on February 3, 1950. Public Law 81-762 authorizing construction of what was to be Dulles became law on September 7, 1950. Thereafter, a site for the airport was acquired, but opposition soon developed to the proposed location. This controversy continued for several years until finally, on August 28, 1957, the Congress directed President Eisenhower to select another airport site. Based on the recommendations of Gen. Elwood R. Quesada, later our first FAA Administrator, the President recommended the Chantilly site for the airport on January 14, 1958. The Baltimore-Washington area owes a special debt of gratitude to these two men, and to the farsightedness of Congress in going forward with construction of Dulles International Airport. In fact, the $108 million investment in Dulles is viewed as a great airport bargain. Conservatively, Dulles would cost about $156 million today.

On November 19, 1962, Dulles International Airport opened for business. At the time, Dulles was the first jet age airport in the United States designed specifically to serve "pure" jet aircraft. Dulles was then and is now a model of beauty, functional design and passenger convenience as yet unmatched anywhere in the world. Dulles incorporates the concept of moving people in air-conditioned comfort from the terminal to the aircraft one-half mile distant using mobile lounges capable of carrying 100 persons.

Dulles has an extensive airfield system. We boast of our two parallel north/south 11,500-foot runways, and our one 10,000-foot runway oriented to the west-northwest/east-southeast direction. We also have the capability of adding an additional parallel runway to the present 10,000-foot runway. Each of these runways was set down with clear approaches and with 8,000 feet between the ends of the runways and the airport boundaries. The Dulles planners determined that the airport should have sufficient room for almost unlimited expansion, and as a result we have 10,000 acres of land.

However, the Dulles terminal was designed initially to serve between 4 and 5 million passengers each year. The Dulles terminal building separates the enplaning and deplaning passengers. The walking distance for both inbound and outbound passengers is limited, and averages 200 feet between the building entrance and a mobile lounge gate. This compares to the long walks necessary at most major airports.

In selecting the site for Dulles, one of the requirements was that it be within approximately 30 minutes of traveltime from downtown Washington. As a result, it was decided that Dulles should have its own access road for fast vehicular transportation to the suburbs and to Washington. A 17-mile-long and 400-foot-wide right-of-way was purchased, and initially 14.5 miles of divided highway was constructed as an integral part of the airport. Since the Dulles road would merge with Interstate 66, we delayed constructing the remaining 211⁄2 miles of the access road until the Interstate 66 route was determined. We provided limited interchanges at the Capital beltway and Routes 123, 7,674, 657, and 28.

In 1968, Dulles handled 1,773,742 passengers, an increase of 13.4 percent over the 1967 level. The 1968 growth rate is well above the national average. Throughout the year to date, Dulles continues to show increases in schedules, and both domestic and international pas

sengers. The latest available statistics, those for March, show air carrier operations up 5.5 percent from March of last year and up 8.6 percent over the first 3 months of last year. Likewise, the 135,846 domestic passengers in March showed an increase of 24.3 percent, and the 387,843 domestic passengers in the year to date were 28.1 percent more than in the same period a year ago. International passengers in March were up 41 percent and are up 56.8 percent in the year to date. Cargo for the year to date yas up 9.4 percent over last year. We know these upward trends will continue. Dulles today is a 612-year-old airport. Dulles had some early problems getting started, but this is not unusual for a new airport.

The future of Dulles today is bright, and we are ready for the next generation of aircraft. The most recent forecast for the National Capital Airports indicates that Dulles will handle a total of 1.87 million passengers this fiscal year, and 2.16 million passengers in the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1973 Dulles will accommodate 4.05 million passengers, and in fiscal 1974, Dulles will accommodate 4.75 million passengers, the time frame for initial first-stage design capacity, bringing the need for expansion. Today, Dulles is capable of handling the giant Boeing 747 that can carry up to 490 passengers. These aircraft are scheduled to come into service late this year. Following them will be the Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed 1011 air buses with capacities between 300 and 350 passengers. Dulles requires no modification or lengthening of its runways to handle these new aircraft. As the years pass between now and 1974, Dulles' role as the National Capital longhaul domestic and international airport will come nearer to fulfillment. But, as we look to 1974, we must also look beyond 1974. As many as 11.8 million passengers are forecast for Dulles in 1980, and we have planned to be ready for them. We can use our 10,000 acres to expand runway and taxiway facilities. We can triple the terminal building in size to a length of 1,800 feet, and the aircraft gates to a total of 90. By the end of this year, the first 124 units of what ultimately will be a 550-room hotel will be opened at Dulles overlooking the manmade lake at the entrance to the terminal area. The driving time to Dulles will be substantially reduced upon completion of Route 66. Possibly the great assets at Dulles are space and the capability to expand.

With well-planned expansion of the terminal, the aircraft gates, and if necessary construction of a new terminal-perhaps a second terminal beyond that-there is reason to believe that ultimately Dulles could accommodate upwards to 60 million passengers each year. As far as Dulles is concerned, the one limiting factor to use in these upper ranges of the forecasts is the access. The highway has capacity for additional lanes. However, when we talk in terms of 20 to 30 million. passengers each year, we feel that the access road would have to be supplemented by some sort of rapid transit. As you know, the WMATA Metro plans a Dulles leg in their long-range plan. We welcome this. Helicopter and additional STOL service and other types of people movers may also be needed.

The fact that Dulles is located in northern Virginia means that local communities benefit economically from its presence. We have not had a significant number of noise complaints as a result of operations at Dulles. This may be due to two factors: First, the lack of heavy

flight traffic for extended periods and, second, the general lack of population concentration close to the airport. These factors will change in the years ahead. Air traffic is steadily increasing, and the area around the airport has been subject to greatly increased real estate interest.

Subdivisions are being planned in what we consider to be extremely undesirable locations from a noise point of view. We commend the recent action by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors recognizing this problem. While the FAA has authority to control the height and location of structures within flight paths at Dulles, we cannot control the use of land in the vicinity of airports, except through moral suasion. We hope to be able to avoid the growth of residential communities on the land adjoining Dulles as the airport grows. To this end we are in constant contact with zoning authorities in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. We work with them to discuss potential problems, and to seek their cooperation in assuring compatible land use. We hope that this cooperative spirit continues as Dulles grows and prospers. We listened with great interest to the witnesses who appeared to testify before the committee on March 19. Several things discussed at those hearings are now being considered within the Department. We hope that we also benefit from listening to today's witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to try to answer any questions that the committee may have. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Saunders.

We are all here today, of course, primarily to discuss Dulles International Airport, but I do not think we should exclude questions about National, and I intend to ask you some about National, because whatever happens at National has a direct effect on Dulles and Friendship.

I think that one of the problems in the past has been an effort on the part of many to treat each of these airports as an isolated problem rather than recognizing the regional approach that should be taken. So I am going to ask you some questions about National, as well as Dulles, and also about the Kling report.

On page 2 of your statement, you say that the report is still under consideration in the Bureau and we have not yet forwarded our final recommendation to the Administrator and the Secretary.

When do you anticipate that any recommendation that the Bureau makes with regard to the Kling report will be forwarded to the Secretary?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, we are completing our coordination with the airlines, and we hope to submit our recommendation within the next 60 days; prior to that, hopefully, but I think by that time.

Senator SPONG. You mentioned that Dulles has a capability of handling 747 and DC-10 giant aircraft. Can we assume that these type of planes will not be brought into National?

Mr. SAUNDERS. On many occasions, Mr. Chairman, we have indicated to the airlines at hearings and in writing, that the present type aircraft of the Boeing 727-100 series, for example, and the Douglas DC-9, will be the only ones permitted. The stretched version of these aircrafts would not be permitted, nor would the so-called air buses. Senator SPONG. I will probably return to this subject later.

In 1959, the FAA concluded that Dulles should have 45.8 percent of the region's air traffic by 1975, and National 33.9 percent. Today, your projections for that same year are Dulles 19.6 percent and National 52.1 percent.

How do you account for this discrepancy?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Basically, Mr. Chairman, the discrepancy probably is because of the short-haul characteristics of this area. Whether the authors of the 1959 report you mentioned had the statistics available at that time, I do not know.

But, the more recent indications have clearly shown that the vast number of our passengers travel short distances. A recent analysis, for example, showed that over 50 percent of the people travel less than 250 miles, and the 1966 access study showed that 65 percent of them traveled less than 500 miles. These are the people who want to use Washington National Airport, and who need to use it.

On the other hand, you see, the access study showed that over 55 percent of the people using Dulles traveled 1,500 miles or farther. Senator SPONG. You would say, then, that the 1959 study did not accurately anticipate the short-haul factor?

Mr. SAUNDERS. It would seem to be one possible answer, Mr. Chairman. I could not really give a definite answer.

Senator SPONG. You mentioned the gross statistics on Dulles, and I find these quite encouraging. But as I add up the net gain in air carrier passengers at the two airports for the years 1969 through 1975-and that is based on the figures you have given us-National comes out ahead, 3.9 million, to Dulles' 3.4 million. Why is that?

Mr. SAUNDERS. The point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the rate of growth or the percentage of growth, is the sign to look at, as we see it. Obviously, you start from zero, as we did at Dulles. Even now we have only two million passengers a year at Dulles compared with 10 million passengers at National. It will take some time to bring these into balance, if they ever do balance, and they will in the eighties or nineties, unquestionably.

So I think the more important thing to note is the percentage of growth at the two airports. The March figures were of interest in that respect. The air carrier operations for the year to date (the first 3 months of 1969) show the scheduled airlines operations down 10.9 percent at National. On the other hand, at Dulles the air carrier operations for the same period were up 8.6 percent. Similarly, passengers were, respectively, up and down. I think this is the trend we should be encouraged by and look to, and recognize the vast difference between the base numbers at the two airports.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Saunders, do you believe that there should be a limitation on the number of passengers using National each year?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the discussion in the March hearing. There are very severe restrictions in effect at National now on schedules. This was the best way we knew at the time and we still think it is the best way of limiting passengers. For over 2 years now, the airlines have been restricted to 40 schedules an hour, and this restriction will continue indefinitely at National. We do not know how you can restrict the passengers better than by restricting the number of flights.

In adidtion to that, National is restricted as to nonstop capability, and it still has a 650-mile perimeter nonstop restriction. In other words, no long-haul flights are permitted at National, with seven grandfather city exceptions only.

Senator SPONG. And you are saying that you think the approach should not be a passenger limitation but continue the number of flights allowed to use National.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I believe that is right, Mr. Chairman.

In following the mandate of Congress to operate both of these airports, our objective is to provide as many people as effectively as we can with airport service. We feel that the restrictions at National have been effective, and congestion there has been largely alleviated. So, this level of traffic is being sustained, and service is being offered to these people with reasonable convenience and without undue delay. That is exactly what Congress expects us to do in running National.

We conclude that, if National is serving people and is running effectively, then we have accomplished our objective. At least this is our view, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Saunders, earlier in your testimony you mentioned airbuses and stretch aircraft, and I think for the record and possibly the illumination of myself and others here, we would like for you to discuss just what these are.

Am I correct-before you do-in assuming that these aircraft are presently excluded from National under present rulings?

Mr. SAUNDER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are excluded from National under present rules.

The original jets in this country, starting in 1958, were large fourengine jets of the Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8 variety. We did not consider that they were suitable for National then, nor do we now. It was only when the present family of smaller jets came into service that the jet decision was made. The short-haul, two- and three-engine jets were permitted at National. Specifically, they were Douglas DC-9, the Caravel, the Boeing 727-100 series, and lately, the Boeing 737. These are smaller aircraft, designed specifically for airports like National, and for short-haul service. They are not intended to be longrange aircraft.

Now, as often is the case, a stretched version comes along. The aircraft is proven economically, and proven in every way in operation and in performance. So, the aircraft manufacturer provides a longer version, usually it is longer. This is generally in the trade known as a stretched version. The Boeing 727-200 is such a stretch version of the original 727. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they are even talking of a stretched version of the Boeing 747 already. And as you know, the first Boeing 747 will not come into service until later this

year.

The others I mentioned are still to come-the Lockheed 1011 and the Douglas DC-10. These are the so-called air buses, they are generally referred to as the wide-bodied aircraft, with a large capacity of generally over 250 passengers.

Is that the sort of information that is helpful?

Senator SPONG. Yes, indeed.

Now, I understood from your answers that no stretch versions of any aircraft are presently using National; is that true?

27-254-70-pt. 1-12