FEDERAL AID FOR PUBLIC AIRPORTS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

You had completed your statement yesterday, Mr. Burden, had you?

Mr. BURDEN. Yes; I had, Mr. Chairman, and if it is agreeable to the committee, Mr. Donaldson, head of our Airport Service, is now prepared to go into somewhat more detail into the program and he is thoroughly qualified to answer any specific and general questions about the legislation or about the program, which the members of the committee might wish to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask a question about the formula for distributing the money. Will he be the proper one to ask? Mr. BURDEN. Yes Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, if there are no further questions, that completes your statement.

Mr. BURDEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BURDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Donaldson.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. DONALDSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION

Mr. DONALDSON. Mr. Burden in his statement has given a broad outline of the airport problem and the relationship between a progressive aviation program and a sound national economy in the postwar. years.

He brought out certain analogies in the development of our rail and highway system with respect to the development of air transportation and emphasized that the basic facility of aviation is the airport.

We believe that we are entering upon the threshold of a new era in our economic life in which the airplane will play a dominant role. The tremendous part which aviation has played in the present war has indoctrinated millions of our people with the desire to fly.

It seems reasonable to expect an increase in travel on our air lines from 2,000,000,000 passenger miles in the year 1944 to 11,000,000,000

39

passenger miles within 10 years. A much greater expansion is anticipated in the growth of private flying. It appears reasonable from the surveys made on the subject to expect an increase in the number of private planes from approximately 25,000 in use now to 400,000 within 10 years after the war.

Our present system of airports is inadequate to provide the facilities needed for this anticipated aviation expansion. Not only are the number of airports deficient but their location with respect to spacing and to logical new air routes and to size are deficient. Therefore, the immediate and most pressing problem is providing for the growth of aviation in a well-planned and uniform network of airports and landing areas throughout the United States.

We believe it essential that a program for the development of our airport system be started now. It will require at least 18 months if the program is authorized before construction can be started and a longer time before the full benefits can be realized. This length of time will be required in making the necessary surveys, both general and detailed, in getting the required legislation to permit local units of government to participate in such a program, if authorized, and in the raising of funds by bond issues on the part of the sponsoring governmental agencies. Therefore, it may require from 1 to 2 years after legislation is passed before airports will begin to be produced under the program.

On November 28, 1944, in compliance with House Resolution 598 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, the Civil Aeronautics Administration made a report on the need for a system of airports and landing areas throughout the United States, based on the results of a survey and including recommendations for legislation and a tentative National Airport Development Plan. This report emphasized the deficiencies in the present system and pointed out the need for more airports and stated the estimates for the costs of such a program.

The purpose of the national airport plan was to indicate to Congress the general airport problem and the approximate costs of a program to solve it. The plan is tentative and will require modification from time to time, probably on an annual basis, to adjust it to the current needs as aviation develops in the postwar period.

In the formulation of the plan population was used as the primary basis of airport distribution since the need for airports is directly related to population and area. The suggested class of airport was determined by the relative importance of the locality as a center of a trading area, its function in the national airport system, and its importance to existing and proposed air routes. In areas of high population density, airports were located to render maximum utility with a minimum number. The plan attempts to provide landing area facilities for every community of 1,000 persons and over.

The over-all planning criteria in current use in our airport planning includes the following general principles:

(1) The small airport devoted to private flying has an optimum capacity of 100 planes per airport.

(2) Five miles is the maximum distance from which an airport may expect to draw permanently based aircraft.

(3) For maximum safety, airports should not be spaced at more than 30-mile intervals in areas of high population density or along routes to be used by personal aircraft.

(4) Metropolitan areas, with average population densities of 1,500 persons per square mile, should have one personal aircraft airport for every 30,000 persons or 20 square miles. In addition to these requirements, there should be one airport for every seven providing miscellaneous services such as overhaul, repair, testing, training, and so forth.

(5) Urban States, where population densities vary from 40 to 1,500 persons per square mile, should be provided with airports at least on 30-mile centers, with this spacing reduced in the higher density areas sufficiently to encompass 30,000 persons.

(6) Rural areas, where average population densities fall considerably below 40 per square mile, should have the airports planned to serve the towns and villages in the area and the routes which pass over the areas.

The preceding criteria should be modified where necessary to meet local conditions. We believe that a system of airports planned upon these criteria and developed in accordance with the order of importance is essential to the establishment of the aviation industry in its proper place in our national economy.

If a Federal aid airport development program is authorized, our first step will be to revise our national airport plan on the basis of these criteria and in proper detail. We have recommended that $3,000,000 be appropriated immediately to undertake the preparation of the revised plan.

We believe that Federal standards of airport design, development, and construction are necessary to insure a uniform and coordinated network of airports. We believe that such a system can be planned on the basis of uniform Federal standards by collaboration between the Federal and local and State governments.

If a program is authorized projects should be scheduled in the order of their relative importance to the needs of aviation.

Of first importance is the development of adequate airports at locations on our air transport system which have been designated as air-line stops but where no airports now exist. The next important group would consist of the designated stops where improvements to the existing airports are necessary to remove operational limitations. and improve efficiency. The next important category would be in connection with nonscheduled private flying to develop airports of the small size at locations that are now without any airport facilities to accommodate the private flyer type of operations. We believe it entirely feasible if an airport development program is authorized to undertake projects in each of these three priority groups each year on a ratio which will satisfy the current needs.

I should like to comment briefly on changes which we think would be desirable in the pending bill.

As the bill is presently drawn it would require that the Administrator deal directly with the sponsors of each project undertaken under the program. This would require direct dealings with approximately 4,300 units of government. It is obvious that from an administrative point of view this would be extremely difficult and cumbersome.

Mr. BULWINKLE. You are going to take the bill up section by section and indicate where these changes would occur?

Mr. DONALDSON. We are preparing a detailed written report which goes into the details, Congressman, and general comments on the bill itself; yes, sir.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Chairman, if I may say off the record. (After informal discussion off the record:)

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. DONALDSON. As the bill is presently drawn it would require that the Administrator deal directly with the sponsors of each project undertaken under the program. This would require direct dealings with approximately 4,300 units of government. It is obvious that from an administrative point of view this would be extremely difficult and cumbersome.

We believe that a better solution would be a division of the program into two parts—an urban program and a State program. Under the urban program the grants for all projects involving airports of class 4 and higher would be made directly to the cities sponsoring the projects. Under the State program all grants for projects at airports of class 3 and lower would be made directly to the States.

Although the State governments in the past have not participated fincially to any great extent in the development of airports, it is believed that an airport program such as that recommended, involving as it does many projects for the development of small airports serving the smaller communities, would be difficult without considerable financial and other assistance on the part of the States. We believe that the legislation should contemplate State financial assistance and guidance to these smaller airports under the program. In the case of the larger airports the Civil Aeronautics Administration could deal directly with the cities sponsoring such projects and such an arrangement would operate very satisfactorily without jeopardizing the successful operation of the State portion of the program.

Such a division would have great advantage from an administrative standpoint in reducing the number of sponsoring agencies with which the Civil Aeronautics Administration would have to deal in carrying out the program.

We believe it highly essential that the legislation authorize the immediate appropriation of $3,000,000 for preliminary planning and surveys preparatory to the commencement of the program.

We further believe that the legislation should permit Federal funds to be used jointly with local funds in the acquisition of land. The cost of the land necessary for specific projects should be included as a part of the total program cost and shared proportionately by the Federal Government. The inclusion of property acquisition costs in the total cost of the project is highly desirable in connection with the elimination of many of the dangerous airport obstructions and other hazards in the vicinity of airports.

While airport zoning may be an effective means of protecting the approaches to airports against future obstructions, it is not an effective means in eliminating existing obstructions. For the clearing of airport approaches it is necessary that the airport owner acquire title to the land or else acquire rights-of-way. It does not appear logical for Federal expenditures to be made in developing the landing-area facilities on an airport but not to permit the use of Federal funds to clear the approaches to these airports and thereby to protect the Federal Government investment made in the airport.

For these reasons we believe it to be of the greatest interest to the Federal Government in carrying out an airport development program

as authorized that the Federal participation on a 50-50 basis be permitted in connection with the land acquisition necessary to the projects.

We believe it highly desirable that under the urban program the projects be selected by the Administrator and a request for financial authorization to undertake such projects.be submitted to Congress in the same manner as the rivers and harbors program is now handled. This would afford the Congress each year an opportunity to review the urban program involving the larger airports to be constructed.

We have under preparation a detailed report on H. R. 3170 which includes other suggested changes which we consider desirable. This report will be submitted to the committee within the next few days. Mr. Chairman, we have prepared a series of charts which, with the permission of the committee, we would like to discuss.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. Donaldson. The first chart on the easel is a graphic illustration of the relative length of the runways on airports which we classify in connection with our planning and listing.

The class 1 airport, the top bar, illustrates the relative length of the class 1 airport, which has runway lengths of from 1,800 to 2,500 feet. the class 2 airport has runways with lengths of from 2,500 to 3,500 feet; class 3, from 3,500 to 4,500 feet; class 4, from 4,500 to 5,500 feet; and class 5, from 5,500 feet and up.

On the next chart we have a pictorial presentation of the four types of airports.

In the upper left-hand corner the illustration shows a class I airport, suitable for nonscheduled private flyer types of operations, and the upper right-hand picture shows a class 2 airport, with runways 2,500 to 3,500 feet.

The lower left-hand corner shows a class 3 airport, and the lower right-hand a class 4 and class 5, or major air terminals.

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any States at the present that have funds available for cooperating in the construction of airports? Mr. DONALDSON. I know of two that actually have the funds, and my understanding is that others are prepared to raise funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Have the other State laws under which appropriations might be made?

Mr. DONALDSON. I believe that some of the States do have the legal authority to raise funds for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. In the main, the States have to prepare legislation to cooperate under this plan, will they not?

Mr. DONALDSON. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As a usual thing, are not the municipalities already prepared to cooperate?

Mr. DONALDSON. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, under the law they are now authorized to cooperate.

Mr. DONALDSON. I believe that is right; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, they require no new law?

Mr. DONALDSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There would not be any less work, would there, in making contracts and arrangements with these 4,000 units, whether it