That's a huge extension - is the idea to provide frontage for some specific uses along either side of the extended road? That NE corner of the airfield looks totally underused and has great potential.

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

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

May they make no little plans.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...ationalai.html

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

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

---

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

RFQ for New Economy Parking Structure @ O'Hare (*PDF*)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are additional details related to the project description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residents battle to keep land state wants for south suburban airport (Chicago Tribune
 

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


http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...6/54661091.jpg
Vivian and Willis Bramstaedt live on land their family has farmed in Beecher for half a century. The state wants part of the land to build an airport. (David Pierini, Chicago Tribune / June 30, 2010)


By Joel Hood, Tribune reporter
June 30, 2010


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

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

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

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

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

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...,5454455.story

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

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

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...010/chi015.jpg

Frustrations...
 

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

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

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

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

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

It's all about THE HUB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although according to Wikipedia ORD is seeing some growth this year and has passed LHR again for 2010 to date.

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

I don't see how that is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.oneworld.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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