 545,526 342.572 140,g08 60,474 13,504" 13% 30% 41% 67% 0%
; ALT #3 304,280 172,822 59,16_ 38,416 13,504-37% -34% -41% 0% 0%
-- ALT #4 412,698 247,818 86,090 24.912 0, -14% -6% -14% -35% -100%
B_ BASE 246,080 III,840 60,064 4,496 0
__I ALT #1 188.326 73,670 24.448 2,400 224-23% -34% -59% -47% ---
-. ALT #2 376,521 220,656 86,432 59,840 4,27253% 97% 44% 1231% ---
ALT #3 49.6(]0 12,112 224 224 0-80% -89% -100% -95% 0%
I ALT #4 NA NA NA NA NA
BNA BASE 81.008 50.896 28.512 2,499 0
._ ALT #I 72.174 45,940 21.529 2,499 0-11% -10% -24% 0% 0%
--. ALT #2 144.523 I02,062 64,495 37.702 13.568! 78% 101% 126% 1409% ---
ALT #3 36,935 1,950 0 0 0-54% -96% -100% -100% 0%
i ALT #4 85.195 50,524 28.668 2,499 0-J 5% -1% I% 0% 0%
•", FLL BASE 52,064 _,944 19.344 12,144 0
-" ALT #1 47,408 28,512 14,576 2,480 0-9% -8% -25% -80% 0%
ALT #2 69,864 48,776 27,312 14,576 12.14434% 58% 41% 20%
ALT #3 34,556 18,188 9.644 0• -34% -41% -50% -I00% 0%
_ ALT #4 46,384 30,944 19.344 12,144 0-II% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NOTE: Percentag _te change ._lauve to th( base ca_
i
- Table 4-2 [Continued)
, , Impacted Population_Ah'post: 8cenmdo Da)'-_ ht Average Sound Level (DRL) Greater Than
_(fB 60_1 I (_dB 70_B 75dB
-- CVG BASE 94.592 39,994 I 11.901 4.455 6C8
ALT #1 4.5,371 17,307 4,867 814 304
--_ -52% -57% -59% -82% -50%i ALT #2 260.060 114,009 40,043 15,971 4,656
-_ 175% 185% 235% 258% 666%ALT #3 28,707 9,176 3.387 716 0
-70% -77% -72% -84% -100%
... ALT #4 98,786 36,899 12,733 4,455 CoC81% -8% 7% 0% 0%
PVD BASE 103,392 43,408 15,696 4,032 1,344
ALT #1 60,064 21,552 5,376 4,032 0"_ -42% -50% -66% 0% -100%
! ALT #2 207,680 108.368 42,912 I6,0C0 2,688101% 150% 173% 297% 100%
ALT #3 17.040 5,376 1,344 0 0-84% -88% -91% -I00% -I00%-" ALT #4 85,964 38,544 12,672 4,032 1,344
-17% -II% -19% 0% 0%
PBI BASE 71,653 22,147 13,910 7,368 41
ALT #I 70,040 21,699 13,910 7,368 41i -2% -2% 0% 0% 0%
J_LT #2 160,975 I06,784 64,363 16,472 6,541
-7 125% 382% 363% 124% 18854%! ALT #3 15,335 I0,549 7.200 41 O
-79% -52% -48% -99% -i00%_J,T #4 74,652 24,100 13,910 7,368 41
"'i 4% 9% 0% 0% 0%i
BDR BASE 2,144" 2,144 0 0 0
iALT #I 2,144 2,144 0 0 0
-- 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%ALT #2 140.4,3/3 67,360 11,072 2,144 0
6450% 3042% 0%'- ,,_T .3 2,1_ 2,1_ _ 5 o
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%ALT #4 3,216 2,144 0 0 O
50% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T
t_-9
I_I
.,
......
.J
{__1
_-J
[-J
|-!
k._l
L_]
:J
,_
.;
JI
.-
..
.
I.___
I__.
zI
_|Z
,-Z
i--Z
_I-
--i
L__
f.j
i_.j
I_j
ELI
LIJ
|._j
i..]
L__j
!--
jJ
J•
.1
i..
L •
m
200
-- 175 =: _: : BASE CASE
-- _ \ ,J__ ALTERNATIVE1-- 15C \ ,"-"_ _LTERNATJVE2- : - - : ALTERNATIVE3
uJ _, ;:::: ALTERNATIVE4
_12E0Lq
-- _10CL_
-- 25
_ an 80 8'5 75 7_ aoDNL, dB
.-]
-- Figure 4-7, Palm Beach IntemaUonal Airport {PBI): Area Impacted by_ Levels Greater than DNL 55 dB,
m
#-13
_ 600000 ..... ,
500000 X :-":-"= BASE CASE-- *x \ ,,,,_ALTERNATIVE1
\ _ ..... ALTERNATIVE2c_ \ \ :-'- : ALTERNATIVE3
-. _ 400000 _ _ ALTERNATIVE4
300000
[3.
-- o 200000
-- 100000
] .......#5..........._o......F-DNL, dB
-_ Figure 4-8, Los Angeles Iaternatlonal Airport (LAX_: People Impacted byLevels Greater than DNL 55 dB.
_ -1--" W- r_ 400000 .........................
"'l 350000 X
'_ ,-*,_-* BASE CASE300000 ", _,,,_ALTERNATIVEI" ----'4-- ALTERNATIVE2
x _:--- ALTERNATIVE3
<250000 \_)200000 '\ '\
\\'\,,= 150000 \ \
100000 \\_'-._.50000
- _ #F-- -_'o--#s 70 _ .....I DNL, dB
-- Figure 4-9. Boston Logan International Ai_-port (BOS}: People Impactedby Levels Greater than DNL 55 dB.
i
#-l#
-- IS0000 _' _ I -- ..... --1- r---_-- -r
/ \-- 125000' '\ ,',-*-,-*-*BASE CASE
,,-,-+-,'-+ALTERNATIVE1"_ .... ALTERNATIVE2
_X ,----""ALTERNATIVE3
-- _ 100000 _ ALTERNATIVE4U
--_. oZ_75000 _ "_O.
-- 25000
_, ONL, dB
-- Figure 4-10. NashvilleIntern_tlonalAirport(BNAJ: People Impacted-- by Levels Greater than DNL 55 dB.
-- 70000 , ' _ ' '
•--- 60000 : _: -": BASE CASE'X ,__,,ALTERNATIVE1
-- , _ - :-- - - ALTERNATIVE250000 _ _ - ::--ALTERNATIVE3
"- _ 40000
'\-- Z0
• 10000
-_ 5i5 610-T ONL, dB
J
•-' Figure 4-I i. Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL): People Impactedby Levels Greater than ]DNL55 dB,
-- 300000 _- '
i{
-- 266000 _ :==:-"BASE CABE,L,,ALTERNATNE I
=====ALTERNATIVE2-' ,-_*'_'ALTERNATIVE3
_ 266000 H.,,-,_ ALTERNATIVE¢
o=:66000
_J-_ 60000' _ 55 eo 65 7'o -- 75
'.J DNL, dB
Figure 4-12. Cincinnati International Airport (CVG}: People Impactedby Levels Greater than DNL 55 dB,
' "_ 250000
::::: BASE CASE
200000 _ , , , , , ALTERNATIVE I
_ _ = : --= : ALTERNATIVE 2
"] _ ; = ; ; : ALTERNATIVE ,5
/ _ : : : : _ ALTERNATIVE 4{,@
-_ _ 150600
"_ _ 166000
Q.
oooo ,i DNL, dB
--' Figure4-13. T.F,Green StateAirportAirport(PVD): PeopleImpactedbyLevels Greater than DNL 55 dB.
tJ
_-16
L
m
175000 ,--
150000 _ ===_; BASE CASEm_
\ J_, , , ALTERNATIVE1..... ALTERNATIVE 2
o 125000 \ _-- : : A_ERNATIVE3
\ _:::= ALTERNATIVE4u
100000
- o _,75000 \
-- _ 50000
25000
55 60 65 70 75 80DNL, dB
Figure 4-14. Palm Beach International Airport {PBI): People Impacted_ by Levels Greater than DNL 55 dB.
--1
i
r
r
#-17
depending on the proportion of nighttime operations in each case;
except for the very small contours at BDR, Alternative #i produced
: reductions in areas and populations impacted at all airports andDNL contours.
.... * Altematlve #2 (increased nighttime operations): Again because of the
_--_ 10 dB nighttime penalty, the addiUon of nighttime operations at an._, airport should increase the extent of the DNL noise contours; Alterna-
tive #2 consistently produced larger areas and populations impacted at
! all airports.
* Alternative #3 (all Stage 3 airplanes): Airplanes certified to the Stage 3,'i noise standards are substantially quieter than the older, Stage 2 models,
_ so that the conversion of all operations at an airport to Stage 3 models: : should decrease the extent of the DNL noise contours: with the excep-id4
tion of BDR. Alternative #3 consistently produced smaller areas and
{ populations impacted...J
* Alternative #4 (changes in flight tracks): This alternative was intendedto take advantage of non-noise-sensitive areas, such as bodies of water,
industrial developments, and major surface transportation rights-of-way
._ around each airport, to minimize populations impacts, insofar asfeasible: the noise contour areas were expected to remain essentially
-_ unchanged; in general, both expected results were found for the airports
analyzed, although the results were not consistent; in several cases, the
-t population counts increased by a small amount, depending on the ability-_ to define flight tracks which were clearly advantageous over those
-_-_ already in use at those airport,I
4.4 SEL 11_ults
. The results of the SEL analyses were not consistent with the changes in
-_ noise impacts that were expected. The areas of the contours of maximum SEL did
: not change for Alternatives #I and #2, inasmuch as these contours are governed bythe noisiest airplane operating at each airport, and the elimination or addition of
nighttime operations did not affect that factor. Alternative #3, the substitution of
t_-13
only Stage 3 operations at each airport, produced a decrease In contour area,
reflecting the operation of only quieter airplanes. Alternative #4, the changes in
flight tracks, generally produced smaller SEL contours. These trends are
tabulated in Table 4-3 (impacted areas) and Table 4-4 (impacted populations), and
are presented graphically in Figures 4-15 through 4-28, The SEL contours are
included in Appendix B.
. On the other hand, the "people-incldents" counts did vary considerably, in
somewhat unexpected ways. Since this measure of impact is a function of the
number of airplane overflights above the specified SEL threshold multiplied by the
exposed population, the results are most sensitive to those factors,
• Alternative #i (no nighttime operations): The numbers of "people--
_ incidents" computed for this alternative showed only" slight changes.
except within the highest SEL contour {105 dB]. The slight changes
probably result from the computational procedure, inasmuch as the
number and mix of airplanes and their flight tracks did not change.
• Alternative #2 (increased nighttime operations): The number of
"peaple-incidents" computed for this alternative increased as expected,
consistent with the increase in numbers of flights represented by the
added nighttime operations, with the exception of PBI for SELs above
95 dB" the reductions in "people-incidents" at PBI appear to be an
anomaly, and probably are the result of computational errors,i
• Alternative #3 (all Stage 3 airplanes): The SEL contour areas decreased
in size as the result of substltuting quieter airplanes at the airport, as
expcctedt the reductions in areas and populations impacted are roughly
of the same magnitudes as the reductions from the DNL analyses,
-" espectatly beyond DNL 65 dB,
° Alternative #4 (change tn flight tracks): The changes in SEL contour
areas and population impacted do not follow any logical pattern.
t_-19
_ Table 4-3
Summary of Areas h"npacted by LevelsExceeding SEL 90 dB
/ Xmpacted _xeu, 8qwau_eMilesA/sport Scennxto Sound l_'ponure Z,_vel (SE;.) Gremm"_m.-
-_ oodn [ _m) J looda 1o5_
-' LAX BASE 77.1 37,3 24,1 12.9
-_ ALT #I 77.1 37,3 24.1 12.9__ 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 77.1 37,3 24.1 12.9-- 0% 0% 0% 0%
..i ALT #3 50.9 24.5 12.2 4.8-34% -34% -49% .63%
ALT #4 77.1 37,3 24.1 12.9-" 0% 0% 0% 0%__i
BOS BASE 134.0 60.8 35.5 15.3
i ALT #I 134,0 60,8 35.8 15.30% 0% 0% 0%
:-T ALT #2 134.0 60,5 35,5 15.3i 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 71.0 24,4 10.8 4.2-47% -60% -70% -73%
ALT #4 NA NA NA NA
BNA BASE 191.5 51.2 29,8 10,2
i j ALT #I 101.5 51.2 29.8 I0.2; -_ 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 101,6 51,2 29.8 10.20% 0% 0% 0%
-- ALT #3 15.2 4.6 1,3 0,5-65% -91% -96% -95%
i ALT #4 92.2 46.8 27,4 9.6
-9% -9% -8% -6%
- FLL BASE 70.7 36.3 18.3 5.0
ALT #I 70.7 36.3 18.3 5.00% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 70.7 36,3 18.3 5,0__ 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT I/3 39.9 18,7 6,5 2,4: -44% -48% -84% -52%: ALT 114 56.0 31,5 17.0 4.6
-21% -13% -7% -8%
. : NOTE: Percentages dex )te change ] .'laUve to thebase case.
#-20
--- Table 4-3 {Continued}
_ In )acted Areu. _luarc MUca! Airport Scenm'io Sound _ M0aureLevel (S,EL)Gnmter Than
90¢m 96dB I 100dB 105dB
CVG BASE 163.6 68.9 59.1 13,6
ALT #1 163.6 68.9 39.1 13.60% 0% 0% 0%
J ALT #2 163.9 68,9 39,1 13.6= 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 92.7 39.7 17.7 8.2"_ -43% -42% -55% -54%
ALT #4 149,0 66.5 38.1 13.9-9% -3% -3% -1%
i PVD BASE 87,5 40.7 22.3 7.5
ALT #1 87,5 40.7 22,3 7.50% 0% 0% 0%
r ALT #2 87.5 40,7 22.3 7,50% 0% 0% 0%
-'-] ALT #3 10.0 3.0 0.8 0.1
__ -89% -93% -96% -99%ALT #4 63.8 30.2 17.1 6.1
-27% -28% -23% - 19%
i PB! BASE 114.5 56.1 25.1 6.9
ALT #I 114.5 56.1 29.1 6.90% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 114.5 58.1 26.1 6.9
..; 0% 0% 0% 0%! ALT #3 37.5 16.0 4.2 1.7
_ -67% -71% -84% -75%ALT #4 92,1 45,8 21,5 6.2
-_ -20% -18% -18% -I0%I
BDR BASE 34,2 14,9 4.4 1.8
-I: ALT #1 34.2 14,9 4,4 1.8
-- 0% 0% 0% 0%ALT #2 89.1 42.0 23,7 8.I
161% 182% 439% 350%-- ALT #3 34.2 14.9 4.4 1,8
0% 0% 0% 0%' ALT #4 18,9 10.4 4.1 1,8i -45% -30% -7% 0%
#-21
i
Table4-4
Summary of Populations Impacted by LevelsExceeding SEL 90 dB
People Inctdcnm [Pe.nmna Affc_:cd x No. of Ops.)&t_)o_ 5c©nado _So_ _uxe 1,cvel (SI_) Gzeate.rThan
-- 90dR [ _ l_dS l_dB
" LAX BASE 18,598,096 4,453,152 84.3.060 69,920
i ALT #I 18.712,035 4,494,756 859,332 87,450J 1% I% 2% 25%
ALT #2 21.021,312 5,017,962 860,020 83,424"_ 13% 13% 2% 19%
J ALT #3 12.21&628 3.108.738 717,215 48.468-34% -30% -15% -31%
ALT #4 11.664,320 1,575,800 181,364 15,904-'_ -37% -65% -78% -77%
BOS BASE 5,155,660 1,711,904 626,640 55,120
__j ALT #I 5.266,608 1.775.172 658,C00 71.4722% 4% 5% 30%
_ ALT #2 6.796.077 2.194.432 940.480 78,75232% 25% 50% 43%
"_ ALT #3 256,175 27,728 7,616 224-95% -98% -99% -100%
! "_ ALT #4 NA NA NA NA_va
BNA BASE 2,299,481 971.457 382,247 183,312
' I ALT #I 2,242.668 968,943 377.191 187.806'-' -2% 0% -1% 2%
ALT #2 3,452.023 1,386,961 596,873 281,929"" 50% 43% 56% 54%-- ALT #3 1.146,323 353,2.53 195,840 0
-50% *64% -49% -100%- ' ALT #4 2,329,_3 975,580 389,555 178,080
I% 0% 2% -3%
FLL BASE 2,048,320 974,688 358,768 17,248
ALT #i 2,056,763 977,072 359,936 172480% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 2,440,800 1,199,376 485,200 51,744-- 19% 23% 35% 200%
ALT #3 814,975 308.768 51,040 11,088-60% -68% *86% -36%
ALT #4 2.064,352 964.128 358.768 41.568I% -1% 0% 141%
NOTE': percentages d note change re ltlvc to the bast'case,
#-22
-- Table4-4(Continued]
people Incidenm (Persona Affected x No. of O_.)Airport Scenario Sound Ezpooctre Level (SEL) Greater Than
90_ I 98_ I00_8 105r_n
-- CVG BASE 1,2(]0,522 398,784 151,246 23,297
ALT #I 1,251,671 422,549 156,424 25,7694% 6% 3% 11%
"_ ALT #2 1,901,842 555,859 213,253 30,607--! 58% 39% 41% 31%
ALT #5 299,731 20,109 2,829 0-" -75% -95% -98% -I00%_! ALT #4 1,235,099 406,578 151,774 23,405
3% 2% 0% 0%
PVD BASE 1,129,696 524.928 196,208 C:k�,104-
ALT #1 1,144,416 524,896 194,320 67,776"" I% 0% -1% -2%
I ALT #2 1,662.178 738,720 290,304 89.82447% 41% 48% 30%
ALT #3 175.920 34,944 10,752 0-84% -93% -95% -100%
ALT #4 1,051,659 488,136 184,082 76,037-7% -7% -6% 10%
L-- PBI BASE 2,212,459 970,105 395,131 134.037
ALT #I 2,212,559 972,397 396.277 135,183| 0% 0% 0% 1%
ALT #2 2,686,540 861,821 265,928 62,539-_ 21% -I I% -33% -53%
ALT #3 586,329 237,698 90,203 7,413"-" -73% -75% -77% -84%
ALT #4 2,236,472 1,005,4,37 446,871 184,8141% 4% 13% 38%
BDR BASE 87.584 10,720 4,288 4,288
ALT #I 84,884 10,720 4,288 4,288-- -3% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 364,082 118,815 70,528 8,578: 516% 1008% 1545% 100%
..- ALT #3 87.584 10.720 4,288 4_?.880% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #4 30,016 10.720 6.432 4,288-66% 0% 50% 0%
r
_-23
"- 100
-_ _--75 i _ BASE, ALTER.I & 2\ ''_''ALTERNATIVE3
_ _ - - - - : ALTERNATIVE4
m
_ _ 50
-- _ 25
- 9'o 9'5_j MAXIMUMSEL, dB
-- _ Figure 4-16. Los Angeles Inten_.'ItionalAirport {LAX): Area Impactedby Levels Greater than $EL 90 dB.
150
---_ _. 125
--- _ =;=;= BASE,ALTER. 1 & 2
100 ' ' ' ' ' ALTERNATNE3
• --¢'/}
{1.
i _ 50
-_ 25
i
90 95 100 105 110• .- MAXIMUMSEL, dB
-- Figure 4-16, Boston Logan International Airport (BOS}: Area Impacted byLevels Greater than SEL 90 dB.
]
_-2#
r
i iI _
125 ,_ ..-r
u_l \ _,.,,-_M,BASE, ALTER. 1 .¢" 2OO
"k _ ..... ALTERNATIVE3W ;x_==
: _=o7-"
--' U_
-3 _ 501
_ 25
-i _5 9b 9'5 _o i_s 1o.._ t_AXIkSUMSEL; dB
._ I_gu.re 4-17. Nashville Interrlational Airport (BNA): Area Impacted by
._ Levels Greater than SEL 90 dB,
80 ,-_I
_60 o-o_-,-,BASE,ALTER,I & 2-_ . \ ,,,',ALTERNATIVE3..... ALTERNATIVE4
J _5o
__ _ 40
: _ 30_2
'°I-: _5 90 95 100 105
MAXIMUM SEL, dB{
Figure 4-18. Fort Lauderdaie International Airport (FLL]: Area Impacted byLevels Greater than SEL 90 dB.
1
175
150__ e_-_-_ BASE, ALTER. 1 & 2_ =* L_, ALTERNATIVE3
:_ 125 , • , , , ALTERNATIVE4
- =_ _o 100O3
75
_ 5o .. 1
-- 25
- ' ' ..... Io__o Io5r oSO 95MAXIMUMSEL, dB
Figure 4-19. Cincinnati International Airport {CVG}: Area Impactedby Levels Greater than SEL 90 dB.
_ 90 ....
L. 8G-- _ 70 ='_'= BASE, ALTER. I _' 2-" _ _• \ ,__,,ALTERNATIVE3
_ _J60 X X = -= : : ALTERNATIVE4-
'\\m 50
_ m30
- _20
90 95 100 1_5 0... MAXIMUMSEL, dB
Figure 4-20. T.F. Green State Airport Airport {PVD): Area Impacted byLeveLs Greater than SEL 90 dB.
120 , , ,- ,
110
_i 100I/I
-, ,-R90- =:;=: BASE,ALTER, 1 & 2\ \ '',''ALTERNATIVE3
_-; _ \ .--'--,"-"ALTERNATIVE4r _ 80
a 7o
-7 50I
-- -= 40
3o20
L--
I
9 5MAXIMUMSEL,dB
J
JFigure 4-21. Palm Beach International Airport (PBI): Area Impacted by
L Levels Greater than SEL 90 dB,_J
n
i
"]
J
T
o,-27
i
I_._
1_:
1__
....
jL_
JLJ
LJ
L_l
t_i
l_i_
li
Ji
.I
..I
.:__
1
1_
L_
I:
Al
....
]l
.J_
LJ
!__1
1_1
i.__l
L_I
l__l
i]
]I
1
PE
OP
LE-I
NC
IDE
NT
SP
EO
PL
E--
tNC
tDE
I,I'I
'5
0_I
OO
l0
00
00
00
(3
00
00
00
00
__
0C_
(_
00
oo
oo
o__
8o°
8o
oo
oi'_
00
00
o0
00
0
C_C
)0
00
00
I_C
)0
C)
00
0
rpu
l'
'
/oo
/..X
z.
-!"
:o.:
//Jj
__"
/
.,
==
//'
_Ittt
'/}-
-'I:D
(:_
C}O
{_.
(:_
•"_
.__
"_
o0
_i
Ti
?I
I
J
-- 2000000 -- --'r ...... , r r --i
"_*"-,, BASE CASE\ ,,,_, ALTERNATIVE 1
1500000 \ "-'_'---" ALTERNATIVE 2•-_..M ALTERNATIVE 3
x_-= ALTERNATIVE 4
_1000000
Q.
500000
"-] 90 5 110_] MAXIMUM SEL,' dB
-7 Figure 4-26. forCincinnaflLevelsGreaterlntemati°nalthanSELAirport90dB.(CVG): "People-lncidents"
-'_
; _ _j 2000000 -- -- I........ , ,
qI "_ *-"*'_ BASE CASE
\ , ,, , , ,ALTERNATIVE 1" 1500000 ,, "-'-""_ ALTERNATIVE 2
i '_ '_ = : : ALTERNATIVE 3: _ ALTERNATIVE 4
w \c_
J I1. \,..
: 500000 \\_. """
90 95 oMAXIMUM SEL, dB
-- Figure 4-27. T.F. Green State Atrpo_ {PVD}: "People-lncidents"for Levels Greater than SEL 90 dB.
#-30
1.I
;t
_I
_:
l."
l]
I___
1|-
-.i
E._
g_Z
|tT
_L|
!]21
_L]I
2..]L
i__
221
£__i
2.T
_.i
2.7
__._
-|
PEOPLE--INCIDENTS
__
oog
°o
00_
000
00
_0
00
00
00
00
00
0_
00
00
00
*'t
iI
II
I
/j S
j°°
/,f
c _.C
¢:_0
[]DC
0
m
_.0 COMI_ARATIVB DNL/SF.L ANALYSIS
In orderto compare theresultsofthisanalysis,theDNL and SEL impact
matricesof the previoussectionhave been reproducedsideby sideinTable5-I
" {impactedareas}and Table5-2 (impactedpopulations}.
The purpose ofthisanalysiswas to determineiftheuse ofa noisemetric
basedon a single-eventnoiselevel,such as Sound ExposureLevel,would providea
more sensitivemeasure ofnoiseimpactsthan does theDay-NightAverageSound
Level currently used to represent noise impact and compatible land use around
-" airports. This issue is most pertinent for DNLs below 65 dB, the level which is
-- consideredtobe normallycompatiblewith residentialuse. As a means ofdeter-
mining the relative effleacy of these two noise metrics, each was used to compare
the changes in noise impacts at seven airports, and in turn compared with theL
.. intuitive changes in those impacts which should be expected. Table 5-3 sum-
marizes these comparisons for noise levels below DNL 65 dB.i
-_ Examining each alternative in turn, the elimination of nighttime operations
--_ at each of the airports {Alternative #I} would be expected to provide a moderatereduction in noise impacts around those airports. This change is reflected in the
results of the DNL analysis, with reductions varying from 2 percent at PBI to
57 percent at CVG. The SEt analyses provide changes which vary from a reduc-
tion of 2 percent to an increase of 6 percent, although no changes would be
expected because the number and mix of airplanes did not vary for this
alternative. The minor changes calculated result from the rounding down of
-i fractional operations in the software used. Certalnly. the SEL analysis does not-- provide a very sensitive measure of the expected changes.
j The addition of nighttime operations at each of the airports (Alternative #2}
was expected to add moderate to large impacts, depending on the numbers of
: nighttime operations already there. The DNL analyses provided increases in
- impacts varying from 13 percent to 185 percent among the seven airports shown.
The SEt analyses provided changes in impacts varying from a decrease of
_ 11 percent to an increase of 58 percent. Again, the DNL provides the expected
: changes,and ismore sensitivetothosechanges.
5-I
-- Table 5-1
Summary ofAreasImpactedby__ Levels Exceedlr_ DNL 55 dB and SEL 90 dB
Impacted Areu, 8quaze Mnee Impacted/_reu. Square MiXesAir- Day-Nfght Average Sound Level (DNL} Sound Ezpoeure LeveA {SEI,}
-- port Scenario Greater Than: Great_ Than:MdB 60,m MdB 70dB _dn gOdB MdB 100dB 108dB
._ LAX BASE 183.5 77.0 32.5 16.1 9.1 77.1 37.3 24.1 12,9
-; ALT #I 115.3 48.8 22.0 11.9 6.5 77.1 37,3 24,1 12,9-37% -37% -32% -28% -29% 0% 0% 0% 0%
-" ALT #2 279.2 118.2 46.9 21.9 11.4 77.1 37.3 24.1 12.952% 54% 44% 36% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 78.5 33.3 13,8 5.7 2.2 50,9 24.5 12.2 4.8-57% -57% -58% -58% -76% -34% -34% -49% -63%
-_ ALT #4 181,1 77,0 32.8 18.2 8.8 77,1 37.3 24.1 12,9- ' -1% 0% 0% I% -3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BOS BASE 119.8 58.1 28.0 11.9 4.4 134 60.8 35,5 15.3
ALT #] 86.8 42.4 20.3 8.0 3,0 134 60,8 35.5 15.3-28% -27% -28% -33% -32% 0% 0% 0% 0%
-_ ALT #2 246,1 106,7 52.0 26,0 10.5 134 60.8 35,5 15,3105% 84% 86% 118% 159% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 29.5 I0.8 4,2 2.1 1.0 71 24.4 10.5 4.2
! -75% -82% -85% -82% -77% -47% -50°_ -70% -73%__ ALT #4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--_ BNA BASE 71,3 35.9 15.9 5.3 1,9 i01.5 51.2 29.8 10.2
-- ALT #i 52.2 31.7 13.8 4.8 1,7 101.5 51,2 29.8 10,2__ -13% -12% -13% -9% -Ii% 0% 0% 0% 0%
i ALT #2 222.2 99,8 49,3 25.8 9.9 101,5 51.2 29.8 10,2212% 178% 210% 387% 421% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 15.8 6.4 2.6 1,2 0.4 15.2 4.6 1.3 0.5-" -76% -82% -84% -77% -79% -85% -91% -96% -95%
ALT #4 66.9 35.5 16.3 5.3 2,0 92.2 46.8 27,4 9.5-6% -1% 3% 0% 5% -9% -9% -8% -6%
FLL BASE 26.8 14.4 8.0 3.8 1.4 70.7 36,3 18,3 5
ALT #i 22,0 II.9 6.4 2.6 l.O 70.7 36.3 18.3 5-18% *17% -20% -28% -29% 0% 0% 0% 0%
.... ALT #2 44,4 25.0 14.4 7.8 3.8 70.7 36.3 18.3 566% 74% 80% 117% 157% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 14.8 7.1 3,0 1.3 0.7 39.9 18,7 6.5 2.4-45% -51% -63% -64% -50% -44% -48% -64% -52%
-- ALT #4 25.4 14.2 8,2 3,7 1.3 56 31.5 17 4.6-5% -1% 3% 3% -7% -21% -13% -7% -8%
5-2
-- Table 5-1 (Continued}
Alr- Day-Nfght Average _Sound Level (DNL) 8ot_d l_poaure Level (SEL}•- port Scenario Greater Than: CJxea_ The.,
¢_dB 60_ e_dB I 70dB I 75_ g0da _da t 100dB 105_¢/
CVG BASE, 129.4 54.7 25,1 10.5 4,1 163.o 68.9 59.1 13,5
ALT #I 65.2 30.7 13,5 5.3 2.1 163.6 68.9 39.1 13.6-50% -44% -46% -50% -49% 0% : 0% 0% 0%
-_ ALT 112 245,7 118.8 54.6 27.9 10.9 163.6 68.9 39.1 13.690% 117% 118% 166% 166% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #3 34.0 13,2 4,9 2.3 0.7 9_.,7 39,7 17,7 8D,-- -74% -76% -60% -78% -83% -43% -42% -55% -54%
ALT #4 130,3 53,9 25.2 10.6 4,1 149 66,5 38.1 13.5"" 1% -1% 0% 1% 0% -9% -3% -3% -1%
-" pVD BASE 39.1 16.9 6.3 2.2 0.7 87.5 40.7 22,3 7.5
ALT #I 24.5 9.3 3.3 I,I 0,4 87,5 40.7 22.3 7.5-37% -45% -46% -50% -43% 0% 0% 0% 0%
i ALT #2 84.4 40.9 19,4 7,3 2,4 87,5 40,7 22.3 7,5116% 142% 208% 232% 243% 0% 0% 0% 0%
-_ ALT #3 7.4 2.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 10 3 0.8 0. I) -81% -85% -86% -86% -86% -89% -93% -96% -99%
-_ ALT #4 36.6 17.3 6.7 2.2 0.8 63,6 30,2 17.1 6.1-6% 2% 6% 0% 14% -27% -26% -23% -19%
(
PBI BASE 37,4. 17,8 7.6 2.9 I.I 114.5 56,1 26.1 6.9
--- ALT #I 36.7 17.4 7,5 2.9 1.I 114,5 56.1 26.1 6.9-2% -2% -1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%-- ALT #2 182.3 81.7 39.2 19.0 8.1 I14,5 56,1 26,1 6,9
387% 359% 416% 555% 636% 0% 0% 0% 0%ALT #3 13.1 5,5 2.3 1.0 0.5 37.5 16 4.2 1.7
-- -65% -69% -70% -66% -55% -67% -71% -84% -75%ALT #4 37.5 17.8 7.9 3.0 1.1 92,1 45,8 21.5 6,2
0% 0% 4% 3% 0% -20% -18% -18% -10%
-! BDR BASE 4.3 1,8 0.7 0.3 0, I 34.2 14.9 4,4 1,6
ALT #1 4.1 1.7 0.7 0,3 0,I 34.2 14,9 4,4 1.8" -5% -6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 62.9 31.8 15.3 5.9 2.0 89.1 42 23.7 3. I1363% 1667% 2086% 1867% 1900% 161% 182% 439% 350%
ALT #3 4.3 1.8 0,7 0,3 0. I 34.2 14.9 4.4 1.80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT 114 4.8 1.8 0,7 0,3 O.l 18.9 10.4 4,1 1.812% 0% 0% 0% 0% -45% -30% -7% 0%
I
5-3
Table 5-2
Summary of Populations Impacted byI_vela l_'ecdlng DNL 95 dB and SEL 90 dB
impacted Populatlons Pcopl©-Incldents (Per_onaAffected z No. of opal].,Mr- Scan_'[o Day-Nig] LtAverage Sound Level [DNL)Greater Than Bound Exposur0 Level (SEL) Greater"TJutn
_m coda 68,m [ 7o,m 78,_ Bo_ _1 68da 100,m I Z68_portLAX BASE 482,325 263,354 99,594 38,415 13,504 18,898,096 4,453,152 843,060 69,920
ALT #I 385,612 185.484 71,034 38,416 O 18,712.035 4,494,756 859,332 87,450-20% -30% -29% 0% -100% 1% 1% 2% 25%
ALT #2 545,526 342,572 140,908 60.474 13.504 21.021.812 5.017.962 860,020 83,42413% 30% 41% 57% 0% 13% 13% 2% 19%
ALT 83 _4,280 172,822 59,162 38,416 13,504 12,218,528 3,108,738 717,215 48,468*37% .34% -41% 0% 0% -34% -30% -15% -31%
ALT 84 412,698 247,818 86,(YJ0 24.912 0 11,664,320 1.576.800 181,364 15,904-14% -8% -14% -35% -I00% -37% -65% -78% -77%
l
BOS BASE 246,080 111,840 60,064 4,496 0 _ 5,155_660 1,711,904 626.640 55,120I
ALT #I 188,325 73,670 24,448 2,400 224 5.268.608 1,778,172 688,0(]0 71,472-23% -34% -59% -47% --- 2% 4% 5% 30%
ALT 82 575,521 220,656 86,432 59,840 4.272 6,798.077 2,194,432 940,480 78,75253% 97% 44% 1231% --- 32% 28% 50% 43%
ALT 83 49,600 12,112 224 224 O 256,176 27,728 7,618 224-80% -89% -I00% -95% 0% -95% -98% -99% -I00%
ALT 84 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BNA BASE 81,008 50,896 28,512 2,499 0 2,299.481 971,457 382,247 183.31_
ALT #1 72,174 45,940 21.529 2,499 O 2,242,668 968,943 377,191 187,866-It% -I0% -24% 0% 0% -2% 0% -1% 2%
ALT #2 144,523 I02,062 64.495 37,702 13,568 3,452,023 1,386,961 596,873 281,92978% 101% 126% 1409% --- 50% 43% 56% 54%
ALT #3 36,935 1,950 0 O 0 1,148,323 353.253 195,840 0-54% -95% -I00% -100% 0% -50% -84% -49% -I00%
ALT #4 85,195 50,524 28,668 2,499 O 2.329.083 975,580 389,555 178.0805% -1% 1% 0% 0% I% 0% 2% -3%
Table 5-2 {Continued)
Impacted Populations Peo]ple-Incldenta(Persons Affected x No. of Ops.}Air- Sccnarlo Day-Nlg tt Averag_ Sound Level (DNL)Greater Than Sound Expoaure Level (SEL) Great PJ Tlmn
I_m. OOdil 05m. [ 7ore. 75m. 9om. OOdB lOOm, 105m,port
FFL BASE 52.064 30,944 19.344 12,144 0 2,048.320 974.688 358.768 17,248
ALT #I 47.408 28,512 14,576 2,480 0 2.056,763 977.072 359.936 17.248-9% -8% -25% -80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ALT #2 69.864 48,776 27,312 14,576 12,144 2.440,800 1.199.376 485,200 51.74434% 58% 41% 20% 19% 23% 35% 200%
ALT #3 34.556 18,188 9.644 0 0 814,975 308.768 51,040 I 1.088-34% -41% -50% -100% 0% -60% -68% -86% -36%
ALT #4 46,384 30,944 19.344 12.144 0 2,064,352 964,125 358,768 41.568-11% 0% 0% 0% 0% I% -1% 0% 141%
CVG BASE 94,592 39,994 11.901 4.455 _ 1.200,522 398,784 151,246 23,297
ALT #I 45,371 17,307 4.867 814 304 1.251,671 422,549 156,424 25,769'_ -52% -57% -59% .82% -50% 4% 6% 3% 11%
ALT #2 260.060 114,009 40.043 15.971 4,656 1.901,842 555.859 213,253 30,607175% 185% 236% 258% 666% 58% 39% 41% 31%
ALT #3 28,707 9,176 3,387 716 0 299,731 20,109 2,829 0-70% -77% -72% -84% -I00% -75% -95% -98% -I00%
ALT #4 98.786 35,899 12,733 4,455 608 1,235,099 406,578 151.774 23,405I% o5% 7% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0%
PVD BASE 103,392 43,408 15,696 4,032 1,344 1,129,696 524,928 196,208 69,104
ALT #1 60,064 21,552 5,375 4,032 0 1,144,416 524,896 194,320 67,776-42% -50% -66% 0% -100% ]% 0% -1% -2%
ALT #2 207,680 108,368 42,912 16,000 2.688 1,662.176 738.720 290,304 89,824101% 150% 173% 297% 100% 47% 41% 45% 30%
ALT #3 17,040 5,376 1,344 0 0 175,920 34,944 10,752 0-84% -88% -91% -100% -100% -84% -93% -95% -100%
ALT #4 85,964 38.544 12,672 4,032 1,344 1.051.659 488,136 184,082 76.037-17% -II% -19% 0% 0% -7% -7% -6% 10%
014
o__
o.,.;...
_'a
•°
gN
N
I=_
09.oo
.._
._
_:_
._,_
0
_D
i
Table 5-3
- Comparative Changes in PopulaUon ImpactUstrig DNL and 9EL (RelaUveto Base Case)
Pcol'd_ lml_tct.ed Peoplo-/_eJCh_atiScsncHo Airport DlqL Grute, r Tlacu: _ Great,a" Tha_
_,4n I 60dB 6_,'m g0dB _dB 100dB
t.: Alternative #I: LAX -20% -30% -29% 1% 1% 2%Moderate BOS -23% -34% -59% 2% 4% 5%
._ Decrease BNA -11% -10% -24% -2% 0% -1%! Expected FLL -9% -8% -25% 0% 0% 0%
CVG -52% -57% -59% 4% 6% 3%PVD -42% -50% -66% 1% 0% -1%
-_ PBI -2% -2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Alternative #2: LAX 13% 30% 41% 13% 13% 2%] Moderate to BOS 53% 97% 44% 32% 28% 50%
-- Slgnl/icant BNA 78% 101% 125% 50% 43% 55%Increase FLL 34% 58% 41% 19% 23% 35%
-7 Expected CVG 175% 185% 236% 58% 39% 41%= .-. PVD 101% 150% 173% 47% 41% 48%
"7I
Alternative #3: LAX -37% -34% -41% -34% -30% -15%-' Significant BOS -80% -89% -100% -95% -98% -99%
Decrease BNA -54% -96% -i00% -50% -64% -49%-i Expected FLL -34% -41% -50% -60% -68% -86%-_ CVG -70% -77% -72% -75% -95% -98%
PVD -84% -88% -91% -84% -93% -95%" " PBI -79% -52% -48% -73% -75% -77%
Alternative #4: LAX -14% -6% -14% -37% -65% -78%Small BNA 5% -1% I% I% 0% 2%
Decrease FLL -Ii% 0% 0% 1% -1% 0%Expected CVG I% -8% 7% 3% 2% 0%
PVD -17% -II% -19% -7% -7% -6%PB! 4% 9% 0% I% 4% 13%
5-7
The elimination of the older, noisier Stage 2 airplanes at each of the
_ airports (Alternative #3) was expected to provide a significant reducUon in noise
impacts around those facilities. The DNL analyses provided redueUons varying
fi'om 34 percent to 96 percent in the populaUon impacted around the seven
airports shown. The SEL analyses provided similar reducUons varying from
30 percent to 98 percent in the people-incidents computed. The two metrics
appear to provide a similar degree of comparative change and sensiUvity for
this alternative.4_
Finally, adopting different flight tracks around each airport (AltemaLive #4)
was expected to achieve snqal[ reducUons in noise impacts there. The DNL
analyses provided changes varying from an increase of 17 percent to a reduction of
-" 9 percent in population impacted, The SEL analyses provided changes which
-- varied from an increase of 3 percent to a reduction of 65 percent. The two
-: metrics appear to provide a similar degree of Comparative change, although the
-_ SEL appears to provide more sensitivity to those changes.i
Table 5-4 presents the same comparison of impacted areas calculated for
the four alternatives at the seven airports. In general, the same observations as
those noted above for the impacted populations hold true here,
One other comparison was performed between the DNL and SEL represen-
tations. Since the DNL measure includes a I0 decibel nighttime weighting for
flights between the hours of 2200 and 0700, it is inherently more sensitive to
changes in nighttime operations, Alternatives #I and #2 were designed to Iclentify
this characteristic. The calculation of SEL "people-incldents" did not include any
such weighting, To achieve this comparison, the SEL "people-incidents" were
also calculated using a similar nighttime penalty by multiplying the nighttime
operations by a factor of 10, Table 5-5 presents these results. Figures 5-i and 5-2
plot the corresponding changes for each alternative, relative to the base case.
-J The changes from the base case as measured in population exposed to DNL
and SEL "weighted people--incldents" appear to correlate reasonably well. A first-
. order, least-squares regression provides the following relationship between
5-8
Table 5-4
Comparative Changes in Impacted AreasUsing DNL and SEL (Relatlve to Base Case)
lmpaated .axe,ca Impacted .6ze_Bce_mxio Alrpm't Dl_b G_eec ,"_ _ Greater 'r'aml:
_dB I 80d_ 65,¢R _0¢_ _dB 100 ,'m
. i Alternative #I: LAX -37% -37% -32% 0% 0% 0%Moderate BOS -28% -27% -28% 0% 0% 0%Decrease BNA -13% -12% -13% 0% 0% 0%
"-" Expected FLL -18% -17% -20% 0% 0% 0%--! CVG -50% -44% -46% 0% 0% 0%
PVD -37% -45% -48% 0% 0% 0%-" PBI -2% -2% -1% 0% 0% 0%i
Altematlve #2: LAX 52% 54% 44% 0% 0% 0%
, Moderate to BOS 105% 84% 86% 0% 0% 0%Significant BNA 212% 178% 21096 0% 0% 0%
Increase FLL 68% 74% 80% 0% 0% 0%
i ! Expected CVG 90% 117% 118% 0% 0% 0%! _ PVD 116% 142% 208% 0% 0% 0%
-7i Alternative #3: LAX -57% -57% -58% -34% -34% -49%
-- Significant BOS -75% -82% -85% -47% -60% -70%Decrease BNA -76% -82% -84% -85% -91% -98%
i Expected FLL -45% -51% -63% .44% -48% -64%-- _ -74% -76% -80% -43% -42% -55%
PVD -81% -85% -86% -89% -93% -98%_" PBI -65% -89% -70% -67% -71% -84%
: Alternative #4: LAX - I% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Small BNA -6% -1% 3% -9% -9% -8%
-. Decrease FLL -5% -1% 3% -21% -13% -7%Expected CVG i% -1% 0% -9% -3% -3%
PVD -6% 2% 6% -27% -26% -23%.... PBI 0% 0% 4% -20% -18% -18%
5-9
Table 5-5
- Comparative Changes in People ImpactedUsing DNL and SEL (Re]atJve to Base Case]:
NJghttL'n¢ PenUry Imposed on People--Incidents
I_oplo Impact_i weighted PanplA._-Incident_Scenario Airport DNL Great_ TJ:um: SEL Greater'than:
-- M_ aOdB O_,m GOan I f_da 100dBJ
--' Alternative #I: LAX -20% -30% -29% -34% -36% -4%Moderate BOS -23% -34% -59% -37% -36% -29%
: Decrease BNA -II% -I0% -24% -16% -12% -19% iI_xpected FLL -9% -8% -25% -30% -29% -31%
CVG -52% -57% -59% -56% -55% -55%-_ PVD -42% -50% -66% -48% -47% -42%
i PBI -2% -2% 0% -2% 0% 0%,+J
Alternative #2: LAX 13% 30% 41% 86% 75% 54%-I Moderate to BOS 53% 97% 44% 197% 174% 338%
Significant BNA 78% 101% 126% 467% 448% 503%"_ Increase FLL 34% 58% 41% 133% 162% 242%.._ Expected CVG 175% 185% 236% 272% 215% 232%
PVD 101% 150% 173% 262% 248% 319%
t
-" Alternative #3: LAX -37% -34% -41% -34% -28% -6%Significant BOS -80% -89% -I00% -95% -99% -99%
"7 Decrease BNA -54% -96% -100% -50% °62% -59%..._ _¢'pect ed FLL -34% -41% -50% .66% -78% -90%
CVG -70% -77% -72% -76% -98% -99%--: pVD -84% -88% -91% -80% -92% -90%
; PBI -79% -52% -48% -74% -75% -77%
-_ Alternative #4: LAX -14% -5% -14% -34% -80% 3%!Small BNA 5% -1% I% 1% 0% 2%
Decrease FLL *1I% 0% 0% 1% - I% 0%-_ Expected CVG I% -8% 7% 3% 1% 0%
PVD -17% -11% -19% -2% -4% -4%PBI 4% 9% 0% I% 4% 13%
5-10
1
-- 600 , ,
-- m
-- o 500c_ ***** ALTERNATIVE#1 *
-- "J ++"÷" ALTERNATIVE#2 ''I,Iu') 400 ..... ALTERNATIVE_3
-- •'•••ALTERNATIVE_¢' EQUATION 5-IL_ ./I I
300 ,_.- _÷
_ _ 200c_
_ _z
..._ •-100zLIJ
-200_::E0
- '0-30( t t _ t- -50 0 5 1O0 150 200-- _ CHANGE IN IMPACTED POPULATIONABOVE DNL 55 dB
Figure 5-1. Comparative Changes in Impact Relative to Base Case --- DNL Greater Than 55 dB, SEL Greater Than 90 dB.
5-11
--3
500 , , ,
rn
***** ALTERNATIVE #I"J * * * * * ALTERNATIVE_2o_ ..... ALTERNATIVE#3 /
• " ' ' ° ALTERNATIVE_¢ /
- N 300 EQUATION5--2 /
- _ 100
- ..'"' "-- _ t7
-100i/-
:zlaJ
-20C
m -30C _-'_'iI O0 I L-- I I . I I- - -50 0 50 100 150 200 250CHANGE IN IMPACTED POPULATIONABOVE DNL 60 dB
__ Figure 5-2, Comparative Changes In Impact Relative to Base Case -DNL Greater Than 60 dB, SEL Greater Than 95 dB.
._ 5-12
people exposed to a DNL above 55 dB and "welghted people-incidents" for SEL
-_ greater than 90 dB:
ASE L = 39,8 + 1.98 x t'DN L , dB {5-I}
(correlation coefficient = 0,864)
where aSEL = percent change in "weighted people-incidents" relative to the
base case"
aDNL = percent change in impacted populations relative to the base case.
The same relationship for people exposed to a DNL above 60 dB and "weighted
-_ people-_cldents" for SEL above 95 dB is:J
"SEL = 23,0 + 1.59 x ADNL, dB (5-2)
(correlation coelnclent ffi 0,868)
_ In effect, the determination of either measure of noise impact should provide aI reasonably accurate determination of the other.
i
i
: i
i
i 7
J
ir
J5-L3
r
; 6.0 CONCLUSION8
In general, the changes which are ubtained from the DNL analysis reflect
the expected changes in noise impacts around the airports used here. The
-_ changes obtained from the SEL analysis are not consistent with the expected
' changes unless a nighttime weighting factor is incorporated in the definition of
"weighted people-incidents". This is to be expected, since the SEL values arc
, ! determined by the loudest airplanes in operation. Thus, for example, in changing
.. nighttime operations to an equal number of daytime operations, there would be no
.i change in the SEL results unless a nighttime weighting factor were used.
With a 10 dB nighttime weighting applied, the two measures of populations
"_; exposed above a certain DNL value and "weighted people-incidents" above a
_, similar SEL value appear to correlate reasonably well. In other words, neitherd
,_j measure would appear to be superior to the other in terms of sensitivity to
changes in noise exposure, There appears to be no real benefit in adopting anI •
: SEL-based metric in lleu of the currently accepted DNL.
_ From a more conceptual viewpoint, it would appear that the DNL measure
i,_ is more representative of the noise exposure in communities than the SEL
measure. The DNL measure essentially includes all of the noise energy generated
I ! by aircraft operations in the communities around the airport, considering both the
total noise made by each aircraft passby and the number of those events. The SEL}¢J
._ measure depends only on the number of times that aircraft noise exceeds aspecific SEL in the communities, and does not consider how much higher those
'7 noise levels may actually be. Thus the SEL-based measure actually "short-changes"
J the real amount of noise exposure. As a second comment, the large numbers of
_-_ "people-incldents" determined with the SEL-based measure may be undulyF
__ alarming and misleading to many communities, For example, the "people-
incidents" above an SEL of 90 dB at LAX are 18,600,000. A number of this
-i magnitude could easily be misinterpreted, and certainly appears to represent
more people than actually llve reasonably close to this airport.
6-I
7.0 I_FEI_NCF_
I. Schult.z, T.J., "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance",J. AcousL Soc. Am., 64, 377-405,
2. "Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of" Compatible Land Use",American NaUonal Standard ANSI $3.23-1980.
-- 3. "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land-Use Planning and Control",__ Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June 1980.
_ 4, Advisory Circular 1050.1D, "Policies and Procedures for ConsideringEnvironmental Impacts", FAA, December 5, 1986,
5. '_Jpdatlng a Dosage--Effect Relationship for the Prevalence or"Annoyance-- Due to General Transportation Noise", J. AcousL Soc. Am.. 89. 221-233.
6. '_rhe National Airport Noise Impact Model and Its Applications to-- Regulatory Alternatives", Report FAA EE-88-3, July 1987,
.m
r 7-I
APPENDIX A
DNL Contour Plots for
All Candidate Alrport_ _ Scenarios)
NOTE 1: Most of the Contour Plots in this appendix were generated on "C" or
-- "D" size paper, In reducing these to the 8.5 x It-inch format, some
degradation in the quality of the plots may have occurred in some_ cases.
NOTE 2: There is no contour plot for BDR-Alternatlve #3 (All Stage 3 Aircraft).
BDR is currently served only by Stage 3 aircraft, so the contours for theBase Case are sufficient,
-- NOTE 3: There is no contour plot for BOS-Alternative #4 (Flight Tracks). This
-- has been explained in Section 2.3.
A-I
_ L ' " ,' • ' ' ' ' :. : J L...L _.:- : [2 ..... r.....i
!COR,RECTI0N!'THEPREVIOUSDOCUMENT(S)
J
MAYHAVEBEENFILMEDINCORRECTLY.,.
RESHOOTFOLLOWSSB&BIn.formation&ImageManagement
500PrinceGeorge'sBoulevardUpperMarlboro,Mary_d207/2
(3ol)249.o_1o
r
....!i'.
iL_
r-LJ--
1¢._-
_._..__*l_-,_.....•t¸_-
t_
1.
__'
....
[....
_t
_iL
.J1.
2__1
L-.
JL
__J
t--_
]L
-JL
.1
i__l
[_._
J_
li
.}
____
_1i._
l
\ \
_hw
._zs
all
J iIi ?-
E" 'i
-- =.
'2 _j L;i=_";I
•_ _-- ,.........._.:_il
ii,
oT
_l......
_
!
I,,I
'i
I!,i!
h
I-i:
i:iii;I',_
•.
.o
o*
*•
°_
I
:ii:,!
I--:[
I_
I_
I_
I]
,r-7I---7
I_!_'_1
[-7!--I
....i
••
1:--
II
--1I
_ .-Z-Z"/A'_"Z.T'_/L-.'_T_-":" 7.. T _Z'T _T- Z._77-L• ,_,_,,_l_,_--it["
Z
|-'Io_
am
oa•_ It.
- i_. .'.ZX'--'__."Z.'_L---Z;-Z.-'ZL_"7L'--'#ZITZ.'.U_7----L'_'_'-_".-7:ZL _: mat_'_f'_rm":_l
l
I_
L_
l_.
I[
'z
-][_
.;
L_3
l.__J
[_i
L._I
_,.-
J_-
JY
l.
i|
:.
]
-_-=
iI:
Ii
•r
•
I....
[I...
..i
C.
.'_
I_.]
L_J
[_
[I
'_-
_!
]•
1...
.I.
iI
.)
,_l_
lI
-.
..
.._
|.
-t16t60, 422401 (73920. 422401
5
+ + + + + + +
2
I 4,
I
BNA t996 RWY 2R/20L NEST-HOD 2 (B2-2}NASHVILLE METRO AIRPORTMETRIC ,, LnN 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75,0 BO,O r J
.AREA(SG HI! = 7t. 3 35.9 15.9 5.3 1.9 ,9 21120 ft
i
........ _.__4 _ :_ •
1-105600, 84460) (_900B0._844._80_
,,t, 4, 4, ÷ 4. 4. ,,_ ÷ 4. 4,
4,
BNA S99B RWY2R/20L WEST-HOD2 (B2-2)
BNA ALT_HETRZC LDN 55,0 50.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 i 4AR£A(SO H_) " G2._ 3|.7 _3,8 4,B i,7 .B 21120 ft
÷
+ + + _t + ÷ ÷
oo Wm W_ m
?AASEi?_NLA_AL_SI_ 'BNA ALT3METRIC - LON 55.0 60.0 65,0 70.0 75,0 BO.O _ LAREA(SQ HI) - t6.8 E.4 2.6 1.2 .4 .t 2_20 ft
I !:_z
w"n(-lO__SBDD.-b_3BO)
'tOf'l
Pm
1!0
"-'iI'-i
+
I_
CJ_
+E
,_--,
r"
Z
!'-,"
_r-!
+
ill
z_
,Z
+
!._p1r"
+..(
I_oob')
+
t_o
+
o_-
-,1
÷
o
f0-4 tn
Iog
:1•
III
:
oil
"4-
"4-
fro7
+p
---!
+
I
÷:
i(D
NE
Eg-
"OB
'#"I
z8)
4
tl
FFAA SEL/I]NLANALYSISFT.LAUDERDALE INTL. AIRPORTMETRIC = LON 55.0 60.0 85.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 , ,AREA(SQ MI) = 28.8 14.4 8.0 3. S 1.4 .6 10560 Ft
-I- + +
31
Io
r_
)
FAA SEL/DNL ANALYSIS:LL ALTIMETRIC = LDN 55.0 80.0 85.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 r
AREA(SQ MI) = 22.0 11. g 5,4 2.5 1.0 .5 10560 Ft
÷
÷
÷
FAA SEL/DNL ANALYSIS
FLL ALT24ETRIC = LDN 55.0 80.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 r-- iAREA(SOMI) = 44.4 25.0 14.4 7.8 3.6 1.4 10580ft
- • _ .... _7__"_ b 7-,7 _ :i _ , _ • :_-'7_(-63360, 31680) ____ (3_b80, _680J
+
.ms
+ + 4,
¢qmt
I
moq
FAA SEL/ONL ANALYSISFLL ALT3METRIC ,', LDN 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 n 1AREACSG HI} " 14.8 7.t 3.0 1,3 .7 .5 10560 ft
...... _T--_ .i I i..L;, ] i : , _ , -- .....
+
+
,>+
Vl .. ........................................... ._... .......
FAA SEL/DNL ANALYSISFLL ALT4METRIC = LDN 55.0 60.0 B5.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 F.........."-IAREA(SQ MI) = 25.4 14.2 8.2 3.7 1.3 .5 10580 _t
i•I
÷
i t
I....................
I
---7 " _i .- : ......._ _ : ' ' I , i _ i _ _ --7
FAA _EL/DNL ANALYSZ$CVG ALT3METRIC _ LDN _5.0 _0,0 65._ 70,0 7_,0 BO,O i
AAEA(SQ M_) m 34.0 i3,_ 4.8 _,3 .? .0 t0560 ft
_.,_._,.._._.. .......................
t.
jJi
I i I i
V:-
i I
÷4-÷.I-._+÷÷÷÷
lLZ
-¥
_-_"io(-47520.
-21120)
to(9
f-
u Za (D
OI o
ilL
P:1
°2
:J
oil
o+
11 I
÷I
_8_eo,5200o la_4s.._o,52soo_L
ELZNE t�BO OPS - ALL AZRCRAFT OPERATIONSPVD AL_2METR]_ _ LDN 55,0 60,0 65.0 70,0 75.0 BO.OAREA(SQ HZ) • 84.4 40,0 70,4 7.3 2,4 ,7 '10550 ft'
i'475_o,_6eol , ........ 14752o,_58oI
I ,,,
_A SEL/OHL ANALYSZSfO ALT3ZTRIC = LBN 55.0 60.0 65.0 90.0 75.0 50.0 , '' ,
_EA(SG HI) = 7.4 2.5 .g .3 ._ .0 10550 fL
......_ .... -, T_.___._ ....--'-"_!.,,,,_ " • ; i ;_! r' ' ;i i _ r-'-- _ , l , , ----
- [_,_]_oii L...........i ...... .II-L.i 'I.ILI.L. .._i.iT i...i. ."...L...I._..T:IIT.[.'.-.I'.III_I.I.._-.2....... __":,_-_O)o
+
÷ ÷ + ÷ ÷ ,_, 4. ÷ + + ÷
,>C_
I _,I,
) FAASEL/DNLANAL_'gIB ...... _ i
METBIC LBN 55,0 BO,O B5.O 70.0 75,0 80,0 ,- '" "--I :
REA(S(] MT) '. 35,B i7.3 6,7 a.2 ,B .3 __ _.OB50 f_: :
k.......
2_i20) (52800, 2ii2U)
÷ ÷
÷
FAA BEL/DNL ANALYSISPALM BEACH INT'L AIRPORTMETRIC = LDN 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 BO,O , ,AREA(SG HI) = 37.4 iT.B 7.6 2.9 _.l .5 i0560 ft
,"I,
+
D
+I
0
I
FAA SEL/DNL ANALYSISPBI ALT1
METRIC = LDN 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 , i
AREA(SQ MI) = 38.7 17.4 7.5 2.9 1.1 .5 10560 FC
4-
+ 4- + + 4- +
>.
+D
I
4. J
FAA-SEL/ONL ANALYSIS -"_ "PBI ALT3METRIC = LON 55.0 80.0 85.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 l I^REA(SQ MI) = 13.1 5.5 2.3 1.0 .5 .2 10560 £t
,,,I-
+ + ÷
,>
,.p
• -- ,i,
FAA $EL/DNL ANALYsisPBI ALT4METRIC - LDN 55,0 60.0 65,0 70.0 75.0 BO.O rAREA(SG H_) - 37,5 t7.8 7,9 3.0 d.l .5 10560 ft
+ + -I, "i + +
+
FAA SEL/DNL ANALYSISSIKORSNY MEMORIAL AIRPORTMETRIC = LON 55.0 80.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 r--" .......... oAREA(SQ MI> = 4.3 1.8 .7 .3 .I .0 10560 Ft
(-52B00,2_t201 (42240_2_20}
÷
/7
÷ ÷ ÷ _ ÷ ÷
÷
"-4+
÷
i IAA BEL/DNL ANALYSISOR ALTtETRIC = LON 55.0 60.0 65.0 70,0 75.0 60.0 , ,REA(SQ M_) - 4.t t.7 .7 .3 .1 .0 _0560 ft
• ' : : ' :...: ....., :. :, ,_.i ,_.
[-aR2aor3_6_o) ., IOS8OO,xlsao)
÷ ,
_DR AL.T2HETRZ{_ " LDR 5S,Q 60.0 6_,0 ?0.0 75,0 80,0 t0550 f{:kREA(St] H_'I " t$_.9 31.B 15.3 5.9 2,0 ,7
,. .:,._/,:,_. ............. _ . .'4 " " :, _, ."' ,........ _ " I.. ,:," _, ;;5 , ......
=,
- -'_3_,---_%,,-_._........................................................................ ._9_p..,_2_,,o-T-
,4,
FAAS_'t../nNLANALY_Z_ ' --BDR ALT4HETRZ(: " LDN 55,0 60,0 65,0 70.0 75,0 BO,O ,AR_A(SQ HZ) " 4,B [.8 .7 .3 ._ .:; _0560 ft
i
APPENDIX B
- S]F._LContour Plot_ for
All CundJdatoAlrport_ _ $c_-n_os)
NOTE 1: Most of the Contour Plots in this appendix were generated on "C" ori
.... = "D" size paper. In reducing these to the 8.5 x 11-1nch format, somei
j .: degradation in the quality ot the plots may have occurred in somecaBes.
NOTE 2: Since the metric being considered is Maximum SEL, the Base Case,
F Alternative #1, and Altematlve #2 will have IdenUcal SEL contours.
The excepUon Is BDR, which has identical contours for the Base Case,
-7, Alternative # 1, and Alternative #3._J
NOTE 3: There is no contour plot for BOS-Alternative #4 (Flight Tracks]. Thls
has been explained in Section 2.3.
.,..,
J
!
I._J
i
i
!
B-Ii
_ ; " 77-' ...._ *, * ; _ ,-- • r........................ _ L _ J .....
D
j ,,,-------_____
eQ ,l!
i :1
•il
•!1
t
'i
Ito
,°S
-j J l _J
!J
I_j
•o
••
_!
&
_i_ ......................................................
II
L
FAASF_I_/_IL__,NAL"_Si_-:;,[T .# 3......... '" ................................................................[.II'IA
i,-It,ll_{'rRr£: _, ,._EL BS.0 90.0 95.0:100.0_.05.0 r JAtlF.A(_8 1'41) _ 44.7 t5.1= 4.6 1.3 .5 2:1.t20 ffi
_i_:_,_:.._,,_,"............... ...............................
_S,_
,_,_
.
!,.,
,o!i
|
!i!
i:
J=
!...
......
_ep,
J...
.r
......
--'F
01-_
::•
_._
•
-!l
-i _
.^/
ii1
\"--.__/2/
_J I I i I
---
I|
__
•1
I
i_i!
1.!1
g • , i m
iit_ IiT84Jolm:lID u_mQJ
Lm&,lwLIAL_|]| o J_.l_ t A_;, 0 _, I_16 *ll_ flJm _¢. m_ m.| IJ.O IIm,llOJ*N.em.ml
i .
_1_ All • IN,I _,1 i,1 I ,I Ill
--_f[i_ill..........................................................................i,ill¥1l I;'i,II,,ul'_"I'_!l,ii'lit*__" If_'l_/i_ll 1"Its*II111
&
.............,,j,
I
! *
4. ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ,4, 4. ,i
Co
: F&A ._EL/_r']L Af]ALy.-,._ - ALT, B ,E-l FV_.i HETF, I'_ " SEL _._,O 90.0 95,0 :L_O,O'.._..,,O ,
. . z.o ,.o._ ' t: _z;.4 _0.o ._ . ........................
t
X.
\\
\.._
.?
'_
--
""_
.......
_]
_
•..
,\
.I iI ;1 I
m_.la. _. es ,m,o .e lU.O*_.o
tlli'......
ii
;g
.:_
__i-2
[i
- e_
l
?t
• _ ,L_l_ J._tv
-_-_:__: :_ii: _i•I_ : :I _ _ i _ i :: _-.... _• i_:_......... / _ _ : :i i i_i-:•_ _2_ _;_
..........__:'_•_l_T_"Z_I_
I
11"i?
jJlt_ti_lt-P
•l_rOel_Hurql_
..q.......i
I
+
+ + + + + + +
+
+
N
I
FAA SEL/BNL ANALYSIS - ALT. # 4BDR
L NETRIC - SEL= 85.0 go.o 05.0 100.0105.0 I 1RgA!SO_.._M_?___36__ 1B:g10.£._z!_.!/.._........................................ 10_SB0..__t.....
![DNL – Geography – London: A Global City - Freeaubel.free.fr/DNL/1re/LESSON_London_A_Global_City/LESSON_Londo… · 1/13 DNL – Geography – London: A Global City [CA v1.5] Summary](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5aa1a4f77f8b9aa0108c2368/dnl-geography-london-a-global-city-113-dnl-geography-london.jpg)
