Reconcile Visions for Airport

The fight over expansion of Burbank Airport boils down to just a single simple issue: What could be versus what should be. Recent reports shed light on both and illuminate how such a simple notion becomes infinitely more complicated. Neither side in this dispute seems able to reconcile the other’s vision of what could be with its own idea of what should be.

For instance, a study released late last month unveiled a number of reasonable proposals to mitigate noise as the airport accommodates more flights. But for those opposed to a new, larger terminal that would make those extra flights both safer and more comfortable, few of the proposals were very convincing--except, perhaps, a nighttime curfew that airport officials and airlines say would be unworkable.

Officials from the city of Burbank oppose building a larger terminal at the airport because they fear residents will bear the brunt of extra noise and traffic. They’re right. But Burbank’s partners in the airport--Glendale and Pasadena--want a larger terminal to replace the cramped, aging facility that sits too close to the runway. Burbank wants a nighttime curfew and has spent millions on legal fees trying to thwart any terminal project that does not include one.

Some safeguards obviously are necessary. If traffic at Burbank Airport doubles over the next 20 years, the number of homes the federal government defines as “impacted” by noise would increase about 20%. That’s just the number that would register under complicated guidelines. Many more would be affected. But a curfew is not the only answer. Other proposals suggested in a recent report include building noise walls and enclosures to deflect the roar of engines and realigning nighttime flight patterns to avoid densely populated areas.

Both could work to reduce noise. They should be given a try.