[BVictor1]

Daley wins OK for O'Hare makeover

September 29, 2005

BY MARK J. KONKOL AND FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters


Mayor Daley's plan for O'Hare Airport's grand expansion has been cleared for takeoff, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

The Federal Aviation Administration is set to announce its final approval of the multimillion-dollar airfield makeover Friday, sources said.

In July, the FAA called Daley's plan -- which calls for reconfiguring the airfield to include six parallel runways -- the best plan to reduce delays with the least negative environmental effects even though it gobbles more land, homes, businesses and affects more minority residents than any other proposal.

Opponents plan court battle

Friday's announcement will likely be followed by formal groundbreaking, the rumble of bulldozers and speedy court challenge, not necessarily in that order.

O'Hare expansion director Rosemarie Andolino declined to comment Wednesday.

Expansion opponents said they expected the ruling and are readying an immediate court appearance to ask a judge to halt any construction.

"The whole process was tainted, and the FAA did not comply with required laws. We will do whatever it takes to get a chance to make those points . . . in front of an unbiased judge," said Wade Nelson, spokesman for Bensenville and Elk Grove Village.

City O'Hare land acquisition attorney Michael Snyderman has said suburban opponents have a difficult burden of proof to get a judge to delay construction.

Economics trumped politics

Before learning of the FAA's decision, Daley talked about the significance of the biggest public works project in Illinois history -- and how the economics of the project trumped politics.

"It started out as a political issue. Democrats who ran for governor and Republicans took a pledge: 'I will not expand O'Hare Field.' . . . Then, it became a business/economic issue. . . . If you can't expand O'Hare Field, how can you expand economic opportunities?' " Daley said.

"It broke down the Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, city vs. suburban area."

In 2001, Daley cut a deal with former Gov. George Ryan that broke the decadeslong stalemate over new runways at O'Hare, then developed an expansion plan more comprehensive than anyone in Chicago politics could have imagined.

After waiting years for FAA approval, Daley has promised to break ground on the project immediately.

[BVictor1]

FAA approval seen Friday for O'Hare expansion plan

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published September 29, 2005

A decision will be issued Friday on Chicago's proposal to expand O'Hare International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday.

Chicago officials had originally pressed for FAA approval by mid-2004 to allow construction on new runways to start. But the federal agency said the review process would take until this month.

The announcement has gone down to the wire, in part because approvals were still needed this week from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency to relocate about 1,300 graves at the 156-year-old St. Johannes Cemetery, which borders O'Hare. The cemetery is in the path of one new runway.

FAA approval of O'Hare expansion is expected. But the FAA said it will continue working to complete a financial analysis to determine whether the economic benefits of the expansion exceed the costs, which total $14.7 billion for the airfield realignment, construction of new terminals and other capital improvements. A decision is expected by the end of the year, said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro.

Positive benefits-to-costs results are required by law for the city to receive $300 million in federal funding for the first phase of the project--and a total of $2 billion in federal grants and passenger ticket taxes that the city is counting on to help pay for the entire project.

Besides the funding uncertainties, there are questions about whether the airport plan is safe and how many years of better performance the expanded airport will provide before serious flight delays return.

Airport opponents vow to seek a court injunction barring the city from condemning the cemetery and other properties on more than 400 acres in Bensenville and Elk Grove Village for the expansion. The expansion foes want a judge to prevent the city from bulldozing properties at least until a determination is made on the benefit-cost test.

----------

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[oliveurban]

I think so - to it's fullest extent.

[arbeiter]

i think chicago's big enough that they need to create a second international airport. i don't want a heathrow syndrome.

[VivaLFuego]

Faster, please.

[Jersey Mentality]

Double Post :dunce:

[Jersey Mentality]

i think chicago's big enough that they need to create a second international airport. i don't want a heathrow syndrome.

They want to build one way way out in south suburban Southern Will County in this town called Peotone which is like 45 miles south of the Loop.

[pricemazda]

Remember Heathrow only has 2 runways. London has 5 International Airports in all.

[AZheat]

I remember hearing a few months ago that there was talk of building a major regional airport in northern Indiana. Is this still being looked at and what impact if any would it have on O'Hare?
Bob R.

[Chi-town]

Yes, it should have been done years ago. Fuck the worthless surrounding suburbs that wouldn't exist without O'Hare in the first place. O'Hare is a crucial part of the world's air travel infrastructure and its continued importance is important to Chicago's economy.

Shit, the bragging rights of having the world's largest airport alone are reason to tear down every last house in Elk Grove Village.

[the urban politician]

Yes, it should have been done years ago. Fuck the worthless surrounding suburbs that wouldn't exist without O'Hare in the first place. O'Hare is a crucial part of the world's air travel infrastructure and its continued importance is important to Chicago's economy.

Shit, the bragging rights of having the world's largest airport alone are reason to tear down every last house in Elk Grove Village.

^ So true. They should even demolish a few extra houses just for some kicks ;)

[oliveurban]

I really don't think another airport should ever be considered until all expansion options of existing facilities are fully exhausted.

Peotone just seems too far away. O'Hare should be built out completely first, at least.

[VivaLFuego]

Yes, it should have been done years ago. Fuck the worthless surrounding suburbs that wouldn't exist without O'Hare in the first place. O'Hare is a crucial part of the world's air travel infrastructure and its continued importance is important to Chicago's economy.

Shit, the bragging rights of having the world's largest airport alone are reason to tear down every last house in Elk Grove Village.

Fuck yeah. I bolded where you nailed it down. O'hare is so crucial for the North and West suburbs regional economies, not to mention national air travel. this should have been underway long ago if it werent for these NIMBYs.

[Chicago3rd]

Fire all citizens who work in the opposing townships and hand out a service charge to companies that operate in those opposing cities (like I get a couple dollars off for living in Chicago when I go to the muesuem). We really don't want the opposing towns and citizens to be hypocrits....so we can just terminate their affiliation with O'Hare.

[Wright Concept]

LA's going through the same problems. Some say we should go for the regional approach. I agree with that except for the fact that regional approach requires that the core of the system (the Main airport) gets taken care of first.

[randella]

i think chicago's big enough that they need to create a second international airport. i don't want a heathrow syndrome.

i saw on a local political debate show that it's not as simple as it sounds. they cited a threshold level where connecting flights and international travel are much more convenient and economical all in one larger airport.

but gary seems to make the best sense to me since it already has the existing road and rail systems in place. here is a proposal i found for a gary-chicago transportation hub to merge air, bus, and rail all in one multi-level terminal and take the lead as the region's third airport. dunno if any progress has been made on it.

www.scb.com (http://www.scb.com/index.cfm?action=category&categoryName=%29%3C%5D%2E%28JH%25%5C%27U%5E%5C%0A&categoryName1=%2E%3D%5CZ%3BL%291C%27%242GDDU4E%3F%3C%20%0A&tableid=%21%24%20%20%20%0A&projectID=%25%25%28G%23Z%5DX%20%0A)

http://63.240.68.115/FirmFiles/95/images/gary%2D51%2Ejpg

[Wheelingman04]

Yes, I think they should expand O'hare as much as possible. It would be a waste of money to build a new airport in Peotone.

[Chicago2020]

When will the expansion be completed???

[Chicago Shawn]

Opponents plan court battle

Friday's announcement will likely be followed by formal groundbreaking, the rumble of bulldozers and speedy court challenge, not necessarily in that order.

O'Hare expansion director Rosemarie Andolino declined to comment Wednesday.

Expansion opponents said they expected the ruling and are readying an immediate court appearance to ask a judge to halt any construction.

"The whole process was tainted, and the FAA did not comply with required laws. We will do whatever it takes to get a chance to make those points . . . in front of an unbiased judge," said Wade Nelson, spokesman for Bensenville and Elk Grove Village.

City O'Hare land acquisition attorney Michael Snyderman has said suburban opponents have a difficult burden of proof to get a judge to delay construction.


Damnit, don't you two stupid ingrate suburbs get it? YOU LOST. The fight is over, take your money and get the fuck out. Stop holding up the single most important ecconomic factor in our region of 9.5 million people. Especially Elk Grove Village, you would not exist without O'Hare. Your sprawlburb was created in 1955 by developer Centex Homes, which selected that site because of its proximity to the airport. Your town built up its ecconomy by siphoning wealth off of the airport, which you are now crippeling. Didn't this mayor's mother teach him the phrase "you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you"?


After waiting years for FAA approval, Daley has promised to break ground on the project immediately.

Excellent, Daley needs to pull another raid after victory is declared and "X" out all of Bensinville and Elk Grove Village that lies in the way. Take out the village halls too while your at it. :)

[shortydee999]

Expand, expand, expand.:)

[HowardL]

This is a super long article from today's Trib, but it includes an interview with Daley and covers a lot of the history and politics of all of the Chicago airports. Here goes.

Daley's field of dreams
In an exclusive interview, Mayor Richard M. Daley explains why he's Illinois' biggest promoter and defender of expanding O'Hare International Airport

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter

His father often referred to the world's busiest airport as "O'Hara.'' But to Mayor Richard M. Daley, it will always be "O'Hare Field.'' Not O'Hare International Airport. Not even O'Hare Airport.

In 1968, Mayor Richard J. Daley, who had earlier completed the transformation of Orchard Field into O'Hare, proposed building a third major airport in Lake Michigan when it became apparent that the Chicago region would face an air-capacity shortfall.

More than 20 years later, Richard M. pushed plans for a third airport on a dump site near Lake Calumet. It was an unsuccessful attempt to bring economic growth to that part of Chicago, much like O'Hare did at the dawn of the Jet Age for the metropolitan area in the north and west suburbs.

But the mayor soon did a 180-degree turn and revived Midway Airport instead. It was in large measure a reluctant bow to the political reality that increasingly powerful suburbs would not tolerate the added noise and pollution brought by an expanded O'Hare.

Behind the scenes, however, the mayor's staff and aviation consultants prepared secret plans, later disclosed in litigation, to expand O'Hare runways when the timing improved. An opening began to emerge in 1999 and 2000 when gridlock at O'Hare resulted in three out of every four flights being late. , creating a national outcry. that extended from Washington politicians to stranded passengers forced to sleep on cots in O'Hare terminals.

With the crisis in Chicago causing flights to back up across the nation, Daley offered a concept in June 2001 to retool O'Hare runways. Gov. George Ryan, thus far stymied by Daley in his own plans to build a south suburban airport, endorsed the mayor's plan a few months later. The O'Hare-expansion pact called for Daley to keep Meigs Field open and pledge that he would not sabotage Ryan's project to construct a third regional airport near Peotone in Will County.

Ryan left office after one term and months later, in the middle of the night, Daley dispatched bulldozers under police escort to demolish Meigs' runway for the stated purpose of protecting Chicagoans from a possible terrorist attack launched from the lakefront landing strip.

Through it all, Daley has warned that nobody would use the Peotone airport. The solution to building more runway capacity in the Chicago area, he says, can be found at one place only-O'Hare Field.

Like his dad before him, Daley is the state's biggest promoter and defender of O'Hare, which he sees as a perpetual target of unfair political attacks against him. To the mayor, politics is entwined in every aspect of the airport, much like the intersecting runways he wants to untangle in what would become the most expensive airport modernization project in the United States.

Tribune transportation reporter Jon Hilkevitch sat down with the mayor Aug. 19 in his City Hall office before this week's FAA decision approving the O'Hare-expansion plan. (Editor's note: The FAA gave its blessing to the plan Friday).

Here is an edited transcript of the interview.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hilkevitch: "The decades-long wait to expand O'Hare finally seems to be ending. I don't want to jinx you with premature congratulations, but it looks like the FAA will approve your O'Hare expansion plan.''

The mayor says nothing, he just knocks his knuckles three times on a wooden table in the conference room of his fifth-floor office suite.

"Your greater concern might be the actual decision on the federal funding-the FAA's benefit-cost analysis that determines just how much government money the project will receive, right?''

Daley: "Well, I think the key in this is that O'Hare Field has always been a political issue. In the 1970s, in the '80s more so and the '90s where Democratic candidates for governor took an `I pledge,' remember that? Both Democrats and Republicans took pledges. `I hate O'Hare Field. I will never allow O'Hare Field to expand.' It became a political issue and never became an economic issue or a government issue. And that prevailed in all the elections, you know, you see people running for Congress and governor and it was like, `OK, let's go beat up O'Hare Field.'

"Everybody didn't understand the economic consequences or the government consequences of the political decisions that were being made.

"I think a number of changes that happened, as we got together (in the late 1990s) to form the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus of Chicago and Cook County and DuPage, Kane and Lake and McHenry as well. I said to them, Let's set aside our differences. Everybody wants to talk about O'Hare Field. Let's set that aside and see if we can agree on things. Let's work together.

"We set that aside. We said we were going to work to find out how mayors can really work together on 95 percent of the issues that we should be working together. Just because we disagree on runways doesn't mean we shouldn't work together on the 95 percent of issues.

"So that had a lot to do with it. Then the business community, people like Lester Crown, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce's Jerry Roper, Andy McKenna, I could go on and on with, you know, the business community both in the city and suburban areas, then all of a sudden all of them got together, all of the businesses that were semi-related to O'Hare Field, which were enormous in the city, western suburbs, north, northwest. It was unbelievable in how important O'Hare Field is to them and if it dies, it slowly dies, then their economy and their companies are going to suffer.

"And then the future expansion of all these companies, it is centrally located to get to Washington, get to San Francisco, get to Europe, get to Asia, get to Latin America. International parts are so important for an international city, now a global city.

"The mood started changing. Then all of a sudden if you start getting the facts down, each suburban area, how important all those businesses were, who pay taxes, but don't live there, to their city.

"And then, outreaching, working with people, working with mayors, community groups. The whole idea of sharing things, the soundproofing. You know the airport does soundproofing. It's amazing what we've done.

"And then the whole idea of looking at the traffic problem around there and eventually looking at whether or not, with the problems of the airline industry, what airports are going to be here forever. And this is one airport that is going to be here forever because it is centrally located.

"I think people finally realized that you have to do it (expansion) to the airlines because every time a plane is delayed, the price of labor goes up, the price of fuel goes up, there is customer dissatisfaction. I think people finally realized we better do something about it. There was a lot of them, like, like trying to stick gum in a dam, you try to control flights, you try to do this, it really didn't help. It was like there was a dam, there's a hole, putting your fingers in. It didn't help. I think people finally came to the conclusion we better do something with that.''

"Then when Gov. Ryan came in, to be very frank, even though he could have been opposed to O'Hare expansion, after a few years he realized this is too important to the state of Illinois. That's how he realized. Most states don't even have a huge airport like this. Or if they have, it's being closed. It's amazing. So I think he realized. We had meetings here, we went to the federal government. The federal government had their hearings here, they talked about we're going to do something if you don't do it. And so we came together in an agreement. The federal government couldn't do it, they couldn't pass anything, and then Rod Blagojevich got elected, and he agreed with us and we passed (legislation) in Springfield. There is a lot of people involved. A lot of people crossed political lines, philosophical lines. I really think people sat up and said, `Hey, this is good. We need it. Otherwise, if we don't change, this (airport) is not going to be here.' ''

Hilkevitch: "After you were first elected, you talked about building a Lake Calumet airport that would work in conjunction with O'Hare and with Midway. How did your thinking evolve leading up to your decision in 2001 to propose such a complex makeover of O'Hare rather than more modest runway additions?''

Daley: "It was bipartisan. A number of states-Illinois, Indiana, I think Wisconsin was in there for a time before it dropped out-this discussion was whether to close Midway Airport and move it over to Lake Calumet and keep O'Hare Field going. Because you couldn't grow at O'Hare. Once the Lake Calumet project went down, there were elected officials opposed to O'Hare. Once we took over Gary Airport, that changed the whole issue of airports. It still remained the responsibility of the city, that was the major issue. The key was to move forward (on O'Hare). It was a bipartisan effort, there were Democrats, Republicans, independents. It really didn't matter. Everybody flies through here-senators, congressmen, everybody comes through here. And when you are delayed, the first thing they talk about, the business people, is O'Hare Field. And I think everybody realized in the whole aviation industry, the private sector, the public sector, that you have to do something about O'Hare Field.

"I get business groups, ethnic groups that came down, small businesses, contractors, engineers, big businesses who went to Washington, aldermen who went to Washington, they went to Springfield. They continue to go down there and talk about how important O'Hare Field is to the entire city and the metropolitan area."

Hilkevitch: "The FAA has said for years that what is needed at O'Hare is a third parallel runway so 100 planes can land each hour and another 100 can take off in all weather conditions. Adding only one runway would give you that third parallel at a much lower cost than what you proposed, but you chose something much more complex and maybe creative. Why did you go that route?''

Daley: "Everybody else is going to do parallel runways. If you don't do that, then maybe you are just nitpicking at it. You are maybe fixing something for a short period of time. But if you don't fix this for a long period of time, you can be back in 25 years in the same situation. That's what I thought about.''

Hilkevitch: "So how many years will this project buy?''

Daley: "It's hard to tell, but I think the east and west runways help us in bad weather. That's significant. I mean, in the bad weather factors, if you start cutting (flight delays) back down, boy, that helps (reduce airlines) labor costs, the costs of fuel, that significantly reduces, you know, the bad omens, I guess, of O'Hare Field, especially weather conditions.''

Hilkevitch: "I asked you how long a modernized O'Hare would be able to operate efficiently because here is a FAA chart showing average minutes of delay per aircraft. Under your full-build runway plan when you finally get out there in 2018, you are down to under six minutes of delay, which, if true, is excellent. During O'Hare's delay crisis before 9/11, the airport was averaging 15 minutes of delay per plane, which means in bad weather it's more like 90 minutes per plane, and that really stinks.''

Daley: "Haaa! You're right. People don't realize that. Or you are still in Washington, D.C., trying to get back here.''

Hilkevitch: "But the cautionary note to this is that the low delay levels are based on 1.2 million flights a year. This year, O'Hare will probably do close to 1 million flights. So you are getting another 200,000-not a lot. When the FAA does projects increasing flights by another 200,000, to 1.4 million operations, it puts O'Hare back into the same grim delay picture of about 15 minutes per flight on average, and much worse in bad weather.''

Daley: "Well … ''

Hilkevitch: "So what the FAA is saying is that growth in aviation activity at O'Hare will cause delays at the airport to rise in the future following completion of the project.''

Daley: "But it all depends if the planes are getting bigger, they are going to cut the smaller planes. You don't know that. The issue is going to change, we think. Technology is going to change. It is going to change drastically at O'Hare Field in the next three, four, five years.''

"We have to start somewhere. If we don't start this northern runway, there is only going to be so many international cities that are prepared for it. Everybody is not going to fly to Europe from every city. Everybody is not going to fly to Asia. It can't be. The cost factor is too much and maybe you don't have the growth in it to keep it going. That's one thing you are finding out.

"I don't know if San Francisco can build another runway. It's going to hurt their airport. I don't think Boston can build a new runway. So a lot of these airports could be obsolete. They can't build a runway. You can only get so many planes on one or two runways.''


Hilkevitch: "You mentioned Boston. Boston is part of a six-airport regional system in New England. There is Boston Logan International, of course, but there are other airports that help relieve the congestion and pressure on Logan and offer passengers more choices that are closer to home as well as lower fares. It operates as a cohesive system. Here in the Chicago area, we have O'Hare and we have Midway, which is quickly filling up.''

Daley: "And Gary.''

Hilkevitch: "Well, if you count Hooters Air, which offers only a handful of flights at Gary-Chicago Airport.''

Daley: "When you think about it, Midway is the fastest-growing airport today. I flew out of there to Minneapolis. Boom, you get right on the plane and you are gone. That's what you want in an airport. You want to get on the plane and take off as quickly as possible.'' And that is why Midway is growing leaps and bounds. Discount airlines realize that, whether it's Southwest or ATA and the other airlines. I think you are going to see a lot of discount airlines coming from overseas.''

Hilkevitch: "What do you see happening at the Gary airport?''

Daley: "They are going to build a 10,000-foot runway and it's the first time in the history of the state government that they are going to give money for the Gary airport. This is Republicans doing it, not a Democrat. That is amazing, isn't it? So he (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels) realizes the economic interests of Indiana, northern Indiana.''

Hilkevitch: "From a budget-management standpoint on keeping the costs of O'Hare expansion under control, the FAA will likely give you a positive decision to allow the city to start construction. But it will probably be sometime later that the FAA informs you how much of the city's $300 million request for the first phase of the project will actually be funded. With such unknown financial factors, do you move forward full-steam ahead assuming you will get the whole pot, or how do you proceed?''

Daley: "I think one of the problems America has is, you know, it's amazing how long it takes to build a runway. We have to figure that out.''

Hilkevitch: "Ten years on average for one runway.''

Daley: "It's unbelievable. So if we are going to take 10 years, this is unbelievable. If you don't you are really sacrificing the industry. I don't think we can sacrifice jobs and sacrifice the industry and economic development in the region. We are speaking about $300 million. That is very reasonable for the size of a project like this and what it is going to do for the industry, what it is going to do for the aviation industry and the world.'' And America, it is going to have a significant impact. I think there's really a green light on it (Chicago's funding request). The FAA realizes they have to do it. Otherwise, nothing is going to happen.''

Hilkevitch: "So you are not concerned about any congressional opposition from lawmakers who fear federal funding for O'Hare expansion will dry up grants to other airports?''

Daley: "What are you going to oppose? We are going to have western access into O'Hare Field. You know what that is going to do to the western suburban area west of O'Hare who need the economic development? Some of those cities are getting a bit older. They lost some of their industry. They have to bring some strength and vitality back.''

Hilkevitch: "Is there anything the city can do to speed up construction of the western-access roadway so it is not at the very end of the project?''

Daley: "Well, no, you have to first build the runways. You'd be surprised, once maybe it gets moving, maybe you'll be able to speed it up. You don't know. That's a long process. But we finally got the money (in the recently passed federal transportation bill). Western access was the key.''

Hilkevitch: "In hindsight, you proposed this massive project before 9/11. Is there anything you would do differently? You read the headlines: Airlines are pulling out or downsizing airport projects in Miami, Seattle-Tacoma, Minneapolis. Boston and Atlanta are having problems with large projects, but they are not the mega-project you are attempting here in Chicago. The airlines are hurting and it's unclear when conditions will improve, right?''

Daley: "Remember, Miami is a Miami. You've got San Francisco, can't build. Tacoma, you can't build any new runways because the environmentalists are stopping them. Logan, can't. The environmentalists are all stopping them. If they don't build a new runway, if they don't get efficiency back, they are going to have a hard time to figure out why you would want to fly into those airports. It's just very challenging if they can't expand. It would be like a university, be like a business who couldn't expand. You just sit there and slowly but surely it becomes much more inefficient. That's the problem.

"We're centrally located. That's the difference. We're not east or west or south, we're centrally located. That's why it is so important for this expansion.''

Hilkevitch: "So you don't have any concerns about the magnitude of this project resulting in massive cost overruns? It's a slam dunk?''

Daley: "No, go to the rest of the world. Great cities have some vision and expansion and they aren't afraid of big projects. If you are afraid, the cities slowly die or decay. Look at Shanghai, they're building. They're not waiting for any nay-sayers on these projects. America has to get back, like during the Depression. Be confident. Let's move forward.'' Americans did everything in the Depression. Now, we have a difficult time making decisions. But the rest of the world, cities move forward, countries move forward making decisions. That's what we have to start doing.''

Hilkevitch: "You indicated it takes far too long to build runways in this country. Describe the working relationship between the city and the FAA to expedite O'Hare expansion.''

Daley: "They have been very professional about it, both under Clinton and Bush. You have to dot all your `I's' and cross all your `T's' and everything else. They look at your presentation and they look at your documentation. It's done very professionally and very thoughtful. You are not going to scare them.''

Hilkevitch: "The ranks of the Suburban O'Hare Commission have dwindled. Basically Bensenville and Elk Grove Village are all that remains of the O'Hare opposition. What do you say to those folks who are determined to stop the O'Hare project in court?''

Daley: "Someone said we are going to take half of Elk Grove Village. We are taking 14.8 acres, that's all. Five parcels of property, and we've acquired all the land we need for the first northern runway voluntarily. They were saying we are taking all those properties. We never did it. The facts are never there. We just took 14 acres, that's all we needed. The sellers loved it.

"Remember, that whole area was built for one reason-O'Hare Field. Every one of those factories in Bensenville are there for one reason-O'Hare Field. If they were not there, they would be at Midway Airport. And also, they have to understand when they built a lot of the factories there in the 1960s, trucks are different today. They are much heavier. They never adapted their industrial areas to the new type of equipment going down the street. They have to look at it. We have talked to them about it because we need their assistance. If the factories aren't going to adapt, they are going to go someplace else. Those industrial areas really never changed with the times. The trucks are much bigger today. And refrigeration and things like that are much more significant.

"We think they should become an ally of (airport expansion). They would not have an industrial base (without O'Hare). We take Bensenville, some of the major corporations and airlines are all there. It's really interesting. But they want to make a political statement, they've made a political statement. It doesn't bother me.''

Hilkevitch: "So you think quieter jet engines have taken away their argument against expanding O'Hare? EPA studies seem to be inconclusive as to whether it's the exhaust from airplanes or the traffic on three major expressways surrounding O'Hare that is the biggest contributor to pollution.''

Daley: "That's the other thing I've always said. Your truck and rail, rail noise. The truck noise. And also the pollution from cars. O'Hare Field didn't create that. It's just amazing.''

Hilkevitch: "On the question of land acquisition in the Bensenville area for the new runways on the south airfield, as soon as you get a record of decision from the FAA, are you going to start taking and bulldozing properties?''

Daley: "You've got to be working with people. People already contacted us on the phone. They picked up the phone. Hello? Real quick. It's amazing.''

Hilkevitch: "What did you think about the U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general's recent report that raised concerns the FAA wasn't exerting proper financial oversight on O'Hare expansion?''

Daley: "That's what the inspector general is supposed to look at, the presentation of ourselves, and then ask questions of the FAA. He is the overseer, the inspector general, of all comments and actions in the FAA. They start talking about the Boston Dig. We're no closer to the Boston Dig. It's unrelated to Boston Dig. I mean, this is a runway; this is not a tunnel. There is a difference between a tunnel, underground, near water, near filled-in land, near a bay, completely different. You know, I mean, just between us, there is no comparison.''

Hilkevitch: "But his point was to address the huge cost overruns in the Boston Dig project that could occur during O'Hare expansion.''

Daley: "That's a cost overrun. You are near a bay. You are near filled-in land and you're building a tunnel.''

Hilkevitch: "What do you say to the families of the people who are buried in St. Johannes Cemetery next to O'Hare? The cemetery was there more than 100 years ago when there were strictly apple orchards, no runways, out there.''

Daley: "In St. Louis, they moved 14,000 graves. When we built Congress Street, they moved graves. We've moved cemeteries in Lincoln Park. It's amazing. Even today, they move cemeteries, the federal government has moved cemeteries. But they recognized, you know, the family and recognized the sacredness of everything and do it in such a way, many of these families, well moved the graves closer to where they live. That's significant, too. So they really take into effect the families and where they are.

"Airports all over this country, this is nothing unusual, I mean, it's not. They are very cognizant of the families and the sacredness and the holiness of the site and everything else. We will work very closely with them.''

Hilkevitch: "But in the St. Louis airport expansion, the relocation involved graves at a secular cemetery, non-religious. The families at St. Johannes believe their descendants were put into the ground for eternity. What would you say if a friend of yours, or even your own family, had a relative, a father, a mother, buried there?''

Daley: "Well, a lot of them are. We understand the family and all that. That is why we work very closely with the families. It all depends where the graves are being relocated. It would be hard if they were relocated to Miami and you lived in Chicago. Or if you live in the western suburbs and they are relocated to Milwaukee. But if you relocate it closer to the family, then you can visit them. You are supposed to visit them. Sometimes it is much better for the families.''

Hilkevitch: "O'Hare's air-traffic controllers on the FAA's team reviewing the city's plan say the city hasn't consulted them enough regarding how the airfield layout would actually work. They are the experts, they are the people who operate this airport, and the controllers are concerned about the number of runway crossings by taxiing aircraft increasing under Chicago's plan. The controllers fear under your plan there would be a much greater opportunity for a pilot to miss a radio communication, for a plane to be crossing a runway while another plane is taking off from the same runway, and there could be a horrendous accident.''

Daley: "You can talk to the FAA, you can to John Carr, the national president of the union. He was here at O'Hare Field for so many years. He knows more about the airport than anyone else. We've been working with the FAA and the controllers for a long time, so maybe it's a difference of opinion.''

Hilkevitch: "Gov. Blagojevich supports O'Hare expansion, but he also is pushing Peotone.''

Daley: "That's all right.''

Hilkevitch: "Do you ever see the day that the Chicago region could have a shared airport system-one in which Peotone would operate in tandem with Midway and O'Hare without hurting either Chicago airport? Passenger forecasts indicate the extra capacity will be needed.''

Daley: "Well, that's up to them. O'Hare Field is going to be intact. Midway is going to be intact. And Gary. If they want to put in all that money and buy it and build an airport, so be it. It's up to them, not up to me.'' It takes a long time to build a runway, a long time to build an airport. So you need money. And if the state is going to give them money, so be it. I'm not against that. That's up to them, not up to me.''

Hilkevitch: "Is O'Hare good to go forever? In Denver, Stapleton Airport was closed to make way for the much larger Denver International. Is there ever a day O'Hare can no longer serve the need?''

Daley: "Someone said, Is Midway here forever? Yes it is. I think the airlines are going to get much more efficient. It's going to change a lot. So we don't realize that. I think it's coming here. Airports closer to downtown are going to survive better than way out in the farm fields. I really believe that.''

Hilkevitch: "Many experts think O'Hare will remain an expensive airport for the airlines to operate at in the future."

Daley: "No, it won't, because it can't. Because if you cut down the delay factor, the cost of labor, the cost of fuel, the cost of disgruntled customers and you run an efficient airline. Look at Midway. If you can get people on and off as quickly as possible in bad weather, that is very significant. That is going to change everything.''

Hilkevitch: "United Airlines, the largest hub operator here at O'Hare, has signed on to help pay for phase one of the new runways. But United has been in bankruptcy for three years and it's unclear when, or if, it will emerge. Are you worried?''

Daley: "United has come a really long way. Everybody had the, ah, death to them and thought they would not be around. But they are coming through this bankruptcy and I think they have worked on a lot of issues with the employees. I have a lot of confidence in what they are doing so far.''

Hilkevitch: "You of course disagree with Elk Grove Mayor Craig Johnson and Bensenville Mayor John Geils and the other opponents of O'Hare expansion. But do they maybe serve a needed purpose by raising issues and challenging what the city and your consultants are telling the public about O'Hare expansion?''

Daley: "I couldn't speak for them. I just know them, I see them, `Hi, how are you? Hello.' You know. They are against anything with the name O'Hare Field on it.''

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[the urban politician]

HA HA!

Now we can start demolishing those pathetic suburban homes. Families will suffer! Children will cry! The all-powerful city, controlled by its tyrannical Mayor, will once again bend and shape the surrounding landscape to its mighty will, all in the name of economic progress.

>insert evil laughter here<

:crazy:

[Jersey Mentality]

Well with courts now on the sides with corporations and "economic progress" im sure they will build without a hitch.

[HowardL]

After waiting years for FAA approval, Daley has promised to break ground on the project immediately.

Daley ain't screwing around on this. From the Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-09/19740728.jpg
Race for expansion
Steve Hess with Heneghan Wrecking demolishes the Express Cargo Connection building to make way for the phase one expansion of O'Hare International Airport, Friday. Chicago's plan to expand O'Hare was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration Friday, setting off a race between workers starting site preparation for new runways and the lawsuits aimed at stopping them.
(AP photo by Charles Rex Arbogast)
Posted September 30, 2005

[BVictor1]

It's not all smooth sailing yet...


FAA approves O'Hare expansion
But suburbs get judge to stop work before it starts

By Jon Hilkevitch, Patricia Callahan and Virginia Groark
Tribune staff reporters
Published September 30, 2005, 10:09 PM CDT

"O'Hare is now cleared for takeoff,'' the nation's aviation chief declared Friday, giving the go-ahead for new runways at O'Hare International Airport. But hours later a federal court grounded--at least temporarily--the FAA decision.

The court action, sought by attorneys representing opponents of the expansion, effectively halted the construction that began with a spirited ceremony at O'Hare led by Mayor Richard Daley.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., tabled the FAA's decision until it can consider the opponents' arguments--that federal approval of the project is illegal on religious grounds and that the city should not be allowed to acquire and destroy property without first proving it can finance the project. It was not clear when the court would act.

Earlier in the day, bulldozers began knocking down city-owned buildings to make way for the new runways. Daley, who waited a decade and a half for this day, wasted no time celebrating.

"What a day. White Sox clinch the division, and we are at a groundbreaking today,'' the mayor said on the site of the first new runway while an earthmover carved out a chunk of dirt and dropped it into a dump truck.

He put the $15 billion airport expansion in the same league as the city's rebuilding after the Great Fire of 1871, reversing the flow of the Chicago River and preservation of the lakefront.

Under the plan, O'Hare's intersecting runways would be replaced with a network of parallel ones.

"Years from now, we will all remember this as the day we took a step forward,'' Daley said. "We are going to keep Chicago and the Chicago area at the forefront of the global economy.''

Meanwhile, police in Bensenville stopped Chicago land surveyors from scoping out properties in the way of the future runways, arguing they needed to first seek permission, said Village Manager James Johnson.

Bensenville officials stuffed fliers in doors Thursday warning of the expected FAA ruling and urging residents and businesses to resist city efforts to buy their homes.

"We believe Daley's henchmen will try to come into our community to try to get you to sell your home," the pamphlets said. "Show them the door!"

But several homeowners in the DuPage suburb said Friday they are tired of living in limbo.

Daniel Escutia, 22, who lives in a home in the footprint of the future runways, believes Bensenville should wage a court fight only if there is a good chance that Chicago won't eventually acquire their homes through condemnation.

"If it's going to happen anyway, Bensenville should tell us already because it's been dragged out a long time," he said.

Within hours of the FAA's announcement, attorneys representing opponents of the expansion--Bensenville, Elk Grove Village, a religious cemetery bordering O'Hare and other property owners--argued that the federal court needed to intervene immediately to prevent the city from destroying property and relocating graves.

"Two years ago, Chicago sent bulldozers to Meigs Field in the middle of the night to destroy the airfield and silence the ongoing debate about the airfield's future," the attorneys wrote. "There is every reason to believe that the city will engage in the same kind of destructive behavior here."

In their filing, the attorneys said the city's plan to relocate more than 1,300 graves in St. Johannes Cemetery violates a federal law designed to protect religious freedom. They also said that city was prepared to destroy property despite the FAA's failure to prove Chicago can afford to pay for its expansion plans.

The opponents argued that any removal "of the remains of a Christian once he or she is committed to the sanctified final resting spot [could prevent] the physical resurrection of his or her body on the Day of Resurrection.''

Arlington Heights resident Bob Sell, who has several relatives buried at St. Johannes, was outraged by the FAA decision. Sell said he had hoped the federal government would realize the plan violated the church's religious beliefs and "somewhere, somehow, someway take one runway and put it somewhere else other than through our grandparents and fathers and mothers and children."

City officials told the FAA they have made painstaking plans to handle the disinterment of remains from St. Johannes with dignity, transport all reusable grave markers and monuments to new grave sites as directed by surviving family members and pay all associated costs.

The FAA decision recognized that moving the cemetery is likely to "substantially burden the exercise of religion.'' But the FAA noted that the government has a compelling interest in reducing O'Hare delays and said there is no better alternative than using the cemetery property.

The FAA decision also expressed confidence O'Hare expansion can be paid for and carried out.

Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey boasted that the city's plan would cut flight delays by 66 percent on average, saying such a change is needed "for the efficiency of our nation's aviation system.''

Still, FAA officials cautioned that new runways won't make O'Hare delays disappear. Even with the city's expansion plan, if fully completed, passengers and the airlines will face more than $1.7 billion annually in lost time and other costs associated with delays, the FAA said.

The city and the FAA disagree on how much the project will cost. The FAA's price tag for the two phases of the O'Hare expansion plan is about $560 million higher than cost estimate the city has cited repeatedly.

The FAA said its cost estimate accounts for recent increases in the cost of construction materials and labor.

In all, the airfield expansion, proposed passenger terminals and other airport improvements necessary to make O'Hare expansion work will cost nearly $15 billion. That doesn't include billions of dollars in interest the city must pay on the money it borrows, and several billion dollars in road and mass-transit improvements needed to transport people in and out of the airport.

---

Tribune staff reporter Gary Washburn contributed to this report.
jhilkevitch@tribune.com
pcallahan@tribune.com
vgroark@tribune.com

[BVictor1]

September 30, 2005
www.chicagobusiness.com

O'Hare: Will the pen be mightier than the backhoe?
Lawsuits seek to stop airport expansion

By Julie Jargon

With heavy equipment poised to begin the controversial expansion of O’Hare International Airport, lawyers in Washington, D.C. were scurrying to seek a stop the scheduled 2 p.m. groundbreaking. As expected Friday, Federal Aviation Administration approved a $15 billion plan to expand O’Hare by adding and reconfiguring its runways to increase the number of flights and cut congestion at one of the country’s busiest airports.

Opponents of the airport expansion, which include the neighboring towns of Elk Grove Village and Bensenville, are planning to seek an injunction today in the federal court of appeals in the district of Columbia to stop any construction.

Joseph Karaganis, an attorney representing the expansion opponents, says he hopes the requested court order will be granted this afternoon. But even if critics of the plan are successful in stopping today’s groundbreaking, it will be only the beginning of a court battle that could tie up the expansion for months.

The two towns and a nearby cemetery plan next week to file an amended complaint to an ongoing case involving the relocation of graves in the path of planned runways. That case, which has been in limbo in federal district court in Chicago for two years, can go forward now that the FAA has given the O’Hare Modernization Program its blessing. Mr. Karaganis alleges that by relocating graves, the city of Chicago and the FAA are in violation of several federal and state laws, including the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Karaganis-led opponents also charge that the FAA has violated federal law by approving a project before it has fully analyzed the costs involved. Legal complaints involving the cost are part of the Chicago case and also will be part of a lawsuit in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., where cases involving the FAA must be filed.

FAA administrator Marion Blakey this morning said the agency believes funding will be available for the $7.52 billion airfield reconfiguration it approved today. Future project phases are estimated to cost another $7 billion, and Ms. Blakey said the FAA still has to conduct further analysis on the project’s full cost.

Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson is confident that through the legal proceedings, further information about the true costs will be revealed. “We’ve been stonewalled for four years,” he says. “Information has slowly been coming out about how the project will be too costly and dangerous. Now, when we go to court, that information will finally come out. We’ve waited for this day.”

A spokesman for the city said it is awaiting further details of the expected lawsuits before commenting fully on the timeline of the massive undertaking, But the city has said in the past it expected to begin construction immediately upon receiving FAA approval.

“We’re confident (opponents) won’t meet the standards that will prevent us from moving forward with this project,” said Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the O’Hare Modernization Program, Friday.

[Chi-town]

Here's an interesting jobs program we can start:

Take the 1,000 meanest thugs in the city, give them the necessary tools (they can bring their own guns if they want), and set them on Elk Grove Village and Bensenville. With any luck, the towns will be destroyed by morning and we can get on for this.

[Chicago Shawn]

After waiting years for FAA approval, Daley has promised to break ground on the project immediately.

Daley ain't screwing around on this. From the Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-09/19740728.jpg
Race for expansion
Steve Hess with Heneghan Wrecking demolishes the Express Cargo Connection building to make way for the phase one expansion of O'Hare International Airport, Friday. Chicago's plan to expand O'Hare was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration Friday, setting off a race between workers starting site preparation for new runways and the lawsuits aimed at stopping them.
(AP photo by Charles Rex Arbogast)
Posted September 30, 2005

They have been demolishing buildings for about a year now on the northern fringe of the airport. Regaurdless of the outcome of the lawsuit, the northern runway will be built. We can thank the suburb of Des Plaines for this, because that community's clear thinking leaders know what an ecconomic engine O'Hare is and how much thier town has grown because of it. Des Plaines has been working side by side with the city on O'Hare expansion, and has volenteered to go out of its way to relocate businesses and hand the property over to the expansion commision. I have never felt so much love for my old home town. :hug: The next door shitholes of Elk Grove Village and Bensinville should take note and follow in Des Plaines' footsteps. Of coarse, they are choosing the hard way, but in the end it will just fuck them over with the legal fees, which is why Bensinville got cought stealing money out of the park district treasury to finance the losing legal battle.

[Xing]

I would rather expand Gary than destroy homes for an airport obviously out of space.

[Chi-town]

I would rather expand Gary than destroy homes for an airport obviously out of space.
We need to do both. What's for sure is that we don't need Peotone.

And O'Hare isn't "out of space", they just need to remove some of the trailer trash around it.

It's more practical to have one large airport, in terms of making connections.

[Rail Claimore]

O'hare needs to expand with its current plans and then be done. After that, expand Gary as needed. Those idiots are wasting taxpayer dollars just to stick it up to Chicago and Mayor Daley. Some of the residents who are affected by this are getting impatient with their leaders.

[Xing]

I would rather expand Gary than destroy homes for an airport obviously out of space.


And O'Hare isn't "out of space", they just need to remove some of the trailer trash around it.



They're out of space.

[Chi-town]

I would rather expand Gary than destroy homes for an airport obviously out of space.


And O'Hare isn't "out of space", they just need to remove some of the trailer trash around it.



They're out of space.
Obviously they're planning to expand, and have been doing so for years, and have been given FAA approval. They're not "out of space", they just have to tear some stuff down. If "out of space" means not having adjacent greenfields to develop, then the entire city is out of space for everything.

[HowardL]

From the Sun-Times:
City set to buy land for O'Hare expansion

October 4, 2005

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Chicago would annex 120 acres in northwest suburban Des Plaines to make way for a new north runway at O'Hare Airport in exchange for $800,000, under an ordinance advanced Monday by a City Council committee.

City Hall has acquired the private property -- primarily businesses -- it needs to build the north runway. The annexation ratified by the Aviation Committee includes that land and the suburban streets where those businesses are located, according to Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare project.

The Des Plaines City Council approved the annexation on Sept. 19, choosing that alternative over condemnation. Chicago agreed to oblige in return for $800,000.

"It includes the cost of the streets, as well as the annexation of all of the property," Andolino said.

Project grounded, for now

On Friday, Mayor Daley and a host of other dignitaries stood on the site of the new runway and watched as bulldozers started demolition.

Daley's joy was dashed hours later. A federal appeals court in Washington temporarily grounded the project hours after the FAA approved it.

Opponents of O'Hare expansion have made two primary arguments: that the city's plan to relocate more than 1,300 graves at St. Johannes Cemetery violates a federal law designed to protect religious freedom; and that Daley should not be allowed to acquire and destroy property without first proving he can finance the project.

[Chicago Shawn]

God bless you Des Plaines. If only all suburbs worked together with the city has you have done, we would all live in a much better region. So, someone correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first anneaxtion Chicago has had for about 35 years? Kick Ass, our landlocked city just got a little bigger.

[the urban politician]

God bless you Des Plaines. If only all suburbs worked together with the city has you have done, we would all live in a much better region. So, someone correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first anneaxtion Chicago has had for about 35 years? Kick Ass, our landlocked city just got a little bigger.

^Yeah, by 120 acres!

Alright! :D

[Chi-town]

The opponents argued that any removal "of the remains of a Christian once he or she is committed to the sanctified final resting spot [could prevent] the physical resurrection of his or her body on the Day of Resurrection.''

Pretty sure this argument gets thrown out in a U.S. court of law. At least I hope so.

Cemetaries are a fucking waste of space.

[Chicago Shawn]

Yes, graves were moved for the St. Louis airport expansion. I don't think the opposition has a chance.

And in addition to the annaxation, there is some unincorperated land that will surley be annexed in as well, so the gain will be larger than 120 Acres. I also noticed some patches of unicorperated land along I-90, which got me to thinking; If Chicago began annexing northwestward, starting with the Oaisis Mobile Home Park, it would follow along the routing of the Metra STAR Line, a great opportunity for TOD redevelopment, and it would be within the city limits too, while keeping spill over airport revenues and ecconomic growth in the city, rather than Elk Grove Village.

[Rail Claimore]

The opponents argued that any removal "of the remains of a Christian once he or she is committed to the sanctified final resting spot [could prevent] the physical resurrection of his or her body on the Day of Resurrection.''

Pretty sure this argument gets thrown out in a U.S. court of law. At least I hope so.

Cemetaries are a fucking waste of space.

I kind of wish we cremated our deceased. It would be quite the space saver.

[Swede]

@BV, Chi-t & Rail - Using (christian) graveyards as a way to stop any construction on grounds of making Resurrection impossible doesn't work. Hasn't worked. It's not uncommon to find 'lost' graveyards when buildings something new in old (christian) cities.

^You don't? it's the norm in Sthlm, and we're nominally christian majority.

[ajfroggie]

Opponents of O'Hare expansion have made two primary arguments: that the city's plan to relocate more than 1,300 graves at St. Johannes Cemetery violates a federal law designed to protect religious freedom; and that Daley should not be allowed to acquire and destroy property without first proving he can finance the project.

They might have a case with the latter (the project financing), but not the former.

[Chi-town]

I kind of wish we cremated our deceased. It would be quite the space saver.
Both of my grandfathers (who passed away within the past 3 years) were, and I plan to be.

Think about it: There are over 6 billion people on Earth. Many times that have lived before and will live in the future. We can't be reserving a dozen square feet for each one, especially not in urbanized areas.

[findo102000]

[QUOTE=Chicago Shawn ]God bless you Des Plaines. If only all suburbs worked together with the city has you have done, we would all live in a much better region. So, someone correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first anneaxtion Chicago has had for about 35 years? Kick Ass, our landlocked city just got a little bigger. [/QU
wasn't land annexed earlier this year in february (i think?)from lincolnwood, that parkland on the other side of the river so that they would be able to operate thillens stadium under the chicago park district?

[Chi-town]

^ That's like saying golf courses are great open spaces. I love golf, but they're not public open spaces. By that logic we should stop having cemetaries and create huge parks that people could actually use instead. Nobody goes to a cemetary to have a picnic.

And I don't give a crap about ancient spiritual practices. Christian burial can go the way of mummification and human sacrifice for all I care...

[Chicago Shawn]

[QUOTE=Chicago Shawn ]God bless you Des Plaines. If only all suburbs worked together with the city has you have done, we would all live in a much better region. So, someone correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first anneaxtion Chicago has had for about 35 years? Kick Ass, our landlocked city just got a little bigger. [/QU
wasn't land annexed earlier this year in february (i think?)from lincolnwood, that parkland on the other side of the river so that they would be able to operate thillens stadium under the chicago park district?

No that hasn't happned. There was talk about it, mainly from the Alderman of West Ridge who came up with the idea. The Chicago Cubs have bailed out Thillen's Staduim in the meantime. Lincolnwood is being a bitch about the whole thing because they are another arrogant suburb that turns its back on the city of Chicago. The reason that annaxation has not gone through, is because Lincolnwood is still bitter over a proposal to build a bridge across the North Shore Channel at Pratt Avenue 20 years ago, a plan originally pitched by the same alderman who is pushing the annaxation. They want a provision that no bridge can ever be built there, not even a pedestrian bridge, because they want to keep 'dirty' Chicago residents out of there 'pristine' independent town. Lincolnwood currently has the strip of land between Kedzie and the Channel wihin its boundries, but it can't make any improvements to the property or even police it, because they can't afford to. If Chicago annexed the property as planned, the area would get a new ~1.5 mile long waterfront park with the gaurentee that Thillen's Staduim would stay open to little leaguers. But of coarse, the snobby anti-city attitude of Lincolwood's officials are preventing that simple thing from happening. :hell: It still has a good chance of happening though, as the Cubs bailout to Thillen's was a one-time thing and the Chicago Park District will need the land annaxed to take ownership and keep it open.

Anyway, back to O'hare expansion...

[Chicago Shawn]

^Actually this is true. Many of the people within the boundries of the exanded airport are glad to have thier homes purchased by Chicago. The city is being very generous, and giving the homeowners way above fair market value, which is more than they would get using a realtor whom has to fluff up the listing which happens to exist under a runway flight plath. Most of the opposition to the exansion is comming from those who live outside the boundries, and therefore are stuck with the increase of aircraft noise (which IMO, tough shit; you live next to the world's busiest airport, and it has been there longer than most of your homes). The city has spent millions though to soundproof buildings near the airport, including properties outside of Chicago.

Now, for those who have voulenterred to sell thier homes to Chicago, the contractural process has already begun for them. The only thing left to do is make the final ownership transfer, which will not occur untill this rediculas injunction is overrulled and thrown out. So, those homeowners do not have to worry, because the city is already in the process of buying thier homes, which the homeowners have been working with for the past couple months now.

[BVictor1]

FAA says it will OK key funds for O'Hare
$300 million is crucial to city's finance plan

By Patricia Callahan
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 8, 2005


Federal Aviation Administration officials have told Congress the agency intends to give Chicago the full $300 million grant the city requested to help pay for the first phase of its O'Hare International Airport expansion project, according to documents made public Friday.

Although the amount may seem like a small piece of the overall $15 billion expansion plan, the grant--$30 million annually for 10 years--is a linchpin of the city's financing for the project. Even the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation doubted publicly that the FAA would award the full amount, especially since other major airports are competing for the same limited pool of money.

The pledge comes before an FAA ruling on whether the benefits of the project outweigh the costs. Local FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro said the agency will make a final determination on that issue before any money is handed out.

O'Hare expansion opponents were outraged. "This is an attempt to play a shell game with the law," said Joe Karaganis, an attorney representing Elk Grove Village, Bensenville and a religious cemetery that borders the airport.

FAA officials included the disclosure in a filing late Friday with the federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. In the filing, the FAA asked the court to lift an order granted at the request of airport opponents that temporarily halted construction on the project.

The news of the grant took Chicago airport officials by surprise. Although Rosemarie Andolino, Chicago's airport expansion chief, expected the FAA to come through with the money, a spokesman said, she didn't know of the FAA's intent until called by the Tribune.

The FAA must notify Congress 30 days before the grant decision can become final, and the agency did so Thursday, according to the court filing.

It's not clear exactly what will happen on Capitol Hill in the next month. Congress could call for hearings or take no action, allowing the grant to go forward.

"What Congress does is Congress' business," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman in Washington.

The city plans to sell bonds to pay for much of the runway expansion project, and a key part of the bond plan hinges on the grant. Chicago officials had to strike a deal with the major O'Hare airlines to sell those bonds because the debt will be repaid with airport revenue, including higher landing fees and gate rentals. The major airlines agreed to go along with the bond plan for the first phase of the project only if the city received the full $300 million.

In a report earlier this year, U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead called the $300 million "an unusually large request." As of last year, the FAA was committed to $917 million in such grants during the next 11 years, and that figure was distributed among 30 projects.

The airlines have not yet signed on to a finance plan for the second phase of the airfield expansion, for which the city plans to seek an additional $228 million in FAA grants. In all, the city is seeking $2 billion in grants and ticket taxes for the project.

Last week, the FAA approved the city's airfield expansion plan. But hours later, at opponents' request, the federal appeals court in Washington temporarily tabled FAA approval of the project, forcing construction to stop until the court had time to consider the merits of the challenge.

The filing that contained the grant disclosure asked the court to restore that approval and allow construction to move forward.

Attorneys for the opponents argued last week that federal approval of the project, particularly the relocation of graves at St. Johannes Cemetery, is illegal on religious grounds. They also contended that the city should not be allowed to acquire and destroy property without first proving it can finance the project.

In its filing Friday, the FAA countered that it vetted the city's financing plans adequately.

The agency also argued that its approval did not violate a religious-freedom law and that the opponents were demanding a "veto system in which religious claims simply trump all other considerations."

At least 177 homeowners and businesses in Bensenville voluntarily offered to sell the city their properties, the FAA filing states.

"Delay in construction of even a short duration will cause profound harm to the project--increasing its costs and postponing its benefits," the filing states.

It isn't clear when the appeals court will rule. Expansion opponents are expected to counter the FAA's arguments in court filings next week.

----------

pcallahan@tribune.com

[the urban politician]

^ Great news.

I can't wait till they crush those suburban homes that are in the way of expansion :crazy:

[Chicago2020]

http://www.neiu.edu/~lbbrown/387/scalable/ohare2.jpg

The new layout for O'Hare

[Stratosphere]

O'Hare overview

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/284148.jpeg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/890664.jpeg

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/556137.jpeg

[SSLL]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.

[HowardL]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.
Absolutely. The logic, however, seems hopelessly lost on suburban Illinois politicians.

[the urban politician]

^Yeah, but the Gary/Chicago Airport is WAY WAY ahead of the game.

The State of Indiana has given bipartisan support for the expansion of Gary/Chicago airport and have given the okay to secure funds for its renovation. It already has highway and potential rail connections to downtown Chicago. Also, the FAA has approved Gary/Chicago's redevelopment plan in its ENTIRETY!

By the time Jesse Jackson, Jr and those other bumblefucks sort out their differences, Gary/Chicago will be on its way to securing status as Chicagoland's 3rd major airport

[Chi-town]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.
Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

[the urban politician]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.
Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

^Yeah, I wish Illinois and Indiana could create a mutual organization akin to the NY-NJ Port Authority. It would really make for better use of infrastructure

[kayosthery]

I've been instructed to take my inquiries about the O'Hare F.A.C.E. project over here.


Is anyone familiar with this other construction project at O'Hare? Has anyone seen the articles in the Tribune the past few days? Does anyone think the city sueing Murphy Jahn (Helmut Jahn's firm) over the design flaws will have reprecussions with respect to his highrise project downtown?

This relates to O'Hare expansion because many people contend that if the city cannot keep the cost of this project under control, the cost of the full expansion will be far more than the city says it will cost.

Thoughts?

[Rail Claimore]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.
Midway really can't be expanded... the area around it is actually pretty dense, so every acre of additional airport space would displace people. Around O'Hare, by contrast, the portion of the total additional space that includes homes isn't that great. It makes sense to bulldoze 200 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, but not to bulldoze 1,000 acres of homes to add 1,000 acres to an airport, IMO.

You're completely right about Gary-Chicago, and I think just about every Chicagoan would agree. The problem is state politicians downstate. They don't care what's best for the city/metro, they care about state tax coffers, and Gary is across state lines in Indiana. It makes far more sense for the region, and far more sense to anybody from Chicago who had to actually use the airport, but they don't get their tax dollars.


I just wish it was easier to reallign state borders to actually make sense. Northwest Indiana should be part of Illinois. Give East St. Louis & environs to Missouri, etc... you could probably turn Missouri into a blue state in the bargain.

^Yeah, I wish Illinois and Indiana could create a mutual organization akin to the NY-NJ Port Authority. It would really make for better use of infrastructure

I flew into and out of O'hare this past weekend visiting my brother, and by some luck of God, both my flights were on time. But I actually thought about it while in town... how the NYC area has PANYNJ. Chicago should surely have something similar like CGPA or something.

[Steely Dan]

^ a PANYNJ type of deal is the only sensible path to a future that is mutaully beneficial to all in the region. unfortunately, greed, inertia and stubbornness will prevent this from ever happening.

[Chi-town]

They have, sort of... forget what it's called.

[TransitEngr]

I think building Peotone is a bad idea. Expand O'Hare, maybe even Midway. The third airport of Chicagoland should be Gary-Chicago International Airport.


VERY TRUE. The newly expanded O'Hare, Midway, and the newly expanded Gary will all be highly sufficient... even for the Summer Games in 2016! :crazy:

And again, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. The newly expanded GCIA will have access to public transit rail with a quick link to the loop.... Peotone won't.

I have friends that are working for the OMP, they said that dozers were ready to start demolition the minute they got the "go ahead"... why no pics in this forum???

[TransitEngr]

They have, sort of... forget what it's called.


http://www.gcmtravel.com/gcm/maps_chicago.jsp

Is this what you were thinking of? I know this shows highway stuff, but airport and transit information are also provided. If you click on "home" at the top of this website you'll see the agencies that threw this together.

[Chi-town]

^ No there's some kind of new Illinois / NW Indiana regional development agency that was created this summer. Read about it in Crain's. And the Chicago airport authority controls Gary Airport, as well...

[Chicago2020]

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/chicago/images/1s-airline-terminal.jpg

This may be alittle old but this is the new terminal to be built at O'Hare

[Rail Claimore]

^I thought that was the new Gary terminal.

[spyguy]

Airline Technology has that rendering for O'Hare expansion, but that's the exact same rendering that SCB did for Gary.

[spyguy]

That's very good. Unfortunately, these people don't get the message after losing another time and are going to just continue forever and ever. Hopefully the people affected will have had enough of this waiting on whether or not they should leave and will just sell their houses to the city and force Bensenville & Co. to give up.

[the urban politician]

That's very good. Unfortunately, these people don't get the message after losing another time and are going to just continue forever and ever. Hopefully the people affected will have had enough of this waiting on whether or not they should leave and will just sell their houses to the city and force Bensenville & Co. to give up.

^Eventually they'll realize how expensive this fight is getting and they'll give up

[Chicago Shawn]

LET THE CONTRACTS CLOSE AND THE BULLDOZERS ROLL! Fuck you Bensinville and especially you Elk Grove Village. You Loose agian, and will continue to do so. Just quit now before you guys bankrupt yourselfs with ongoing legal fees.

[Chicago2020]

I wonder when the City will release some renderings of what O'Hare will look like????

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=18574

Feds pledge $337M for O'Hare expansion


U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Monday pledged $337 million in federal funds for a planned expansion at O'Hare International Airport that is aimed at reducing flight delays at one of the nation's busiest airports.
Mineta said the money included a $300 million grant the city was seeking and another $37 million.
"American taxpayers are making a good investment," said Mineta, who was at O'Hare to sign the grants during a ceremony Monday.
The $15 billion expansion project will add a new terminal, two runways and redesign two other runways. The Federal Aviation Administration has said it will reduce delays by 68 percent if the work ends on schedule in 2013.
A hurdle to the project was removed last week when a federal judge in Chicago dismissed a lawsuit filed by two suburban towns and the owners of a cemetery who oppose the project. The ruling allows the city to resume buying properties in the path of the planned expansion.
The city has agreed it won't disturb any graves at the St. Johannes Cemetery until a federal appeals court in Washington rules on another lawsuit opponents have filed against the Federal Aviation Administration.
Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin welcomed the federal money for the project.
"The Administration knows that O'Hare is the epicenter of not only regional aviation travel, but the national and world's passenger aviation system," Durbin said in a statement.

[BVictor1]

**DOUBLE POST**

[BVictor1]

Is Dallas design a fit for O'Hare?
A Texas-size plan, but on far less land

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published November 21, 2005


DALLAS -- Chicago aviation officials like to point to the 31-year-old airport in Dallas as a proven model for the parallel runways envisioned at the future O'Hare International Airport.

The goal is to duplicate the success of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport, the nation's third-busiest airfield, by adding hundreds more flights each day while holding delays and cancellations to a minimum.

Among civil engineers who build airports, though, there is a truism about airfield design: "You've seen one airport, you've seen one airport."

And, indeed, a comparison of the Dallas airport against the blueprint for new runways at O'Hare suggests that Chicago's almost $15 billion plan to rebuild O'Hare by copying Dallas suffers from major flaws, according to Federal Aviation Administration officials and air-traffic controllers.

Among the differences:

- DFW, as the Texas airport is known, is almost three times the size of O'Hare.

- The weather in northern Texas where Dallas sits is mainly dry and clear, much better than the wind, rain and snow that pelt Chicago.

- The setup of terminals is different from O'Hare, O'Hare's, and DFW's air routes do not impede the airspace of Dallas' Love Field the way O'Hare's interfere with the airspace of Midway Airport.

- And although Chicago officials hope to tailor O'Hare to look like Dallas--they are awaiting word from the FAA on a $300 million federal funding request--Dallas is modernizing its 1970s-era airport design, with help from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the FAA, to cut delays and reduce the risk of runway accidents.

Dallas' redesign is being accomplished by adding perimeter taxiways to avoid taxiing airplanes in front of other planes that are set to take off.

That's not a viable option for O'Hare, even after the expansion, because the airport doesn't have room, according to the FAA.

"If you could take this airport, lift it off the ground and take it up to Chicago, match your wind and drop it on the ground, it wouldn't work," said Dallas air-traffic controller Ric Loewen from his perch in the control tower.

But that doesn't stop Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program, from entertaining audiences by placing a map of the expanded O'Hare alongside the a map of the existing DFW.

As she did before a gathering last year of the City Club of Chicago--a business group that she is scheduled to address again Monday--Andolino rotates the Dallas map 90 degrees to the east. That shifts Dallas' north-south runways to an east-to-west alignment like what is planned for six of the runways at O'Hare. Both layouts also sport two angled crosswind runways.

DFW then looks pretty similar to the O'Hare plan, which the FAA approved Sept. 30, prompting a court challenge from expansion opponents that temporarily halted construction.

The centerpiece of the overhaul planned for the Dallas airfield is a system of perimeter taxiways that loop around the runways. The FAA provided funding for the plan in August.

Planes that have landed will move swiftly along the outskirts of runways, rather than across them, to reach the terminals. The taxiways will reduce potentially dangerous runway crossings by aircraft from 1,700 a day to no more than a few hundred, airport and FAA officials said. They will also help to reduce the number of planes on the runway waiting for crossing planes to clear before they take off.

Under O'Hare's expansion plan, though, runway crossings will jump to 2,100 a day from about 100 now, according to the FAA.

"Dallas has had a number of close calls over the years, so they are doing something about it with the perimeter system," said Craig Burzych, president at the O'Hare control tower of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "Instead of being proactive by trying to reduce runway incursions, which the FAA says are the No. 1 danger at airports, Chicago's plan is like playing with fire."

The FAA said it is working with controllers and the airlines to implement safe procedures at the expanded O'Hare to deal with the increase in runway crossings. One proposal would require planes to taxi behind aircraft sitting on a runway rather than in front whenever possible.

"Perimeter taxiways are a good idea, and whenever it is possible, we should do it," said Barry Cooper, a top FAA manager who headed the team that approved O'Hare expansion. "Unfortunately, we don't have the real estate to do it at O'Hare."

Three serious near-collisions on runways in Boston, New York and Las Vegas this year prompted the National Transportation Safety Board on Nov. 15 to again press for quicker action by the FAA to reduce such dangers.

There were 326 runway incursions nationwide in fiscal 2004 and 324 in fiscal 2005, according to the FAA.

Parallel runways, as opposed to the intersecting-runway pattern at O'Hare, allow more airplanes to land each hour, especially when visibility is reduced. But if the airport footprint is not large enough to allow widely spaced parallel runways, which ensure that low-flying planes are kept safely apart, the only solution for air-traffic controllers is to slow down the rate of departing flights to avoid interference with arrivals.

The worldwide trend is to build new airports on large expanses of land to allow planes to safely touch down and take off simultaneously, even in bad weather. Large tracts of land also buffer surrounding populations from jet noise.

DFW covers 18,000 acres. O'Hare would grow from 6,789 acres to 7,222 acres under Chicago's runway-expansion plan, which depends on taking 433 acres from surrounding communities.

Denver International Airport is situated on 34,000 acres. Kansas City International Airport takes up more than 10,000 acres, with at least 7,000 additional acres available to develop. The proposed south suburban airport near Peotone in Will County would sprawl over almost 20,000 acres.

But Chicago officials point to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, where four parallel runways are squeezed onto fewer than 5,000 acres, as another model for the future O'Hare.

"Size isn't everything," Andolino said. "Atlanta is smaller than O'Hare, and it will handle more flights and more passengers than O'Hare this year."

But Hartsfield is far from a top performer in the category that matters most to passengers--arriving on time. Of the nation's 33 largest airports, Atlanta ranked 28th for on-time arrivals from January through September this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Even O'Hare, with its crisscrossing runways, did better, finishing 25th.

DFW ranked sixth with 81 percent of flights arriving on time.

Size helps.

"I don't think Boeing builds enough airplanes to create a capacity crunch at DFW," said JoEllen Casilio, FAA air-traffic control district manager for airports in the Dallas region.

More than a mile separates many of Dallas' runways, allowing simultaneous landings and takeoffs even in intense fog.

But at the expanded O'Hare, the runway separation will be so tight that flights will have to be staggered under some conditions, diminishing efficiency.

Two pairs of runways nearest to the passenger terminal complex would be only 1,200 feet apart. Air-traffic controllers must treat parallel runways that are less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway, meaning takeoffs and landings cannot be conducted simultaneously.

Controllers in O'Hare's air-traffic tower are concerned about accidents occurring if a plane landing were to stray or be pushed by strong winds from its designated approach path. Turbulence from large planes taking off on the adjacent runway could also spell trouble.

The perimeter taxiways planned at DFW will produce a 30 percent gain in flight capacity, according to real-life simulations conducted with NASA, airline pilots and air-traffic controllers.

"It's the gift that keeps on giving. The pilots love the simplified movement of aircraft on the airfield, and the controllers especially love it," said Jim Crites, executive vice president of operations at DFW.

He said the perimeter taxiway plan will cost $280 million for the entire airport--a bargain in the world of airport capital improvements. The project will be done in phases, with construction starting next year or 2007.

"I've never heard of anything like that," said Crites, a former American Airlines executive who grew up in Glenview. "Think of that in terms of Chicago. It is going to cost well over $1 billion to build each of the new runways at O'Hare, and they aren't going to see the 30 percent capacity gain we're getting here. This is what comes from simplifying your life in air traffic."

----------

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[VivaLFuego]

^Interesting article...

I hope this isnt a $15 billion boondoggle that somehow makes things (even) worse.

[BVictor1]

City lands $337 million from U.S. for O'Hare
Mineta says runway expansion is key to transportation

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published November 22, 2005


Hoping to end "headaches and heartaches" among air travelers delayed in Chicago, the Bush administration approved a $337 million down payment Monday to build new runways at O'Hare International Airport.

The approval, announced at O'Hare by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, exceeded Chicago's request for $300 million in federal airport improvement funds for the first phase of airfield expansion.

But the federal government will stagger delivery of the money over 15 years instead of the 10 years sought by the city. That will result in annual payments of $20 million rather than $30 million, possibly requiring the city to sell more bonds to finance construction.

The letter of intent Mineta signed with Mayor Richard M. Daley in the basement of the United Airlines terminal also included a separate commitment of $37.2 million that will be paid to the city over the next five years.

"O'Hare must expand in order to keep ahead of the growing demand for air travel," Mineta said. "If it doesn't, our entire national aviation system suffers. And, frankly, that is not going to happen on my watch."

The Federal Aviation Administration approved the city's O'Hare Modernization Program on Sept. 30. But it later rejected Chicago's benefit-cost analysis as flawed. To qualify for federal money, airports are required to demonstrate that the benefits of a project exceed the costs.

The FAA pointed to "misleading" information provided by the city that "inappropriately suggests ... sufficient evidence to justify the proposed project," according to FAA documents obtained by the Tribune.

The FAA, eager to move ahead on O'Hare expansion, hired a consultant to re-do the benefit-cost analysis after the agency concluded, "The benefits estimated under the [city's] approach are artificial and would never have been realized."

In the new analysis, the FAA concluded that the city's financial plan to pay for the first phase of O'Hare expansion is "realistic, reasonable and credible."

Officials of American Airlines and United Airlines, which signed agreements with Chicago to back airport revenue bonds with landing fees and other payments to the city, applauded the federal funding decision. But the airlines have so far agreed only to the first half of the massive airport overhaul.

O'Hare handles about 2,850 flights daily. Chicago's plan to reconfigure intersecting runways into a parallel-runway design will allow about 500 additional flights each day by the end of the decade, Mineta said.

The FAA says the expanded airport could safely accommodate 1.2 million flights annually with a reasonably low level of delays.

O'Hare handled 992,471 flights in 2004, when it scored the worst on-time flight performance of the largest U.S. airports, "causing headaches and heartaches for countless travelers nationwide," Mineta said.

But the FAA cautioned that severe flight delays could return to O'Hare shortly after construction is completed, or when activity reaches 1.4 million flights annually.

Daley smiled broadly as he watched Mineta sign the funding agreement before picking up a pen himself. The mayor noted that O'Hare has not added a runway in more than 30 years.

"A modern, efficient O'Hare Airport will be welcomed not just by residents of the Chicago area, but also by a man in Toledo who needs to get to L.A., a woman in Des Moines with business interests in London," Daley said. "The whole nation benefits. People get to spend more time doing what they want to do."

The anticipated total federal funding is $677 million over the life of the runway project. That accounts for about 9 percent of the $7.52 billion (based on 2004 dollars) the city currently estimates it will cost to reconfigure O'Hare's runways.

About 59 percent of the money would come from general airport revenue bonds sold by the city; 22 percent from passenger ticket taxes; and 10 percent from third-party financing.

Capital improvements necessary to make the airfield project work, plus new terminals, would bring the total cost to almost $15 billion, according to the city.

However, the $15 billion price tag does not include building a planned western-access roadway into O'Hare; expanding surrounding expressways, toll roads and major arterial streets; or building up mass-transit rail lines to accommodate the expected surge in passengers. Those airport-related improvements would cost about $4 billion, according to estimates by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Opponents of O'Hare expansion said they expected the federal funding approval. The decision, they said, opens the door to challenge in court the FAA's benefit-cost analysis that triggered the funding approval.

"This project is just bad, and it shouldn't go forward," said Bensenville Mayor John Geils. "With the funding now official, we finally get to try this case on the merits in court."

The funding approval came less than a week after a federal judge in Chicago tossed out a case brought by O'Hare opponents seeking to prevent the city from acquiring a religious cemetery and more than 400 acres in Bensenville and Elk Grove Village for expansion. A separate appeal is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

----------

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[Rail Claimore]

This expansion of O'hare is necessary, while at the same time, not ideal. Basically, what O'hare is doing is maximizing the potential capacity in its immediate surrounding area by buying up all the land between the Northwest Tollway, Tri-state, and two major railraod corridors. The only way O'hare can expand capacity in the long term after this is through using bigger planes, something most US airports don't do compared to those in Europe and Asia. Heathrow and Haneda are able to handle passenger volumes that rival O'hare on only two parallel runways because mostly jumbo jets land at those two airports.

Atlanta is a good model to follow for O'hare, but there's another key difference between the two: Hartsfield-Jackson is surrounded almost exclusively by industry and distribution warehouses, in addition to poor communities who don't easily put up fights in court over proposed expansions. Atlanta is building a 5th runway right now so it can do simultaneous landings for 3 commercial aircraft at once.

O'hare will be able to do that after this expansion as well, but given the placement of terminals that are being built with its expansion, taxi times will increase as planes have to taxi a mile and cross up to three other runways just to reach the terminal complex. O'hare could mitigate this problem by maximizing the use of cargo aircraft on the outer-most runways and passenger aircraft using the runways adjacent to the terminals. Atlanta will not have to worry about this as much since its South Terminal complex is being built between the current southern-most operational runway and the one under construction now.

After this adventure, O'hare is done when it comes to major capital expansion projects. This will probably increase O'hare's passenger load to a maximum of 100 million unless bigger planes start being used or new ATC technology leads to increased capacity, both of which are feasible possibilities.

If Chicago is to build another airport, the logical choice would be Gary. However, if they want to build Gary to anything near what O'hare is, they will be required to take a LOT of land around the area and move a bunch of infrastructure. It would also require a totally new runway layout as well that would not interfere with O'hare. Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down. The Peotone idea does have its merits in that an airport the size of DFW could be built there, but the negatives far outweigh the positives of any airport being built there.

[Chicago103]

Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down.

Are you saying that if a new airport is built its inevitable that Midway will be shut down?

[Rail Claimore]

Midway's layout will screw up any new airport unless Midway itself is torn down.

Are you saying that if a new airport is built its inevitble that Midway will be shut down?

No, I'm saying that any new airport that is built will have to take Midway's flight paths into consideration because of Midway's runway layout. A new airport at Gary would probably be built with east-to-west parallel runways as well, posing no effect to O'hare after expansion. Major adjustments will have to be made to the flight patterns around Midway though, as screwed up as they are now.

Peotone might be far enough away that it Midway will have no effect on it, but that's iffy.

[Chicago103]

O'Hare-Midway-Gary is the logical setup to me, the first two having CTA rapid transit access (an soon to be express service via Block 37) and Gary that will be accessible via METRA. I am not sure exactly how big they intend a third airport to be but I imagine Gary could handle at least as many passengers as Midway if it is done correctly.

[BVictor1]

For Immediate Release
Contact: Mayor's Press Office
Phone: 312-744-3334
E-mail:
Monday, November 21, 2005

Mayor Daley Accepts $300 Million Federal Grant for O'Hare Modernization

Mayor Richard M. Daley today thanked Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta for granting the City’s request of $300 million in federal discretionary funds to help finance the O’Hare Modernization Program.


“The Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation and 14 other state and federal agencies have now approved every facet of the O’Hare Modernization Program,” Daley said at an airport ceremony. “They’ve approved it from the standpoint of safety, efficiency, costs, benefits and the environment.


“And by making this substantial financial investment, the federal government is stating loudly and clearly that the O’Hare Modernization Program is vitally important to the nation’s aviation system.”


The Mayor added: “O’Hare is the heart of the nation’s air transportation system and a vital part of our national economy -- an economy that depends on getting people and products to their destinations as rapidly and efficiently as possible.


“If the U.S. intends to retain its world economic leadership – and we do – then we have to make sure that our transportation infrastructure is up to date. And that starts with O’Hare International Airport – because it’s the aviation center not just of the nation, but of the entire Northern Hemisphere. And it hasn’t added a runway for more than 30 years, while the amount of air travel in this nation has doubled.”


The program calls for reconfiguring O'Hare's outdated intersecting runway system into a modern, parallel runway configuration, substantially reducing delays and increasing capacity. No state or local tax dollars will be used to fund the OMP, which is expected to cost $6.6 billion in 2001 dollars.



The project is expected to create between 50,000 and 195,000 jobs on top of the 450,000 jobs currently supported by the City’s airport system. It will generate up to $18 billion a year in economic

“A modern, efficient O’Hare airport will be welcomed not just by residents of the Chicago area, but also by the man in Toledo who needs to get to Los Angeles and the woman in Des Moines with business interests in London,” Daley said. “The whole nation benefits when there are more flights and fewer delays at its major connecting airport. People get to spend more time doing what they want to do – running their businesses or being with their families – and less time sitting in airplanes and airports.”


Daley thanked Mineta, Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the members of the Illinois congressional delegation; Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the members of the Illinois General Assembly; the members of the Chicago City Council and its Aviation Committee; and United, American and the other O’Hare airlines that made a commitment to help fund this project two years ago.

[Rail Claimore]

O'Hare-Midway-Gary is the logical setup to me, the first two having CTA rapid transit access (an soon to be express service via Block 37) and Gary that will be accessible via METRA. I am not sure exactly how big they intend a third airport to be but I imagine Gary could handle at least as many passengers as Midway if it is done correctly.

The intial role of Gary would be as Chicago's third airport, maximizing the use of its current space. That should bring it to around the same capacity as Midway is now. Gary could play a role as Chicago's second big hub/international airport in the longterm if it's expanded to cover much of the industrial area that surrounds it today.

[HowardL]

O'Hare making room for giant Airbus jet
Lufthansa to start A380 service in '08

By Mark Skertic
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 1, 2005

It will be a tight fit, but O'Hare International Airport is preparing for the arrival of the gargantuan Airbus A380, which typically will carry 555 passengers.

German airline Lufthansa plans to fly Airbus' new superjumbo between Chicago and Frankfurt beginning in late 2008. That gives O'Hare time to prepare for the double-decker aircraft.

Accommodating aircraft the size of the A380 is part of the O'Hare runway expansion plan, but those changes likely are years away. City aviation officials have anticipated the need to have room for the A380 with the airport as currently configured.

"We do not expect any issues whatsoever," said Wendy Abrams, an airport spokeswoman.

O'Hare meets the 10,000-foot-long runway requirement, has adequate gate space and operates a baggage-handling system that can accommodate the needs of such a large aircraft, Abrams said.

The only issue is taxiways, which the Federal Aviation Administration says must be 100 feet wide for the A380. O'Hare's are 75 feet wide, but the airport is proposing modifications to that standard. The FAA has not issued final rules regarding the aircraft.

To make room for the King Kong of commercial carriers, Chicago aviation officials are planning to use two gates for each arrival and departure. The planes, which can hold up to 850 passengers, have two entryways, so two passenger bridges will be used to enter or exit the plane.

Lufthansa's planned once-daily A380 flight will arrive at Terminal 5, the international terminal, to unload passengers. The return flight will depart from Terminal 1, now dedicated to United, where passengers will board the plane. United partner Lufthansa already has space in the terminal, which it uses for its three daily departures from Chicago.

The A380 flight likely will replace an existing Chicago-Frankfurt flight, said Armin Catrina, Lufthansa's general manager for operations and airport services in North and South America. The airline flies daily between the two cities with a Boeing 747-400. A second daily departure to Frankfurt will resume in the spring.

Lufthansa plans to begin flying the A380 in the United States in late 2007 or early 2008, with service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, he said.

"No final decisions have been made because there is so much activity going on to get airports ready, to get facilities ready" for the supersize aircraft, Catrina said. "We'll firm up the list of destinations in the second half of next year when we have a clearer picture of things."

Airbus has said the A380 will be a way to carry more passengers without adding additional flights. Singapore Airlines is set to take the first delivery of the A380 in late 2006. The airline plans to use it for service to London.

The aircraft lists for about $290 million each, although discounts can apply depending on contract terms. Airbus has orders for 149 of the aircraft.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

[Chicago103]

I thought of this in another thread in the cityscape forum but I just have to post it here, (edited slightly to fit the context of this thread).

Actually thinking more about the possible airport connections, and keeping in mind the airport express that will exist between downtown to O'Hare and Midway (and presumably Gary/Chicago someday), there could be a similar Tri-Airport connector service to serve those who are just in Chicago to transfer planes at different airports. It would have the same concept as the airport express (your baggage would be automatically tranfered there), it would have stops just at the three airports, probably following a route leaving O'Hare and eventually connecting with the tracks by Cicero Avenue, stopping at Midway and then cutting over towards the southeast eventually ending up at Gary/Chicago. I suppose it might not be necessary since if there are three airport express trains going downtown already, those transfering between airports could just go to Block 37 and transfer from one line to the other, but that would still involve another transfer of luggage that might have complications while a Tri-Airport connector would only involve one transfer of people and luggage instead of two. So the Block 37 trains will be for those going to and from downtown and the Tri-Airport connector would be for those just transfering planes between two airports. The idea I guess is to make transfering planes at two different airports almost as easy as transfering planes at one airport. Shit if this all came to pass, we would not only be the larges air-hub in the world, but the three airports would almost act as one and be the most transit accessible on the planet by far.

Did that make sense or did I confuse anyone?

[Rail Claimore]

^It makes sense, but there's no feasible way to set up express service to Gary from Block 37. That will have to be done at Randolph Street Station. Connecting the two stations and fusing them into one big transit hub, instead of two separate hubs connected just by the pedway, would be the solution there.

[Chicago103]

I tried to upload a google earth file showing a route I created for the Tri-Airport Connector, but I think you would get the idea. I still ended up with 46 miles of tracks (using existing rail tracks as much as possible) from O'Hare to Midway to Gary. That means a passenger transfering from O'Hare to Gary would still take an hour at least (considering the train has to stop at Midway to unload and load passengers and luggage), but that would still probably be faster than having to transfer trains downtown and its still a hell of alot more plausable than having an airport at Peotone.

[pdxstreetcar]

i think midway expansion might become an issue after this crash

[Steely Dan]

^ midway can't be expanded. it's hemmed in by dense, bungalow-belt hoods on all sides.

[spyguy]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7333/midway7tq.png

[pdxstreetcar]

but isnt o'hare also hemmed in and requiring property acquistion?

i would be surprised though if there was a push to buy properties to lengthen the runway, certainly they havent figured out exactly what happened yet but on the news they've been mentioning that o'hare's runways are twice as long at around 13000 ft and midway's are 5000-6000 ft long

[Adam186]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7333/midway7tq.png

Midway should create a buffer zone. That's rediculous. What if a plane skids off the runway and lands on a car crushing 2 adults and 3 children.....Wait it just did. Lets's hope they can do something about this.

Anyway, back on topic.

[spyguy]

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/dupagestory.asp?id=132351

Could O’Hare be boon for city?

By Robert Sanchez
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2005

Wood Dale Mayor Ken Johnson says his community is “a little schizophrenic” when it comes to the topic of expanding O’Hare International Airport.

The city belongs to the anti-expansion Suburban O’Hare Commission and opposes the building of new runways.

On the other hand, it would benefit if a promised western airport entrance opens by 2013.

“If western access occurs, that’s going to bring redevelopment,” Johnson said. “We have the potential to be the Rosemont of the western side.”

So when municipal leaders throughout DuPage County came together Wednesday night to discuss the possible economic and transportation impact of expanding O’Hare, Johnson brought an open mind.

“If we are going to get the aggravation, give us some of the benefits,” he said before the gathering at the county complex in Wheaton.

It was the first of three meetings the county scheduled to gather data for a study of what opportunities for new development might be created once the multibillion-dollar expansion of O’Hare is complete.

“The overarching goal is to get a vision of what DuPage County should look like after O’Hare is modernized,” said Tom Cuculich, director of the county’s economic development and planning department.

“Will it be office buildings and convention centers?” Cuculich said. “Or will it be next-generation industrial parks?”

But before any questions can be answered, consultants first want to know what municipal leaders are envisioning for their communities.

“We want to put all this together so regional plans are aware of local plans and vice versa,” Cuculich said. “It’s very important that we are all on the same page.”

The nearly $400,000 study, more than half of which was funded by Chicago, is expected to be complete by late spring.

In addition to economics and development, it will explore what road improvements might be needed to create western access.

National lawmakers have committed $140 million toward building the second entrance to O’Hare as part of the six-year federal highway bill. Still, DuPage officials estimate the total cost will be more than $1.5 billion.

Meanwhile, a study isn’t expected to deter O’Hare opponents, who say many are going to lose their homes and businesses if the airport is expanded.

The proposed airport expansion plan would take out more than 530 Bensenville homes, several industrial businesses in Elk Grove Village and 1,300 graves at the cemetery run by St. John’s United Church of Christ in Bensenville.

[sentinel]

I find it annoying that people who don't know the area are the ones saying that somehow Midway should be fixed that a "buffer zone" has to be put in place immediately, or the airport should be scrapped completely. It's very hard to do that because it is literally in the middle of a dense part of the SW side of Chicago, but you can't just abandon it completely because it is convenient, not everyone can or wants to travel to leave from O'Hare, and considering that nearly 20 million people use it every year is testament to the fact that it is an economic powerhouse. It's not an easy fix however you look at it.

[spyguy]

^Sadly, this tragedy is being used to promote another future tragedy, the Peotone Airport.

[The Cheat]

What happened at Midway needs to be put in context. Only two major incidents in over 33 years.

[Steely Dan]

^ yes, it is absolutely asinine to talk of closing midway. it is not an ideal airport set-up, but it's by no means an inherently dangerous one. accidents are tragic, but they happen. midway's overalll saftey record is actually quite good.

[Jersey Mentality]

^ accidents will happen, it is inevitable. They could always create a two block buffer around the airport, I say tear down some of the homes. But of the people want to live there that damn bad then they live there at thier own risk as far as I'm concerend.

[VivaLFuego]

Has anyone ever suggested the entire suburb of Bedford Park (which is basically a giant industrial park) be turned into 2 long parallel east-west runways?

These could be connected to the current midway with a taxiway that would only slice through about 6 or 8 city blocks. They'd be parallel to all the runways farther north at o'hare so it shouldnt interfere with the flight patterns. there would be an ample buffer zone on both sides. This could seriously expand capacity at midway and maybe even push off the need for a third airport for several decades. and construction wouldnt even disrupt current flight operations at midway.

[jddar]

^ Brilliant idea, not to mention potential for larger aircraft... Also how would planes traverse the rail yard?

They could build a bridge. Part of Atlanta's new fifth runway is being built over I-285. If they can build runways over interstate highways, surely, taxiways over railyards would be possible.

[The Cheat]

EMAS - engineered material arresting system - would have helped to stop the plane before it left the airport property.

[Rail Claimore]

^ Brilliant idea, not to mention potential for larger aircraft... Also how would planes traverse the rail yard?

They could build a bridge. Part of Atlanta's new fifth runway is being built over I-285. If they can build runways over interstate highways, surely, taxiways over railyards would be possible.

Looking at a map of Chicago, I've actually thought about that before, have Midway be approximately 4 square miles instead of one. They could use the current square mile they have for a new expanded terminal, then have runways both north and south of there.

[Rail Claimore]

Actually, you're right, forget about goign north of 55th... I see what you're talking about. They could take close to 6 square miles that way, about 80% of which would be industry.

That seems like a major rail yard and juncture though...