Seems to be the type of thing that supports predictions by some of a consolidation of power to bigger, more globally connected cities.

^Also underlines the need and purpose of MWHSR with the Chicago Hub.

Nomarandlee---

The two destinations will be Vancouver and Calgary (on American Eagle). This is from American's website:

"The Company will add 57 daily flights at O'Hare International Airport for a total of 487 daily departures. Customers will have access to 12 new domestic destinations and three new international destinations.
American has reaffirmed its commitment to Chicago as its primary Asia gateway and will start new service to Beijing, China in Spring 2010. Other new destinations will include mainline service to Honolulu; Anchorage, Alaska; and Vancouver, British Columbia. Eagle will offer new service to Calgary, Alberta; Allentown, Pa.; Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pa.; Charleston, W.Va.; Dayton, Ohio; Fargo, N.D.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Lexington, Ky.; Harrisburg, Pa.; and Rapid City,S.D.
In addition, another service enhancement at O'Hare will occur as Eagle deploys most of its 25 CRJ700 aircraft, which will be reconfigured to offer a First Class cabin, in the Chicago market."

This is fabulous for Chicago and ORD. Despite the continuing growth of the South, ORD rather than DFW (or other cities) will be primary. Also, although I know AA is more focused on trans-Atlantic than trans-Pacific routes, it still seems significant that the world's #2 volume carrier has chosen not to use a west coast hub, but rather ORD, as their primary Asian gateway.

The incredible range of options -- departures at various times throughout the day as well as resulting price competition -- available to business travelers heading to Asia will cement Chicago's advantages as a city for continental/global HQs.

Snapped these 2 months ago, just had time to post process and winnow out while wading in the Jury pool today.



The new tower








Shops along Irving - first time this really struck home.


A holdout


A few houses








More than you can shake a mouse at Post Apocalypse Bensionville

It's rather beautiful the way nature reclaims land so quickly.

^^^ Agreed, its amazing that humans can hold back nature's tide like we do...

if you've never read it, theres a great book called The World Without Us, which explores what would happen to the earth if humans were to simply disappear. Pretty fascinating.

There was a show on (I think) the Discovery channel about this.

The city should allow them to set up cameras. This would be a great opportunity to see it in action.

One episode of that show was actually about Chicago after people.

I believe there was nothing in that episode about O'Hare airport meaning this post is solidly off topic.

On a side note, this set of pictures is starting to make the rounds:
http://chicagoist.com/2009/09/23/in_...bensenvill.php

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...or-runway.html

Bensenville reaches deal on razing homes for runway
October 28, 2009 11:45 AM

Bensenville officials have reached a tentative agreement with Chicago that could lead to the demolition of more than 600 buildings in the path of a new O'Hare International Airport runway.

Mary Dickson, a village attorney, told DuPage County Judge Kenneth Popejoy today that the village board met in executive session Tuesday and approved a settlement with Chicago that could be finalized within the next week.

I wonder if either of the cities have considered letting house salvagers come in and dismantle the houses instead of just bulldozing them.

All the recycling would certainly give Daley something green to crow about, while attracting salvagers from around the region. Even if there wasn't time to do it for all of them, if they just did the ones with the best material for reuse, it would be a nice guesture.

I'm not sure what there is to salvage. They're not particularly historic, so there aren't any valuable decorative elements. The raw building materials MAY be re-usable, but chances are that the cladding materials won't appeal to many buyers today, and they won't be as energy-efficient as modern products. The wood framing is probably the only thing with salvage value, but it's not really that valuable either. A cool gesture would be to pulverize and store the concrete and asphalt from the demolitions to use in the sub-grade of the taxiways and service roads, and maybe even the runways if that wouldn't compromise the pavement safety (runways are probably the most carefully-engineered pavement on earth).

I'm involved with a salvage non-profit down here in New Orleans, which raises money through the sale of vintage wood framing (often cypress) to furniture or flooring manufacturers, who pay top dollar for high-quality wood that can't really be harvested anymore. Decorative elements are collected sometimes, too, but I believe they are resold to business who deal in such items.

:previous:

Any copper pipes would certainly be worth grabbing. Hmmm...... ;)

I believe you have been beaten to the punch on that one...

..

^ That headline is bs and the article is useless.. the writer quotes an unnamed airline source referring to the western access as "ill conceived".

The western access development has been planned for more than 20 years. Since when do the airlines not want the Western terminal, western access, Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and the western tri-state bypass? I do not recall any dissension from the airlines over the western access. Maybe Viva will know?

They may not want to pay for anymore development right now-in this economic climate. But when demand picks up again the industry will start complaining about O'Hare limitations. The city and Aviation dept and FAA have to plan and prepare now.

From what Ive seen on the Elgin-Ohare website, they have determined the preferred route of the E-O extension and 294 bypass. This is one of the reasons that Elk Grove Village finally gave up the fight - knowing that a bypass was not going to be put down Rte.83. (It will be on York Road instead.) http://elginohare-westbypass.org/Des...aspx?tabid=244

Anyway this kind of, half the story, non-reporting from the traditional media really gets me riled.

^^^
Realistically, for the airlines to even be around once passenger traffic picks up, they're going to need to adopt the rest of the world's attitude toward airline travel. Fewer flights, bigger planes. That will reduce the need for gates and runways, while increasing terminal traffic. At some point the US airlines have to realize that cost is more of a consideration than flight frequency. If a person or company can save money by flying, they will make it convenient for their schedule.

They need to be planning for sustained high fuel prices.

I think there are a number of negatives to building a western terminal as opposed to building newer terminals on the east side where the World Gateway Expansion was supposed to go. That is to not to say there aren't positives of a western terminal but to me it seems like a western terminals biggest selling point has been for an Elgin-O'Hare expressway to lead into and to get western suburbs on board who want more convenience

The connectivity and internal transport on the airport grounds though I would think would be much more convoluted and expensive then if there was new eastern terminals. Expanding the Blue Line and/or ATS seems like an expensive proposition to me that would be more lenghty for travlers to connect to/from the airport compared to new eastern terminals.

The airlines (UA and AA) have been very lukewarm to gate expansion for a number of years (even going back to the World Gateway Project days if I recall correctly). Part of that could be argued is they don't want the increased competition but I think a fair argument could be made they don't want to have to pass along higher fees that expansion would bring.

If the argument is that the airlines do not want to duplicate facilities then I can understand it. But the Western Access is not just for passenger convenience. The W/A along with the completion of the E-O and the bypass will facilitate the freight cargo that moves thru O'Hare. Places like Carol Stream and Woodridge, Bolingbrook and Elk Grove are meccas for freight forwarding, logistics and supply chain companies. This is a booming business in good times and a steady business in a downturn. Right now Chicago is a nationwide leader in the industry. More and more firms are locating in and around Chicago's Ohare and sw suburbs. The Western Access is needed to serve these comapnies and to keep Chicago and OHare more competitive in the industry.

On a somewhat unrelated note: why do they bother noting that the consulting contract is "no-bid"?

They're not laying pavement. Advisory businesses, like consulting, law or investment banking, are built on relationships and trust. No company has its advisers "bid" on a role - they may all come in and pitch, and from that they select the one that seems most thoughtful and helpful, but it's never, ever about how much they're going to charge for services. If there's a particular transportation consulting firm that the relevant people in City Hall have trusted for advice for many years, there's nothing surprising or wrong about using them again and again.

As someone with experience in government procurement of professional services, I can confirm that these aren't done via a low-bid process but rather via RFP, which, as 10023 says, is primarily qualification- and reputation-based, as it should be. However, contractor selection still involves an open process in which the finalists are brought in for presentations to an evaluation committee. "No-bid" suggests that the contract was awarded via "Sole Source" provisions, which is generally justified by projects involving proprietary knowledge of some sort. In a professional services context, sole source procurement is a natural fit for various technology services (wherein software code is held under copyright) and in certain instances where it is mandated by regulation, as it sometimes is for multi-stage planning processes.

Or it could just be sloppy reporting, which is the Occam's Razor answer to the question "why do they bother noting that the consulting contract is "no-bid"?"

..

^Finally.

Anyone see the RFQ (*PDF*) for the new South Air Traffic Control Tower?

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Project includes design of the South Air Traffic Control Tower (“SATCT”) and associated base building in the
southern section of O’Hare International Airport. The general basis of design for the SATCT Cab Tower Shaft and
Base Building will be the as-built condition of North Air Traffic Control Tower (“NATCT”). The OMP will provide the
selected Respondent as-built documents of NATCT for use in completing the SATCT design. The tower will be
approximately 219 feet tall to the top of tower with a 565 square foot cab and a 10,000 – 12,000 square foot base
building. Also included is site development including, utilities, drainage and parking for the Project: See Attachment A,
FAA Site Selection Report, June 5, 2009 for project site boundaries.

So, I guess this will give O'hare 4 tower. The oldest one no longer in use as a tower, then the one from about 1997, the one just completed and this newly proposed one.

Terminal 4
 

What's the status of the WGP? I see the above message regarding a study for the western terminal (which the arilines don't want), but what about Terminals 4 and 6?

Terminal 6 seems to make sense if you're going to add more international traffic.

However, the terminal 4 plan in the WGP seems rather inefficient in terms of displacing some of terminal 3, concourse L, and the plane allocation for the new terminal 4. I was looking at this more, and started to make doodles on paper. Finally I opened Photoshop, and started some drawings there. I think I have a design for terminal 4 that preserves terminal 3, and has about 18-20 planes for a terminal 4. Are conceptual designs discussed in this forum? Anyone interested?

This is supposed to be a thread about any and all things O'Hare expansion (it has sometime touched on all future Chicago metro aviation at times actually). So put forth ideas if you got 'em.

I touched on what you were saying a few weeks ago. My hunch is that West T7 is being driven more by political considerations then practical logistical ones. The only real downside I see to new east terminals would that they would require demolishing of 2-3 utility buildings. I also did some quick very basic outline on an MSN map a few weeks ago of how I envision the configuration.

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...1830706E7!2981

I created pretty big images, and didn't know that they would be this big. However, that should be easier for those who have high resolutions.

If you want to see the original WGP plan for terminal 4, click here:
http://www.users.millenicom.com/cjdu...hts_wgp_t4.jpg

Here is my proposed plan for terminal 4:
http://www.users.millenicom.com/cjdu...ghts_opt2b.jpg

Things are not on an exact scale, but here are some notes:

- The distance between concourse L and the new terminal 4 is approximately the same distance between concourse L and K.

- The distance between the peninsulas on terminal 4 is based on the proposed distance of the peninsulas of the satellite concourse for the Western Terminal. I noticed that the diagrams in WGP for the Western Terminal had somewhat smaller distances on the satellite concourse, presumably for RJ and possible NB jets. This was a breakthrough to me, as this is able to provide space specifically for RJ (and maybe NB) for the north end of proposed terminal 4.

- The tram would have to be extended and re-rounded to accommodate the new terminal 4.

- This design leaves intact Concourse L on terminal 3, so it doesn't affect ongoing air operations.

- A new taxiway bridge, A22, right before the bridges over the expressway.

- I noticed that there seems to be a maintenance road currently where the H&R building is (not sure what function that building currently has). This road continues along the expressway and ends up at Terminal 5. Changes would have this road tunnel underneath Terminal 4, and an outlet provided taxiway A22 to get back onto the airfield.

- Parts of the terminal may hang over the expressway. Generally, the expressway is on the same grade as the airfield. The passenger area of the terminal is on the 2nd story, which could be built over the expressway and leave enough clearance for trucks/busses, without modifying the expressway (that would be a major headache).

- North part of design is used for Regional jets (see above), and the south end could be used for somewhat larger planes.

Thoughts?

Not bad for a second post.

I look forward to more.

Welcome to SSP.:tup:

Thanks. I was hoping an idea like this would be used rather than the WGP plan as conceived. This would in my mind, maximize the number of aircraft possible at Terminal 4 (about 20 planes) without interfering with terminal 3.
This is possibly enough to have a "mini-hub" operation.

This makes the assumption that the current trend continues to use mainly smaller aircraft and more frequent flights. I am not sure if the future trend carries this way or not.

Also, I am not sure who would use Terminal 4. Most other airlines have alliances which eliminate the need for an abundance of terminals, with the possible exception of Delta/Northwest. However, Delta/Northwest have many other hubs which circumscribe Chicago (Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati) to which making a Chicago hub (or mini-hub) would not make sense.

Some major roadway construction would probably be needed eventually to accommodate recirculation to T1-3, parking, and Hilton.

Also, access to T4 from one's parked vehicle has not realistically been addressed yet (I realize dealing with parking wasn't part of the scope of your attempt). I guess ample moving sidewalks and a single underground connector, augmented by the tram system, could suffice until an extension of the multistory garage could be built.

Has any scheme or discussion under OMP or WGP (or anything semi-official) ever addressed the acres and acres and acres and acres of surface parking lots between T1 and T3 ?

I mean ... I'm surprised the city hasn't cashed in on this by now by having another hotel or something built there. And its potential has only increased over the years as traffic has grown at ORD and city coffers have dwindled.

Maybe the heating/utility plant could be put there?

You would think United or American would jump on the opportunity to locate in a brand new western terminal. Like BA at Heathrow and Delta/NW in Detroit. I suppose it's just a sign of the times. They have no money to finance it.

And they don't want the extra gates to invite increased competition to O'Hare.

I guess it would depend if the Western terminal would provide more gates than what the airlines are currently using. Also, there is the problem about how the western terminal is going to connect to the main core. If United moves to the western terminal, would you want your passengers to access it only via the western access road? Too many questions and issues, and not enough resolutions.

I also get the impression that expanding O'Hare's flight operations with more gates won't be allowed until the majority of the runway reconfiguration has happened. Once runways 10/28C and 9/27C are built, then the FAA could loosen the flight restrictions at O'Hare, thus allowing more gates to be used.

I do believe that they could start the planning phases for Terminal 6, Concourse N at the international terminal. I see that the future seems to have more connectivity to international destinations, especially Asia. You could have the Terminal 6 opening coinciding with the 10/28C and 9/27C runways opening, which should immediately allow jumbo aircraft operations. This would depend on getting agreements from International airlines to use the extra gate space.

Has the siting of Terminal 6 generally been decided? Is it just to the east of T5 ? I seem to remember from a decade or so ago a scheme with terminals being built in the formerly military corner of the field (its northwestern corner).

I was just going off the WGP plan for the proposed terminal 6, which connects to terminal 5. I don't think they have actually considered doing terminal 6 yet (but the planners seem very insistent on the western terminal). The WGP plans I'm using as a base are the master plans at http://www.ohare.com/MasterPlan/ .

The western terminal makes perfect sense in the context of a western access and ring road. It would arguably have better road access than the eastern complex.

I think they planned on having an underground tunnel connecting the eastern and western terminals. Probably some sort of people mover like at Tampa except underground.

Just a conceptual design for the western terminal I found:
http://www.airport-technology.com/pr...h-airfield.jpg
http://www.oharedirect.org/images/level1.jpg

High speed rail and CTA connected to it. I guess we can dream.

Thinking of dreaming what does one think the real timeline for an express line from O'Hare to downtown will be if completed or even ever?
We already know about this



So in general what is the reality of this project now esp. in light of the 2016 loss? And when would we expect to see both Midway and O'Hare express trains fully funtional?

Perhaps some day also to Lincoln International in Peotone too down the road a way further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propose...burban_airport

The O'Hare plans include a second people mover system, unconnected to the existing one, within the security perimeter. You could go through security in one terminal then ride the train across to the other terminal to board. It would be completely underground, except for a maintenance yard north of the western terminal.

There are completely separate plans to extend the Blue Line underneath the airport to the western terminal. The western station would be OUTSIDE security. This would be extremely costly, but it would allow for a new regional transit center at the western terminal, with LRT or BRT connections to Schaumburg, BRT connections to various places in the W/NW suburbs, the STAR Line, and possibly HSR. In fact, most plans for the Midwest HSR network involve an eventual O'Hare connection, but some propose a station at the eastern terminal and some the western terminal).

I think a HSR terminal, if built, would be better suited at the Eastern Terminal.

Presumably you're referring to a system primarily for people changing planes between W and E. Your suggestion of people entering the airport on one side and eventually boarding on the other is limited to people with no luggage to check (or claim, for arriving passengers), and no other need to line up at their airline's counter.

One figures, though, once you've spent a billion $ getting the Blue Line to the W side of the airport, that extending it 4-5 extra miles through warehouse-land and closer to Schaumburg, or at least Itasca, would be a no-brainer. (Another billion $ maybe, but with disproportionately huge benefit - especially since Schaumburg is a glaring gap in the Metra network.) Don't know if it's legally possible, but how cool (and inexpensive) would it be to have the Blue Line run through pristine sections of that giant forest preserve..?

The alternatives analysis that identified Pace BRT as the most cost-effective and highest-ridership transit option to serve the NW/I-90 corridor and connect to O'hare also looked at two Blue Line extensions (one down Thorndale then up 290 to Woodfield, the other straight out I-90) and the STAR Line (least cost-effective, lowest ridership). Of course, you know which we wound up with.

The O'Hare branch is really about as long as you want a radial metro line to go, though. Visitors to Chicago might take the train from O'Hare to downtown, or locals might ride to O'Hare to avoid the cost of a taxi or the hassles of parking. But I doubt many people would ride from downtown to Schaumburg - it's just too time-consuming when you're stopping for 2 minutes every half-mile. Metra doesn't currently service the Woodfield area, but their wide suburban station spacing and relative lack of in-city stations makes them perfect for Schaumburg service.

I've mentioned this several times before, but I think the STAR Line should be made into a spur of the MD-W Line along I-90, skipping the EJ&E portion altogether. It would branch off the MD-W in Bensenville and run through the West Terminal up to I-90, then to Woodfield, with a future phase out to Prairie Stone. That way, Woodfield trains would serve O'Hare and connect to downtown. If you increase the radius of the turn at Pacific Junction and build a grade-separation of the dangerous crossing at Grand, you've got a high-speed express line from Union Station to Woodfield.

The EJ&E portion of the STAR Line is laughably misguided and would require tremendous land-use changes at each of its stations to generate a reasonable ridership. The I-90 portion at least serves existing employment and recreation centers. Of course, the towers-in-a-park nature of these centers makes them difficult to serve with a rail line, but hey, it's way better than building stations in cornfields and forest preserves. To serve the EJ&E corridor, I'd rather see 59 get an ambitious widening with limited access and bus lanes. It would be a far better solution to the problem, and it would (kinda) go where people actually live and work...

The nearest Metra line MD-W to Woodfield is Schaumburg line between Irving Park, Lake Street and Elgin Ohare Expressway in a dead zone near the Flyers Stadium. The next line north is the UP-NW and gets off in Palatine it's not even close to Woodfield. How would you propose Metra stop at Woodfield?

I do agree anyone commuting to work in the city would never want to take a line from Woodfield to Chicago. There is a way to take the pace bus at Woodfield and transfer off to CTA busses but it's to complicated and time consuming. Only shoppers traveling in to shop at Woodfield from the northern outskirt areas of the city use the pace line. I still think there should be some method to get to Woodfield, besides the pace bus system. I still think the biggest mall in the Chicago area should have a more direct link to downtown. It could be mutually beneficial to both economies. People might not use the line to commute to work but the tourism dollars could increase if there was a line to Woodfield. Overall it is still a huge necessity. Extending it from Ohare would not be a bad idea, grabbing even more tourism dollars from travelers. I'm not sure of the specific details of the previous proposals since I have never been a transportation follower since I live in the suburbs. I do know all metra lines well though. Maybe someone can enlighten me on the proposal and STAR line.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/image...m/og012903.gif

This is the STAR Line as currently planned. My idea... Imagine just the top section, but extended a little bit at the east end to connect to the MD-W Line (the orange line just below the airplane icon). It would be a spur to the MD-W that serves Rolling Meadows, Woodfield, and Hoffman Estates.

^You make a good point Ardecila. I like the Bensenville-OHare-Woodfield-Prairie Stone spur idea.

Yeah... just run them as sleek DMUs, with CTA-style mezzanine stations and no grade crossings. As I said earlier, you'd have to make some modifications to the MD-W main line to accommodate the increased frequent trains, and there'd be a downtown capacity issue, since both sides of Union Station are more or less maxed out. I guess they could go to Ogilvie instead.

Schaumburg seems eager to jump on the TOD bandwagon, if they had any T to O the D around. They're willing to raze a massive auto-oriented apartment community to be replaced by a huge transit village.

Various STAR Line concepts have it running to O'Hare Transfer on the NCS, meaning running it downtown is a cinch from a trackage standpoint (as ardec says, there would probably be necessary signal upgrades to deal with the added frequency), and another concept has it terminating at Rosemont Blue Line for a CTA connection.

Either way, a serious express bus system terminating at Rosemont and/or Cumberland and using partially grade-separated express bus lanes and distributing straight to major traffic generators in the corridor would be the far more cost-effective solution than the billions a new rail line would eat up.