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)

FlashingLights Jun 23, 2009 3:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4320921)
I've see the income info for doctors of radiology - if you're not willing to hold out for a good location, it's because you've placed a higher value on things other than your commuting lifestyle.

With the exception of some factory workers, most middle class and above people whose jobs are typically located in a fixed location could arrange their lives to support a city life. Those who feel they have no choice but to take suburban job simply value something higher than a city lifestyle. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, just be honest with yourself and others that you made that choice and weren't forced into it.

That is total bs most people people don't get to choose where they work. I can list a million scenarios that would force workers to work in the I-90 or 88 corridors in the suburbs. This thought that people (especially in the current economy) can be picky about where they work is insanity.

ardecila Jun 23, 2009 4:25 AM

No it's not. It simply depends on what field you work in. Certain industries are comprised of hundreds of small firms. Because their real estate needs are small and their cost of moving is small, they can afford to locate in places with maximum accessibility. Law firms, financial firms, foundations, architecture firms, etc.

You work in healthcare, whyhuhwhy. I'm not familiar with the specifics of radiology, but if you are searching for a hospital-based job, that restricts your choices to a limited number of places that, by their very nature, must be geographically dispersed around Chicagoland.

I'm just not convinced that highway widening is the appropriate solution to congestion on the Kennedy. It is an extremely dense corridor that runs through stable, middle-class neighborhoods with decent property values. Any takings here would get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Complicating any sort of widening is the presence of the Blue Line and the UP-NW line in the exact same corridor, which pose huge design constraints at Jefferson Park and at the junction.

Now imagine instead a reliable Blue Line (we're almost there... :rolleyes:) with a dense network of feeder buses that use the left and right shoulders of the Northwest Tollway. They then exit the highway using either existing ramps or special bus-only ones and break off to serve major employment centers, using existing and lightly-traveled roads. The costs of such a system are orders of magnitude less than a highway widening. The system can be branded and operated separately from Pace, with sleek new buses and shelters.

I admit that many people who currently drive do so out of necessity, but a convenient bus network should be able to take employees of major companies off of the roads, freeing road space for people with smaller and more dispersed suburban workplaces.

jpIllInoIs Jun 23, 2009 11:25 AM

Hello Mods
 
This thread is ridiculusly off topic since post #637.

whyhuhwhy Jun 23, 2009 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 4320921)
I've see the income info for doctors of radiology - if you're not willing to hold out for a good location, it's because you've placed a higher value on things other than your commuting lifestyle.

With the exception of some factory workers, most middle class and above people whose jobs are typically located in a fixed location could arrange their lives to support a city life.

Excuse me? Income has nothing to do with job availability in my field. Some people in my field can't even get a job in ChicagoLAND period. And income has little to do with sitting in traffic. I can't buy my way out of the Edens and Kennedy junction mess so yes, if the only Radiology job in Chicagoland was in the suburbs, which many years is the case, I will have to move out of the city. And I think you forget how much debt doctors have. My medical education alone was over $200,000 on top of college debt, cost of living debt all those years making absolutely nothing, plus a residency that lasted 5 years where I made less than $50K/yr. I can't afford to "hold out" for anything. Maybe when I'm 50 years old.

Quote:

Those who feel they have no choice but to take suburban job simply value something higher than a city lifestyle. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, just be honest with yourself and others that you made that choice and weren't forced into it.
I am just amazed at some people on this forum who act like job location is a choice in the same vein as what brand of cereal to buy at the grocery store. If you can choose the location of your job that easily than consider yourself very lucky and the exception. I have many friends that have jobs in the suburbs that would love to have that "problem" of choosing between city and suburban locations. I have a friend who has been in insurance for 10 years now and just recently the only job he could find was in Tinley Park. Luckily for him he can live in the city because commuting on the Dan Ryan/I-57 is a breeze for reverse commuting.

whyhuhwhy Jun 23, 2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4321067)
No it's not.

Yes, it is. I am curious how old you are and what field you are in where you can choose exactly where you work. Why do I get the feeling I am talking to college students.

Quote:

It simply depends on what field you work in.
Yes, now we are getting somewhere. And it also depends on job availability too obviously. Which right now is horrible.

Quote:

So Certain industries are comprised of hundreds of small firms.
...who are not always hiring. How many times have you applied for a job? I've applied for many over the years and have watched my friends apply for many. I haven't really seen anyone with multiple job offers and they got to choose exactly where they work.

Quote:

You work in healthcare, whyhuhwhy. I'm not familiar with the specifics of radiology, but if you are searching for a hospital-based job, that restricts your choices to a limited number of places that, by their very nature, must be geographically dispersed around Chicagoland.
No you see healthcare choices have the widest variety of location, not the opposite. Technically I should have more choice than anyone because I work in a high demand field that has locations, like you said, geographically dispersed everywhere as is the nature of hospitals. Not sure where the word "limited" came in. Hospital locations are probably the most diverse group of employment centers we have in society.

Quote:

I'm just not convinced that highway widening is the appropriate solution to congestion on the Kennedy. It is an extremely dense corridor that runs through stable, middle-class neighborhoods with decent property values. Any takings here would get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Complicating any sort of widening is the presence of the Blue Line and the UP-NW line in the exact same corridor, which pose huge design constraints at Jefferson Park and at the junction.
I think what it really comes down to is the people who are arguing to just choose where they work, like we live in some utopia, are just anti-highways. What else is new on this forum. I'm not even calling for widening though, I'm calling for a fix of a bottleneck of the junction and a reconfiguration of the express lanes. You can reconfigure things and come up with some creative solutions so that 6 lanes doesn't go into 4 every afternoon, especially when we have 4 shoulders to work with that aren't being used at the moment. I am one of those people that lives along that corridor BTW.

Quote:

Now imagine instead a reliable Blue Line (we're almost there... :rolleyes:) with a dense network of feeder buses that use the left and right shoulders of the Northwest Tollway. They then exit the highway using either existing ramps or special bus-only ones and break off to serve major employment centers, using existing and lightly-traveled roads. The costs of such a system are orders of magnitude less than a highway widening. The system can be branded and operated separately from Pace, with sleek new buses and shelters.
Certainly won't work for my job when I have to be there on call in the middle of the night. And there are no "lightly traveled roads" in the suburbs of Chicago. We can already imagine a fantastic commuter rail and bus feeder system because that is what we have today relative to 99% of other metro areas. It's not like Chicago doesn't have a good commuter rail, transit, and bus feeder system already ardecila. What we do know is Chicago has the 2nd worst freeway-lane-per-capita ranking in the country (only Vegas is worst), has 3 of the top 10 bottlenecks by the TTI, and has a highway system specifically designed for bedroom suburban commuters only in a society that is no longer just that. It's not like Chicago lacks a good transit and bus feeder system. It is easily one of the best in the country and everyone I know that lives here has at least tried it.

the urban politician Jun 23, 2009 1:43 PM

^ Guys, wanna start a new thread to discuss this?

Marcu Jun 23, 2009 3:15 PM

I am not sure anyone proposed outright widening the Kennedy, but having some sort of capacity increase from O'Hare to the Loop in conjunction with the massive expansion would have been nice. Perhaps double decking the highway to add an express path from O'Hare to the CBD, or at the very least getting rid of the Cumberland merger mess. Most large cities in this country have double decked highways already, let alone highways without 33% lane reduction bottlenecks through their most congested parts.

(There. I just got the thread back on topic;) )

VivaLFuego Jun 23, 2009 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 4320556)
Maybe that's what you want though? Not really sure. But right now every policy we have encourages sprawl including this one. We have a commuter rail system that is good only if you live in the suburbs and have a car (AND a job downtown), and you have a highway system that is designed specifically to discourage living in the city if you, like most people, have a job in the suburbs. So no, I don't agree that we should just continue to keep the Kennedy and Edens inbound a bright red slow zone every afternoon on purpose when the problem is clearly not a limited amount of lanes, but instead is due to a severe junctional bottleneck secondary to archaic design.

I just think it's incorrect to lay blame on the region's transit system, which was largely laid out in the latter half of the 19th century, for the issue of poor accessibility of suburban jobs. Of course a higher proportion of trips in lower-density areas such as suburbs will be made by automobile. The problem is decades of land use policies that made automobile trips the only attractive option in such areas. Transit is only cost-effective to build and operate (and, importantly, only environmentally-friendly) when it serves corridors with a high enough trip density to fill vehicles. Suburban land use policies have made trips so decentralized that cost-effective transit service just isn't an option. There's a certain point in the construction of an urbanized area where overall density is low enough and trip patterns so widely dispersed that the most efficient option is for everyone to drive - unfortunately many of Chicago's suburbs fit that description. For the cost of building and operating a transit network like you propose you could probably just buy everyone a new car instead, and probably pump fewer pollutants into the air than having empty buses running every which way.

Trip density is more important than built density for supporting transit. For example, in Canada, where employment is more heavily concentrated in central business districts and planned manufacturing/distribution districts, semi-frequent bus service is economically viable even in low-density cul-de-sac suburbs because of the trip density of people going to/from the same location. Contrast to Los Angeles, where built density is quite high but employment so dispersed that very few corridors have a critical mass of trip density to support transit (yeah yeah LA gets a million bus trips a day and a decently used subway line, but for a megalopolis of its size, transit usage is tiny).

What's frustrating about Chicago's suburbs is that there actually are some concentrations of employment - manufacturing/distribution west of O'Hare, and of course Offices and Retail around Schaumburg, Oak Brook, and Naperville. But all were built to preclude access by existing transit infrastructure. Rather than transit obtaining a ¬10% mode share of commute traffic (as the employment district around Cumberland/Rosemont does), these areas see but a tiny fraction. That's not the fault of the transit network - it's the fault of land use policies that guided such development.

Note that I don't blame the workers for taking jobs in the burbs - people work where they can, and very few have the luxury to say outright they won't work for Company X in Industry Y because they don't want to work in office park, though on the margins people can have a preference for one type of employment location or another depending on their personal preferences.

HOLD ON I'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO RELATE THIS TO O'HARE...

Umm...

Well, basically, trips from the west to O'Hare will be made by car by the same logic above. Building transit lines to feed people from the west would be incredibly wasteful. Some sort of road improvements could well be warranted, but frankly with the exception of the Cumberland bottleneck traffic generally flows relatively smoothly around there (I consider anything aside from total gridlock LOS F to be 'smooth') so I'm not sure there's a justification for two new full limited access highways with accompanying land acquisition and so forth.

hoosier Jun 24, 2009 2:10 AM

With a decent HSR rail network, Chicago wouldn't need to expand O'Hare.

arenn Jun 24, 2009 2:48 AM

I reverse commuted from the city to the northern burbs for years. It was hell on earth. My solutions:

- Add an auxiliary lane on the Edens between Willow and Skokie
- Make the Kennedy Express lanes inbound at all times

There is a service called the "Shuttle Bug" that does collection/distribution from Lake-Cook Rd on the Milwaukee-North line. I think there might be service to Braeside as well.

Metra doesn't understand the concept of feeder bus service. If they did - and did some other interesting things like reverse commute express trains on more lines - it might be more palatable to reverse commute if you were in proximity to a station.

One challenge is that the most convenient lines to most city professionals, the CNW-N and NW, don't service the suburban employment centers most conveniently, and Clinton subway or not, going to Union Station won't cut it.

sukwoo Jun 24, 2009 3:24 AM

Sorry to continue the non-O'hare tangent...

I reverse commute daily on the UP-W. My workplace is 2 miles from the Metra station, so I have a dedicated car which I park at the Metra lot and drive the 4 miles every day. Its a bit wasteful, I know, but walking, biking, and Pace are not options unfortunately. In an ideal world there would be a distributor bus route, but frankly, there isn't enough demand for one and probably never will be given land-use patterns.

jpIllInoIs Jun 24, 2009 12:35 PM

The Wadsworth line extension on the MD-N would be a big help for northbound reverse commuters. Abbott Labs, Baxter, Cardinal Health, Uline, Fujisawa and many more small-mid companies are in office parks along the line. Also the line goes right near Keylime Cove, Great America, Gurnee Mills and the yet to be developed Fountain Square (former Lakehurst mall site). Additionally it runs close to the Temple Lippizan Farm, site of the 2016 Equestrian events.

whyhuhwhy Jun 24, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 4322794)
- Add an auxiliary lane on the Edens between Willow and Skokie

You know I've thought about this over and over again and I don't think more lanes on the Edens is necessary at all. The reason it is stop and go is because it gets backed up, many times ALL the way to Lake Cook, because of the Edens/Kennedy merge when the express lanes are configured for outbound. Traffic just piles and piles itself up because at the merge everything is moving at 0-5 mph. I've seen situations where it was red on gcmtravel.com, like literally two hours from Lake Cook to the Loop, and IDOT reconfigured the express lanes to inbound against prior bad judgment, and the entire Edens starting flowing again and was yellow to green a half hour later. This actually happened this past Memorial Day weekend on Saturday afternoon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 4322794)
- Make the Kennedy Express lanes inbound at all times

That seems to be the way things are trending. Any idea who is asleep at the wheel on Friday afternoons when it is 25 minutes from downtown to O'Hare but 80+ minutes inbound from O'Hare to downtown? I have seen more Fridays than not where outbound at 5PM is all green, smooth flowing all the way from downtown to O'Hare, people left early for work on Friday afternoons, no congestion to speak of, yadda yadda yadda, yet **in**bound from O'Hare to downtown is all red (and this includes the Edens too obviously because of the merge) and can easily exceed an hour and half because of all the reverse commuters PLUS all of the people coming into the city on Friday nights from the suburbs or out of town. Every Friday afternoon I check gcmtravel.com and just have to come to the conclusion that the people that run the express lanes must already be home because they certainly aren't paying attention. And think how many people this "error" affects every week.

Rail Claimore Jun 25, 2009 6:00 AM

From personal experience, I've noticed that both directions of the Kennedy tend to function best when the express lanes are inbound. When they're outbound, both directions are a clusterf*ck due to merging at the junction.

arenn Jun 25, 2009 3:56 PM

From Willow to Skokie is only about half a mile. Traffic pours onto the inbound Edens from office parks at Lake-Cook, the Tri-State spur, Dundee, and Willow. Traffic really can back up from Willow to the spur ramp. The first exit anyone really gets off at is Skokie. The geometry of the Willow ramp system is terrible too. If you make the loop ramps turn into auxiliary lanes for the short distance to Skokie, I think you'd eliminate some point congestion and increase safety to boot.

BVictor1 Jul 4, 2009 7:47 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7060836.story

Ads fuel fight over cemetery blocking O'Hare expansion
Notices of Chicago plan to relocate graves draw fire from opponents

By Ted Gregory | Tribune reporter
July 5, 2009

Newspaper and radio ads about the $15 billion O'Hare International Airport expansion have drawn the ire of supporters of a 160-year-old Bensenville cemetery in the path of a planned runway.

The ads, which ran in the Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald and on WGN and WBBM-AM radio, notified relatives of people buried in St. Johannes Cemetery that Chicago "has commenced legal proceedings to acquire the cemetery" and move the graves to other cemeteries. The notice also encourages relatives to call the O'Hare Modernization Program's cemetery administrator "to learn more about the relocation process.".

"You may have an opportunity to participate," the ad states. Chicago "will be responsible for paying all necessary and reasonable costs associated with the relocation of the graves."

The problem, St. Johannes preservationists contend, is that a court fight over the cemetery relocation is ongoing. They also note that the ads fail to notify people that they can challenge the planned cemetery move. That failure is a violation of a court order outlining the public notice, said Joe Karaganis, an attorney representing St. John's United Church of Christ, the church that owns the cemetery.


"The city does not own the cemetery," Karaganis said.

City Aviation Department spokeswoman Eve Rodriguez said the ads, which ran in May and June, were part of an agreement signed by the Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency.

"This is just work we wanted to do in order to compile the list of relatives," Rodriguez said. "We understand that this is a very sensitive matter and are committed to treating the next of kin, church officials and anyone that may be affected with the utmost respect every step of the way."

tgregory@tribune.com

ardecila Jul 5, 2009 5:59 AM

Cemeteries have been relocated for centuries. It's definitely an issue of the public good triumphing over the rights of private citizens. Hell, in New Orleans, they moved one of the city's LARGEST cemeteries to build, not something vitally important like a highway or airport, but the Superdome. This is probably an abuse of eminent domain, and some argue that the interred people have gotten their revenge via several grisly deaths inside the stadium. However, this seems like a perfectly valid use of takings power.

In fact, one might argue that a relocation would be an improvement. St. Johannes is surrounded by runways, retention ponds, and possibly the biggest noise generator in Chicagoland. Hardly a restful spot or a fitting memorial. A relocation would enable the graves to be moved to a quieter and more respectful site.

The ad that Chicago is running is meant to inform people of the planned relocation, relatives of the deceased who may not know about the issue. Doubtless, one of the plaintiffs' main arguments in court is that the city has not informed the relatives of all those buried in St. Johannes. By running these ads, the city is trying to be responsible and notify everybody who needs to know. The public nature of the ads is a little tasteless, but I can't think of a better way to contact a bunch of people whose names are not known.

FlashingLights Jul 5, 2009 6:08 AM

Ya, I fail to see how a few thousand local dead peoples graves should prevent an airport expansion that would be a greater good to millions of people worldwide that pass through Ohare every year.

It's a simple philosophical question what helps the greater good. I guess I'm just to logical. It's almost selfish to die and expect your grave to remain there for future generations as a possible burden.

denizen467 Jul 5, 2009 6:39 AM

^ Plus, those cemeteries have graves that are extremely old (by Chicago standards anyway) - nobody living today has ever met any of the people buried there.

It'd be one thing if parents or grandparents were buried there, but you can't argue that there is major emotional distress from having great-great-(..)-grandparents' graves relocated, when you never had an experience of meeting, speaking with, seeing, getting letters from, etc. those people.

jpIllInoIs Jul 14, 2009 12:03 PM

With regards to Gary-Chicago airport... I wonder how much longer Daley is going to keep up with the arangement to fund that airfield. Originally he wanted to make the Gary field more viable to headoff the construction of Peotone SSA. But unfortunately the SSA seems to have legs, so why should Daley keep sending millions of OHare landing fees over to Indiana?

the urban politician Jul 14, 2009 7:55 PM

^ I think that's a good point, considering the fact that Gary continues to struggle with getting any regular passenger service

sammyg Jul 14, 2009 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 4356949)
With regards to Gary-Chicago airport... I wonder how much longer Daley is going to keep up with the arangement to fund that airfield. Originally he wanted to make the Gary field more viable to headoff the construction of Peotone SSA. But unfortunately the SSA seems to have legs, so why should Daley keep sending millions of OHare landing fees over to Indiana?

I haven't seen any "legs" on Peotone lately, sure there's more money, but in terms of actual work, has there been something new?

jpIllInoIs Jul 14, 2009 10:04 PM

^ They are earmarked to receive $100 million for land aquisition from the State alone. That is golden legs. You wont see construction for 15-20 years.

VivaLFuego Jul 14, 2009 10:54 PM

Could be longer than that. As it is now, the preservation of land is wise for very long range planning, but we're nowhere even remotely close to the air travel industry demanding a third Chicago airport, let alone one 40 miles south of downtown. I just have a bad feeling this could end up as Chicago's Mid-America (or one of the underutilized newly built Korean airports), where politicians divorced from economic reality waste lots of money as an answer to a question no one asked.

Chicago Shawn Jul 14, 2009 11:45 PM

^Well, I wouldn't say no one asked the question. There is a lot of support for Peotone from the inner ring south suburbs who believe it will stimulate the local economy that has been more or less stagnate since the 1970s. As such, politicians like Jessie Jackson Jr have become big proponets of it. Of course it is really a empty hope, as Peotone is just too far away, and is surrounded by too much cheap land that would immediately fall to new greenfield development filling in around the new airport. And of course, IDOT and Will County would now be responsible for upgrading all of the farm roads. The sooner this half baked idea dies the better. I know Peotone may have some merit as a cargo airfield, as Will and Southern Cook County is really now becoming the main intermodal center for the region, but for passenger service this airport is a boondoggle.

Here is an article published in the Southtown Star;
Could 3rd airport make way for a new Windy City?

July 13, 2009
By Guy Tridgell

The quest to build an airport out of farmland near Peotone has been an endless source of hot air.

Could the winds of change be blowing?

An idea to scrap the airport altogether and turn the proposed airfield into a wind farm, generating electricity to power a decent chunk of the Chicago area, is gaining momentum.

It's somewhat of a crazy concept for now, but local residents and airport opponents are starting to court companies that specialize in developing wind farms to see if there is any interest.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/tridgell/1662931,071309tridgell.article

-------------------
I love that idea, keep the land agricultural but get a more productive use out of it. The land is already sited very close to transmission lines feeding from the nuclear stations down in Braidwood, Dresden and LaSalle County. Additionally, the close proximity to the rest of the developed region means less power would be lost because of the shorter distance of transmission.

bnk Jul 15, 2009 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn (Post 4358054)
^Well, I wouldn't say no one asked the question. There is a lot of support for Peotone from the inner ring south suburbs who believe it will stimulate the local economy that has been more or less stagnate since the 1970s. As such, politicians like Jessie Jackson Jr have become big proponets of it. Of course it is really a empty hope, as Peotone is just too far away, and is surrounded by too much cheap land that would immediately fall to new greenfield development filling in around the new airport. And of course, IDOT and Will County would now be responsible for upgrading all of the farm roads. The sooner this half baked idea dies the better. I know Peotone may have some merit as a cargo airfield, as Will and Southern Cook County is really now becoming the main intermodal center for the region, but for passenger service this airport is a boondoggle.

.

Has anyone heard about a thing called a potental HSR express train into downtown via Midway or even thought about the idea?

Forty miles is nothing.

Chicago’s real third airport is Mitchell in Milwaukee which even farther from the population center of Chicagoland and it is used quite a bit by us fibs.

Why not have a southern option? Think Big, long term. I would take even a mid america airport in a decade. Do you really think that the region will stop growing south and turning and mixing farmland and insignifiant local wind power as an answer to the future.

That part of Illinois should never be a center of wind power within this state. There are better locations and even better US states if long effective low resistance high power lines can be developed as the Obama administration is trying to achieve.

The oval from the Texas pan handle to the Dakotas hold the most potential of wind power if the lines can transfer their wind power to the major metro areas of the US.

Even T. Bone Pickens has given up on wind....


The idea reeks of urbanism Nimbyism against [development] aka sprawl in the greater region to prevent serives for the people down there for their benifit of them.

What is that called?

NEIMDNBY IITAAFM

Not even in my distant Neighbors back yard if it takes anything away from me.

ardecila Jul 15, 2009 1:56 AM

No. Absolutely not. The Southland is undesirable because Chicago needs places for poor people to live. It sounds terribly crass, but every single city in the world has good suburbs and bad suburbs. Places like Harvey and South Holland are the way they are because of market forces that push wealth and poverty to opposite ends of the core. Trying to bring businesses and economic activity to the south suburbs is more likely to push poor residents out than to better them economically. Since there are few places for them to go, they'll just stay put as new places develop in the cornfields to house the new middle-class workers.

Building an airport down that way doesn't make any sense from an economic perspective, either, because the people who are mostly likely to AFFORD air travel live in the city or in the north/northwest/western suburbs, for whom this airport would be much less convenient than O'Hare or Midway.

The city of Gary has a national image problem that is probably the main reason for the airport's failure. Both Illinois and Indiana need to invest in upgrading this airport to modern standards that will entice more than just fly-by-night airlines like Hooters Air and SkyValue. :lmao:

- A name change is probably the best thing for it, and the creation of new services for it, such as express trains, with a similar "hip" branding. Is it too much of a stretch to rename it for Obama? Gary is a poor urban center not far from the South Side. Houston had no problem naming its new airport after Bush, soon after he took office.

-Relocate the terminal to the south side of the airport, so it can have direct highway and rail access. The current setup is intimidating for many Chicagoans and Hoosiers alike, for whom the industrial wasteland of lakefront Gary is a place to be avoided at all costs.

-Obviously, expand the runway to accommodate properly-sized jets.

Midway has severe capacity constraints, so it won't be expanding any time soon. However, it is readily accessible from the south suburbs via the Stevenson, one of the least-congested highways in Chicagoland.

It will be difficult, but I think Chicago needs to become more strategic with how it plans its gate assignments. Flights out of O'Hare, Midway, and Gary need to be tailored to the demographic for whom those airports are most convenient. If, for example, the black community on the South Side tends to make trips to Atlanta, then both Midway and Gary should offer flights to those places, rather than O'Hare.

VivaLFuego Jul 15, 2009 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358285)
the Stevenson, one of the least-congested highways in Chicagoland.

Say what?

Quote:

It will be difficult, but I think Chicago needs to become more strategic with how it plans its gate assignments. Flights out of O'Hare, Midway, and Gary need to be tailored to the demographic for whom those airports are most convenient. If, for example, the black community on the South Side tends to make trips to Atlanta, then both Midway and Gary should offer flights to those places, rather than O'Hare.
Why not just let the market sort that out rather than make gate assignments yet another political plaything?

Nowhereman1280 Jul 15, 2009 5:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg (Post 4357671)
I haven't seen any "legs" on Peotone lately, sure there's more money, but in terms of actual work, has there been something new?

You bet its got some legs on it. I am working on a contract for sale right now for a large parcel in the area to the IDOT explicitly contingent on the funding of the Peotone SSA. Also, $100 million is probably all they need to aquire the land, Appraisials are putting the price of land in the area at $11k-13k per acre. The land we are working on is supposed to be going for around that price. Also, rumor has it that Dennis Hassert bought a bunch of land in the area because he knew it was going to happen and is now planning on reaping the benefits. Sounds immoral, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

ardecila Jul 15, 2009 5:36 AM

I guess I was stretching a bit with the Stevenson, but come on - at peak periods, it is not bad compared to the Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Dan Ryan. Obviously, it is much more heavily-used than the new segment of 355 or the Elgin-O'Hare stub, but for a radial freeway...

I've never been caught in traffic on the Stevenson during off-peak periods, if you don't count construction and accident-related jams.

-----

Government regulation of gate assignments (or something similar) would be aimed at distributing flights for the greatest efficiency. If done properly, it could foster competition, since airlines like American and United at O'Hare, and Southwest at Midway, have repeatedly exhibited anti-competitive behavior in blocking the entry of smaller airlines. Relegating the small airlines to places like Milwaukee and Gary is a surefire way for those airlines to fail.

lawfin Jul 15, 2009 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358285)
-Relocate the terminal to the south side of the airport, so it can have direct highway and rail access. The current setup is intimidating for many Chicagoans and Hoosiers alike, for whom the industrial wasteland of lakefront Gary is a place to be avoided at all costs.

-Obviously, expand the runway to accommodate properly-sized jets.

Midway has severe capacity constraints, so it won't be expanding any time soon. However, it is readily accessible from the south suburbs via the Stevenson, one of the least-congested highways in Chicagoland.

As to idea 1. --- sounds interesting

as to idea 2 -- gary's longer runway is already longer than any at midway...and I believe there are fed funds to extend it from 7000ft or so to 9000ft or so.

gary 2nd runway is in the 3600 ft variety --which is not too much shorter than midway's shortest

ardecila Jul 15, 2009 6:45 AM

I saw the official Master Plan... it does indeed call for the main runway to be lengthened. The airport is also working on an extension of the second runway to the northeast.

As for terminals - apparently the goal will be to relocate the terminal to the NW corner, with a loop driveway off of Cline and a big garage. This terminal would be directly adjacent to the relocated EJ&E tracks, but also the CSX tracks that run 1 block north of Chicago Avenue. Hopefully, this means that some sort of rail service can be created with a direct link to the airport.

lawfin Jul 15, 2009 7:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358657)
I saw the official Master Plan... it does indeed call for the main runway to be lengthened. The airport is also working on an extension of the second runway to the northeast.

As for terminals - apparently the goal will be to relocate the terminal to the NW corner, with a loop driveway off of Cline and a big garage. This terminal would be directly adjacent to the relocated EJ&E tracks, but also the CSX tracks that run 1 block north of Chicago Avenue. Hopefully, this means that some sort of rail service can be created with a direct link to the airport.


I think that would be helpful....I wonder if Gary can get the ball rolling....as in the case of first to market...could it shut out Peotone.....?


Do you have a link to plan?

denizen467 Jul 15, 2009 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358285)
The city of Gary has a national image problem that is probably the main reason for the airport's failure.
...
more than just fly-by-night airlines like Hooters Air and SkyValue. :lmao:

:lmao:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358285)
- A name change is probably the best thing for it, and the creation of new services for it, such as express trains, with a similar "hip" branding. Is it too much of a stretch to rename it for Obama? Gary is a poor urban center not far from the South Side. Houston had no problem naming its new airport after Bush, soon after he took office.

More likely "Michael Jackson" or "Jackson Five" International.
While they're at it, they should just rename the city of Gary and write all the bad-will off. Just start the fuck over. Other than that family, is there anything good associated with that city/name? Is there any city in the U.S. that has such a hopelessly shitty reputation? Call it Jackson, IN or something.

As for the Obama name idea, I propose a new thread to discuss (admittedly prematurely - it's a parlour game) what in Chicago should/will eventually be renamed for Obama. It will be tough and interesting. It has to be something significant, but that isn't already named. "Obama River" ? Or can we denude Dan Ryan of his honorary expressway designation?

VivaLFuego Jul 15, 2009 2:51 PM

While a rail connection would certainly be nice, it's hardly a make-or-break feature at any US airport, let alone considering Gary has relatively fast uncongested access to downtown at most hours of the day via the Skyway->Dan Ryan Express Lanes -> Lake Shore. Remember, the majority of the users of the O'Hare Blue Line station are airport employees, and Midway Orange Line is predominantly commuters using the intermodal terminal (with an ongoing problem of airport employees taking up spaces in the CTA Park-n-ride lot to drive to work).

I guess my point is the viability of Gary as the third regional commercial airport does not hinge on passenger rail access, though it would be smart planning to ensure that such access exists if it does in fact become an active commercial airport. The viability of Gary and/or Peotone will be a function of the demand for air travel generated by businesses and residents of their respective regions and the extent to which other airports are operating over capacity.

It's a fallacy to think the mere construction/existence of an airport would somehow boost the economy of an area - it's generally the other way around (the economy of the area supports the airport, not vice versa), at least when it comes to 2nd or 3rd airports. It's not like the area around Houston Hobby is a treat, and it's not like businesses are falling over themselves to locate near Midway. The primary gateway will attract business investment but such economic rejuvenation with 2nd or 3rd airports exists only in the reality-detached minds of elected officials seeking to bring home the bacon.

VivaLFuego Jul 15, 2009 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4358611)
Also, rumor has it that Dennis Hassert bought a bunch of land in the area because he knew it was going to happen and is now planning on reaping the benefits. Sounds immoral, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

He did the same thing around the idiotic multi-billion dollar "Prairie Parkway" project he was pushing too, so the rumors are at least plausible given his past behavior.

VivaLFuego Jul 15, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 4358615)
I guess I was stretching a bit with the Stevenson, but come on - at peak periods, it is not bad compared to the Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Dan Ryan. Obviously, it is much more heavily-used than the new segment of 355 or the Elgin-O'Hare stub, but for a radial freeway...

I've never been caught in traffic on the Stevenson during off-peak periods, if you don't count construction and accident-related jams.

I don't have the data in front of me, but I think you're right insofar as the Stevenson spends fewer hours of the day under congested conditions than the others... however, when it is congested, I think it's congested-travel-time factor (i.e. the extent to which it slows down relative to free flow) is the worst in the region. If you've ever had the misfortune of driving it between about 2-5pm you know what I mean.

Quote:

Government regulation of gate assignments (or something similar) would be aimed at distributing flights for the greatest efficiency. If done properly, it could foster competition, since airlines like American and United at O'Hare, and Southwest at Midway, have repeatedly exhibited anti-competitive behavior in blocking the entry of smaller airlines. Relegating the small airlines to places like Milwaukee and Gary is a surefire way for those airlines to fail.
OK, but dealing with anti-competitive behavior of airlines is a much different issue than having a bunch of pigeon political appointee board members quibbling about how their constituents want to fly to Atlanta via Airline X, and letting which gates are assigned to which airline/destination be subject to community group activism and political dealmaking, the latter of which could only end in an inefficient allocation.

Chicago Shawn Jul 15, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 4358166)
Has anyone heard about a thing called a potental HSR express train into downtown via Midway or even thought about the idea?

Forty miles is nothing.

Chicago’s real third airport is Mitchell in Milwaukee which even farther from the population center of Chicagoland and it is used quite a bit by us fibs.

Why not have a southern option? Think Big, long term. I would take even a mid america airport in a decade. Do you really think that the region will stop growing south and turning and mixing farmland and insignifiant local wind power as an answer to the future.

That part of Illinois should never be a center of wind power within this state. There are better locations and even better US states if long effective low resistance high power lines can be developed as the Obama administration is trying to achieve.

The oval from the Texas pan handle to the Dakotas hold the most potential of wind power if the lines can transfer their wind power to the major metro areas of the US.

Even T. Bone Pickens has given up on wind....


The idea reeks of urbanism Nimbyism against [development] aka sprawl in the greater region to prevent serives for the people down there for their benifit of them.

What is that called?

NEIMDNBY IITAAFM

Not even in my distant Neighbors back yard if it takes anything away from me.


For one, northeastern Illinois has some of the most productive farmland in the world, and once its gone, its gone forever. We have 18-24 inches of black organic soil that took 10,000 years to create sitting above gravel aquifers left as glacial deposits, which efficiently drains the land. We should be preserving some of it. The last time I checked the world population is still growing.

And yes, I for one would not like to see Will County paved over into more un- planned wasteful sprawl that puts our region's suburbs into bigger cluster fuck than already exists. If that makes me an urban elitist, then so be it; because in the end it will cost us all more in the long run; as the state will be paying for a large part of the airport build out, then expanding all the farm roads into thoroughfares, and then as you suggest; also paying for a rail connection should one be built.

There also aren't any major population centers beyond Peotone that would use this airport, unlike Gary or Mitchell. Sure we have Kankakee and Champaign, but how many customers would that generate? If we do get real HSR here, it would link such places more efficiently to our existing infrastructure, such as O'Hare should a link be built there. The HSR would also reduce the need for so many short distance flights out of O'Hare and Midway and would free up capacity at both airports.

As far as wind power, well according to the article, the site was called good to excellent for the location of turbines based on the local geography and wind patterns for the last 100 years. That was based on the study done by the private company who specializes in building such wind farms.

Marcu Jul 15, 2009 10:28 PM

At least for the time being the State is only buying up land, which happens to be cheap right now and which can be resold if Peotone falls through, as it hopefully will.

Chicago Shawn Jul 15, 2009 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4359827)
At least for the time being the State is only buying up land, which happens to be cheap right now and which can be resold if Peotone falls through, as it hopefully will.


For sure. If the plan does fall through, the state could probably sell the land for a profit. If the airport does get built, then it was a wise decision to buy the land up early and in a recession when developers aren't buying anything right now for future land banking.

If the airport plan does not go forward, I would prefer the state lease the land out and generate some annual revenue from it. Lease to a commercial farming operation and perhaps throw up some turbines. The large turbines can generate some significant revenue sharing for the land owners. I know a farmer in southern Wisconsin who is being courted by a couple of companies looking to build turbines on his land; he is holding out for the best price offer on the annual payments.

bnk Jul 16, 2009 1:17 AM

As already noted before and in the quoted link below the Illinois capital plan will spend $100,000,000 acquiring land for Peotone. As also stated even if this goes down and does not happen it is a wise investment for the state buying this land at a low rate in this depression. Someday and someday will happen this land will be developed regardless of how many inches of soil are on top of it. There is plenty of fallow Midwest land that the Fed pays farmers not to grow crops on to support the current grain prices. Losing such a relatively small area to an economic engine is not something to cry about. The area may well be a good location within Illinois for wind but as I stated earlier there are much better out of state locations away from urban centers for this to take place if the High power lines can be improved and updated like the Obama administration wants to do anyway. Not everyone wants a major windmill op in their back yard much the same like those that live in the footprint of O'Hare hate jet aircraft. The question is which route is the best overall plan for the greater Chicago area. I myself think that an International Lincoln Airport in Peotone would be better for the entire region esp. the southland region. Your retort Chicago Shawn was taken and personally digested with a respectful point of view of your idea and where you are coming from.


Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 4360028)
http://www.chicagobusiness.com (Hinz blog - couldn't find direct link)

Good, bad and ugly: Illinois' new capital plan
Posted by Greg H. at 7/15/2009 10:53 AM CDT on Chicago Business

...
total reconstruction of Wacker Drive south of Randolph, now scheduled to begin late next spring, according to the Chicago Department of Transportation.
...


lawfin Jul 23, 2009 6:25 AM

Seems it is tax dollar well spent; now if we can get the rest of the runways

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...754087254.html

Nowhereman1280 Jul 23, 2009 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 4359827)
At least for the time being the State is only buying up land, which happens to be cheap right now and which can be resold if Peotone falls through, as it hopefully will.

Well they aren't even buying it yet, they are entering into contracts for sale of real estate, which mean the state has the option to buy the land contingent on the approval and funding of the airport. So they aren't really spending the money quite yet.

Kngkyle Jul 29, 2009 4:43 AM

They have finally thrown in the towel...

Bensenville Homeowners Sell For O'Hare Expansion

For some of our Chicaga-area neighbors, fight is over. They've been all but abandoned, the last of the holdouts in Bensenville, refusing to move for the O'Hare expansion. As CBS 2's Dana Kozlov reports some no longer feel safe living in their own homes.

Lush Illinois prairie? More like a modern-day ghost town. That's what this section of Bensenville looks like now, a few years after the city of Chicago began buying homes for the O'Hare modernization program. And longtime resident Arlene Benson doesn't like it.

"You can just see, this is terrible," Benson said.

Benson is one of only a half dozen holdouts still living in this section just west of Irving Park Road and east of York. But dry overgrowth was the final straw in her often contentious, decade-long fight to keep her house. She's selling it to Chicago now, in part because she fears for her life.

"I was terrified on the Fourth of July, I just couldn't sleep. Because if somebody would have thrown a firecracker or a spark, or somebody going by on Irving Park would flip a lit cigarette out the window, this whole thing would just go up," Benson said.

She isn't exaggerating. Weeds and brush at least two feet high engulf this once vibrant community. Signs on empty homes read: "Problems: Call MB Management."

MB employees can be seen patrolling the near vacant neighborhood but not cutting the grass, a fact that's irked other expansion holdout Bill Baird.

"That kind of upset us at the time because it made it look like a deserted wilderness here," Baird said.

Eve Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the O'Hare expansion program, wouldn't say why these city-owned properties are apparently being neglected, even after being asked the same question several times. She would say that just this month, the few holdouts still living here agreed to go.

Despite the outcome, Baird says he doesn't regret one minute of his fight.

When asked if he felt defeated, Baird said, "No, I'm walking away with dignity."

So what's next for Mayor Daley's runway expansion plan, which was originally slated to be completed by 2006, now that all the affected residents will be leaving?

Eve Rodriguez says once litigation is wrapped up, the city of Chicago will officially own all that land, not just the homes, and it will become a secured construction site.

The next court date is August 27th.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/bensenv...2.1105411.html

simcityaustin Jul 29, 2009 4:51 PM

Good news!! Finally.

jpIllInoIs Jul 29, 2009 9:06 PM

Looks like the anti-Ohare expansion Attorney is going to have to find a new sacred cow to milk. Although there is still the cemetary?

jpIllInoIs Aug 16, 2009 6:47 PM

Bensenville Mayor meets Chicago Aviation Cheif
 
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=314017



Look who's talking on Bensenville's, airport's future
By Marni Pyke | Daily Herald Columnist

The village of Bensenville and city of Chicago are talking.

If you've paid no attention to the Cold War between the two communities over the modernization of O'Hare International Airport, then this won't be a surprise.

But for anyone who's watched the standoff between expansion foe John Geils, former village president of Bensenville, and Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino, who also heads the airport construction program, the détente is extraordinary.

This sea change is due to Bensenville's newly elected leader Frank Soto, who took office in May. Soto said he's immersed himself in village issues leading to "interesting days and long nights and a lot of coffee drinking."

..........

The time has come to deal, Soto contends, and to get the best possible outcome for the village.
"I think the issue of the airport proceeding is a relatively foregone conclusion," Soto said. "The work is already being done, it's being done 24 hours a day. The FAA is behind it, the state legislature is allowing it to occur.

"It's a disservice to our residents if we ignore the obvious and don't deal with the future. At this point in time, we have to deal with the cards we have. The key is to improve the quality of life, resolve the issues and get rid of the uncertainty."

To that end, Soto sat down with Andolino recently to exchange preliminary information and no doubt size each other up.

"It was a cordial discussion," he said.

As a result, the city is helping Bensenville with flooding problems by providing stormwater detention at the airport.

"Their offer to resolve flooding was a good-faith gesture that was appreciated and opens the door to future discussions," Soto said.

On the city end, Chicago Department of Aviation First Deputy Commissioner Michael Boland was similarly diplomatic.

"I can confirm the collegiality and information sharing of the relationship," he said.

So what's next?

......

The previous administration "had done no prep work," Soto said. "They had no idea of how sewer systems would be affected, how the water systems that goes to the residents would be affected."
Along with nuts and bolts, Soto also wants to know what the city will do to buffer the expansion and how the village can benefit economically.

"It's not only the loss of homes and businesses but the tax in perpetuity is gone," he said. "We want to put Bensenville in a position where it's better off both from a financial position and from a quality of life position."

.........

........
Boland noted the city wants the litigation settled "yesterday. We would like these cases to go away as soon as possible. They're costing us time and money."

That gives Bensenville a perfect bargaining position, Soto thinks.

"They have issues that are time-sensitive," he said. "We don't want to be obstructionist, but we're not just going to disappear because it's a new administration."

nomarandlee Sep 17, 2009 5:53 PM

Not OMP news per se' but surely the lifting of restrictions played their part........

I also am curious where the two new international destinations will be.

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,3655455.story

American to expand Chicago hub with new financing
American to add 57 flights at O'Hare next year, the largest increase in flying at any of its major airports

By Julie Johnsson

Tribune staff reporter

9:31 a.m. CDT, September 17, 2009

The parent of American Airlines said Thursday it has obtained $2.9 billion in new financing and is making changes in its flight schedule that will bolster its presence in Chicago and four other major hubs.

Starting next year, American plans to add 57 new flights at O'Hare International Airport for a total of 487 daily departures, the largest increase in flying at any of its major airports.

American plans to begin non-stop flights from Chicago to Beijing in 2010, service it had planned for 2009 but delayed because of the economic crisis.

American, the world's second-largest carrier, also to add 12 new domestic destinations from Chicago and two other international destinations in addition the flight to China's capital, officials said.

AMR's stock rose more than 20 percent to $8.90 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the announcement.

The moves signal that the airline industry may be emerging from a nose-dive in traffic earlier this year, and that financing is becoming more freely available for carriers. The steep fall off in international and business-class travel had heightened worries that American, United Airlines and U.S. Airways could wind up in bankruptcy over the winter months, when air travel traditionally slows.....................

Busy Bee Sep 17, 2009 6:40 PM

^^^wow!!!

jpIllInoIs Sep 18, 2009 1:06 PM

American decision to increase OHare flights by 57 comes at the expense of St.louis and Raliegh. StL will lose 46 daily AMR flights and be left with 36 daily AMR flights. WOW! That is bad news for other midwest cities airport ambitions. Cincinnatti shared the same type of demotion, losing more than 50% of its NW/Delta flight after the merger. And Detroit and Memphis got clipped. Only Minneapolis survived that merger without getting big reductions.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.