This is not as big a deal as they make it out to be. They will only get a couple of gates and add a few flights. By the way, AA/Eagle are adding flights and so is United/UA express. O'hare will have the most passenger traffic it has had in many years starting in April.

Virgin starts with 3 SFO-ORD flights so United responds by adding 5 more to the 11 daily flights they already have. It's fun to watch this stuff. Fares are gonna plummet on that route.

:previous: Dammit.....I just spent a small fortune for a ticket from O'Hare to San Fran.

Sounds Promising?

Airlines and City agree to runway completion: Crains.

Looks like they'll build 10R-28L at the far south end. That necessarily includes the relocation of Irving Park Road and the UP rail line, which essentially means that the airfield will grow to its ultimate size, even if they don't add more runways inside.

They've already extended 10L-28R, and I believe they will build the remaining (middle) half of 10C-28C, since it's already started. The south airfield will be built-out as per the OMP plan; no losses there.

What we don't get is 9C-27C, or the extension of 9R-27L.

All in all, that's still two more runways than O'Hare currently has. Plus, the city doesn't lose either of the two diagonal runways that were slated for closure.

Pre-OMP
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/306...0606mngapt.jpg

Daley Compromise
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9475/compromise.jpg


OMP Master Plan
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9...0606mngapt.jpg


OMP Master Plan

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...-deal/147616/1

Compromise allows Chicago O'Hare expansion to proceed \
By Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAY



Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAY

A deal has been reached that gives Chicago the green light for additional expansion at O'Hare International Airport, The Associated Press reports.

That deal comes as city and federal officials reached a deal today with American and United, airlines that combine for more than 80% of O'Hare's traffic.

The Chicago Tribune calls the effort a "breakthrough agreement" that Mayor Richard Daley "desperately sought to keep alive the expansion of O'Hare International Airport."

Bloomberg News says "the agreement will allow work to begin on a new runway and other airfield improvements, preventing an escalation of flight delays at O'Hare, according to a statement today by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the airlines and the U.S. Transportation Department. It is the largest airfield modernization program in the U.S., federal officials said."

The deal ends an impasse that boiled over in January,...


...

The deal with the airlines allows the city to push ahead on $1.17 billion in related projects, while deferring the terms and timing of the remaining $2.23 billion in projects that had been part of this phase of expansion. The deal stipulates that the parties must negotiate details of the deferred portion no later than March 2013.

The Wall Street Journal provides specifics, writing:

...

The first phase of the O'Hare expansion, parts of which remain under construction, includes two new runways, a runway extension and a new air-traffic-control tower. The second phase, which will get started with funding agreed Monday, will allow the city to begin work on an additional south runway as well as other airfield improvements.

...
"eight modern runways" once the latest phase is complete, the Journal adds.


...

The Tribune writes that when "asked what altered the airlines' hardline position that more O'Hare runways would not be needed for many years," Jeff Smisek nodded toward DOT Secretary Ray LaHood.

He "helped change my mind," Smisek said, according to the Tribune.

Tipping his hat to O'Hare's role within the national aviation system, LaHood says in a statement that "making improvements to O'Hare will not only reduce flight delays and improve service for air passengers across America, it will ensure one of our busiest airports continues to thrive economically in the future."

Is western access still possible?

It's about time clouted something out of D.C.

Sure. Nothing is preventing the future construction of western access, either as a transportation center or a full-fledged air terminal. The airlines just won't pay for it - nor will they agree to increased ticket taxes to fund it.

The Elgin-O'Hare-West Bypass project is run by IDOT, and the state/federal gov't will fund it, probably in conjunction with tolls. It's not financially connected to the city's O'Hare project, and it won't connect into the airport unless the city can find its own money for the western terminal.

There is a transit component to this expressway (BRT lanes and median platforms) but it's pretty speculative at this point, and it won't be built in the first phase. (Pace will most likely provide interim bus service on the corridor to build ridership).

Hmm…I’d thought ensuring western access was dependent on building a connection when the runways were being moved—now that it’s not happening will western access simply be much more expensive to get done?

Oh, I see... Runway 14R-32L (the diagonal one) would still need to be relocated if you wanted to reconfigure the airport to resemble Atlanta or Orlando.

That doesn't rule out a western terminal, though. (I think) the only sticking point is for transfers from the east side to the west side, since baggage tractors and shuttle buses can't cross an active runway. You'd need some sort of underground system for baggage, one for passengers, and then at least one or two road underpasses for other vehicles.

This tells you a lot of what people need to realize about the legacy carriers claims of how flight demand didn't warrant continued expansion of O'Hare. Actually, demand for seats is rebounding (I don't have at my fingers, but I'm sure up-to-date year-over-year passenger numbers would confirm). However, because of the legacies' struggling business models, the planes are still parked in the California and Arizona deserts. It's kind of a ridiculous circular argument by the legacies - flight traffice increases are being stymied by their business decision to keep the capacity parked in the desert - not by stagnant growth in demand for seats from the travelling public, so they argue there's no need for further expansion. Again, as evidenced by the epic, long struggle Virgin America had to even enter the airport and start off with a very modest presence with service to two cities, United and American have far too large an impact on overall capacity and competition-supression at O'Hare.

Also, on this week's agreement: This is just redefining what this next phase of O'Hare expansion is.........my understanding is that all parties go back to the table in 2013 to decide what comes next at that point. Hopefully by then, even the legacies' influence in keeping capacity and competition down will be weakened, and along with a healthy economy, it will be clear to all that all of OMP must be finished, including the Western Terminal...

Thanks, Ardecilia, for posting those maps! I've been searching the newspapers (Tribune, Sun-Times, Crains, and even the STL Post-Dispatch) for a map in their stories, and they've posted none -- even though it would seem the most obvious way to illustrate the expansion/compromise. Maybe maps have been in the print editions, but otherwise this is the first time I've finally been able to visualize exactly what happened yesterday.

Looking at these pix, it seems like Mayor Daley was able to accomplish ~3/4's of what he aspired for 10 years ago when he announced the audacious modernization plan. Does that sound about right?

I think the key to the Western Terminal is to convince United or American to move into it. More likely to be United but either way it would be a tough sell. T1 isn't exactly in bad shape and United doesn't really need more gates. American has been downsizing ORD quite a bit and isn't in as good of financial shape as United. And building a massive new terminal means there will be a ton of unused gates in the old terminals, which United and American won't want to see go into the hands of LCCs. Perhaps demolishing and rebuilding T2 at a later date (which needs to be done regardless) is one way to get them on board.

It would certainly be nice though if the western terminal was a state of the art terminal for the new worlds largest airline - United. Akin to the McNamara terminal in Detroit but larger. Maybe sometime in the next decade or two.

I guess I asked a very timely question above:

Airports Council International this morning apparently released estimates of 2010 passenger traffic at airports around the globe. O'Hare increased 3.3% over 2009......not fantastic for sure, but at least moving in the right direction, and much better than Atlanta and Heathrow....

^ What's the situation like for Atlanta and Heathrow?

Atlanta grew 1.4% and Heathrow declined about the same.

There is still no reason to build the western terminal, despite what we may want. I don't have the numbers handy, but as I recall, the frontage space that the western terminal provides would be less than what UA and Star Alliance are taking right now, but more space than AA. Even if UA or AA moved there, you open up a ton of gates for competition. Given that UA and AA are basically paying more fees for runway construction, I'm not sure why they would want more competition at ORD.

I am rather surprised that they didn't extend 9R-27L. That should not have impacted any of the maintenance areas, and would allow a longer runway for takeoff and landing of large aircraft. In this scenario, the only other part to be built would be the 9C-27C runway, as well as the new airline maintenance areas.

A western terminal is definitely more of an ground-transport accessibility issue than anything else—Elgin-O’Hare and its transit component both assume some sort of connection there, and most of the (admittedly very conceptual) Illinois HSR airport links I’ve seen favored western over eastern access.

This (or the same thing regarding T3) is the cleverest argument, and strategy, for a western terminal that I've heard. There would be at least a couple-year span before aggregate gate count were increased, and many more years if there weren't immediate funding for it, so UA/AA might be placated by this. Would there be counter-arguments that T2 can be renovated (while in use) for another half-century? Or is it truly too narrow, too long, too devoid of amenities?

Didn't T2 just receive a major renovation of its arrival/departure/security areas? Helmut Jahn's massive canopy, and the star-studded panels, are quite beautiful.

Why would American want to tear down a terminal that works fine functionally, and is not unattractive, for a brand-new one on the far side of the airport that would require a costly new underground train?

All of O'hare's terminals are too long, narrow and lacking amenities by international standards. Chicago deserves a modern terminal design. It is hardly an attractive transfer hub for Europeans or Asians given the palaces they are used to.

Yeah, but European and Asian countries can make money appear out of thin air to build vast, impressive pieces of infrastructure. The US doesn't have the money, which is why we need the airlines' permission - so we can milk the passengers for money.

The recent, costly renovations to T2 and T3 have made them beautiful, unified, and compatible with modern airport security procedures, extending their lifespan considerably.

The best-case scenario would be for the city to find a different funding source and begin construction on T3 without the use of ticket taxes, and then open it up to smaller airlines.

Short of that, I want the city to build a transport hub on the site of T3, without any gates. Passengers could arrive at the transport hub via train or bus, check in at a small set of counters, go through security, and then board an underground people-mover to T1, T2, T3, and T5. There would be two tunnels drilled under the airfield: one for a Blue Line extension and one for the people-move - baggage transfer could probably be tucked into one of the other two tunnels.

The airlines might be willing to fund this if the city pledged not to add gates.

It's all priorities. The US could have the money for these things if the will was there. Unfortunately, most Americans care little for aesthetic concerns and are happy with a functional practical terminal as long as it works. At least LAX's new terminal renovation will be very nice.

The problem with the way most american terminals have been designed in the recent past is this:

The main terminal area is usually an afterthought for passengers. The building is usually too small for shopping, amenities, etc. It is just ticketing then gate. A cattle transport way of thinking. Passengers check in, then directly to a boring gate area which is usually too small to allow for much other than a few shops and gate space. The airside area needs to be larger in airports, to allow more space and prevent concourse crowding. If you look at even old Euro terminals, they are usually deep and wide to allow for departure lounges, while US terminals are usually pencil thin.

The concourses are too small and cramped overall, however there are some exceptions.

The US is lucky it isn't a small country like Thailand or Singapore vying to attract transfer passengers, because with this approach they'd never get any business at all!

Nice…chicago airport look crazy…The airport expansion is a good thing.

...

Is there any truely redeeming value of having a Western terminal other then appeasing the original West suburban cynics who primarily just wanted to shave 5-10 minutes off their travel time getting to the airport by having a Western access terminal? Even that is shortsighted given that it isn't as if the east terminals will not supply the vast majority of flights.

There’s a lot of ambition for the Elgin-O’Hare corridor—I think they just want the full trifecta of road, rail and air more than anything else. It’s a big infrastructure project that, when completed, could be a big selling point for the communities and the western terminal also has a lot of peripheral transportation projects associated with it. There’s probably a lot of optimistic thinking about induced demand there, though, and Schwieterman’s right that the terminal isn’t a prerequisite for growth.

I’ve heard (by ear) that the O’Hare Ring Road’s moving along, which should eventually help connect Elgin-O’Hare with the east side and maybe allay some of DuPage’s concerns about the lack of western access.

How many pax per year can the current gates take? I guess this means that United doesn't have huge ambitions to expand O'Hare into a larger operation once they max out their terminal.

If I were United, I'd think about how a beautiful new terminal would help attract new transfer pax from other hubs. I'd look into turning the terminal into a shopping mall like European airports do. I'd use the revenue from transiting pax from shops and restaurants to basically pay back the cost of the terminal. However, United now has IAH + EWR to focus on. I think this approach works better in a country where an airline has only 1 or 2 major hubs which is a shame for us pax.

No offense, but nobody at any airline would care about this.

Actually, that's not true. I'm sure terminal experience is very important to airline's. Look at Delta at JFK. They're awful terminal has not helped them there at all, and I'm sure many people avoid delta due to their aging pile of crap.

A terminal designed with retail in mind could practically help pay for itself. A nice quality terminal is important for the airline's ability to attract premium fliers and its overall image. You may even be able to lure passengers from other hubs if the experience was far superior. It may even help draw people that otherwise would fly for with other airlines. It also would be a massive PR boost for Chicago. An airport is the first impression that potential investors get when entering from abroad. Right now, O'hare has average looking terminals. Why do you think British Airways & BAA designed such a great terminal in Heathrow. They did to retain their competitiveness against other airlines and airports in Europe and Asia, as well as boost retail sales from more shopping space that go to help pay for the terminal design. They also got a PR boost for London in the process, as people won't come into the city saying 'what a dump', how could such a great city have such a ugly airport terminal!

How often are you expecting airlines to invest in massive new flagship terminals by named star architects? Every 15-20 years? United built the excellent Terminal 1 less than 25 years ago. Maybe in another 15-20 years United would consider a brand new terminal but certainly not before then... hence the point of United fighting so hard against having a new terminal built right now.

Yes, I see your point. The problem is terminal 1 is lacking amenities and was not built for the post 9/11 era. There isn't enough room in there for all those things.

I don't even know if United wants to grow at O'Hare. Seems to me like Terminal 1 will be enough capacity for them for many years. I guess I spoke too soon. United should really concentrate on Dulles anyway, an abomination of a concourse.

I would expect American to agree to a terminal rebuild or a completely new terminal at O'Hare before United. But American is going to have some pretty hefty financial obligations with the planned renovations at three of the original terminals at DFW.

My guess is that UA, AA, and foreign carriers will agree to the proposed eastern expansion of T5 though, and perhaps building FIS facilities into existing T1 and T3.

^^ FIS?

Like all except the very newest terminals, O'Hare's T1 wasn't built with TSA screenings in mind. It was, however, built in an era when people had to check in in person, which generated long lines.

United can easily move the check-in counters forward, allowing for more room behind them for security. Jahn's design is an open floorplan, so the check-in counters are just glorified kiosks anyway.

SCB recently designed a small addition to T1 to accommodate security (the little wedge-shaped box in the center). It works pretty well.

http://www.scb.com/images/project/96/1.jpg
SCB

^^ FIS: Federal Inspection Services. In other words, immigration and customs.

Never knew who did that, but it's been there for a couple years now. It is great to see that pockets of expansion are doable elegantly on T1, seeing as how it is simply too cramped for 21st century travel.

It looks as though there is plenty of space to do this along the roadway side of Concourse B, at its ends. They could seriously add some food, shopping, lounge, or other services, and thereby alleviate the holdroom crowding on its western side. I know it would cost money, but it would be a very simple structure and could bring in a lot of rent. Is UA's budget the only thing that would prevent this, or is there some aviation (or city) related reason regarding these quasi-blank spaces?

Concourse C is way more hemmed in, but what about a 2nd level near its ends?

A new ORD express rail site now open......

....

It occurred to me today that the Altenheim Subdivision could be used for an express O'Hare line. It has little-used, it's 2 tracks or more at all points, and it would get you from California and Roosevelt all the way to Franklin Park without encountering any real freight traffic. Plus, it's almost entirely grade-separated except for a few crossings in River Forest and Melrose Park (10, by my count, and some could be closed off).

From California and Roosevelt, it could either go north to the Metra yard and then east into Union/Ogilvie via the UP-W or MD tracks, or it could go south and then enter Union via the BNSF. On the O'Hare end, the exact alignment would depend on whether you're running to the existing O'Hare Transfer site or to a new station by the terminals.

The advantage of this alignment is pretty strong. You could have an intermediate station at Forest Park with a transfer to the Blue Line... such a station would also be easily accessible from the Eisenhower.

Some pretty heavy hitters on the committee:

Committee

Chair - Lester Crown
Chairman, Henry Crown and Company

Rosemarie S. Andolino
Commissioner, Chicago Department of Aviation

John Gates
Chairman and CEO, PortaeCo

R. Eden Martin
President, The Civic Committee

Jerry Roper
CEO, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

Sam Skinner
Of Counsel, Greenberg-Trauig

Glenn Tilton
Chairman, President and CEO, UAL Corporation

Tom Villanova
President, Chicago and Cook County Building Trades Council

John Rogers
Chairman and CEO, Ariel Investments LLC

Jorge Perez
Executive Director, HACIA

Beth Doria
Executive Director, Federation of Women Contractors

Terry Peterson
Chairman, CTA
VP Governmental Affairs, Rush University Medical Center

Jorge Ramirez
President, Chicago Federation of Labor

Ty Fahner
Partner, Mayer Brown

James Bell
President and CFO, Boeing

Byron Trott
CEO, BDT Capital Partners

Rita Athas
President, World Business Chicago

Looks like the same people that were behind Chicago 2016. Does that tell you anything?

Man, I'll feel so much better when Daley stops tilting at windmills, and Rahmbo can get down to the real work of making the city better. Rahm may not succeed, but at least he's not off in la-la land.

If this were to happen, it could set an example for other cities like cough NYC cough. Most respected cities of high standing around the world have decent rail to airports, and many have express rail. The USA is lacking in anything like this. Really, if you build something that is comfortable to ride, quick, easy to store luggage, and goes to a central location, you are going to take many cars off the airport road which will benefit everyone.

Daly is my kind of mayor, because Irish don't take no crap. I love his ideas. He's a real mayor, someone who actually wants to accomplish physical projects in the city, unlike most mayors cough managers cough. Really, NYC needs this kind of mayor. A transit master who can use his strong voice to get this done in this idiotic transit-hating country of ours. Bloomberg is far too nice and logical to get anything controversial through.

Yeah, which is why the nice-guy Bloomberg failed to get construction started on East Side Access, the Second Avenue Subway, the 7 extension, the Fulton Street Transit Center, the WTC transit center, etc, etc...

Chicago is already ahead of New York - we have direct one-seat ride service from our downtown to both major airports... unlike New York where getting to any airport requires a transfer from the subway to a bus, AirTrain, or NJTransit. Getting people to the airport is important, but it's much less important than many other issues in Chicago, like rebuilding the northern stretch of the Red Line or reconfiguring the freight rail network, or building a decent downtown rail terminal for intercity and high-speed trains, or building a rapid transit line along the lakefront.

Or he’s pursuing potentially unnecessary or comparatively low-impact vanity projects while dropping the ball on ordinary commuters (such as letting the express buses get cut during union negotiations last year) and routine, if unglamorous, maintenance.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/...mni/kerwin.htm

Thomas Kerwin '07 -Taking a firm approach to 'sustainable, vibrant' architecture
By Barbara Rose

...The year-old firm, with about 45 design professionals, is already winning work. BKL is partnering with Magellan on a 50-story tower, scheduled to break ground in May on East Wacker Drive in Chicago. Among BKL's other projects are the interior renovation of O'Hare International Airport's Terminal 5, China Aviation's headquarters in Beijing and a 70-story hotel and residential tower in Shaoxing, China.

Gary airport authority agrees to move 3 rail projects to expand main runway
 

Gary airport authority agrees to move 3 rail projects to expand main runway

April 26, 2011
Chicago Tribune

"GARY, Ind. (AP) — Gary has a deal to expand its airport.

The Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority unanimously voted Monday to relocate three railroad projects that would make way for the airport to expand. The projects blocked the expansion of the airport's main runway.

The $128 million project will allow most passenger airliners and larger cargo planes to land at the airport by expanding the runway from 7,000 feet to nearly 9,000 feet..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1156063.story

I'll believe it when I see the EJ&E move... they've been talking about it for years.

...More in link

Virgin American inaugural flight was yesterday
 

Virgin Airlines -> Virgin Express Train -> Virgin Hotel @ Block 37

Richard Branson: Make it happen

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/...64fb54cdfa.jpg
Untitled by Brooks was here, on Flickr

... you thought up those ideas ... or did he say something about this?

No, but Virgin was looking for hotel sites in the Loop, and Block 37 needs a hotel tenant. After that, it's only natural that Virgin might look into rail service, especially since they already operate trains in the UK.

Unfortunately, any train going into Block 37 would have to use the slow Blue Line to get to O'Hare, either sitting behind local trains or forcing all of us local stiffs to wait on sidings as the global-city elite pass us by.

A Virgin train from O'Hare into Union Station would be better, and more in line with Virgin's UK expertise... Branson could still build his hotel above the platforms, on the Reschke-controlled site between Lake and Randolph, or on the proposed site for that Japanese hotel across from Union Station.