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)

VivaLFuego Dec 22, 2005 3:09 PM

^ I'm not a freight rail expert, but suppose maybe its possible to relocate that freight yard south about 1/2 mile, still leaving plenty of room for 2 long parallel runways that can be used simultaneously?

I don't know what the historical precendent for acquiring industrial land for such projects is, but I imagine its much easier politically and probably not a great deal different economically than taking over residential areas.

Do any air buffs know if the flight patterns would conflict? To me it seems having east-west runways at midway would be the best case scenario since the O'hare runways will be east-west.

Sure this expansion would be expensive, but hardly more expensive than building an entire new airport, and it would provide for 2 large, legitimately international airports...

Then just add a crosstown airport express and they'll function as one :)

HowardL Dec 22, 2005 8:24 PM

From the Trib:

City closes $1.5 bil. bond sale for O'Hare

December 22, 2005

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

The city of Chicago said it closed its largest-ever bond sale of $1.5 billion on Thursday, providing funds for the recently approved makeover of O'Hare International Airport.

Close to $1.3 billion of the total is designated for the city's O'Hare modernization program, partially funding the costs of land acquisition, wetland mitigation, planning, design and engineering associated with runway construction.

The other $262 million of the bond sale proceeds will be used to pay off existing airport debt which was obtained at higher rates, officials said.

Nearly 100 institutional investors bought the securities in strong demand that resulted in a lower-than-expected interest rate for the city, Chief Financial Officer Dana Levenson said.

"Mayor (Richard) Daley's vision of a modernized O'Hare is moving full steam ahead, and this historic bond sale is another important milestone that has been reached as this critical project is implemented," said Rosemarie Andolino, the program's executive director.

O'Hare is the world's second-busiest airport behind Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in both total passengers and total flights, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The city says the overhaul will reconfigure intersecting runways into a more modern, parallel layout, substantially reducing delays and allowing for increased capacity as well as construction of a new terminal facility with more gates and parking on the airport's west side.

texcolo Dec 23, 2005 6:44 AM

I think if there is any danger of making Ohare less effecient, they should scrap expansion plans.

I think they should turn Midway into Stapleton II. It would be a real boon of urban redevelopment to a depressed part of town.

I think the only viable option would be to make Gary/Chicago International.

spyguy Dec 23, 2005 7:04 AM

1. How would reconfiguring the runways so they're parallel, improving terminals, and creating a new terminal make O'Hare less efficient?
2. Midway isn't a small operation. It may become Southwest's largest operation in a few years. Plus the fact that the city spent $1+ billion on renovation recently

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is this Stapleton you speak of?

Rail Claimore Dec 23, 2005 11:39 AM

^Having new parallel runways that far north and south of the main terminal complex (not the ones right next to it) will increase taxi times on the ground itself. It will mean getting more planes in and out of airspace but will mean potential congestion and inefficiency of ground operations because planes landing at the far north and far south runways will have to taxi another mile or so, AND cross two more runways to get to the terminal complex. DFW is mitigating this problem by building circumferential taxiways around its main runways so that planes on the ground can taxi as others land and takeoff using those runways. O'hare doesn't have room for such a system according to some (I think it does, but barely enough). The only way O'hare will get good efficiency out of those north and south runways is by carefully balancing passenger and cargo operations throughout the whole airport.

TransitEngr Dec 30, 2005 1:35 AM

Look guys (and gals if there are any)... no offense, but these airport engineers actually do know what they're planning/designing for O'hare. And they're not just thinking about it, they've studied dozens of other airports around the world, many of them have dozens of years worth of experience in this field, and they're using very accurate forecasting software. One of my co-workers is an airport engineer, and one of my best friends works for the OMP as a software engineer. With all of the negative press and negative writings in here I think people would be shocked to find that there are actually very brilliant people working on this, and the plan to make the runways parallel WILL actually make O'hare considerably more efficient.

Midway is a keeper, it's close to downtown it's great for smaller (737, etc) jets.

Gary-Chicago will continue to grow and it's great that it has plans to integrate nicely with rail transit.

Peotone... waste, waste, waste. It's open farm land right now. Shit, this is Chicago, not Houston for God's sake, let's value our existing urban infrastructure, and let's value our rural farm land by not confusing the two. FYI.... b/c of suburban sprawl... America will be a net importer of food... um... ooops... we already became one... in 2005.

chiphile Dec 30, 2005 3:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
^Having new parallel runways that far north and south of the main terminal complex (not the ones right next to it) will increase taxi times on the ground itself. It will mean getting more planes in and out of airspace but will mean potential congestion and inefficiency of ground operations because planes landing at the far north and far south runways will have to taxi another mile or so, AND cross two more runways to get to the terminal complex. DFW is mitigating this problem by building circumferential taxiways around its main runways so that planes on the ground can taxi as others land and takeoff using those runways. O'hare doesn't have room for such a system according to some (I think it does, but barely enough). The only way O'hare will get good efficiency out of those north and south runways is by carefully balancing passenger and cargo operations throughout the whole airport.


it's not like those runway crossings will occur right in the middle of the runway, the planes will just have to cross at the last unusable edge. Until land and hold short operations were phased out, planes would cross on a regular basis at O'Hare and only but a couple close calls happened.

The Cheat Dec 31, 2005 12:36 PM

Stapleton is the old Denver international airport. It was turned into suburban subdivisions after the new DIA opened.

jpIllInoIs Dec 31, 2005 3:49 PM

If the High Speed rail system were prioritized, Chicago's air capacity would be greatly increased. High speed links to Gary-Chicago Int'l. Chicago-Rockford Int'l. and Milwaukee Mitchell would provide relief to the expanded O'Hare.
Sigh, At least Milw has an Amtrack station now.
This post could go on the High Speed rail thread, but it goes to show how these 2 issues are closely linked.

nergie Jan 4, 2006 1:52 PM

Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

VivaLFuego Jan 4, 2006 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

I would agree with you, but if you take O'hare + Midway we blow them out of the water, so, no sweat.

nergie Jan 4, 2006 11:03 PM

Granted with Ohare and Midway, Chicago is the largest domestic air market. I read somewhere that Chicago's domestic air market is larger than NYC and LA. I really am not fond of Atlanta, it's airport is a symbol of the city and how sprawled it is. It really feels like a bunch of Schaumburgs put together.

STR Jan 4, 2006 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitEngr
Look guys (and gals if there are any)... no offense, but these airport engineers actually do know what they're planning/designing for O'hare. And they're not just thinking about it, they've studied dozens of other airports around the world, many of them have dozens of years worth of experience in this field, and they're using very accurate forecasting software. One of my co-workers is an airport engineer, and one of my best friends works for the OMP as a software engineer. With all of the negative press and negative writings in here I think people would be shocked to find that there are actually very brilliant people working on this, and the plan to make the runways parallel WILL actually make O'hare considerably more efficient.

No offense, but I really doubt you're very familiar with the KORD epxansion planning process. The capability of the planners is not questioned, by anyone, anywhere. The question is whether the fundemental idea of expanding O'Hare is right, and secondarilly, whether the plan (which was influenced by politicians as much as engineers) is the best use of public resources.

What is proposed is NOT the ideal layout for such an airport. It is the best design considering an enourmous number of politcal and financial constraints, but those constraints have resulted in the non-ideal layout. The major points being the very close proximity of the runways (amoung the many other signicant number of FAA waivers),the lack of a radial taxyway, and the amount of existing infrastructure that must be torn down to make way for the new (i.e. the recently completed United cargo terminal will need to be demo to make way for a new runway).

the urban politician Jan 5, 2006 4:23 AM

Chicago's 3rd airport needs to be Gary and anybody who thinks otherwise is a stupid idiot

Lets can Peotone and make some good decisions. The ultimate advantage of Gary is that it's already there, it already is close to having a rail connection, with all the infrastructure, to DT Chicago, and it has the Government of an entire state (Indiana) willing to fund it. If Illinois and Indiana can get together on this one, then we don't need to ass-rape hundreds of acres of farmland SW of the city to build a useless, redundant airport when we've got great prospects right across the state line

STR Jan 5, 2006 6:11 AM

^Of the 3 options for expanding Chicago's cpacity, that is by far the smartest option. Expanding O'Hare is incredibly expensive compared to the modest gains expected from it. Peotone is in the middle of nowhere, while it's start-up costs are less than expanding O'Hare, bringing transit to will more than surpass KORD.

The only problem with Gary is...it's in Gary; it's not in control of the powers-at-be in Springfield. This is why the spectacularly bad idea of Peotone even exists, no one in Illinois (save for Chicago) wants to give Indiana anything.

VivaLFuego Jan 5, 2006 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician
Chicago's 3rd airport needs to be Gary and anybody who thinks otherwise is a stupid idiot

Lets can Peotone and make some good decisions. The ultimate advantage of Gary is that it's already there, it already is close to having a rail connection, with all the infrastructure, to DT Chicago, and it has the Government of an entire state (Indiana) willing to fund it. If Illinois and Indiana can get together on this one, then we don't need to ass-rape hundreds of acres of farmland SW of the city to build a useless, redundant airport when we've got great prospects right across the state line

I've still yet to hear why we NEED to go the 3rd airport route....could someone tell me why Bedford Park, IL can't be turned into the Midway Airport expansion for alot less money than building a new airport? Gary can't expand much, unless you start filling in the lake. Obviously it makes more sense than Peotone, but theres tons of infrastructure that needs to be built if it were to be a major commercial airport.

Midway, its all there....just need longer runways and a configuration that allows at least 2 to be used at once without interfering with O'hare. Bedford Park is a giant industrial park and rail yard. Move the rail yard south, turn the rest into 2 parallel east-west runways of 8000ft or more. Whats the holdup, other than it not helping the downstate leeches? oh...

Rail Claimore Jan 10, 2006 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

Airtran takes up a chunk of ATL operations as well. You want a one-airline dominated airport, you'd be better off complaining about DFW where AA operates over 90% of commercial flights into and out of.

ATL is a hub for the same reason ORD and DFW are... they're conveniently located in major centers of regional population, and are the keystones in the US domestic air transportation system. Numbers really don't matter when you get that big, they're just something for politicians to brag about.

I happen to like Atlanta's airport, always have. And most transportation planners do as well, thus the reason it's design has been copied globally. That's what O'hare is trying to do with its expansion, only O'hare is going halfway with the new western terminal complex. If it were up to me, O'hare would get rid of its existing terminals completely in favor of parallel concourses perpendicular to the runway layout.

Chicago Shawn Jan 10, 2006 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR
^Of the 3 options for expanding Chicago's cpacity, that is by far the smartest option. Expanding O'Hare is incredibly expensive compared to the modest gains expected from it. Peotone is in the middle of nowhere, while it's start-up costs are less than expanding O'Hare, bringing transit to will more than surpass KORD.

The only problem with Gary is...it's in Gary; it's not in control of the powers-at-be in Springfield. This is why the spectacularly bad idea of Peotone even exists, no one in Illinois (save for Chicago) wants to give Indiana anything.

Although, the overall costs are less than O'hare expansion, the taxpayers will be shelling out more for Peotone. The vast majority of O'hare's exapnsion will come from airport bonds which will be paid for through ticket taxes and gate fees. Peotone on the other hand requires the state to buy all the land, the state to upgrade all the farm roads and the state to build the thing (although they have been serching for a private developer to build it). Then once all the neighboring land becomes engulphed in sprawl, the state taxpayers will agian be shelling out cash to upgrade all the roads to support all the new auto-centric suburbia that developed around the airport.

nergie Jan 10, 2006 7:16 PM

Rail Claimore,

I was not complaining about ATL, rather finding it hard to believe that an airport that constantly performs in the bottom 5% of on-time statistics is not subject to similar caps if it works at O'Hare.

I agree the airport is a well designed and planned, it also was built in the late 70's unlike O'Hare.

I disagree with AirTran's position. ALT is driven by Delta and it is over 85%, and as for DFW prior to Delta's reduction it had a similar split as ATL. Air Tran does not bring in nearly the connecting passengers that Delta does and I find it hard to believe people think that 15% of an Airport's total flight is considered large. Honestly, in traditional term 15% is a focus city not really large scale hub. Atlanta lives and dies with Delta, as you say it is an important domestic airport but if the Airport does not have the connecting passegeners several INTL flights will be lost. Besides NYC, CHI, SF, MIA and LA, there are very few INTL markets in the US that can be sustained by the local population. Most of the mid-continent INTL airports such as MSP,DET and DFW are driven by connecting passengers brought in because they are large hubs. ATL is no different.

spyguy Jan 10, 2006 7:57 PM

HA- just what they deserve
 
I won't post the whole thing here, but you can read on if you'd like:

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/dupa....asp?id=141207

Town calls law O’Hare revenge

Move blocks Bensenville’s police-fire cross-training

By Justin Kmitch

Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2006

With one stroke of the pen, Bensenville officials say, Gov. Rod Blagojevich destroyed a nearly $1 million public safety program they’ve worked four years to perfect.

The program, which cross-trained police officers as firefighters and emergency medical technicians, was deemed illegal by legislation signed into law by Blagojevich late Friday.

The law makes it illegal in non-home-rule towns such as Bensenville for police officers to perform firefighters’ duties and vice versa.

Village Manager and Interim Public Safety Director Jim Johnson said all firefighting gear was immediately removed from the police vehicles and officers ordered not to respond to emergencies as firefighters.

All 32 trained public safety officers also were immediately stripped of their raises, some as high as 12 percent, depending on their level of training.

Johnson said the bill was aimed at hurting Bensenville because of the village leadership’s opposition to expansion of O’Hare International Airport.
......

STR Jan 10, 2006 8:23 PM

^Now that's just bullshit. It's one thing to have a power struggle with politicians, it's entirely something else to endanger the public to make a point.

VivaLFuego Jan 10, 2006 8:33 PM

^ Yeah, I suspect theres more to the story than simple O'hare revenge. If thats it, then its very petty. Especially unfair to the cops who went through all the extra training and responsibility to have their pay cut. But perhaps theres alot more to this.

Rail Claimore Jan 10, 2006 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR
^Now that's just bullshit. It's one thing to have a power struggle with politicians, it's entirely something else to endanger the public to make a point.

But this is Illinois we're talking about. Not some ethical state like Vermont. :laugh:

I agree, that was stupid.

the urban politician Jan 11, 2006 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
I've still yet to hear why we NEED to go the 3rd airport route....could someone tell me why Bedford Park, IL can't be turned into the Midway Airport expansion for alot less money than building a new airport? Gary can't expand much, unless you start filling in the lake. Obviously it makes more sense than Peotone, but theres tons of infrastructure that needs to be built if it were to be a major commercial airport.

Midway, its all there....just need longer runways and a configuration that allows at least 2 to be used at once without interfering with O'hare. Bedford Park is a giant industrial park and rail yard. Move the rail yard south, turn the rest into 2 parallel east-west runways of 8000ft or more. Whats the holdup, other than it not helping the downstate leeches? oh...

^To be honest, I have along felt that the Chicago metro is way, way, way, way, way, way, way too economically oriented towards the north/northwest side and north/northwest suburbs. It is possibly the most lop-sided city and metro out there. I agree with JJ Jr. on one thing, which is that the south side and south suburbs NEED an economic engine that will balance out the metro. I just feel that Gary is a MUCH more sensible idea than Peotone.

Expanding OHare is a nice, short term option, but the city should really look at using a third airport for capacity. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am bugged by the fact that so many company HQ (based IN Chicago) are actually located near OHare airport instead of downtown. Adding jobs/capacity/economic growth to the south side and south suburbs will bring more balance to the region and reestablish downtown as the geographic center of all things.

spyguy Jan 11, 2006 6:10 AM

I highly doubt that Peotone Airpot (or whatever they call it) is going to do much in balancing power between the two sides. A small airport catering to low-cost airlines is not going to cause large corporations to suddenly move to the south side and inconvenience a majority of their workers who live in the N & NW suburbs.

I don't know what you mean by short term option. You'd be a fool not to believe that O'Hare is a major component of business in the Chicago area because of shipping and air travel. If we don't continue to improve and expand O'Hare who knows how many countless opportunities Chicago will lose just to appease Jackson for an airport that many users have already stated that they wouldn't use. Just this week there was an article in the Sunday Trib that explained how Jet Blue wants to fly to and from Chicago, but none of the existing options at O'Hare work for them, and that they do not really want to go to a Midway controlled by Southwest. There remains the possibility that another Midwestern city could instead take advantage of the situation and get Jet Blue to fly from their airport.

Again, I think it's delusional to believe that Peotone airport is going to be stepping stone in re-establishing the city as THE place of business. The big boys (Motorola, Sears, Kraft, Walgreens, and now HSBC) aren't going anywhere, and that's something Chicago will have to accept. The suburbs are always going to remain competitive with the city, and this is probably an arrangement that works. The suburbs will have cheap space and possibly cheaper, more attractive housing while the city will maintain good transportation and amenities like cultural and recreational facilities, and so they'll each attract a variety of clients depending on the company's needs.

An airport that will chew up precious Illinois soil is not needed. I feel that all it will create is another Rockford-esque airport except it will cost us a fair penny. I think the best option is to expand O'Hare while looking at the three nearby airports and choosing one to redevelop.

the urban politician Jan 11, 2006 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
I highly doubt that Peotone Airpot (or whatever they call it) is going to do much in balancing power between the two sides. A small airport catering to low-cost airlines is not going to cause large corporations to suddenly move to the south side and inconvenience a majority of their workers who live in the N & NW suburbs.

I don't know what you mean by short term option. You'd be a fool not to believe that O'Hare is a major component of business in the Chicago area because of shipping and air travel. If we don't continue to improve and expand O'Hare who knows how many countless opportunities Chicago will lose just to appease Jackson for an airport that many users have already stated that they wouldn't use. Just this week there was an article in the Sunday Trib that explained how Jet Blue wants to fly to and from Chicago, but none of the existing options at O'Hare work for them, and that they do not really want to go to a Midway controlled by Southwest. There remains the possibility that another Midwestern city could instead take advantage of the situation and get Jet Blue to fly from their airport.

Again, I think it's delusional to believe that Peotone airport is going to be stepping stone in re-establishing the city as THE place of business. The big boys (Motorola, Sears, Kraft, Walgreens, and now HSBC) aren't going anywhere, and that's something Chicago will have to accept. The suburbs are always going to remain competitive with the city, and this is probably an arrangement that works. The suburbs will have cheap space and possibly cheaper, more attractive housing while the city will maintain good transportation and amenities like cultural and recreational facilities, and so they'll each attract a variety of clients depending on the company's needs.

An airport that will chew up precious Illinois soil is not needed. I feel that all it will create is another Rockford-esque airport except it will cost us a fair penny. I think the best option is to expand O'Hare while looking at the three nearby airports and choosing one to redevelop.

^I agree, but when did I say I support Peotone? I am in favor of expanding Gary. I think Chicago also needs a reliever airport, because lets face it--OHare is VERY congested and it's a problem that will get worse. And every time it expands it is going to face tremendous opposition--something that Chicago can't keep dealing with during every round of expansion.

Chicago is a major transportation hub and there is no reason why it can't support 3 regional airports, much like New York City. I agree that OHare will always dominate, but there is no reason why Gary can't capitalize on the fact that it has/will have transit access to downtown Chicago.

spyguy Jan 17, 2006 12:52 AM

Nothing new here, but still interesting to read
 
http://www.dailyherald.com/search/se....asp?id=143376

Towns vowing not give up ground on O’Hare expansion

Bensenville says it will keep up expansion fight

By Joseph Ryan

Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, January 15, 2006

For decades, Elk Grove Village and Bensenville wouldn’t concede so much as a blade of grass to virtual Goliath Chicago’s efforts to expand O’Hare International Airport.

Today, though, it appears the Goliath has won out, as Elk Grove and Bensenville play out desperate last-ditch efforts to convince a judge to stall the $7.5 billion project aimed at reducing delays and increasing the number of flights.

The towns once championed by governors find themselves nearly cloutless.

And their strategy now has gone from one of completely toppling Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s plan to one of finding a way to stall the bulldozers.

Never before have Elk Grove and Bensenville, both of which have grown up next to the ever-growing airport, been so alone in their fight against expansion and faced such a mounting record of defeat.

“It is over. Mayor Daley won,” declared former U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald.

The one-term senator, who retired in 2004, single-handedly blocked Chicago’s congressional bid for expansion in 2002. He is now championed by Elk Grove and Bensenville as a “savior.”

Fitzgerald’s reality check is just one sign of an increasingly bleak outlook for Elk Grove and Bensenville’s seemingly never-ending battle against expansion.
---------------------

It continues on if you wish to read the whole thing.

Chicago2020 Feb 9, 2006 6:08 AM

http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ohareplan.gif

VivaLFuego Feb 11, 2006 1:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKECUJ
I wonder how many more homes the City has aquired in Bensenville? The last count i saw was 32. I think once the city has aquired over 200 hundred or so of the 500 + needed, Bensenville city hall will concede and give up the fight.

Just bulldoze the whole thing. Revenge.

This project should be well underway, halfway done by now.

Chicago Shawn Feb 11, 2006 2:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKECUJ
I wonder how many more homes the City has aquired in Bensenville? The last count i saw was 32. I think once the city has aquired over 200 hundred or so of the 500 + needed, Bensenville city hall will concede and give up the fight.


Well, here is the holdup: The injuctions filed by Bensinville and Elk Grve Village prevented Chicago from purchasing the homes untill the FAA made its final approval, so contracts could not be signed, even from willing sellers who want to take thier money and move on. Thank the self-indulgent leaders of those pissholes for the delay in purchasing property.

The revenge may still be in the works Viva, there is a drawing board proposal showing a proposed highway ring around the west boundry of the airport. Eventhough this is a very pliminary plan that may never materialize; the path of the proposed route will require demolition of the Bensinville Village Hall. :haha: Needless to say, when the village leaders came across that IDOT sketch they were a little pissed.

Rail Claimore Feb 11, 2006 10:50 PM

I think Chicago should just offer the residents annexation into the fine city and get the whole thing over with. :)

jcchii Feb 18, 2006 10:23 PM

I agree with above.
Pave Bensenville and create 20 active runways

STR Feb 18, 2006 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

That image is incorrect. Runway 36/18 has been inactive for several years.

spyguy Mar 3, 2006 10:51 PM

Might be a great way to get Southwest to come to Chicago, no?

Privatize rail like in Japan too!

spyguy Mar 3, 2006 11:05 PM

Midway privatization bill clears IL Senate
Proposal would facilitate lease-back deals with some city-owned assets


A bill that would make it easier for the city of Chicago to lease Midway Airport, city-owned parking garages and garbage transfer stations to private operators passed the Illinois Senate on Thursday.

City officials said they pursued the bill following success in leasing the Chicago Skyway to a foreign consortium, a deal that netted $1.4 billion.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, would keep land beneath Midway, parking facilities including the Millennium Park garage and three city waste stations tax-exempt for the life of their lease to a private entity, giving lessees the same property tax exemption the city has.

Full article:
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19723

HK Chicago Mar 4, 2006 2:22 AM

^ I thought Midway was owned by the Chicago Dept of Education and leased to the City aviation authority?

spyguy Mar 8, 2006 9:46 PM

Anyone have a spare bulldozer or two?

VivaLFuego Mar 8, 2006 9:57 PM

Ugh. Out of principle they should bulldoze the rest of Bensenville.

spyguy Mar 9, 2006 9:47 PM

Maybe they're starting to wisen up a bit and realize that the war is over for them and in the future they could benefit too.

spyguy Mar 14, 2006 9:45 PM

http://www.crainschicago.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19840

City rejects bids for O'Hare runway construction
Action raises questions about whether airport upgrade is on schedule


The City of Chicago has rejected bids for construction of the first new runway in three decades at O’Hare International Airport, a step likely to raise new questions about whether the massive airport renovation project can be completed on time and on budget.

In an action announced midday Tuesday, officials said bids from three firms to pour concrete and do other work for the new Runway 9L/27R at O’Hare’s northern edge “exceeded the engineer’s estimate” and are not acceptable.

The runway job now will be re-advertised, but not until the first quarter of next year. That means the runway will not be completed until the end of 2008, according to the city’s O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP).

OMP officials said the end of 2008 is consistent with deadlines that were announced earlier. But in an interview last September, OMP Executive Director Rosemarie Andolino had said construction on the new runway would start this fall and be completed by the end of 2007.

The rejected bids came from three prominent firms in the building business: Walsh Construction Co., which bid $58.9 million; Kiewit-Western Co., $61.7 million; and Plote Construction, Inc., at $63.7 million, Ms. Andolino said in a phone interview. Ms. Andolino declined to say exactly how much above estimates those bids were, citing competitive reasons, but said the figures were “not way above our estimates, but above.”

Ms. Andolino said the construction schedule slipped from the original date of the end of 2007 not because of the construction bids but because of delays by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in approving OMP. The 2007 date originally was issued in 2001, when the city expected FAA approval in 2004, she said. In fact, FAA approval did not come until 2005.

The city will be able to meet the new 2008 schedule because of the recent installation of computer-assisted landing systems on two more of its runways, Ms. Andolino said. With four runways now so equipped, O’Hare will be able to operate more efficiently in poor-weather conditions and some construction work can be “resequenced” and performed more quickly, she said.

OMP overall is designed to remake O’Hare in the mold of the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport in Texas, giving the Chicago facility three pairs of parallel east-to-west runways. OMP officials say they can do that for about $7 billion, but outside critics have charged that the modernization and expansion will cost far more than the city says, and that related road improvements will add billions of dollars more to the tab.

The city late last year won federal approval to proceed with OMP. Since then, according to Ms. Andolino, the city and its contractors have proceeded with land acquisition, moved nearly 200,000 cubic yards of dirt in site preparation and even poured a bit of concrete needed to ready the field for larger-scale work.

The costs of the project will come from taxes and fees levied on airlines and their passengers. O’Hare’s major carriers so far have agreed to pay roughly the first half of the modernization program. City officials predict the carriers will sign on for the remainder once the first runways are completed and airlines save money from a field that is operating more efficiently.

STR Mar 14, 2006 10:07 PM

If Walsh wasn't even able to lowball in, then I'm afraid the city estimates are the numbers that are off.

STR Mar 28, 2006 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
Maybe they're starting to wisen up a bit and realize that the war is over for them and in the future they could benefit too.

Dude, I don't think you're completely aware of what's going to happen. If everything goes through there might not be enough left of Bensenville to make a viable village. There's been talk of disolving Bensenville and splitting it between Wood Dale, Elk Grove and a couple others. There is no benefit for Bensenville. It's too far in and the western access will be too far north. They're going to keep fighting, long after SOC gives in, because it's they're fighting for their life.

Chicago Shawn Mar 28, 2006 9:04 PM

^Totaly disagree. The western Access at Thorndale Avenue will run along the northern fringe of town, yes much of it will lie in Elk Grove Village and Woodlale, but Bensiville still can rezone the north fringes for office and hotel uses. Just becuase it is losing area, does not mean it can't be a viable community. Just look at Roosemont, that place is a cash cow benifitting from the fact that it sits at O'Hare's front door. It has a very small area, much of it covered by unihabbited expressway interchanges, but it does VERY well on its own through commercial and industrial revenue spurred by its access to the airport.

Of coarse, if that doesn't work out, Bensinville can and should annex into Chicago. I guarentee those properties will be highly saught after if opened to city of Chicago employees. The northwest side is seeing property appreciation accelerating upward very quickly.

STR Mar 28, 2006 9:31 PM

Never said I agreed with the thought either. I'm just reporting the mindset of Bensenville leadership. They're not going to be bought out. And while they' talking (nothing remotely official) about dissolution, they'd never, ever, ever, ever annex into Chicago. Giles is Da Mayor in da miniature, do you see Daley swallowing his pride like that?

STR Mar 28, 2006 10:13 PM

*shakes head* How can you keep missing the point? They're (by they, I mean Giles, as everyone else is a yes-man) not being rational. It's ego and emotion. Ceasar doesn't like Carthage messing around in his turf and will stop at nothing to get rid of the threat because accomidation is out of the question.

spyguy Mar 30, 2006 3:04 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

City bids on cemetery in way of O'Hare deal

By Virginia Groark

Tribune staff reporter
Published March 30, 2006

The City of Chicago on Wednesday offered $630,000 for a 157-year-old cemetery in the path of the O'Hare International Airport expansion plan, even though a federal court has barred the city from acquiring the land until it rules on a pending case.

The city initiated the proceedings to acquire St. Johannes Cemetery from St. John's United Church of Christ in Bensenville. The figure does not include the cost of moving the approximately 1,300 graves in the burial ground. The city would pay for that separately, officials said.

If the church does not respond within 30 days, the city said it could start condemnation proceedings.

But a lawyer for the relatives of people buried in the cemetery said the offer and threat of condemnation is nothing more than an attempt to scare his clients because a federal court has temporarily barred the city from acquiring the land.

"It's an attempt to intimidate," attorney Joseph Karaganis said. "It's kind of a cruel pressure because these are elderly people," he said. "And every time Chicago does one of these things, it creates an atmosphere of fear and hostility."

Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program, acknowledged that the city could not acquire the property until the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on an anti-expansion court case backed by Bensenville and Elk Grove Village. But she said the city initiated the offer to keep its program moving.

Though Chicago can't condemn the property unless the court rules in its favor, that process can be lengthy and is not something "that can be resolved in a day or two."

"We have a program to build," Andolino said. "And what we have to constantly work against is budget and schedule, and we need to make sure we keep this program moving ahead."

Even if the city is eventually allowed to acquire the land, it has pledged not to remove the graves until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia finishes its review of the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of the expansion plan. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for May 5.

Located in DuPage County at the edge of the existing airfield, St. Johannes lies in the path of one of the proposed runways in the $15 billion O'Hare expansion plan.

It also is the key to the legal battle being waged by the plan's opponents, who argue that it would be unconstitutional to move the cemetery to make way for the expansion.

Specifically, they say that moving the graves would violate the church's 1st Amendment rights to exercise its religious beliefs.

Opponents also argue that state legislators discriminated against the church when they passed the O'Hare Modernization Act in 2003, excluding the cemetery from another state law that prohibits government from putting "a substantial burden" on religious practice.

While some opponents argue plans can be changed to save the graveyard, Andolino said the FAA could not find a way to route the runway away from the cemetery, though it did spare nearby Rest Haven cemetery.

"St. Johannes is in the footprint of the expansion, and there's nothing else we could do to try to change that," she said.

spyguy Mar 31, 2006 3:51 PM

Land at O'Hare will house city workers
March 31, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter


Military land at O'Hare Airport, acquired more than a decade ago for development that has yet to happen, will become the new home for 600 city employees in a $22.5 million move designed to free up lucrative airport space for concessions.

Aviation Department employees will be united with workers assigned to the O'Hare Modernization Project at a vacant military building near Zemke and Bessie Coleman Drive. In recent months, the building has been used to train air marshals.

The 165,000-square foot structure known as "Building Four" is being converted to office space at a cost of $22.5 million in preparation for a move sometime this fall. General airport revenue bonds retired by airline revenues will finance the move, officials said.

Roughly 2,000 Aviation Department employees are currently scattered around O'Hare in Terminals 1, 2, 3 and 5. They're located on the landside as well as the airside beyond security checkpoints.

The decision to relocate 600 employees not directly involved in airport operations is designed to free up 500,000 square feet of terminal space for revenue-generating concessions. The average O'Hare concession takes up 700-square feet of space.

"The airline industry has been hit hard. Our partner airlines are incredibly important to the viability of the airport," said Aviation Department spokesperson Wendy Abrams. "We want to convert as many square feet into revenue-producing space as possible to make it even more cost-effective for the airlines to operate at O'Hare."

Continued:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-hare31.html

Chicago Shawn Apr 6, 2006 4:53 PM

HELL YEAH! This project can now really move full steam ahead. LET THE BULLDOZERS ROLL! The only thing left to sort out is the cemmitary issue.

Chicago Shawn Apr 11, 2006 4:12 AM

^Its delayed because of the opponents. This would have gotten underway much earlier if the retarded leaders of Bensinville and Elk Grove Village were not so fucking self-centered. Plans for expansion have been proposed for years and should have gotte underway a long time ago. It was these towns and the suburban GOP which led the way in making sure O'Hare expansion wouldn't take off and pushed to build a new airport in Peotone, which had the support of former governers Jim Edgar, and Geoge Ryan, the latter of which change his stance in exchange for keeping Meigs Field open. A deal that was supposed to be cemented in place was killed by our former senator Peter I hate the Daley Machine Fitzgerald, and allowed an opening for the runway at Meiges to be torn up. The continued delay caused by those two shithole suburbs has only added to he problem as everyone else concedded to the city of Chicago winning this long battle. And durring the time this battle has been waged, the cost of construction materials has risen substaintialy because of China's building binge.

Of course there might be much more to it, but I think this is the root of the problem.

VivaLFuego Apr 11, 2006 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
^Its delayed because of the opponents. This would have gotten underway much earlier if the retarded leaders of Bensinville and Elk Grove Village were not so fucking self-centered. Plans for expansion have been proposed for years and should have gotte underway a long time ago. It was these towns and the suburban GOP which led the way in making sure O'Hare expansion wouldn't take off and pushed to build a new airport in Peotone, which had the support of former governers Jim Edgar, and Geoge Ryan, the latter of which change his stance in exchange for keeping Meigs Field open. A deal that was supposed to be cemented in place was killed by our former senator Peter I hate the Daley Machine Fitzgerald, and allowed an opening for the runway at Meiges to be torn up. The continued delay caused by those two shithole suburbs has only added to he problem as everyone else concedded to the city of Chicago winning this long battle. And durring the time this battle has been waged, the cost of construction materials has risen substaintialy because of China's building binge.

Of course there might be much more to it, but I think this is the root of the problem.

The Chicago skyscraper advocacy group should adopt a "Bulldoze Bensenville" stance in the official party platform.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:32 PM.

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