mitigating the impact of helicopter noise over Cambridge neighborhoods

Page 1 of 8 CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 ckelley@cambridgema.gov Craig A. Kelley Phone: [phone removed] City Councillor Fax: [phone removed] MEMORANDUM To: Cambridge City Council From: Craig A. Kelley, City Councillor; Wilford Durbin, Council Aide Date: October 18, 2017 Subject: Mitigating the impact of helicopter noise over Cambridge neighborhoods 1. Introduction Over the past several years, Cambridge residents have been voicing their frustration over the intensifying burden that air traffic noise has imposed on their health and wellbeing. Channeling those concerns, residents of this and neighboring communities joined their state and local officials in calling on Massport and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for relief. As recently as September 7, Cambridge Councillors Jan Devereux and Craig Kelley invited residents to voice their frustration and discuss strategies for seeking mitigation, while organizations such as Boston West Fair Skies have been mobilizing residents around dispersing concentrated flight paths for several years. These efforts have in the past focused almost exclusively on airplane traffic. The causes of increased noise over the city from these sources is well known: weather patterns sometimes necessitate more northerly departures that send traffic over Cambridge; construction at Logan International Airport shifts a runway’s load to other lanes; the overall number of passenger flights to and from Boston is increasing, as is the number of flights carrying freight; and most acutely, the implementation of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen Performance Based Navigation (PBN) initiative now directs pilots to use established Area Navigation (RNAV), concentrating flights into so-called “air highways.” Contributing to the cacophony over Cambridge are helicopter flights that, among other purposes, service area hospitals, aid in public safety operations, provide tourists with a bird’s-eye-view of the city, and report on newsworthy events for local networks. Helicopter flights in the latter category tend to be especially disruptive, particularly when they occur during normal sleeping hours. This memo provides information on helicopter activities in the Boston Metro region as they relate to Cambridge’s airspace. Studies of how other cities have tried, and at times failed, to quiet their skies is also provided. A final section looks at the steps Cambridge might take to address the most disruptive helicopter flights that impact residents.

Page 2 of 8 2. Helicopter Noise Over Cambridge The City of Cambridge’s Noise Control Ordinance regulates loud and excessive noise in the city, establishes curfews for certain types of noise, and seeks to “prevent excessive sound and vibration which may jeopardize the health and welfare or safety of its citizens or degrade the quality of life.” Although helicopters may emit noise over residential neighborhoods that exceeds noise ordinance thresholds, the City has no authority to enforce its local ordinance on federally regulated airspace. All airspace from the surface to 7,000 feet and within 8 miles of Boston Logan International Airport is controlled by the airport’s control tower, and the entirety of Cambridge falls under this protected zone. All helicopter operators seeking to fly within this 8 mile radius are understood to contact the control tower at Boston Logan for flight routes and altitude guidance. A map of Boston area routes advises that “routes were established, in part, over low population areas to minimize noise to underlying communities,” and so “Pilots are encouraged to ‘Fly Friendly’ and use the recommended helicopter routes at the maximum altitudes assigned.” These recommendations, however, are not enforceable. As long as pilots follow safety regulations and are licensed, they are generally not restricted from flying wherever they want and for as long as they want. Helicopter routes around Boston are similar to air-highways created by the RNAV system except that, while RNAV uses GPS waypoints for guidance, helicopter traffic is directed to pass through “recommended” routes along recognizable landmarks. Several routes that serve the Boston Metro region pass over or along the borders of Cambridge. Three such routes branch off from the Turnpike Route (PIKER) that follows the Charles River from the Museum of Science to near the River Street Bridge. This is one of the principal east-west corridors over the Boston Metro, and connects to the Fresh Pond Route (FRESH) that brings helicopter traffic over Cambridge. Operators that take the Fenway Route (FENWA) pass south of Cambridge and turn southward at the Longfellow Bridge. The FRESH route extends from the former Allston Toll Plaza, over the Harvard Stadium, and then follows Fresh Pond Parkway and cuts over Fresh Pond before joining the Spy Pond Route (SPOND) and heading west. In addition to these established routes, local heliports, particularly at Boston-area hospitals, also contribute to helicopter noise in the region. Of the seven approved heliports in Boston, five are attached to hospitals: Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston Medical Center, Tufts This map shows the designated helicopter routes around the Boston Metro Region. Several of these routes, including the PIKER, FENWA, and FRESH route pass either directly over or along the border with Cambridge. Pilots using these routes are encouraged to fly at the maximum altitude recommended by the control tower at Boston Logan, but are not required to do so.

Page 3 of 8 Medical Center, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The Boston Globe and WBZ-TV (local CBS station) also have heliports in Boston, the latter in Allston along Soldier Field Road. Somerville also has one heliport along McGrath Highway just north of East Cambridge, a private heliport owned by Herb Chambers. Tourists can also hire helicopter operators for areal views of the city. Helicopter Tour Boston MA/Blue Hill Helicopter offers several tours of local area attractions at varying times of day and night. “Tour #1 Boston” provides a 25-30 minute tour with views of “Fenway Park, MIT and Harvard,” as well as the Charles River for $325. Likewise, the East Coast Aero Club allows riders to “retrace Paul Revere’s famous ride through Belmont, Arlington, Harvard University, [and] M.I.T.” for $199 per person. Unlike other helicopter flights that pass over Cambridge on their way to area destinations, local news helicopters may circle a small geographic area—or simply hover—for extended periods of time, making them particularly disruptive to residents. During a house fire earlier this year on Appleton Street in Somerville, one station sent a news helicopter over the densely populated neighborhood near Davis Square in the early hours of the morning. The helicopter began its flight over Cambridge coming from the south at 4:54 a.m., and continued to fly over Somerville for nearly 25 minutes. Despite the early morning disruption, the station used less than 10 seconds of footage from the flight during their coverage of the blaze. All of Boston’s major networks boast of offering helicopter coverage for major events, including Fox 24 (SkyFox), WBZ-TV (Sky Eye 4), WCVB-TV (Live Sky 5), and WHDH-TV (Sky 7). These helicopters are used to cover events ranging from the historic to the truly pedestrian, such as traffic jams. The frequency of flights in Boston, particularly around Fenway Park, prompted then Boston City Councillor Mike Ross to call for talks in 2005 between officials in Boston, the FAA, and the New England Helicopter Council. A Globe article about issue quoted a spokesperson for WHDH stating that a representative of their station would be happy to meet with Boston City Council to discuss the noise issue.1 3. Attempts at Regulating Helicopter Noise Around the United States The strict federal control of airspace in the United States has made local attempts at mitigating the impact from airplanes, such as redirecting flights and imposing curfews, nearly impossible. This is true not only for commercial flights, but helicopter operation as well. Still, the following case studies provide examples in how different communities around the nation have attempted to assert control over the skies 1 Lisa Wangsness, “Copters’ roar sets off a wailing among Fenway residents; say ballpark, hospitals drawing more flights,” Boston Globe (August 15, 2005). In the early morning of Friday, Janurary 27, a housefire broke out on Appleton Street in Somerville. To cover the blaze, a TV news helicopter flew over the neighborhood (shown with a blue flight path) from 4:54 a.m. until 5:18 a.m.

Page 4 of 8 above their neighborhoods. a. Los Angeles (CA) In 2014, Congress passed the “Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013,” which stated in its findings that “concentrated noise [from helicopters] interrupts daily life for many Los Angeles County residents by drowning out conversations and disrupting sleep cycles.” The legislation called for the Administrator of the FAA to:  review existing helicopter routes to “reduce helicopter noise pollution;”  study whether higher-altitude flights would be safe;  develop and promote methods to reduce noise impacts among operators; and  create a Noise Complaint System to report disturbances. The Act further called on the Administration to make “reasonable efforts to consult with local communities and local helicopter operators” to develop regulations. Since passage, the noise complaint system, known as the Los Angeles Helicopter Noise Initiative’s Automated Complaint System (or the Automated Complaint System, ACS), has been initiated. Additionally, FAA completed an analysis of helicopter routes and raised the altitude of several routes over Los Angeles County. Despite claims of progress from the federal agency, residents question the effectiveness of voluntary policies. Disruptive aerial coverage of a bear wandering through residential areas in 2016, for example, is an indication of TV news stations’ commitment to the new policies. b. East Hampton (NY) The Town of East Hampton, New York, owns and operates a municipal airport that services domestic and international flights. For over a decade, the town had been attempting to establish reasonable constraints on the busy airport, which supported some 25,714 flights in 2014. During peak season, the municipal airport could see as many as 353 flights in a day. The Town noted that the most disruptive flights, those most detritus to the health and wellbeing of residents, were from helicopters. On April 16, 2015, the Town enacted a local ordinance restricting Stage 2, 3, and 4 aircraft operations, claiming authority through its proprietary rights, and established: (1) a curfew prohibiting all such aircraft from using the Airport between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (the “Mandatory Curfew”); (2) an extended curfew on “Noisy Aircraft” starting at 8:00 p.m. and continuing through 9:00 a.m. (the “Extended Curfew”); and (3) a two-operations-per-week (i.e., one round trip) limit on Noisy Aircrafts’ use of the Airport during the Season.2 To enforce the ordinance, the Town also established a series of escalating fines of $1,000, $4,000, and $10,000 for the first three violations, respectively. Upon a fourth violation, the aircraft would be banned from using the public airport for up to two years. 2 Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc., et al v. Town of East Hampton, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (November 4, 2016), 17-18.

Page 5 of 8 Flight operators using the airport immediately filed for injunctive relief against the Town to prohibit enforcement of the laws. Plaintiffs argued that federal laws superseded the Town’s authority to regulate air flights and noise, and also that the laws failed to comply with standards set forth by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) for establishing regulations. Initially, a lower district court blocked the Town’s rule against operating multiple flights in a given week, but it declined to prevent the enforcement of the Town’s curfew laws. In reaching its decision, the district court reasoned that ANCA “did not necessarily preempt local laws enacted in violation of its procedures.” In tying adherence to federal funding through ANCA, Congress did not intend to require, but rather to “encourage” compliance. The court further found the impositions of a curfew “reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory,” and therefore permissible under law. On appeal to the United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, the ordinance did not fare as well. The Town had tried to argue that by refusing federal funding, they were not required to conform to ANCA’s restrictions, but the Appellate judges did not find the argument persuasive. The court found that ANCA prevailed over the local ordinance even if the Town foreswore all future federal funds to the airport. Specifically, the Town was not exempted from a requirement to publish “the proposed restriction…at least 180 days before the effective date of the proposed restriction,” and to seek review by the airport proprietor, all aircraft operators, and the FAA. Local laws that did not comply with this process are “federally preempted,” the Court wrote.3 The Appellate Court also disagreed with the Town’s argument that they may be held responsible for “noise damages,” and thus were compelled to act in the interest of their residents’ health and welfare in enforcing the ordinance. The Court wrote that the ANCA “shifts liability for ‘noise damages’ from local airport proprietors to the federal government,” thus undermining “the rationale for the exception.”4 Drawing from the findings of ANCA, the Court noted that “‘community noise concerns have led to uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that could impede the national air transportation system’ and, therefore, ‘noise policy must be carried out at the national level.’” (Emphasis added by the court.) Local concerns regarding disruptive noise could be “considered,” but only in a context that conformed to the “national interest.”5 Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded the case back to the district court to issue a “preliminary injunction barring enforcement of all three laws.”6 On June 26, 3 Ibid, 36, 46. 4 Ibid, 38. 5 Ibid, 41-42. 6 Ibid, 57. The Court also provided guidance on how regulations included in ANCA corresponded to provisions in the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) as it pertained to the proprietor exemption cited by the Town. The Court’s general outline might be of interest to this discussion, as well as the Council’s work on RNAV dispersion, and so excerpts are included here: In enacting the aviation legislation, Congress stated that the preemptive effect of [ADA] did not extend to acts passed by state and local agencies in the course of “carrying out [their] proprietary powers and rights”… Under this “cooperative scheme,” Congress has consciously delegated to state and municipal proprietors the authority to adopt rational regulations with respect to the permissible level of noise create by aircraft using their airports in order to protect the local population…

Page 6 of 8 2017, the US Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision. (Notwithstanding, an amicus curiae filed by New York City arguing against the Second Circuit’s ruling may be of interest.) c. New York City In February of 2016, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) released details of a plan to reduce helicopter traffic over the city, a measure hailed by Mayor Bill de Blasio for its ability to “significantly cut down on the number of helicopter tours near residential areas and major parks,” a “major quality of life issue” for affected New Yorkers. The agreement reduced the number of flights from a Manhattan heliport by 50 percent, removing as many as 30,000 flights per year. The details of the released agreement negotiated by the NYCEDC and the Helicopter Tourism and Jobs Council (HTJC) include:  All flights from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport are prohibited on Sundays.  A staged reduction in the total number of flights allow to depart from the heliport, totaling a 50 percent reduction by January 2017, with penalties for violations.  Operators are required to provide monthly statements to NYCEDC and the NYC Council detailing the number of flights from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport.  Flights over Governor’s Island are prohibited.  Flights over Staten Island are required to fly at the maximum altitude.  The heliport concessionaire will implement new technologies to reduce noise and emissions when they become “commercially feasible.” The 2016 agreement built upon concessions from helicopter operators dating back to 2010, when NYCEDC met with operators, the FAA, and local elected officials to discuss disruptive routes over the city. That meeting led to the elimination of certain tour routes, such as over Central Park and, subsequently, Yankee Stadium and directed all tour flights to be conducted entirely over water. 4. Action Items If this memo does little else, it should illustrate just how constrained local powers are to regulate anything to do with their airspace without FAA consent. In spite of these challenges, communities around the US have taken meaningful steps to mitigate the impact of helicopter noise on their neighborhoods. Recognizing Cambridge’s role in promoting better practices not only allows the City to negotiate relief for residents already suffering from increased air traffic, but prepares us to better approach the transportation and technology network of a future economy. In this capacity, this memo fits into a similar study, “Update on Regulatory Framework for Drone Policy Discussion,” submitted to the Council by this Hence, federal courts have recognized federal preemption over the regulation of aircraft and airspace, subject to a complementary though more “limited role for local airport proprietors in regulating noise levels at their airports.” Under this plan of divided authority, we have held that the proprietor exception allows municipalities to promulgate “reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory” regulations of noise and other environmental concerns at the local level.” (n, 48- 49)

Page 7 of 8 Office on March 23, 2017. It is also intended to contribute to existing work on airplane noise that has passed through this Council, a partial list of which is provided below. The following actionable items represent significant measures this City could take to both initiate a regional conversation on helicopter noise mitigation and prevent some of the most disruptive and deleterious practices for helicopter operations over Cambridge.  Build partnerships with neighboring municipalities already collaborating with Cambridge on reducing the noise impact from RNAV flight patterns to develop a regional helicopter plan with the backing of Massport and regional operators.  Ask Massport to analyze adherence to existing helicopter routes and altitude recommendations, encourage recommending higher altitude routes to operators passing through densely populated areas, and issue Advisory Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) to avoid circle overflying or hovering.  Contact area helicopter operators to promote methods to reduce the impact on Cambridge and surrounding areas, including to seek voluntary agreements with local news stations to prevent flights between 11PM and 7AM, and encourage camera pooling for aerial news coverage of major events.  Make reporting helicopter and other air traffic complaints easier on the City’s website, including Commonwealth Connect, and communicate the importance of logging complaints to residents.  Reach out to tour companies soliciting data on how many flights regularly operate over Cambridge, their flight path and duration, with a goal to promote practices that mitigate their impact on local neighborhoods.  Work with the New England Helicopter Council to create and promote best practices in flights over Cambridge and the dense Boston Metro area. 5. Transmitting to Council This memorandum is being forwarded to Ms. Donna Lopez, City Clerk, with instructions to place it on the Monday, October 23, 2017, Regular Meeting agenda as a Communication from City Officer, for future reference on related policy issues. Supplementary Resources: 2017 Notes from Meeting with Rep. Capuano, Sen. Jehlen on Air Traffic Complaints, January 31 Kelley Policy Order POR 2017 #173, Report on RNAV Dispersion, June 26 Presentation on Logan Airport noise updates, given by Bill Deignan, September 7 CMA 2017 #269, Regarding Airplane Noise and Millennium Towers, October 16 Letter from Councillors Deveraux and Kelley to Massport, October 18

Page 8 of 8 Profiles in Cambridge Helicopter Traffic: October 16, 2017 Flight path graphics represent actual historical flight paths, and were compiled using data from Symphony PublicVue, which is available on the Massport website. One helicopter takes several wide circles over Cambridge neighborhoods from East Cambridge to Harvard Square, and tighter around Cambridgeport. Showing the flight paths of four helcopters flying over Cambridge or along its borders. Two helicopters fly over Cambridge. Several helicopter routes circumvent Cambridge, but helicopter pilots are only recommended to use these routes. Here, a pilot twice crossed through Cambridge. The paths from two helicopter flights, one shown circling around Central Square and Harvard Square for 17 minutes. 11:00AM to 12:00PM 3:00PM to 4:00PM 4:00PM to 5:00PM 5:00PM to 6:00PM