Houston Residents Questions Data in Airport Noise Study

Representatives for a grassroot group concerned about runway noise at Bush Intercontinental Airport said Tuesday they have no confidence in the outcome of an airport-funded noise study.

Mike Cothran, Rick Dickson, Mark Gobble, Dick Sprouse and Bill Turk, speaking on behalf of the committee, said they have numerous concerns with the manner in which the study was conducted and the as-yet not finalized results of the study.

"We've gotten to see a final draft, but it hasn't been finalized yet," said Cothran of the study results.

However, a five-page executive summary of the study has been made available.

The study was authorized by the Houston Airport System and conducted by Wyle Laboratories using airport operations data from 2004. The study also included a 10-day supplemental community noise monitoring program at five locations at the airport and eight locations in area subdivisions during 2005.

The study focused on results of the environmental impact study conducted in 2000 for the airport's newest runway, Runway 8L-26R, which opened near the end of 2003.

As part of the city's agreement to conduct this noise model and study, representatives from neighborhoods around the airport were selected to serve as representatives to a technical committee to monitor to the study and its processes.

"The citizen committee members attended meetings throughout the process," Cothran said during a media presentation last week.

In issuing this statement of no confidence, the community representatives said the study is flawed in methodology in the computer-generated noise modeling portion of the study and in the study's timing and duration of actual noise monitoring in neighborhoods around the airport.

Among the committee members' concerns:

The noise model ignores information such as the 16-hour operational day of Runway 8L-26R by averaging over a 24-hour period.

The noise model ignores factors such as deforestation, temperature inversions, fog and clouds as a means of carrying sound. The model results are also not based on actual airspace configurations.

The operations data used in the computer model was for 45 days of input, but could have used as much as six months of information that should have included both winter and summer operations data, they said.

Barlett said Tuesday he was surprised by this no-confidence vote.

"The integrated noise model system is a national standard established by the Federal Aviation Administration," said Bartlett.

"It wasn't up to me or the technical committee to dictate because the national standards were applied throughout. We used six separate data sources and much of that was above and beyond what ordinarily was needed.

"I think we exceeded the standards and that was very much at the request of the technical committee," Barlett said.

News stories provided by third parties are not edited by "Site Publication" staff. For suggestions and comments, please click the Contact link at the bottom of this page.