Universal to install more sound barriers for new coaster

I still don't get the sensitivity here. I understand that Universal is trying to be a good neighbor, but they seem to be going out of their way to satiate these residents that have a freeway running closer to their homes than this roller coaster. Also, having witnessed the coaster cycle in person (granted with empty trains) it's extremely quiet compared to other Intamin launching coasters - they've clearly utilized sound dampening techniques in the tracks/supports in addition to the "scream shields" to reduce/reflect noise.

In my experience, you can never fully satisfy a NIMBY, and while Universal feels it has a path forward here, I worry that these persnickety neighbors will continue to complain even if you can't hear a peep from USH over the roar of the freeway.

FWIW, it's been reported that access to F&FHD that was originally included for Universal Express products sold for HHN has been removed (still included in RIP). I think that probably means the coaster will remain in its current "Technical Rehearsal" phase until November with operations suspended on days when equipment is on site installing the new sound barriers.

The issue isn't the sound of the trains when empty, the issue is the sound of screaming that can be heard in these neighborhoods. Universal is acting with sensitivity around this because it benefits the company to have a good relationship with these neighbors — something it has had long before this coaster was built.

And we gotta stop calling this NIMBY. These people are opposed to the negative side effects of something an entertainment company is building near their home. In what universe do they not have the right to complain about that? Universal isn't building a school, a waste treatment facility or new housing. They're building a *roller coaster.*

It is extremely frustrating to me that Universal, who has been advertising this coaster as opening this summer and repeatedly promised an announcement of the date "very soon," now seems to be delaying the ride at least an extra month to appease a handful of neighbors who probably spend no money at the park. I am all for parks taking reasonable measures to avoid disturbing their surroundings, but if the ride is within the agreed upon noise levels, this is not an essential project that needs to be done right away. I bought a pass back in May on the assumption that the coaster would be open by mid July at the latest, but we're now in mid August without even a hint of how close the ride is to full operation. It feels like a bit of a bait and switch, and I'll definitely be considering that when it comes time to renew.

Won't someone please rid me of these troublesome NIMBYs?

@Jacob -- this is exactly NIMBY-ism. NIMBY isn't just a small minority of neighborhood property owners exercising complete veto power over larger community benefits (affordable housing, waste management plants, water treatment, commercials buildings, schools -- pretty much any physical entity that need to *exist* somewhere on the map), it's a larger belief/ideology that the surroundings of property they bought 10/20/30 years ago should never change, be ossified in amber, a first-come-first-serve belief that their longer tenure grants them dominion over property they themselves don't own. They have no problem with Universal building a rollercoaster -- just not here ("not in my backyard"). If Universal never ran another train on this coaster, how many residents would complain about an unseemly eyesore ruining the aesthetic of their neighborhood and their sightlines?

If the residents of Toluca Lake would like to determine what is or is not built on Universal's property, they are welcome to submit an offer to buy the lot themselves.

Noise near a Theme Park,

I don't' get it - is this something new..... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

MHDS: "If the residents of Toluca Lake would like to determine what is or is not built on Universal's property, they are welcome to submit an offer to buy the lot themselves".

Me: Or engage with elected officials to ensure development of the surrounding property is done responsibly -- according to applicable codes and regulations. Of course those developers can do the same to ensure compliance or be granted exceptions to accommodate their plans.

@Jacob - This is the perfect example of NIMBY-ism, and in this case, the term fits almost perfectly. Universal was very forward from the get go, and has been advocating for their "Evolution Plan" for nearly 2 decades as a way to remake their Studio property. They have engaged the public every step of the way, much in the same way that Disney has done in Anaheim with their Disneyland Forward Plan (which has hit its fair share of hiccups as well, though most of the complaints in Anaheim have come from property owners that exist solely to exploit the existence of Disneyland and take exception to the company trying to expand as a way to further isolate itself from the surrounding neighborhood).

In addition, Universal did extensive sound studies in the area to demonstrate that turning USH into more of a theme park (and less of a movie studio experience) would not significantly impact the quality of life of nearby properties. USH is understandably in a tricky spot because it's located on the edge of a hill that acts like a giant reflector that diverts sound into the adjacent valley, and echoing down its length, so staging a thrilling roller coaster on a cliff's edge certainly exacerbates that problem. However, from what I've seen, Universal did their homework, and spent millions on sound studies and additional engineering on the attraction and property to mitigate noise. I've read a few of the noise studies that have been made public, and my understanding is that Universal has years of data not only from before the project was approved contained in those studies, but from during construction, testing, and now technical rehearsals. I have conducted, managed, and prepared reports for noise studies before, and what Universal provided was a clear picture of the environment prior to F&F that is typical of an urban environment with a cacophony of sounds, car horns, and other disruptive noise, not one of a pristine rural soundscape filled with bird calls and rusting leaves that Toluca Lake residents feel they should have because they live next to a prestigious golf course and a protected reserve on the north slopes of the Hollywood Hills. It is widely known that Universal has deployed a number of sound monitoring stations throughout the nearby neighborhoods (at a significant cost) as a protective measure and to provide real time data. While the addition of riders to F&F reportedly was recognized by some of the sound monitors, it was not beyond the levels anticipated in the original studies or plans reviewed by all parties prior to the approval of Evolution, nor are they reportedly more disruptive than organic noise from a typical urban environment.

The reality is that this situation is the posterchild for NIMBY-ism with a small, privileged group of property owners who have the means and will to lawyer up and fight to prevent neighbors from enjoying their own property. Universal has been transparent every step of the way, and thought they had dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" (spending millions of additional development and construction costs along the way to do so) when they received approval for Evolution and subsequently F&F, and it feels like they're continuing to bend over backwards just to appease some cranky neighbors who complain just to hear the sound of their own voice. It's well known that many of the most vocal neighbors have owned their properties for multiple generations and have achieved "historic" status for their neighborhood, which emboldens their resolve,. The neighbors seem to live in some twisted reality that this part of LA is still a secluded quaint valley that studios would use to film exteriors, necessitating a generally quiet soundscape that is protected from downtown noise by the Hollywood Hills. However, that is not what this area has been allowed to become over the past 2+ decades as most property owners (including the studios) have not needed to limit development or maintain such a quiet environment. AJ makes a great point, because the reality is that these obstructionists are unlikely to ever step foot in USH, yet are impacting thousands of park guests who spent money expecting to ride a new roller coaster that was approved nearly a decade ago, and has reportedly not exceeded any metric outlined in the development plan.

@MyHandsDontScan - I generally agree with what you've stated, but I do think its incumbent upon neighbors to work together so everyone can enjoy their own properties. I do agree that you have the right to do what you want on your own property, but there are limits when what you're doing encroaches on the ability of your neighbor to enjoy their property. That seems to be what the issue is here, but in this case, the neighbors approved what Universal was doing long ago, and the Studio has been fully transparent every step of the way, yet right at the moment when this new attraction is preparing to open, the neighbors decide to whine. That's my issue here, because even though Universal went through all the hassle of spending money in studies, and created business and project plans with the expectation of turning USH into a real theme park, these neighbors are trying to pull the rug out from under them. What I don't understand is that if the sound from F&F is so disruptive to properties a half a mile away, how in the world can Universal Studios exist as a viable production studio and one of the most widely used backlots in the world? How could any director or production crew film exteriors on Universal property if F&F noise is so pervasive (same for WB, which is just a 1/4 mile down the road)?

@TH -- but that's the issue. According to reports, the sound is at an acceptable level, fulfilling code & regulation requirements. But that isn't enough for the residents.

If LA city council wants to alter those requirements, they totally can. But one councilmember/neighborhood shouldn't get to dictate the requirements for an entire city.

Once these additional, voluntary sound barriers are complete -- do we think the residents will agree it is adequate, take their ball and go home? Or will they continue to raise a stink?

@Russell: totally agree with everything you say! Negative externalities certainly need to be accounted for and dealt with (I can't just spray Agent Orange into the air from the comically large nozzle on the roof of my property).

To your other point: why aren't we hearing from nearby businesses or hotels complaining about the noise levels?

One thing I'm still scratching my head over: what is the endgame for Toluca Lake residents? Are they holding out for some sort of giant payout or lawsuit?

Out of curiosity, how much noise does HHN create? Isn't the entire point of that seasonal event to scare people and have them scream? Are sound measures in place for Halloween?

If it was approved by the town\city council - Then too bad so sad....

Universal is doing them a solid - they do not have to.....

To put a few things into perspective for those less familiar with the park's layout, Hollywood Drift is located on a hillside that faces north to northwest. The only other outdoor attractions on that side of the park are Jurassic World (which has its noisier segments indoors) and Super Nintendo World. Both are required to close early during events like HHN (I believe in the 10-11 P.M. range) due to noise ordinances, so it makes sense a coaster projecting sound in that direction would be a potential issue with local residents. By comparison, the outdoor areas of the studio are almost all on the eastern half of the property, and most of the outdoor HHN activity takes place on that side. There are different neighbors that complain about the noise from that event, which is part of the reason the Terror Tram closes down early (that's the closest portion of the event to residences), but those sounds travel in a very different direction than what is generated by the coaster.

I suspect this ultimately is much less about irritation from the noise (which, while noticeable as it is a new background sound, is still at a lower level than other background sounds) and much more about trying to get some sort of compensation for the devaluation of property values (which may or may not be legitimate). You're not going to get anywhere simply saying "there's a big ugly rollercoaster visible at the end of my street" when the project has been fully approved, so they're choosing the angle most likely to yield something. I suspect if Universal went and offered everyone in that HOA $10k for the inconvenience it would make the problem go away, but it's probably cheaper for them to just build the walls and makes it less likely future complaints will have any legitimacy behind them.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be delaying the coaster at all as the park just announced pass previews will be happening next week, so I guess it's a win for all parties involved.

MHDS: "According to reports, the sound is at an acceptable level, fulfilling code & regulation requirements. But that isn't enough for the residents".

Me: Got it. Residents are wrong and unreasonable. Multi-billion corporation following the letter of the law are being persecuted. There is no justice in the world.

I think this makes more sense if you see it as Universal appealing to residents to earn goodwill. If they keep this project real respectful and quiet then their next outdoor expansion should receive less pushback from the wrongfully-powerful nearby residents.

V-Coaster crushes it!

It's hilarious the way these threads typically divide into tribalism. Suddenly it's Universal vs. the neighborhood -- as opposed to "I hope they come to an arrangement that satisfies all parties.

Don't get me wrong! I am very self-aware! Over the past couple of decades I know that I am arguably probably the worst TPI regs when it comes to propagating pointless debates.

But I mean, come on! Why not embrace the civic prayer, "may peace prevail"?

Seriously, if you live near one of the biggest theme parks in world it's not uncommon to have noise from screaming guests. Buy them all some earplugs, it is far cheaper, or if they still don't like it, live somewhere else. I have zero sympathy for them.

I similarly agree that there should be a sense of community and compromise between neighbors. However, that has to go both ways, and while there are plenty of stories of big evil corporations taking advantage of every loophole and telling neighbors to pound sand when residents complain about development that encroaches on the community (see virtually every attempt to build a data center over the past 2 or so years), this is not one of those situations. This is the story of a company that has been a good environmental steward and neighbor for decades, and provided a detailed proposal to make adjustments to the way they utilize their property. Those proposals went through a lengthy and exhaustive public comment period and were ultimately approved after the company committed to limit and mitigate various concerns from the neighbors, and while there were reportedly still concerns about Universal's Evolution Plan, it was ultimately approved. That plan has now moved forward and is being executed as written, but suddenly neighbors have decided that what was reviewed, debated, and approved years ago is now not acceptable.

Now, I think Universal is being a great neighbor by going above and beyond here in an attempt to alleviate any concerns, knowing that happy neighbors will make it easier to get future expansion plans approved. The issue I see is that when you give certain types of people an inch, they will take a mile, and the concession from Universal to add more sound dampening mechanisms will likely lead to more anguish in the future, not a smoother path. I certainly hope this gesture is enough to put this issue to bed, but something tells me we haven't heard the last of the complaints from Toluca Lake. As AJ noted, offering residents a buyout might put an end to the drama, but I've negotiated 3rd party settlements before, and the biggest issue is always getting every single property owner on board - it only takes 1 hold out to make those agreements virtually worthless, and undermines the justification for establishing every other agreement. Also, any buyout in concession for Universal building F&F would embolden the same neighbors to come back to the well for another check the next time Universal wants to build something, and if you think language in a buyout would prohibit future claims, it would not prevent those same residents from making noise or filing suit.