SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

SSLL Oct 16, 2005 5:05 PM

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

HowardL Oct 16, 2005 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLL
I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

Absolutely. The logic, however, seems hopelessly lost on suburban Illinois politicians.

the urban politician Oct 16, 2005 7:20 PM

^Yeah, but the Gary/Chicago Airport is WAY WAY ahead of the game.

The State of Indiana has given bipartisan support for the expansion of Gary/Chicago airport and have given the okay to secure funds for its renovation. It already has highway and potential rail connections to downtown Chicago. Also, the FAA has approved Gary/Chicago's redevelopment plan in its ENTIRETY!

By the time Jesse Jackson, Jr and those other bumblefucks sort out their differences, Gary/Chicago will be on its way to securing status as Chicagoland's 3rd major airport

Chi-town Oct 16, 2005 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLL
I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

the urban politician Oct 17, 2005 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-town
Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLL
I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

^Yeah, I wish Illinois and Indiana could create a mutual organization akin to the NY-NJ Port Authority. It would really make for better use of infrastructure

kayosthery Nov 3, 2005 11:27 PM

I've been instructed to take my inquiries about the O'Hare F.A.C.E. project over here.


Is anyone familiar with this other construction project at O'Hare? Has anyone seen the articles in the Tribune the past few days? Does anyone think the city sueing Murphy Jahn (Helmut Jahn's firm) over the design flaws will have reprecussions with respect to his highrise project downtown?

This relates to O'Hare expansion because many people contend that if the city cannot keep the cost of this project under control, the cost of the full expansion will be far more than the city says it will cost.

Thoughts?

Rail Claimore Nov 4, 2005 5:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-town
Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLL
I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

^Yeah, I wish Illinois and Indiana could create a mutual organization akin to the NY-NJ Port Authority. It would really make for better use of infrastructure

I flew into and out of O'hare this past weekend visiting my brother, and by some luck of God, both my flights were on time. But I actually thought about it while in town... how the NYC area has PANYNJ. Chicago should surely have something similar like CGPA or something.

Steely Dan Nov 4, 2005 7:07 PM

^ a PANYNJ type of deal is the only sensible path to a future that is mutaully beneficial to all in the region. unfortunately, greed, inertia and stubbornness will prevent this from ever happening.

Chi-town Nov 4, 2005 11:20 PM

They have, sort of... forget what it's called.

TransitEngr Nov 6, 2005 4:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLL
I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.


VERY TRUE. The newly expanded O'Hare, Midway, and the newly expanded Gary will all be highly sufficient... even for the Summer Games in 2016! :crazy:

And again, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. The newly expanded GCIA will have access to public transit rail with a quick link to the loop.... Peotone won't.

I have friends that are working for the OMP, they said that dozers were ready to start demolition the minute they got the "go ahead"... why no pics in this forum???

TransitEngr Nov 6, 2005 4:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-town
They have, sort of... forget what it's called.


http://www.gcmtravel.com/gcm/maps_chicago.jsp

Is this what you were thinking of? I know this shows highway stuff, but airport and transit information are also provided. If you click on "home" at the top of this website you'll see the agencies that threw this together.

Chi-town Nov 6, 2005 6:56 AM

^ No there's some kind of new Illinois / NW Indiana regional development agency that was created this summer. Read about it in Crain's. And the Chicago airport authority controls Gary Airport, as well...

Chicago2020 Nov 9, 2005 11:49 PM

http://www.airport-technology.com/pr...e-terminal.jpg

This may be alittle old but this is the new terminal to be built at O'Hare

Rail Claimore Nov 10, 2005 6:53 AM

^I thought that was the new Gary terminal.

spyguy Nov 10, 2005 9:44 PM

Airline Technology has that rendering for O'Hare expansion, but that's the exact same rendering that SCB did for Gary.

spyguy Nov 17, 2005 12:09 AM

That's very good. Unfortunately, these people don't get the message after losing another time and are going to just continue forever and ever. Hopefully the people affected will have had enough of this waiting on whether or not they should leave and will just sell their houses to the city and force Bensenville & Co. to give up.

the urban politician Nov 17, 2005 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
That's very good. Unfortunately, these people don't get the message after losing another time and are going to just continue forever and ever. Hopefully the people affected will have had enough of this waiting on whether or not they should leave and will just sell their houses to the city and force Bensenville & Co. to give up.

^Eventually they'll realize how expensive this fight is getting and they'll give up

Chicago Shawn Nov 18, 2005 3:11 AM

LET THE CONTRACTS CLOSE AND THE BULLDOZERS ROLL! Fuck you Bensinville and especially you Elk Grove Village. You Loose agian, and will continue to do so. Just quit now before you guys bankrupt yourselfs with ongoing legal fees.

Chicago2020 Nov 18, 2005 3:41 AM

I wonder when the City will release some renderings of what O'Hare will look like????

spyguy Nov 21, 2005 10:41 PM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=18574

Feds pledge $337M for O'Hare expansion


U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Monday pledged $337 million in federal funds for a planned expansion at O'Hare International Airport that is aimed at reducing flight delays at one of the nation's busiest airports.
Mineta said the money included a $300 million grant the city was seeking and another $37 million.
"American taxpayers are making a good investment," said Mineta, who was at O'Hare to sign the grants during a ceremony Monday.
The $15 billion expansion project will add a new terminal, two runways and redesign two other runways. The Federal Aviation Administration has said it will reduce delays by 68 percent if the work ends on schedule in 2013.
A hurdle to the project was removed last week when a federal judge in Chicago dismissed a lawsuit filed by two suburban towns and the owners of a cemetery who oppose the project. The ruling allows the city to resume buying properties in the path of the planned expansion.
The city has agreed it won't disturb any graves at the St. Johannes Cemetery until a federal appeals court in Washington rules on another lawsuit opponents have filed against the Federal Aviation Administration.
Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin welcomed the federal money for the project.
"The Administration knows that O'Hare is the epicenter of not only regional aviation travel, but the national and world's passenger aviation system," Durbin said in a statement.

BVictor1 Nov 21, 2005 10:54 PM

**DOUBLE POST**

BVictor1 Nov 21, 2005 10:57 PM

Is Dallas design a fit for O'Hare?
A Texas-size plan, but on far less land

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published November 21, 2005


DALLAS -- Chicago aviation officials like to point to the 31-year-old airport in Dallas as a proven model for the parallel runways envisioned at the future O'Hare International Airport.

The goal is to duplicate the success of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport, the nation's third-busiest airfield, by adding hundreds more flights each day while holding delays and cancellations to a minimum.

Among civil engineers who build airports, though, there is a truism about airfield design: "You've seen one airport, you've seen one airport."

And, indeed, a comparison of the Dallas airport against the blueprint for new runways at O'Hare suggests that Chicago's almost $15 billion plan to rebuild O'Hare by copying Dallas suffers from major flaws, according to Federal Aviation Administration officials and air-traffic controllers.

Among the differences:

- DFW, as the Texas airport is known, is almost three times the size of O'Hare.

- The weather in northern Texas where Dallas sits is mainly dry and clear, much better than the wind, rain and snow that pelt Chicago.

- The setup of terminals is different from O'Hare, O'Hare's, and DFW's air routes do not impede the airspace of Dallas' Love Field the way O'Hare's interfere with the airspace of Midway Airport.

- And although Chicago officials hope to tailor O'Hare to look like Dallas--they are awaiting word from the FAA on a $300 million federal funding request--Dallas is modernizing its 1970s-era airport design, with help from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the FAA, to cut delays and reduce the risk of runway accidents.

Dallas' redesign is being accomplished by adding perimeter taxiways to avoid taxiing airplanes in front of other planes that are set to take off.

That's not a viable option for O'Hare, even after the expansion, because the airport doesn't have room, according to the FAA.

"If you could take this airport, lift it off the ground and take it up to Chicago, match your wind and drop it on the ground, it wouldn't work," said Dallas air-traffic controller Ric Loewen from his perch in the control tower.

But that doesn't stop Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program, from entertaining audiences by placing a map of the expanded O'Hare alongside the a map of the existing DFW.

As she did before a gathering last year of the City Club of Chicago--a business group that she is scheduled to address again Monday--Andolino rotates the Dallas map 90 degrees to the east. That shifts Dallas' north-south runways to an east-to-west alignment like what is planned for six of the runways at O'Hare. Both layouts also sport two angled crosswind runways.

DFW then looks pretty similar to the O'Hare plan, which the FAA approved Sept. 30, prompting a court challenge from expansion opponents that temporarily halted construction.

The centerpiece of the overhaul planned for the Dallas airfield is a system of perimeter taxiways that loop around the runways. The FAA provided funding for the plan in August.

Planes that have landed will move swiftly along the outskirts of runways, rather than across them, to reach the terminals. The taxiways will reduce potentially dangerous runway crossings by aircraft from 1,700 a day to no more than a few hundred, airport and FAA officials said. They will also help to reduce the number of planes on the runway waiting for crossing planes to clear before they take off.

Under O'Hare's expansion plan, though, runway crossings will jump to 2,100 a day from about 100 now, according to the FAA.

"Dallas has had a number of close calls over the years, so they are doing something about it with the perimeter system," said Craig Burzych, president at the O'Hare control tower of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "Instead of being proactive by trying to reduce runway incursions, which the FAA says are the No. 1 danger at airports, Chicago's plan is like playing with fire."

The FAA said it is working with controllers and the airlines to implement safe procedures at the expanded O'Hare to deal with the increase in runway crossings. One proposal would require planes to taxi behind aircraft sitting on a runway rather than in front whenever possible.

"Perimeter taxiways are a good idea, and whenever it is possible, we should do it," said Barry Cooper, a top FAA manager who headed the team that approved O'Hare expansion. "Unfortunately, we don't have the real estate to do it at O'Hare."

Three serious near-collisions on runways in Boston, New York and Las Vegas this year prompted the National Transportation Safety Board on Nov. 15 to again press for quicker action by the FAA to reduce such dangers.

There were 326 runway incursions nationwide in fiscal 2004 and 324 in fiscal 2005, according to the FAA.

Parallel runways, as opposed to the intersecting-runway pattern at O'Hare, allow more airplanes to land each hour, especially when visibility is reduced. But if the airport footprint is not large enough to allow widely spaced parallel runways, which ensure that low-flying planes are kept safely apart, the only solution for air-traffic controllers is to slow down the rate of departing flights to avoid interference with arrivals.

The worldwide trend is to build new airports on large expanses of land to allow planes to safely touch down and take off simultaneously, even in bad weather. Large tracts of land also buffer surrounding populations from jet noise.

DFW covers 18,000 acres. O'Hare would grow from 6,789 acres to 7,222 acres under Chicago's runway-expansion plan, which depends on taking 433 acres from surrounding communities.

Denver International Airport is situated on 34,000 acres. Kansas City International Airport takes up more than 10,000 acres, with at least 7,000 additional acres available to develop. The proposed south suburban airport near Peotone in Will County would sprawl over almost 20,000 acres.

But Chicago officials point to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, where four parallel runways are squeezed onto fewer than 5,000 acres, as another model for the future O'Hare.

"Size isn't everything," Andolino said. "Atlanta is smaller than O'Hare, and it will handle more flights and more passengers than O'Hare this year."

But Hartsfield is far from a top performer in the category that matters most to passengers--arriving on time. Of the nation's 33 largest airports, Atlanta ranked 28th for on-time arrivals from January through September this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Even O'Hare, with its crisscrossing runways, did better, finishing 25th.

DFW ranked sixth with 81 percent of flights arriving on time.

Size helps.

"I don't think Boeing builds enough airplanes to create a capacity crunch at DFW," said JoEllen Casilio, FAA air-traffic control district manager for airports in the Dallas region.

More than a mile separates many of Dallas' runways, allowing simultaneous landings and takeoffs even in intense fog.

But at the expanded O'Hare, the runway separation will be so tight that flights will have to be staggered under some conditions, diminishing efficiency.

Two pairs of runways nearest to the passenger terminal complex would be only 1,200 feet apart. Air-traffic controllers must treat parallel runways that are less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway, meaning takeoffs and landings cannot be conducted simultaneously.

Controllers in O'Hare's air-traffic tower are concerned about accidents occurring if a plane landing were to stray or be pushed by strong winds from its designated approach path. Turbulence from large planes taking off on the adjacent runway could also spell trouble.

The perimeter taxiways planned at DFW will produce a 30 percent gain in flight capacity, according to real-life simulations conducted with NASA, airline pilots and air-traffic controllers.

"It's the gift that keeps on giving. The pilots love the simplified movement of aircraft on the airfield, and the controllers especially love it," said Jim Crites, executive vice president of operations at DFW.

He said the perimeter taxiway plan will cost $280 million for the entire airport--a bargain in the world of airport capital improvements. The project will be done in phases, with construction starting next year or 2007.

"I've never heard of anything like that," said Crites, a former American Airlines executive who grew up in Glenview. "Think of that in terms of Chicago. It is going to cost well over $1 billion to build each of the new runways at O'Hare, and they aren't going to see the 30 percent capacity gain we're getting here. This is what comes from simplifying your life in air traffic."

----------

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

VivaLFuego Nov 22, 2005 4:24 AM

^Interesting article...

I hope this isnt a $15 billion boondoggle that somehow makes things (even) worse.

BVictor1 Nov 22, 2005 9:43 PM

City lands $337 million from U.S. for O'Hare
Mineta says runway expansion is key to transportation

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published November 22, 2005


Hoping to end "headaches and heartaches" among air travelers delayed in Chicago, the Bush administration approved a $337 million down payment Monday to build new runways at O'Hare International Airport.

The approval, announced at O'Hare by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, exceeded Chicago's request for $300 million in federal airport improvement funds for the first phase of airfield expansion.

But the federal government will stagger delivery of the money over 15 years instead of the 10 years sought by the city. That will result in annual payments of $20 million rather than $30 million, possibly requiring the city to sell more bonds to finance construction.

The letter of intent Mineta signed with Mayor Richard M. Daley in the basement of the United Airlines terminal also included a separate commitment of $37.2 million that will be paid to the city over the next five years.

"O'Hare must expand in order to keep ahead of the growing demand for air travel," Mineta said. "If it doesn't, our entire national aviation system suffers. And, frankly, that is not going to happen on my watch."

The Federal Aviation Administration approved the city's O'Hare Modernization Program on Sept. 30. But it later rejected Chicago's benefit-cost analysis as flawed. To qualify for federal money, airports are required to demonstrate that the benefits of a project exceed the costs.

The FAA pointed to "misleading" information provided by the city that "inappropriately suggests ... sufficient evidence to justify the proposed project," according to FAA documents obtained by the Tribune.

The FAA, eager to move ahead on O'Hare expansion, hired a consultant to re-do the benefit-cost analysis after the agency concluded, "The benefits estimated under the [city's] approach are artificial and would never have been realized."

In the new analysis, the FAA concluded that the city's financial plan to pay for the first phase of O'Hare expansion is "realistic, reasonable and credible."

Officials of American Airlines and United Airlines, which signed agreements with Chicago to back airport revenue bonds with landing fees and other payments to the city, applauded the federal funding decision. But the airlines have so far agreed only to the first half of the massive airport overhaul.

O'Hare handles about 2,850 flights daily. Chicago's plan to reconfigure intersecting runways into a parallel-runway design will allow about 500 additional flights each day by the end of the decade, Mineta said.

The FAA says the expanded airport could safely accommodate 1.2 million flights annually with a reasonably low level of delays.

O'Hare handled 992,471 flights in 2004, when it scored the worst on-time flight performance of the largest U.S. airports, "causing headaches and heartaches for countless travelers nationwide," Mineta said.

But the FAA cautioned that severe flight delays could return to O'Hare shortly after construction is completed, or when activity reaches 1.4 million flights annually.

Daley smiled broadly as he watched Mineta sign the funding agreement before picking up a pen himself. The mayor noted that O'Hare has not added a runway in more than 30 years.

"A modern, efficient O'Hare Airport will be welcomed not just by residents of the Chicago area, but also by a man in Toledo who needs to get to L.A., a woman in Des Moines with business interests in London," Daley said. "The whole nation benefits. People get to spend more time doing what they want to do."

The anticipated total federal funding is $677 million over the life of the runway project. That accounts for about 9 percent of the $7.52 billion (based on 2004 dollars) the city currently estimates it will cost to reconfigure O'Hare's runways.

About 59 percent of the money would come from general airport revenue bonds sold by the city; 22 percent from passenger ticket taxes; and 10 percent from third-party financing.

Capital improvements necessary to make the airfield project work, plus new terminals, would bring the total cost to almost $15 billion, according to the city.

However, the $15 billion price tag does not include building a planned western-access roadway into O'Hare; expanding surrounding expressways, toll roads and major arterial streets; or building up mass-transit rail lines to accommodate the expected surge in passengers. Those airport-related improvements would cost about $4 billion, according to estimates by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Opponents of O'Hare expansion said they expected the federal funding approval. The decision, they said, opens the door to challenge in court the FAA's benefit-cost analysis that triggered the funding approval.

"This project is just bad, and it shouldn't go forward," said Bensenville Mayor John Geils. "With the funding now official, we finally get to try this case on the merits in court."

The funding approval came less than a week after a federal judge in Chicago tossed out a case brought by O'Hare opponents seeking to prevent the city from acquiring a religious cemetery and more than 400 acres in Bensenville and Elk Grove Village for expansion. A separate appeal is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

----------

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

Rail Claimore Nov 22, 2005 11:56 PM

This expansion of O'hare is necessary, while at the same time, not ideal. Basically, what O'hare is doing is maximizing the potential capacity in its immediate surrounding area by buying up all the land between the Northwest Tollway, Tri-state, and two major railraod corridors. The only way O'hare can expand capacity in the long term after this is through using bigger planes, something most US airports don't do compared to those in Europe and Asia. Heathrow and Haneda are able to handle passenger volumes that rival O'hare on only two parallel runways because mostly jumbo jets land at those two airports.

Atlanta is a good model to follow for O'hare, but there's another key difference between the two: Hartsfield-Jackson is surrounded almost exclusively by industry and distribution warehouses, in addition to poor communities who don't easily put up fights in court over proposed expansions. Atlanta is building a 5th runway right now so it can do simultaneous landings for 3 commercial aircraft at once.

O'hare will be able to do that after this expansion as well, but given the placement of terminals that are being built with its expansion, taxi times will increase as planes have to taxi a mile and cross up to three other runways just to reach the terminal complex. O'hare could mitigate this problem by maximizing the use of cargo aircraft on the outer-most runways and passenger aircraft using the runways adjacent to the terminals. Atlanta will not have to worry about this as much since its South Terminal complex is being built between the current southern-most operational runway and the one under construction now.

After this adventure, O'hare is done when it comes to major capital expansion projects. This will probably increase O'hare's passenger load to a maximum of 100 million unless bigger planes start being used or new ATC technology leads to increased capacity, both of which are feasible possibilities.

If Chicago is to build another airport, the logical choice would be Gary. However, if they want to build Gary to anything near what O'hare is, they will be required to take a LOT of land around the area and move a bunch of infrastructure. It would also require a totally new runway layout as well that would not interfere with O'hare. Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down. The Peotone idea does have its merits in that an airport the size of DFW could be built there, but the negatives far outweigh the positives of any airport being built there.

Chicago103 Nov 22, 2005 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down.

Are you saying that if a new airport is built its inevitable that Midway will be shut down?

Rail Claimore Nov 23, 2005 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago103
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down.

Are you saying that if a new airport is built its inevitble that Midway will be shut down?

No, I'm saying that any new airport that is built will have to take Midway's flight paths into consideration because of Midway's runway layout. A new airport at Gary would probably be built with east-to-west parallel runways as well, posing no effect to O'hare after expansion. Major adjustments will have to be made to the flight patterns around Midway though, as screwed up as they are now.

Peotone might be far enough away that it Midway will have no effect on it, but that's iffy.

Chicago103 Nov 23, 2005 8:10 PM

O'Hare-Midway-Gary is the logical setup to me, the first two having CTA rapid transit access (an soon to be express service via Block 37) and Gary that will be accessible via METRA. I am not sure exactly how big they intend a third airport to be but I imagine Gary could handle at least as many passengers as Midway if it is done correctly.

BVictor1 Nov 23, 2005 9:11 PM

For Immediate Release
Contact: Mayor's Press Office
Phone: 312-744-3334
E-mail:
Monday, November 21, 2005

Mayor Daley Accepts $300 Million Federal Grant for O'Hare Modernization

Mayor Richard M. Daley today thanked Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta for granting the City’s request of $300 million in federal discretionary funds to help finance the O’Hare Modernization Program.


“The Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation and 14 other state and federal agencies have now approved every facet of the O’Hare Modernization Program,” Daley said at an airport ceremony. “They’ve approved it from the standpoint of safety, efficiency, costs, benefits and the environment.


“And by making this substantial financial investment, the federal government is stating loudly and clearly that the O’Hare Modernization Program is vitally important to the nation’s aviation system.”


The Mayor added: “O’Hare is the heart of the nation’s air transportation system and a vital part of our national economy -- an economy that depends on getting people and products to their destinations as rapidly and efficiently as possible.


“If the U.S. intends to retain its world economic leadership – and we do – then we have to make sure that our transportation infrastructure is up to date. And that starts with O’Hare International Airport – because it’s the aviation center not just of the nation, but of the entire Northern Hemisphere. And it hasn’t added a runway for more than 30 years, while the amount of air travel in this nation has doubled.”


The program calls for reconfiguring O'Hare's outdated intersecting runway system into a modern, parallel runway configuration, substantially reducing delays and increasing capacity. No state or local tax dollars will be used to fund the OMP, which is expected to cost $6.6 billion in 2001 dollars.



The project is expected to create between 50,000 and 195,000 jobs on top of the 450,000 jobs currently supported by the City’s airport system. It will generate up to $18 billion a year in economic

“A modern, efficient O’Hare airport will be welcomed not just by residents of the Chicago area, but also by the man in Toledo who needs to get to Los Angeles and the woman in Des Moines with business interests in London,” Daley said. “The whole nation benefits when there are more flights and fewer delays at its major connecting airport. People get to spend more time doing what they want to do – running their businesses or being with their families – and less time sitting in airplanes and airports.”


Daley thanked Mineta, Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the members of the Illinois congressional delegation; Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the members of the Illinois General Assembly; the members of the Chicago City Council and its Aviation Committee; and United, American and the other O’Hare airlines that made a commitment to help fund this project two years ago.

Rail Claimore Nov 24, 2005 1:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago103
O'Hare-Midway-Gary is the logical setup to me, the first two having CTA rapid transit access (an soon to be express service via Block 37) and Gary that will be accessible via METRA. I am not sure exactly how big they intend a third airport to be but I imagine Gary could handle at least as many passengers as Midway if it is done correctly.

The intial role of Gary would be as Chicago's third airport, maximizing the use of its current space. That should bring it to around the same capacity as Midway is now. Gary could play a role as Chicago's second big hub/international airport in the longterm if it's expanded to cover much of the industrial area that surrounds it today.

HowardL Dec 1, 2005 3:22 PM

O'Hare making room for giant Airbus jet
Lufthansa to start A380 service in '08

By Mark Skertic
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 1, 2005

It will be a tight fit, but O'Hare International Airport is preparing for the arrival of the gargantuan Airbus A380, which typically will carry 555 passengers.

German airline Lufthansa plans to fly Airbus' new superjumbo between Chicago and Frankfurt beginning in late 2008. That gives O'Hare time to prepare for the double-decker aircraft.

Accommodating aircraft the size of the A380 is part of the O'Hare runway expansion plan, but those changes likely are years away. City aviation officials have anticipated the need to have room for the A380 with the airport as currently configured.

"We do not expect any issues whatsoever," said Wendy Abrams, an airport spokeswoman.

O'Hare meets the 10,000-foot-long runway requirement, has adequate gate space and operates a baggage-handling system that can accommodate the needs of such a large aircraft, Abrams said.

The only issue is taxiways, which the Federal Aviation Administration says must be 100 feet wide for the A380. O'Hare's are 75 feet wide, but the airport is proposing modifications to that standard. The FAA has not issued final rules regarding the aircraft.

To make room for the King Kong of commercial carriers, Chicago aviation officials are planning to use two gates for each arrival and departure. The planes, which can hold up to 850 passengers, have two entryways, so two passenger bridges will be used to enter or exit the plane.

Lufthansa's planned once-daily A380 flight will arrive at Terminal 5, the international terminal, to unload passengers. The return flight will depart from Terminal 1, now dedicated to United, where passengers will board the plane. United partner Lufthansa already has space in the terminal, which it uses for its three daily departures from Chicago.

The A380 flight likely will replace an existing Chicago-Frankfurt flight, said Armin Catrina, Lufthansa's general manager for operations and airport services in North and South America. The airline flies daily between the two cities with a Boeing 747-400. A second daily departure to Frankfurt will resume in the spring.

Lufthansa plans to begin flying the A380 in the United States in late 2007 or early 2008, with service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, he said.

"No final decisions have been made because there is so much activity going on to get airports ready, to get facilities ready" for the supersize aircraft, Catrina said. "We'll firm up the list of destinations in the second half of next year when we have a clearer picture of things."

Airbus has said the A380 will be a way to carry more passengers without adding additional flights. Singapore Airlines is set to take the first delivery of the A380 in late 2006. The airline plans to use it for service to London.

The aircraft lists for about $290 million each, although discounts can apply depending on contract terms. Airbus has orders for 149 of the aircraft.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

Chicago103 Dec 2, 2005 10:38 PM

I thought of this in another thread in the cityscape forum but I just have to post it here, (edited slightly to fit the context of this thread).

Actually thinking more about the possible airport connections, and keeping in mind the airport express that will exist between downtown to O'Hare and Midway (and presumably Gary/Chicago someday), there could be a similar Tri-Airport connector service to serve those who are just in Chicago to transfer planes at different airports. It would have the same concept as the airport express (your baggage would be automatically tranfered there), it would have stops just at the three airports, probably following a route leaving O'Hare and eventually connecting with the tracks by Cicero Avenue, stopping at Midway and then cutting over towards the southeast eventually ending up at Gary/Chicago. I suppose it might not be necessary since if there are three airport express trains going downtown already, those transfering between airports could just go to Block 37 and transfer from one line to the other, but that would still involve another transfer of luggage that might have complications while a Tri-Airport connector would only involve one transfer of people and luggage instead of two. So the Block 37 trains will be for those going to and from downtown and the Tri-Airport connector would be for those just transfering planes between two airports. The idea I guess is to make transfering planes at two different airports almost as easy as transfering planes at one airport. Shit if this all came to pass, we would not only be the larges air-hub in the world, but the three airports would almost act as one and be the most transit accessible on the planet by far.

Did that make sense or did I confuse anyone?

Rail Claimore Dec 2, 2005 11:15 PM

^It makes sense, but there's no feasible way to set up express service to Gary from Block 37. That will have to be done at Randolph Street Station. Connecting the two stations and fusing them into one big transit hub, instead of two separate hubs connected just by the pedway, would be the solution there.

Chicago103 Dec 2, 2005 11:55 PM

I tried to upload a google earth file showing a route I created for the Tri-Airport Connector, but I think you would get the idea. I still ended up with 46 miles of tracks (using existing rail tracks as much as possible) from O'Hare to Midway to Gary. That means a passenger transfering from O'Hare to Gary would still take an hour at least (considering the train has to stop at Midway to unload and load passengers and luggage), but that would still probably be faster than having to transfer trains downtown and its still a hell of alot more plausable than having an airport at Peotone.

pdxstreetcar Dec 9, 2005 3:13 AM

i think midway expansion might become an issue after this crash

Steely Dan Dec 9, 2005 3:19 AM

^ midway can't be expanded. it's hemmed in by dense, bungalow-belt hoods on all sides.

spyguy Dec 9, 2005 3:28 AM

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7333/midway7tq.png

pdxstreetcar Dec 9, 2005 3:47 AM

but isnt o'hare also hemmed in and requiring property acquistion?

i would be surprised though if there was a push to buy properties to lengthen the runway, certainly they havent figured out exactly what happened yet but on the news they've been mentioning that o'hare's runways are twice as long at around 13000 ft and midway's are 5000-6000 ft long

Adam186 Dec 9, 2005 4:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Midway should create a buffer zone. That's rediculous. What if a plane skids off the runway and lands on a car crushing 2 adults and 3 children.....Wait it just did. Lets's hope they can do something about this.

Anyway, back on topic.

spyguy Dec 15, 2005 10:38 PM

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/dupa....asp?id=132351

Could O’Hare be boon for city?

By Robert Sanchez

Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2005

Wood Dale Mayor Ken Johnson says his community is “a little schizophrenic” when it comes to the topic of expanding O’Hare International Airport.

The city belongs to the anti-expansion Suburban O’Hare Commission and opposes the building of new runways.

On the other hand, it would benefit if a promised western airport entrance opens by 2013.

“If western access occurs, that’s going to bring redevelopment,” Johnson said. “We have the potential to be the Rosemont of the western side.”


So when municipal leaders throughout DuPage County came together Wednesday night to discuss the possible economic and transportation impact of expanding O’Hare, Johnson brought an open mind.

“If we are going to get the aggravation, give us some of the benefits,” he said before the gathering at the county complex in Wheaton.

It was the first of three meetings the county scheduled to gather data for a study of what opportunities for new development might be created once the multibillion-dollar expansion of O’Hare is complete.

“The overarching goal is to get a vision of what DuPage County should look like after O’Hare is modernized,” said Tom Cuculich, director of the county’s economic development and planning department.

“Will it be office buildings and convention centers?” Cuculich said. “Or will it be next-generation industrial parks?”

But before any questions can be answered, consultants first want to know what municipal leaders are envisioning for their communities.

“We want to put all this together so regional plans are aware of local plans and vice versa,” Cuculich said. “It’s very important that we are all on the same page.”

The nearly $400,000 study, more than half of which was funded by Chicago, is expected to be complete by late spring.

In addition to economics and development, it will explore what road improvements might be needed to create western access.

National lawmakers have committed $140 million toward building the second entrance to O’Hare as part of the six-year federal highway bill. Still, DuPage officials estimate the total cost will be more than $1.5 billion.

Meanwhile, a study isn’t expected to deter O’Hare opponents, who say many are going to lose their homes and businesses if the airport is expanded.

The proposed airport expansion plan would take out more than 530 Bensenville homes, several industrial businesses in Elk Grove Village and 1,300 graves at the cemetery run by St. John’s United Church of Christ in Bensenville.

sentinel Dec 17, 2005 10:21 PM

I find it annoying that people who don't know the area are the ones saying that somehow Midway should be fixed that a "buffer zone" has to be put in place immediately, or the airport should be scrapped completely. It's very hard to do that because it is literally in the middle of a dense part of the SW side of Chicago, but you can't just abandon it completely because it is convenient, not everyone can or wants to travel to leave from O'Hare, and considering that nearly 20 million people use it every year is testament to the fact that it is an economic powerhouse. It's not an easy fix however you look at it.

spyguy Dec 17, 2005 10:27 PM

^Sadly, this tragedy is being used to promote another future tragedy, the Peotone Airport.

The Cheat Dec 17, 2005 10:49 PM

What happened at Midway needs to be put in context. Only two major incidents in over 33 years.

Steely Dan Dec 19, 2005 4:08 PM

^ yes, it is absolutely asinine to talk of closing midway. it is not an ideal airport set-up, but it's by no means an inherently dangerous one. accidents are tragic, but they happen. midway's overalll saftey record is actually quite good.

Jersey Mentality Dec 19, 2005 4:11 PM

^ accidents will happen, it is inevitable. They could always create a two block buffer around the airport, I say tear down some of the homes. But of the people want to live there that damn bad then they live there at thier own risk as far as I'm concerend.

VivaLFuego Dec 19, 2005 8:39 PM

Has anyone ever suggested the entire suburb of Bedford Park (which is basically a giant industrial park) be turned into 2 long parallel east-west runways?

These could be connected to the current midway with a taxiway that would only slice through about 6 or 8 city blocks. They'd be parallel to all the runways farther north at o'hare so it shouldnt interfere with the flight patterns. there would be an ample buffer zone on both sides. This could seriously expand capacity at midway and maybe even push off the need for a third airport for several decades. and construction wouldnt even disrupt current flight operations at midway.

jddar Dec 20, 2005 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKECUJ
^ Brilliant idea, not to mention potential for larger aircraft... Also how would planes traverse the rail yard?

They could build a bridge. Part of Atlanta's new fifth runway is being built over I-285. If they can build runways over interstate highways, surely, taxiways over railyards would be possible.

The Cheat Dec 21, 2005 3:12 AM

EMAS - engineered material arresting system - would have helped to stop the plane before it left the airport property.

Rail Claimore Dec 22, 2005 6:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jddar
Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKECUJ
^ Brilliant idea, not to mention potential for larger aircraft... Also how would planes traverse the rail yard?

They could build a bridge. Part of Atlanta's new fifth runway is being built over I-285. If they can build runways over interstate highways, surely, taxiways over railyards would be possible.

Looking at a map of Chicago, I've actually thought about that before, have Midway be approximately 4 square miles instead of one. They could use the current square mile they have for a new expanded terminal, then have runways both north and south of there.

Rail Claimore Dec 22, 2005 6:57 AM

Actually, you're right, forget about goign north of 55th... I see what you're talking about. They could take close to 6 square miles that way, about 80% of which would be industry.

That seems like a major rail yard and juncture though...


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.