HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1161  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 8:09 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
^ Renders are usually exaggerated in non-material aspects, like having an unrealistically large number of people who are unrealistically happy, handsome, and well-dressed and engaged in unrealistically productive activities. Ever see a grumpy fat guy smoking in a building render? Here, someone took some liberties with the background landscape.

Per Emporis (sorry ex-Emporis guys!), ORD's existing towers are 255ft and 260ft, so this is much smaller. In the US, "quite tall" would be something approaching 400ft (recently built at ATL).

The glass escape stair seems not very tornado-ready. At all. I think I would want my ATC folks to feel safe & comfortable, when tornadoes loom.
Just give them some parachutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1162  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 8:43 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Ever see a grumpy fat guy smoking in a building render?
I've done rain and snow renderings. It's also fairly common for designers to slip themselves and/or friends, celebrities, war criminals, etc into rendering backgrounds.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1163  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 7:13 PM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
O'Hare Modernization Program Reaches Milestone With Railroad Track Relocation
May 11, 2012 05:00 PM

The O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP) earlier this week accomplished a significant achievement with the completion of a railroad relocation, airport officials said in a statement. Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) crews completed the tie-in points between the recently OMP-constructed railroad realignment and the existing UPRR tracks...

http://www.aviationnews.net/?do=headline&news_ID=205339
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1164  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 9:27 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,689
^ Thanks Kippis, I think I would not have found that source on my own...
(Now if any railfan can come up with the same story in a rail industry journal, that would be perfect.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1165  
Old Posted May 12, 2012, 9:44 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,689
Hard to believe but it's been less than a year since Da Mare was last walking the Fifth Floor. And just 14 months ago, Crain's and others reported on a "Daley Compromise" with airlines about what is included in the current phase of OMP. The airfield layout was to look like this -- with only 1 OMP runway deferred to later:



This image and the articles are referenced in a discussion on 3/14/2011 on page 51 of this thread.

My question is, at present is the Far South Runway (10R/28L) more or less a done deal, completely in limbo, or something in between? I think the local media may have been reporting controversy over it this week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1166  
Old Posted May 14, 2012, 4:31 AM
Jenner Jenner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 53
I just noticed from the latest Google satellite imagery that the buildings near the flag poles are missing. The flag poles are at the entrance of the driveway to the parking garage. I thought one of these buildings was a firehouse or some other management building. Anyone know what these buildings were used for and what happened to them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1167  
Old Posted May 14, 2012, 6:44 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,689
At first I had no idea what flags you are talking about, but fortunately the sun was low when the satellite photo Google uses was taken so it was easy to find a long row of many gigantic flags (at least their shadows). It's just a couple dozen yards outbound of the main cashier booths for the main garage, right? Looking at the same area on Bing's satellite photos, the only buildings that were there looked like temporary sheds or trailers. Maybe they were temporary offices for the construction company doing the giant departure level awning project, or something? Also, from the photos you can see there is a driveway leading to an underground part of the area you identified, so who knows what all is down there anyway.

Regardless, there is lots of delicious LAND available in those surface lots, upon which new terminals or facilities will hopefully be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1168  
Old Posted May 14, 2012, 6:34 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,560
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6023980.story


New O'Hare cargo facility promises 11,000 jobs

Tribune staff

10:55 a.m. CDT, May 14, 2012
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Monday announced the construction of a cargo facility atO'Hare International Airport that promises 11,000 jobs.

Aeroterm, which was chosen as developer for the project in 2009, plans an 840,000-square-foot facility with an aircraft ramp that can accommodate planes including Boeing's 747-800 series.

Aeroterm will cover $130 million of the $200 million cost, with $62 million coming from airport funds.
,,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1169  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 2:25 AM
ITB495 ITB495 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Hard to believe but it's been less than a year since Da Mare was last walking the Fifth Floor. And just 14 months ago, Crain's and others reported on a "Daley Compromise" with airlines about what is included in the current phase of OMP. The airfield layout was to look like this -- with only 1 OMP runway deferred to later:



This image and the articles are referenced in a discussion on 3/14/2011 on page 51 of this thread.

My question is, at present is the Far South Runway (10R/28L) more or less a done deal, completely in limbo, or something in between? I think the local media may have been reporting controversy over it this week.
It's a done deal. Runway 10R/28L was a key component in the Daley compromise. I haven't seen anything official that says exactly when construction of 10R/28L will begin in earnest, but it'll probably be sometime in 2013. Runway 10C/28C (the second new runway) is scheduled to complete late 2013.

What's happening presently is that Rahm has decided to move up negotiations on the construction of a new 4th runway (9C/27C), and the extension of 9R/27R. These discussions, agreed upon as part of the compromise, were planned to begin in 2013. The major O'Hare airline tenants, United and American, are not particularly pleased with the accelerated schedule, hence the news stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1170  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 4:48 AM
Jenner Jenner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Regardless, there is lots of delicious LAND available in those surface lots, upon which new terminals or facilities will hopefully be built.
My thoughts exactly. I was doodling around a potential concourse A that would hold regional aircraft for United, which would occupy the surface lot. An underground tunnel can connect B to A. If the tunnel is placed correctly, you could have a shorter access time from the curb to the RJ's, assuming that most folks aren't checking in luggage for the RJ's. This would immediately remove many of the RJs at concourse F, but not all. The biggest problem would be an A to F connection, as that would be the longest distance to traverse. In the end, United still needs gates in F, although it could release gates in E if A were built. If that happened, other airlines could jump in, which would increase competition, which is what United doesn't want.

The access road would need to be sunk 15 - 20 feet to allow taxiway access across, which would be a major cost.



Additionally, this would impair the possibility of expanding the garage on the west side, since Concourse A would stand in its way.

BTW, did United and American pay for the changes in concourses F and G to have basement level seating and boarding?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1171  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:39 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,022
http://www.journal-topics.com/news/a...9bb30f31a.html

Extension Of Second Entrance To O'Hare Through Rosemont Moves Forward
By TODD WESSELL Wednesday, May 16, 2012


By the end of 2013, a second roadway will likely be in operation that will allow motorists to drive into and out of O’Hare Airport.

...Plans call for Balmoral to extend over Mannheim Road in an S-curve design and link with Bessie Coleman Drive to the west. An exit for southbound traffic onto Balmoral will be built at Mannheim.

The project also includes the widening of Mannheim Road from Irving Park Road on the south to a point north of Higgins Road to the north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1172  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 5:29 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Interesting photo taken from the Bensenville railroad yard looking north in June 1943. This land looking north is now O'hare airport. They had at this point already built a airport called Douglas Field next to the Douglas C54/DC4 plant. I think to the right you can see the industrial complex off in the distance. This photo came from the National Archives and is from Kodak Kodachrome large format color film.




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1173  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 7:34 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
http://www.journal-topics.com/news/a...9bb30f31a.html

Extension Of Second Entrance To O'Hare Through Rosemont Moves Forward
By TODD WESSELL Wednesday, May 16, 2012


By the end of 2013, a second roadway will likely be in operation that will allow motorists to drive into and out of O’Hare Airport.

...Plans call for Balmoral to extend over Mannheim Road in an S-curve design and link with Bessie Coleman Drive to the west. An exit for southbound traffic onto Balmoral will be built at Mannheim.

The project also includes the widening of Mannheim Road from Irving Park Road on the south to a point north of Higgins Road to the north.
Interesting. I was just annoyed the other day at how stupidly the Rosemont Blue Line station is designed. It should really have a much stronger pedestrian connection to the hotel/entertainment area, but it has no southern entrance and there's a huge interchange to the south with minimal sidewalks.

Maybe if some traffic can be shifted to Balmoral instead of 190, they can rebuild this interchange in a more compact form and open up more land for development, using the proceeds to fund a new southern entrance to the station and wide sidewalks with proper crosswalks.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1174  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 4:16 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Interesting. I was just annoyed the other day at how stupidly the Rosemont Blue Line station is designed. It should really have a much stronger pedestrian connection to the hotel/entertainment area, but it has no southern entrance and there's a huge interchange to the south with minimal sidewalks.

Maybe if some traffic can be shifted to Balmoral instead of 190, they can rebuild this interchange in a more compact form and open up more land for development, using the proceeds to fund a new southern entrance to the station and wide sidewalks with proper crosswalks.
Well, is that Blue Line will extend service from O'Hare to Rosemont station? When they will starting?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1175  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 2:14 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
Well, is that Blue Line will extend service from O'Hare to Rosemont station? When they will starting?
What on earth did you just say? Can anyone translate? Ive tried a few times but it still doesn't make sense to me. Does he think that the Blue Line doesnt service Rosemont?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1176  
Old Posted May 29, 2012, 12:23 AM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
What on earth did you just say? Can anyone translate? Ive tried a few times but it still doesn't make sense to me. Does he think that the Blue Line doesnt service Rosemont?
Not from the area, I'd say. But yeah, I think he's asking if the Blue Line services both O'Hare and Rosemont along the same route. To end the suspense: yes, yes it does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1177  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 9:07 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Forgot who had to argue this would not happen, but I thought I should post this. O'hare will be the biggest United hub under the merger.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"Houston was thrust into the middle of a battle between United Airlines and Southwest Airlines after the city approved a proposal by Southwest to build a five-gate extension for international flights from William P. Hobby Airport.

The city’s 16-1 vote last month angered United, which has a major hub 30 miles north of Hobby, at George Bush Intercontinental Airport. It argued that its own international business would be hurt by the international gates at Hobby.

Shortly after the vote, United, which is based in Chicago, said that it would cut 1,300 jobs at Bush airport and that its plans for a $700 million expansion at Bush, Houston’s biggest airport, were now “in significant doubt.”

“Unfortunately, the city of Houston will suffer the consequences of this decision for decades to come,” Jeff Smisek, United’s chief executive, said at the time. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/bu...pagewanted=all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1178  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 10:43 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,689
^ A little surprised about that seemingly spiteful response. There must be a lot of history in the Continental-Houston relationship though, perhaps some of it rocky.

For me, the bigger takeaway from that article is another example of the New York Times giving short shrift to Chicago. It describes a host of multi-billion-dollar airport projects around the country -- and ignores O'Hare's OMP, which overall is bigger than all the others. There is only passing mention of Chicago. Yes, some of OMP's work includes the Bypass and cargo facilities, which are perhaps outside of the scope being discussed in the article, but OMP does have plenty of runway and taxiway work, including work for accommodating the newest jumbo jets, which are definitely covered in the article. The only other explanation would be wanting to provide cover for Obama, because widespread awareness of this massive investment in Chicago might give an impression he is favoring his home city. I kind of doubt that's the case here though. There would have been a natural lead-in to O'Hare discussion after the Smisek remarks, but they blew it off.

Maybe we are just better off flying under the radar of public perception, as far federal funding to local projects goes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1179  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 11:14 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
^ A little surprised about that seemingly spiteful response. There must be a lot of history in the Continental-Houston relationship though, perhaps some of it rocky.

For me, the bigger takeaway from that article is another example of the New York Times giving short shrift to Chicago. It describes a host of multi-billion-dollar airport projects around the country -- and ignores O'Hare's OMP, which overall is bigger than all the others. There is only passing mention of Chicago. Yes, some of OMP's work includes the Bypass and cargo facilities, which are perhaps outside of the scope being discussed in the article, but OMP does have plenty of runway and taxiway work, including work for accommodating the newest jumbo jets, which are definitely covered in the article. The only other explanation would be wanting to provide cover for Obama, because widespread awareness of this massive investment in Chicago might give an impression he is favoring his home city. I kind of doubt that's the case here though. There would have been a natural lead-in to O'Hare discussion after the Smisek remarks, but they blew it off.

Maybe we are just better off flying under the radar of public perception, as far federal funding to local projects goes?
You noticed that..The NY media always downplays anything in Chicago, unless it is negative like southside shootings. They must be worried about something

As far as United, I am not sure what type of flight increases they are planning for ORD next year, but with AA in Bankruptcy this might be their big chance to do some damage in Chicago wich would be a very bad thing in the long run. I don't think they will pull down Houston to much more or they risk giving AA more of Texass(along with Southwest, although SW has no long range international service).

Last edited by F1 Tommy; Jun 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1180  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2012, 12:15 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 6,194
Who cares? Nothing is being cut at IAH by UA that they hadn't planned on doing anyway. It's good that Houston doesn't feel the need to suck up to UA the same way Atlanta does to DL or any other city does to an airline that dominates their airport.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:02 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.