COURT HOUSE REALTY, Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPONG: Thank you for your letter of May 15th inviting me to testify on behalf of Dulles Airport. I apologize for having been out of town and time does not allow me to be available on Tuesday, May 27th for the hearing at Dulles. As you know, I have been a Commissioner of the Fairfax County Industrial Authority since its inception and my interest on Dulles stems from the beginning with General Elwood Quesada when the site selection was made for the Dulles location. Mr. Dan Mahaney can attest to my continued interest these past five years in Dulles Airport. For the sake of brevity, I would like to summarize what I think is the only solution to Dulles International Airport ever being accepted and fully utilized. High speed monorail must be constructed from downtown Washington directly to the Terminal Building at Dulles Airport. This high speed monorail must be separate from any rapid transit affiliate and be for airport use only. It must also have, in addition to trains traveling in access of 100 miles per hour, service every 10 to 15 minutes. The purpose of this whole concept is to make Dulles Airport as convenient timewise as being located in West Arlington. Only after the above is completed will Dulles be fully accepted and utilized to its capacity. Further it will provide the convenience and service that was intended for the people of Metropolitan Washington. Safetywise there is absolutely no comparison between Dulles Airport and National makes just about as much sense in these jet times as reinstalling the trolleys back on the streets in Washington, D.C. With warmest regards, I remain A. FRANK KRAUSE, Jr. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, SENATOR SPONG: Thank you for the opportunity to file a statement. I regret that prior engagements prevents me from appearing in person. Let us construct a high speed rail connection to Dulles. Until access to Dulles is quick and easy, the airport is doomed to languish underused. A high speed rail connection to Dulles would cost less than a third the $150 million proposed for improvement of National. Continued segregated use of the monstrous expanse of concrete known as the Dulles access road by but a small trickle of airport bound vehicles is waste on an unmeasurable scale. Allow commuters use of the highway and construct a high speed rail so Dulles can achieve its potential growth. The diversion of air traffic to Dulles made possible by a high speed rail connection would save a great deal of money, give commuter traffic a needed road to D.C., restore peace to the Potomac, quiet for concerts at Lincoln Memorial and on the Mall and eliminate tons of pollution now exhausted over our nation's capital. Mrs. MARY A. MARSHALL, Delegate From Arlington. MCCAUGHAN & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., May 23, 1969. Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPONG: Thank you very much for advising me of the Dulles Airport hearing Tuesday, 27 May. I will appreciate the inclusion of the attached statement in the appendix to the hearing notes. Because of my personal interest in this matter, I have become a member of the Dulles Committee of the Virginia State Chamber of Commerce. Evidently the Committee did not know of the Senate hearing at the time of its recent meeting in Norfolk. I have not had time this week to check with the Chamber staff and the views enclosed are my own, not necessarily in line with the Chamber Committee. I trust that the Committee will have an official statement for the hearing. Sincerely, Attachment. HUGH B. JOHNSON. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGH B. JOHNSON, ARLINGTON, VA. GENTLEMEN: I wish to present some personal views to support an increase in traffic at the Dulles International Airport and a decrease in traffic at the Washington National Airport. Dulles Airport is one of the finest in the country and has, I believe, the most beautiful terminal building of any airport. It is the best gateway to Washington but is used far below its capacity. At the same time, Washington National Airport has become so overcrowded that it has lost all of its original dignity and now constitutes an obstacle to be surmounted and escaped from. Mr. Saunders, Director of National Capital Airports, recently stated before the Arlington Chamber of Commerce that the $150,000,000.00 proposed improvement plan for National did not constitute an expansion in air traffic although plans provided for handling about 50 percent more passengers. Evidently, the proposal is based on maintaining the present flight frequency with much larger planes. I would like to present the following points regarding this plan: 1. I believe that flight frequency should be definitely decreased. At the present time, whenever weather is overcasted, and sometimes on bright, clear days, there is air traffic congestion to the extent that incoming flights are delayed for 15 minutes to an hour. I may be subject to bad luck, but my own average for landing at Washington National on time is less than 50 percent. More than half the time that I fly from New York to Washington on a 45 minute flight, it takes at least another 45 minutes to land. No improvement of terminal facilities will help this situation, only a decrease in flight frequency. 2. Because of its proximity to downtown Washington, National could have a good function in taking care of commuter "briefcase" flights and general aviation, neither of which are appropriate at Dulles. I believe that long range plans should be aimed at this objective with the eventual transfer of all other flights to Dulles. 3. I would not wish this testimony to serve as an argument against improvement of the National terminal facilities. It will still be an important entrance to Washington and should be reconstructed to obtain its proper dignity and character. Comparison with LaGuardia is inevitable. The LaGuardia Terminal is now a beautiful building but the air traffic is about as frustrating as it is at Washington National. Even this beautiful terminal cannot remove the bitterness and frustration of arriving too late for an appointment after circling overhead for an hour. The airlines and the public will be more willing to use Dulles if the access routes between the airport and the city are improved. Nevertheless, air traffic will not leave National unless it is forced to do so as a means of relieving congestion. I would like to support the following action to increase the utilization of Dulles. 1. Completion of a highway link to Washington with or without the Three Sisters Bridge. 2. Construction of a rapid rail transit leg from Washington to Dulles. Such a rail line will have sufficient non-airport use in any event to justify its construction. On the other hand, air travelers do not normally use streetcars or subways any more than railroad travelers did when people went by train. This may be simply a matter of habit, but I expect that it is also the result of the difficulty and inconvenience of boarding a rail transit car with baggage. As far as I know, there has been no experience in any city in the United States with the provision of special cars and baggage handling facilities on rapid rail transit lines for either railroad or airplane passengers. If the rapid transit line can be built, and if provisions are planned for appropriate transfer of air passengers to a downtown terminal, this will be a "first". It should also be extremely successful. Everyone is interested in getting to his destination as soon as possible although he does want to arrive there all in one piece, and his baggage. 3. Better restaurant facilities and other concessions will undoubtedly follow an increase in traffic at Dulles. This does not necessarily mean that these services will be good. Why is it that no other airport is able to operate a fine restaurant like the one at Newark Airport? Possibly the people in Newark are impoverished, but they drive for miles to have dinner at the airport. In Washington, we drive for miles to avoid eating at the airport. I wish to thank the District of Columbia Committee for this opportunity to present my views on this subject. DANVILLE, VA., May 23, 1969. Hon. JACK LEWIS, New Senate Office Building, DEAR MR. LEWIS: My purpose in writing you this letter comes from my long years of interest in aviation as well as being a member of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Aviation for sixteen years, serving on the committee for aviation of the State Chamber of Commerce and many years in a local capacity of aviation and at present serving on the International Dulles Airport Commission. I think it would be a mistake to spend 150 million dollars on modernizing the National Airport when Dulles Airport is so close by with an unlimited future. The Pan American 747 that will be put in use early next year will be using Dulles which is one of, possibly, twenty in the nation that can handle this huge aircraft; and, too, to add anything to Washington National other than general maintenance would add some hazard to the flying public. Dulles Airport is certainly the future airport for Washington; and with the right promotion, Dulles could be the airport of the entire world. As a citizen, and with my deep interest in aviation, I would certainly oppose spending this kind of money at National Airport as I feel the access road to Dulles is what should be considered at the present time. Very truly yours, DEWEY W. SWICEGOOD. ARLINGTON, VA., May 23, 1969. Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This is in reference to an item in your News Letter stating that you are convening a session of the Senate Committee on Commerce at Dulles Airport on May 27, concerning future developments of the airport. In the past I have corresponded with you about the plight of general aviation in this heavily populated portion of the State. When I last wrote on March 11. I stated that we 'tied down' our plane at National Airport and were concerned about the attempts on the part of the airlines to restrict the flights of private and corporation planes at that field. These restrictions are due to start June 1, but on May 1 an even more restrictive measure was taken by Page Airways, the outfit that runs the general aviation operations at both National and Dulles. That is, they raised the 'tie down' fee from $2.00 a day to $3.00 a day. Desiring to take advantage of the much more nominal rate at Dulles of $35.00 a month, we moved our single engine Cessna down to Dulles. It is rather a ridiculous situation having the small planes take over the facilities of this marvelous field with 11.000 foot runways and every radar device conceivable, while the airlines continue to squeeze in and out of National. However, that is the fact. Dulles has become the leading general aviation field in the area and the visit of your Committee will not be complete unless you drop in on busy Page terminal, quite the opposite of the great big tomb that the main terminal has become. However, there is one rather dreadful situation out there as regards private pilots, and we estimate 200 planes are "tied down" at Page, but the pilot parking lot has room for only a dozen cars. Considering the vast acreage available out there, this seems strange. Right across the way, the permit only Page employees' lot never is more than one-quarter full. As a matter of fact, the parking situation at Page National is better, as there is a large metered lot right in front of the building and the hourly rate lot is within easy walking distance. The public parking lot at Dulles, while always very near to empty, is miles away from the "tie down" area. Last week, when my husband took what he thought would be a short business trip to Nashville, Tennessee, the pilot lot was as usual completely full, and he had to park illegally in the Page employee lot. As it turned out, he was caught in a bad weather front and had to put down for two days in Charleston, West Virginia. We were so worried about the car being ticketed, or worse towed away, that I drove the 60 mile round trip to move it to the pilot's lot where, fortunately, I found a space. I do not mind the car left for a couple of hours of instrument flying practice, or the start of an overnight trip, but if this ridiculous parking situation does not improve, we will once again have to take on the disapproval of the airlines, plus the exorbitant fees and move back to National. You might also point out to the Committee that we owners of these terribly expensive private planes would like additional hanger space to protect them from the elements. Again, crowded National has more hanger space than deserted Dulles. Thank you again for your interest in aviation and our airports. Mrs. LAUREN A. COLBY. ARLINGTON, VA., May 19, 1969. Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPONG: We want to thank you for your letter advising us of the Senate hearing to be held at Dulles Airport on Tuesday, May 27. While neither one of us will be able to attend the hearing because we both must show up at our respective jobs that day, we would like to take this opportunity to state our position on the Dulles-National Airport issue, as follows: First of all, we recognize the necessity of airports in a modern civilization, but we also recognize the necessity of maintaining the livability of the urban environment wherein the majority of American citizens work, live, and play. The so-called modernization of National Airport would mean to all citizens who live, work and/or play within the "noise area" of National Airport, whether they be Marylanders, D.C.ers or Virginians, a loss of the total livability of the area, a finite reduction of the recreational possibilities of the Potomac, an unnecessary incursion upon the privacy of those whose homes are located along the flight paths to and from National. In order to accommodate the marginal convenience of those who travel by plane to and from the Nation's Capital, this modernization would come at the high cost of increasing the decibel level from National and also increasing the frustration level of the local citizenry over their seeming inability to affect and bring under their control what is a real problem in their lives, one they are forced to cope with every day. On the other hand, Dulles Airport stands architecturally magnificant, functionally capable of serving the increasing numbers of air travelers, located in an area of light population density, but woefully underused. If $150 million (or any other proposed amount) of tax monies are to be used to further airport development in the metropolitan area, far better such monies be applied to rapid rail transportation to Dulles than to the modernization of National. In short, it is our view that a rapid rail link to Dulles Airport, as a part of the total public transportation system so sorely needed in this metropolitan area, is the only rational use of public funds in this matter. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. JOYNER, Senator SPONG. I would like to say to you that we hope to proceed as rapidly as possible without unduly cutting off any of the witnesses. We will have a break at 12 o'clock, if we go that far, and I think we will. We will resume at 1 o'clock, and I will give everyone here an opportunity, who wishes to be heard, to be heard just as long as time will allow us to do that. Mr. Arven H. Saunders. Mr. Saunders, we heard from you on the 19th of March, and we are pleased to have you back with us today. Mr. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF ARVEN H. SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK ORMSBEE, CHIEF OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STAFF; AND LEONARD MUDD, CHIEF PLANNING ENGINEER 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. With me today: Jack Ormsbee, chief of our financial management staff, and Leonard Mudd, our chief planning engineer. I am delighted to welcome the committee to Dulles International Airport. As you came into Dulles this morning, I hope you took advantage of the opportunity to see how modern, beautiful, and efficient this international jetport really is. Perhaps this brings home how fortunate we in the Baltimore-Washington area are to have this incomparable transportation asset to serve us. As we face a nationwide need for more and better airports, you may realize how well prepared we are to meet the next decade's air transportation needs for this area with three major airports to serve us. I welcome the opportunity to appear again before this committee to continue the consideration of the utilization and future of the three major airports in the Baltimore, Md.-Washington, D.C. area, and to focus today on Dulles International Airport. When I appeared before the committee on March 19 we discussed the growth of aviation, both nationally and regionally. We considered the regional aspects of the three major airports and their roles in serving our area both today and in the future. At those hearings, we went into some detail on Washington National Airport and its role as the Washington, D.C., short haul, commuter airport. We also discussed the restrictions as the use of Washington National, past, present, and future, and the need for modernization of its passenger facilities. We also discussed the Kling report. The report is still under consideration in the Bureau, and we have not yet forwarded our final recommendation to the Administrator and the Secretary. But today, we are here to discuss Dulles International Airport. Like many of the major airports that have been constructed over the last 10 or 15 years, Dulles did not come into being without controversy. The first bill proposing a second major airport "in or near the vicinity of the District of Columbia" was introduced in the 81st Congress on January 13, 1949 (more than 20 years ago). After a year-long study of the proposal, the Secretary of Commerce endorsed the legislation |