Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It could have been aimed at me too. Whatever. Neither one of us was complaining. V-N has a NIYBY hot button.
Point being that you've posted about being bothered by noise from Luke AFB aircraft, as well as noise from landscapers a number of times. You say you're not complaining, but that's exactly what you're doing. The reason I have a NIMBY hot button is it's absolutely baffling why people like you choose to move to a big metro area which has everything that a person should expect in a place like this (jet noise, vehicle traffic noise, helicopter noise, etc.), but somehow expect to have things nice & tranquil. Posters who fit this description are going to be called out ... especially those who admit to not researching the area thoroughly enough before deciding to move to a location within close proximity of airports, military bases, major streets, freeways, stadiums, etc.
Point being that you've posted about being bothered by noise from Luke AFB aircraft, as well as noise from landscapers a number of times. You say you're not complaining, but that's exactly what you're doing.
Re: complaining. I hope you see the irony because you are a pro! Pot-kettle.
Complaining is defined as expressing an annoyance about something. So yes, I'm annoyed by too much of anything loud and I am expressing it on a forum. That includes pointing out when I hear 10+ hours a week of landscaping blowers per week. Though I am not expressing my annoyance of blowers as a whole. Rather, my annoyance with multiple days a week for several hours a day starting at early hours. To me at least, that's being rational. Especially when there are ways of mitigating those events. Like picking a couple of days for blowers to do their stuff in a section of a neighborhood. Or by an HOA requesting contractors to use low noise blower models versus their POS models that actually give people hearing damage. But hey, I guess they were here 1st! lol While I am pontificating, this is why some neighborhoods only allow one set garbage truck (for example) to come into a neighborhood. That way, people are not visually annoyed by cans set out or annoyed by noise from the garbage trucks driving around 3 times a week. You know, apply intelligence to make life a little better. I digress.
The solution for me was simple. I left and picked a lower noise area. I never complained to anyone (landscapers, HOA's, Luke, etc) or tried to have it changed. Rather, I left. NIBY's are associated with people who are trying to change inevitable societal needs so long as it's not in their backyard. I recognize we need landscape blowers and jet fighters. I called Luke not to complain. Rather, to understand if I need to move for my own sanity. And yes, I could have lived in Surprise even if there are 50% more flights. My reason for posting and aligning people with another POV is for those who post "it's no big deal". So now, they can hear another perspective. Basically, nudging them to dig deeper versus asking neighbors who may have rationalized living near an airport or listening for 3 hours assuming they learned all that they needed to know. I bet I described 95% of the people that move by Luke.
I never laid awake at night tightly wound and frustrated. Nor was the OP. When we moved in around 2011, I liked watching and hearing the F16's. For my ears, it's about balance.
So if I called ______ to complain, then I would qualify as a NIBY. I did my research but it wasn't good enough. In the end, even though I thought I did my due diligence, I didn't see a massive ramp-up of F35's coming when I moved to Surprise. I didn't realize the difference between the easier to penetrate sound profiles (lower frequencies) in the engines. Shame on me. If I did, I would have taken another set of trade-offs.
In summary. Yea, I'm expressing an annoyance about something specifically for a PSA. But I'm not a NIMBY. Now, I have a better noise level balance. I still hear blowers, helicopters and hear planes fly overhead.
In the meantime, stop complaining about the weather (it was here 1st), public schools (they were here before you were born), people who move for sunshine (it's none of your business). Lol JUST kidding! It makes the forum interesting. Right?
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 02-24-2021 at 07:07 AM..
This past summer it seemed like daily flyovers were a regular thing everyday in the afternoon in the Surprise area over Bell Rd & 303. It seemed to always be at least 2 jets, but sometimes 4. They would head north, then a little while later come back, and that would be it. Personally it didn't bother me since it's not like it was happening all day everyday. It seemed to just be a short round trip out to somewhere. Or, at least a short round trip through this area. If they've been flying over in recent months, then I must be tuning it out because I haven't noticed it.
For a while recently, it was also clockwork that between 2:45 - 3:00PM (when I passed through on my way home from work) they would be flying eastbound right over the 303 to land at the base.
Complaining is defined as expressing an annoyance about something. So yes, I'm annoyed by too much of anything loud and I am expressing it on a forum. That includes pointing out when I hear 10+ hours a week of landscaping blowers per week. Though I am not expressing my annoyance of blowers as a whole. Rather, my annoyance with multiple days a week for several hours a day starting at early hours. To me at least, that's being rational. Especially when there are ways of mitigating those events. Like picking a couple of days for blowers to do their stuff in a section of a neighborhood. Or by an HOA requesting contractors to use low noise blower models versus their POS models that actually give people hearing damage. But hey, I guess they were here 1st! lol While I am pontificating, this is why some neighborhoods only allow one set garbage truck (for example) to come into a neighborhood. That way, people are not visually annoyed by cans set out or annoyed by noise from the garbage trucks driving around 3 times a week. You know, apply intelligence to make life a little better. I digress.
The solution for me was simple. I left and picked a lower noise area. I never complained to anyone (landscapers, HOA's, Luke, etc) or tried to have it changed. Rather, I left. NIBY's are associated with people who are trying to change inevitable societal needs so long as it's not in their backyard. I recognize we need landscape blowers and jet fighters. I called Luke not to complain. Rather, to understand if I need to move for my own sanity. And yes, I could have lived in Surprise even if there are 50% more flights. My reason for posting and aligning people with another POV is for those who post "it's no big deal". So now, they can hear another perspective. Basically, nudging them to dig deeper versus asking neighbors who may have rationalized living near an airport or listening for 3 hours assuming they learned all that they needed to know. I bet I described 95% of the people that move by Luke.
I never laid awake at night tightly wound and frustrated. Nor was the OP. When we moved in around 2011, I liked watching and hearing the F16's. For my ears, it's about balance.
So if I called ______ to complain, then I would qualify as a NIBY. I did my research but it wasn't good enough. In the end, even though I thought I did my due diligence, I didn't see a massive ramp-up of F35's coming when I moved to Surprise. I didn't realize the difference between the easier to penetrate sound profiles (lower frequencies) in the engines. Shame on me. If I did, I would have taken another set of trade-offs.
In summary. Yea, I'm expressing an annoyance about something specifically for a PSA. But I'm not a NIMBY. Now, I have a better noise level balance. I still hear blowers, helicopters and hear planes fly overhead.
Keep in mind that I wasn't originally singling you out, and I normally wouldn't have posted on this thread since the far west Valley is generally off my radar. What I find disgusting is the number of gripes I've seen here regarding certain "annoyances" which are expected in a place like this, and should be easily adaptable in most cases. It's not just complaints about the Luke fighter jets or landscapers. It's helicopters, vehicle traffic, airliners from Sky Harbor, you name it. All that worthless rubberized asphalt on the freeways originated from the ones with overly sensitive ears over how loud the traffic noise was, which turned out to be a costly boondoggle. Do they seriously expect a freeway with fast moving traffic to be silent?! What it all comes down to: there are still plenty of smaller towns & wide open spaces people can move to if they want tranquility because it's not likely going to be found anywhere in or around Phoenix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
In the meantime, stop complaining about the weather (it was here 1st), public schools (they were here before you were born), people who move for sunshine (it's none of your business). Lol JUST kidding! It makes the forum interesting. Right?
Point well taken. I also complain a lot about others who complain, so I'll try to limit my complainer complaints here too.
()
I would never buy a home near an AFB. I just don't get people's rationale for it. Cheaper homes? I mean you can't be considering a location like that for "peace and tranquility." Man, they'll build a home anywhere in this state. I don't blame them. You know the old saying. If you build it, the suckers will come.
All that worthless rubberized asphalt on the freeways originated from the ones with overly sensitive ears over how loud the traffic noise was, which turned out to be a costly boondoggle.
()
Correction. Rubberized asphalt is the farthest thing from worthless. Because of my vocation, I do a lot of reading about acoustics. In actuality, ADOT has been using rubberized asphalt or ARFC for decades here in AZ. And they did exclusivity for longevity! In fact, they had positively no idea that the material was quieter. They found out by accident.
Early on, ADOT applied ARFC on rural roads and never gave a damn that it happened to dropped the SPL by 7 dB. Mathematically speaking, a 3 dB decrease means the sound is cut in half. Now our ears are logarithmic (not linear) so subjectively speaking, a 10 Db drop cuts it in 1/2 to our ears. Still, 7Db drops the sound traveling by over 4X the distance. If you compare it to concrete, then we are talking up to 13 Db SBL (under 1/2) and a massive reduction in sound total travel difference. I'm not saying swap out concrete for asphalt.
Big picture: initially, ADOT applied rubberized asphalt only because it lasts longer and for rural roads, it was more cost-effective in the long run. But it's slightly more involved to apply and slightly more expensive upfront.
ARFC process puts in air-pockets in the asphalt. So by default and before they tinkered with it, ARFC was a longer-lasting material compared to dense asphalt. Recently, an industry called "quiet asphalt" has developed intentionally putting in more air pockets and mixing in other materials: that is a whole different topic. Once you are able to market something, the price jumps. Plus, the longevity advantage changes when you design for sound versus duration. Next, rural roads and urban roads have different traffic patterns. And different weather has other trade-offs. It's why they are still doing road research around the country (there is more to learn). But if you start adding in a bunch of air, accomplishing the lower noise floor and it might also mean it will degrade faster than traditional, lower nose rubberized asphalt that ADOT has been using since the 80's.
Still. While highways were here 1st, I don't have a problem with people who what some help with noise after many more lanes were added in each direction plus an increased the speed limit in combo with changing to much louder concrete. As in, a massive increase in traveling road noise. People who lived in an area for 30 years who were here 1st now hear the highway traffic several more blocks away. Collectively, if I have to spend a reasonable amount of money on noise abatement for people living blocks away that now hear road noise and if they were there 1st, I'm fine with it.
Once again and unlike the color of the roads, it's never black and white. I'll bet the farm that other economical trade-offs are being studied. Like if they use ARFC on NEW expansion projects, will that allow them to scale back those ugly and expensive road abatement barriers?
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 02-25-2021 at 04:51 AM..
Correction. Rubberized asphalt is the farthest thing from worthless. Because of my vocation, I do a lot of reading about acoustics. In actuality, ADOT has been using rubberized asphalt or ARFC for decades here in AZ. And they did exclusivity for longevity! In fact, they had positively no idea that the material was quieter. They found out by accident.
Early on, ADOT applied ARFC on rural roads and never gave a damn that it happened to dropped the SPL by 7 dB. Mathematically speaking, a 3 dB decrease means the sound is cut in half. Now our ears are logarithmic (not linear) so subjectively speaking, a 10 Db drop cuts it in 1/2 to our ears. Still, 7Db drops the sound traveling by over 4X the distance. If you compare it to concrete, then we are talking up to 13 Db SBL (under 1/2) and a massive reduction in sound total travel difference. I'm not saying swap out concrete for asphalt.
Big picture: initially, ADOT applied rubberized asphalt only because it lasts longer and for rural roads, it was more cost-effective in the long run. But it's slightly more involved to apply and slightly more expensive upfront.
ARFC process puts in air-pockets in the asphalt. So by default and before they tinkered with it, ARFC was a longer-lasting material compared to dense asphalt. Recently, an industry called "quiet asphalt" has developed intentionally putting in more air pockets and mixing in other materials: that is a whole different topic. Once you are able to market something, the price jumps. Plus, the longevity advantage changes when you design for sound versus duration. Next, rural roads and urban roads have different traffic patterns. And different weather has other trade-offs. It's why they are still doing road research around the country (there is more to learn). But if you start adding in a bunch of air, accomplishing the lower noise floor and it might also mean it will degrade faster than traditional, lower nose rubberized asphalt that ADOT has been using since the 80's.
Still. While highways were here 1st, I don't have a problem with people who what some help with noise after many more lanes were added in each direction plus an increased the speed limit in combo with changing to much louder concrete. As in, a massive increase in traveling road noise. People who lived in an area for 30 years who were here 1st now hear the highway traffic several more blocks away. Collectively, if I have to spend a reasonable amount of money on noise abatement for people living blocks away that now hear road noise and if they were there 1st, I'm fine with it.
Once again and unlike the color of the roads, it's never black and white. I'll bet the farm that other economical trade-offs are being studied. Like if they use ARFC on NEW expansion projects, will that allow them to scale back those ugly and expensive road abatement barriers?
I'm only going to comment minimally about rubberized asphalt because it's off the thread topic. Considering that I'm no fan of ADOT, we have to give them credit for their other noise abatement efforts (building freeways at a depressed level and the buffer walls) which reduce traffic loudness by a considerable amount on their own. Rubberized asphalt is not only costly, it generates more heat, and deteriorates faster than concrete, which means it has to be repaired & replaced much more frequently. There have been numerous issues with large cracks & potholes in this asphalt which create dangerous driving conditions. This is one reason why ADOT eliminated rubberized asphalt in favor of concrete on their recent Loop 101 widening projects. They finally learned that the asphalt has been more of a failure than a success. Me personally, I'd much rather have safety over tranquility, but I guess I just have my priorities straight compared to some people.
()
I'm only going to comment minimally about rubberized asphalt because it's off the thread topic. Considering that I'm no fan of ADOT, we have to give them credit for their other noise abatement efforts (building freeways at a depressed level and the buffer walls) which reduce traffic loudness by a considerable amount on their own. Rubberized asphalt is not only costly, it generates more heat, and deteriorates faster than concrete, which means it has to be repaired & replaced much more frequently. There have been numerous issues with large cracks & potholes in this asphalt which create dangerous driving conditions. This is one reason why ADOT eliminated rubberized asphalt in favor of concrete on their recent Loop 101 widening projects. They finally learned that the asphalt has been more of a failure than a success. Me personally, I'd much rather have safety over tranquility, but I guess I just have my priorities straight compared to some people.
()
Point taken on your trade-offs. Especially in AZ. My point honed in on asphalt versus "rubberized" asphalt and that ADOT did it before it was fashionable because it lasted longer in rural areas.
My sneaking suspicion is that there are plenty more trade-offs (it's not black and white). Additionally, costs can change a lot simply by the cost of oil. There were periods where asphalt was about the same price as concrete.
Speaking of trade-offs, concrete tire interactive noise can be reduced by changing the textures of the road. A quick google references an interesting, easy to understand article here https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/su...tire_noise.cfm . Like longitudinal textures used for concrete roads. As the spreadsheet points out, cracks and potholes cause sound pressure levels noise spikes. So if you have rubberized asphalt and it cracks, that produced noise too. In summary, I'll leave it up to ADOT to figure out. They may know a little more on the topic than us armchair quarterbacks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
V-N has a NIYBY hot button.
Pot-kettle. 
Now, I have a better noise level balance. I still hear blowers, helicopters and hear planes fly overhead.
)
Mathematically speaking, a 3 dB decrease means the sound is cut in half. Now our ears are logarithmic (not linear) so subjectively speaking, a 10 Db drop cuts it in 1/2 to our ears. Still, 7Db drops the sound traveling by over 4X the distance. If you compare it to concrete, then we are talking up to 13 Db SBL (under 1/2) and a massive reduction in sound total travel difference. I'm not saying swap out concrete for asphalt. 
Plus, the longevity advantage changes when you design for sound versus duration. Next, rural roads and urban roads have different traffic patterns. And different weather has other trade-offs. It's why they are still doing road research around the country (there is more to learn). But if you start adding in a bunch of air, accomplishing the lower noise floor and it might also mean it will degrade faster than traditional, lower nose rubberized asphalt that ADOT has been using since the 80's.
