CHICAGO: O'Hare airport expansion [Archive] - Page 7

simcityaustin

Mar 23, 2009, 7:58 PM

If people aren't opposed to genernal news here too....

American Upgrades Admirals Club Lounge At Chicago O'Hare
Mar 17, 2009 07:32 AM

American said it has completed extensive renovations to its largest Admirals Club lounge at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.

With seating for 504 customers, the 32,000-square-foot renovated Admirals Club lounge features a business center with 39 work stations and four PCs with high-speed Internet access; a walk-up cyber cafe with four PCs with high-speed Internet access; complimentary high-speed Wi-Fi access for Admirals Club members, as well as guests using a one-day pass to access the O'Hare Admirals Club facilities; and complimentary coffee, tea, soft drinks, juices and light snacks, in addition to bar services and food for purchase through the enhanced Amora food and beverage program, among other services.

Link to Story (http://www.aviationnews.net/?do=headline&news_ID=165268)

O'Hare gets $12 million in stimulus cash
Published: 3/20/2009

Some economic stimulus cash will be trickling down to O'Hare International Airport. About $12.3 million from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is slated for the airport, which is in the midst of a massive expansion plan, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin announced Thursday. The money will be used to repair an existing runway at O'Hare. About $1.1 billion was set aside in the stimulus package for airport modernization projects. "Rehabilitation of this runway will put Illinoisans to work immediately on a project that will contribute to the long-term ability of the O'Hare airport to serve travelers efficiently," Durbin said in a statement.

Link to Website (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=280335&src=143)

jpIllInoIs

Mar 27, 2009, 2:04 PM

Finally some sanity in Bensenville as Village Attorney Frank Soto plans to take on John "don't meigs with us" Geils for the village Presidency.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bensenville-president-w-zonemar27,0,2471278.story

By James Kimberly | Tribune reporter March 27, 2009
The specter of an expanding O'Hare International Airport is ever-present in Bensenville, as are the low-flying jets that take off and land from some of the busiest runways in the nation.

At the city limits, attached to the "Welcome to Bensenville" signs are big photographs of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and the phrase, "Don't Meigs With Us," a reference to the downtown Chicago island airport Daley surreptitiously closed in 2003.

In the lobby of Village Hall, a videotape of Bensenville leaders at a news conference blasting the O'Hare Modernization Program plays on a loop.

Even the re-election signs for President John Geils, who is seeking a seventh term in the April 7 election, have a picture of an airplane with a circle and slash over it.

Soto, 43, believes Geils has been too singularly focused on O'Hare to the detriment of other issues in town. He said he has been knocking on doors and listening to people and that the O'Hare project is not very high on people's list of concerns.

"It isn't the first," Soto insists. "It's about the third."

Bensenville residents are more concerned about the same things that people far from the airport are concerned about—property taxes, water rates and the quality of roads and schools, he said.

Soto, an attorney who specializes in worker's compensation cases and civil litigation, grew up in Wood Dale and has lived in Bensenville nearly all his adult life. He is seeking office, he said, because he is concerned about the direction the village is headed.

Fighting the expansion of O'Hare is a losing battle, he said. The village would be better served to accept the inevitable and sit at the table with Chicago officials to negotiate terms beneficial to the community.
Bensenville should be talking about flight patterns and replacement tax dollars and maybe some state or federal money to help the local district build new schools, he said.

"The concept that we don't want to control our own destiny is going to hurt us the next four or five years, because that's when these critical decisions are going to be made," Soto said.

Geils, a fourth-generation Bensenville resident, and his family run a funeral home on York Road. Even so, he had to prove he lives in his home at 208 York Rd. in Bensenville to fend off an objection to his candidacy. During the hearings, Geils acknowledged that he spends as many as four days a week at a family resort in Green Lake, WI

jkimberly@tribune.com

Chicago Shawn

Mar 27, 2009, 7:53 PM

^That is good news, hopefully his common sense will prevail. Bensinville has a golden opportunity to turn themselves into a second Rosemont, perfectly positioned between the new western gateway terminal and expressway extension and the Metra Station in downtown. They could be attracting a swarm of new investment and wealth but no, the current leadership has been just hell bent on fighting a battle they already lost, and bankrupting themselves in the process.

BVictor1

Mar 30, 2009, 5:55 PM

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/ohare.stimulus.money.2.971081.html

Mar 30, 2009 12:52 pm US/Central

Federal Stimulus Money Flowing To O'Hare
Money Will Put People To Work On Existing Runway

CHICAGO (CBS) ― Chicago aviation officials say O'Hare International Airport will get $12 million in federal stimulus money to help improve existing infrastructure, but not for the O'Hare expansion project.

Officials, including U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), announced the money on Monday.

They say more than $5 million will be used to replace runway pavement and almost $7 million will be used to widen a taxiway.

But as for the ongoing expansion project, Rosemarie Andolino, head of the O'Hare Modernization Program, says FAA criteria bar the $15 billion project from receiving stimulus money.

One new runway opened at O'Hare in November in project's first phase.
Officials envision another runway and terminal by 2014, but the airport doesn't have funding for the second phase.

Other transportation will also benefit when the stimulus money comes in. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $1.3 billion for Amtrak projects nationwide, of which $80 million will be invested in Illinois.

Amtrak will use the money to rehabilitate locomotives and return train coaches to service. Amtrak officials say the funding will improve reliability during Chicago's changing seasons.

The Chicago Transit Authority will also benefit from the stimulus package. Money from the package will also go toward repairs to part of the CTA Blue Line from Washington Street to Damen Avenue. The CTA will also invest new hybrid buses.

nomarandlee

Mar 31, 2009, 5:13 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-airport-stimulus-31-mar31,0,2064096.story

O'Hare: Computer kiosks replace laid-off greeters
Mayor Richard Daley says he's satisfied with $12 million in stimulus money for O'Hare expansion

By Dan Mihalopoulos | Tribune reporter
March 31, 2009
Fifty new computer tourism "kiosks" will be installed throughout O'Hare International Airport, Mayor Richard Daley announced Monday.

Travelers at the airport will be able to use the touch screen-computers to access the city's 2-month-old tourism site, explorechicago.org.

The computers, which provide information in several languages, will provide many functions once performed by the red-jacketed greeters the Daley administration recently laid off to help address the city's budget deficit.

"Technology has really changed that," Daley said at a news conference at the airport. "This gives more information than any people can have. You can get more information off this system than any one individual could have at O'Hare Field."

Daley said most of the $315,000 cost will be covered by Hewlett-Packard, which manufactured the computers.

Daley's 2009 budget cut the positions of 29 airport customer service representatives who had translated and answered questions for passengers for decades.

Laying off the greeters, who were paid annual salaries of between $38,000 and $58,000, will result in savings of about $2 million, city officials said...........
..

ardecila

Apr 1, 2009, 3:20 AM

$12 million is peanuts for something as complex and expensive as O'Hare Airport. I don't even know why they're reporting about it. It's basically just filling potholes... really really expensive potholes.

samoen313

Apr 7, 2009, 1:27 AM

The new runway configuration is integral, that makes a lot of sense. I'm a little mystified by the immediate drive for a new terminal complex though. Granted, I don't regularly transit through ORD and haven't done any number-crunching. But given evidence in the articles above, why do they need a whole new complex before 2014?

UA has a tidy complex to itself and there seems to be a multitude of gates in Terminal 3 for AA. If CO moves to Terminal 1 and DL to Terminal 2 and judging from the articles, there are certainly some underused gates especially now in the downturn. If they have a fairly large, new international terminal, then who would they be building an entirely new terminal complex for?

Would UA or AA ditch their respective homes for a brand new building? Would it be for the sake of slowly paring down the east terminal complex for future redevelopment? Questions, questions.

I can see the long-term viability (they could rearrange the terminals for an ATL type setup eventually if they eliminate the NW/SE runways), but wouldn't it just be best to keep the area free of runways and develop the area in the future once it is needed and focus on runways for now?

Berwyn

Apr 7, 2009, 1:58 AM

Have they started demolition in Bensenville yet?

Also, since a large portion of their industrial tax base is being taken out, is there any plans for annexation?

spyguy

Apr 8, 2009, 3:32 AM

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/04/election-results-arlington-heights-aurora-bensenville-carpentersville-deerfield-des-plaines-elmhurst.html

Voters dump mayors in Palatine, Lyons, Carpentersville, Bensenville and Waukegan
Posted by Tribune staff; last updated at 10:24 p.m.

BENSENVILLE: Challenger Frank Soto claimed victory tonight over longtime Mayor John Geils based on early returns in a village where the expansion of O'Hare International Airport continues to loom as an issue. With 11 of 14 precincts in, Soto had 70 percent.

bnk

Apr 8, 2009, 3:47 AM

:previous:

Wow! nice to see some NIMBY leaders getting their azzes kicked.

This is a good sign and lesson for future azzhole NIB's.

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 4:10 AM

Holy cow. Must be the immigrants. ;)

Best news I've heard for a week.

jpIllInoIs

Apr 8, 2009, 1:16 PM

Berwyn

Apr 8, 2009, 5:26 PM

FlashingLights

Apr 8, 2009, 5:43 PM

I'm so glad that Palatine mayor that tried to secede from Cook County is out. What a total joke of a mayor. Same with the Bensenville NIMBY.

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 6:26 PM

^ The new guy, the football guy, was on NPR this morning saying he'd like to do the same... if he could figure out how.

ardecila

Apr 8, 2009, 6:49 PM

I'm so glad that Palatine mayor that tried to secede from Cook County is out. What a total joke of a mayor. Same with the Bensenville NIMBY.

Yet an advisory referendum to secede from Cook County passed with over 60% of the vote in Barrington, Palatine, and Hanover Townships. :yuck:

bnk

Apr 9, 2009, 12:02 AM

Not only did Frank Soto, challenger for Bensenville Village President cruise to a landslide victory, but so did all 4 challengers for Village Board seats and also the Village Clerk. A wholesale sweep of the old politics.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/politics/elections/2009/community/bensenville/

from the article:notacrook:

Soto criticized Geils for costly legal fees to fight Chicago for what the challenger considered, in part, a lost battle. Rather, Soto promised voters he'd fight to protect the village from negative impacts of expansion while securing maximum financial benefits and new jobs.

Geils, village president since 1985, was thought by many to be unbeatable. His "Home Town Party" slate criticized Soto's stance on O'Hare, suggesting the challenger was "throwing in the towel" rather than standing up to fight.

the urban politician

Apr 9, 2009, 1:31 AM

^ Not to get off topic, but I'd love to see somebody come in and streamroll Pat Levar like that in the next Aldermanic elections

nomarandlee

Apr 9, 2009, 1:43 AM

Somewhat contradicting Bensenville also voted to "keep up the fight" with stopping O'Hare expansion last night. So that either tells that disgust with the mayor went beyond O'Hare, that people want to fight but make a settlement, or it was a save face type vote.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/04/election-results-route-53-bensenville-st-charles-school-303-schiller-park-orland-hills-sales-tax-mid.html
*Bensenville: continue fighting against O'Hare expansion. Yes 1,422 No 1,180 (11 of 14 precincts, advisory only)

jpIllInoIs

Apr 9, 2009, 3:04 AM

that advisory referendum was put on the ballot by ..guess who??? Mayor Geils!. It is a way to stir up the anti O'Hare sentiment and "get out the vote". Note the margin of that referendum, 1400 for 1100 against. hardly a landslide. and anyway a question like that is the same as saying... 'Should we stop kneeling on your chest?"
Of course the residents want to "fight ohare" but they may want the fight to go in a different direction. Ot they may want to fight for a different end result.

Chicago Shawn

Apr 9, 2009, 3:48 PM

Well this house cleaning at Bensinville Village Hall certainly made my morning :)

^ Not to get off topic, but I'd love to see somebody come in and streamroll Pat Levar like that in the next Aldermanic elections

Its not off topic, as Levar is chairman of the city's aviation committee, and is in trouble for seeking pay to play campaign contributions from contractors working on O'Hare expansion. I don't know if the charges are serious enough to oust the fat bastard. In the last election, the spread between him and his closest challenger; Terry Boyke, was less than a 10 points in a 4-way race. Levar's biggest constituency is the "don't change my neighborhood" NIMBY crowd.

mcfinley

Apr 23, 2009, 8:55 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/1541339,ohare-expansion-elk-grove-042309.article

Elk Grove Village to stop legal battle against O'Hare expansion

April 23, 2009

BY MARY WISNIEWSKIStaff Reporter

One of the fiercest opponents of the O’Hare Airport expansion has pulled out of the fight.

Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson said the village will stop its legal battle against the $15 billion expansion, after the Illinois Department of Transportation said it had discarded an alternative for a ring road around the airport that would have widened Route 83/Busse Road.

Johnson said he is happy IDOT is picking an option connecting I-90 and I-294 that will not hurt the village’s industrial park. Johnson said the decision will save “hundreds of businesses, thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax dollars.”

“We’re very excited that the cloud has finally been lifted over our community,” said Johnson.

The western suburbs of Elk Grove Village and Bensenville together have spent $14 million fighting the O’Hare expansion, tying up the Chicago’s plans with litigation. But Bensenville earlier this month elected a new village president, Frank Soto, who has reportedly said he is willing to negotiate with the City of Chicago.

Defeated Bensenville Village President John Geils long opposed the expansion. Johnson said losing Geils as an ally was one reason Elk Grove Village decided to stop fighting the expansion.

“We’ve always said we’d never abandon our friend and ally,” Johnson said. He said he has tried contacting Soto repeatedly, but has gotten no response.

Johnson said he still thinks the O’Hare expansion plan is flawed, but that’s Chicago’s problem.

“Someday you might look back and say those two little mayors were right,” Johnson said.

Soto was not immediately available for comment. Neither was the Chicago Department of Aviation.

nergie

Apr 23, 2009, 9:06 PM

:cheers: :notacrook: :banana: http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/1541339,ohare-expansion-elk-grove-042309.article

jpIllInoIs

Apr 23, 2009, 10:55 PM

Finally and end to the bs lawsuits. EGV and Bensensville spent $14 millinoin and I bet Chicago spent even more. And the lost time... o well at least that part of it is over.

jpIllInoIs

May 22, 2009, 1:21 PM

Only somewhat related to OHare, but this thread has been dormant awhile so here ya go.

Interesting that the Southwest corporate refers to Milwaukee Mitchell as Chicago's 3rd airport.:cheers:

http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/prindex.html

Southwest Airlines Announces Intent to Begin Service From Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport
Carrier Plans Start-Up with Jet Flights to Multiple Destinations in Late 2009

DALLAS, May 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines today announced its intent to begin service from Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport (MKE) late this year. The carrier has not released specific service details, but said it will offer multiple destinations from the airport of choice for business and leisure travelers who work and live across the vibrant and growing region. The new Southwest service from MKE will commence after already-announced new service to New York LaGuardia (June 28) and Boston Logan (August 16).

"I am certain our more than 90 million annual Customers will be delighted to learn they will now be able to fly Southwest Airlines when their travels take them to Milwaukee. Likewise, I look forward to bringing our great, low fare service, and the nation's largest airline network to our new friends in Milwaukee, which will also help better serve the Northern Chicago Area," said Gary Kelly, Southwest's Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO, at Southwest Airlines' Annual Meeting of Shareholders in Dallas.

"As we have previously announced, we essentially slowed our 2009 and 2010 fleet growth to zero. All of these new market opportunities are made possible without the addition of a single airplane by our continuous flight schedule optimization process," he said.

The Company plans to release more details of its future service from Milwaukee in the coming months.

"Southwest's arrival in Milwaukee will stimulate job growth, economic development, and give travelers more options they've been seeking," said Milwaukee Mitchell Airport Director Barry Bateman. "Southwest is already the dominant airline at Chicago Midway and will provide new service to the growing population of Northern Illinois and Southeastern Wisconsin, further solidifying Mitchell International as 'Chicago's Third Airport'."
To view a blog post on this news, visit: http://www.blogsouthwest.com. To visit Southwest's web site, visit: www.southwest.com.

After nearly 38 years of service, Southwest Airlines, the nation's leading low-fare carrier, continues to stand above other airlines--offering a reliable product with exemplary Customer Service with no hidden fees. Southwest Airlines is the most productive airline in the sky and offers Customers a comfortable traveling experience with all premium leather seats and plenty of legroom. Southwest recently updated its gate areas and improved its boarding procedure to make flying Southwest Airlines even more convenient. Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) currently serves 65 cities in 33 states. Based in Dallas, Southwest currently operates more than 3,300 flights a day and has more than 35,000 Employees systemwide.

http://www.southwest.com

SOURCE
Southwest Airlines

CONTACT:
Southwest Airlines, +1-214-792-4847

ardecila

Jun 18, 2009, 8:12 PM

I don't know if any of you have been following the progress on the Elgin-O'Hare and the West Bypass, but it is progressing at a rapid pace. It will be the only new expressway in Chicagoland for probably the next decade.

Currently, there are two plans on the table. One would extend the Elgin-O'Hare along Thorndale to a western airport terminal, coupled with a complete West Bypass from 90 to 294 around the backside of O'Hare. This plan is estimated at $3.6 billion. The other plan would only complete the bypass between the Elgin-O'Hare and 294. The segment running north to 90 would be replaced by a widened Elmhurst Road and an enhanced interchange at 90. This would only cost $2.4 billion.

The Elgin-O'Hare pretty much has a fixed alignment because of the Thorndale corridor, but the West Bypass has many different alignments where it would connect to 294 and/or 90. Virtually all of them include VAST amounts of demolition, mostly of industrial areas. Am I the only one who finds the prospect of such demolition to be a little scary?

Latest Maps (look at the "Exhibits" for the alignment maps)
http://elginohare-westbypass.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=244#TheAlternativesCarriedForwardMemo

VivaLFuego

Jun 19, 2009, 12:13 AM

bnk

Jun 19, 2009, 2:00 AM

ardecila

Jun 19, 2009, 5:31 AM

While corridors and rights-of-way should be preserved for the eventual long term need/benefit of this project, there are so many other pressing needs in the region for $3+ billion in transportation infrastructure investment I don't even know where to begin.

If you think that's a poor use of money, you should see the transit options that RTA is considering in this corridor.

I'm not sure how USDOT will operate under Obama/LaHood, but currently, highways and transit come from separate sources, correct? The funding of this project would not negatively impact transit projects in the region. If this does not change, then I see this as being near the top of the list for highway projects. The only thing more pressing would be the widening of the Eisenhower between Mannheim and Austin.

VivaLFuego

Jun 19, 2009, 3:54 PM

If you think that's a poor use of money, you should see the transit options that RTA is considering in this corridor.

I'm not sure how USDOT will operate under Obama/LaHood, but currently, highways and transit come from separate sources, correct? The funding of this project would not negatively impact transit projects in the region. If this does not change, then I see this as being near the top of the list for highway projects. The only thing more pressing would be the widening of the Eisenhower between Mannheim and Austin.

Yes, it's different pots of money. But $3 billion would go a long way with much-needed modernization projects that would do more to unlock congestion - signal interconnects, grade separations, interchange rebuilds to fix 1950s-era ramp geometry, etc. etc.

lawfin

Jun 19, 2009, 4:57 PM

VivaLFuego

Jun 19, 2009, 5:33 PM

^^^Link to those RTA options..I know its a bit OT

STAR Line is the biggy - and ardec's right, it's a notably more absurd proposal than the E-O.

the urban politician

Jun 20, 2009, 2:43 AM

^ Serious? You support the STAR Line?

I'm surprised...

VivaLFuego

Jun 20, 2009, 4:26 AM

^ Serious? You support the STAR Line?

I'm surprised...

Re-read my comment.

ardecila

Jun 20, 2009, 6:08 AM

STAR Line is the biggy - and ardec's right, it's a notably more absurd proposal than the E-O.

There's also a planned light-rail line running along the new Elgin-O'Hare then up 290 to Woodfield, giving the O'Hare area TWO new rail links to Woodfield. :koko:

Also included in the plans are some, much more sensible, plans for express buses and bus lanes on the highways. Mr. Downtown has imagined a decent set of express bus routes for the Northwest Corridor that serves most large employers along 90 and links them to the River Road station on the Blue Line.

lawfin

Jun 20, 2009, 7:52 AM

There's also a planned light-rail line running along the new Elgin-O'Hare then up 290 to Woodfield, giving the O'Hare area TWO new rail links to Woodfield. :koko:

Also included in the plans are some, much more sensible, plans for express buses and bus lanes on the highways. Mr. Downtown has imagined a decent set of express bus routes for the Northwest Corridor that serves most large employers along 90 and links them to the River Road station on the Blue Line.

What really bothers me about these suburban developments..is that it would seem to make more sense and be cheaper to increase frequency....ie decrease I think it is called "head" time...on routes in areas where the density more supports regular ridership.

For one increase frequency of trains on Metra lines that serve the city on weekends....

Increase the frequency of trains on fridays to 1 every .5 hours or so...on the North line....

Make the brown line 24 hours

Consider making Orange line 24 hours...

Extend time on the purple line ..including express serivce throughout day....maybe add a couple stops at old AB stations on redline

just thoughts

The recent article in the Tribune seemed to indicate that ridership has increased...especially in areas that are more central within the L ridership area....focus development there by simply running more trains

Also I think Metra could do a better job at weekend coverage as stated above

denizen467

Jun 20, 2009, 9:37 AM

decrease I think it is called "head" time...on routes
I think "headway". But you must have had a very nice Friday night...

whyhuhwhy

Jun 20, 2009, 7:53 PM

The only thing more pressing would be the widening of the Eisenhower between Mannheim and Austin.

Agreed. IMO getting rid of the horrible Eisenhower bottleneck once and for all is the single most pressing transportation issue in the region, besides the obvious larger picture things like CREATE and a better CTA.

But above even Elgin-O'Hare I am surprised that the Kennedy-Edens junction bottleneck is not also a more pressing issue. Inbound on any given weekday is an hour or more from O'Hare to downtown or from Lake Cook to downtown. Talk about discouraging people from the north or west, mostly big earners up there too, from coming into the city in the afternoons and evenings. No wonder those suburbs are booming with new restaurants!

I agree with BNK though we need to get the Elgin-O'Hare expressway actually finished once and for all. But fixing the amazingly absurd Eisenhower bottleneck would certainly serve a LOT more people.

BTW does anyone know if the idea to get rid of the express lanes on the Kennedy has ever been knocked around? It is horribly outdated, especially when you have more people trying to get into the city in the afternoons than out. And it encourages sprawl. Why live in the city when a reverse commute is actually WORSE. And the express lanes require four shoulder lanes total, so you are talking about a huge waste of space too that could be dedicated to actual transportation. There are multiple reasons why it just doesn't work anymore. Has anyone even brought this up at ANY meeting? I sit and watch in awe every afternoon on gcmtravel.com as I see the unbelievable travel times for people if they are coming into the city from anywhere north or west of it.

ardecila

Jun 21, 2009, 3:16 AM

Metra already provides a good option in the UP-NW line, with frequent trains in both directions during AM and PM rush hours. Serious congestion begins where 90 and 190 merge, so Rosemont and Cumberland on the Blue Line offer last-chance options to ditch the car and take transit. Pace could probably be doing a better job with bus connections from Rosemont, but you can't say there aren't good alternatives to driving in the corridor.

Most people who are driving on the Edens or Kennedy at this point are people who obviously can AFFORD to spend so much time sitting in traffic in exchange for the comforts and convenience of an auto. Highway engineers would blame the severe congestion on the city's decision not to build the Crosstown back in the 70s.

Turning the reversible lanes into HOV has been tossed around, but IDOT is resistant to the whole idea of HOV, so they've always dismissed it. Design-wise, it would be challenging to turn the reversible lanes into regular lanes, because of the Blue Line tracks. The configuration of inbound-reversible-tracks-outbound means that there are more lanes on the inbound side than the outbound, or vice versa; they can't be split evenly between the travel directions without completely rebuilding the Blue Line.

North of the junction, I don't think it's a good idea to widen the Kennedy or Edens. Both highways are 3 lanes deliberately, to reduce traffic volume to capacity levels that the junction, and the Kennedy south of it, can handle. The situation on the Eisenhower is different, since 290 and 88 send 10 lanes into 6 lanes, which widens again to 8 lanes at Austin. I.e., it is a "true" bottleneck. The highway was built this way because it was assumed that an extra lane would be needed to handle traffic from Oak Park. Today, however, Oak Park has transit options that further-out suburbs can only dream of, so their special lane gets extended to serve the traffic from farther out.

whyhuhwhy

Jun 21, 2009, 6:51 AM

but you can't say there aren't good alternatives to driving in the corridor.

Sure I can. I mean we are talking about reverse commute traffic. Metra is great for commuting INTO the LOOP from a suburban parking lot that people drive to get to in the first place. It is horrible for the opposite, and for obvious reasons. If you live in the city and have to work in the suburbs, forget it, you are driving 99% of the time. Just think about it. Most people first of all don't live in the Loop or near a Metra station. In fact I don't even no a single person that lives in the Loop, everyone I know lives in some neighborhood nowhere near a Metra station. So in order to even leave the city they have to somehow get to a Metra station on the exact right line, which 9 times out of 10 probably means they need to get their ass to Union Station. This means a commute to the Loop to begin with, just to begin to leave the city. Once they reach the Loop, they better be on time for the train leaving for the suburbs. After that, forget it. What percent of jobs are centered around suburban Metra stations and are walkable, or near a Pace bus station. In fact, even if it is near a Pace bus station I don't expect any human being to take the L to the Loop, which doesn't even have a stop at Union Station, so they have to get out and walk several blocks to get to Union Station, then transfer to Metra, then transfer to Pace, and do the whole thing over again back home. Unless they don't mind commuting half the day. Even if someone has an apartment in Union Station, if that were possible, you are still 9 times out of 10 stuck once you get out to the suburbs unless you have a car waiting for you.

Personally speaking, I have two friends who live in the city and work in the suburbs. And I know that it is not uncommon. These are young, able bodied men who are well aware of the alternatives to driving, and have TRIED THEM. I doubt there is a single soul who reverse commutes every day who, sitting with nothing but brake lights in front of them as far as the eye can see, has not thought of every alternative way to NOT be in the hellhole situation that they are currently sitting in. And saying that they should just move out of the city and to the suburbs is not a solution we should encourage. Saying they should get another job would also be ridiculous. Saying that they should buy a car and have it parked out in the suburbs at the Metra lots and move near to Union Station is even moreso. I'm not saying that you're saying these things but I have heard these "alternatives" brought up before. IMO these aren't real "alternatives" and they do nothing to solve the big picture problem.

In fact, what this impossibly horrible inbound traffic for reverse commuters does is encourage sprawl, because yes, the easiest (and cheapest) alternative to all this is just plain and simply move out of the city, and get a place out in the suburbs. In fact that is what my friends will be doing, and they feel almost forced to. We are forcing people out of the city by effectively making it very difficult to get back into it for anyone that lives here. I'm not sure why this is being dismissed by IDOT. Perhaps once the Tollway constructions projects are all complete it will free up so many construction workers that we may see a solution proposed though.

So yeah, I hope that they start looking at solutions to the problem of bottlenecks that Chicago has. Especially when we are talking about city dwelling folks. Having 6 lanes go into 4 lanes is a bottleneck and backs up the entire Kennedy and Edens every afternoon here. It's basically a giant finger from IDOT every afternoon for people that live in the city or want to get into it. Perhaps this is why it isn't pressing though to them, because they figure these are city folks who "can take transit." There are multiple reasons they aren't, not the least of which is how there is no real mass transit once they get out to the suburbs where they work (nor should there have to be with such low density).

Most people who are driving on the Edens or Kennedy at this point are people who obviously can AFFORD to spend so much time sitting in traffic in exchange for the comforts and convenience of an auto.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they have no choice. Getting to Union Station and getting dropped off at a Metra station in the burbs where you bought an extra car that is parked out there, just to get to work, may be asking way too much of your average commuter. Either way rationalizing it that they can "afford" to just sit in hours of traffic every day does nothing to solve the actual problem.

Highway engineers would blame the severe congestion on the city's decision not to build the Crosstown back in the 70s.

Yes. Is this on the table at all?

Turning the reversible lanes into HOV has been tossed around, but IDOT is resistant to the whole idea of HOV, so they've always dismissed it. Design-wise, it would be challenging to turn the reversible lanes into regular lanes, because of the Blue Line tracks. The configuration of inbound-reversible-tracks-outbound means that there are more lanes on the inbound side than the outbound, or vice versa; they can't be split evenly between the travel directions without completely rebuilding the Blue Line.

I've noticed this. But there is no such thing as "can't" in my book. It is always said by people who have given up it seems (not saying this is you personally). I have been told I can't do certain things my whole life and I always at least look for a solution and am able to find ways. When I've seen what they've done creatively with highways in Texas and California, building up rather than just out, I just can't take "can't" seriously when I come back here and none of the highways are three dimensional save for interchanges, and there are so many bottlenecks that are clearly outdated.

North of the junction, I don't think it's a good idea to widen the Kennedy or Edens. Both highways are 3 lanes deliberately, to reduce traffic volume to capacity levels that the junction, and the Kennedy south of it, can handle.

Why can't they widen the northbound only then? Northbound is backed up consistently at all hours of the day on the Kennedy (but rarely the Edens). So free up capacity there. It would keep 90/94 moving better, and the Kennedy widens to 4 lanes at Cumberland anyways. Clearly there is a disharmony in capacity demand and the highway demand for each is no longer equal. Is there some law that states you have to have equal lanes on both sides? Curious. I would think they could adjust for modern demand.

ardecila

Jun 21, 2009, 6:51 PM

In fact I don't even no a single person that lives in the Loop, everyone I know lives in some neighborhood nowhere near a Metra station. So in order to even leave the city they have to somehow get to a Metra station on the exact right line, which 9 times out of 10 probably means they need to get their ass to Union Station.

The Clinton Street Subway is designed to provide a direct connection to Union Station or Ogilvie for North, Northwest, and West Side residents.

What percent of jobs are centered around suburban Metra stations and are walkable, or near a Pace bus station.

Not many major employers are clustered near Metra stations, I will admit. However, I think people ought to pay a penalty if they choose a job that is too far from their home. Regardless of whether that person takes transit or drives, they are still doing something unsustainable. I realize that reverse-commuting has allowed for far more growth in the city than would be possible if everybody worked downtown, but there has to be a price.

In fact, what this impossibly horrible inbound traffic for reverse commuters does is encourage sprawl, because yes, the easiest (and cheapest) alternative to all this is just plain and simply move out of the city, and get a place out in the suburbs.

Since when does "moving to the suburbs" equal "encouraging sprawl"? If your friends have jobs on the urban frontier in Hampshire or Huntley or something, they REALLY shouldn't be living in the city. If they are moving to established suburbs like, say, Arlington Heights, then I don't see how that is encouraging sprawl. It's bringing new residents and money into towns that are increasingly making progressive choices about parks, bike trails, etc

Yes. Is this on the table at all?

Only as an exclusively-truck highway, to remove the fumes of trucks passing through from the Central Area.

Why can't they widen the northbound only then? Northbound is backed up consistently at all hours of the day on the Kennedy (but rarely the Edens). So free up capacity there. It would keep 90/94 moving better, and the Kennedy widens to 4 lanes at Cumberland anyways. Clearly there is a disharmony in capacity demand and the highway demand for each is no longer equal. Is there some law that states you have to have equal lanes on both sides? Curious. I would think they could adjust for modern demand.

Equal lanes makes sense. Everybody commuting one way in the morning commutes in the opposite direction in the afternoon.

Also, I wouldn't say that there is unequal demand. It's hard to assess that just by looking at it. The inbound may be moving smoothly while the outbound grinds to a halt, but the express lanes have a hand in the smooth flow of the inbound.

Finally, the Kennedy only widens to 8 lanes to provide a merging lane for the cloverleaf at Cumberland and the ramps to 190 towards O'Hare. After 190 splits off, it's back to 6 lanes.

VivaLFuego

Jun 21, 2009, 7:04 PM

nomarandlee

Jun 21, 2009, 8:27 PM

I agree with Viva's theme. Long term the problem is largely in that suburbs are not building much of their commercial buildings near Metra stations. A recent case in point is that in the last year in Glenview in the Glen they built two five story's office buildings facing Willow Road leading into the new Glen development. Those buildings are only about a half mile from he Glen station are on the same road and there is no perceptible reason why they wouldn't have worked nearly as well if built by the station. The development it is just far enough so that anyone who works there will not dream of walking to their office everyday. Potentially there could have be a 10 story office building across from the Metra station that would have been an anchor but instead it is surrounded by cheep two story buildings. Alas, anyone living south of Glenview (including some reverse commuters from the city) will be driving. The fact that suburbs still today engage in such blatant disregard of zoning and don't attempt to make their Metra stations anything other then park and rides to downtown Chicago is a complete waste.

If suburbs planned well and built new employment centers around Metra stations then ideally Chicago could do its part and also zone for a variety of residential TOD's around its primary Metra stations near Jefferson Park, Clybourn station, Western Ave, Ravenswood etc. for people who city residents who want to reverse commute but given that relatively little commercial space is built around most Metra lines the demand is likely not even there for developers to build for such people. The circle line also would help with such theoretical reverse commuting but again until the burbs do their part in building a good chunk of their employment base near their stations all other efforts are wasted.

edit: just realized this is the O'Hare and not transit thread and we are getting a bit off topic.

Marcu

Jun 22, 2009, 7:52 PM

Just wait until the reverse commute congestion gets so bad that suburban employers and village councils start thinking differently about the geographic nature of their jobs and transportation investments.

It won't get any worse, since there is a steady stream of Chicago residents who are pushed out to the suburbs just to avoid spending 10-15 hours a week commuting.

Not many major employers are clustered near Metra stations, I will admit. However, I think people ought to pay a penalty if they choose a job that is too far from their home. Regardless of whether that person takes transit or drives, they are still doing something unsustainable. I realize that reverse-commuting has allowed for far more growth in the city than would be possible if everybody worked downtown, but there has to be a price.

Most people don't "choose" a job in the traditional way we define choice. Once out in the workforce, most people quickly learn that the mutual choice theory of employment is for the most part myth. People do, however, choose where they live. Chicago is fortunate enough to appeal to people that are forced to work elsewhere, but choose to live here. I am not sure how penalizing them accomplishes anything, besides pushes people out to the suburbs. I guess it also contributes to smog, pollution, aggrevation, and a massive waste of time and money. As for working where one lives, not everyone in a metro area of 10 million people can live in Oakbrook, Schaumburg, O'Hare, or the Loop, and we're really not at a point where we can start to subdivide metro areas to resemble small, self-contained towns of 10,000 people.

VivaLFuego

Jun 22, 2009, 8:37 PM

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=silver+spring,+md&sll=39.001977,-77.029438&sspn=0.048625,0.075016&ie=UTF8&ll=39.008647,-77.027979&spn=0.048621,0.075016&t=k&z=14

Silver Spring, MD. Employment District concentrated around the multimodal Metro/MARC stop (serving employees who live to the south or north), with two 6-lane arterials connecting it to adjacent expressway (each serving inbound employees from the west and east, respectively). Bethesda is similar, as are Ballston and Rosslyn in VA.

Not rocket science. Similar planning could have been done in the I-90, I-294, and I-88 corridors.

whyhuhwhy

Jun 22, 2009, 11:09 PM

The Clinton Street Subway is designed to provide a direct connection to Union Station or Ogilvie for North, Northwest, and West Side residents.

Cool. Any place to get information on this?

However, I think people ought to pay a penalty if they choose a job that is too far from their home. Regardless of whether that person takes transit or drives, they are still doing something unsustainable. I realize that reverse-commuting has allowed for far more growth in the city than would be possible if everybody worked downtown, but there has to be a price.

I strongly disagree. In fact I don't think I've ever met anyone that has the liberty in their field to choose exactly where they work. If they do, more power to them, but I think this is the exception not the rule. I am a physician and Radiology is a high demand field, and even I can't do that, and there are hospitals scattered all over the place. I took what I could get, and luckily this happened to be at Rush. Especially with today's economy, people find the best or many times the ONLY job that they can and they should not "pay a penalty" if they happen to find a job in the suburbs and they have a home in the city.

Now if they have to move closer to work, so be it, even though moving is a huge pain I don't expect people to do lightly, but most of the jobs are in the suburbs, so you are just really encouraging people to not live in the city especially as the suburban job base continues to grow and the problem of getting back into the city in the afternoons continues to get worse.

Equal lanes makes sense. Everybody commuting one way in the morning commutes in the opposite direction in the afternoon.

Equal lanes only make sense if there is equal congestion, right? In the case of the Kennedy this is not true. Which is why we have express lanes in the first place, no?

whyhuhwhy

Jun 22, 2009, 11:32 PM

If land use in the suburbs weren't so crappy it wouldn't be necessary to compound bad decisions by building ever more infrastructure that would be underutilized most hours of the week. Employment centers shouldn't be in locations inaccessibly to transit to begin with. I don't see why ever more urban fabric should be replaced with pavement because the suburbs can't pull their heads out of their ass when it comes to land use planning. Locate jobs where they'll be accessible, and not necessitate ever more infrastructure. Highways are relatively unscalable and achieve diminishing marginal returns from additional lanes after the 3rd lane. You can always increase frequencies on rail lines, which take up much less real estate anyway. Just wait until the reverse commute congestion gets so bad that suburban employers and village councils start thinking differently about the geographic nature of their jobs and transportation investments.

Even if you build all of the suburban Chicago jobs within walking distance of a Metra station, which will never happen, you still face the problem that transit from city to suburb is not multi-modal and people have to either get themselves on the right Metra line at the right time, or much more likely they have to face a second commute to the Loop just to get to Union Station in the first place! et's be real here. It's easy to talk about this stuff as a planner but can you imagine how bad that would suck on a daily basis? This is why the vast majority of reverse commuters drive and will continue to do so.

A traditional commute from suburb to Loop is a different story, if someone is lucky enough to have that combination of home and employment. Consider themselves very very lucky. Take the Metra then, it works. It does what it is designed to do (go figure!). But having private suburban businesses who may not even have that much money to begin with build near a Metra station may not just be impractical, it may not even be possible. Encourage it, yes, but don't blame them if they don't comply. Not ever company is Motorolla and has an unlimited pocketbook, most people work for a small businesses on a tight budget. Plus you trade accesibility to commuter rail for less parking, in general. Since most people drive, this tradeoff wouldn't make sense for most business owners.

Either way, this is a collection of some of the most diverse people and businesses on the planet. This is still a free market economy so what you will see happen, rather than suburban employers "starting to think differently about the geographic nature of their investments," whatever that means no offense (I'm sure just about every suburban business has thought more than thoroughly about issues such as access, parking, location, and cost--if they haven't then they shouldn't be in business!), you will instead just see the suburbs and exurbs continue to boom with housing stock. The easiest solution on an individual level is for me to pick up my bags and get one of those shiny new houses in the exurbs. After all, they aren't going to fix the inbound junction anytime soon, right?

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.

whyhuhwhy

Jun 23, 2009, 12:14 AM

It won't get any worse, since there is a steady stream of Chicago residents who are pushed out to the suburbs just to avoid spending 10-15 hours a week commuting.

I agree. I think right now it is about as worse as it can possibly get and any added commuters will not even deal with it. If you watch gcmtravel.com, the entire north/west inbound system on any given afternoon is red all the way from Lake Cook and/or O'Hare to the Edens/Kennedy junction. Red = 0-15 mph. (!) So yes, we have a highway system that inbound on Edens and Kennedy is literally a parking lot every afternoon. I don't see how it could get much worse. I know personally if I had a job on the west or north side, that is the day I will have to say goodbye to my beloved city unfortunately because I will never put up with that.

This seems to be a Chicago-only problem BTW. No other system that I know of, and I have lived in Manhattan and reverse commuted to Jersey back when I was in my early 20's, has something that is setup so specifically for bedroom community AM commuters at the specific and stark expense of city dwellers in a city the size of Chicago. Chicago is designed like Minneapolis yet it is not Minneapolis, it is Chicago. It may have made sense 30 years ago but it makes no sense today. Just my 2 cents.

emathias

Jun 23, 2009, 2:45 AM

...
I strongly disagree. In fact I don't think I've ever met anyone that has the liberty in their field to choose exactly where they work. If they do, more power to them, but I think this is the exception not the rule. I am a physician and Radiology is a high demand field, and even I can't do that, and there are hospitals scattered all over the place. I took what I could get, and luckily this happened to be at Rush. ...

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.

FlashingLights

Jun 23, 2009, 3:55 AM

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

This thread is ridiculusly off topic since post #637.

whyhuhwhy

Jun 23, 2009, 12:28 PM

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

- 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.

- 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/local/chi-ohare-cemetery-05-jul05,0,7060836.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

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 (Full 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

^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

the Stevenson, one of the least-congested highways in Chicagoland.

Say what?

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

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

lawfin

Jul 15, 2009, 6:10 AM

-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

denizen467

Jul 15, 2009, 10:12 AM

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:

- 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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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/SB10001424052970203739404574290030754087254.html

Nowhereman1280

Jul 23, 2009, 10:08 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.

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/bensenville.ohare.expansion.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

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.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-american-airlines-restructuring-chicago-sept17,0,3655455.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.....................