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)

spyguy Apr 18, 2006 8:29 PM

So are they building another control tower? I remember seeing a really cool design for one on airport-tech.com under the O'Hare project...

Chicago Shawn Apr 20, 2006 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

Bensenville Village President John Geils said he thinks any deal should be delayed until various lawsuits over Chicago’s acquisition of land in Bensenville are settled “because we’re going to prevail.”

Good lord, give it up already. This mayor continues to act like a 5 year old that doesn't understand he is not the center of the universe. He should take a cue from the forest preserve district and stop wasting tax payer money. Enough with the delays already, this should have been underway a long time ago.

JV_325i Apr 20, 2006 5:01 AM

"because we're going to prevail."

Yeah dude, that is completely the right attitude. You go man, don't let those assholes get in your way. After all, you are a third-world country with a peaceful society facing oppresion from a ruthless military dictatorship. Oh wait, you are really some shit-ass westside suburb? Oh man, I'm sorry. This makes even more sense now.

But not really. Seriously what is wrong with this guy? Last time I was at O'Hare I was delayed for eight hours on some random weekday that should have been no problem. It is getting rediculous there. Don't these people realize that?

STR Apr 20, 2006 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
Good lord, give it up already. This mayor continues to act like a 5 year old that doesn't understand he is not the center of the universe. He should take a cue from the forest preserve district and stop wasting tax payer money. Enough with the delays already, this should have been underway a long time ago.

Geils thinks he's Ceasar, he will fight for ever inch of territory.

BVictor1 Apr 20, 2006 5:06 PM

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

Bill reins in land grabs
State deal would aid private owners, allow O'Hare expansion

By Christi Parsons
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 20, 2006


SPRINGFIELD -- In a move that could make it much more difficult for the government to seize private property, the Illinois House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a compromise measure that has tacit consent from wary municipal leaders.

Key to the agreement is a guarantee that Chicago city officials can continue their expansion of O'Hare International Airport under the current laws, which give them sweeping powers to condemn private property in suburban communities bordering the airfield. Nearly 1,000 special redevelopment districts now active around the state could also continue operating under the old rules.

But the vast majority of private property owners in Illinois would get stronger protections in cases where government officials want to take their land for use by the community. The bill would put a greater burden on government officials to show why they want to condemn a piece of property. It also would increase the amount of money they have to pay if they succeed.

"The pendulum is swinging in favor of the private property owner in Illinois," said Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), a Downstate lawyer and sponsor who negotiated the agreement. "These are substantial wins for the private landowner, but it's also something that the municipalities can live with."

The measure passed the House by a vote of 85-6 and now heads to the Senate, which easily passed an earlier version of the bill last month. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has yet to weigh in on the issue and aides said Wednesday that they would study the complex legislation.

The bill is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial decision last year that said public bodies can take privately held land even for the purpose of giving it to another private owner for economic development. The decision ignited a public furor, and lawmakers in many states moved to protect--and reassure--private property owners.

The Illinois legislation would put the burden on public officials to justify in court the need to condemn private property. Current law generally puts the responsibility on the private property owner to prove that the government's condemnation plan is unjustified. The legislation would raise the bar even higher in some cases where local officials want to take private land for private development. In those instances, the bill would also require that government officials meet the civil court system's standard of "clear and convincing" evidence that the condemnation is necessary.

If the condemnation were needed to clean up blight, however, the higher standard wouldn't apply, even in cases where the land was being seized for private development.

And in all condemnation cases, the condemning authority would have to pay the owner not only the fair market value of the property but also some relocation expenses, attorneys' fees and other costs.

"Now, people will know exactly what their rights are," said state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest), the Senate sponsor. "This lays out how condemning authorities and private property owners are to work together to get a fair solution."

Though lawmakers of both parties say they like the idea of standing up for private property owners, the proposal ran into trouble because of concerns from municipal officials all over the state. They were afraid that raising the legal standards would make it too hard to continue current cleanups of blighted areas and other public projects.

"The costs will be greater as a result," said Roger Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, which represents more than 1,100 municipalities in the state. "It increases the litigation expense for condemnation and the costs of relocation."

In Chicago, officials were worried that the proposal could bog down redevelopment efforts in about 150 special improvement districts around the city. On a grander scale, they feared the changes could seriously hamper plans to expand and modernize O'Hare.

But in recent weeks opponents worked out an agreement with lawmakers that exempts the O'Hareproject, as well as the hundreds of existing tax increment financing districts in the state, from the new rules.

The city and the municipal league aren't thrilled about the impact of the tougher proposals on future projects, but their lawyers say they are relieved by the compromise provisions.

"They're basically intended to protect development that are already under way, where there have been large expenditures on the assumptions that they'd be able to be completed," said Steve Holler, a lawyer for the city. Holler said the new bill would "tilt the playing field" in favor of private property owners, and echoed concerns that the change will make future projects more expensive.

Lawmakers say the trade-off is worth it.

"One of the major reasons this country was formed was on the basis of private ownership of property," said Rep. Terry Parke (R-Hoffman Estates). "People want the ability to negotiate in good faith for their property that they own, and that they have, for themselves and the future of their families."

Bradley, the House sponsor, agreed.

"If you're going to take someone's property," Bradley said, "you should have to justify what you're doing."

----------

cparsons@tribune.com


Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Norsider Apr 21, 2006 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JV_325i
"because we're going to prevail."

Yeah dude, that is completely the right attitude. You go man, don't let those assholes get in your way. After all, you are a third-world country with a peaceful society facing oppresion from a ruthless military dictatorship. Oh wait, you are really some shit-ass westside suburb? Oh man, I'm sorry. This makes even more sense now.

But not really. Seriously what is wrong with this guy? Last time I was at O'Hare I was delayed for eight hours on some random weekday that should have been no problem. It is getting rediculous there. Don't these people realize that?

I agree, JV. I have no problem whatsoever with dismissing out of hand ANY opponents of this project. There is absolutely not a single issue that they could raise that would rise to even close to the same importance as expanding Chicago's air transport capabilities. These morons can continue to complain about the fact that they bought real estate right next to an airport that was nearing capacity, but I simply do not care.

nomarandlee Apr 26, 2006 2:34 AM

Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

spyguy Apr 26, 2006 3:29 AM

Maybe, or AA and UA will just continue to dominate O'Hare. I'd make that call once something substantial comes out of the Western Terminal proposal.

Rail Claimore Apr 26, 2006 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

Highly unlikely.

VivaLFuego Apr 26, 2006 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Does anyone else that it is possible that after full expansion another carrier would set up a hub/focus point at O'Hare?

Yeah seems unlikely. More likely that UA and AA just continue expanding and other airlines increase service.

Which raises an interesting argument for a 3rd airport, since Midway is basically owned by Southwest at this point with no further expansion anywhere on the horizon.

Busy Bee Apr 26, 2006 6:17 PM

Gary! Gary! Has anything ever been more obvious than Gary?

nomarandlee Apr 26, 2006 7:21 PM

I know its been asked somewhere (and maybe no one knows for sure) but what are the estimates on on maximum expansion of Gary in terms of flights and passengers? Is it bound to be nothing more then an adjunct airport like Midway or does it have the potential to be much bigger?

Latoso Apr 26, 2006 8:26 PM

Illinois and Chicago are far too parochial for Gary to ever be a viable option. The only way it would happen, with any expedience anyway, is if Illinois annexed Lake County, Indiana and Gary were annexed by Chicago. If that highly unlikely scenario occurred, Peotone would be dead in a week and there would be federal funding approved for an expansion of Chicago's 3rd Airport (Gary) by the end of the year.

Chicago3rd Apr 26, 2006 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latoso
Illinois and Chicago are far too parochial for Gary to ever be a viable option. The only way it would happen, with any expedience anyway, is if Illinois annexed Lake County, Indiana and Gary were annexed by Chicago. If that highly unlikely scenario occurred, Peotone would be dead in a week and there would be federal funding approved for an expansion of Chicago's 3rd Airport (Gary) by the end of the year.

There is federal funding already approved for the expansion of Gary...see note above. Gary has been a part of the Chicago System since 1995. Peotone will be under the control of IL while Gary will be controlled by Gary and Chicago.

The Gary Post Tribune reports today, in a lengthy story by Lisa Shidler:

Gary/Chicago International Airport backers say nothing can stop the airport from being a success now that it is snaring $57.84 million from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The go-ahead for the funding will bring 320 new jobs to the Gary area and energize Northwest Indiana’s economy, a bi-partisan coalition of state, local and national officials said Monday.

Airport leaders say the airport, which has been struggling to lure consistent scheduled passenger service, will now have an advantage once it can move the elevated railroad tracks and complete other projects including extending the runway.

Airport officials also are hopeful that airlines will take notice of this funding and will be more likely to consider starting scheduled passenger service here now that approval has been granted. * * *

King believes snagging this important funding will help the airport lure more airlines, but did say nothing is a guarantee.

“It’s always a bit of a dance,’’ he said when dealing with airlines and pointed out that Gary has had a number of carriers including Pan American Airlines, Southeast and most recently Hooters Air.

“Some say these are rinky dink,” King said. “But having these carriers contributed to showing that people will come here.”

Currently, Hooters has been providing scheduled passenger service out of Gary, but temporarily stopped its service until March.

Officials said the deal couldn’t have been approved without bi-partisan support.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was also at the press conference at the airport on Monday, and said the announcement is just the start for positive news at the airport.

“This is just the beginning,’’ Daniels said. “Indiana’s got to act boldly. It’s just a great day for all of Indiana.”

"Gary airport lands the big one" is the headine to this story by Keith Benman in the Munster (NW Indiana) Times. Some quotes:
"This makes an emphatic statement this will be the next great Chicago airport," said Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, standing at the airport terminal's west end as union construction workers and others looked on Monday afternoon.

The money will be used to add 2,000 feet to the northwest end of the airport's main runway. The Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad tracks, which lie 130 feet from that end of the runway, will be moved westward. * * *

U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., a key player in securing the funding, pitched the Gary airport Monday as crucial to the economic health of the entire Chicago area.

"If we run out of airport capacity, our economy will stagnate," Bayh said from Washington earlier in the day. "We have to get beyond these petty jurisdictional battles."

The "petty battles" comment refers to the running feud between Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his Illinois allies over Jackson's proposed Abraham Lincoln National Airport in south suburban Peotone.

"Gary/Chicago is a reality on the ground capable of serving people's needs, not a cornfield somewhere," Bayh added in another swipe at Peotone.

Another Times story reports:
Some south suburban Peotone residents hoped Monday's FAA pledge of $57.8 million to the Gary airport would help sound the death knell for a proposed airport near their community.

But recent activities and statements of the proposed Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission show that supporters of a facility between Peotone and University Park are doing anything but giving up.

For several years, the Gary/Chicago International Airport and backers of a Peotone airport have been locked in a debate -- and a race to distinguish their respective plans as the third major Chicago-area airport.

Monday's announcement that the FAA has approved a letter of intent to fund Gary airport runway expansions and other face-lifts put the already established Indiana facility that much further ahead in the race.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune reports today:
Indiana landed federal funding Monday for an almost $90 million project to expand Gary-Chicago International Airport, which has never been able to show its commercial viability despite its proximity to the Loop.

Indiana's governor, Gary's mayor and other dignitaries gathered in the passenger terminal of the underused airport to announce a pledge of $57.8 million in federal funding over 10 years from the U.S. Department of Transportation. * * *

Construction would start this year and be completed as early as 2008, by which time officials said they are confident several carriers seeking relief from congestion at O'Hare International and Midway Airports would be operating at Gary-Chicago, which is about a half-hour drive from the Loop.

Yet the only VIP missing from the crowd at Monday's funding celebration was an airline chief executive officer to announce new service starting up at Gary-Chicago, which Indiana officials tout as the Chicago area's future "third airport."

"The last time I looked, there was still corn and soybeans" at the proposed airport across the border in Illinois near Peotone, said Gary-Chicago airport director Paul Karas. "We are a functioning airport."

But Gary-Chicago once again offers no regularly scheduled airline service after Hooters Air suspended service on Jan. 9. The niche carrier said it may resume service at Gary as early as March.

For now, the airport survives on revenue from charter passenger flights, cargo operations, general aviation and corporations, including Chicago-based Boeing Co., which hangars its Midwest corporate jet fleet at Gary-Chicago.


Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 17, 2006 07:34 AM
Posted to Indiana economic development

Chi_Coruscant Apr 28, 2006 8:37 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed...s-sneed28.html

BY MICHAEL SNEED SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Yipes! Sneed hears rumbles the City of Chicago is about to deluge the DuPage County Courthouse with 600 eminent domain cases pertaining to the O'Hare expansion.

Court officials are scrambling to prepare for the onslaught that will certainly stretch the judicial resources out there.

Runways, runways. Runaway runways?

VivaLFuego Apr 28, 2006 9:27 PM

I'm happy about that Gary news....

there's a NICTD south shore stop thats perhaps a 3-5 minute drive from the terminal building. It is about a 50 minute train ride to downtown Chicago. Just coordinate a shuttle bus between the terminal and the NICTD stop, and voila, instant transit access.

If a few airlines come in to Gary, the 3rd airport question might just answer itself.

And it'd be great Indiana and NICTD ever get their act together on getting some more rail cars to run more trains to Chicago.

BVictor1 Apr 29, 2006 6:06 PM

Well, I'm sure that this will be one of those 600 eminent domain cases mentioned above.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,129134.story

Church rejects offer to buy cemetery in O'Hare expansion path

Associated Press
Published April 28, 2006, 7:07 PM CDT



CHICAGO -- A suburban church has rejected the city of Chicago's offer to buy a cemetery in the path of the expansion of O'Hare International Airport, calling it "unacceptable and even blasphemous."

The church's decision comes one week before a federal appeals court will begin hearing oral arguments on whether moving the graves would violate the church's religious freedom.

St. John's United Church of Christ in Bensenville submitted a letter to the city Friday informing officials of the decision to reject an offer of $630,000 made last month for the 157-year-old St. Johannes Cemetery.

"As a Christian congregation, we find this proposal entirely unacceptable and even blasphemous," the letter said.

Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program, said the city is looking at its options, including possible condemnation of the property. The city has said it would pay to move about 1,200 graves.

"We understand this is sensitive to the families," Andolino said. "We want to be able to work with them."

Both sides await decisions in two lawsuits now in federal courts. The cases claim the cemetery should be protected by the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in one of the cases on May 5.

"The members of St. John's Church are highly determined to fulfill their covenant with those who have gone before to protect their resting places," said John Mauck, an attorney representing the church, in a statement.

The Federal Aviation Administration has said O'Hare expansion project will reduce delays by 68 percent by its scheduled completion in 2013.


Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press

jpIllInoIs May 12, 2006 12:04 AM

^^ Lukecuj, You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Imagine any other municipality trying to strangle the golden goose like mayor johnson is doing with o'hare. Like the mayor of Vegas wanting to cap gambling, or the mayor of LA/Hollywood putting limits on movie making. Or the mayor of Miami trying to blot out the sunshine. What a fool johnson is,, if UAL moves while he is still in office he will be coming to the voters to raise property taxes on the residents and lure new businesses to the village with corporate give aways and handouts. One trip thru the industrial park now will reveal many 'for lease' & 'for sale' signs. :whip:

Chicago Shawn May 12, 2006 12:12 AM

^Folks, UAL is in Elk Grove TOWNSHIP, Not Elk Grove VILLAGE. Its in a unincorperated area of Cook County, and thus does not give any property taxes to that shitty little insignificant sprawl suburb. UAL shutting down opperations though would still hurt the local school district, and likley produce a drop in sales tax revenues from local business. IMO this is a good thing, because the village will still have to deal with the fallout. Elk Grove Village needs to be punished for holding up the Expansion for so long.

Chicago Shawn May 18, 2006 1:32 AM

^Its not a big deal. The new Western terminal is essential to making this expansion plan work. The 45 minute taxi time is for the planes on the far north runway to get to the existing terminals. The western terminal and gates will be much closer. Of course, if Elk Grove Village and Bensinville weren't being such annoying little bitches about western land purchases, we could have the new terminal, taxiways, and second new runway already under construction.

spyguy May 18, 2006 2:02 AM

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...=news&id=20660

O'Hare bonds vulnerable to downgrade: Merrill Lynch analyst

O’Hare International Airport bonds totaling about $3.5 billion are vulnerable to a credit rating downgrade because it's at risk from service cuts by its two major airlines and escalating costs of runway reconstruction, Merrill Lynch & Co. said in a research report.

In December, the City of Chicago sold $1.5 billion in bonds to begin funding its $7.5 billion runway reconfiguration at O’Hare. The current cost per enplaned passenger is competitive at $9, but is expected to rise to more than $16 by 2014 as debt mounts for the O’Hare expansion project, Merrill bond analyst Philip Villaluz wrote in a note published Tuesday.

“O’Hare is susceptible to cutbacks by its two major hubbing carriers, United (Airlines) and American (Airlines),” the analyst wrote.

Legal issues continue to overshadow United’s leases and the number of gates it intends to hold onto remains uncertain, the analyst wrote. United accounts for 38% of O’Hare emplanements, while American accounts for 28%, the analyst wrote.

Chicago’s $3.5 billion in so-called “third-lien” airport debt is insured and thus carries an AAA rating. The airport also carries $1.2 million in senior debt and $870 million in bonds backed by passenger facility charges.

Moody’s Investors Service gives the bonds an underlying rating of A2, while Standard & Poor’s rates them at A-. Both ratings are near the middle of the investment–grade pack.

The analyst noted a continued rebound in airport traffic and “residual” agreements that require airlines to jointly pick up charges.

A call to the O’Hare Modernization Project office was not immediately returned.

VivaLFuego May 18, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
^Its not a big deal. The new Western terminal is essential to making this expansion plan work. The 45 minute taxi time is for the planes on the far north runway to get to the existing terminals. The western terminal and gates will be much closer. Of course, if Elk Grove Village and Bensinville weren't being such annoying little bitches about western land purchases, we could have the new terminal, taxiways, and second new runway already under construction.

When the project becomes a boondoggle, and I think it will*, those 2 shitty little excuses for suburbs will be largely to blame.

* 1) delayed schedule -> escalating costs, 2) lack of perimeter taxiways, 3) freeloading, perpetually-near-bankrupt airlines.

Rail Claimore May 18, 2006 10:13 PM

If worse becomes worst, they can lengthen existing runways 9L, 4L, from around 7000 ft to over 10,000 ft if capacity for big jets is an issue. 14R is already big enough to accomodate the biggest planes in existence at 13,000X200 ft. I think the current 9L-27R runway that's under delay will get built, but what comes after that is iffy.

VivaLFuego May 18, 2006 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
If worse becomes worst, they can lengthen existing runways 9L, 4L, from around 7000 ft to over 10,000 ft if capacity for big jets is an issue. 14R is already big enough to accomodate the biggest planes in existence at 13,000X200 ft. I think the current 9L-27R runway that's under delay will get built, but what comes after that is iffy.

The whole plan will depend on the west terminal and perimeter taxiways (see past experience in places like DFW and ATL), and right now those are far enough off that its hard to say with certainty they will get built.

A couple lengthened runways and one new runway thats a few miles from the terminal alone will do very little to improve operations at O'hare without the other stuff, especially at the price it will cost.

If they don't get cracking (and cracking bensenville/elk grove skulls if necessary), this will be a boondoggle.

BVictor1 Jun 9, 2006 1:55 AM

I dare bensonvile to reject the plan.

WonderlandPark Jun 9, 2006 3:17 AM

Whoa, this reads worse than the Big Dig.

VivaLFuego Jun 22, 2006 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj
Bensenville torn over park offer By Justin Kmitch
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, June 22, 2006

Refusing to negotiate could cost them more than $1.32 million for a 6 1/2 acre park. Negotiating with Chicago, for a higher price, however, could make them outcasts, even traders to some.

Caught between the two extremes, a majority of Bensenville Park District officials Wednesday night agreed to call an emergency meeting with the Bensenville Intergovernmental Group to discuss the $1.32 million offer they received from Chicago to purchase Schuster Park.

Last year, all of the village’s taxing bodies agreed to bring all such proposals before the intergovernmental body and to refuse all negotiations with Chicago.
“We’ve been offered a lot of money and we want to honor our agreement that we have with BIG. We don’t want to be viewed as the red-headed stepchild, or the only public body that wants to get into a discussion with the city of Chicago,” said Commissioner Henry Wesseler after Wednesday’s 4 to 1 vote.

“However, because there is so much money on the table, the bottom line is we feel it’s not just a decision for the park district but it’s a decision for all of the taxing bodies. We’re certainly in a position where we certainly are in a position where we would want to (talk with Chicago) but we’d like to talk with the rest of the taxing bodies and get everything out on the open floor.”

Earlier this month, Chicago’s O’Hare Modernization Program made the offer to the park district and a similar offer of $1.085 million for nearby 3-acre Bretman Park Thursday. Both are in areas Chicago wants to acquire to make room for airport expansion. The district and the village have less than two weeks to respond to the offers. If they’re rejected or no response is received, Chicago may initiate condemnation.

Because Schuster Park was created from a Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds grant, the park must be replaced with a resource of equal or higher value under a program administered by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Attorney Joseph Karaganis, who represents the village of Bensenville and the Suburban O’Hare Commission, suggested the village and park district write a joint letter to Chicago stating their intent to discuss the offers with the group. That, he said, would keep both taxing bodies in compliance with last year’s agreement to filter all O’Hare discussions through the group.

Several other opinions were also mixed into the final decision to hold an emergency meeting. Commissioner Rich Johnson initially motioned that the park district outright refuse to negotiate with Chicago but no commissioners seconded the motion.

Commissioner Tom Tolin, the only commissioner to eventually vote against discussing the offer with the Bensenville Intergovernmental Group, said he believes the non-binding group has the district’s hands tied.

“We are an independent body and we should have the best interest of our taxpayers at heart. And by not being allowed to find out where we can go with this negotiation without entering into a negotiation, I think is a disservice to the people who elected us,” Tolin said following the meeting. “I know we all ran on (platforms of) no expansion, but the point is they’re going to take the land either way, whether we negotiate or not. Without even making the attempt, we’re giving up a one-time shot because we won’t get this opportunity again.”

Prior to entering the hour-long closed-door session that resulted in Wednesday’s motion, Karaganis and two constituents reminded the commissioners of their intergovernmental pact and urged them to refuse all negotiations. One parks resident urged them to consider all options before them.

Since the project is already delayed, I hope they decide not to talk so they get nothing for the land in their miserable little shithole of a town.

Bulldoze Bensenville.

Such a slogan would ensure victory for any 2007 Chicago mayoral candidate.

TALLTOWER Jun 24, 2006 11:04 PM

Yay I can't wait

nomarandlee Jul 3, 2006 4:47 AM

Not sure if this is the place to pose this question (maybe Chicago transportation thread would be better), but I was looking at the international destinations served by O'Hare and I was noticing some glaring inter. locales that aren't yet served by O'Hare. Many of these cities are routes (some recently) by the likes of Dallas and Atlanta (one would expect LA, NYC, and Miami to serve certain destinations that other U.S. cities wouldn't). Which of these cities would you like to see direct service to, that you think will be served sometime in the near future, and the most important for Chicago to have direct service to? (please add any that I may have forgotten).......


- Moscow (huge growing economy and Chicago's sizable Russian population miffed at why there are not direct links already).
- Bangkok (important city that has no direct air links in-between LA and NYC)
- Rio (surprised it doesn't offer at least seasonal service)
- Santiago, Chile (maybe South America's most healthy booming city)
- J'Burg (the economic heart and air link to much of Sub-Africa). The few times I went there were dozens and dozens of Chicago black Americans who were going on something akin to "heritage tours")
- Cairo (huge city that is the heart in many ways of the Arab world)
- Dubai (while not that big with Americans it does itself offer many airlinks)
- Athens (Chicago has a sizable Greek population and would be at least a good seasonal location)
- Prague or Budapest (while these cities aren't huge markets they are growing and becoming every increasingly attractive tourist destinations)

Rail Claimore Jul 3, 2006 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Not sure if this is the place to pose this question (maybe Chicago transportation thread would be better), but I was looking at the international destinations served by O'Hare and I was noticing some glaring inter. locales that aren't yet served by O'Hare. Many of these cities are routes (some recently) by the likes of Dallas and Atlanta (one would expect LA, NYC, and Miami to serve certain destinations that other U.S. cities wouldn't). Which of these cities would you like to see direct service to, that you think will be served sometime in the near future, and the most important for Chicago to have direct service to? (please add any that I may have forgotten).......


- Moscow (huge growing economy and Chicago's sizable Russian population miffed at why there are not direct links already).
- Bangkok (important city that has no direct air links in-between LA and NYC)
- Rio (surprised it doesn't offer at least seasonal service)
- Santiago, Chile (maybe South America's most healthy booming city)
- J'Burg (the economic heart and air link to much of Sub-Africa). The few times I went there were dozens and dozens of Chicago black Americans who were going on something akin to "heritage tours")
- Cairo (huge city that is the heart in many ways of the Arab world)
- Dubai (while not that big with Americans it does itself offer many airlinks)
- Athens (Chicago has a sizable Greek population and would be at least a good seasonal location)
- Prague or Budapest (while these cities aren't huge markets they are growing and becoming every increasingly attractive tourist destinations)

Delta is the only US carrier to serve Moscow (and maybe the whole of Russia), thus you'll have flights out of its international hubs at JFK and ATL. Aeroflot and Delta both being members of Skyteam might have something to do with that. No doubt if UAL were to pick up flights to Russia, you'd see daily departures from ORD and IAD, perhaps even JFK.

As for the ones in Latin America, that's always been UAL's weakest major international region. UAL's strong suit has always been the transpacific market (along with NWA). Are you sure UAL doesn't have a flight to BKK from NRT?

nergie Jul 3, 2006 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Not sure if this is the place to pose this question (maybe Chicago transportation thread would be better), but I was looking at the international destinations served by O'Hare and I was noticing some glaring inter. locales that aren't yet served by O'Hare. Many of these cities are routes (some recently) by the likes of Dallas and Atlanta (one would expect LA, NYC, and Miami to serve certain destinations that other U.S. cities wouldn't). Which of these cities would you like to see direct service to, that you think will be served sometime in the near future, and the most important for Chicago to have direct service to? (please add any that I may have forgotten).......


- Moscow (huge growing economy and Chicago's sizable Russian population miffed at why there are not direct links already).
- Bangkok (important city that has no direct air links in-between LA and NYC)
- Rio (surprised it doesn't offer at least seasonal service)
- Santiago, Chile (maybe South America's most healthy booming city)
- J'Burg (the economic heart and air link to much of Sub-Africa). The few times I went there were dozens and dozens of Chicago black Americans who were going on something akin to "heritage tours")
- Cairo (huge city that is the heart in many ways of the Arab world)
- Dubai (while not that big with Americans it does itself offer many airlinks)
- Athens (Chicago has a sizable Greek population and would be at least a good seasonal location)
- Prague or Budapest (while these cities aren't huge markets they are growing and becoming every increasingly attractive tourist destinations)


As a frequent traveller, currently in Taipei, I agree that there are several cities that ORD needs direct links to. I would also ask why not Singapore, I know UAL fly NRT, HNK to Singapore as well as BKK. But I heard that Emirates is looking into ORD as is Thai Airways. They are just waiting for aircraft delivery. UAL, prior to 9/11 had non-stop to Santiago and there was talk about bringing it back. I always had same question about Moscow as well as Athens. If there is flight to Istanbul, Athens would be possible. Also Quantas few years ago announced service Melbourne to ORD but never took off due to SARS.

spyguy Jul 3, 2006 4:59 PM

Probably Moscow, although I'd like to blow my savings on a ticket with Emirates.

spyguy Jul 3, 2006 5:07 PM

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

O'Hare regains No. 1 title

By John McCormick

Tribune staff reporter
Published July 3, 2006, 11:31 AM CDT

After dropping behind Atlanta in 2005, Chicago again holds the distinction of having the nation's busiest airport— at least for the first six months of this year.

O'Hare recorded 477,001 flights, putting it ahead of Atlanta even though both airports saw modest declines from a year ago, according to the latest Federal Aviation Administration data.

The declines came amid an increasingly competitive environment that is forcing airlines to cram more passengers on fewer flights and otherwise trim expenses.

Through the first six months of 2006, O'Hare saw a 1.3 percent decline in traffic from the same period a year earlier, while Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport's was down by 5 percent, to 472,431, the FAA reported. Traffic at the nation's No. 3 airfield, Dallas-Ft. Worth, fell by 2.1 percent to 348,434.

Chicago's Midway Airport — a hub for Southwest Airlines — saw an increase in traffic of 3.1 percent, recording 145,377 flights, roughly one-third the size of O'Hare's traffic.

rgolch Jul 3, 2006 5:17 PM

^^ Does anyone really regard this as an important title?

I mean, it's great as an economic engine for the area. But the only people who seem to know this statistic outside of this forum are people either living in chicago or atlanta.

Rail Claimore Jul 3, 2006 6:28 PM

ORD probably won't stay on top for the rest of the year given the opening of ATL's fifth runway last month, but regardless of any of that jazz, these numbers possibly indicate the effect of operations caps that have been put on both airports, plus airlines trimming down their operations due to an increase in fuel prices and other financial reasons. Delta's bankruptcy is probably a big reason behind ATL's decline and UAL is only now out of Chapter 11, so they're not exactly out of the woods yet.

nergie Jul 4, 2006 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
Probably Moscow, although I'd like to blow my savings on a ticket with Emirates.

I was fortunate to travel with Emirates from Dubai to Singapore, wow what service. I was on business trip, so my savings were intact, but I could not believe the level of service and comfort of this flight.

spyguy Aug 2, 2006 12:58 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...localnorth-hed

City details plans for moving graves
Cemetery is in path of O'Hare expansion

By Virginia Groark

Tribune staff reporter
Published August 1, 2006

Chicago does not have permission to take possession of St. Johannes Cemetery, but that didn't prevent city officials Monday from outlining their plan to move more than 1,000 graves from the DuPage County burial grounds by Feb. 1, 2008.

The 157-year-old cemetery sits on the southwest edge of O'Hare International Airport, and the city wants to relocate the graves to make room for a runway as part of its $15 billion airfield expansion.

But with two legal battles pending, the city is not allowed to take title to the graveyard or disturb it until the federal courts rule, even though bids are due Sept. 19. Chicago is soliciting bids for grave relocation because it wants to move quickly if it prevails in court.

Still, city officials said they want to proceed with respect. In a meeting near O'Hare on Monday with funeral directors, archeologists and grave-relocation experts, city officials said contractors should not walk in the burial ground, located about a half-mile north of Irving Park Road. They also reminded the group that people continue to visit the graves.

"The cemetery will continue to be active throughout the relocation," said James Chilton, south airfield project manager for the O'Hare Modernization Program.

But officials from St. John's United Church of Christ, the cemetery's caretaker, said it's premature for the city to be soliciting bids. Even if Chicago prevails in court, relocating graves is a complex theological task that should be worked out by the church and relatives of those who are buried, not the city, said Bob Sell, a church spokesman.

"The church has rites of burial," he said. "It does not have rites of unburial."

The graveyard is the final resting place of several 19th Century religious leaders, which helped earn it historic status. There are between 1,400 and 1,600 graves, of which about 900 are clearly marked with monuments. The remainder are unmarked, designated by crosses without names or marked by difficult-to-read monuments, city officials said.

Identifying remains is critical because the city intends to have a person assigned to relatives of each buried person to accommodate their requests. The original markers must be moved with the graves, and a funeral director must be present at each exhumation, city officials said.

Cemeteries have been moved for other public works projects, such as the expansion of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and the Eisenhower Expressway, but the process is a sensitive one. The St. Johannes project would be even more complicated because the caskets are so old, they probably have disintegrated, making it more difficult to remove remains, according to one cemetery relocation expert who declined to give his name.

Although relatives will make the decisions on where the remains are be moved, the city has developed a list of 12 cemeteries in the city and suburbs that have space.

Randall Leise, superintendent of Bethania Cemetery in Justice, attended the conference Monday, handing out a color booklet about the south suburban 19th Century graveyard, which is on the city's list. Leise said Bethania resembles St. Johannes, with markers and monuments dating to the same time and bearing similar family names. There is one difference.

"Bethania presents a more tranquil environment--without overhead flight or disturbances of any kind," the brochure states.

Frankie Aug 4, 2006 9:13 PM

O'Hare expansion survives legal challenge

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published August 4, 2006, 4:00 PM CDT


Chicago's plan to uproot a 157-year-old religious cemetery and demolish hundreds of suburban homes that are in the way of expanding O'Hare International Airport survived today one of its last legal challenges.

The 2-1 decision in Chicago's favor by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., leaves O'Hare expansion opponents with one remaining appeal still pending in a lower court, barring any additional filings.

The city cannot relocate graves in St. Johannes Cemetery until the legal action is wrapped up. It can, however, continue to buy homes and other properties it needs in Bensenville for the airport expansion, though the village is refusing to issue demolition permits.

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel today essentially said the Federal Aviation Administration cannot be held liable for violating the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the O'Hare expansion is a Chicago project.

The FAA last year approved the city's plan for new runways and pledged more than $300 million in federal funding.

The FAA agreed with the city to reject an alternate airfield layout for O'Hare expansion that would not have required relocating up to 1,600 graves at St. Johannes, which is on the southwest edge of O'Hare.

The appeals court said the FAA played a "peripheral role" in the matter.

"The city -- not the FAA -- is the cause of any burden on religious exercise because of its role as inventor, organizer, patron and builder of the O'Hare expansion … and at the end of the day, the city will carry out the seizure and physical relocation of St. Johannes Cemetery," the court ruling said.

O'Hare expansion opponents had argued the city's plan to move the graves violated the federal religious freedom law and could prevent "the physical resurrection" of people buried there.

Rosemarie Andolino, chief of the O'Hare expansion for the city, said today's court ruling knocked down one of the final legal obstacles to the $15 billion airport plan. She said construction is continuing, and the city plans to open the first new runway, on the north part of the airfield, in 2008.

Airport expansion opponents involved in the litigation—Bensenville, Elk Grove Village and St. John's United Church of Christ—continue to press their case in another lawsuit pending in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In that suit, attorneys for St. John's, which owns St. Johannes Cemetery, claim Chicago is violating state law as well as the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's free exercise clause.

They are challenging legislation that the Illinois General Assembly passed in 2003 that specifically exempted St. Johannes and nearby Rest Haven Cemetery from the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The city subsequently said it would not need the Rest Haven land for new runways, though the city has reserved the right to change its decision.

Bensenville and Elk Grove Village also have asserted a number of other claims before the 7th Circuit.

The villages are asking the court to prohibit the demolition of more than 600 homes, businesses and parks in the two municipalities because of what they consider a strong likelihood that O'Hare expansion may not be fully carried out.

The villages point to a lack of financial commitment to the full project by the airline industry, as well as insufficient city bonding and federal funding to complete the $15 billion project.

the urban politician Aug 16, 2006 5:50 PM

^ It's entertaining to see Chicago slap Bensenville around like the little shrew of a town that it is

STR Aug 29, 2006 7:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj
Wood Dale City Council members are discussing forfeiting their long-standing membership and instead join Chicago’s

The WD city council is a bunch of raving idiots with mental issues. I know them all personally. They'll be wanting to quit SOC one week, and be their strongest supporters the next.

There aren't enough curse words in te english language to give my opinion of Frank Williams.

spyguy Aug 31, 2006 9:15 PM

This is getting sad now and I don't understand why this continues to go on anymore.

Chi_Coruscant Aug 31, 2006 9:38 PM

:whip: Let's do the surprise midnight bulldoze attacks and be done with it!

VivaLFuego Oct 17, 2006 2:37 AM

Why not hold Elk Grove Village and Bensenville liable for those $272 million in land acquisition overruns? Take those sh!ts to the cleaners.

Marcu Oct 17, 2006 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
Why not hold Elk Grove Village and Bensenville liable for those $272 million in land acquisition overruns? Take those sh!ts to the cleaners.

Then we'll have criminal defendants reimburse the state for prosecuting them.


The price tag alone suggests the fight was anything but frivilous.

VivaLFuego Oct 17, 2006 2:55 PM

^ Their fight has cost the region and the city hundreds of millions of dollars, even more if you consider the longer term economic consequences of higher construction costs and delaying the economic benefit of the completed expansion. As a taxpayer, this upsets me.

Marcu Oct 17, 2006 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
^ Their fight has cost the region and the city hundreds of millions of dollars, even more if you consider the longer term economic consequences of higher construction costs and delaying the economic benefit of the completed expansion. As a taxpayer, this upsets me.

There's huge implications to what you're saying.

Shifting legal fees to the losing side discourages assertions of legal rights for fear of being stuck with not just your own bill, but someone else's.

Don't you feel like Bensenville and Elk Grove, at the very least, had the right to argue their case in Court? That's a fundumental right in a democratic society. And yes we do pay a price for fundumental rights. It would be a lot easier to throw criminals in jail without a trial for cost reasons too.

The City had every reason to believe legal fees would be really high for this kind of project. It's their failure to plan that's really costing the tax payers and the airlines.

VivaLFuego Oct 17, 2006 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu
There's huge implications to what you're saying.

Shifting legal fees to the losing side discourages assertions of legal rights for fear of being stuck with not just your own bill, but someone else's.

Don't you feel like Bensenville and Elk Grove, at the very least, had the right to argue their case in Court? That's a fundumental right in a democratic society. And yes we do pay a price for fundumental rights. It would be a lot easier to throw criminals in jail without a trial for cost reasons too.

The City had every reason to believe legal fees would be really high for this kind of project. It's their failure to plan that's really costing the tax payers and the airlines.

Yes, legal fees should be (and are) fare game to be awarded in a civil judgement!

Dalreg Oct 17, 2006 6:03 PM

How could this project NOT be over budget! The bills will keep piling up until this issue is resolved. Not being from Chicago I may not know all the facts but I am surprised at the number of people upset with home owners from the small towns involved. How many of you would be arguing fighting if this was your neighbourhood. What if Midway had been expanded. There are lots of homes businesses there that could be bulldozed.
The airport will expand the houses/cemeteries will be bulldozed and Chicago will have an expanded airport eventually. And in 10-20 years you can go through it all again when the next expansion is started.
Maybe a new airport farther out even on the south side would be a better idea. Too late now.

nergie Oct 18, 2006 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalreg
How could this project NOT be over budget! The bills will keep piling up until this issue is resolved. Not being from Chicago I may not know all the facts but I am surprised at the number of people upset with home owners from the small towns involved. How many of you would be arguing fighting if this was your neighbourhood. What if Midway had been expanded. There are lots of homes businesses there that could be bulldozed.
The airport will expand the houses/cemeteries will be bulldozed and Chicago will have an expanded airport eventually. And in 10-20 years you can go through it all again when the next expansion is started.
Maybe a new airport farther out even on the south side would be a better idea. Too late now.

That is right, if your not from Chicago you do not know how annoying the suburbs fighting this expansion are. First of all, the airport was here before these homes and businesses that need to be bought. The reason these suburbs have grown is O'Hare. The major reason many small business located in these towns is because of O'Hare. The jack ass mayers of these suburbs are not white knights, rather they are concerned with tax revenue loss. They are so damned narrow minded they do not see how much and expanded O'Hare will benefit their villages.

Technically speaking, ORD expansion is being paid for out of passenger fees and bonds, no taxpayer money. This airport infrastructure is here and is a boon to the airlines serving this market. Peotone is still moving forward via private venture, but with no major airlines commiting to Peotone why waste money and farmland

The city is already condemning and buying properties around Midway to expand clear zone at end of runways.

BTW- In the USA we have moved cemetaries for railroads, highways etc all in the name of Federal Interstate Commerce, well guess what airports fall under this.

So nothing personal, cry me a river about the throngs of people losing their homes. Maost of these people have received above market offers for their homes. If your so attached to your home, jack it up and move it.

kalmia Oct 18, 2006 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
Yes, legal fees should be (and are) fare game to be awarded in a civil judgement!


What if the courts ruled in favor of the cemetery? Would you feel that Chicago should pay the legal costs of the opponents?

$630,000 for the cemetery? That is ridiculously little, and so is the $10 for the Bensenville city property. Some of you just want the airport expansion to be done no matter who is harmed or who's property is condemned.

The whole thing is political. Chicago has a big bully mayor, and Chicago and the surrounding areas have influential congressmen and statehouse members. Expansion of another airport would have had far less resistance and cost far less in land aquisition. Gary is close by with a lot of vacant surrounding land. Resistance to expansion of Gary is little. Travel to the Gary airport from the Loop takes less time than travel to O'Hare. But it is not in Illinois, so it isn't considered much.

There is an expansion project at the Gary airport, but it isn't increasing the size much.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:17 PM.

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