National Airspace System: Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity are Ongoing but Challenges Remain
Published: 2005-05-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since the unprecedented flight delays in 2000, a year in which one in four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been adversely affected by many unanticipated events--such as the September 11th terrorist attacks, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)--that significantly reduced the demand for air travel. However, demand for air travel is rebounding. For example, the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in 2003 to 688 million in 2004. Flight delays have been among the most vexing problems in the national transportation system and are defined by the Department of Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, one in five flights were delayed primarily at New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare. Delays at these airports have consequences for the rest of the system. GAO's testimony addresses the following questions that pertain to flight delays and enhancing capacity: (1) What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government, airlines, and airports to address flight delays and enhance capacity? (2) What are some of the challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity? (3) What other options are available for reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Several initiatives to address flight delays and enhance capacity are ongoing. Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA's February 2005 Operation Evolution Plan, which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. New runways opened in the last 6 years at the Phoenix, Detroit, and 5 other airports. Seven more runways are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. Congress and FAA also streamlined the process for building runways. In addition to building runways, several other initiatives were implemented. For example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase high altitude routes in the contiguous United States and Alaska. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone airports, FAA is limiting the number of takeoffs and landings during peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare and is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La Guardia. A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for the initiatives mentioned above; their successful implementation is predicated on the availability of funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and airports. Another challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity at delay-prone airports, such as New York La Guardia, which have little capacity to expand and would find it difficult to build even one more runway. Other options to address delay problems include adding new capacity by building new airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas, and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another option is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as high-speed rail, where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These options may conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder groups; and, in many cases, would be costly.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to discuss flight delays and capacity  issues in the national airspace system. Since the unprecedented flight  delays in 2000, a year in which flight delays totaled 1.4 million and one in  four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been adversely affected  by many unanticipated events—such as the September 11 terrorist attacks,  the Iraq war and associated security concerns, and Severe Acute  Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)— that significantly reduced the demand for  air travel. However, that demand for air travel is rebounding. For example,  the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in  2003 to 688 million in 2004. FAA estimates that by 2015 there will be as  many as one billion travelers per year in the United States.
The current rebound in air travel has been a significant factor in a  resurgence of flight delays today. Flight delays have many causes.  Historically, the major cause of flight delays has been bad weather. For  example, seventy percent of the flight delays from 2000 to 2004 were  weather-related. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of  capacity—that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle  the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Changes in the composition of the  aircraft fleet—including the airlines’ greater reliance on regional jets with  an average of 49 seats— has also increased the number of aircraft in the  national airspace system, which has placed greater demand on the system.  Besides airlines, other parts of the aviation community are also likely to  place more demands on the national airspace system. For example,  corporations may make increasing use of their corporate jets, which often  use the same airports and airspace as those used by airlines.
Flight delays have also been among the most vexing problems in the  national airspace system and are defined by the Department of  Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or  more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, the number of flight delays  totaled over 1.4 million and almost one in five flights were delayed  primarily at New York La Guardia, Newark International, Chicago O’Hare,  and Atlanta Hartsfield. Because these are some of the busiest airports in  the country, their delays generally have significant ramifications for the  rest of the national airspace system. Our nation’s airspace system is a  critical engine of economic growth that facilitates the safe and efficient  movement of people and goods around the globe, consequently flight  delays and capacity issues have significant ramifications. According to the  Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,  consumers stand to lose $30 billion dollars annually if people and products  do not reach their destinations within expected time periods. The Air  Transport Association also reports that flight delays in 2004 cost the  airline industry an estimated $6.2 billion in direct operating costs (e.g.  pilots, flight attendants, and fuel).
My statement today updates our 2001 report entitled: National Airspace  System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction  in Flight Delays and addresses the following questions:    What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government, airlines, and  airports to address flight delays and enhance capacity?
What are some of the challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing  capacity?
What other options are available to address flight delays and enhance  capacity?
To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from  FAA, Airports Council International, and Air Transport Association on the  status and impact of initiatives to reduce flight delays that were identified  in our December 2001 report. We performed our work in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
Several initiatives to reduce flight delays, such as those shown in figure 1,  and enhance capacity are ongoing.
Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA’s February 2005 Operation  Evolution Plan which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency  of the national airspace system and focuses on airport congestion, air  traffic management flow efficiency, en route congestion, and terminal area  congestion at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. FAA  acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate  solution to congestion and delay problems. Also, over the last the six  years, new runways were opened at the Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami,  Cleveland, Houston, and Orlando airports, which provided those airports  with the potential to accommodate about one million more annual  operations (take-offs and landings). Seven more runways and one runway  extension are scheduled to open by the end of 2008 with the potential to  accommodate 889,000 more annual operations. In addition to building  runways, several new systems or technologies were implemented. For  example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced  Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase available high  altitude routes which gives pilots and air traffic controllers more choices  so that aircraft can fly more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient  altitudes. FAA is also pursuing some additional solutions for flight delays  that are not in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone  airports such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is also  exploring administrative and market-based options. For example, FAA is  considering auctioning off landing and take off rights and using congestion  pricing at New York La Guardia and limiting the number of takeoffs and  landings during peak periods at Chicago O’Hare.
A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity  remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for many of the initiatives  mentioned above; their successful implementation is predicated on the  availability of funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and  airports. However, since 2000, the financial condition of the aviation  industry has changed significantly. Many structural changes, such as the  growth of the low cost carriers which led to lower average fares and  external events (e.g. global recessions and a steep decline in business  travel) have caused a dip in demand for air travel and resulted in sharp  decreases in airline industry revenue and the amount of revenues flowing  into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. FAA expects that over the next  four years there may be an $8.2 billion dollar gap between its costs and  revenues. In 2004, the airline industry losses totaled $14 billion and the  industry is expecting similar losses in 2005, which will make it difficult for  them to equip their aircraft with some of the new air traffic control  technology, according to Air Transport Association officials.
Other options are available to address delay problems. One option is to  add new capacity—not by adding runways to existing capacity- constrained airports, but rather by building entirely new airports.  According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas, and San  Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another option is to  develop other modes of intercity travel, such as, but not limited to, high- speed rail where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These  options may conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder  groups, and, in many cases, would be costly.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although recent events may have moved airport congestion off center  stage as a major national issue, delays remain a pervasive problem, in part  because of the interdependence of the nation’s airports. The effect of  delays can quickly spread beyond those airports where delays tend to  occur most often, such as New York La Guardia, Chicago O’Hare, Newark  International, and Atlanta Hartsfield. Delays at these airports can quickly  create a “ripple” effect of delays that affects many airports across the  country. For example, flights scheduled to take off from these airports  may find themselves being held at the departing airport due to weather or  limited airspace. Similarly, an aircraft late in leaving the airport where  delays are occurring may be late in arriving at its destination, thus delaying  the departure time for the aircraft’s next flight.
Delays have many causes, but weather is the most prevalent. Figures  compiled by FAA indicate that weather causes about 70 percent of the  delays each year. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of  capacity—that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle  the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Capacity can be measured in a  variety of ways. For example, at individual airports, one measure is the  maximum number of takeoffs and landings that can be conducted in a  given period, such as 15 minutes or 1 hour. In our 2001 report, we noted  that FAA had established such a capacity benchmark at each of the 31 of  the nation’s busiest airports. FAA’s data on capacity and demand at these  airports showed that even in optimum weather conditions, 16 airports had  at least three 15-minute periods each day when demand exceeded  capacity.
Weather and capacity problems are often linked, because bad weather can  further erode capacity. For example, some airports have parallel runways  that are too close together for simultaneous operations in bad weather.  When weather worsens, only one of the two runways can be used at any  given time, thereby reducing the number of aircraft that can take off and  land. FAA’s data in 2001 showed that in bad weather, 22 of the 31 airports  had at least three 15-minute periods when demand exceeded capacity.  Another measure of capacity, apart from the capacity of individual  airports, is the number of aircraft that can be in a given sector of  the  airspace. For safe operations, aircraft must maintain certain distances  from each other and remain within authorized airspace. If too many  aircraft are trying to use the same airspace, some must wait, either on the  ground or en route.
Addressing flight delay problems also requires action by multiple aviation  stakeholders because no single entity has the authority or ability to solve  delay-related problems. The federal government, especially through the  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its parent agency, the  Department of Transportation (DOT), plays a major role by operating the  national airspace system, distributing federal funding for airports, and  setting operating standards for all aircraft and airports. Airports and  airlines are also important decision makers and funding sources. The  nation’s airports are primarily owned and operated by local units of  government, so that decisions about such steps as expanding airport  capacity are primarily local in nature. Airlines’ business decisions have a  strong effect on the volume and routing of flights, the type and size of  aircraft used, and the degree to which aircraft are upgraded to take  advantage of new technology.
subsections: section_title: A Number of Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity Are Ongoing
paragraphs: Several initiatives to reduce flight delays and enhance capacity are  ongoing. These initiatives which FAA, the airlines, and the airports are  implementing are incorporated into FAA’s major capacity-enhancing  effort: the Operation Evolution Plan (OEP). The OEP is a rolling 10-year  plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system  and focuses on airport surface infrastructure, and technological and  procedural initiatives at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States.  FAA acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate  solution to congestion and delay problems. Responsibility for the various  initiatives is still shared among the various segments of the aviation  community. In February 2005, FAA published version 7 of the OEP and  organized it into the following four quadrants:  Airport Congestion. The Airport Congestion quadrant focuses on capacity  enhancements for the airport surface. One of the most effective ways to  increase capacity is to build runways; however, it takes an average of 10  years from the time planning begins for a runway until it is commissioned.  To help expedite the process for building runways, Congress and FAA  streamlined the environmental review phase of the runway process. In  addition, according to FAA, over the last six years, seven new runways  were opened at Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami, Cleveland, Houston, and  Orlando airports which provided those airports with the potential to  accommodate about one million more annual operations (take-offs and  landings). Seven more runways and one runway extension are included in  the OEP and are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. These runways are  expected to provide those airports with the potential to accommodate  889,000 more annual operations in the system, as shown in figure 2.
In addition to the runways listed in the OEP, nine more projects are in the  planning or environmental stages, including one new runway, three airfield  reconfigurations, one runway extension, and three new airports in major  metropolitan areas. FAA also has additional flight reduction activities that  are not included in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay- prone airports, such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is  exploring administrative and market based options. For example, FAA is   considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La  Guardia and is currently limiting the number of scheduled arrivals during  peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare.
Air Traffic Management Flow Efficiency. This quadrant focuses on new  technology and procedures to optimize the flow of traffic and maximize  system throughput which may allow better control and utilization of  current airspace. Included is the Collaborative Convective Forecast  Product which is a graphical forecast of potential convective activity areas  (i.e. thunderstorms) for use in the strategic planning and management of  air traffic. It is intended to provide advance planning for long haul flights  and allows for schedule predictability based on 2-, 4-, and 6-hour forecasts.  This tool is most useful during the severe weather avoidance procedures  season, which is from March to October. Another program is Collaborative  Decision Making, which is a joint government/industry initiative.  Collaborative decision making focuses on electronic data exchange;  optimized airspace utilization; shared planning and decision-making; and  post-analysis reporting. In addition, the Traffic Management Advisor,  which is in operation at eight air route traffic control centers, is an  automated decision support tool, is intended to provide controllers and  traffic management coordinators more information on airport arrival  demand and available capacity for making decisions on aircraft spacing.
En Route Congestion. Although the flying public is impacted by delays at  the airports, many times this occurs in the en route areas as the airways  become congested. The tools in this quadrant reduce delays and  contribute to time and fuel savings for the vast majority of airspace users.  One of the tools currently in use is reduced lateral (side-to-side)  separation may provide space for additional routes between current city  pairs or allow for new direct routes. Reduced longitudinal (nose-to-tail)  separation may provide more opportunities to add flights without  incurring delays. For domestic flights, Domestic Reduced Vertical  Separation Minimum was implemented in fiscal year 2005 in the  contiguous United States and Alaska and adds six additional flight levels  between existing flight levels. The User Request Evaluation Tool which  was installed at l7 air route traffic control centers and is operational at 13  air route traffic control centers, allows controllers to predict aircraft-to- aircraft and aircraft-to-airspace conflicts, which allows them to construct  alternative flight paths. Airspace redesign projects also provide significant  capacity improvements. For example, new routes added as part of the  High Altitude Redesign increased en route throughput form the Pacific  Northwest into the San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles Basin areas.
Terminal Area Congestion. Terminal airspace is a critical component in  the efficient use of airport capacity. In instances where volume has  increased and the current airspace structure is the limiting factor,  redesigning arrival and departure procedures, including the addition of  Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance procedures, will  allow more efficient use of constrained terminal airspace. Also, by  applying existing technology with new procedures may provide instrument  approaches to nearly all runways greater than 5,000 feet and under a wider  range of meteorological conditions that are insensitive to airport surface  traffic. Area navigation procedures provide flight path guidance from the  runway to the en route airspace with minimal instructions given by air  traffic controllers. As a result, routine controller/pilot communications are  reduced, which frees time to handle other safety-critical flight activities.  Other key benefits include more efficient use of airspace, with improved  flight profiles, resulting in significant fuel efficiencies to the airlines.
Additional solutions for increasing capacity in this arena are Time Based  Metering which is used in conjunction with Traffic Management Advisor,  became operational at seven air route traffic control centers. By  optimizing the flow of aircraft from the en route to the terminal area, Time  Based Metering with Traffic Management Advisor may help an airport to  efficiently use the full capacity of its runways which increases acceptance  rates as well as peak throughput. An air traffic management tool called  Integrated Terminal Weather System which provides full color graphic  displays of essential weather information to promote the safety, capacity,  and efficiency of air traffic control operations was also implemented at  Boston Logan, Denver International, and Minneapolis-St. Paul airports in  2004. According to FAA, the plan is to install the production version of  Integrated Terminal Weather System at the New York terminal radar  control facility in 2006.
section_title: Challenges in Reducing Flight Delays and Enhancing Capacity Remain
paragraphs: A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity  remain. A daunting challenge that FAA and other aviation stakeholders  will have to address is funding the various initiatives that are designed to  address flight delays and enhance capacity. The successful  implementation of many of these initiatives is predicated on the  availability of funding However, since 2000, which is to date the worst year  in history for delays, the financial condition of the aviation industry has  changed significantly. A number of structural changes within the airline  industry, such as the growth of the Internet as a means to sell and  distribute tickets, the growth of the low cost airlines, and fare reductions  by legacy carriers, all transformed the industry and led to lower average  fares. These lower fares have resulted in lower ticket taxes and less  revenue into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In addition, a series of  largely unforeseen events, including the September 11 terrorist attacks,  war in Iraq and associated security concerns, SARS, global recessions, and  a steep decline in business travel seriously reduced the demand for air  travel and resulted in sharp decreases in airline industry revenue.
Consequently, FAA expects that over the next four years there may be a  multi-billion dollar gap between its costs and revenues. According to one  aviation expert, this gap could have consequences that would increase air  traffic delays. For example, FAA’s Facilities and Equipment account,  which provides funding for modernizing the air traffic control system and  improving its reliability, capacity, and efficiency, was reduced by 15  percent in fiscal year 2005 and the President’s 2006 budget proposes to  reduce it by 20 percent in fiscal year 2006. These are the funds that are key  to the national airspace system’s future ability to handle demand and to  minimize delays. For example, to provide the $4.4 billion needed for its  major system acquisitions while remaining within its budget targets  through fiscal year 2009, FAA has made significant cuts elsewhere in its  capital funding plans. Specifically, FAA eliminated all of the $1.4 billion  that it had set aside for what it calls the “architecture segment.” These  funds would have been used to perform about two years’ worth of early  research on new programs before they are mature enough to receive  formal Joint Resources Council approval. FAA also made significant  reductions in planned investments for facilities—an action that runs  counter to its reported need to refurbish or replace its physical  infrastructure. Thus, even if all OEP initiatives are implemented the  national airspace system is expected to fall behind demand, resulting in an  increase in congestion and delays over the 10-year period of the OEP.  FAA’s Management Advisory Council estimates that passengers would  experience 63 percent more total delay hours in 2012 than they did in 2000.
In contrast, FAA states that if all of the OEP initiatives are implemented,  delays will be maintained at or below the flight delay levels in 2000.  However, FAA also stated that capacity at some airports will not keep  pace with demand and in these cases delays will get worse over time  because not all airports have improvements planned. In 2004, the airline  industry losses totaled $9 billion and the industry is expecting similar  losses in 2005, which will make it difficult for them to equip their aircraft  with some of the new air traffic control technology, according to Air  Transport Association officials.
Another important challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing  capacity at delay-prone airports, such as those shown in table 1, some of  which have little capacity to physically expand and would find it difficult  to build even one more runway, either because they lack the space or  would face intense opposition from adjacent communities.
Although eight runways were opened during the last six years and seven  new runways are scheduled to be opened by the end of 2008, only three  (Atlanta Hartsfield, Philadelphia International, and Houston International)  of the nine airports that experienced the highest rate of delays in 2004 will  receive new runways. Because these delay-prone airports can cause delays  that ripple throughout the system, other airports that have increased their  own capacity could still experience delays. For example, in 2000, Phoenix  Sky Harbor International put an additional runway into service, and the  airport had sufficient capacity to allow flights to take off on time.  However, the airport ranked among the top 15 in the United States for  flight delays. According to airport officials, most of the delays in Phoenix  were the result of delays and cancellations at other airports— circumstances unrelated to the capacity at Phoenix. FAA also projects that  the three New York-area airports—La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy— will experience relatively small capacity gains during this decade—just 7  percent for Newark and 1 percent each for the other two airports.
In addition to addressing the capacity needs of the most delay-prone  airports, FAA, airlines, and airports will also have to address the emerging  capacity needs of new metropolitan areas in the South and Southwest.  Among those metropolitan areas FAA believes will need additional  capacity by 2013 are Tucson, AZ; Austin-San Antonio, TX; and South  Florida.
section_title: Other Options Could Help Address Capacity Needs
paragraphs: Other options — not in the OEP — exist as potential measures to address  capacity needs as shown in table 2. These options, which have been cited  by various researchers and policy organizations over the last decade,  basically fall into two categories. The first category involves measures for  adding airport infrastructure besides adding runways to existing airports,  such as building new airports or using nearby underdeveloped regional  airports. The second category includes developing alternative modes of  intercity travel other than air transportation, such as high-speed rail.
The applicability of any particular option is likely to vary by location,  considering the circumstances at each major airport. There is no “one-size  fits- all” solution; rather, substantially reducing delays will probably  require a combination of options spread out over time. For example, the  airspace surrounding the greater New York metropolitan area is perhaps  the most congested airspace in the nation. The three major airports in the  area (La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy), which currently are among the  nation’s most delay-prone airports, are expected to continue to experience  substantial air traffic growth. But these airports have very limited  expansion potential, largely because they cannot realistically build new  runways. Building new airports or developing regional airports to serve  these airports are long-term solutions that will likely take many years to  materialize. In the meantime, other short-term options would need to be  considered as passenger demand increases, such as ways to use existing  facilities more efficiently. This is the direction that FAA and the New  York/New Jersey Port Authority, which operates the three area airports,  were moving before the drop in passenger demand following the events of  September 11.
As demand and delay are once again increasing, the FAA and Port  Authority are reevaluating a regional approach to addressing these issues.  As noted earlier, FAA and the Port Authority are also considering market- based and administrative approaches, such as auctioning off landing and  take-off rights and congestion pricing for La Guardia. However, the  airlines oppose auctions because of the uncertainty regarding number of  slots and gates that they might receive. The airlines also, to a lesser  degree, oppose market-based mechanism such as congestion pricing  because of concerns over who would have responsibility for the revenue  generated. Because major airports in other locations may face different  circumstances than the New York airports face, they may need an entirely  different set of solutions to address flight delays.
Options— such as building new airports, developing regional airports, or  using ground transportation alternatives —are likely to be a more daunting  challenge than implementing initiatives in the OEP. Implementing the  OEP’s initiatives will not be easy, but the opportunity for success is  enhanced because FAA has the support of major aviation stakeholders on  nearly all of the initiatives. By contrast, gaining consensus on any of these  other options could be much more difficult because they change the  nature of the system to the degree that each one could adversely affect the  interests of one or more key aviation stakeholder groups—including  passengers; air carriers; and aircraft operators, airports, and local  communities. For example,    Large infrastructure projects, such as building new airports that are  located in metropolitan areas, could create major controversy. Such  projects are often opposed by adjacent communities that are fearful of  noise, displacement, or other environmental concerns. Also, finding  suitable sites for such projects in crowded metropolitan areas—with  enough land that is compatible with other potential land uses—may be  difficult. Airlines may oppose some types of infrastructure projects if they  fear that the projects would adversely affect them. For example, an airline  with a dominant market position at a major hub airport may oppose  building an additional airport nearby because the dominant carrier may  view it as an opportunity for their competitors to enter the market in that  area. In addition, some airlines are concerned about the need to divide  their hub resources between the current airport and a new airport.
Administrative, regulatory, and other measures for managing the demand  for existing capacity could generate opposition from various sources as  well. Airlines may oppose such measures if they perceive that these  measures would restrict their choices in determining rates, schedules, and  aircraft sizes—all of which could affect their profits and competitive status  relative to other airlines. Smaller communities may also oppose such  measures, fearing that commercial air service to and from their airports  may be reduced or curtailed because airlines would react by choosing  more profitable routes for the limited number of airport slots available.
Cost, a factor to be weighed in adding runways to existing airports, is also  an important consideration when building a new airport. For example, the  last major new airport—the Denver International Airport completed in  1995—cost almost $5 billion to build. This cost would have been greater  had the airport been located closer to the city, but since it was located on  open land away from established communities, the costs of noise  mitigation and other land-use issues were minimized. Also, the  construction of fast-rail service in populated metropolitan corridors is  likely to be costly. For example, Amtrak estimates the cost to construct  fast-rail service in federally designated, high-speed corridors and the  Northeast Corridor of the United States will be about $50 billion to $70  billion.
In summary, the initiatives implemented by FAA, airlines, and the airports  might help to reduce flight delays and increase capacity in the national  airspace system in the short term. However, FAA and other aviation  stakeholders continue to face a number of challenges in reducing delays at  the most delay-prone airports and developing long term solutions for  enhancing capacity. Addressing these challenges is perhaps more difficult  today in comparison to in 2000 because a number of issues have  exacerbated the situation. Chief among them is funding these initiatives  during a time when the federal government and the aviation industry are  experiencing significant fiscal problems. Consequently, keeping up with  the economy’s increasing demand for air transportation services will  require a tremendous amount of planning; making some tough choices  about which initiatives, both short-term and long-term, to pursue; and  efforts to ensure that such initiatives are adequately funded.
For further information on this testimony please contact Dr. Gerald  Dillingham by email at dillinghamg@gao.gov or Tammy Conquest at  conquestt@gao.gov. Alternatively, we can be reached by phone at (202)  512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include  Colin Fallon, Simon Galed, David Hooper, Maureen Luna-Long, Richard  Scott, Laura Shumway, and Nicolas Zitelli.
section_title: Appendix I: List of 35 Airports in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Operation Evolution Plan, February 2005
paragraphs: This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.