HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2101  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 9:41 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
I saw some other images that makes me think it is even bigger than what we see, plus the price includes major redo of the CTA connection to the terminal. Tearing down one of the spiral ramps, making corridor a straight shot, etc.
Apparently not, the new passage looks like it will follow the course of the old one, but it will be heated/cooled. Hopefully more moving sidewalks are installed to speed up the long walk.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2102  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:09 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
Consolidated rent-a-car facility photo (1 of 2) from November:

Sorry about the size. (If there is a way to embed these so they're smaller let me know.) Will write comments in a separate post.


i.imgur.com/n9w25Um.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2103  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:10 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
Consolidated rent-a-car facility photo (2 of 2) from November:

Sorry about the size. (If there is a way to embed these so they're smaller let me know.) Will write comments in a separate post.


i.imgur.com/5Wvo8hW.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2104  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:36 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
So the CONRAC has basically reached its final size (except for the future vertical expansion). But if you look at the surface space currently taken up by all the rental companies, it looks like they might be taking up more than 3 times the footprint of the CONRAC (i.e., 3 floors' worth of the new building, since its bottom 3 floors will be dedicated to car rental). So the new building seems barely sufficient to cover existing demand, much less future demand. Hopefully there would not be big obstacles to later converting parts of Floor 4 to rental services.

A couple other observations:

Since the top 3 floors are long-term self-park, you'd think there would be a direct (cruising speed) ramp straight up to Floor 4 for those users, rather than making every single vehicle putt-putt around the helix on its way in and out, which takes more time, burns (some) more fuel, and will be badly handled by future self-driving vehicles since they won't be able to see ahead further than 20 feet in the helix.

The siting of the ATS station seems increasingly unfortunate given the otherwise perfect location of the Metra NCS tracks, and the latest push for an airport express. Even if an airport express eventually is brought right into a tunnel in the terminal area, you can picture an interim phase of several or many years where a starter system runs just to the Metra station here.

Finally, will this new ATS terminus have no kiss-and-fly dropoff? You'd think a ramp off Mannheim right to the foot of the station would make sense, and would reduce the number of vehicles clogging the terminal loop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2105  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 2:16 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,716
What are they going to do with all those parking lots now? Hopefully build a street grid and construct a high density urban neighborhood complete with skyscrapers right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2106  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 3:36 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post

The siting of the ATS station seems increasingly unfortunate given the otherwise perfect location of the Metra NCS tracks, and the latest push for an airport express. Even if an airport express eventually is brought right into a tunnel in the terminal area, you can picture an interim phase of several or many years where a starter system runs just to the Metra station here.
A theoretical airport express that will command a premium will not use the O'Hare transfer station and make everybody haul over to the ATS, wait for it, then take the ride to terminals. Any express station will surely be walkable from the main terminal complex.

Quote:
Finally, will this new ATS terminus have no kiss-and-fly dropoff? You'd think a ramp off Mannheim right to the foot of the station would make sense, and would reduce the number of vehicles clogging the terminal loop.
Yes and a cell lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2107  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:29 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,977
America really has an abundance of cheap land, doesn't it?
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2108  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 5:21 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
A theoretical airport express that will command a premium will not use the O'Hare transfer station and make everybody haul over to the ATS, wait for it, then take the ride to terminals. Any express station will surely be walkable from the main terminal complex.
Eventually. But a new tunnel connection between the existing Metra r-o-w and the terminals could cost more than the rest of the line put together, and in any event would probably be completed years later, especially since T2 v2.0 would have to be designed first and some degree of construction begun. In contrast, setting up an interim phase where an airport express runs to the O'Hare Transfer Station could be done nearly overnight (though gradually shrinking trip time to 20 minutes will take a fair amount of capital expenditure). A starter system like that would mean more realistic, phased capital investment, allowing the system to prove itself slowly as further phases are planned.

Remember, the ATS is getting new rolling stock, and with the heavy car rental usage coming up, frequency will be improved. There further could be some throughput benefit if they completed the loop where T1, instead of being a turnaround station, is connected via the north side back towards T5.

I think the much bigger determinative factor in airport express success is convenience of the downtown terminal. Block 37 is a terrible idea I think; it's got to be in the west loop, where an influx of taxis can be handled, and the office center of gravity has moved. A second station in River West or slightly upriver, like around Finkl, would be a good destination for people taking private cars from nearby neighborhoods like River North, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, etc. (in the case where MD-W / CSX alignments are not chosen); otherwise it's doubtful those people would drive backwards down to Union or Ogilvie.

Even if an airport express were $30 and took 30 minutes, that's still cheaper than a taxi, and you know exactly when it arrives, compared to the nail-biting vagaries of the increasingly congested Kennedy -- and also increasingly congested I-190 (it's hard to believe but at 6am on a Monday there is already a traffic jam there, worsened further by traffic not going to the airport but going onto I-294 southbound). Grabbing market share from taxi/uber should be easy; if not too pricey it also could grab market share from the family-member-giving-you-a-ride segment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Yes and a cell lot.
A cell lot need not be near the ATS (or this parking structure); in fact, it would probably be better to locate it far away so as to distribute vehicle congestion across Bessie Coleman and Mannheim.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2109  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 8:06 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,680
There may be a way to get to the terminal complex without a tunnel by widening the 190 corridor. There's room for a pair of tracks on the north side of 190 if the taxiway bridges are widened. Might need some short tunnels or flyovers to avoid ramps, but that's still cheaper than digging a long tunnel through soft soil. The station itself could even be on the ground level of the garage if the city is willing to lose a few parking spaces.

I disagree about Block 37; I think it's the perfect location for a terminal. The office center of gravity may be shifting west, but the critical mass of hotels is still around the Mag Mile/Cultural Mile, and business travelers need to sleep somewhere. For Chicagoans, Block 37 offers excellent CTA connections to both rail and bus.

The challenge of Block 37, of course, is getting trains to there... it's not a challenge for Elon Musk, who probably plans to tunnel the whole route using his magical fairydust, but for everyone else the cost of accessing Block 37 without using the Blue/Red Line tunnels will be daunting.

In lieu of Block 37, it occurs to me that a developer might be able to develop the Thompson Center site with an O'Hare Express terminal (maybe tunnel below Randolph?) and have the real estate subsidize the rail construction, or vice versa. I doubt even a mile-high tower could generate enough revenue to fund a subway tunnel at US costs, though.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2110  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 12:39 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,813
http://www.flychicago.com/business/m...px?newsid=1442

American Airlines Adds Service from Chicago O'Hare to a Dozen Destinations
Date: 01/18/2018 | Source: Chicago Department of Aviation

The full list of American Airlines' new destinations from ORD in 2018 includes:

Venice (VCE)
Vancouver (YVR)
Calgary (YYC)
Wilkes Barre-Scranton (AVP)
Bangor (BGR)
Burlington (BTV)
Charleston (CHS)
Wilmington (ILM)
Missoula (MSO)
Myrtle Beach (MYR)
Portland (PWM)
Savannah (SAV)

American also announced it will launch a new shuttle between ORD and New York LaGuardia (LGA) on April 4, 2018 that will offer business travelers hourly flights between the two cities with unique travel benefits such as dedicated gates, shortened check-in times and complimentary beer and wine in the main cabin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2111  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 6:08 AM
Jenner Jenner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Options for O'Hare Expansion

For some reason, I just find it fun to think of ideas of how to modify the O'Hare airport layout to find other solutions for expansion. I offer these ideas for you to discuss.





For larger versions of these images, you can see them at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/364574...7692394231255/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/364574...7692394231255/

Moved Runway
I've taken runway 4L-22R from its current location near Concourse C going northeast and moved it to west in between the fuel tanks and maintenance area. I shortened this runway from its current 7500ft to 7000ft. I've shortened runway 9C-27C on the west end to accommodate the new runway shift.

Pros:
  • Runway 4L-22R no longer intersects the main runways of 9C-27C (to be created) and 9R-22L which will be lengthened to handle jumbo jets.
  • New (moved) runway 4L-22R can now be used for northeast takeoff and landing. Currently this runway is not used, but not decommissioned either.
  • By moving the runway, the center of the airport space becomes open for development. Other diagrams proposed by the city usually show building structures accommodating this runway, which is not efficient.

Cons:
  • Cost of moving the runway is expensive.
  • More land must be purchased
  • The moved runway intersects 9L-27R, which isn't necessarily bad. The intersection happens near the express ramp off 27R, so some engineering is needed to fix this. I don't expect this to be a showstopper.
  • The new traffic route takes the planes over Maine West High School and several houses. Naturally there will be more noise from airplanes taking off, and politicians will need to address a solution.

Core Taxiway changes
Now that runway 4L-22R has been moved, and runway 14R-32L will be decommissioned, we can use those pieces to create new taxiways for the core terminals. The taxiways below concourses G and F will continue to extend toward taxiway and runway 14R-32L to form the new A and B taxiways for the core terminal. The inner taxiway will go northwest, and then curve to meet the end of the "former" 4L-22R runway. The outer taxiway will take the same course, and meet up at a proposed taxiway as designed during the O'Hare modernization program. Now terminals 1 and 2 can expand.

Terminal 1
The following changes happen here:
  • There is enough apron space to create another through-taxiway system of the same size between concourses B and C to place on the west end of C. These taxiways are 400ft wide, allowing 2x200ft taxiways.
  • There is enough space to create a new concourse D. This will house several jumbo jets. I estimate you can get 18+ planes at this concourse.
  • Concourse C loses its jumbo jets in the middle to accommodate the new taxiways. Maybe some smaller planes can fit in that space.
  • Concourse C can extend north some more to create more gates.
  • Concourse D would link up to concourse C via tunnel. D is now distant from B, so you may need a tram system to carry people faster. Concourse C may want a northern tunnel to go to B.
  • The RJ's in concourse F move to concourse B (see Terminal 2 plans). This makes some passengers who use RJs to go quicker from curb to plane. Now United is all in one terminal.
  • (Optional) If Concourse B is used primarily for RJs, you may be able to shrink the apron to allow expansion of the terminal facility and baggage area by 25-50ft. I presume the terminal building needs to expand at the ends to allow a couple more baggage carousels.

Terminal 2
The following changes here:
  • The taxiway change allows concourse E to extend further. I tried to maximize the apron space, and created another "Y". The outsides of the "Y" have 200ft aprons (standard), and the inner "Y" has a 150ft apron, usable for Delta Connection's RJs.
  • In between concourses E and F will be straight 150ft taxiways as opposed to the angular taxiways.
  • Concourse E gets 10+ new gates. This is enough to move Jet Blue, Frontier, Spirit, and maybe another carrier to concourse E. Now terminal 2 is used for all "other" airlines. Concourse L frees up for American to use.
  • The taxiways between concourses F and G can really only allow RJs or very small mainline aircraft. So, you really can't use concourse F for anything other than RJs. I propose that American can move many of its RJs (not in G) to F. This now frees up other gates for American to reconfigure for mainline or jumbo jets (jumbo only applies at the extremities of H, K, and L)

Takeaways:
  • If you look at the latest proposal from the city where they add a new concourse west of runway 14-32, you'll see that they keep the core intact, but don't address how the facilities will handle the new remote concourses. My guess is that the airport doesn't want to undertake a radical change away from the core infrastructure as that would be too costly. I like my proposal as it keeps the core intact, but just adds on.
  • United and American get large increases in gate expansion for both airlines. Theoretically, American gets more gates, but both may get the same apron space.
    • American gets 5 gates at L (airline moves), plus 5 gates currently being built. American also gets 20+ gates at concourse F, for a total of 30 gates. American may reconfigure some gates to handle larger planes, which may mean a loss of gates at some concourses.
    • United gets 20-22 new gates at concourse D, plus 5-8 gates in C expansion for about 30 gates. United will have to manipulate its gates to move the RJs, and the jumbo gates at C are changed to handle smaller planes.
  • United gets a nice new concourse, concourse D. They will have to solve the increase in passenger traffic and security flow in the terminal.
  • American may not exclusively like the idea that concourse D and E are new, whereas their facilities still look old. It is possible that the modernization program will redo all of Terminal 2, at a large expense, so that American gets a new concourse F.
  • American will need to start a shuttle bus service from concourse F to its other concourses.
  • All the other airlines are consolidated at Terminal 2.
  • I couldn't figure out a way to make an international customs terminal at Terminal 2. I suppose you can reconfigure the Concourse E extension to handle jumbo jets, but you do so at the expense of apron space, which takes away opportunities to add gates for other airlines.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2112  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 2:03 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,873
She is at again!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/...ticket-london/

She is at again! Serial stowaway arrested again. She sneak at TSA checkpoint without ticket & passport and then she sneak onto British Airways flight. She was hiding in the lavatory and then she got in the seat after the plane is takeoff. She flies to London. The cabin crew who realized her that she didn't have a ticket. She had no passport. British customs had sent her back to Chicago. They put her on next flight out.

She was banned ORD, MDW, Greyhound bus and Amtrak, as well. Can't you guys believe this? Why does she doing it? She didn't listen from the judge. She was supposed to stay at mental health for 2 years on her probation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2113  
Old Posted Today, 1:19 PM
Dracmus's Avatar
Dracmus Dracmus is online now
...
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 87
Ada Quonsett at it again? Mel Bakersfield and Tanya Livingston had to deal with her as well. (If you are old enough you should be able to figure out what movie I am referencing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/...ticket-london/

She is at again! Serial stowaway arrested again. She sneak at TSA checkpoint without ticket & passport and then she sneak onto British Airways flight. She was hiding in the lavatory and then she got in the seat after the plane is takeoff. She flies to London. The cabin crew who realized her that she didn't have a ticket. She had no passport. British customs had sent her back to Chicago. They put her on next flight out.

She was banned ORD, MDW, Greyhound bus and Amtrak, as well. Can't you guys believe this? Why does she doing it? She didn't listen from the judge. She was supposed to stay at mental health for 2 years on her probation.
__________________
"Back off man...I'm a scientist."

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:57 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.