the junction with the Metro line, because as everyone knows, our plans are pretty firm if we ever get off the ground at all. And we hope to have a dual-track system throughout the region, which the experts around the world seem to agree is the most economical for a rail rapid transit operation as opposed to a shuttle.

Now, I think in Tokyo they do have the monorail shuttle; I think I am right?

Mr. QUENSTEDT. That is correct.

Mr. BABSON. A monorail for strictly shuttle operation or World Fair operation is OK, it is attractive, but it is not as practical as a dual-track operation economically, and also you could not have the interchange of trains from the Dulles line to the lines of the Metro system.

So you would be forever locked into a shuttle operation with a transfer at I-66.

Senator SPONG. What kind of shuttle car do you think should be provided?

Mr. BABSON. This, again, Mr. Chairman, would depend on studies which we have not made at this time, because we have not been charged with this responsibility and have not included this in our system.

But no doubt some changes would be made, have to be made in the cars we presently propose for the metro system. No doubt, we would have to provide for baggage, which is naturally not provided for by the mass transit system we have been studying and planning. But it would not be difficult to plan and study what modifications need to be made. But at this time we do not know.

Mr. QUENSTEDT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might touch on one apparent inconsistency in some of this testimony.

When Mr. Babson spoke of the fact that the monorail could commit permanently to a shuttle, even so we are talking about the possibility of shuttle with regard to this operation. The distinction would lie in the fact that assuming we initially started this as a shuttle, conceivably it might later be made a through trip all the way downtown. The fact is that, as Mr. Babson has mentioned, a great many questions have to be studied in connection with the creation of the facility itself, and we would be the first to encourage an examination of monorail, simply to be sure that in the light of the present developments or even that which may be ahead of us, your studies or those that are made, would be complete before a decision is made.

We do not, on the basis of what we know about the subject today feel that a monorail is an adequate device. But the future is always ahead of us.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much.

Should the air traffic terminal be downtown or at a connecting point?

Mr. BABSON. Again, we would have to study this. You just do not locate a terminal like this without thorough traffic studies, O. & D. studies.

Senator SPONG. Well, thank you, gentlemen, very much.

Mr. BABSON. Thank you.

Senator SPONG. Time today will not allow this subcommittee to go. into the question of the Three Sisters Bridge or Route 66, or the

rapid transit system. But I think that for the record I should place in the record, in light of some of the previous testimony, a letter dated May 23 to me from the Virginia State Department of Highways with regard to Route 66 and the Three Sisters Bridge.

I shall do this at this time.

(The letter, referred to, follows:)

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS,
Richmond, Va., May 23, 1969.

INTERSTATE ROUTE 66

Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SPONG: This is in reference to my conversation yesterday with Mr. Jack Lewis of your office, and this morning with Mr. Bob McNeil, all concerning access to the Dulles Airport via Interstate 66 and our schedule for com pletion of this route.

As I told Mr. Lewis, I-66 is presently being held up for several reasons. One is the controversy surrounding the Three Sisters Bridge and connections thereto. Another is an agreement that we have with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This agreement covers a possible use of the median strip of I-66 for rail rapid transit extending west from the Glebe Road-Wilson Boulevard intersection.

If WMATA desires to use the median, this will necessitate the acquisition of considerable additional right of way, the taking of more houses, the extension of structures overpassing I-66 and many other details, all of which will add considerably to the cost. Our agreement provides that WMATA has until November of this year to determine whether or not they desire to occupy the median, and if they do, to reimburse us for the additional costs. As matters now stand, WMATA does not have sufficient funds to pay additional costs if their decision is to use the median. Although we would be free to proceed in November, under our agreement, I doubt very seriously if we would undertake construction that would completely close the door to transit use of the median should WMATA decide that this was the proper location for such transit. In fact, I do not believe it would be in the public interest to do so, even though we may have to wait beyond November to start definite planning.

There has been a thought advanced that possibly we could justify the wide median for safety or additional lanes. However, I do not know whether this could be supported and would be approved by the Bureau of Public Roads.

The situation at the possible connections to the Three Sisters Bridge is, of course, another concern. Route 66 could be completed, however, with provision being made for those ultimate connections. The only tie-up here is the construction of I-66 itself, which requires some park property at the crossing of the Spout Run Parkway, and to date the Park Service has not been agreeable to even discussing this matter with us. We have an agreement executed by the Park Service, the District of Columbia, and the State Highway Commissioner covering construction of a Three Sisters Bridge, transfer of park lands, etc., but the present attitude of the Park Service seems to be an "all or nothing" one, about carrying out the provisions of this agreement, and obviously, we are in no position to carry out all of the provisions at this time.

Mr. Lewis suggested the possibility of constructing I-66 from the Beltway to Route 29-211 in the vicinity of Kirkwood Road and the Spout Run Parkway, and omitting for the time being that portion beyond (east) so as to avoid involvement with the park lands. This was under the assumption that the problem with WMATA could be satisfactorily resolved. This construction, while materially helping the movement of traffic in the Arlington-Fairfax area, would not, I am afraid, be a great deal of help to traffic between Washington and the Dulles Airport, since traffic from Washington would have to use a section of Route 29-211, which is presently only three lanes in width, and extremely congested or, would have to use the George Washington Parkway and the Spout Run Parkway and then negotiate a very difficult offset intersection at Lee Highway.

As a matter of fact, I, personally, believe that adequate access to the Dulles Airport can only be provided by connecting Route 66 with the Roosevelt Bridge and by constructing the Three Sisters Bridge and the necessary connections. In addition to the above, I doubt seriously if we could have sufficient funds to construct I-66 at any time in the immediate future. As you know, we are committed to the continuation of construction on the Shirley Highway. There are three contracts remaining and in order to advertise the next contract in June, we have had to request an advance of Federal funds in the amount of $15 million from our July obligations. This has not yet been approved, however. The next two contracts on the Shirley Highway scheduled for advertisement in late 1969 and early 1970 are estimated to cost about $40 million. We have just now been advised by the Bureau that in all probability the amount of Federal money which we would be permitted to obligate in the first three months of the next fiscal year beginning July 1, would be only $27 million for all highway systems.

You can readily see with a $15 million contract on the Shirley Highway we would have only $12 million left for the first three months. Later contracts on the Shirley would probably use up about one-half of available Federal funds for all systems through July 1, 1970.

The remainder of the Federal funds available to us through July 1, 1970, would be needed for essential Primary, Urban and Secondary work, and for the additional contracts on the Interstate System involving paving and bridges on work already started, so that it can be made usable by traffic.

I just do not see how we could finance the construction of I-66 in this period since it is estimated to cost $40 million exclusive of connections to Route 266 (Three Sisters).

As you know, our apportionment was cut this year as a result of the new formula for apportioning Interstate funds, making it necessary to completely revise our schedules, etc.

I am sorry this letter is so lengthy, but I believe this will outline our position in regard to the construction of I-66. Commissioner Fugate will return to the office Moday and if he has any further thoughts, I will ask him to send them to you immediately.

Sincerely,

J. E. HARWOOD, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Saunders, I should have asked for some comment from you.

After Mr. Foster testified with regard to some of the needed improvements here at Dulles, I think I should have given you an opportunity to make any comment you cared to.

If you would rather do it later, you can, but I would be pleased to hear from you right now, since you have control of both airports. Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I could do it now or I could submit it for the record, just as you wish.

Senator SPONG. How long would it take you?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think to do it might take 10 or 15 minutes.
Senator SPONG. I believe you ought to do it. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF ARVEN H. SAUNDERS-Resumed

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, as we have indicated, Dulles was planned with a long future and the 10,000 acres acquired should assure that future. The terminal building, however, was constructed for the first phase of development. It was estimated that the terminal building would provide for about 4 to 5 million passengers. Our forecasts indicate that we will reach that level of passenger activity in the 1973-74 period.

But starting with the facility we now have, there is no question in our minds that Dulles can, with these present facilities, accommodate

a very large increase in traffic. As we have indicated, the airfield has substantial unused capacity. The jet apron, now having 30 gates, can be tripled in expansion, but even the jet apron with 30 gates can be used to a greater effect than it is at present. For example, at present peak hours at Dulles under the present schedules, only one-half of the 30 gates are occupied at any one time. The Dulles terminal facilities, which include the fleet of mobile lounges, were developed to accommodate passenger flows that were expected to occur at the 4- to 5-million level. The airlines' tendency to abnormally concentrate their Dulles schedules in the late afternoon or early evening hours will, if it continues, accelerate the peak hour flows of passengers in relation to annual volume. But, I feel safe in saying that we can at least double our present passenger load with the present facilities. Then, beyond that, we already have requested funds for design of a terminal expansion that will enable us to greatly increase our terminal capacity. However, I emphasize that with the facilities which exist today, we can handle approximately twice our present volume of passengers in this first stage of the terminal building.

In order that the scope of the existing terminal facilities at Dulles may be shown in a familiar frame of reference, it might be useful to compare them to the terminal facilities at Washington National, and more specifically to the north terminal at National Airport. The north terminal at Washington National was built initially as an interim facility. It handled about 2 million passengers a year during the past year. This is a little more than the last year's volume of traffic at Dulles. The north terminal, only that north terminal section, compares to Dulles in a very interesting way.

Here are some specifics. As to ticket counters at the north terminal only, in Washington National Airport the airlines have 270 feet of airline ticket counters. At Dulles, today, in the first phase of the planned terminal building, we have 500 feet. That represents an 82percent increase factor over the north terminal ticket counter. As to baggage claims, the north terminal has 100 feet in baggage claim area. At Dulles, we have 240 feet of baggage claim area. This represents a factor of 140 percent. As to gross public area, the figures are 400.000 square feet for north terminal of Washington National, and 200,000 square feet at Dulles. This represents a 400-percent factor.

Now, Mr. Chairman, may I emphasize this. I do not suggest that the Washington National North Terminal is in any way ideal. Perhaps more than any other facility at National, it represents exactly where modernization is needed and where improvement of facilities are required. However, this sort of comparison is particularly useful in evaluating the ticket counter and baggage claim areas, and the gross public areas at Dulles. Because they do have a certain comparable annual passenger load. So in summary, Mr. Chairman, it is our opinion that we are ready right now to accommodate a great deal more traffic at Dulles. Once we begin to exceed the limits of our present facilities, we have enormous potential for expansion.

On the international side, Congress, in its wisdom, has already provided funds for expansion of the international facilities at Dulles. In 1968, Congress provided $700,000 for this purpose and an architect and engineering firm has been already retained to provide the im

provements. Of course, they will be interim facilities, and they will be supplemented in the long plan of the future with the expansion of the terminal building to eventually triple the present length. At the present time, we estimate that we can handle between 300 and 350 passengers per hour in the international facility.

The interim facility for which Congress has already provided funds will allow us to go up approximately double to at least 600 passengers an hour, with 700 or 750 passengers per hour as the goal. This capability should allow us to handle our traffic through 1975, at least. At that time, we will probably be planning a more permanent expansion of the terminal building.

Another question that came is the mobile lounges and their use with the Boeing 747. At the present time, perhaps half of the airlines require us to connect the mobile lounge transition device to the passenger loading steps at the aircraft door in preparing to unload passengers. In the other cases, the mobile lounge ramp or transition device or passenger transfer platform goes directly to the threshold of the door of the airplane. With the Boeing 747, the mobile lounge would simply connect, as we do now in many cases, to the passenger loading steps provided by the airlines. The mobile lounge transition device would not reach up to the threshold of the Boeing 747. We have acknowledged that on many occasions. It would connect to a point on the mobile lounge steps about three or four steps down from the top. So the passengers would climb up and down these three or four steps to reach the airplane. Mobile lounges would be provided at each of the entrances of the Boeing 747. With 100-passenger capacity in each lounge, we would be providing two or three lounges per airplane as required.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I believe those are the points that I had in mind.

Senator SPONG. Would you comment on the Customs Service here. There was some comment about that.

Mr. SAUNDERS. The Customs Service, and all of the International Federal inspection services, have had their difficulties in getting adequate personnel. Of course, to start with there was a period of shakedown as this facility went into service at Dulles. Generally, the Federal inspection agencies now have adequate personnel to man the facilities. They have been greatly assisted by the accelerated inspection service which went into effect last year. This provides for a thorough examination of only a small portion of the travelers. A vast majority going through with a routine check. This has speeded up the whole process and has made the international traffic move more rapidly. We have also made some interim improvements to the passenger service areas which have speeded up the traffic period.

In short, while it is an interim facility at present, it is working reasonably well. We think it will continue to work until this $700,000 appropriation can be put into use and effect.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much for this additional comment, Mr. Saunders.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPONG. Is Senator Fitzgerald here?
Can you testify now?

Senator FITZGERALD. Yes.