I hope this isn't true. It's a lovely day out, and it's just been plane after plane down here in South Palo Alto. Really sad, I remember how nice it was on days like this just a few years back. We get them going around 4000-5000 feet to SFO and 2000-3000 feet to SJC, every 2-3 minutes. The time without plane noise is increasingly rare.

The south part of town is wealthier than the rest of the city so I do not understand how they can be allowed to do this. This is unfair and not democratic. How can we change this?

The South part is wealthier than Palo Alto hills!? Living in an Eichler is Utopia? Wow, how things have changed. I love the sarcasm.

I think it is time for the airline folks to pay for triple insulated Windows to cut down on the noise.

North Palo Alto has always been the wealthy side of town. The dividing line is Oregon Expressway and the same house located on the north side will cost more merely because it’s on the north side.

South always complained that the north has all the good stuff: Main library, Children’s Library, pool. But Mitchell Park Library and the Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park are supposed to equalize it.

I grew up in South PA and attended Cubberley until it closed and I had to attend Paly. Clearly, the North PA children were classier and wealthier. Just look at the exterior landscaping of each area and there are noticeable differences.

We bought a house in North PA and my children were overflowed to a South PA elementary for a year. The stereotype still runs true; there is more wealth in North PA in general.

FWIW, we love South Palo Alto -- the people, the schools, the library, etc. And we use the Greenmeadow Pool, so we don't miss Rinconada, which gets really crowded anyway. But we are not keen on more airplane noise! We bought our place ten years ago, when it was quiet. This every-two-minute stripe of planes overhead is not what we signed up for.

None of Palo Alto should be subject to this noise. We did not buy next to an airport. The noise began 3-4 years ago, so there is a way to revert back to silence. The air pollution and noise is insane. Every 1-3 minutes and loudly after Midnight too.

It’s 8:50 PM and jets are howling through the skies every 2 minutes! It’s night time and we still have no peace!

During the day, they fly so low that I feel like I can reach up and touch them! They are flying lower to save fuel?!

Here's what I've got for the last few minutes over our house:
Nov 15, 22:01:37 AS 402 (PDX:SJC B739 141k, 1823ft)
Nov 15, 22:01:23 WN4036 (LAS:SJC B737 220k, 2992ft)
Nov 15, 21:56:15 UA1883 (ORD:SJC B739 179k, 2000ft)
Nov 15, 21:56:08 DL1732 (MSP:SJC A319 251k, 2937ft)
Nov 15, 21:53:55 UA1883 (ORD:SJC B739 185k, 2446ft)
Nov 15, 21:50:58 B6 726 (LGB:SJC A320 231k, 2919ft)

And... there's another one right now.

I live about three blocks into Mountain View past San Antonio Road, and absolutely agree: South Palo Alto's airplane noise hassles are convergent with the experience of Mountain View and Los Altos (almost all Mountain View and South Palo Alto flights cross over Los Altos first). And South Palo Alto's interests are NOT represented by those very vocal and well-connected Old Palo Altans driving the discussion, though their pain, like ours, is certainly real.

Take a careful look at the traffic map on page 42 of the final report of the Select Committee on South Bay SFO Arrivals... a picture is worth a thousand words. You'll see what I mean.

Los Altos, Mountain View, and South Palo Alto are on a different flight path from Old Palo Alto.

Old Palo Alto is on the SRFR corridor of SoCal arrivals (ostensibly 30% of SFO arrivals, though half of that is vectored by SFO air traffic control over South Los Altos and Mountain View, to kill a little time and slot into the Bay traffic line for SFO landings. So, the real Old Palo Alto traffic number is around 15% of SFO arrivals. "Equitable dispersion" has been in place for a long time because of that vectoring, despite what Old Palo Alto interests say).

Meanwhile, Los Altos, Mountain View and South Palo Alto are on the BDGA West corridor (arrivals into SFO from the north sweep over us, turning left several miles south of the SRFR Old Palo Alto corridor. That's 22% of SFO arrivals, plus we get about half the 5% of Ocean arrivals. Add to that the 15% vectored SRFR arrivals noted above, and you get around 35% of all SFO arrivals going over Los Altos, Mountain View and South Palo Alto, in contrast to the mere 15% going over Old Palo Alto as noted above.

So, by my simple math 35% pain is more pain than 15% pain... begging the question: WHY is Old Palo Alto getting relief from FAA, by proposing to put their pain onto their southern neighbors? Once you get past the engineering and technical language, that's EXACTLY what the City of Palo Alto is supporting and did so explicitly in its recent letter to new Secretary of Transportation Elaine Cho. Even at the expense of its own South Palo Alto residents, and certainly at the expense of Los Altos and Mountain View, and our much larger collective population.

To me, this is a grave moral hazard. Our life savings are in these homes, and some younger families cannot even afford a 401k and stil make house payments. The idea of putting more jet noise over those who already bear the larger share is just insulting.

South Palo Altans, Los Altans and Mountain View residents need to stand together, and start by calling the Palo Alto Plan out for what it is... Soft reassuring words like "let's just put it over the Bay" that conceal rather than enlighten: Planes have to get to the Bay over someone's house, and the proposal to eliminate the MENLO waypoint in favor of the east end of the Dumbarton Bridge (DUMBA waypoint) just shifts Old Palo Alto's 15% five miles south onto its southern neighbors. Who already bear a larger share of the overall regional pain... sheesh, and yes, I'm shouting here.

Look at the map on page 42 of the Select Committee's final report, and get up to speed on this issue for yourself.

The Select Committee got it right: Airplane noise, as a fundamental principle, should NEVER be moved from one neighborhood over another. These flight paths have been in place for decades.

There is a "they go low, we go high" we can use here: Flight noise should be reduced FOR ALL, using technical, procedural changes, and even financial incentives like they do in Europe - The noisiest airplane models get charged higher airport landing fees.

An off the wall comment: check your realtor contract; you may own the sky above and the ground below your property. Pst it as a " NO FLY ZONE ". Yes, there is such a website: Web Link

If enough people mention our " Federal Constitution " and mention our RIGHTS, the FAA might take notice. Airplane pilots have noticed an increase in drone strikes during critical landing times. No downed jets (yet)but inconvenience to the jet owners who have to inspect an aircraft $$$ for damage.

" Compensation for Federal Takings " are due for each jet that flies overhead.

Now,if NEXGEN had kept the approach over the bay, this drastic solution would not be needed.

I was wondering if there is potential legal recourse. I live directly under the "new" flight path and I can tell you last summer was intolerable, I am unable to keep my doors and windows open for the noise. It is AWFUL and often one after the other....as soon as one starts to fade here comes the next.

This is insane. There is absolutely no reason for it and the amount of time and effort and hours of discussion is absolutely ridiculous and indicative of the complete and total incompetence of our elected officials. perhaps they feel it justifies their otherwise lackluster job performance.

Put the damn path back the way it was before NextGen. There were no complaints, everyone was happy. How g'damn hard is that to do?

Look, right now WE’RE getting constant noise. Never was like this until several years ago. Not “just because ” of poor weather today, as apologists would have you believe. Routes shifted south of San Mateo County INTO Palo Alto, make no mistake!! We are at the very north edge of Santa Clara County, so our county doesn’t care about us, either. Sometimes it’s over Midtown, which is in....the middle of Palo Alto. All of this rarely was noticeable until several years ago when influential people in less-populated San Mateo County areas like Atherton agitated to have the noise moved over us. it’s terrible and it was NOT like this previously.

@North PA resident. Indeed, we are getting noise across Palo Alto, noise that wasn't there just a few years ago. Much of it is SFO arrivals, though South Palo Alto gets hit twice, because of SJC traffic, which is weather-related, but is happening much more often than it used to. And, yes, I agree that some of this is because the cities in the SFO roundtable (esp Atherton) kicked the traffic south to us.

This post is simply meant to raise a concern that Palo Alto may be attempting to move airplane noise from the North to the South (see references above). I am not too keen on that.

While I disagree with the proposed SERFR EDDYY route, people should realize SERDR EDDYY is just one of many routes being suggested to the FAA, the City of Palo Alto has little to no influence over the FAA, and none of the suggested routes are likely to be implemented by the FAA.

The skies are governed by the federal government. The FAA did not seek and does not need permission from state or local government to establish new routes or flight profiles. The FAA and the airline industry spent decades planning the new "nextgen" routes/profiles, and they like them just the way they are.

The only local governments that have any real influence with the FAA are the cities of San Francisco and San Jose who participate in the airline industry by owning and operating the very profitable businesses known as SFO and San Jose International Airport.

Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos (actually all of Santa Clara County) should band together and PROHIBIT SFO planes from flying over the three cities. The City and County of San Francisco has no right to create a nuisance 2 counties away so they can make a few dollars extra. There is no reason these planes can't fly at 10,000 feet until they reach the bay except for GREED.

NO MORE PLANES over Mountain View.

I've been using some of the freely available cellphone apps to monitor aircraft models, paths and altitudes, and, noise levels. In my opinion (feel free to track this yourselves) the biggest factor by far is the age/stage (FAA airplane noise generation levels) of the planes, rather than flight path or even altitude. Newer, that is, stage 3 or 4, planes are far, far better than older planes. All Stage-1 and most Stage-2 planes have now been phased out. These regulations make a large difference. A very large new Airbus A-380 is quieter and less obtrusive than a smaller early generation B-737 or Airbus A-320. In my opinion, people should be pressuring the FAA to ban older planes that don't meet Stage-4 noise levels, rather than fretting over the flight paths so much.

Another otherwise tranquil weekend morning in Palo Alto shattered by the incessant rumble and whine from SFO bound commercial jets. While the Palo Alto City Council obsesses on repaying local real-estate developers for their generous campaign contributions, the City of San Francisco has turned Palo Alto into an industrial waste dump.

Jetman,

"the City of Palo Alto has little to no influence over the FAA"

If you think the City has no influence over the FAA, why post lamentations about Council obsessing about real estate development. Off topic.

Me thinks FAA, Council are on the same side, divide, conquer.

While the PACC has little to no influence over the FAA, the City and County of San Francisco does. In the nearly four years since the roll-out of the new noisy "nextgen" routes, there has been no direct communications between the two cities mayors or city councils members concerning this issue. Why?

@Native,
Are you joking?

North PA
Lucie Stern
2 community theaters
A children's library
Special children's pool
Rinconada Pool
RinconadaPark
Junior Museum and Zoo
Art Center
Main Library
Downtown Library
Museum of American History/Gamble Gardens (other private amenities that don't exist in the south).
Community gardens
Renovated golf course
Bay lands interpretive center
City owned airport
Bowling green
City Hall/City government
Police Station
Tennis Courts
Avenidas
Is the City still considering a basketball fitness center in the north?
Numerous parks

South PA
Loaded question. Mitchell Park is great but has no theater performance space, no pool, and no "adjacency" to large parts of south Palo Alto that are separated from it by El Camino, the railroad tracks and Alma, along busy or substandard roads like El Camino Way. A large part of the south has no civic space at all. Just Juana Briones Park and Bol Park (which residents saved from development and basically bought themselves).

CityCouncil recently destroyed our great real downtown (Cal Ave) at taxpayer expense.

Green meadow is not a public pool nor is it equivalent.

There is way more going on than people realize.

Jetman,

Palo Alto is a village with people bickering over how many libraries are North vs South, this would have what influence over San Francisco Council and County?

@East from Downtown North,

No one is bickering, in case you hadn't noticed, pointing out the truth is not the same as bickering. For there to be bickering, the people who have everything would have to care. One of the main functions of civic government is to care about fairness, so shame on you for trying to negatively frame a long-overdue discussion about vastly unequal civic assets and opportunities between north and south PA, since overdevelopment of recent years has essentially cut off access to those amenities from the south.

"Bickering" denotes pettiness, as if the subject is inconsequential and people are overreacting. If that is so, perhaps you would support just moving all those assets south and paying for it by finishing the conversion of downtown to corporate park. If it's pretty to want to have access to City Hall, opportunities for recreation and education for our youth, performance space, meeting spaces, that one is paying for no less, perhaps you won't mind just letting south residents have yours? No? I thought not.

Even the schools in the north are better resourced. The new athletic center at Gunn was a $12M project. The one at Paly, $16 M from just the district and $24M from a donation. Somehow this got us into a lease leaseback situation which is not a financially reasonable thing to do unless a district doesn't have funds to finance the construction, but that people in the south will be paying for, too.

Our Mayor is in the development sector and is now in bed with ABAG. That will have influence over a lot of things including SF. What goes on behind closed doors is not limited to our city borders.

Sadly, said mayor has had a lot to do with destroying the village that is no more. Would it be a stretch for him to ensure he isn't impacted by the noise while making it worse for residents in the south, if he could influence it
? That's not without precedent.

No, aircraft won't start flying over S. Palo Alto instead of North and Mid Palo Alto. The SERFR THREE route appears to move the flight path maybe 1500' to the east of the MENLO waypoint. Not enough to make any difference to S. Palo Alto, Mtn. View, etc.


@Frustrated at the Process
I think the numbers you quote are wrong.
- I don't see a page 42 in the final report of the Select Committee. It has 27 pages and 3 appendices. Maybe you could include a link to the picture to which you refer.

- I don't see much if any vectored traffic from SERFR passing over Mtn. View. The vectored traffic I see turns left after Santa Cruz and wanders around west of SERFR and then joins the fun near the MENLO waypoint. Watch flightradar24.com 24x replays to get a better idea of this.

- Thus, 'old Palo Alto' does end up getting almost all of SERFR. Because of vectoring, "equitable dispersion" could be said to be in effect for the Los Altos since the vectored traffic tends to miss them.

- Re. BDEGA U-turning over Mt view, yes, some do, but it appears to me that most of them U turn over Palo Alto before they get to Mt. View. And,it appears to me that very few, if any pass over Los Altos.

So your conclusion that 'old palo alto' only gets 15% of the traffic is wrong. It actually gets most of SERFR's 30%, most of BDEGA west's 22%, and most of Oceanic's 5%.

And, you say that old Palo Alto is getting relief from the FAA. What relief do you mean? I don't see any.