Quote:
Really I would just prefer that they completely destroy all of the suburbs adjacent to Ohare and make it really really big with like 16 runways in each direction... Also, they need to upgrade Amtrak Hiawatha to high-speed which would make MKE equally as close to downtown as O'hare. Already it only takes about 80 minutes to get to Union Station from Milwaukee Mitchell. If they up the speed from 75 to 90, that drops to just over an hour (50 min). If they up to to 115 then its under an hour, which is about how far Ohare is from Downtown Chicago by El on a good day. 115 isn't even that far fetched, they say that its possible with the current setup, they just need to do a few more grade separation and upgrade the switches or something. It sounds far cheaper than building Chicago a new Airport. Then again that will never happen because the state wants a new airport where they can charge ticket taxes and the likes... |
While Peotone seems like a completely half-baked idea right now, it may not be so in 25-50 years. If we map out the course of sprawl, even assuming the outward growth rates will slow, Will, Kendall, and Kanakee will be completely filled in in 2 decades. We could see as many as 1 million new residents in that part of the state alone. Keep in mind that Chicagoland is expected to gain a total of 2 million additional residents by 2030 (http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/n...se_4-4-07.asp). There's no place to really go but south and southwest. And the growth is easily enough to support an additional airport. Obviously O'Hare expansion is still crucial and Peotone can never replace the importance of O'Hare, but Peotone may actually be viable if the growth projections are accurate.
|
1 million of that 2 million new residents could easily be accommodated in Chicago city limits if there was a major commitment by the city to grow its population. Washington DC did this, vowing to add 100,000 residents by some date, I can't remember maybe 2020.
|
^ DC has the demand to add as many as it wishes because of the jobs in the city center. There's simply a shortage of housing in the city, so if it can alleviate some of the pent up demand, it can easily add more people. Unlike DC, too high of a percentage of job additions in Chicagoland are still in the suburbs. Unless the CBD is able to attract at least another 150,000 jobs and effectively grow by 40-50%, I really don't see Chicago growing past 3.1 or 3.2 million. A high percentage of people seem to be attracted to proximity of work regardless of the physical environment they actually live in (see Texas, sunbelts). So whether it's Peotone, Gary, or some other S/SW location, we will need something. And since this is Illinois, it won't be Gary.
|
Quote:
FAA head says Chicago could need new airport CHICAGO - A new airport or vast expansion of one of Chicago's existing airports will be necessary to keep pace with booming demand for air travel in the coming decades, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday. That's in addition to an ongoing $15 billion expansion of O'Hare International Airport pushed through by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Robert Sturgell, the FAA's acting administrator, told The Associated Press. "Mayor Daley has done a great job in transforming Chicago with a plan, but they need another airport as well," said Sturgell, who didn't immediately offer details on where a new airport could be built in the nation's third largest city. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...0,630277.story |
Quote:
But what woudl really help the city is to do whatever it can to encourage non-downtown-types of companies to locate in the neighborhoods. There are plenty of job categories that aren't great fits for a CBD, and they're just as important as any others when it comes to keep a city healthy and attractive. And, perhaps most importantly, Chicago needs to be seen as a place where you can raise a family. Without families, it's only going to be able to grow so much. I think it's good for a city's soul to have kids grow up in the actual city. |
Quote:
If the State of Illinois was smart, they'd do two things to help matters: 1) support the airport in Rockford, to draw from Madison, and 2) Support high(er) speed rail between Chicago and Minneapolis and possibly St. Louis, Indy and Detroit. Doing that will reduce the pressure on our airports for regional travel, and possibly even reduce some auto travel, too. Take-offs and landings for direct flights between Minneapolis, Detroit, Indy or St. Louis and Chicago account for almost 10% of all O'Hare traffic, and 3% of Midway traffic. That's not a lot, but that's just commercial traffic - it could theoretically also cut into non-commercial traffic. Planned appropriately, you could have airport express from the Loop to O'Hare on to Mitchen in Wilwaukee and then MSP and downtown Minn. |
I was actually look at Live Maps a week ago flying over Kenosha and I saw that the Kenosha airport is right next to the Amtrak line and the interstate 94. I would put it right behind Gary and ahead of Peotone and Rockford in terms logistical practicability to become a third airport.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...____&encType=1 |
^ The Kenosha Metra stop is near the lakefront a good 5 miles from I-94 and the airport. Is the Amtrak stop farther west? Also, O'Hare and Mitchell are just too close to make Kenosha a viable option. Mitchell is only 30 miles away. Plus the SW is growing at a much faster rate than the fairly mature suburbs along the union pacific north line. We may not like it, but there will be an airport in Peotone by 2030. The land has already been purchased and there's just way too much slush for the State to pass up.
|
Quote:
While Will county is growing prodigiously Lake County is still a fast growing county as well I think. Plus, it can a pain in the arsse for wealthy northern burbs to get to O'Hare where a Kenosha airport could look more attractive. Between Midway and/or Gary I don't know how much there would be for a Peotone to really attract. |
It would be way easier to use Mitchell Int'l up in Milwaukee as a third airport for Chicagoland, versus the Kenosha Regional Airport. The infrastructure is pretty much already there (large terminals and parking garages, runways/concourses/hangars capable of handling larger aircraft), whereas in Kenosha, much of that would have to be built from the ground up.
There are also long-term plans at Mitchell that include adding a new runway and expanding the existing terminals in the coming decade. Both of those projects could surely accommodate air traffic transfered from some of Chicago's overburdened airports. Mitchell also is right off I-94, just a little bit further north of Kenosha. Mitchell is also right on the Amtrak line with an airport station already in place serving the Hiawathas (Chicago-Milwaukee) and Empire Builders (Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-Seattle), whereas the Kenosha Airport has no station at all. In terms of advertising, Mitchell began marketing itself as "Chicago's Third Airport" a few years ago, with a particular focus on Chicagoland's northern mass of suburbs. While it's just an advertising slogan for Mitchell, it seems to make a great deal of sense, surely moreso than Rockford or Kenosha at least. |
Honestly , air travel will be more restrictive and less available as fuel prices grow.... i think chi town air capacity after o'hare expansion will be enough.
|
^ Not according to the head of the FAA.
|
Quote:
But I also think that the U.S. would benefit from regional investments in high-speed rail. |
Quote:
|
So the big day is Thursday! First new ORD runway in practically 4 decades will be dedicated. I assume that sexy new control tower also will be up and running.
|
Quote:
|
Nov 16
|
Why does everything cost so much more in Chicago? (I know, I know). $65 million for a new tower is very high. IND's new tower, the third largest in the country, was like $38 million, and the mid-30's is what I've seen elsewhere as well.
|
Quote:
Also, I don't think past development patterns can sustain themselves too far into the future. Architecture and land use policy has been changing quite drastically in recent years. If Illinois were to make Peotone a reality, it would be a very regressive state on land use. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.