The courtroom was packed for the 2pm hearing. Many in the room were lawyers representing defendant Massport and the plaintiff communities who have brought this case to trial. Some in the courtroom were Somerville residents who came to support the case, tired of the increased air traffic over their homes. Judge Stephen Neel presided over the hearing.

The initial ruling in the 2004 case of Massport vs. City of Boston et. al. allowed for the construction of the runway with the understanding that it would not be used except for during certain wind conditions and other extenuating circumstances. When employed by Logan, runway 33L, which is included in the 2004 ruling on runway 14/32, sends airplanes on a flight path directly over Somerville and many surrounding communities.

Construction on Runway 33L finished in 2006. By the summer of 2007 Mayor Curtatone and his administration began hearing anecdotal reports of an increase in air traffic over Somerville. "In late June 2007 there was a period where the take off traffic from 33L was pretty constant for a solid week. No one had seen anything like this before," explains Thomas Champion, Director of Communications for the city of Somerville, "After that residents started noticing more air traffic than ever before. This is an issue that resonated with many long term residents."

In December 2008, the Somerville Board of Alderman approved Mayor Curtatone's request to appoint the law firm of Robinson & Cole to represent the city in the runway 14/32 case.

"Massport argued in the original case that there would be no major changes in noise levels as a result of 14/32 construction," said Mayor Curtatone, "But we've seen them go up rapidly. This is a legal issue with major environmental and public health impacts, and we think the court should be looking at whether the terms of its operational restrictions on the runway are being properly observed."

Last Wednesday, Mayor Curtatone's push for reopening the case came to fruition. Attorneys Steven T. Perlmutter and Tom Holloway from Robinson & Cole submitted statistical evidence showing that prior to the construction of runway 14/32 approximately six percent of Logan's flights flew over Somerville. After 14/32 became operational, that number increased to 17 percent.

"That is the equivalent of thousands and thousands of additional flights over Somerville per year," commented Champion on the statistic. "If you've lived here for a long period of time it has been a very noticeable change."

Attorneys for Massport, the defendant at the hearing, argued Logan's increased use of runway 14/32 was for safety precautions. They claim that by using 14/32 in its current capacity, the risk of an on-runway collision is reduced because it allows some flights to circumvent crossing runway intersections.

Furthermore, Massport argued the use of runway 14/32 was a decision made by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Massport could not therefore be held accountable for the increase of air traffic.

The FAA says it cannot comment on the issue because of outstanding litigation of a similar case involving four individuals from Chelsea.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Stephen Neel gave both parties 10 days to submit any other evidence for further consideration and took the case under advisement.

"We are not asking for them to shut down the airport," says Champion, concerning the hearing. "We are just asking for acknowledgement of this violation, and hopefully a solution. It was very clear that the court was originally trying to avoid major changes in the use of the airport. Obviously those changes have occurred."