J60 85th v. 3 DOCUMENTS ADDITIONAL AIRPORT FACILITIES FOR WASHINGTON AREA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1957 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m. in room F-39 of the Capitol, Hon. Spessard L. Holland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Holland, Stennis, Smith, and Potter. ADDITIONAL AIRPORT FACILITIES STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOLLAND Senator HOLLAND. The subcommittee will please come to order. By Public Law 762 of the 81st Congress, 2d session, approved by the President September 7, 1950, Congress authorized the construction of a new airport to serve the area of the District of Columbia and adjacent areas. The total amount of the authorization was $14 million. On July 9, 1956, the President transmitted in Senate Document 138 a request for $34,700,000 for the construction and development of the additional airport for Washington, D. C., at Burke, Va. Hearings were held by the full Senate Committee on Appropriations and on July 24, by Senate Report No. 2770, the Senate Committee on Appropriations had this to say: The committee recommends no appropriation at this time for this item. After hearing testimony from proponents and opponents regarding the site, it is the committee's recommendation that the chairman is to appoint a subcommittee of five members to look into this matter and report back not later than January 15, 1957. APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE On July 26 the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Hayden, appointed the following: Senators Magnuson, Stennis, Smith of Maine, Potter, and myself as members of the subcommittee. The present hearings are held under the above authorization, with this comment, that the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations has extended to February 1, 1957, the deadline for the subcommittee's report. It is the subcommittee's purpose in holding these hearings to afford a full opportunity for the Government and other witnesses to present such additional or new testimony as may be helpful to the subcommittee in supplementing the testimony already in the record. Without attempting to pass upon any question which may arise as any particular testimony is offered, I may say that I am sure it is the intention of the subcommittee to go quite fully into this matter, not only with reference to the proposed site at Burke, or any other proposed site, or any changed use of the present national airport, but also the proposed use of Friendship Airport, and any other airports in this area, as well as any changes in the use of these various airports that may be suggested by testimony. The committee will be glad to hear from all of the official witnesses as a prelude to hearing testimony from interested citizens, either in the Burke area or in the general area here, or in the area of any other proposed site to serve the National Capital area. Senator Smith, do you or Senator Stennis or Senator Potter desire to make any separate statement before we proceed? Senator SMITH. No. Senator POTTER. No, thank you. STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEALL Senator HOLLAND. I have a request from Senator Beall of Maryland to appear first this morning. He has been unable to get here. I will read into the record the brief statement which Senator Beall has asked be received, unless there is objection. "My remarks today will be brief. "For years, ever since it was first proposed that an airport be built at Burke, Va. I have been citing various statistics to show that such a plan would be inadvisable. "All those statements of mine are on record. There is no need to repeat them. Today I have but two points to make. "The first is this: There is an ever increasing need for additional air facilities to serve the District of Columbia, and we must make a sincere effort to utilize the only hope for an immediate solutionFriendship International Airport. "All we ask is that it be given a fair trial as a coterminal with National Airport. "We all know how some persons say they dislike oysters, even though they have never tasted them. "Well, I can testify that thousands of individuals who felt that way have changed their minds completely after tasting some of our delicious Chesapeake Bay oysters. "Likewise, we feel certain that Friendship Airport will prove itself if only it is given a chance. "My second point is this. "As I have stated in the past, I will never be able to see how anyone can attempt to justify the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for the construction of facilities similar to others which are already available. "Friendship is ready now, without additional costs. "All considerations of safety and economy dictate that we use it." STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRIEDEL Senator HOLLAND. I have here a request from Congressman Friedel for the insertion of his statement immediately following Senator Beall's statement. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL OF MARYLAND Mr. Chairman, I regret that other business prevents me from appearing before your committee personally today. However, I wish to go on record with my colleagues from Maryland on behalf of the full utilization of Friendship International Airport as a coterminal for the Baltimore-Washington area. The acute congestion of airspace, and the resulting hazards at Washington National Airport have long been the subject of much discussion and debate. Today the airlanes around the Washington National Airport are so terribly overcrowded that planes are stacked up, one on top of the other, and are often required to stay aloft for more than an hour before they are permitted to land. It is an acknowledged fact that the situation is growing steadily worse all the time, and as yet, no action has been taken to remedy it. The only logical answer to the problem is the diversion of some of this air traffic to Friendship International Airport, only 32 miles from Washington. Friendship is a modern field, one of the best in the United States, available immediately with no additional cost to the taxpayers. It has one 9,450-foot runway, sufficiently long and strong enough to handle the heaviest of the jet transports to see service in 1959. In addition, it has 2 other runways, 6,500 and 6,000 feet. This fine modern terminal is capable of handling a much greater volume of passengers than is now being handled or expected to be handled in the foreseeable future. Another compelling reason for the full utilization of Friendship is the fact that Baltimore, being the Nation's 6th largest city, ranks 38th in air passenger volume due solely to the grossly inadequate service. If Friendship is permitted to operate at full capacity, it will go a long way toward relieving the congestion at Washington's National Airport, in addition to giving Baltimore area patrons better airplane service. Shortly after the adjournment of Congress last summer, I arranged for members of the Air Space Use Subcommittee of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to make an inspection trip to Friendship International Airport. As a result of this visit, I am very pleased to report, several members who were previously not enthusiastic regarding the use of Friendship as a coterminal, were literally amazed at the modern facilities we have to offer; the area available for future expansion; and the short 43 minute drive from Friendship to Washington. (This compares favorably with ground times between the cities of Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco, and their respective municipal airports.) I am also very pleased to report that these members are now in agreement with us that Friendship offers not only the immediate answer, but the best overall solution to Washington's desperate congestion problem, at a saving of $50 million of the taxpayers' money. In conclusion, may I say, that there is no doubt in my mind, that if the members of this committee would avail themselves of the opportunity, to visit Friendship International Airport, the question of designating Friendship as a coterminal for the Baltimore-Washington area would be favorably and promptly resolved. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE Senator HOLLAND. Are there other statements by Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives which are sought to be made at this point? I am advised by the clerk of the subcommittee that he has requests from other Senators and from Representatives to be heard later. They will be heard when convenient to the committee and to the witnesses themselves. In calling the hearing for today, I suggested to the Department of Commerce and to the Administrator of the CAA that I thought it would be advisable to hear first the official witnesses, particularly with reference to any changes in the situation that have occurred since our last hearings last summer. USE OF FRIENDSHIP AIRPORT I think everyone knows that the subcommittee and also the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations earnestly requested of all the official agencies involved, as well as the Air Transport Association that a real trial be made of Friendship Airport during the period between the adjournment last summer and this session of Congress, and also requested and recommended various changes in the operation of the National Airport, one of which was the removal of the Military Air Transport Service operations from that airport. There were also several other suggestions which were made. If, there has been any effort whatever to carry out those suggestions either on the part of the CAA, the Department of Commerce, the Air Transport Association, or CAB, I am sure that the committee will be very happy to hear about it this morning. Mr. Rothschild, will you proceed to make any statement you might think would best get this hearing underway? CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT OF BURKE AIRPORT STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS S. ROTHSCHILD, UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION; GEORGE T. MOORE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION; OSCAR H. NIELSON, DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET OFFICER; JAMES T. PYLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS; ROBERT P. BOYLE, GENERAL COUNSEL; W. B. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS AND AIRWORTHINESS; D. D. THOMAS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL; HERBERT H. HOWELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AIRPORTS; ARVIN O. BASNIGHT, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER; LUCIUS W. BURTON, ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR; AND B. S. SPANO, PLANNING OFFICER, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AIRPORT Secretary ROTHSCHILD. Thank you very much. I do not have a written or formal statement, but I would like to make a few comments, together with Mr. James Pyle, the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. There are present in the room several of the program chiefs of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, each one of whom is expert and competent in his respective field. We are, I believe, equipped to answer almost any question that any member of the committee might have, and we should be delighted to try to do so. We are especially happy that these hearings are starting so early in the year, because the need for an additional airport in the Washington area is critical. We would hope by reason of the early hearings that we could establish a pattern by which we may proceed. AIRPORT TRAFFIC The necessity for an additional airport is pointed up by some figures. At Washington National in fiscal year 1957 we will handle 275,000 traffic movements. That will consist of 4.2 million passengers. That is boarding and deplaning passengers. We estimate that by 1960, only 3 years from now, that 4.2 million will have grown to somewhere between 6 and 7 million. In a normal busy hour today under visual flight rules, the airport is handling 57 landings and takeoffs. That is nearly one a minute. In addition to the 4.2 million passengers that we are now putting on or taking off planes, there are another 700,000 passengers not included in that total who change planes at the airport and go from one airline to another. We estimate that this number by 1960 will have grown to 1.2 million. Senator HOLLAND. You mean 700,000, don't you? Secretary ROTHSCHILD. Yes, sir. It is clearly apparent to us that this rate of growth cannot be satisfied at the present airport and we know additionally that if facilities were available, the air carriers would be happy to add more schedules, thereby serving the population more adequately. PREFERENCE FOR BURKE AIRPORT We will hope to show you today by answers to your questions that the best facility is Burke. We will show you that by a study of traffic patterns, by the impact on the community in which the airport would be placed, by the availability of land, by the economy and practicality so far as the traveling public is concerned, and by an operating-efficiency picture. Among the things which we will show you today will be the fact that according to figures of the National Capital Planning Commission, the density of population around the Burke site is very low, ranging from one-tenth of 1 person to 3 persons per acre. That extends for an area of 3 miles around the airport site. As I said previously, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Pyle and his staff are here, and I think are equipped to answer your questions. I would like to have Mr. Pyle speak to the same subject, if that is agreeable. COMMUNICATION FROM SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Senator HOLLAND. I have just had handed me a letter dated January 11, from the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Sinclair Weeks, to the chairman of the full Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Hayden, touching on the subject which you have mentioned. Was it the intention of Mr. Weeks or of the Department of Commerce that that letter be a part of the testimony in this case? Secretary ROTHSCHILD. Yes, sir. We should like to introduce this as a part of the testimony. Mr. Pyle will speak to this same subject in just a moment. Senator HOLLAND. At what stage do you wish that letter introduced? Have you seen the letter before? Secretary ROTHSCHILD. Yes, sir; I have seen it. Senator HOLLAND. Do you wish the letter introduced at this stage? Secretary ROTHSCHILD. Wherever you wish, sir. Senator HOLLAND. It seems to me that the statement from the head of the Department would be appropriate at this stage. Unless there is objection, I am going to ask that this letter of January 11 be filed |