ing the National Capital-this statement reflects only staff study, analysis, and planning consideration on the utilization and future of air terminal facilities in the region. The Commission staff studies confirm that the coming "air revolution" will have a profound effect on land use and development, traffic, and the air environment in the region. Friendship and Dulles International Airports will become increasingly more important as magnets attracting all forms of development. This trend already is firmly established at Friendship with respect to industrial development and will continue at an accelerated rate. Adjacent development will compound airport access problems, particularly at peak hours, as passengers and employees compete for the use of available road facilities. If current air passenger projections are reasonably correct and present patterns of ground movement are maintained in the future, we can expect by 1980 at least 30,000 peak-hour vehicles on the roads serving the commercial airports in the region. By 1990 the number of peakhour vehicles could increase to about 50,000. At present noise is not a problem at Friendship and Dulles because of the relatively sparse development surrounding these airports. However, noise has become a critical problem affecting the livability of parts of the District of Columbia and Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, and I might add to a lesser extent in Fairfax County and Montgomery County. Prior to jet operations at National, about 1,600 dwelling units were within the 115-plus composite noise rating zone, the level at which, according to FAA, "individual reactions would likely include repeated, vigorous complaints," and "concerted group action might be expected." This is a quote from "Analysis of Community and Airport Relations/Noise Abatement," FAA, 1964. By 1980, it is estimated that over 44,000 dwelling units will be included within the 40 noise exposure forecast line-a rating equivalent to the 115+ CNR-assuming similar restrictions on air traffic and flight patterns as those now imposed at National and continuation of development of multifamily dwellings at current rates within the affected area. Attached to my statement are maps showing this area and the area surrounding the airport and also an outline of a proposed Washington National Airport study prepared in March 1966. The CHAIRMAN. The maps and outline will be placed in the record at this point. (The material referred to follows:) NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION: OUTLINE PROPOSED WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT STUDY II. Alternative Usage Studies A. Continue "No-Jet" Operation at WNA 1. Usage of Facilities a. At Washington National Airport i. Passenger Movements ii. Aircraft Movements iii. Ground Transportation-Parking iv. Employment b. At Other Airports i. Passenger Movements ii. Aircraft Movements iii. Ground Transportation-Parking iv. Employment 2. Development Requirements a. At WNA i. Land Area ii. Buildings, Runways iii. Ground Transportation Facilities b. At Other Airports i. Land Area ii. Buildings, Runways iii. Ground Transportation Facilities 3. Internal Economics a. Development Costs at WNA b. Profit and Loss at WNA i. Aircraft Operations ii. Concessions 4. External Socio-Economic Effects a. Economic Effect on Community Land Use c. Aesthetics d. Aircraft Noise e. Air Pollution C. Unlimited Jet Operations at WNA. 1. Usage of Facilities a. At WNA i. Passenger Movements ii. Aircraft Movements iii. Ground Transportation—Parking b. At Other Airports i. Passenger Movements ii. Aircraft Movements iii. Ground Transportation-Parking 2. Development Requirements a. At WNA i. Land Area ii. Buildings, Runways iii. Grand Transportation Facilities b. At Other Airports i. Land Area ii. Buildings, Runways iii. Ground Transportation Facilities 3. Internal Economies a. Development Costs at WNA b. Profit and Loss at WNA i. Aircraft Operations ii. Concessions c. Development Costs at Other Airports i. Aircraft Operations ii. Concessions 4. External Socio-Economic Effects a. Economic Effect on Community Land Use b. Ground Transportation Traffic c. Aircraft Noise d. Aesthetics e. Air Pollution D. Abandonment of WNA for Aircraft Operations 1. Reuse as Employment or Industrial/Commercial Land Use a. Development Requirements i. Buildings ii. Utilities iii. Access Facilities b. Usage of facilities i. Number of Employees ii. Access Traffic of Employees c. External Socio-Economic Effects ii. Access Traffic iii. Aesthetics iv. Air Pollution-Noise 2. Reuse for Housing a. Development Requirements i. Buildings ii. Utilities iii. Access Facilities iv. Schools v. Commercial vi. Recreation-Open Space Mr. OBERLANDER. Without improvements in air engine design, the amount of air pollutants from air traffic in 1980 in the WashingtonBaltimore region could increase substantially over current levels. It is estimated that currently the operations at National contribute 35 tons of pollutants daily, primarily in the form of unburned hydrocarbons. This is from a study entitled "Air Facilities Planning in Metropolitan Washington," Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, January 1968, page 20. There is inadequate concern on the part of the aviation industry in regard to the adverse effects of aircraft on the environment. Air passenger needs appear to receive priority over community amenities. A much broader and more enlightened attitude by the industry is essential to achieve a balance between need and annoyance. There is a level of environmental pollution, noise and air, which the public is likely to endure. This level is directly related to the numbers of persons affected and to the amount of air traffic permitted at any airport. Unanswered questions include: (1) To what extent are air passenger needs superior to inconvenience and annoyance to the community surrounding an airport? (2) Is there an optimum airport size? (3) Can a balance between community interests and user needs be achieved? These and related questions require the urgent attention of the aviation industry and governments at all levels. NEEDED AN AIRPORT FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION There are no long-range plan and program for airport facilities for the National Capital region. The proposals for National Airport prepared for FAA by Vincent Kling and Associates are at best an interim solution to the short term air facilities needs of part of the region. In fact, the proposals appear to be contrary to the long term needs as envisioned by the aviation community. This can be seen from the "Air Transportation 1975 and Beyond" study, edited by B. A. Schriever and W. W. Scifert, MIT Press, 1968. Nevertheless, the region appears to be in the best position of any of the metropolitan areas in this country to develop an integrated system of airports meeting all its future aviation needs. The problems in this area are not yet as acute as in other major metropolitan areas; the aggregate number of passengers at the three airports is moderate; surface transportation improvements are in the offing and could be modified to accommodate air passenger needs; the Federal Government owns and operates two of the airport facilities; and several local jurisdictions are planning improvements to existing airports or are locating new ones. Apparently unrelated plans are now being developed by: (1) FAA for National Airport; (2) Montgomery County-to expand and improve the Montgomery County Air Park and select sites for two other airports; (3) Prince Georges County-for an airport near Bowie; (4) Fairfax County-for a general aviation airport; (5) Prince William County-for a general aviation airport. Each of the airport proposals appears to be single-purpose in nature and designed to meet local needs. An air facilities plan for the region therefore is vitally needed. The plan and program should be a joint effort of all governmental jurisdictions in the region. However, planning air facilities for the region can only be as successful as the means for effectuating the plans. Central management of the airports serving the region appears to be a key element in programing needed improvements. Imagine attempting to provide a comprehensive rapid transit system in the Washington metropolitan area with a number of public and private operators instead of a central agency such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. There appear to be at least four viable options for a central air terminal agency: (1) Ownership and operation of all airports by FAA or by a separate public corporation under Federal auspices; (2) Ownership and operation of all airports by an interstate compact agency; (3) Ownership of airports by various jurisdictions with Federal operation of all airports; (4) Ownership of airports by various jurisdictions with operation of all airports by an interstate compact agency. |