Airport Framework Ignores Noise Burden on the Valley

With great fanfare, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority and the city of Burbank recently announced that they had reached a framework for settlement that would lead to the construction of a much-needed new terminal at Burbank Airport.

Unfortunately, although the deal might be fine for people living east of the airport, it’s terrible for the residents of North Hollywood, Valley Village, Studio City, Sherman Oaks and other communities in the San Fernando Valley.

In particular, the inclusion of a permanent ban on the use of Runway 8 (the east-west runway) for eastern departures of commercial aircraft makes this agreement unacceptable. In my view, a reasonable plan to share the noise--in addition to an enforceable curfew and a cap on the number of flights--must be part of any agreement on the airport.

For years, people living to the south and west of the airport have had to endure nearly 100% of the noise from jets departing Burbank. The back room deal cut by the city and the Airport Authority does absolutely nothing to ease the oppressive noise burden on these residents. In fact, by foreclosing the possibility of eastern departures, the agreement would exacerbate the problem because the number of departures will inevitably increase with the construction of a new terminal.

Of course, I support eastern departures only when visibility, wind conditions and other factors make it absolutely safe for pilots to take off in that direction. But the recent framework for settlement would restrict eastern departures under any circumstances. This is unacceptable.

Before the Federal Aviation Administration took the appropriate step of prohibiting eastern departures out of Burbank because of the current terminal’s close proximity to the runway, the Airport Authority repeatedly insisted that it had no control over aircraft departure patterns. When I and others urged that there be a more equitable sharing of noise with eastern departures under appropriate conditions, the authority claimed that only the FAA or the airline pilots could decide in which direction planes should take off.

Now, for purely political reasons, in an attempt to shield the residents of Glendale and most of Burbank from any aircraft noise, the Airport Authority and the city of Burbank have proposed--without first consulting the FAA, pilots or homeowners groups--to prohibit all eastern departures of commercial jets. This is a blatant act of hypocrisy.

The authority has also argued at times that the east-west runway is too short to accommodate commercial flights. In fact, Runway 8 measures 6,032 feet, which is 300 feet longer than the main runway at John Wayne Airport in Orange County.

The unfortunate fact is that the parties to the framework for settlement are more concerned with placating residents east of the airport--who are barely affected by jet noise--than they are with working out a fair and equitable agreement. As a result, we are left with a “solution” that is more about their own political futures than the future of Burbank Airport.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and I recently wrote a letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey urging her to reject the agreement. As the agency responsible for regulating air traffic, controlling aircraft noise and promoting aviation safety and as a major contributor of financial resources to Burbank Airport over the years, the FAA has clear legal authority--and indeed, a responsibility--to stop the perpetuation of a blatantly unfair situation.

I have always supported the construction of a new terminal at Burbank Airport, but only when concrete steps are taken to alleviate the noise that burdens people who reside in the San Fernando Valley. The framework for settlement doesn’t even come close to meeting this condition. For that reason, I am strongly opposed to its adoption.