AVIATION

INFRASTRUCTURE

Challenges Associated

With Building and

Maintaining Runways

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Director,

Physical Infrastructure

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m.,

October 5, 2000

GAO-01-90T
1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to testify on challenges associated with building new

runways and with ensuring that existing runways are properly maintained. Recent flight

delays and cancellations as well as significant media attention to them have heightened

public concern about the need to increase the capacity of the National Airspace System.

Airport development is key to expanding capacity. However, building new airports is

difficult, in part, because of the high cost of construction and the environmental impact

of airports—particularly concerns about noise and air quality. The construction of new

runways and the maintenance of existing runways are options for improving the capacity

at existing airports. According to FAA, 24 of the nation’s 50 busiest commercial service

airports have proposed, planned, or begun construction on new runways and runway

extensions at an estimated cost of $6.5 billion.1(See app. I for information on individual

airports.) In addition, FAA provided $318 million in airport improvement grants to the 50

busiest commercial service airports for runway rehabilitation and maintenance between

fiscal years 1995 and 1999.

In considering options to expand capacity, policymakers face a challenge in determining

where to invest federal dollars to bring about the greatest enhancements while

considering the environmental impact on adjacent communities. Our testimony, based

largely on recently issued reports2will highlight environmental and maintenance

challenges airports face, actions under way by FAA and the aviation industry to

overcome these challenges, and additional actions that need to be taken. In summary:

1

Two airports have either new runways and/or extensions planned, proposed, or currently under

construction, but cost estimates have not yet been determined. Cost information was included for another

airport’s new runway, but not for its runway extension. See Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan, Federal

Aviation Administration, Dec. 1999.

2

Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges

(GAO/RCED-00-153, Aug. 30, 2000), Aviation and the Environment: Results From a Survey of the Nation’s

50 Busiest Commercial Service Airports (GAO/RCED-00-222, Aug. 30, 2000), and Airfield Pavement:

Keeping the Nation’s Runways in Good Condition Could Require Substantially Higher Spending

(GAO/RCED-98-226, July 31, 1998).
2

• Airports and FAA face challenges in building new runways and in determining at

what point runway pavement conditions warrant repair in order for existing runways

to be maintained in the most cost-effective manner. In the case of new runways,

airports must address the potential environmental impact of aircraft noise and air

pollutant emissions that new infrastructure is likely to generate. For example,

community concerns with aircraft noise are already high around many airports, and

adding new runways may generate additional noise and community concerns.

Moreover, airports in areas that are not in compliance with Clean Air Act

requirements may find it challenging to add new runways because of the concern

about increased air quality problems caused by additional aircraft and cars using the

airport. This difficulty is important, given that 33 of the nation’s 50 busiest

commercial service airports are in areas that do not meet the act’s requirements. As

we recently reported, shortcomings in the environmental review process add to the

challenge and can result in delays in projects without necessarily providing

commensurate environmental benefits. For example, meeting overlapping federal and

state environmental requirements can cause airports rework, additional negotiations,

and renegotiations. For runways that are in use, data found in pavement management

systems can pinpoint when runways should be rehabilitated based on pavement

conditions. However, FAA has only collected this type of information on a case-bycase basis and may not be in a position to weigh the importance of similar projects at

different airports. Our July 1998 report included recommendations to address this

problem.

• The federal government and the aviation industry are involved in a number of efforts

to balance airports’ growth with environmental concerns and to address runway

maintenance in a cost-effective manner. For example, FAA supports airports’ efforts

to mitigate aircraft noise through a voluntary noise compatibility program and has

developed guidance for local governments and other interested parties to encourage

compatible land uses around airports. Moreover, many airports conduct public

outreach and education efforts to address aircraft noise and other environmental
3

issues. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation has a study under way to assess

the environmental review requirements pertaining to airport improvement projects

that will potentially address the shortcomings identified above, among others.

Furthermore, FAA is taking steps as we recommended to improve the quality of some

data collected on runway conditions at airports in the national airport system in order

to help ensure that dollars are spent effectively on rehabilitating existing runways.

For example, the agency requires airports to provide pavement condition data to

support certain grant applications for pavement projects.

• Additional actions would help to minimize some delays associated with adding

capacity and problems with preserving existing capacity. With respect to the

environmental review process that is required to build new runways, these actions

include (1) eliminating overlap between federal and state environmental

requirements, (2) eliminating duplicative air quality processes under federal laws, and

(3) clarifying guidance and providing adequate technical assistance to airports to help

them meet Clean Air Act requirements. As for maintaining existing runways, it is

important that FAA fully implement our recommendations to obtain runway

pavement condition data from all airports and maintain this information in a national

database. This would allow the agency to use these data to forecast pavement

conditions and, therefore, determine in advance when maintenance and rehabilitation

can be done most cost-effectively.

Background

New runways or other major expansion projects are subject to federal laws and

regulations that address, among other things, environmental concerns about the noise

generated by aircraft operations and the impact on air quality of burning fossil fuels to

operate automobiles, airport service vehicles, and aircraft. These laws give various

responsibilities to federal agencies—including FAA and EPA—and to state and local

governments.
4

FAA works with airport officials to help them minimize the environmental effects of

expansion projects, including providing grants to reduce the impact of noise on

surrounding communities. In addition, the agency is responsible for preparing

documents to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The act sets forth a

broad national policy aimed at protecting the quality of the environment and requires

that federal actions receive an environmental review, the level of which depends on an

action’s potential impact on the environment. EPA reviews environmental impact

statements prepared by federal agencies, including FAA.

EPA also oversees the implementation of the Clean Air Act, as amended, which regulates

the emission of air pollutants from area, stationary, and mobile sources. However, the

day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the act is generally

delegated to the states. EPA has also encouraged voluntary measures to reduce aviation

emissions and has undertaken numerous regulatory actions, such as setting standards

for aircraft engine emissions. Other federal agencies play more limited roles in assisting

airport officials with managing the environmental impact of airport operations.

Runways, like highways, deteriorate from weather and use. Left unchecked, such

deterioration can eventually pose safety risks to planes that are taking off or landing.

Maintaining runway pavement includes preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of

aging pavement. Preventive maintenance is designed to forestall the need for runway

rehabilitation, which typically involves adding a strengthening layer to an existing

surface that has not deteriorated to the point of needing complete replacement. Federal

grants through the Airport Improvement Program are available for rehabilitating and

maintaining airport runways and since 1982, this program has provided over $3 billion

for this purpose.
5

Runways Present Environmental and Maintenance Challenges

for FAA and Airports

FAA and the nation’s airports face a dual challenge: building new runways to expand

capacity and maintaining existing runways to ensure that the system’s current capacity is

fully utilized. Meeting these challenges will require addressing airport noise and air

quality issues and shortcomings in the environmental review process associated with

building new runways. In addition, FAA will need to improve its process for considering

which runway maintenance projects to fund.

Airports Face Noise and Air Quality Issues

Noise. According to our survey of officials from the nation’s 50 busiest commercial

service airports, noise generated by aircraft operations is the most significant

environmental concern facing them now and in the future. Additional runways could

potentially mean more air traffic, changes in flight patterns, and potentially a larger

number of people affected by high aircraft noise levels.

Community dissatisfaction with aircraft noise is already high around many airports. For

example, citizens’ groups and local government officials from several communities

surrounding the Los Angeles International Airport said they are dissatisfied with the

airport’s efforts to address the impact of aircraft noise. In particular, these community

and local officials are concerned that the airport has “incrementally” increased its

capacity by 20 million passengers annually without any type of environmental review. In

Miami, complaints about aircraft noise have increased from about 18 to 19 per month in

1993 to 300 to 400 per month in 1999, and communities are showing resistance to the

airport’s current expansion plans.
6

In addition, because some of the nation’s busiest airports do not participate in FAA’s

voluntary noise compatibility program (otherwise known as the Part 150 Noise

Compatibility Program),3

citizens in communities surrounding these airports are not

eligible to receive the benefits of federal funding from this program designed to mitigate

the impact of noise on residents. In particular, 14 of the nation’s 50 busiest commercial

service airports do not participate in this program—leaving more than 320,000 people

living near these 14 airports without access to program funds set aside for noise

mitigation.

Despite the efforts of airports, airlines, FAA, and others to mitigate the effects of aircraft

noise on surrounding communities, citizens’ concerns persist today and are likely to

increase as airports seek to expand—by adding runways and other means. Many aircraft

noise complaints come from residents who live outside areas that are considered “noiseimpacted.” For example, officials from 35 of the nation’s 50 busiest airports reported that

more than half of their noise complaints came from areas that FAA has designated as

compatible with airport operations in terms of noise.4

Given this, increased traffic

resulting from new runways could lead to more complaints from both citizens within and

outside areas that are considered noise-impacted.

Air Quality. According to our survey, air quality is a major concern for many of the

nation’s busiest commercial service airports and is expected to become a more serious

issue for them in the future, particularly if runways are added to airports and flight

operations are increased. Minimizing future air emissions at airports is important, given

that 33 of the nation’s 50 busiest commercial airports are located in areas in violation of

the act’s requirements. As a result, airports may find it challenging to demonstrate that

new runway projects will not create additional air quality problems.

3

The Part 150 Program provides airports with, among other things, funding to soundproof buildings and

acquire homes in areas where noise levels are high.

4

Areas around airports that experience aircraft noise below the 65-decibel Day-Night Sound Level are

considered to be compatible with airport operations.
7

The major source of air pollutant emissions at airports is vehicles that rely on fossil

fuels, including aircraft, vehicles transporting people to and from the airport, and ground

support equipment. Officials from 27 of the 50 busiest commercial service airports

reported that the demand for parking is currently a major concern. Options to reduce the

number of cars and buses traveling to an airport and to help meet air quality standards

include using intermodal centers--including light rail connections—and establishing

remote park and ride facilities for passengers and airport employees.

Shortcomings in the Environmental Review Process Can Delay Airport Projects

Satisfying federal and state environmental requirements designed to help ensure that

projects that expand capacity do not adversely affect the environment can be a lengthy,

time-consuming process, and shortcomings in the review process can delay these

projects. This is true especially when expansion project, such as runways, require the

most detailed reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act—known as

environmental impact statements (EIS). FAA prepares the EIS in coordination with the

airport. According to an FAA senior environmental manager, the EIS process takes an

average of about 2.5 years to complete.

Overlapping Federal and State Environmental Requirements

Can Delay Airport Projects

Our review of environmental requirements impacting airport operations and growth

found that some federal and state environmental review processes can overlap and delay

airport projects.5

According to some airport officials, airport projects in some states may

have to undergo two completely independent, redundant environmental reviews that do

not necessarily provide incremental environmental benefits. For example, officials from

one airport said that the consensus developed under federal environmental review

processes for an expansion project reduced the number of feasible runway options from

17 to 4, which meant that the airport would only need to perform an environmental

5

GAO/RCED-00-153, Aug. 30, 2000.
8

review of the 4 options. Under the state’s process, which came after the federal process,

the airport was forced to reconsider all 17 options—lengthening the time required to

select a preferred option.

According to airport and FAA officials, when airport projects require the destruction of

wetlands, duplicative negotiations with multiple governmental entities may be required.

The Army Corps of Engineers acknowledges that this is a problem in some states. For

example, an airport official from Florida said that airport officials have had to go through

time-consuming negotiations with three different agencies to obtain wetlands permits.

FAA regional officials told us that some airports in the New England region must

repeatedly negotiate wetland destruction agreements with different levels of

government.

Air Quality Processes Under Federal Laws

Burden Some Airports

As we reported in August 2000, airports seeking to expand capacity must address two

sets of air quality requirements under federal law that can be duplicative and can cause

delays in completing federal environmental documentation—creating burdens. Federal

law requires the governor of each state to certify that federally funded additions to

airport runways or major expansions conform to local air quality standards. Similarly,

the Clean Air Act, as amended, requires FAA to determine that the emissions from

airport projects conform to a state's plan to implement national air quality standards.

These requirements can delay airport projects in two ways. First, delays can occur if

environmental reviews are required to be done sequentially—federal first, followed by

the state—and the federal review does not satisfy state requirements, which can be more

stringent. Second, each time a runway project is undertaken, many states go through the

time-consuming process of redeveloping expertise and a process for certifying that new

or expanded runways meet air quality requirements because these types of reviews are

not routinely done. The relearning costs money and causes delays and frustration.
9

Unclear Federal Guidance and Insufficient Technical Assistance Makes

It Difficult for Airports to Understand and Fulfill Their Responsibilities

Under the Clean Air Act

As we recently reported, despite available federal guidance and technical assistance, a

wide range of officials from airports and federal and state agencies remain confused

about what is required for airports to conform to local air quality standards when

undertaking capacity expansion projects. This is due, in part, to the fact that in-depth

reviews—for projects such as new runways—to determine conformity with the Clean Air

Act occur infrequently. EPA’s regulations for general conformity under the act are very

broad because they are designed to accommodate a diverse group of facilities-–such as

ski resorts and coal mines—leaving airports without the specificity they need to fully

understand and meet their responsibilities. In addition, because of the infrequent nature

of these reviews, some FAA and EPA regional staff lack experience with applying the

Clean Air Act’s requirements to airports. As a result, some airport officials may

undertake analyses that are more complex and costly than necessary.

Process Needed to Help Ensure Timely and Cost-Effective Runway Maintenance

It is important not to consider the construction of new runways in isolation—preserving

existing runway capacity is also critical to the efficient operation of the National

Airspace System and depends on timely maintenance. This maintenance is particularly

important for airports that are physically unable to expand because they are surrounded

by water or development. For some of these airports, operating runways continuously is

critical to helping maintain current capacity. As we reported in 1998,6while the runways

at the nation’s airports were in generally good condition, a small but significant portion

of runway pavement needed immediate attention. The timing of runway maintenance is

crucial if it is to be done in a cost-effective manner.7

Our work has shown that

6

GAO/RCED-98-226, July 31, 1998.

7

Reference to timing is in the context of determining the condition of the pavement so that proposed

rehabilitation projects will deliver the best return for the dollars spent. We are not referring to the time—

in terms of hours of the day—to perform the work.
10

rehabilitating pavement in poor condition may cost 2 to 3 times as much as rehabilitating

pavement in good condition because more expensive methods may be required. For

example, in 1998, we estimated that an up-front investment of $774 million and an

additional $606 million over 9 years would help to avoid an unmet need of $2.37 billion at

the end of 2008 that would occur if the historical annual funding level of $162 million was

maintained over this same period.8This is because deferred maintenance costs so much

more.

Runway rehabilitation projects are given high priority under FAA’s National Priority

System—the agency’s primary method for determining which grant applications from

individual airports should be funded. The challenge, in part, is for FAA is to collect and

maintain accurate, consistent sources of information about runway conditions at all

airports in the national system.9

In turn, this information can be used to prioritize

requests to help ensure runway maintenance is conducted at the most economical point

in time. FAA has only collected such information on a case-by-case basis. As we

recommended, improvements in the quality of the data and a comprehensive national

database containing this information would allow FAA and airports to maximize their

investment in runways by pinpointing the most cost-effective time for maintenance and

replacement.10

Federal and Aviation Industry Efforts Are Under Way to Address

These Challenges

The federal government has been working collaboratively with the aviation industry to

help balance operations and growth with environmental impact. In addition, FAA has

some efforts under way to improve the quality of data on runway pavement conditions.

8

The historical funding level cited includes the total amount of Airport Improvement Program funds

allocated to rehabilitation and maintenance of runways from fiscal year 1982 through 1997.

9

FAA’s national airport system—the primary network of airports throughout the country—comprises more

than 3,300 airports.

10Congress also directed the FAA to fully evaluate options for improving data available to the agency on

pavement conditions of airports in the national airport system and report by April 2001.
11

The Federal Efforts

FAA provides grant funding to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on communities

adjacent to airports. For example, through an agency grant program called the Part 150

Noise Compatibility Program, FAA has spent $2.7 billion from fiscal year 1982 through

1999 to provide airports with, among other things, funding to soundproof buildings and

acquire homes in areas where noise levels are high. In addition, for fiscal years 1992

through 1999, FAA approved the collection of $1.6 billion in passenger fees for noiserelated projects. The agency also provides guidance to state and local governments for

their use in controlling and preventing incompatible land uses near airports, such as

homes and schools. This effort is particularly important for future airport expansion

because land use decisions that conflict with aviation activity and airport facilities can

make it difficult for airports to grow to meet the increasing demand for air

transportation.

According to our survey of the nation’s 50 busiest commercial service airports, most

airport officials generally believe that FAA effectively assists them with their

environmental activities. For example, officials from 32 of these airports reported that

they were satisfied with the way FAA answered their questions and addressed their

concerns about environmental issues. In addition, officials from over half of the airports

reported that FAA was effective in coordinating activities among its offices, providing

standard rules and guidance, and processing paperwork.

In 1998, EPA and FAA, in cooperation with the Air Transport Association, created a

stakeholder group on the local air quality issues associated with airport operations. The

group’s goal is to find voluntary ways to track and reduce the emission of air pollutants

around airports. This effort has brought together many groups to work on the issue of air

quality, including airline manufacturers, airports, state and local environmental

regulators, and nonprofit interest groups. To date, this group has worked to establish a

baseline of the types and sources of emissions from airports and options for reducing
12

these emissions. The group hopes to have the aviation industry enter into an agreement

by the fall of 2000 to achieve reductions in air pollutant emissions.

The Secretary of Transportation, as directed by Congress, is conducting a study of

federal environmental requirements related to the planning and approval of airport

improvement projects. This assessment is looking at coordination, staffing, and time

required for reviews, and has the potential to identify more specific solutions for

alleviating the burdens we identified. Ultimately, addressing these shortcomings will

require a coordinated effort among FAA, EPA, states, airports, airlines, and others

working with the Congress.

The Aviation Industry Efforts

Airports: Airports have undertaken a wide range of activities to balance their operations

and growth with the environmental impact, including the use of preferred flight paths

and other measures to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding communities

and offering incentives to airport tenants to reduce pollution from vehicles that support

aircraft operations and access to the airport. Some airports have also reduced the impact

of noise on surrounding communities by undertaking mitigation measures, including

acquiring noise-sensitive properties, relocating people, modifying structures to reduce

noise, encouraging compatible zoning, and assisting in the sale of affected properties.

A number of airports also sponsor community noise roundtables, which include local

citizens’ groups, FAA, airlines, and other interested parties working collaboratively to

address noise and other environmental concerns. For example, the San Francisco

International Airport created the San Francisco Airport Roundtable in 1981—a voluntary

body that includes representatives from 13 Bay Area jurisdictions, FAA officials, airline

advisers, air traffic managers, and the airport director—to discuss and attempt to resolve

primarily noise-related issues. A representative of a national nongovernmental

organization on aviation noise cited the San Francisco Airport Roundtable as a model for

community involvement in the decision-making process for airport development,
13

including the identification of environmental effects and concerns. Similar

airport/community noise groups have been established at other airports, including the

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport, the Minneapolis/St. Paul International

Airport, the Oakland International Airport, and Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

Airlines: Airlines have also undertaken activities to reduce the impact of their

operations and growth on the environment, including working with local citizens’ groups

to address aircraft noise issues; using airport-provided power at gates that is less

polluting than other sources, such as on-board generators; increasing the use of ground

support vehicles that rely on alternative fuels to reduce emissions; and having aircraft

use single engines for taxiing. For example, when operationally feasible, the use of single

engines—instead of multiple engines—for taxiing can reduce the impact on local air

quality significantly. One airline estimates that its use of this practice has reduced its

fleet’s fuel consumption by 40 million gallons per year and, in turn, has reduced the

impact of air pollutant emissions.

FAA Has Taken Steps to Improve the Quality of Runway Pavement Data

Acting on recommendations from our 1998 report, FAA took steps in fiscal year 1999 to

revise its approach for evaluating the timing of runway maintenance projects. One option

we recommended was to improve the quality of the rating criteria used by inspectors to

yield more useful information. In response, FAA requested information from a

representative cross-section of airports, evaluated these data in conjunction with our

recommendations, and determined that improved guidance for inspectors on rating the

condition of runway pavement was needed. According to FAA, training for inspectors

should be available by spring 2001. Similarly, as we recommended, FAA determined that

it would be beneficial for airports to submit pavement condition data or comparable

information in airport master plans and to encourage states to include such data in their

state system plans. In addition, FAA plans to continue to require that airports provide

such data to support certain types of grant applications for pavement projects.
14

Additional Actions Could Help Airports to Expand Capacity and

Effectively Utilize Existing Runways

Some progress has been made in addressing challenges associated with building new

runways and in maintaining existing ones. However, several actions, by federal and/or

state officials working with the Congress, could help reduce the time required to meet

environmental requirements for new runway projects and improve the quality of

information used to make decisions about maintaining existing runways. As we have

discussed in our reports, these include the following:

• eliminating the overlap between state and federal environmental requirements;

• streamlining requirements for obtaining permits to build on wetlands;

• clarifying guidance and providing adequate technical assistance to airports to help

them meet Clean Air Act requirements for airport capacity projects; and

• creating a national database to better pinpoint the most cost-effective time for

runway maintenance and rehabilitation.

Given that the Congress has authorized nearly $10 billion to address airport

infrastructure needs over the next 3 years, it is critical to ensure that sufficient attention

is given to both maintaining runways and building new ones so that this significant

taxpayer investment is spent in the most cost-effective manner.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to

any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For further information, please contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-2834.

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Beverly Dulaney, Belva

Martin, and Kieran McCarthy.
15

Appendix I

Estimated Cost of Runways Planned, Proposed, or Currently Under

Construction

Millions

Airport Cost of new runway Cost of runway extension Total

Atlanta Intl. $450.0 $450.0

Baltimore-Wash. Intl. 150.0 150.0

Boston Logan Intl. 50.0 50.0

Charlotte/Douglas Intl. 140.0 $22.0 162.0

Cleveland-Hopkins Intl. 467.0 40.0 507.0

Dallas/Ft. Worth Intl. 367.3 92.0 459.3

Denver Intl. 160.0 160.0

Detroit MW County 116.5 116.5

Ft. Lauderdale Intl. 300.0 300.0

Houston/GB Intl. 130.0 85.0 215.0

Indianapolis Intl. 80.0 80.0

Kansas City Intl. 12.0 12.0

Lambert St. Louis Intl. 850.0 50.0 900.0

Miami Intl. 206.0 206.0

Milwaukee Intl. 160.0 160.0

Minneapolis-St. Paul Intl. 490.0 7.0 497.0

Newark Intl. 55.0 55.0

New Orleans Intl. 400.0 400.0

Orlando Intl. 115.0 To be determined 115.0

Phoenix Intl. 180.4 7.0 187.4

Port Columbus Intl. 100.0 100.0

Raleigh-Durham Intl. To be determined To be determined 0.0

San Jose Intl. 54.3 54.3

Seattle Tacoma Intl. 750.0 750.0

Tampa Intl. To be determined To be determined 0.0

Wash. Dulles Intl. 400.0 400.0

Total 5762.2 724.3 6486.5

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 1999 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan, December 1999.

(348260)
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-mail message

with “info” in the body to

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

in Federal Programs

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: 1-800-424-5454