I would be shocked to see T-4 ever built. I think it's more likely the city could build T-6 to get a bunch more international space while freeing up some room in T-5 for domestic operators who want to get into ORD. The airlines really hate the idea of the western terminal (which isn't needed yet anyway) so they might buy some time and agree to have T-6 built....or at least agree not kick up a fuss if they city bonds it out instead.

Otherwise incremental upgrades to the other terminals seem to be the order of the day (other than the airfield upgrades happening under OMP). If the rest of the airport can get the treatment T-5 is getting that would be great.

And also, JFK, LAX, & YYZ as well.

Building a sterile connection between T3 and T5 would do more to opening up the airport than anything else. The next thing I would do is rebuild T2 with customs facilities that both UA and AA can use.

Absolutely not! There is no way to connection from T3 to T5. Because it was too far away from there. It's too extremely expensive. Instead, they have to take a tram from entire T3 to T5.

The problem is having to exit and then re-enter the secured areas in order to connect to a T5 flight....which can take far too long. It is poorly designed. At minimum, the airport could offer a bus shuttle between post-security gates between the two terminals. (Actually I believe British Airways already offers this service for its travelers)

I also agree that a new T2 terminal with customs would be super.

What are you talking about? All it would take is a pedestrian tunnel between Concourse K and the center of Terminal 5 similar to the one that connects Concourses B and C in Terminal 1. American and One World carriers could then use Terminal 5 for international operations, UA and Star Alliance carriers would use a retrofitted or rebuilt Terminal 2 with customs, and a new Terminal 6 could be built as an attachment to existing Terminal 5 for non-aligned carriers.

^ The idea of a sterile connection is great, but would ORD need to have some kind of control for domestic passengers desiring to enter the international departures concourse? Of course I'm aware there is free intermixing of international departing, domestic departing, and domestic arriving passengers in the T1 concourse, but the T1 international flights are only with a very limited number of carriers (UA, NH, and LH only I think) and go only to certain specific major foreign cities; I believe the US gov't is not worried about doing airtight passport checks of who is leaving the country this way because it has agreements with those airports (countries) or at least has confirmed that those airports have reliable immigration procedures. In the case of T5, however, where all other foreign carriers are lumped together, the gov't may need to be more strict about watching who is leaving to go to, say, Bogota, Kingston, Lagos, or Tashkent. (I confess my experience in international departures from US airports besides ORD is limited pretty much to just alliance and codeshare departures, and I don't know how this works at LAX, ATL, etc.)

So if there has to be some kind of immigration check where sterile tunnel users walk into T5, it may begin to defeat the time savings of having a sterile tunnel in the first place, compared to the existing landside tram route.

In any event, a T3-T5 tunnel would be extremely expensive, considering it would go under heavily used tarmac and taxiway arteries where drainage and other subterranean utilities may also run, and then would need to run underneath/through much of T5 in order to emerge at the far side of T5 where intl arrivals have cleared customs. All of that for limited benefit: (1) the volume of passengers making this sterile trek would be only a fraction of the volume using the similarly-sized T1 tunnel, and (2) it's a massive capital outlay by the City that adds no new gates and no new revenue-generating facilities.

I think he's envisioning a conversion of Concourse K to international, whereupon the city would build a new customs check at that end. This would enable international passengers from T5 to transfer anywhere within the airport without leaving security, although a T5-T1 connection is still pretty shitty on foot.

A large airport like ORD should really have a secureside tram as well; the new one at IAD is pretty impressive and a good example. The western terminal plans always called for an underground tram but that is shelved, for the moment.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chicag...180500330.html

The sterile connection would be to the sterile, post-security departures level of T5. It means connecting traffic using AA or UA could then fly internationally on carriers that depart from T5 without having to exit T1 or T3 and ride the tram to T5 and clear security again. The US does not have immigration checks for leaving the country the same way most other countries do. International flights depart from many of the same gates that domestic flights depart from at most, if not all major US airports.

Here's an example of the problem. I recently flew from Charlotte to Zurich via ORD. After arriving in UA's C terminal, I had to make my way through the underground walkways to B, exit the secured area, take the ridiculously slow ATS, then go through the very lengthy security line at T-5. I had over 2 hours to connect to my Swiss flight and barely made it - and felt stressed the entire time. Pray that Air India is not departing at the same time as your flight.

This is just one of the reasons travelers to not favor connecting in Chicago.

Right now O'hare has 747 8 flights operating for the following air cargo operators:

Atlas Air
British Aircargo
Cathay Pacific
Cargolux
Nippon Cargo Airlines
Korean Air Cargo

They do have taxiway restrictions but are still coming in daily. I think the international passenger operators prefer frequency at ORD with several flights a day rather than one A380 or 747 8.

Google has updated its maps. Ongoing construction of new runway 10C/28C coming along nicely.

More T5 updates:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/8...6a07191e_b.jpg
Terminal improvements at T5 by flyt5, on Flickr

Tortas Frontera
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8266/8...1b2958d2_b.jpg
Tortas Frontera at T5 by flyt5, on Flickr

Big Bowl
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3760/8...87fb0cab_b.jpg
O'Hare T5 Big Bowl by flyt5, on Flickr

Vosges
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3774/8...3b61ea3e_b.jpg
Vosges Haut-Chocolat at T5 by flyt5, on Flickr

CONRAC/Intermodal Center

I'm frustrated that there's no direct Metra connection, but there will be a path connecting the existing Metra station to the ATS, and the garage appears to have provisions included for a much more extensive express service in the future. The TOD mention is awesome, too. Some offices and restaurants here would really help make connections pleasant here.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...2C7D9936D1.jpg

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...-130619874.jpg
src

I for one will be very excited for the ATS extension and a new Metra station that has an enclosed walkway connection. Right now it is a bus transfer that waste time and fuel.

BTW Ardecila, can you repost and resize the image? It is massive.

^ Mods, can you remove that image posted by Ardecila? No offense Ardecila, but it's huge and delaying my ability to load up this page.

Just did a quick resize of the above photo
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...2C7D9936D1.jpg

I think the picture is look much better, but not more than 1200 x 800. You have to be reduce the picture size is 800 x 600 pixels. Please don't make a big pictures again.

Would it have killed them to bring the ATS over just a bit, perhaps pulling it east around the north (Zemke Blvd., in the image the far) side of the garage? As at MDW's Orange Line station, making us transit riders walk through a parking garage ("if only you drove here, you could be home by now!") is unnecessary and frankly insulting -- especially if this is how a future Metra/NCS ORD Express service will interface with the airport.

Not sure what sort of TOD would end up there, besides airport hotels. It's not "transit oriented" enough to entice office tenants, given the poor transit service and complete lack of walking-distance amenities.