LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document
LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional
Copyright 1999
Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH: 1975 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
PHIL BOYER
PRESIDENT
AOPA LEGISLATIVE ACTION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
& INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
SUBJECT - THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AIRPORTS
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Phil Boyer, and I am President of the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association.
AOPA promotes the interests of those who contribute to our economy by taking
advantage of general
aviation aircraft to fulfill their business and personal transportation needs. More
than half of all pilots in the United States -- over 340,000 --are members of
AOPA, making it the world's largest civil
aviation organization.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the economic
benefits of airports and the important initiatives you and the subcommittee
will undertake in 1999, the
"year of
aviation." As you and the chairman of the full committee have already noted,
aviation does not need to suffer further tax increases. We can build the
aviation infrastructure we need for the next century by unlocking the
aviation trust fund. In fact, our projections indicate a revised budget treatment
for
aviation could easily and swiftly lead to a doubling of the current annual spending
level for the Airport Improvement Program without raising a penny from new
revenue.
Our members deeply appreciate the high profile this Committee is bringing to
aviation and the critical needs it faces as we approach the next century. Judging from
our experience in working with your subcommittee in the past, I know general
aviation, the aviation community, and the nation stand to benefit from your wisdom as we confront our
challenges together.
The Economic Value of Airports
Mr. Chairman, I know you are already convinced of the value of our nation's
airports. You use them and you've visited them across the country. Instead, I
want to take this opportunity to stress that airports, especially the smaller
facilities that serve as a vital link to the world for small and remote
communities, are rapidly disappearing.
Mention
aviation, and for most people the picture of an airline jet comes to mind. But as you
know, Mr. Chairman, a full 96 percent of the U.S. civilian aircraft fleet is
general
aviation
aircraft rather than commercial jets. Three of every four takeoffs each day is
a general
aviation flight. Out of the 5,400 or so public landing facilities in this country,
5,000 are public-use airports that serve primarily general
aviation rather than scheduled air service traffic.These public-use airports, and the
business and recreational activities they support, employ more than half a
million people with a payroll of over $14 billion, and they pump $47.5 billion
annually into the economy. For every dollar spent on
aviation, $2.07 is generated in new economic activity.
That's why it's so disturbing that public-use airports are disappearing at a
rate of one a week and climbing. In 1996, 70 public- use airports closed. While
our national economy and infrastructure grows, we are watching an important
part of our
airway system shrink. Imagine the impact of closing one exit ramp a week on our
interstate highways. Many of the airports that have closed or are threatened
are designated reliever airports. Losing them will only increase traffic
pressure on the major airports.
Airports are disappearing under the immense pressure of increasing land values
as urban and suburban development moves closer and closer to them. Developers
or local officials look at airports and see what seems to them like empty
space, and push to build houses or a shopping mall. For privately-owned
facilities, the pressure is even greater as their property tax bills increase
along with the offers from developers. Local governments feel pressure to use
the land on publicly-owned airports to maximize their tax base. With the
encroaching development also comes complaints about aircraft noise. Airports
are a precious national resource, and
AOPA is working full- force to save them. We believe there are good answers to
all these pressures and problems that don't require airport closure. The most
important is to make communities aware of the tremendous economic production
their airports make possible. Our initiative is called the Airport Support
Network, and it draws on our strength as a membership organization. Our goal is
to appoint a liaison for every airport in the country. Working closely with our
national headquarters, these liaisons will promote the airport to its
community, which may not be aware of its importance to the local economy, and
will try to prevent the problems that have doomed airports in the past.
Luckily, the bulk of communities appreciate the value of their local airports,
but don't always have the resources to defend them. The Airport Support Network
is general
aviation's early warning system and outreach program for the benefit of airports and
their communities.Part of our outreach effort involves
a videotape we are distributing nationwide that explains the large economic
value of airports using examples from communities that cherish theirs. Mr.
Chairman, we will send copies of this tape to each member of the Subcommittee.
At this time, I would like to show some brief excerpts from the Airport Support
Network video.
Airport Improvement Program: Protecting and Enhancing Our Investment
Last year in testimony before this Subcommittee we stated that improving the
Airport Improvement Program is more than a matter of money. It requires
vigilance. AOPA believes that beyond funding, Congress should also concentrate
on protecting and enhancing the federal investment in our national airport
system as an essential component in the economy. FAA must be as vigilant over
taxpayer dollars as they are in enforcing certification and safety regulations.
We believe the approach taken by the Committee to the reauthorization of AIP
should once again be based on the
principle that compliance should be as important to the FAA as the actual
dispensing of grants.
Toward that goal, the Subcommittee included legislative language in last year's
authorization (Section 111) to require a period for notice and public comment
before allowing surplus property airports to dispose of all or part of an
airport acquired through the Surplus Property Act. We hope the Subcommittee
will again include that provision and expand it to require the notice and
public comment period to include all airports with property acquired through
the Airport Improvement Program.
In addition, the Subcommittee also directed the General Accounting Office (GAO)
to review the FAA's grant assurance enforcement program and report to the
Subcommittee by April 1. AOPA has been pleased to work with the GAO on this
report and believe it will make several positive recommendations to strengthen
the FAA's oversight of taxpayer dollars
committed in the Airport Improvement Program.
Finally, AOPA believes the Subcommittee should take a serious look at the
zoning requirements in the Airport Improvement Program. Currently, grant
assurances concerning local zoning stop at the boundary of the sponsor
accepting the federal funding. What contributes to the demise of many local
airports is development just over the sponsor's border that can creep literally
right up to the edge of the airport. FAA should require that sponsors accepting
AIPgrants have enabling state law and local zoning ordinances in place to
prevent development around airports that would contribute to the demise of the
airport.
Inadequate land-use zoning leads to incompatible land use, which then leads to
noise complaints from residential developments or
"obstructions" of airport approaches. Both put pressure on airports to curtail operations.
Additionally, in many cases of incompatible land use, the
airport loses some of its utility.
FAA grant assurances 20
& 21 require the airport sponsor who has accepted AIP
funds to protect the airport's utility through zoning where possible. But the
airport sponsor often lacks that authority -- or the FAA fails to oversee
proper land-use planning by a sponsor that has the authority.
AOPA's home airport, Frederick Airport next to our headquarters in Frederick,
Maryland, is a perfect example of the problems arising from lack of zoning
authority. The city of Frederick is the sponsor, yet its zoning authority ends
at its border with Frederick County a half mile from the airport. Frederick
County has approved a massive residential development less than 1.5 miles east
of the airport. The County also approved homes many years ago less than a half
mile south of the approach to the airport. Also, trees growing north of the
Instrument Landing System runway have a direct impact on the utility of the ILS
system, but because the trees are located in the County, the instrument
approach minimums have been raised. In these cases, the city is unable to
protect the full federal investment in this million- dollar all-weather landing
system.
The amount of federal investment threatened by zoning problems is larger than
you may think. In FY97, 10.3% of AIP
funds -- $152 million -- went to noise prevention and mitigation. From FY92 through
FY97, the cumulative AIP amount spent on noise was $1.176 billion. The bulk of
these noise problems could have been prevented with proper zoning and planning,
and the
funds could have been used to improve airport safety and capacity. Some of these
funds are used to buy property near an airport to establish a buffer zone or satisfy
residents who complain about airport noise. I
know of one airport that bought an entire development -- houses, schools, and
businesses -- and razed it. Perhaps that was the least expensive solution for
that situation, but proper planning could have prevented that expense.
Mr. Chairman this is another area where some states have taken the lead and
offer us a model we could employ across the nation. The state of California
requires every county whichhas an airport (regardless if the airport is located
within a city in the county) to have an airport land use commission which must
develop a comprehensive land use plan. California requires any proposed project
within a five mile radius of the airport must be reviewed by the commission and
compatible with the land use plan. I would note this approach is entirely
consistent with the process in the regional and metropolitan planning process
established by this Committee in
ISTEA.
FAA Reauthorization and the
Trust Fund
As you know, we are delighted that Chairman Shuster has decided to follow up on
his successful effort to create a new budget treatment for highway spending by
seeking a similar one for
aviation. I am gratified that you, Mr. Chairman, and the leadership on the minority side
of the Committee will join him in this effort. I expressed my support for an
effort to unlock the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund last July in my column in our national magazine. We recently followed this up
with a mailing to over 130,000 of our members regarding this issue.
In addition to budget reform, creating an independent FAA is one of AOPA's most
sought after management reforms. Your legislation to create an independent FAA
passed the House in 1996, and we hope to
build on that success.
Together, a new budget treatment of
aviation funding and an independent FAA create the potential for a more effective FAA
with enough guaranteed money for FAA modernization and capital development
needs. These reforms would build on the ongoing recovery of general
aviation spearheaded by the Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee's reform of the product liability laws through the
General
Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. It would also pull the rug out from under the
Clinton Administration's drumbeat call for drastic and unnecessary revenue
measures like user fees or
aviation excise tax increases.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our comments. Thank you again for the opportunity
to present our views. I will be happy to respond to any questions.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 11, 1999