---

BY TALLY SHARMA

In print | September 21, 2006

Since November 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration has been pushing for changes in air traffic patterns that would result in a drastic escalation in noise pollution for Swarthmore College and the rest of Delaware County. It is estimated that these potential alterations would be implemented in 2011 or 2013.

The FAA’s primary objective in executing this strategy would be to significantly reduce delays, a chronic flaw attributed to flights traveling to and from Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). One original approach to the predicament was a proposal that the FAA build a runway parallel to the preexisting landing strip, thereby ensuring a more efficient landing process and dramatically decreasing delays. PHL, however, lacks the space for this to be a viable solution.

Instead, the FAA plans on expanding the current Runway 17-35 and restructuring air space in order to decrease the distances between planes.

One objection to these proposals is that the extension of 17-35 would adversely affect the wildlife and environment of Upper Darby Township. In addition, noise levels due to air traffic are projected to increase between 350 and 925 percent in Delaware County, according to the Swarthmore Borough Web site.

Geoff Semenuk, associate director of alumni relations at Swarthmore as well as environment, parks and recreation representative for the Swarthmore Borough Council, said that planes would be flying at low altitudes in a Mertz to Clothier direction.

Semenuk said that although the FAA changes have been recognized as a problem for some time, they have elicited a negligible amount of public reaction until recently. “There was a minimal amount of public hearings last winter,” he said. “There was very little press, so no one knew about it. People who did show up had very little data; consequentially, there was really no public outcry.”

As far as the Borough Council is concerned with the FAA changes, Semenuk said that its authority remains somewhat constrained. “The Council is supportive of Delaware County’s efforts to oppose this, although we’re cognizant of how little voice we have against the FAA,” he said. Among the methods with which the Council could “assail” the FAA are through Congress, appeals to airlines or litigation, Semenuk said.

According to Semenuk, the Borough Council is currently pursuing the option of a lawsuit on the basis of a crucial defect in the FAA’s proposals. “The FAA’s Achilles’ heel is that it did not present the data in an accessible and timely way for people to make an assessment on it,” he said. “The problem is that we don’t have the data — and yet the FAA is planning on going ahead with it because no one is objecting.”

Associate Professor of Engineering Carr Everbach is now working pro bono with Delaware County in order to make the data involving the FAA changes more accessible to the community.

As the November midterm elections approach, the FAA’s proposal has been the subject of an important dialogue for candidates and constituents alike. Representative Curt Weldon® of Pennsylvania’s Seventh Congressional District has been among those who have adamantly opposed the implementation of the proposal. “The dramatic increase in noise level would be devastating to the quality of life in the area,” he said. Weldon asserted that there are substitutes for the FAA’s proposal, which the county is in the process of exploring. “We’re pushing for those alternatives,” he said. “I’m confident that we’ll be successful.”

Bryan Lentz, the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in the 161st Congressional District, said that his principal task concerning the issue is to inform. “I think the threshold issue is that I have no lawful jurisdiction over the FAA; my primary goal is one of advocacy,” he said. “I think organizing people, ensuring that they’re submitting their own comments and pointing out the benefits and drawbacks is important.” In addition, Lentz asserted that he was against any funding that would be appropriated in order to enable these changes. “I don’t support tax money that would be used to the end of damaging the environment.”

Lentz also commented upon the substantial amount of consideration that candidates are giving to FAA plans throughout their campaigns. “It’s a serious issue,” he said. “However, I would say that Tom Gannon would like people to be a lot more scared of it than they should be. I think it’s important to keep in perspective. Leaders should not incite fear; they should encourage solutions.” Representative Tom Gannon® of District 161 was unavailable for comment.

Abby Weathers ‘10 said that she had been wholly unaware of the changes proposed by the FAA until now. "I didn’t know about it," she said. “If it is something that could have such a large effect on the campus, it would be discussed more. I don’t know the cost to benefit proportions, but if I researched it and my opinion was such that the effects wouldn’t be too different, I wouldn’t think much of it.”

Sasha Shahidi ‘09 said that she was bothered with the sizeable role that the issue has been given in the political campaigns leading up to elections. “The first thing I think of is how many issues are much more pressing in a global sense,” she said. "Yes, noise pollution is important, but the fact that it’s such a huge issue during midterms is ridiculous to me."

College Vice President Maurice Eldridge ‘61 said that the College’s projected reaction to the FAA’s plans are vague as of yet. “One principle that I’m operating under is that we shouldn’t just have a knee-jerk ‘not in my backyard’ reaction,” he said. “We could file an amicus brief. I talked to the president of Widener University and, excuse the seeming pun, put it on his radar. So I think institutions do hold some sway.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »