burgh. The thing that would stimulate the efficient use of National Airport the most, in my opinion, would be efficient surface transportation between here and New York.

Surface transportation between here and Pittsburgh is impossible in our period because of terrain. You cannot tunnel through 100 miles of mountain at least in our time. So, the way to solve this problem of downtown Washington to downtown Pittsburgh, and 30 to 40 cities within the 300 to 500 mile radius, is to provide short-haul service to them. It could be done efficiently.

Now, it cannot be done efficiently because National Airport is serving the purpose that I think Friendship and Dulles should serve. That is to connect city pairs of longer radius or greater radius. It should connect with San Francisco, with Dallas, with cities that are outside of some arbitrary circle like St. Louis and Chicago. The public would then be best served. They are not aware of it but the facts are that they would.

The same is true of Friendship. If Friendship were basically confined to long-haul service, the public would be better served. Friendship and Dulles should have some short-haul but its basic use in my opinion would be long haul and then the public would be best and most benefited.

Senator SPONG. Do you think either Dulles or Friendship are in need of present upgrading to handle future traffic loads?

Mr. QUESADA. I am quite convinced that Dulles has the capacity of meeting the demands even if what I suggested were accomplished for the next decade. I feel the basic capacity to handle the traffic that could be generated or that would be generated under the scheme of things, such as I have suggested, permits Dulles to accommodate the need for at least a decade.

The efficiency of Dulles is staggering. It is a very efficient airport. Friendship has the capacity to accommodate the needs of the coming decade with the possible exception of passenger handling facilities. Its basic runways, its basic traffic handling equipment that involves the airlines is quite satisfactory. Each of them might require what I refer to as trivia-the ability to handle baggage more efficiently or more quickly. That to me is not a basic problem.

That is a problem that reflects the efficiency of the management of the time and the ability of the airlines and the management to provide facilities that are easily achieved.

Senator Spong. Would you care to comment or give your opinion on what would happen if the FAA invested an additional $152 million in improving National Airport?

Mr. QUESADA. If the FAA invested a couple of hundred million dollars, which is a very large sum of money, at National Airport without regard to a plan that embraces the entire area, it would be a great disservice to the Greater Washington area including Baltimore. I would be distressed if any sum such as that were invested to perpetuate what we now have. If they do, it will just magnify the problem by a factor-and I would be reluctant to pinpoint the factor-I would hate to see it happen.

Senator SPONG. That would depart from your wife's way of doing things.

Mr. QUESADA. That is correct.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. We have been very pleased to have you here and have your testimony.

Mr. Saunders?

STATEMENT OF ARVEN H. SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Arven H. Saunders. I am Director of the Bureau of National Capital Airports of the Federal Aviation Administration.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the utilization and future of the three major airports in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C., area: (1) Baltimore Friendship International Airport; (2) Washington Dulles International Airport; and (3) Washington National Airport.

Within the Department of Transportation, we are intimately concerned with the most efficient utilization of all of the Nation's transportation resources. Among our most important transportation assets in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C., area are the three airports being discussed today.

As the operator of two of the three airports, the FAA is deeply involved with the question of how these airports are being used today and how they are to be used in the years ahead. We must deal with the closely related problem of how to move people to and from these airports quickly and efficiently. We must consider the impact that these airports, their aircraft operations, their passenger movements, and their cargo shipments have on the surrounding area and its environment.

At the outset, I want to make one thing clear: These three airports represent a substantial investment of taxpayer dollars. Each is an irreplacable public asset, each is needed now, and each will be needed even more in the years ahead.

The aviation business is dynamic and fast growing. By almost every indicator of air carrier and general aviation growth, aviation set new records during fiscal 1968. We believe that the growth trend now established in the aviation business will continue through the 1970's and into 1980.

The growth of aviation in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C., area mirrors aviation's nationwide growth. Several exhibits are attached to demonstrate that fact.

(The exhibits follow:)

EXHIBIT 2.-WASHINGTON AREA AIR CARRIER PASSENGERS, PERCENT OF TOTAL BY AIRPORT

EXHIBIT 3.-WASHINGTON/BALTIMORE AREA AIRPORTS PASSENGER FORECAST, FISCAL YEARS 1964-80

Washington National Airport opened on June 16, 1941, designed to handle 3 million passengers annually. In its first full year of operation after the end of World War II, National handled 1.23 million passengers. On July 1, 1950, Friendship International Airport opened at Baltimore, Md. During its first full year of operation, Baltimore Friendship handled 211,000 passengers, while Washington National

handled 2.45 million passengers. The first year following the introduction of turbojet aircraft into service there (1960), Baltimore Friendship handled 747,000 passengers and Washington National handled 4.73 million passengers.

Washington Dulles International Airport opened on November 19, 1962. During its first full year of operation (1963), Dulles handled 667,000 passengers, while Baltimore Friendship handled 1.15 million passengers and Washington National handled 5.46 million passengers. During the year, the three airports handled a total of 7.28 million

passengers.

In 1966, jet operations were first allowed at National, and it handled 7.92 million passengers. In the same year, 1.17 million passengers were handled at Dulles, and 2.00 million passengers were handled at Friendship, a total of 11.10 million passengers for all three airports. In 1968, National handled 9.97 million passengers, Dulles handled 1.77 million passengers, and Friendship handled 2.91 million passengers, a total of 14.65 million passengers.

The future is bright for all three airports. We forecast that by fiscal 1973 the passenger level will exceed 22 million at the three airports, and by fiscal 1980 the levels should exceed 43 million passengers.

We believe that the growth rate of the aviation business in this area will continue during the next 10 years, and keep in mind that the forecasts have turned out to be too conservative in the past. We believe that there will be a critical need for the capacity which these three airports provide. By fiscal 1975, we forecast a total of 27.4 million passengers in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C., area. Dulles and Friendship would be required to handle 5.5 million and 7.6 million passengers respectively. Some expansion and modernization would be required at these two airports to meet this demand. While National would not be handling any more air carrier operations, it would be handling approximately 14 million passengers in 1975. These forecasts assume that air travel demand will not be constrained by the lack of passenger handling facilities at any of the three airports.

Having shown that there is a continued need for all three of the airports, how should they be operated? Many advantages would result from planning, operating, and financing them as a single system. This has been amply demonstrated elsewhere in the United States and throughout the world as well. In my judgment, these advantages would be even more pronounced in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C., area. Many diverse organizations in this area have an interest in, and some responsibility for control of the three airports and their impact on the environment. The task of coordinating the planning and operation of airports with the community in the Baltimore, Md.Washington, D.C. area is a complex process. Using a systems approach to operations and planning would simplify the present process and would be a major step forward for the area.

In my judgment, however, an effective systems approach cannot be achieved as things are today. Perhaps some more broadly based, more autonomous organization is needed to deal effectively with the Congress, and with the political bodies governing the communities that these airports serve, and to do business with the airlines, general aviation interests, concessionaires, and airport tenants.