|
|
POLICY REPORT
ENVIRONMENT Author/Number: D. Losito/714-5677
File #: VHB01-98 CC File No. 8025
TO:
Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:
Director of Environmental Health
SUBJECT:
Noise Management at Vancouver International Airport
A.THAT Council communicate to the Airport Authority (YVRAA) general satisfaction with the revised Draft Noise Management Plan (December 1997) except as noted in Recommendations B to E. This is based on the Plan appearing to better reflect the importance of fully considering noise impacts in Airport business decisions and the need to be sensitive to these impacts on neighbouring communities, as noted in the recommended actions included in Appendix F to this report, while recognizing the need to arrive at an appropriate balance between growth and the well-being of these neighbouring communities.
B.THAT the YVRAA be urged to utilize the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee more pro-actively, as was originally intended, on any issues that relate to ground or air-based noise impacts.
C.THAT any use of the North Runway for take-offs by DASH-8 and small commuter aircraft, during the 700-2200 period, only be permitted consistent with the EARP Recommendation #5 and after full consultation with the Noise Management Committee and the affected communities and that, until absolutely unavoidable, Chapter 3 jets not be permitted to take-off from the North Runway on a regular basis.
D.THAT Council communicate the City’s concerns about the stated early use of the north runway for take-offs to the Minister of Transport and request the Minister’s intervention, including appointment of a third party, in the determination of whether the traffic demand has reached capacity.
E.THAT the Director of Environmental Health convey Council’s position and remaining concerns to the Airport Noise Management Committtee and report back to Council after preliminary approval of the Plan by the YVRAA Board, at which time the Airport will attend a meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.
The General Manager, Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A through E.
City Council supported the Airport Expansion project subject to the conditions recommended by the Environmental Assessment Review Panel in 1991.
The City has appointed two citizen representatives along with an Environmental Health official to the Noise Monitoring Committee and is represented on the Board of Directors by Ms. Jane Fleming.
On May 27, 1997 City Council received the Urban Noise Task Force report on City Noise and adopted recommendations 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3, which dealt with operations at Vancouver Airport. Specifically the issues of phase out of noisier Chapter 2 aircraft, the enforcement of night curfews and the regular review of noise management procedures "to maintain the comfort of city residents" were addressed by these recommendations.
The expansion of the Vancouver Airport and the opening of the parallel (north) runway in November, 1996 have generated a significant increase in noise-related complaints. The spectacular growth of airport traffic is having negative consequences on surrounding communities. City staff, YVR staff, citizen groups and individuals have struggled to address these impacts. The Airport is nearing completion of a redraft of its Noise Management Plan, in consultation with the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee, in an effort to address these impacts with a view to minimizing them. The challenge will be to achieve an appropriate balance between the YVRAA’s growth strategy and the community’s need for peace, quiet, rest and enjoyment of their environment. Staff have identified some key concerns related to proposed use of the north runway for take-offs in 1998; engine run-up noise; noise from reverse thrust; and the appropriate role of the Noise Management Committee.
This report is intended to address a growing number of citizen concerns related to noise from the Vancouver International Airport (YVR) and the new parallel runway and to seek Council input and endorsation of some proposed revisions to YVR’s noise management plan in response to these concerns.
The initial process through which the Airport sought to undertake revisions to the plan did not lend itself to broader community consultation and City Council input. The Airport was relying on staff and citizen representatives from Vancouver and Richmond to bring those views forward on behalf of the broader community. Recent discussions with Airport staff and Jane Fleming, the City’s appointee to the YVRAA Board, have led to the revised process illustrated in Appendix E.
Vancouver International Airport, through the Vancouver Airport Authority, (YVRAA) has recently completed the major part of its expansion project approved under the 1991 Environmental Assessment Review (EARP) process. The recommendations of the EARP Panel were passed on to the Federal Government for approval. A condensed version of their final form is attached as Appendix A. The 1996 YVR Aeronautical Noise Management report indicates that "by November 1996 all 22 environmental commitments established by the Minister of Transport were met." Some might argue that, although this may be true in a technical sense, there have been some indications that they have failed to meet the commitments in spirit and intent.
Since the opening of the Third (or Parallel) Runway in November, 1996 there has been a significant increase in complaints about noise, especially from South Vancouver and East Richmond (Bridgeport) residents. (See Appendix B for 1990-97 comparison of June –August noise complaint statistics which indicate that noise complaints since the opening of the new runway have increased from 100-200 to more than 3000 in the 1997 period) The YVR Quarterly Report to September 1997 indicates that "Of the 3147 complaints, 89% were from repeat callers and 76% (or 85% of repeat callers) were from individuals who have called eleven or more times." It is interesting to note that the "causes" of the complaints vary geographically with far more engine "runup" and reverse thrust complaints originating in Vancouver than anywhere else. The increase in complaints has also been attributed to the altered flight paths resulting from the new runway and the concerted effort on the part of Bridgeport residents to receive compensation from the YVR.
A significant proportion of the complaints from Vancouver residents relate to North Runway Operating conditions (EARP Recommendation #5, Appendix A) especially the use of reverse thrust and the "emergency" exemptions on takeoff restrictions coupled with the increasing number of Chapter 2 jet aircraft. A number of residents and residents’ groups have communicated with the City, the Airport Authority and the Authority’s previous President and CEO, David Emerson, about their noise concerns. One of the groups, the South Slope Residents for Responsible Airport Operation (SSRRAO), representing eight southwest Vancouver community organizations, met with Airport senior management in May, 1997 to pursue solutions to the main noise problems. Further meetings were planned. It should be acknowledged that the Airport took great pains to ensure that, during recent work on the South runway (August 17-27) in the 0001 to 0600 time period, no activity was shifted to the North runway. The impending need to complete major maintenance work on the South runway may once again displace significant air traffic and noise to the north runway for a protracted period of time.
The Aeronautical Noise Management Committee (ANMC), established as a result of EARP, has attempted to deal with these concerns but has, to date, been somewhat frustrated in its ability to influence YVRAA decisions that have noise implications. On a number of occasions decisions have been announced to the committee rather than being brought to the committee for consultation and input. There is also a sense that noise and air traffic information has to be actively requested by members of the committee rather than being openly shared by the Airport. Obviously the Airport must balance their response to noise concerns with issues related to safety, air traffic control, airline demands and customer service. Finding this balance is clearly a challenge for the airport.
In arriving at Noise Exposure Forecasts for future years, the Airport factored in the significant beneficial effect of phasing out noisier (known as Chapter 2) jets. The Canadian government has passed legislation requiring the phase-out of noisier Chapter 2 jet aircraft by April 2002, with airlines gradually replacing these with quieter, more energy efficient Chapter 3 aircraft. This trend is in fact happening, but the significant growth in carriers, routes and aircraft movements at YVR has resulted in the number of Chapter 2 movements increasing in 1997 by about 1300 movements/month over 1994 levels. Growth in the number of quieter Chapter 3 aircraft movements has been stronger with an additional 1800 movements/month. The combined air traffic increase of some 3000 extra movements/month (or 100/day) cannot help but contribute to increased overall noise levels, at least in the years leading up to 2002.
The YVRAA’s strategic vision (dubbed The North Star) sets ambitious growth targets in both passenger and cargo movements through the Airport, with the stated objective of becoming a "critical mass" airport. The focus on this objective (growth) without consideration of the external costs (externalities) is cause for concern within the neighbouring municipalities.
For example, the growth targets in the passenger sector and the pursuit of new carriers and new routes, assisted by the Open Skies agreement, have resulted in increasing pressure to divert take-offs to the north runway, well ahead of initial targets. The August, 1997 draft of the revised Noise Management Plan stated "...the Airport Authority maintains that departures of Chapter 3 aircraft and non-jet aircraft (such as the turboprop DASH-8s) during peak-times will begin in 1998 or sooner." (emphasis added)
One should not be entirely surprised by the position taken by the Airport – a review of the Master Plan indicates that they had planned to utilize the north runway for up to 22% of total departures in 1998, including nearly 10% of jumbo jets and 30% of jets in the 71-160 seat categories. What seems incongruous however is that the use of the north runway is predicated on meeting Transport Canada’s definition of "capacity limits", a situation that would not likely have been recognized at the time when the Master Plan was produced. One wonders if reaching runway capacity this early is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Having said that, the DASH-8 and similar turbo-props have a small takeoff "noise footprint" (see Appendix C) when compared to jet aircraft including Chapter 3 jets. They also comprise the largest category of aircraft movements, with 120,000 predicted for 1998, with nearly 25% of departures planned for the north runway. Allowing DASH-8 takeoffs on the north runway may well have minimal noise impacts on the South Slope but it also sets a discomforting precedent for other, noisier take-offs on the north runway. More significantly, it certainly appears to contradict EARP recommendation #5, which precluded takeoffs until "traffic demand approaches capacity limits." Staff does not believe that the Airport Authority has shown that capacity has been reached. A review of the 1994 to 1996 Average Hourly Movements (Appendix D) illustrates that modest increases in traffic movements at 0700, 0800, 1100 and 1300 (in the order of 8 movements per hour) have occurred between 1994 and 1996. At the same time runway capacity has been greatly enhanced by the introduction of the 3rd runway. Even with the restrictions on use of the north runway (no nighttime activity, no departures) the additional runway capacity must have increased by at least 50% after November, 1996. Therefore, to a layperson it would hardly appear that "capacity" has been reached.
Staff are concerned that the Airport has not seriously pursued other "traffic management" options such as more pro-active scheduling of departures by the airport (rather than having multiple airlines leaving the gate at 7:00 a.m. for example), the application of financial incentives and disincentives to smooth out the peaks and valleys of departures, the use of the north runway exclusively for small aircraft (turboprop and below), and other measures related to more efficient traffic flow. Instead the Airport staff are indicating that the current operation of the north runway as predominantly a landing runway and the south runway as predominantly a takeoff runway is problematic from both an Air Traffic Control and a customer convenience perspective. Industry representatives raise the "customer service" problem of having to taxi 5 kilometres from the International Terminal to take-off on the south runway rather than 300 metres to utilize the north runway.
On the cargo side, the open door policy for increased cargo capacity may have negative consequences on residential areas as some of the increased activity is at night often utilizing noisier Chapter 2 aircraft retrofitted with hush kits. The majority (90%) of cargo is handled on passenger aircraft, while 7-8 % is handled through the south terminal, primarily on courier flights. It is this segment that is becoming problematic. There were initial concerns that the Airport was willing to approve early morning departures of "hush-kitted" Chapter 2 aircraft for courier operations. Although approval had been granted for an air cargo service arriving at 3:00 a.m. and consideration was being given to allowing noisier departures at 4:00 a.m., staff were pleased to hear that the approval was ultimately withdrawn and the service did not start operations. This experience highlights the need for noise-based criteria to be established for the acceptance of new business so the airport is better able to balance its "environmental excellence" and "business growth" objectives.
The YVRAA is in the midst of revising its Noise Management Plan, completed in 1994. The opportunity exists to influence the final composition of this plan proactively based on the experience gleaned since the opening of the north runway. The Airport has prepared a draft version of the revised Noise Management Plan. It was first discussed at the September 23 ANMC meeting and was broadly based on a discussion paper prepared by the two Vancouver citizen representatives on the Noise Management Committee (Meg Brown and Alex Tunner) and conveyed to Mr. Emerson and the YVRAA for consideration. Many of the issues raised by Mr. Tunner and Ms. Brown were included in the draft update to the Plan although some were not. Subsequent to the September 23 meeting a number of revisions were made to the plan to reflect concerns raised by members of the ANMC.
The re-draft was presented to the ANMC at its December 16th meeting. This version laid out a 5 year Action Plan to address the noise issues and was more comprehensive than the previous draft. Staff noted significant improvements in the plan, addressing some of the concerns raised with respect to the September version.
CRITIQUE OF AIRPORT’S DRAFT NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
The original critique of the September version of the Draft Plan is attached as Appendix F, which contains comments about elements incorporated in the initial draft as well as some items missing from that draft. These staff comments were forwarded to the Airport for consideration when revising the initial draft.
In general, staff believes that the Airport Authority is genuinely interested in addressing the noise impacts associated with the operation of YVR. This is reflected in the recent improvements to the draft plan, and their willingness to receive further input on the unresolved issues. The most recent version of the draft plan clearly indicates that the Airport has committed to addressing issues around visual/acoustical barriers, engine run-up mitigation, utilization and control of reverse thrust, nighttime operations, nighttime departures and education/awareness. Most of these issues are to be addressed in the first few years of the five year plan.
In addition, staff is satisfied that the Airport has gone to considerable lengths to address noise concerns related to emergency use of the North runway for takeoffs, consistent with the need for safe operations. However, the community may be faced with a protracted period of north runway use this summer to allow for major maintenance of the south runway.
Staff and citizen representatives will continue to press for the earliest possible implementation of solutions to engine run-up noise and reverse thrust impacts. Although staff understand the need to properly research mitigation options for the engine run-up problem, we would like to see the implementation of the chosen solution occur before year 3 (2000) as currently proposed.
At this time, staff is still concerned about the lack of resolution with respect to the proposed use of the North Runway, as early as this summer, for takeoffs. As discussed earlier, this issue revolves around the definition of "capacity" with respect to runway usage. The Airport has indicated that the data they are currently collecting to establish whether capacity has been reached and the options available to address capacity problems will be shared with the ANMC. Until that occurs staff recommends that Council go on record as opposing any use of the North Runway for takeoffs. Furthermore, staff recommends that Council communicate the City’s concerns about the proposed use of the North Runway for takeoffs to the Minister of Transport and request the Minister’s intervention, including appointment of a third party, to determine whether the traffic demand has reached capacity. If and when it has been determined runway capacity has been reached, Council may wish to convey to the Airport that takeoffs on the North Runway be restricted to DASH-8s and similar small commuter aircraft with small noise footprints.
Although it appears that the Airport is willing to make better use of the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee, this has not been mentioned in the December,1997 draft Plan. Staff recommends that Council go on record as supporting a more pro-active role for the ANMC in monitoring the implementation of the revised Plan.
Finally, the most recent version of the Plan does not fully address issues raised in Appendix F with respect to longer term protection of the noise environment, consideration of "Noise budgets" and a review of the enforcement process and responsibilities. Staff recommends that these issues undergo further discussion prior to the adoption of a final Plan.
The operation of an international airport cannot realistically be free of environmental impacts, especially noise impacts. Nevertheless, all efforts should be made to minimize these impacts to the greatest extent possible and to strive for incremental improvements on an annual basis. Current trends point to the noise environment for some neighbouring communities becoming progressively worse.
Some of the recommendations contained in this report may have financial implications to either YVRAA or to air carriers. The President of YVRAA has indicated to community groups that recommendations incorporated into the revised Noise Management Plan will be acted upon and budgeted for by the YVRAA.
City staff, YVR staff and citizens have had nearly a year’s experience with the noise impacts from the expanded Airport. It is an opportune time, with the drafting of a new Noise Management Plan, to address these impacts with a view to minimizing them. The challenge will be to achieve an appropriate balance between the YVRAA’s growth strategy and the community’s need for peace, quiet, rest and enjoyment of their environment.
Appendices A through E on file in City Clerk’s Office. No electronic copy available.
Elements of the Draft Noise Management Plan
(Note: Numbering corresponds to the September draft of the Plan)
1. Noise and Technology Study: The purpose of this proposed study would be to gain a better understanding of the future noise management tools and technology available to airports. One example, which is potentially applicable to the engine run-up problem, is the use of active noise control ("anti-noise" or "noise cancellation") to negate the impacts of run-up noise. Another example is an exploration of alternative noise measurement schemes to better relate measured noise levels to community response.
Staff support further research in these areas.
2 & 3. Acoustical Barriers and Visual Barriers: The draft plan includes the exploration of both visual barriers (trees) and acoustical barriers (berms/fences) to help reduce ground based noise. Visual barriers are acknowledged to only address a person’s perception of sound while acoustical barriers have been shown to reduce actual noise impacts when carefully located and designed.
There may be some potential benefits in erecting noise barriers (berms, dense vegetation, and trees) along the north side of the north runway to mitigate ground-based noise (e.g. reverse thrust, taxiing). A study of these benefits should be part of the revised Noise Management Plan, with implementation of those barriers which prove effective at reducing noise impacts on the South Slope.
Staff supports the inclusion of acoustical/visual barriers where appropriate.
4. Engine Run-ups: The draft plan includes discussion of a number of options to address the impacts of engine run-ups; a study is currently underway to understand and associate complaints to actual runup events and determine whether alignment of the aircraft is a problem. The construction of a ground runup enclosure is also being considered, but this is a costly undertaking, especially on Sea Island. The use of active noise controls may also hold some promise.
Staff supports the early resolution of the Engine Run-up problem and proposes that, in the absence of an early resolution (mid-1998) run-ups should be restricted to Button A between 0700 and 2159 with no run-ups permitted between 2200 and 0659.
5. Land Use Planning: The Airport has an ongoing concern about the continued introduction of incompatible land uses within the high noise contours around the airport (especially Richmond). They propose a number of optional actions including pursuing provincial legislation, municipal designation of noise sensitive areas, aviation easements, and Community Right to Know Noise Acts.
Staff support ongoing discussions between the Airport, City staff, U.B.C.M. and the Province to better address the encroachment of incompatible land uses closer to the Airport and aircraft noise impacted areas.
6. Reverse Thrust: For South-west Vancouver residents the use, or at least the perceived overuse, of reverse thrust on the north runway is perhaps the most significant noise impact that needs to be addressed by any revised noise management plan. Noise from use of reverse thrust on Chapter 2 aircraft landing on the north runway is particularly loud and intrusive. The EARP recommendations with respect to North Runway Operating Conditions called for "landing conducted in the least noisy configuration possible with minimal use of reverse thrust consistent with safe operating procedures." Although improvements have been noted in the reduced use of reverse thrust, there is still room for more improvement. For example, Airport staff acknowledge that, despite considerable efforts to publicize the current restrictions, "not all pilots may be aware of the restrictions."
It is staff’s observation that, despite some notable improvements, excessive reverse thrust is still being used indiscriminately and not specifically for safety reasons by some carriers and pilots. It appears that a combination of economics (brake wear is higher with only minimal use of reverse thrust) habit and a desire to get to the terminal quickly leads to pilots applying reverse thrust under power rather than utilizing more of the runway and the high speed exits designed to take traffic off the runway. More specific direction from the tower about which high speed exit to take would be appropriate.
It is noteworthy that at least one airline, Cathay Pacific, has adopted a company policy of utilizing either no reverse thrust or, at most, idle reverse thrust. One of the benefits of this policy is reduced wear and tear on the airframe.
Staff recommends that the Airport be urged to press for similar policies with the other airlines and that they take further steps to ensure that pilots are fully aware of the need to minimize their use of reverse thrust (under power) on the north runway. Staff further recommends that future noise complaint statistics include reverse thrust complaints as a separate category.
7. Capacity and North Runway Departures: As discussed in the body of the report, the Airport Authority is pushing for early Transport Canada approval for departures of turbo-prop and Chapter 3 aircraft from the North runway. They will first have to justify that they are "at capacity". A working group is currently attempting to quantify the delays at the Airport in order to provide this justification. Staff is somewhat concerned that this working group consists solely of representatives from the Airport Authority and NavCanada (the Air Traffic Control personnel) and that the goal of the study is "to make efficient use of YVR, eliminate congestion and reduce delays." Noise impacts are not mentioned in the Draft Noise Management Plan (September version).
Staff does not support the use of the North Runway for Chapter 3 take-offs at this time, in the absence of clear justification, which meets the EARP definition of "traffic demand approaching capacity limits". Once the Airport has provided such justification it would be appropriate for an independent appraisal by a third party. In any case, staff recommends that, should such takeoffs be permitted, they be limited to DASH-8s and turbo-props and they only be initiated after consultation with the impacted community. Council may also wish to address their concerns on this issue to the Federal Minister of Transport.
8. Nighttime Operations: The Airport’s current position is that YVR is a 24-hour airport, with a departure restriction on Chapter 2 jet aircraft over 34,000 kg between 0100 and 0600 (expanded to midnight – 0600 on December 31, 1997). As stated in a previous section, there was concern raised by the ANMC about the approval of nighttime departures of a hush-kitted B727 for courier operations.
Staff recommends that, consistent with the original recommendations of the EARP (which were not accepted by the Minister of Transport), a quiet period applicable to airport operations generally should be adopted extending from 2200 to 0700, with only Stage 3 takeoffs between 0600 and 0700 and between 2200 and 2400, and no takeoffs between 2400 and 0600.
9. ATC Procedures: This item is more technical in nature, involving standard take-off and departure routings, but may have some beneficial impacts on surrounding communities, especially those newly-impacted by altered arrival patterns.
Staff supports any fine-tuning that would reduce approach/departure noise impacts.
10. City Definition: Again, this item is technical and deals with the awareness by pilots of the boundaries of the City for purposes of compliance with noise abatement procedures.
Staff supports this item if it means enhanced compliance with Noise Abatement Procedures
11. Chapter 2 speed limit: Currently there is a 250 knots speed restriction for Chapter 2 aircraft taking off over the City as part of the Noise Abatement Procedures. The Airport is recommending that this restriction be reviewed in light of the fact that it may actually result in longer duration of noise over the City.
Staff supports a review of these procedures with report back to the ANMC.
A number of items raised by the Tunner/Brown submissions or by other members of the ANMC did not make it into the Draft Noise Management Plan, but have been brought to the Airport’s attention for inclusion/discussion in the final Noise Management Plan. These include:
1. Long Term Protection of the Noise Environment: A significant recommendation of the original EARP, which was agreed to by Transport Canada, charged the Noise Management Committee with "promoting the goal of achieving and maintaining the noise environment around YVR in a state not worse than that described in the EIS for the year 2001 with mitigation." Reviews of the 2015 noise contours published in the Airport Master Plan indicate that noise levels will have exceeded the "2001 with mitigation scenario", especially in north and east Richmond and along the Vancouver side of the crosswind runway. Members of the Noise Management Committee have brought this to the attention of the Airport as a failure to meet their commitments to the community at large. Mr. Emerson has responded to these concerns by explaining away the differences as resulting from changed assumptions and new restrictions on nighttime activity on the north runway.
Staff recommends that the Airport be requested to adhere to their noise commitments and maintain overall community noise impacts within the NEF noise footprint contained in the EIS 2001 forecast.
2. Runway Determination and 5 knot tailwind criteria: From a noise perspective the preference is to have noisier events such as take-offs take place over Georgia Strait. Currently the determining factor for changing takeoff direction to the east is the existence of a 5-knot tailwind. Some airports allow take-offs with a tailwind up to 10 knots. If this were the case for YVR, fewer noisy events (e.g. take-offs) would need to take place over land.
Staff recommends that the Airport explore, and if feasible, implement a 10-knot tailwind criteria for westbound runway selection.
3. Ground-based Noises: A number of ground-based noises are having off-site impacts. These include noise sources such as the bird control guns/cannons and the taxi queuing audible signal. The Airport should compile an inventory of non-aeronautical noises and address these.
Staff recommends that the Airport address the mitigation of miscellaneous ground-based noises.
4. New Business Criteria: The citizen and City staff representatives on the ANMC have identified a need for the YVR to establish criteria and a process for the solicitation and acceptance of new business. The first objective under the Airport’s Strategic Plan is to "keep safety, security and environmental excellence as the first priorities." Recent events tend to reinforce the perception that the Airport is focused entirely on generating more traffic, without reference to or consideration of the impacts of that traffic.
Staff recommends that criteria for the acceptance of new business should include noise impacts and the process should include full cost accounting principles and the recognition that not all business is worth having. The ANMC should be involved in this process.
5. Education/Information Program: A vigorous, ongoing program of education about noise impacts and the need for "neighbourly flying", aimed at both the industry (pilots, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel) and the public is needed to communicate expectations about noise and its mitigation. This program would encompass both the areas of enhanced operator sensitivity to operate in the quietest mode possible and the improvement of communication on noise issues with the general public.
Staff recommends that an education/information program be included in the revised Noise Management Plan and that such a plan be vetted by the ANMC.
6. Noise Budgets: An innovative approach to controlling and eventually reducing noise impacts from airport operations is the adoption of noise budgets, both for individual airlines and for the Airport operation as a whole. Some airports (e.g. Sea-Tac) use a "noise budget" approach where both the airport and individual carriers are assigned a "noise score" which they must adhere to for their annual operations, with gradual improvement expected of the airport’s "noise score". These and other innovative approaches to improving the noise environments should be pursued by the Noise Management Committee. This would be consistent with Recommendation #10 of the EARP Panel related to noise research by the Noise Management Committee.
Staff recommends that the Airport explore all options, including noise budgets, toward achieving the goal of maintaining the noise environment around YVR in a state not worse than that described in the EIS for 2001 with mitigation.
7. Enforcement: Hand-in-hand with the Education recommendation, but at the other end of the continuum, is the need to be able to enforce the Noise Abatement Procedures. At this point it appears that airlines, operators or pilots who do not adhere to noise abatement procedures receive, at worst, a slap on the wrist. The ANMC has not been provided with data on how much enforcement, by YVRAA or Transport Canada, actually takes place. In addition, there is a publicly perceived "conflict of interest" when the YVR Noise Management office monitors and enforces against its own customers.
Staff recommends that the Airport, in conjunction with Transport Canada, apprise the ANMC of the extent of enforcement actually carried out with a view to more active use of enforcement where necessary. Furthermore, an "arms length" monitoring and enforcement mechanism should be explored.
8. Emergency Use of North Runway: Clearer definitions of "emergencies" are required with respect to the use of the north runway for takeoffs. There were early occurrences where the south runway had been taken out of service in its entirety, pushing all traffic on to the north runway, when this appears to have been more restrictive than necessary. Recent experience, however, has indicated that the Airport is being more diligent about restricting the need to divert take-offs to the north runway and they should be commended for this.
Staff recommends that the Airport be urged to continue to use the same level of diligence in limiting the diversion of take-offs to the north runway unless absolutely necessary.
9. Noise Management Committee Role: The current mandate of the Noise Management Committee is "to discuss, analyze, provide advice and make recommendations on noise management". The Airport Authority has also committed "to discuss future plans and strategies at meetings of the Aeronautical Noise committee" and indicated that "the Committee will play a key role in making recommendations on the subjects of Airport Operations and Noise Management". Unfortunately, the pro-active nature of the mandate has never really materialized, with many decisions with noise implications presented to the Committee as fait accompli. For example, these include the previously stated decision on cargo operations and the statement that the north runway would be utilized for turbo-prop and regional connector takeoffs "very soon". The City staff and citizen representatives are often left with the perception that the Airport has provided the Air Traffic control representatives and the pilots/airlines with a virtual veto on substantive improvements to noise management at the airport.
Staff recommends that the Airport Authority explicitly recognize the pro-active role of the Noise Management Committee and utilize the committee more effectively rather than as a de facto "rubber stamp" process. Failing this, the Minister of Transport should be requested to revisit the original EARP recommendation for an independent Noise Management Committee with broader powers over noise issues.
10. Terms of Reference for City Appointees to ANMC and to Board of Directors of YVRAA: The City’s citizen representatives to the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee have raised concerns about lack of clarity with respect to their roles on the ANMC as well as the confusion over the role and terms of reference of the City’s appointee to the Board of Directors of the Airport Authority.
Staff recommends that Council seek clarification from the Airport Authority about the role and terms of reference of the ANMC representatives and the City appointee to the Board of Directors.
* * * * *
![[City Homepage]](/graphics/footnava.gif)
|
![[Get In Touch]](/graphics/footnavb.gif)
|
|
|
|
(c) 1998 City of Vancouver