[VivaLFuego]

This is ridiculous.

I worry about this country, and particularly this state. We can't seem to get a damn thing done. Can't fix our transit systems. Can't deal with long term liabilities like pensions (or social security on a nation level). Can't balance a budget. Can't redo a flippin airport.

As long as you're a lawyer, you'll be ok in the America of tomorrow.

[ardecila]

Man, that Karaganis dude is real scum. He continues to urge the families to fight, even though he knows that the odds are overwhelmingly against them. Meanwhile, he happily accepts their money. By now, all of that money could have been spent on respectful, ceremonial movings of the interred people, instead of the no-frills, quick, efficient job that the city seems to be doing.

I honestly don't think moving a grave is that big of a deal, especially if family members can use it as an occasion to reflect on their deceased loved ones.

[Nowhereman1280]

The real question is why do these people care so much? Its not like they are digging up these caskets and throwing them in a wood chipper. Its not like Lincoln Park where large parts of the cemetery were just forgotten and still sit there today. They are respectfully moving them over a few miles.

[denizen467]

Isn't it also true that the cemetery is from around 1850, and that there have been no interments there in a 100 years or something?

Assuming that's the case, most of the citizens whining about the graves are talking about dead relatives whom they've never actually met. In fact, dead relatives that even their grandparents had never met.

Ancestors and family are important and should be respected, but you can't cling forever.

[Jenner]

Just a bit off topic, but does anyone have any links to the "master plans" for the Gary airport expansion? The Gary International airport website doesn't contain much information.

[jpIllInoIs]

Gary airport gets latest piece of grant


March 4, 2010
POST-TRIBUNE STAFF REPORT

Gary/Chicago International Airport received its fifth installment of federal funding to support airport expansion efforts, U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Merrillville, said Wednesday.

The $5 million grant will go toward the airport's runway extension project and is part of a $57.8 million allocation over 10 years. To date, the airport has received more than $25 million from its grant awarded by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The project will expand the airport's runway from 7,000 to 8,900 feet. The extension also calls for the relocation of railroad tracks owned by Canadian National Railway. Airport Director Chris Curry said the two groups are in the final stages of signing an agreement to allow the project to begin in the summer.

"The Gary Airport is one of Northwest Indiana's untapped resources with high potential to transform the region," according to Visclosky in a statement. "These substantial investments in airport improvements can put people to work in the near term while laying the foundation for robust new industries that will create new jobs in Northwest Indiana."


http://www.post-trib.com/news/lake/2082826,gairport0304.article

[Jenner]

OK, I did again. I got to thinking as to how Gary could potentially become the 3rd airport with a better design.

Some information is from the FAA Record of Decision (ROD) for GYY, available here: http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/records_decision/media/rod_gary.pdf

Picture attached. Essentially I created a parallel runway, tried to figure out good places to place a PAX terminal, and an intermodal terminal. Comments welcome!

http://www.millenicom.com/users/cjdugan/GYY_options.jpg

[sammyg]

The $5 million grant will go toward the airport's runway extension project and is part of a $57.8 million allocation over 10 years. To date, the airport has received more than $25 million from its grant awarded by the Federal Aviation Administration.

http://www.post-trib.com/news/lake/2082826,gairport0304.article

10 years? If it takes that long to extend Gary's runway, how long is it going to take to build the Peotone airport?

[taibhse]

re. post 807

Nice job Jenner, though what about a crosswind runway? and also, aren't the new future terminals supposed to somehow link directly with the southshore line? I have high hopes for the development of GCIA as our region's true "third" airport and see it eventually as being the region's answer to Newark Liberty. It really could transform Gary. Forget that Peotone nonsense.

[Jenner]

The current crosswind runway would be eliminated. I couldn't see any room to place any additional cross wind runway. Additionally, I'm concerned with my 2nd runway being too close to the road, and it may not be as long as the projected 8900 ft runway. There is also the hazard that the runways align with the Midway runways, in that ATC would have to do some serious traffic control.

I am not sure if the south shore line has been established to Gary via Metra. I saw a station in Hammond for Amtrack, but even that would be far away. I'm not too concerned about commuter rail traffic to Gary, but that could be worked in the future. I'm just not sure what the future plans for commuter rail are for the Gary area.

I've looked in the possibilities of Gary acquiring land to the east, and move roads, railroad tracks, and businesses. I didn't study it for too long, but it looks rather counter-productive in that I couldn't get a runway alignment that would make the runways longer, or aligned differently from Midway. Additionally, the cost to move all the rail and roads would take enormous sums of money.

Maybe I'll look at it again when time permits. :)

[Mr Downtown]

^Not enough (FAA-required) separation between your runways.

South Shore Line runs just south of Gary Airport.

[nomarandlee]

I thought the diagram was rather good but my first thought also went to if the runways were to close together.

[VivaLFuego]

As long as railroads are being re-located, why not place the second parallel runway to the northeast, on the other side of a slightly re-aligned Industrial Parkway? This would also mean the existing terminal facilities wouldn't have to be demolished, and could just be expanded as demand warrants.

Realistically, in the near-to-medium term, the only rail connection will be a quick shuttle bus ride to the Clark South Shore station. It's hard to picture a a full intermodal station plan that wouldn't cost a fortune.

[Jenner]

Yeah, the runways are too close together based on standards found here:
FAA Airport Specs (http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5300-13).

Apparently, the master plan can call for 3rd runway. I haven't seen any documents about the master plan, so I'm not sure where the 3rd runway would be.

Interestingly enough, the GCIA website has a feature where you can leave the airport director some questions, and he'll respond! Perhaps I'll leave a couple of questions.

[Jenner]

Story found here. (http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_8f782ea2-03ad-5021-b4d4-b5b50e19348b.html)

Gary airport on track for moving tracks

Meeting next week critical, but big decisions remain

By Keith Benman - keith.benman@nwi.com, (219) 933-3326 | Posted: Saturday, March 6, 2010 12:05 am | (4) Comments


After nine years of negotiations, Gary/Chicago International Airport is closing in on a final agreement on moving Canadian National railroad tracks that block the expansion of its main runway, Airport Director Chris Curry said.

Airport officials will be meeting next week with Canadian National representatives at the airport and hopefully will iron out any last-minute details in the agreement, Curry said.

"We are hoping that sometime in March, we could have a full, binding agreement that will put an end to these discussions that have taken place since 2001," Curry told The Times Editorial Board at a meeting Thursday.

Hopes have risen before that a deal was near. Twice in the last two years the airport has signed preliminary memorandums of understandings with railroads on the project, but those were not followed by final agreements.

When the airport received a letter of intent for $57.8 million in FAA funding in January 2006, airport officials said they could have work on moving the tracks completed as early as 2008 and the runway expansion completed in 2010.

The deal the airport and railroad will work on next week is a slimmed-down version of a previous plan that would have included two other railroads. The slimmed-down plan has an estimated price tag of $30 million to $35 million.

The plan would clear the way for the $90 million extension of the east-west runway. But it would not clear the way for expanding the north-south runway, which is a project in the airport's long-term plan.

The airport's largest tenant and business, the Gary Jet Center, is pushing hard for the more expansive plan.

Owner Wil Davis said that plan is the one already approved by the Federal Aviation Administration and the one that would best serve the airport's long-term interests because it would clear the way for eventual expansion of the north-south runway.

"That's what we have to stay focused on and that's what we have to get done," Davis said.

The Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority is expected to kick in a good portion of the funding for the project, so it also will have a role to play in which plan is selected. RDA Executive Director Bill Hanna has been involved in the airport's negotiations with CN.

In addition to CN, the more expansive plan includes work on tracks owned by CSX Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp. It has an estimated price tag of at least $45 million.

Curry said on Friday the airport continues to negotiate "simultaneously" on both plans, meeting as recently as last week with a CSX official.

The slimmed-down plan has its own set of complications. To implement it, the airport must buy or condemn the property of Summit Inc., which operates a scrap yard that stands in the way of the proposed rail route. Paying for that property could add to the plan's expense.

Also, the more expansive plan involving all three railroads would qualify for up to $27 million in FAA and other funds, while the slimmed-down plan would qualify for less.

"The first priority is to get one signed legal agreement," Curry said. "And priority two is to get two signed legal agreements."

That way, both the airport authority and the RDA can be presented with the options and make a decision, Curry said.

The airport also expects to be able to move forward soon on acquiring land owned by Gary Community School Corp., which it also needs to make way for the runway expansion, Curry said.

The airport also expects to take delivery this month of a $449,732 business and strategic plan being prepared by airport consultant Landrum & Brown.

"March for us could be a very, very good month," Curry said. "We have a lot coming together at once."

Recent developments in negotiations to move railroad tracks that block expansion of Gary/Chicago International Airport's main runway:

Jan. 16, 2006: Gary airport lands $57.8 million for runway expansion under Federal Aviation Administration letter of intent. Airport officials say EJ&E Railway Co. tracks blocking expansion of runway could be moved as early as 2008.

Sept. 26, 2007: Canadian National Railway Co. announces it has an agreement to buy EJ&E tracks running from Waukegan, Ill., to Kirk Yard in Gary. Track blocking expansion of Gary airport is last stretch before Kirk Yard.

April 24, 2008: U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., announces he has secured a deal between CSX Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp. that will clear the way for moving EJ&E tracks and expansion of main runway at Gary airport.

June 27, 2008: Preliminary memorandum of understanding reached between airport, CSX, Norfolk Southern, CN and EJ&E on moving tracks to make way for runway expansion. E. Hunter Harrison, then-CEO of CN, praises deal.

June 26, 2009: Airport and CN reach preliminary agreement on slimmed-down, less-expensive plan for moving railroad tracks. Agreement does not include CSX and Norfolk Southern.

Jan. 31, 2009: Canadian National closes on its $300 million purchase of EJ&E Railway Co.

Feb. 2010: Gary airport submits to CN a final draft of agreement to move EJ&E tracks to make way for runway expansion.

Source: Times archives

[Jenner]

I've been busy. You can read here (http://nwitimes.com/news/opinion/guest-commentary/article_3c7f672d-a79e-5bfd-9681-a1163513469a.html) that Gary has hired
Landrum and Brown to produce/revise a master plan for the Gary Airport.

Here is a copy of the most important part:

L&B is an internationally recognized company dedicated solely to aviation that specializes in airport planning solutions. The direction given to L&B was to start from the ground level and use their expertise in aviation planning to determine aviation opportunities that the airport could provide to produce jobs and provide better service to support the region. These areas included cargo and passenger service, cooperate and general aviation, flight schools and maintenance/repair facilities. We look forward to their recommendations and expect a new plan to be commissioned in the near future.

[Jenner]

Ok, here is a new image for a proposal for Gary. You can see a larger version here (http://www.millenicom.com/users/cjdugan/GYY_options_1.jpg).

http://www.millenicom.com/users/cjdugan/GYY_options_1sm.jpg

Gary would have to buy more land to the north, in order to accomodate the new runway. They would also need to realign US 12 and the railroads.

Yellow is US 12.
Red is the NS "Sugar Line". Both US 12 and the railroad would go in a tunnel underneath the new runway.

The new runway is approximately 2800ft from the centerline of the existing runway and extension. Both runways would be 8900ft. The new parallel runway may be extended another 100-200ft on the south end, but may be unlikely. I'm not sure that it would buy you much. The parallel taxiway is about 550-600ft away from the runway, in accordance to FAA airport design.

The crosswind runway is preserved, with the planned extension. In this case, I have it rotated a couple of degrees from the current runway, but maintaining a pivot point at the southern end. The unfortunate aspect is that it bisects the terminal grounds.

I have the terminal/concourse split in 2: the terminal at the top northwest, and the extended concourse on the otherside of the 2/20 runway.

I would image that the current 12/30 runway taxiway may need to be moved 100-150ft north, in order to accommodate bigger planes and bring it into FAA compliance.

I'd be interested to see what Landrum & Brown will create. Comments welcome!

[nergie]

I know this is an expansion thread, however, I just saw latest numbers form Airport Council International (ACI) and O'Hare is now 4th in number of passengers and total flights are ~750K. Order is ATL, LHR and Beijing Capital in terms of total passengers. I am a bit surprised at the huge loss of traffic, could some explain why ORD experienced a much higher loss that other US airports.

[Rail Claimore]

I know this is an expansion thread, however, I just saw latest numbers form Airport Council International (ACI) and O'Hare is now 4th in number of passengers and total flights are ~750K. Order is ATL, LHR and Beijing Capital in terms of total passengers. I am a bit surprised at the huge loss of traffic, could some explain why ORD experienced a much higher loss that other US airports.

You'd have to look at the stats the airport itself puts out. My guess is that United, and American in particular, cut back on a lot of flights and started flying more of those smaller regional planes. The number of destinations hasn't changed much.

[VivaLFuego]

^The only stats I've seen are YTD through October - so it's possible O'Hare would still finish in the #2 spot for the year, but barely (because of the air travel peak during the winter holiday).

That said, it's otherwise a reflection of the broader economy and, as Rail points out, the big airlines trimming capacity dramatically (which in turn would somewhat raise ticket prices and provide an additional dampening of quantity demanded). Given the Delta/Northwest merger it's not surprising that Atlanta didn't see much of a hit - maybe someone else can confirm but I would assume the combination would result in reduced capacity out of the lesser hubs like Memphis and Cincinnati and consolidation of operations through Atlanta.

How did some other hubs like DFW, DEN, or LAS fare?

[Octavian]

through november from ACI (cut and paste from wikipedia). It's ugly but the information is there.

1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsfield-Jackson_Atlanta_International_Airport) Atlanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) ATL/KATL 81,063,638 ▬ ▼2.0% 2. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg) London Heathrow Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport) Hillingdon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Hillingdon), Greater London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England), United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) LHR/EGLL 60,708,301 ▲1 ▼1.7% 3. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg) Beijing Capital International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Capital_International_Airport) Chaoyang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoyang), Beijing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing), China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) PEK/ZBAA 59,979,434 ▲5 ▲17.2% 4. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) O'Hare International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport) Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) ORD/KORD 59,373,194 ▼2 ▼9.4% 5. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/20px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Japan.svg) Tokyo International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_International_Airport) Ōta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cta,_Tokyo), Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) HND/RJTT 57,031,440 ▼1 ▼7.5% 6. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/20px-Flag_of_France.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_France.svg) Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Charles_de_Gaulle_Airport) Roissy-en-France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roissy-en-France), Val d'Oise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_d%27Oise), Île-de-France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France_%28region%29), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) CDG/LFPG 53,459,723 ▼1 ▼5.1% 7. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) Los Angeles International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport) Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) LAX/KLAX 51,691,807 ▼1 ▼6.3% 8. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth_International_Airport) Dallas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas)/Fort Worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Worth,_Texas), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) DFW/KDFW 51,425,817 ▼1 ▼2.0% 9. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/20px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Germany.svg) Frankfurt Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Airport) Flughafen (Frankfurt am Main) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flughafen_%28Frankfurt_am_Main%29), Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_am_Main), Hesse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesse), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) FRA/EDDF 47,088,077 ▬ ▼5.3% 10. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) Denver International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_International_Airport) Denver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver), Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) DEN/KDEN 46,164,063 ▬ ▼2.1% 11. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/20px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Spain.svg) Madrid-Barajas Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid-Barajas_Airport) Madrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid), Comunidad de Madrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunidad_de_Madrid), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) MAD/LEMD 44,523,901 ▬ ▼5.8% 12. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg/20px-Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg) Hong Kong International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_International_Airport) Chek Lap Kok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chek_Lap_Kok), Lantau Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantau_Island), New Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories), Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong) HKG/VHHH 41,428,500 ▬ ▼5.6% 13. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) John F. Kennedy International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport) Queens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens), New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) JFK/KJFK 41,326,599 ▬ ▼6.1% 14. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg) Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Airport_Schiphol) Haarlemmermeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarlemmermeer), North Holland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Holland), Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) AMS/EHAM 40,463,288 ▬ ▼8.6% 15. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) McCarran International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_International_Airport) Las Vegas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas,_Nevada), Nevada, United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) LAS/KLAS 37,357,928 ▬ ▼8.7% 16. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg) Dubai International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport) Garhoud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garhoud), Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai), United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates) DXB/OMDB 37,085,392 ▲4 ▲8.7% 17. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) George Bush Intercontinental Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport) Houston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) IAH/KIAH 36,502,345 ▼1 ▼4.7% 18. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg/20px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Thailand.svg) Suvarnabhumi Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvarnabhumi_Airport) Racha Thewa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racha_Thewa), Bang Phli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphoe_Bang_Phli), Samut Prakan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samut_Prakan_Province), Greater Bangkok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok), Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand) BKK/VTBS 36,415,935 ▬ ▲0.5% 19. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Sky_Harbor_International_Airport) Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona), Arizona, United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) PHX/KPHX 34,586,265 ▼2 ▼5.8% 20. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/20px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) San Francisco International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport) San Mateo County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mateo_County,_California), California, United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) SFO/KSFO 34,302,399 ▲1 ▼0.0%

[ardecila]

Obviously, Beijing is poised to capture the top spot. It is newly-built, massive, and planned efficiently, and it is the biggest hub in a country where personal wealth is growing faster than population (which turns bus and rail passengers into air passengers, encourages international travel, etc). Look at it... traffic jumped 17.2%, while every single major American airport saw a drop in traffic. Heathrow saw its traffic drop, too - but they moved up in the rankings because American airports fell faster!

Blame it on the recession. I'm sure things will return to almost-normal in 2-3 years, but Beijing will still be on top. Every time air traffic has dropped off, people have pointed out that teleconferencing and other technologies will reduce the need for business travel... but air traffic has always returned to high levels.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/demolition-of-homes-near-ohare-begins-today.html

March 24, 2010 5:11 AM
After long delays, work begins today to demolish more than 500 vacant homes and businesses in northwest suburban Bensenville to make way for the final runway in Chicago's $15 billion expansion of O'Hare International Airport.

Chicago Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino and Bensenville Mayor Frank Soto will meet with reporters later today to discuss the project.
In November, Bensenville agreed to a $16 million settlement to drop its decades-long opposition to reconfigured runways.

[denizen467]

Well, at some point pretty soon, the several hundred homes and several hundred graves will finally be gone from the SW corner of the OMP site. And there will be nothing but empty fields there.

And yet, I bet then it'll feel like the project is 90% finished. All the billions of dollars of construction, and the thousands of tons of cement and steel, will seem like a walk in the park compared to the eons of wrangling about this land.

Of course, the new terminals remain under debate, but I can't wait for the runway work to get going. What a relief.

[spyguy]

After long delays, work begins today to demolish more than 500 vacant homes and businesses in northwest suburban Bensenville to make way for the final runway in Chicago's $15 billion expansion of O'Hare International Airport.


If you happen to be going by O'Hare, I suggest visiting this area. It's an unreal sight just like an area devastated by an earthquake or hurricane.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hinz.pl?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a8f6e769c-5375-436d-880b-a982abf3bd16&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

O'Hare to get $400 million from U.S. for new runways
Posted by Greg H. at 4/5/2010 4:49 PM CDT

It looks like the city's plan to modernize and expand O'Hare Airport is about to get a huge $400-million influx of federal funds.

A host of dignitaries -- headed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood -- is scheduled to be at O'Hare on Tuesday morning to announce what a press advisory from U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin's office termed "an announcement regarding federal funding for O'Hare."

[ardecila]

^ It says that they have not disclosed what the funds will be used for... i.e. they could be applied to Phase I or used to kick-start Phase II.

I just flew through O'Hare this morning. Went through Terminal 1, which I haven't used in years. I had forgotten how great it is. Kudos to Helmut Jahn. Hopefully we can bring him in again to work on future terminal expansion, or a downtown HSR station.

One question though - why hasn't the city cleaned the glass on Terminal 1? So much of the thing is covered in glass panels, either of the window or spandrel variety, and all of them look grimy.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ It is, isn't it? It's so light and airy, unlike most of this country's airports-- or even other terminals in O'Hare. I actually enjoy spending time there (but not too much time). And I really dig the "high-tech" aesthetic.

[denizen467]

It's amazing how timeless that design is. Including the Michael Hayden light sculpture; it's just perfect for the tunnel, and it never gets old.
There is no airport concourse in the U.S. that I like better.
(If I were a heavy traveller and wanted more amenities or convenience, I might have a different perspective I suppose.)

[ChicagoChicago]

One question though - why hasn't the city cleaned the glass on Terminal 1? So much of the thing is covered in glass panels, either of the window or spandrel variety, and all of them look grimy.
I think they clean it about this time every year (they may clean it other times as well). I was there in late March 2008 and it was being cleaned (and I got oversprayed), and I know they cleaned it last year in early March for the Olympic dignitaries.

[bnk]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0624080020100406?type=marketsNews

UPDATE 1-FAA commits $410 mln to finish Chicago O'Hare plan

Tue Apr 6, 2010 4:07pm EDT

CHICAGO, April 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Transportation on Tuesday committed $410 million toward completing an expansion of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

The Federal Aviation Administration funds will be used to build two new runways and extend a third for the second phase of the O'Hare Modernization Program, city and federal officials said at an airport news conference.

The FAA in 2005 committed $337 million for the first phase, which adds, relocates and extends runways at the world's second-busiest airport.

Chicago will issue $1.8 billion of bonds for phase 2 after selling about $1.9 billion of debt for phase 1, according to Rosemarie Andolino, the city's aviation commissioner.

City officials still eye construction of a new terminal, estimated to cost about $2 billion, but Mayor Richard Daley conceded that was a "tough sell." The total cost of the project including the terminal is $8.6 billion in 2008 dollars, according to a city aviation department spokeswoman.

...




http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/04/feds-announces-410-million-for-ohare-runways.html

April 06, 2010
Feds announce $410 million for O'Hare runways

Share | Posted by Monique Garcia at 12:14 p.m.; last updated at 1:57 p.m.

The expansion of O'Hare International Airport got a $410 million boost today as federal officials announced money to help build three runways.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin noted the money is the largest lump sum given to a single airport in recent history. The funding is part of the federal stimulus act, and officials estimate the expansion project will create 13,000 jobs.

Durbin, Illinois' senior senator, credited President Barack Obama, calling him O'Hare's "best ally."

"He understands that we need to keep our commitment to O'Hare, to Illinois and to the nation to put America back to work," Durbin said of Obama.

The money comes on top of a $337 million promised by the federal government in 2005, bringing the total federal investment in the expansion to $747 million.

"It's an enormous amount of money, but it really is the kind of investment that has to be made at O'Hare in order to continue it to be the premiere international airport that it is," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Peoria.

LaHood joined Mayor Richard Daley, Gov. Pat Quinn and Durbin at the airport to discuss the federal windfall.

The airport expansion has been running low on money because the major airlines at O'Hare are not on board ...

[jpIllInoIs]

Old O'Hare foes Elk Grove Village and Bensenville part of suburban effort to speed up Western access projects. Now attorney Karaganis only has cemetery residents to represent.


Suburban leaders pledge to get O'Hare western bypass built
By Madhu Krishnamurthy | Daily Herald Staff


DuPage County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom talks about regional support for the proposed Elgin-O'Hare western bypass to O'Hare International Airport during a news conference Thursday with suburban mayors from Cook and DuPage counties.

Bensenville Mayor Frank Soto speaks about the regional benefits of the proposed Elgin-O'Hare western bypass to O'Hare International Airport. Standing behind him from left are Des Plaines Mayor Marty Moylan, Roselle Mayor Gayle Smolinski, Cook County Board Commissioner and Elmwood Park Village President Peter Silvestri, and Franklin Park Mayor Barrett Pedersen.

Bringing jobs, more industry and retail, traffic congestion relief and mass transit to the West suburbs are primary reasons to build the proposed western bypass to O'Hare International Airport, suburban leaders say.

A group of mayors from Cook and DuPage counties and representatives of their county boards reaffirmed their support Thursday for getting that roadway built at any cost.

The Illinois Department of Transportation project would extend the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway to O'Hare from its eastern terminus in Itasca and would build a western bypass around the airport linking to I-90 and I-294.

Suburban leaders say they cannot rely on federal or state dollars alone to fund the estimated $3.6 billion project, considering federal monies are stretched thin and Illinois' operating budget shortfall is $13 billion.

Thursday's news conference was mainly to stress the message of continued regional support for the project from communities that have not always been aligned on the O'Hare issue, officials said.

The route of a western bypass location was problematic, with towns including Elk Grove Village and Bensenville objecting to designs putting the road in their municipalities.

"If anyone would have told me two years ago that we would all be standing in this room together - I could have won a lot of money on that bet," said Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson, who spent years fighting the project for fear it would damage the town's huge industrial park. "The reason we are here is because we are working together."

The final plan, which has broad support, puts the bypass mainly on the western edge of O'Hare. It connects to I-294 to the south in Franklin Park and to I-90 to the north near the Des Plaines oasis.

DuPage County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom said the most likely way to get the bypass built is to get the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority to fund it through user fees.

"We are not using that as our only option," Schillerstrom said. "We need to cast the net wide since the state is broke. We have to recognize that the federal government is not going to pay for this - the state government is not going to pay for this - none of us are going to be able to pay for this."

Each community affected by the bypass foresees some tangible benefits from the project.

"Bensenville sits in a unique position, being at the gateway of the western access," Village President Frank Soto said. "There will be tremendous economic opportunities, job creation for residents, and also revenue for the village. The plan also provides for a train/bus facility on Route 83 and Thorndale. The whole western side of O'Hare airport is pretty much a desert when it comes to mass transit."

.......more.....

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=373495

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=38156

Chicago moves ahead to fund O'Hare expansion with ticket tax money
By: Paul Merrion May 07, 2010

With or without airline approval, the city of Chicago is taking steps to line up financing for the second phase of the O'Hare Modernization Program.

The city plans to seek federal approval to use $1.4 billion in future ticket tax revenue to construct three runways and several taxiways, finishing the airfield portion of the project.

[ardecila]

This shouldn't be too controversial, right? The airlines (or, at least, the major players) WANT additional airfield improvements. They're just worried about the western terminal.

My guess is that the airline reps were trying to negotiate an agreement with the city preventing the western terminal. It looks like the city wasn't willing to make that guarantee, so instead the airlines get the concession that at least their ticket tax revenue won't be used for that western terminal, and the city will have to find other funding sources.

Given the city's current budgetary predicament, I doubt anything will happen anytime soon on that western terminal.

[Jenner]

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=41535


The report, six months in development, revolves around primary business segments including aviation business development, land utilization, finance, governance and business/community. The key recommendations:

· Expand the runway—the top priority. The goal is to match and utilize the available FAA funds for this project using the 2006 timetable and the planned expansion that has addressed the environmental concerns. The selection of an experienced capital program manager is a must.

· Focus on charter operations in the leisure market to build an aviation base. Attracting these operations will create a niche market for Gary/Chicago International Airport and assist in financial stability of the airport as well as compliment the Chicago system.

· Continue the Compact with Chicago. Enhance coordination of efforts and planning as there is greater opportunity for financial success, business development and overall acceptance with their support.

· Evaluate governance, finances, professional talent, marketing/brand efforts as well as regional outreach as a method to successfully deliver the core aviation function (charter service).

The report is also available for download (from the article). Basically, attempts at getting passenger traffic shouldn't be a big priority for Gary/Chicago. There is also discussion that the airport should rebrand itself to present a better image.

After reading most of the report, I got the impression that a big factor in the success of the airport relies on the economic surrounding area. The fact of the matter is that most of the area is old industrial and a depressed market, which is affecting the ability of the airport to gain passenger and cargo traffic.

[jpIllInoIs]

^"Continue the Compact with Chicago. Enhance coordination of efforts and planning as there is greater opportunity for financial success, business development and overall acceptance with their support."


Interesting conclusion but I question whether this "compact" is benefiting Chicago anymore.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Gary/Chicago airport is not going to fulfill its mission as a third airport alternative.

There is no longer any question that Milwaukee's Mitchell International is the third option for the Chicago market. It may not serve the market south of Dundee Rd but really what Central Chicagoland traveller is going to choose Gary over Midway or OHare?

What market does Gary serve that Ohare and Midway miss? There is currently no commercial air service at the Gary Chicago International Airport.
Gary is so far away from having a viable offering that it is a joke.

Mitchell is already serving as an alternative to relieve congestion in the Chicago airspace. It has a full domestic offering of flights and actually has some international flights. Mitchell airport director Barry Bateman estimates close to a million of Milwaukee's 8 million passengers come from northern Illinois.

From the Mitchell website;....
http://www.mitchellairport.com/news.html#Feb2010
MILWAUKEE (April 1, 2010) - Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker announced today a 34% increase in the number of February passengers at General Mitchell International Airport, making it the busiest February on record. The total of 668,504 passengers was 168,479 more than last February's 500,025 passengers.

Walker said, "Passengers from around Wisconsin and northern Illinois are enjoying the savings resulting from new, competitive service on Mitchell's low-fare airlines. This busy, thriving airport will continue to drive the economic health of our area."

Airport Director Barry Bateman said, "With a 34 percent increase in passengers, Mitchell soared past the national numbers and remains one of the fastest-growing airports anywhere." Passenger traffic nationwide declined 2.9 percent in February, according to the Air Transport Association.

The airport has seen a significant increase in the number of northern Illinois and Chicago-area travelers making the under-60-minute drive to Mitchell to take advantage of its low fares and parking fees.

Additionally, Amtrak ALREADY is serving Milwaukee Mitchell with 7 daily trips each way. The stated time for the trip from CUS is 1hr-14min; From Glenview it is a very inviting 52 min. That will continue to improve with more train investment.

The following airlines offer daily nonstop flights from Mitchell:
Air Canada, AirTran Airways, American Airlines, Continental Express, Delta, Frontier, Great Lakes Airlines, Midwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express, US Airways Express.

Below is a map of the Cities served non-stop from Mitchell.


http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss253/jpillinois/NonstopCities_12-30-09.jpg

Milwaukee Mitchell is hosting 225 Departures and 225 Arrivals everyday..
Meanwhile the crickets are chirping at Gary.

[VivaLFuego]

Interesting conclusion but I question whether this "compact" is benefiting Chicago anymore.
If the compact prevents Peotone from getting built, then the compact is still benefiting Chicago.

What market does Gary serve that Ohare and Midway miss?
Well, in theory, the entire Southland/I-80 corridor, as well as NW Indiana. i.e. the same market that Peotone would. In the ballpark of a million people or more who have quite a hike to O'Hare. Milwaukee may seem close for north shore/suburban folk, but for those of us who grew up south of Madison Street the notion of going to Wisconsin for anything shorter than a weekend trip is silly. To southsiders, Wisconsin is a vacation, not a commute... but casino excitement, fireworks, and cheap gas/cigarettes are a stone's throw away in convenient NW Indiana.

[jpIllInoIs]

I realize that the "compact" money is a place holder to keep SSA from developing. Realistically the SSA cannot develop without landing fee revenue and Daley controls all of the fees as long as he has a BI-State agreement that supersedes any State of Illinois powers.

And as for the South of Madison argument, that just points out that the Chicago market can be geographically segmented and the folks north of Touhy or Dempster will be just as unlikely to fly out of Gary.

If the compact is in place for political reasons (and I think was can agree that it is) then fine lets acknowledge that. But as for any legitimate claim that Gary will be Chicago's 3rd airport, well that is pure delusional fantasy.

And actually after O'Hare, Midway and Mitchell, the newly branded Chicago/Rockford airport can lay claim as Chicago's 4th airport. RFD currently has three (3) air service providers providing flights to six (6) destinations:

Again I point out that Gary has Zero (0) commercial flights.

[Jenner]

Actually, the problems are several fold, as mentioned in the report. The Gary airport can roughly service 5% of the entire Chicago market, which means, basically Northwestern Indiana. Add to the fact that the business climate of the surrounding area is generally not corporate (mostly located in Chicago, north and west suburbs), and a lack of logistics companies in the immediate area to handle cargo. The report also mentions that most of the industrial base doesn't require an immediate cargo delivery program that air carriers offer.

The embedded presence of both O'Hare and Midway take most of the travellers to all other destinations. Although Gary has lots of potential (and the report mentions that -- close to highways, rail, room to grow, etc), what does it offer that Midway cannot?

Although there is potential for Delta or Midwest to offer service, since they don't have much Chicago market share (thoughts I had myself), perhaps the best scenario would be to charter a flight somewhere. Perhaps an airline could even make arrangements with the Gary Jet center to charter a small passenger plane instead of using something bigger. That would be a way to have passenger traffic, without the worry of it failing.

The Gary Jet center will also create a new building that will host a customs facility. That may change the game a little.

[denizen467]

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2267974,051310ohare.article
(similar article was also in Sun-Times somewhere)

Daley wants central rental-car site at O'Hare
May 13, 2010
BY FRAN SPIELMAN, Sun-Times Media

O'Hare International Airport passengers would pay up to $8 more to rent a car to bankroll a $393 million rental-car campus under a mayoral plan proposed Wednesday to ease congestion in the airport's terminal core.

A customer facility charge - patterned after the airline ticket tax - was authorized by the General Assembly 10 years ago at the behest of a rental car industry that has been clamoring for a central location at O'Hare.

At Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting, Mayor Richard Daley moved to take advantage of the levy to finance a rental-car campus that would be served by an extension of the airport people-mover system. Daley said the central rental-car site would reduce bus traffic and serve as one-stop shopping for travelers.

"It would consolidate 'em all. Better for their business. Better for the environment," he said.

Aviation department counsel Jonathan Leach said rental-car operators need to be relocated to make way for new runways. Although the $8-per-transaction increase sounds steep, "it's consistent with what other airports are charging around the country" for similar facilities, Leach said.

The new campus would be in Parking Lot F at the southeast corner of Mannheim and Zemke Roads and would include a five-level parking structure shared by rental cars and public parking.

One way or another, traffic congestion in the airport's terminal core would be eased, city officials said.

If it's financially feasible to extend the people-mover, which ends at Parking Lot E, shuttle buses would be eliminated altogether, they said.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=38213

O'Hare rental-car project would come with $6 to $8 fee
By: John Pletz May 12, 2010
(Crain's) - The city of Chicago wants to build a nearly $400-million centralized rental-car facility at O'Hare International Airport to make way for the next round of runways in the airport expansion project.

The move would add a fee of $6 to $8 to car rentals, under a plan presented to the Chicago City Council on Wednesday. The proposal to centralize O'Hare's scattered rental-car facilities was reported by the Sun-Times on Wednesday.

The city hopes to select a design and engineering team later this year and begin construction in 2011, completing the project by 2013.

The idea to consolidate rental-car parking facilities into a garage follows a similar effort under way at Midway Airport. The city is expected to sell $150 million to $200 million in bonds later this year for projects including a Midway Airport parking garage.



Whoa - did people know that this was in the works?

If you've never seen one of these, I think they are really pretty awesome. Many growing hub airports have been building them in recent years - SFO, PHX, BWI, etc. All the ones I've seen are sexy multi-level facilities where a frequent, common shuttle drops you off, protected from the weather, in a grand hall where every car rental company has a counter. Then you can pick and choose and bargain as much as you want. (Yeah, the internet and smartphones make this less crucial, but it can still help a lot.) No more being hostage to 1 rental company if things don't work out after you take their shuttle to their lot. Then you go to your vehicle, without worrying about rain or snow or wind or darkness, where it's also easier to load up and inspect for dings. Dropping off is easy too -- no more hunting for roadway signs for the car company that you rented from; just drive back to the giant rental facility.

Over on the terminal side, there's only 1 frequent bus to wait for -- no need for visitors to be craning their necks in bitter cold weather for eons to see whether that green-colored shuttle finally rounding the corner is a green Dollar shuttle or a green National shuttle, etc. And of course, less traffic congestion at the terminals.

The proposed location has a fistful of great features: It's next to the Metra station. It's along Mannheim Road, for full-cloverleaf I-190 access. It's along a direct extension of the people-mover, which would also complete the link to Metra. It's next to a hotel campus. It's along Bessie Coleman Drive, where a unified, frequent shuttle bus could use the BRT-like dedicated lane now used by livery. And stretching things a bit, there might be enough critical mass somewhere in there to merit shuttle bus service involving CTA Blue Line River Road, the Rosemont complex, and/or the new casino and office complex.

I've been wanting ORD to enter the 21st century and get rid of its embarrassing crappy, weather-vulnerable surface rental lots for a long time. There are some negatives too, but this is a great surprise and overall I think this is a great leap for OMP.

[the urban politician]

^ Milwaukee's Mitchell already has this set up.

Once ORD and Midway complete their facilities, all 3 of Chicagoland's major airports will have enclosed, centralized rental car facilities

[ardecila]

It's along Bessie Coleman Drive, where a unified, frequent shuttle bus could use the BRT-like dedicated lane now used by livery. And stretching things a bit, there might be enough critical mass somewhere in there to merit shuttle bus service involving CTA Blue Line River Road, the Rosemont complex, and/or the new casino and office complex.

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus? The people mover will provide the direct connection already. A shuttle bus is possible, and somewhat likely, but still a stupid idea.

It's my understanding that a big part of the recent terminal facelifts was providing vertical access from the baggage claims up to the bridges that lead to the people-mover. For those with only carry-ons who don't have to go down to arrivals level at all, it's probably EASIER to walk to the people-mover. If I'm having friends or family come get me at O'Hare, I always meet them in departures instead of arrivals... it's far easier to navigate on the top level.

I'm also excited about the possibilities for access that the people-mover extension opens up. With minimal expense, a proper Metra Airport Express can be run from either Union or Ogilvie up the North Central line to the O'Hare station. Travelers can then take the people-mover to whichever terminal they're headed to. The preliminary plans for OMP show this as basically a cross-platform transfer - super convenient. You can do this today, but you have to take an infrequent North Central train and then hop on a shuttle that takes you to the end of the people mover. It's a little daunting for people who aren't transit junkies...

Looking long-term, with some modifications at the Deval Junction in Des Plaines and some negotiations with the railroads, you could run semi-decent O'Hare service from the UP-NW and MD-N lines.

[denizen467]

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus?
Because that's what the articles say.

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus? The people mover will provide the direct connection already. A shuttle bus is possible, and somewhat likely, but still a stupid idea.

It's my understanding that a big part of the recent terminal facelifts was providing vertical access from the baggage claims up to the bridges that lead to the people-mover. For those with only carry-ons who don't have to go down to arrivals level at all, it's probably EASIER to walk to the people-mover.

Just elaborating on the news, providing people mover access there would not be a trivial project -- it would require building a line extension across a state highway into the new facility; probably buying some additional trainsets and possibly having to expand the trainset storage/maintenance facilities; and getting the entire new station built and outfitted and tested (platform doors; safety mechanisms; etc.). None of those things are necessary for the car rental facility by itself, and it would not be surprising if the idea is to insulate the car rental project from the transit infrastructure construction project -- given just how prone to delays and malfunctions rail projects can be. Just thinking of how long it has taken them to erect that new canopy around the T1-T2-T3 upper roadway (technically still not completed) makes me cringe.

But more broadly, access between the terminals (even with the feeble improvements from baggage claim) and the people mover is utterly pathetic for a world #2 airport. For example, in T1 there is 1 absurdly tiny and slow elevator, and 1 narrow escalator, just to get up to the skybridge. Then you have to go back down to the platform. The elevator wait is already annoying as it is; imagine that x20 (or some number, commensurate with people with lots of luggage, little kids, or frail people) if everybody currently using car rental shuttles is now trying to get up to the people mover.

In addition, the people mover has only 1 station for like 300 yards of terminal frontage, so on average people would need to hoof it (again, thinking of lots of luggage or unruly kids and a chaotic terminal) an entire football field (100yds from midpoint) just to get to/from the skybridge location. A shuttle bus could have 2 or 3 stops per terminal.

Also, a lesser point, but I wonder if United would be vocal about the fact that they would be the farthest station with the people mover, but the closest station (at least for departing pax) with a bus shuttle. They already make sure to gate popular business city flights out of Concourse B instead of C, so this sort of thing might make a difference to them. Also, bus shuttle routes could be tailored to limit stops to only 1 terminal, or to vary routes depending on congestion or time of day (for example, the significant luggage, and morning-heavy timing, of arrivals at T5).

Maybe the ridership to/from the car rental (and remote parking) facility would not be so big as to cause huge problems -- it is an interesting question what the figure would be -- but it's clearly a situation of spending capital funds up front to achieve an inferior service. (Hunch that bus-loving Mr. Downtown chimes in on this.) Personally I would kill for good rail over annoying buses any day, but as it is, they need to beef up the vertical access. I'm sure it's doable, but the way construction goes at ORD it'd be expensive and take forever.

I'm also excited about the possibilities for access that the people-mover extension opens up. With minimal expense, a proper Metra Airport Express can be run from either Union or Ogilvie up the North Central line to the O'Hare station. Travelers can then take the people-mover to whichever terminal they're headed to. The preliminary plans for OMP show this as basically a cross-platform transfer - super convenient. You can do this today, but you have to take an infrequent North Central train and then hop on a shuttle that takes you to the end of the people mover. It's a little daunting for people who aren't transit junkies...

Looking long-term, with some modifications at the Deval Junction in Des Plaines and some negotiations with the railroads, you could run semi-decent O'Hare service from the UP-NW and MD-N lines.

It is indeed exciting. (And it also worsens the bottlenecks between the people mover stations and the terminals.)

[ardecila]

Because that's what the articles say.

From the Southtown article:

If it's financially feasible to extend the people-mover, which ends at Parking Lot E, shuttle buses would be eliminated altogether, they said.

Just elaborating on the news, providing people mover access there would not be a trivial project -- it would require building a line extension across a state highway into the new facility; probably buying some additional trainsets and possibly having to expand the trainset storage/maintenance facilities; and getting the entire new station built and outfitted and tested (platform doors; safety mechanisms; etc.).

A new maintenance facility for the people-mover trains is planned on the south half of Economy Lot F. The parking garage will lie to the north.

I'm assuming the rail construction is a substantial part of the $400 million... 5-story garages, even massive ones, can be built fairly cheaply using prefab components. The uncertainty over the rail extension, I'm assuming, is because the city doesn't yet know whether the rental companies will accept an $8 fee, or whether they will try to get the fee lowered, in which case the garage would move forward first, probably with provisions for a future rail extension.

access between the terminals (even with the feeble improvements from baggage claim) and the people mover is utterly pathetic for a world #2 airport

No argument here. It IS better than it was before, though, and definitely better-looking.

It's a tricky problem. The only cheap solution I can think of would involve frequent pedestrian crossings of the arrivals road, and then stair/escalators upward. I don't think the clearances are high enough to allow for a skybridge suspended from the bottom of the departures road...

Not that I'm insensitive to the comfort of air travelers, or that I don't think minimizing their walking is a good idea, but pretty much every airline terminal involves a substantial amount of walking with heavy bags. It's a big reason why air travel is so exhausting. That's not gonna change at O'Hare anytime soon. The only airport I know of that minimizes walking successfully is TIA, where the concourses are all radial, each linked to the central building with short tram lines.

[spyguy]

Old article that talks about this plan:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702190188feb19,1,5328827.column?coll=chi-news-hed

Inside Chicago's plan to get you to O'Hare
Published February 19, 2007

...In addition, the airport transit system, or People Mover trains, would be modernized. Twenty-four new People Mover cars would be added to the current 15-car fleet to meet future shuttle demand between the airline terminals and remote parking areas, city aviation officials said. Of the current 15 cars, 12 are in active use with three held in reserve.

The People Mover tracks ultimately would be extended to serve a new remote parking garage near economy parking lot F, officials said.

...The $117 million needed for the roadway project and $90 million for the People Mover enhancements would come from a $3 tax imposed on airline tickets.

[denizen467]

^ But the central car rental facility, not mentioned in that article, was a complete surprise (at least to me) last week. (FYI, that link doesn't work.)

[denizen467]

From the Southtown article:

If it's financially feasible to extend the people-mover, which ends at Parking Lot E, shuttle buses would be eliminated altogether, they said.
I was just focusing on the "If" - the project is designed to work with shuttle buses, and (we all hope and expect) the people mover extension would be incorporated afterwards.


I'm assuming the rail construction is a substantial part of the $400 million... 5-story garages, even massive ones, can be built fairly cheaply using prefab components.
That's really an interesting question. I've always wondered why, for parking garages, precast is used sometimes, and pour-in-place is used in others. As far as I know, precast allows for much quicker work on site, and is presumably cheaper, but the joints every 3 or 6 feet or so provide for a slightly, but noticeably, bumpy drive through the garage. I almost think that for a giant car-rental garage they would want to avoid that, but it might not enter into their equation. However the structure's complexity itself - with concourses, the bus drop-off, rail station, rental company offices, and probably quite a few complicated ramps - might make it harder to do precast.

Even with pour-in-place $400 million does seem very high, but the additional cost might come not from the rail extension but from buildout of the concourses and offices, the people mover / Metra station/connection, bringing in underground utilities, and what might be significant roadway construction for on/off ramps with Mannheim.


The only airport I know of that minimizes walking successfully is TIA, where the concourses are all radial, each linked to the central building with short tram lines.

I got curious about this, but :shrug: .. are you referring to an airport in Albania, or where??

[Kngkyle]

I got curious about this, but :shrug: .. are you referring to an airport in Albania, or where??

I think he is referring to Tampa. The proper IATA code being TPA.
http://www.allairports.net/images/tpa-airport-address.jpg

Orlando is also similar, and perhaps an even better example.

But both are not really comparable to O'Hare.

[Jenner]

According to the master plan, the maintenance facility would be relocated because International terminal 6 would be occupying the space where the current maintenance facility is located.

[ardecila]

Even with pour-in-place $400 million does seem very high, but the additional cost might come not from the rail extension but from buildout of the concourses and offices, the people mover / Metra station/connection, bringing in underground utilities, and what might be significant roadway construction for on/off ramps with Mannheim.

While waiting to pick somebody up at the airport yesterday, I went to the cell phone lot at the site of the proposed rental facility.

The Metra station is laid out rather awkwardly, and there's not much room to expand. The roads in the area are also extremely confusing.

The long-term plan is to eliminate Zemke Blvd and then make Bessie Coleman instead curve to the west to meet Higgins where it turns north. The area has serious potential to serve as a great transportation center (Shady Grove in DC comes to mind). It'll be even better if they can integrate it with the office park to the north, which could actually make a half-decent urban center.

[denizen467]

The long-term plan is to eliminate Zemke Blvd and then make Bessie Coleman instead curve to the west to meet Higgins where it turns north.
That's a huge extension - is the idea to provide frontage for some specific uses along either side of the extended road? That NE corner of the airfield looks totally underused and has great potential.

I wonder just how expansive the 5-story garage will be -- are they by any chance considering replacing the ALL the remote surface lots with this? I would think no, since the funding equation seems to rely on car rentals; if it were a gargantuan public garage with a car rental facility as merely one portion of it, the main funding source presumably would be bonds to be retired by parking fees (or a privatization), and there was no mention of that. But I guess they could yank that idea out of a drawer right after the new car rental surcharge/tax is set in stone.

It sure would be an efficient use of land, freeing up tons of space for future development. And it would give parkers protection from the weather, although perhaps the parking fees would no longer be so cut-rate since they'd be paying off a big construction project.

May they make no little plans.

[ardecila]

I think the idea is to turn Bessie Coleman into a huge service road, lined with facilities for aircraft maintenance, taxis, livery, maintenance for airport shuttles, etc... The long term plan also includes an exit on the NW Tollway for the Coleman extension road, allowing people from Schaumburg and further out to get to the airport more easily.

The vacated rental lots are NOT required for runway expansion, despite what the article said... 9L-27R isn't gonna be extended eastward from where it is now, and 9C-27C will be the same, but a few hundred feet further north. My guess is that they will just be turned over to additional surface-lot parking, potentially accessed off Mannheim. A medium-sized garage is planned for the NE corner of 190 and Bessie Coleman.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You sure they don't need them for signals or light strips?

[Jenner]

Relocation of the parking facilities and Bessie Coleman Dr. can be best summed up here (section 6.1.1.2):

The planned realignment of Bessie Coleman Drive, proposed as part of the WGP, has been altered to prevent penetration of the Runway 27C 14 CFR Part 77 approach surface. The standard OFA and RSA are contained within the airside limits of the airfield; however, the limits of the OFA-extension include existing auto parking areas as well as the ATS station located in Lot E. These facilities will ultimately be relocated and closed, respectively. The east RPZ is contained entirely on Airport property.

[spyguy]

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385957


Chicago seeks to soften airline resistance to O'Hare mega project
By Marni Pyke

Chicago's trying to thaw relations with United and American Airlines over modernizing O'Hare while suburban leaders are seeking to heat up interest in a related project - western access to the airport.

...Her letter speaks of increasing the use of passenger facility charges, which are ticket fees of $4.50 per passenger, to pay for construction. It also suggests the city is open to reducing the rent and landing charges in exchange for a deal on funding the final phase of O'Hare improvements.

[spyguy]

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doa/provdrs/maps/news/2010/jun/cda_selects_proposaltoredevelopconcessionsatohareinternationalai.html

CDA Selects Proposal to Redevelop Concessions at O’Hare International Airport Terminal 5

The Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) identified the proposal submitted by Westfield Concessions Management II LLC as the successful respondent to design, redevelop and operate the concessions program for the International Terminal 5 at O’Hare International Airport. The proposal provides for a complete re-design of the International Terminal’s concessions program to include new food and beverage, news and gifts, specialty retail, duty-free locations. Westfield Concessions Management II LLC will bear all design and construction costs. The enhanced concessions program will feature local, national and international brands.

---

The concessions at O'Hare suck in general and need to be revamped. Hopefully Westfield can pull it off.

[spyguy]

RFQ (http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dps/ContractAdministration/Specs/2010/Spec86334.pdf) for New Economy Parking Structure @ O'Hare (*PDF*)

The Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) is proposing the development of an elevated parking
structure in the north east quadrant of the O’Hare International Airport on the property currently
occupied by Public Parking Lot F. This proposed development is herein referred to as the
“Project”. Note that the Project is the first phase of a multi-phase development programmed for
this area of the Airport.

A preliminary concept of this elevated parking structure has identified two connected structures.
This concept includes a seven-story structure at the west end of the site and rise to thirteen (13)
stories on the east. The facility will incorporate multiple uses such as a Rental Car Customer
Transaction Center and Offices, with employee and public support facilities, Rental Car
Parking/Storage, Public Parking and a Public Circulation Concourse connecting the Metra Station
to a new station for the extended Airport Transit System (ATS) with retail space provided adjacent
to the Circulation Concourse. Dedicated entrance and exit roads/ramps to and from the facility
will require close and significant coordination with IDOT and the Village of Rosemont.

In addition to the elevated parking structure there will be a Quick Turnaround Area (QTA) to
provide vehicle service for rental cars, including fueling facilities, car wash areas, administrative
offices, restrooms and other functions for the employees.

It is anticipated that the Parking Garage will accommodate a connection to a new Airport Transit
System (ATS) station either on the north side of the structure or alternatively through a pedestrian
bridge over Manheim Road – depending on the ultimate location of the ATS station and
associated ATS facilities. While this station is not anticipated to be a part of the Project, the
interface with the proposed station is a key element of this Project.

A covered walkway connection will be provided between the Metra Station and the Elevated
Parking Structure.

A Kiss-and-Fly Area accommodating transit and shuttles will be located to the north side of the
site being accessed off of Zemke Road.

The following are additional details related to the project description:


Approximate dimensions of the facility footprint are 830’ x 365’.
First Level – Rental Car Customer Service Area and, Offices, Public Support Facilities, Circulation Concourse and Retail Space
Approximately 50,000 sf of Retail Space
Approximately 50,000 sf Rental Car Customer Service Area
Quick Turnaround Area of at least 300,000 sf at the furthest south end of the Lot F site

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/16/ohare1.jpg
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1935/ohare2.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3678/ohare3.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

If the ATS isn't extended across Mannheim, that will be a rather unpleasant intermodal transit connection involving long winding tunnel/walkway paths a la Midway. The images seem to suggest both possibilities, but if it's only extended a quarter mile up to, but not across Mannheim, the extension will really only be serving the new rental car facility, not as a significantly improved connection to commuter rail.

There's also the regional question of where a hypothetical improved intercity rail system/HSR would serve O'Hare as an intermediate stop on service to points north and west; if at the current O'Hare transfer on the east side, then it would seem prudent to design this facility accordingly to eventually be expanded to accommodate such service, but that certainly doesn't sound like part of the scope.

[ardecila]

The bicycle station makes me laugh. How are bike riders supposed to even get near this area?

I agree with Viva that extending the ATS across Mannheim is crucial. The original plans always showed the tracks crossing Mannheim further south and then coming in parallel and immediately adjacent to the Metra station.

[202_Cyclist]

Residents battle to keep land state wants for south suburban airport
IDOT uses eminent domain to acquire land for Peotone plan


http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2010-06/54661091.jpg
Vivian and Willis Bramstaedt live on land their family has farmed in Beecher for half a century. The state wants part of the land to build an airport. (David Pierini, Chicago Tribune / June 30, 2010)


By Joel Hood, Tribune reporter
June 30, 2010


Willis and Vivian Bramstaedt don't have big plans for retirement; they simply want to live out their remaining years on the land their family has farmed in rural Beecher since the 1950s.

But when a letter from the state arrived in April, the Bramstaedts knew their days on the land were numbered.

It may be years still before the Federal Aviation Administration gives the final stamp of approval on a controversial airport in south suburban Peotone designed to ease congestion at O'Hare and Midway. But already the Illinois Department of Transportation has quietly begun the process of eminent domain to force families such as the Bramstaedts off their land. Four such condemnation cases are under way in Will County courts, the first in what IDOT officials believe will be a wave of contentious negotiations through the court system. As the state ramps up pressure to buy while property values are low, some landowners are digging in their heels.

"Our schools are failing; our health system is falling apart; the state is out of money, and this is what they're doing?" asked Vivian Bramstaedt, 72. "It's bewildering. It doesn't make any sense."

It's also troubling to some lawmakers, who fear that the use of eminent domain before the FAA agrees to the project sets a dangerous precedent....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-0630-peotone-airport-homes-20100630,0,5454455.story

[F1 Tommy]

Whats also really nice about this site is that it gets some of the worst weather in the Chicago area. If a tornado or very high winds are in the area they almost always go far south or far north of the metro missing O'hare and most of Chicago.

O'hare is slipping again. ATC is back to its old tricks even with the new north runway. If we don't want to get killed by a city half the size of Chicago, the city of Atlanta and ATL, they better fix the problem soon, and stop making excuses. The new south runway is only part of the problem. Atlanta and Dallass both have severe thunderstorms in the summer all the time. They had a ATC program in on last Sunday afternoon well after the storms were long gone past eastern Michigan. The airlines took out alot of flights to get them back on track, but it did not work. Here is a photo from Sunday afternoon. No major weather or winds, but major ATC delays at ORD!!

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd85/F1tommy/Chicago%202010/chi015.jpg

[chiphile]

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

[Rail Claimore]

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

I wonder how much of the capacity cuts in the past two years has to do with competition from Delta's hubs at DTW and MSP. Delta has been able to shift a lot of capacity from CVG to DTW to soften the blow from declining passenger counts since 2007. More service means more options for travelers from smaller Midwestern markets.

[Busy Bee]

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm


Yeah that's a disgrace. I'd never even been there. It doesn't even have its' own direct domain name! "OhareHomepage!" Ha, I don't think I've seen the word 'homepage' in a URL address since the 90's! You do have to question the airport authorities' judgment if they think that it's even remotely appropriate to have such an obviously inadequate and outmoded website and not be embarrassed by it. Clearly that seems like a severe lack of understanding of image and brand on the administrations' part.

[Kngkyle]

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

You're not the only one that thinks that. I agree wholeheartedly. The Western Terminal should be built to match the quality of Delta's McNamara terminal in Detroit, except for United.

[F1 Tommy]

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

[Rail Claimore]

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

DFW is overbuilt as it is, and being #1 isn't going to matter in a few years. PEK is destined for that spot: They'll pass ATL within the next 5 years.

[sammyg]

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

Where's Alderman Levar in all this? Every election he brags about his work with O'Hare.

[F1 Tommy]

#1 isn't going to matter in a few years. PEK is destined for that spot: They'll pass ATL within the next 5 years.



Don't count on it. I think the China growth story will slow down alot by then, no matter if they like it or not.

ORD should be the largest US airline hub. If they get their cards in order they will be again. It will require alot of effort starting with the new north and south runways and enough air traffic controllers. I think we will already move up 1 in the world ranking this year due to flights that were added in April 2010.

[Hot Rod]

Thing is, PEK is still expanding and a significant of the new Terminal 3 isn't even used (3C). PEK is really a sight and is incredibly underutilized even in today's configuration. I can guarantee that PEK will be #1 for a long time, with 120M pax per annum in 5 years.

Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for ORD and want it back on top; but I think we may have to settle for #2 worldwide because PEK isn't landlocked like ORD and has the planning and resources that no other major can match.

Consider that PEK is larger than both of Shanghai's (PVG and SHA) airports (Shanghai is significantly larger than Beijing. ...) and there's plenty more room to grow. PEK is really a monster.

[denizen467]

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

[nergie]

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

Geography, this is a tough question to answer, but with newer aircraft and ORD's location almost all parts of the planet are accessible by non-stop flights, especially F. East Asia. However, economics and passenger loads will dictate flights.

As for Latin America and the Caribbean, ORD will have a difficult time getting more flights because both major airlines have TX hubs that play that role, furthermore UA is building up IAD. Why does IAD have flights to Africa, ME and S.America where as ORD dosen't? I have friends that work at UA and they still have yet to give me a good answer.

UA and AA need to return in a big way to ORD.

[202_Cyclist]

nergie-- Why does IAD have flights to Africa, ME and S.America where as ORD dosen't? I have friends that work at UA and they still have yet to give me a good answer.

This is probably because the DC region is a huge origin/destination market to these areas because of embassy, diplomatic/State Dept staff, and World Bank/IMF employees. The DC region also has one of the largest --if not the largest-- populations of East African immigrants. The DC metro region is also the most affluent in the US, so although Chicago's population is larger, income and jobs drive much air travel demand.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah --- O & D traffic in the Washington area is actually higher than the Chicago area despite being much smaller.

Geography will play a role. As with other sectors of Chicago's economy, there is a tremendous scaling effect based on the economic well-being of the hinterland. Stagnation in the economy and population of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. make it that much more challenging to support future growth.

[202_Cyclist]

VivaLFuego-- I asked my friend about this and he said that absolutely, geography is an issue why IAD has more United flights to Africa and the Middle East. IAD is an hour further east than ORD so passengers would have to backtrack to ORD for these flights. Adding an additional hour flight time would make this less competitive compared with hubs on other carriers at JFK, Heathrow, Paris, etc.

[nergie]

VivaLFuego-- I asked my friend about this and he said that absolutely, geography is an issue why IAD has more United flights to Africa and the Middle East. IAD is an hour further east than ORD so passengers would have to backtrack to ORD for these flights. Adding an additional hour flight time would make this less competitive compared with hubs on other carriers at JFK, Heathrow, Paris, etc.

Thanks to everyone for their answers. From the data I have seen the top O&D markets are NYC, CHI, LA and ATL. I would like to see the numbers that show DC with higher O&D, might it be % of passengers rather than absolute number.

I agree that IAD flights make sense, but still a ORD would make sense with to feed midwest and west coast routes.

[Rail Claimore]

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

It's a valid argument. If you look at a population-distribution map of the entire United States, you'll probably notice that ATL is near the center of population for the entire US population that's east of I-35. It's somewhat conveniently halfway between Chicago and Miami, and it's also roughly halfway between the Northeast and Texas/Gulf Coast. Throw in all the international traffic to Europe, Africa, and Latin America and you get the picture.

[the urban politician]

Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

[Rail Claimore]

Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

I'm asking that question myself. I happen to prefer O'Hare to a lot of other hubs because of the number of locations to Asia it offers, including four flights on four different airlines to NRT. In addition to that, it's the only hub that's served by two different airlines from my home airport. Choice matters to me, like it does to most people. I also don't mind the fact that O'Hare has been losing passengers and traffic in recent years. The airport seems a lot less crowded, a lot less delay-prone, and a lot more convenient now.

[nergie]

Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

I agree the # is more about bragging rights, but I am more interested in that ORD gets more international links. The airport is very weak to S. America and in many ways to the Middle East.

As a frequent traveller, I would like to see ORD get links to BA, Rio, Dubai, Moscow and maybe Cape-Town/Johanesburg. I think that is where service at ORD can improve.

[Chicago Shawn]

It's a valid argument. If you look at a population-distribution map of the entire United States, you'll probably notice that ATL is near the center of population for the entire US population that's east of I-35. It's somewhat conveniently halfway between Chicago and Miami, and it's also roughly halfway between the Northeast and Texas/Gulf Coast. Throw in all the international traffic to Europe, Africa, and Latin America and you get the picture.

I have connected through Atlanta twice on International flights. I noticed tons of Europeans connecting to other flights at ATL to take them to Disney World and the the like.

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

It really doesn't anymore. China will soon have the world's busiest airports, with the rapid urbanization and rising middle class in that country its only inevitable that air travel will continue to grow. Add in the diaspora that returns home for Chinese New Year (the largest annual migration in the world) and we have passenger numbers that will be hard to beat.

Just make ORD as convenient to the rest of the world as possible, that is what really matters.

[nomarandlee]

As a frequent traveller, I would like to see ORD get links to BA, Rio, Dubai, Moscow and maybe Cape-Town/Johanesburg. I think that is where service at ORD can improve.

Agreed, save maybe Dubai. Beyond that I would also like maybe Lagos, Colombia, and Morocco.

[Kngkyle]

Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

The problem isn't that ORD lost #1. It's that ORD lost #1 because of constant service cuts, not because other cities grew exponentially. (Beijing excluded) So while ATL is growing slowly, at least it is growing - ORD has been shrinking for years now.

Although according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic) ORD is seeing some growth this year and has passed LHR again for 2010 to date.

[F1 Tommy]

The problem isn't that ORD lost #1. It's that ORD lost #1 because of constant service cuts, not because other cities grew exponentially. (Beijing excluded) So while ATL is growing slowly, at least it is growing - ORD has been shrinking for years now.

Although according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic) ORD is seeing some growth this year and has passed LHR again for 2010 to date.

Exactly. Have you noticed the L concourse is half empty due to cuts in traffic, wich equals less money for the city. Revenue passengers generate alot of money for the city. Why should ATL get the revenue. Most of the population mass still live in the northeast and southwest, making ORD a more direct route than ATL. Also ORD is the final destination much more than ATL. ATL has also taken some direct international traffic from MCO due to Delta competition.
The final problem for ATL is they share the south with DFW. It still makes sense for ORD to still be the main US hub.

[Kngkyle]

The final problem for ATL is they share the south with DFW.

I don't see how that is a problem.

[chiphile]

Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.


A couple of reasons... One, in 99.9% of cases, it is always an indicator of good health and growth, both for the economy of the airport and the economy of the greater region (aka Atlanta/South and Beijing/China).

My issue is that the city and department of aviation have just thrown in the towel in PURSUING that title... By pursuing the title to be busiest AND best, you initiate a process of constant improvement and competition, with zero complacency - I just don't see that attitude coming from the city of Chicago.

Further, there has been much discussion regarding international flying and ORD's lack of service to South America, Africa and the middle east.

The only way to attract those lucrative international routes is 1) Be New York City and have a gigantic diverse population demanding flights to everywhere or 2) Be everyone else and have a gigantic domestic hub operation so that the international airlines have access to ALL of America with just one change of plane at your hub.

Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and everywhere else are obviously in scenario number 2, and only Atlanta has built that up with Delta.

South African Airlines had non-stop flights from Atlanta to Johannesburg because it shared an alliance with Delta, and Delta could connect South Africans with ALL of America through Atlanta. South African Airlines wasn't flying to Atlanta because of the O&D.

Similarly, United and American, or United OR American Airlines, really need to build ORD into a non-stop destination to ALL of North America, to all metro areas larger than 500,000 or a million. Then and only then will you see South African Airlines, Emirates, Singapore, and Lan Chile Airlines show up at Terminal 5.

ORD is just not that hub anymore. The moronic department of aviation is building the western terminal for spirit airlines, jet blue, heck maybe even southwest, giving the middle finger to United and American, and at the same time, sending the message to the large international airlines that international travel is not a priority for Chicago.

I blame Daley, this has been his project and he's got a revolving door of cronies in and out of the dept. of aviation with no clue to marketing, economics and global aviation.

O'Hare has a huge opportunity to be the North American hub for the 2 biggest airline networks in the world, and it's letting it slip.

SEE: http://www.staralliance.com/en/

http://www.oneworld.com/

[Kngkyle]

Chiphile, I know it probably wouldn't do any good, but have you tried sharing your views with someone who can do something about it?

You can find contact information here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doa.html

[nergie]

A couple of reasons... One, in 99.9% of cases, it is always an indicator of good health and growth, both for the economy of the airport and the economy of the greater region (aka Atlanta/South and Beijing/China).

My issue is that the city and department of aviation have just thrown in the towel in PURSUING that title... By pursuing the title to be busiest AND best, you initiate a process of constant improvement and competition, with zero complacency - I just don't see that attitude coming from the city of Chicago.

Further, there has been much discussion regarding international flying and ORD's lack of service to South America, Africa and the middle east.

The only way to attract those lucrative international routes is 1) Be New York City and have a gigantic diverse population demanding flights to everywhere or 2) Be everyone else and have a gigantic domestic hub operation so that the international airlines have access to ALL of America with just one change of plane at your hub.

Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and everywhere else are obviously in scenario number 2, and only Atlanta has built that up with Delta.

South African Airlines had non-stop flights from Atlanta to Johannesburg because it shared an alliance with Delta, and Delta could connect South Africans with ALL of America through Atlanta. South African Airlines wasn't flying to Atlanta because of the O&D.

Similarly, United and American, or United OR American Airlines, really need to build ORD into a non-stop destination to ALL of North America, to all metro areas larger than 500,000 or a million. Then and only then will you see South African Airlines, Emirates, Singapore, and Lan Chile Airlines show up at Terminal 5.

ORD is just not that hub anymore. The moronic department of aviation is building the western terminal for spirit airlines, jet blue, heck maybe even southwest, giving the middle finger to United and American, and at the same time, sending the message to the large international airlines that international travel is not a priority for Chicago.

I blame Daley, this has been his project and he's got a revolving door of cronies in and out of the dept. of aviation with no clue to marketing, economics and global aviation.

O'Hare has a huge opportunity to be the North American hub for the 2 biggest airline networks in the world, and it's letting it slip.

SEE: http://www.staralliance.com/en/

http://www.oneworld.com/

The airlines are not 100% innocent in this situation, they have been cutting flights and the city needs a way to replace these loses... UA or AA could use the western terminal to their advantage, but they don't want to pay.

Would it not make sense to build a brand-new terminal complex and house all Star or oneworld airlines, that is how it is almost everywhere else I have travelled.

I agree the city needs to do a better job selling this scenario to the UA or AA. But the airlines, afraid of losing their duopoly, are fighting this.

[chiphile]

Chiphile, I know it probably wouldn't do any good, but have you tried sharing your views with someone who can do something about it?

You can find contact information here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doa.html


I most certainly have, to no avail, of course.

The airlines are not 100% innocent in this situation, they have been cutting flights and the city needs a way to replace these loses... UA or AA could use the western terminal to their advantage, but they don't want to pay.

Would it not make sense to build a brand-new terminal complex and house all Star or oneworld airlines, that is how it is almost everywhere else I have travelled.

I agree the city needs to do a better job selling this scenario to the UA or AA. But the airlines, afraid of losing their duopoly, are fighting this.


This is where the city is asinine. Of course UA and AA don't want to pay for the western terminal, the city asked them to pay and then told them it would be for other airlines, not them. It makes no sense whatsoever for UA or AA to pay to build someone else brand new gates.

[nergie]

I most certainly have, to no avail, of course.




This is where the city is asinine. Of course UA and AA don't want to pay for the western terminal, the city asked them to pay and then told them it would be for other airlines, not them. It makes no sense whatsoever for UA or AA to pay to build someone else brand new gates.

I agree, the city needs to reneg on this and say UA/AA it is your yours if you want it and sweeten the pot by offerring to pay signficant portion.

[Jenner]

I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

[Rail Claimore]

I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

Interesting idea. Western Terminal or not, I see no reason for the existing taxiways between the inner-most runways to be diagonal to them once the runway reconfiguration is done.

[denizen467]

Is there a date for completion of 10C/28C ? Looks like a massive job, since it can't be completed without rerouting Union Pacific, Irving Park, and relocating air freight facilities, among other things. Also, will Lake O'Hare disappear or be relocated?

[nergie]

I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

The ATS and Western entrance to ORD could be used to access the complex. As for the necessity, maybe the new terminal can be used for international flights and it will have double gates for unloading like most other top-notch airports as well as A380 gates.

[F1 Tommy]

Is there a date for completion of 10C/28C ? Looks like a massive job, since it can't be completed without rerouting Union Pacific, Irving Park, and relocating air freight facilities, among other things. Also, will Lake O'Hare disappear or be relocated?

I have seen blueprints of what it will look like. Ask the city for a copy as they are public. It is a big job. Lake O'hare is already gone. They are building the replacement freight terminals right now. I also noticed alot of the buildings in downtown Bensenville west of York Road and south of old Irving seem to be closed. Not sure if they will tear down or not. They are outside the airport property. On the taxiway reroute, I think they should leave the shortened 32L as a backup runway just in case they have strong Northwest winds. Its already there so leave it alone. There are days in the winter when you need a northwest runway. The city and all their aviation wisdom don't seem to think so. Both 32 runways should be left intact in my opinion.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I think the reason they think they can get away with only two directions now is that all the runways will be level III runways or whatever its called when the project is done. This means they have a full set of cross wind measurement systems and signals that make crosswinds much much easier and safer.

[denizen467]

It never occurred to me before seeing Jenner's post and then looking at the OMP website, but wouldn't it be easier to build the next domestic terminal just a little west of T2 -- rather than at the western edge of the airfield? Seems it would be less complicated to bring the Western Access highways/vehicles eastwards to that position, than to have an incredibly long separation between domestic terminals. The latter would require a long sterile connection (like a really long tram) across the entire airfield, coupled with an incredibly long non-sterile connection, as well as baggage carts continuously scurrying a mile each way, etc.

Of course this assumes decommissioning of 14R/32L prior to commencing construction of the new terminal. Maybe that runway is not supposed to be closed down until much later.

[VivaLFuego]

I remember early OMP plans showing a mirror-image of Terminal 5 (with concourses spurring to the west and north) immediately to the east of the existing Terminal 5, which would also have provided for relatively*** easy modification of the ATS. Was this officially taken off the table as a Terminal expansion option?

I assume a big part of the push for the Western Terminal is that western access and western gates were one of the main components pitched to the Panhandle suburbs to get them on board with their political support, irrespective of their usefulness for the actual airport operation. When you can't figure out a technical or financial logic for the action of a political organization, there's a good bet that there is nonetheless some carefully considered political logic behind the action. Several suburban politicos would be pretty upset if the Western Terminal were officially dropped from the OMP plans.


*** would still require modification/relocation of some of the ATS yard facilities and probably track realignment of some sort, but this still seems cheaper than tunneling all the way west to York Road under one of the busiest active airfields on the planet.

[denizen467]

Don't they want primarily western access, regardless of where on the airfield the terminal is located? Above I was referring to western access via roadways reaching eastward to a midfield terminal located just west of T2. They'd still get their skycap check-in, it'd just all be located closer to the other terminal complex.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Illinois needs to lose the fuel tax imposed during Blagos admin. It just gives incentive to refuel your fleet in hubs that don't have the tax.