SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

the urban politician Feb 26, 2018 4:54 AM

Now that, my friend, is a plan.

We've needed this for years. Bravo!

N830MH Feb 26, 2018 5:58 AM

So. Which airlines who will stay at entire T5 or go to T2? Can you guess?

kbud Feb 26, 2018 10:50 AM

T2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by N830MH (Post 8099353)
So. Which airlines who will stay at entire T5 or go to T2? Can you guess?

T1/T2 - UA and Star alliance members
T2/T3 - AA and One World alliance members
T5- Delta, Sky Team Alliance members and all others

It’ll be interesting how this all is phased in. They can’t just demolish T2 from the get go. I’m guessing the C extension satellite, the new regional satellite and the T5 9 gate expansion (with Delta moving in) all has to be completed before the current T2 can be torn down.

OhioGuy Feb 26, 2018 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N830MH (Post 8099353)
So. Which airlines who will stay at entire T5 or go to T2? Can you guess?

From the Tribune article:

Quote:

United and American, for example, would be located in the Global Terminal with major international partners Lufthansa, All Nippon Airways, British Airways and Japan Airlines. Some “spoke” carriers like Delta, for example, would relocate to what’s now international Terminal 5, where customers easily could connect to KLM, Air France, Korean Air and Aeromexico.

“The non-hub airlines get their own space in Terminal 5, their own entrance, their own hotel, more club room, more paid space, they will be closer to the city. They love that,” said a source familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to speak about them publicly. “And American and United essentially get a better internationally connecting complex, because to send passengers over to or from Terminal 5 is a pain in the ass. Nobody likes that.
Quote:

Under the potential deal with the airlines, one of the major steps would be to build an expensive pedestrian tunnel westward from what’s now Terminal 2. Evans declined to offer a cost estimate for that work.

Two new concourses — currently dubbed Satellite 1 and Satellite 2 — also would be built. Satellite 1 would connect to Terminal 1, while Satellite 2 would be built farther west, according to city plans provided to the Tribune.

As the new concourses and gates are built, flights that arrive and depart from Terminal 2 would be relocated to the satellite concourses and an expanded Terminal 5. That would clear the way to tear down the aging Terminal 2 without hindering the airport’s overall capacity and operations, Evans said. The details of exactly which airlines move, in what order and to where is still the subject of intense negotiations, city officials said.

Beyond the 35 additional gates, 40 other gates in Terminal 2 would be torn down and replaced with new ones.

k1052 Feb 26, 2018 1:32 PM

One question I have is the 9-gate T5 expansion actually physically underway at this time? They had demolished the old cargo building but no construction, that I've seen, has actually started. Maybe they wanted to get these negotiations finished before awarding the contract.

I typically fly out of T3 and while I'd welcome a renovation if they enlarged/remodeled the bathrooms, redo all the concessions, spiff up the finishes, and plop down more seating with power I'd be pretty content. There is only so much that can be done inside the existing concourse envelope anyway.

jpIllInoIs Feb 26, 2018 2:17 PM

^ Best news on the year.. O'Hare is the engine of the Chicago economy. Every major corporate relo cites air connectivity as an important ingredient in the decision formula.
I hope the Rahm detractors realize what a master accomplishment this is for the city.
The Delta group should be very pleased with their enhance amenities and position. Almost like a 3rd hub.
And the plan allows for future westward expansion into a Satellite 3 & 4 as demand requires. Game changer indeed.

the urban politician Feb 26, 2018 2:22 PM

Amazon, Amazon, are you watching this? :hyper: :rolleyes:

....I figured somebody was going to say something like that as a response to this news, so I might as well get ahead of things..

jc5680 Feb 26, 2018 2:26 PM

As others have already pointed out, the expansion is needed and the additional gates should go a long way in helping modernize some of the terminals.

I, for one, am most excited about the potential new trippy mega underground walkway that would need to connect the new B, C, and D(?) gates in T1. The one between B and C now looks like it probably wouldn't line up with the expansion. Hopefully whatever serves the new gates leans into that same kind of quasi-absurd aesthetic.

The down side is I will legit have to leave earlier in the morning if I am flying out of D. It will be a decent hike from security.

OrdoSeclorum Feb 26, 2018 4:01 PM

This looks like a fantastic plan. And something that was said back in the Daley administration when runway expansion came up was: who else has room to expand like this? DFW? Denver? But not LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA or ATL.

I know a lot of people are interested in landing an HQ2 or something like that. I believe this project is an HQ2. It's the same thing. Chicago's not real likely to land a 50,000 tech headquarters, but this airport project assures that an equivalent amount of investment is going to occur in Chicago in the next couple decades.

LouisVanDerWright Feb 26, 2018 5:57 PM

Yeah seriously, $8 billion over 8 years is $1 billion a year. Not including the multiplier effect of this money, that's about a 0.2% bump in GDP for the metro area every year for the next 8 years straight just from direct spending on this project. If you count the multiplier effect I'm sure this is equivalent to 1% additional GDP for nearly a decade. And even that isn't considering what savings this will have from reducing delays or the benefits in terms of attracting yet more businesses seeking connectivity to the area.

Kngkyle Feb 26, 2018 6:48 PM

It's critically important that Chicago gets this done. Just imagine if they can combine this plan with an underground hyperloop-type-thing with 10 minute rides to Block 37. We just need Elon Musk to bankroll it as a demonstration project.

An interesting detail they mentioned was dual 50,000 sqft lounges in the new T2, one for United and one for American. That is enormous. The AMEX lounge at LGA is 5,000 sqft for comparison.

NikolasM Feb 26, 2018 6:53 PM

I like the idea of moving Runway 4L-22R to the far NW of the airfield. That would free up better terminal councourse layouts than the newest one presented here. Also I feel like I-190 should be realigned so that Terminal 5 can really be expanded. UAL would become huge with this current plan. It also looks very disjointed. Anything is an improvement but things could be cleaned up.

Google Maps work in progress of new plan plus more ideas best viewed in Satellite view

OrdoSeclorum Feb 26, 2018 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 8099861)
It's critically important that Chicago gets this done. Just imagine if they can combine this plan with an underground hyperloop-type-thing with 10 minute rides to Block 37. We just need Elon Musk to bankroll it as a demonstration project.

I'm extremely skeptical of the hyperloop and related projects. I'm simply incredulous that, say, a 20-mile partially evacuated tube with purpose-built "rolling" stock is going to really be cheaper than laying down some rails and putting an off-the-rack train onto them.

From Chicago to Cleveland or something like that, it would only be comfortable for passengers to be locked into a tube with no restroom or exit if the trip was very short. Which means that it has to be very fast. Which I believe is possible, but which also means that it's going to be very uncomfortable unless the trip is extremely linear. The route couldn't simply follow I-80 or I-90's rights of way, which means it would be expensive due to securing land.

I think a 250 mile trip is probably the sweet spot. L.A. to Vegas or Dubai to noplace or something like that.

Kngkyle Feb 26, 2018 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum (Post 8099889)
I'm extremely skeptical of the hyperloop and related projects. I'm simply incredulous that, say, a 20-mile partially evacuated tube with purpose-built "rolling" stock is going to really be cheaper than laying down some rails and putting an off-the-rack train onto them.

I am skeptical as well. But if one person can pull it off and prove his skeptics wrong, it'd be Elon Musk. The cheaper alternative you mention isn't really cheaper when you consider land acquisition costs and legal fees from having to fight every NIMBY in court. You largely avoid those issues when going underground. It's just too expensive to tunnel underground using today's methods which is what Musk is trying to address. Also, just being able to use non-union labor would probably cut the cost in half.

LouisVanDerWright Feb 26, 2018 7:54 PM

Musk just flung a car into solar orbit beyond Mars while successfully returning 2 out of 3 of the booster rockets. He is playing catch with rocket fairings off the Kennedy Space Center as we speak. If he can do that, figuring out how to halve or quarter (or more) the cost of tunneling is certainly something he might pull off. It really is absurd how much it costs to build below grade infrastructure in the US, and if Musk and master it, he'll make a shit load of money Hyperloop or not.

It's not smart to bet against someone who can do stuff like this:

Video Link

OrdoSeclorum Feb 26, 2018 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8099968)
Musk just flung a car into solar orbit beyond Mars while successfully returning 2 out of 3 of the booster rockets. He is playing catch with rocket fairings off the Kennedy Space Center as we speak.

Video Link

Oh, I'm a Musk fan and find him to be impressive. I'm just specifically skeptical of the hyperloop, not necessarily tunneling innovations. If he can indeed tunnel cheaply, it makes lots of stuff cheaper. I still don't understand how the hyperloop would be cheaper than trains, though. I think generally his insights prove to be pretty easy to understand, once he's communicated them. Except for the hyperloop, which sounds interesting and plausible, but still seems half-baked years later. And if you're going anywhere closer than Milwaukee, the benefit of a speed of sound travel capsule faces rapidly diminishing value.

Kngkyle Feb 26, 2018 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum (Post 8099994)
Oh, I'm a Musk fan and find him to be impressive. I'm just specifically skeptical of the hyperloop, not necessarily tunneling innovations. If he can indeed tunnel cheaply, it makes lots of stuff cheaper. I still don't understand how the hyperloop would be cheaper than trains, though. I think generally his insights prove to be pretty easy to understand, once he's communicated them. Except for the hyperloop, which sounds interesting and plausible, but still seems half-baked years later. And if you're going anywhere closer than Milwaukee, the benefit of a speed of sound travel capsule faces rapidly diminishing value.

Musk isn't proposing a vacuum hyperloop between O'Hare and downtown.

Quote:

“A Loop is like a Hyperloop, but without drawing a vacuum inside the tube,” Musk tweeted. “Don’t need to get rid of air friction for short routes.”

wchicity Feb 26, 2018 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 8099861)
It's critically important that Chicago gets this done. Just imagine if they can combine this plan with an underground hyperloop-type-thing with 10 minute rides to Block 37. We just need Elon Musk to bankroll it as a demonstration project.

An interesting detail they mentioned was dual 50,000 sqft lounges in the new T2, one for United and one for American. That is enormous. The AMEX lounge at LGA is 5,000 sqft for comparison.

Wouldn't be shocked if at least part of that lounge space is branded as Star Alliance or oneworld, versus just a United Club or Admirals Club. Similar to how it is at TBIT at LAX.

N830MH Feb 27, 2018 2:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wchicity (Post 8100285)
Wouldn't be shocked if at least part of that lounge space is branded as Star Alliance or oneworld, versus just a United Club or Admirals Club. Similar to how it is at TBIT at LAX.

Sounds like that. I think they will build Star Alliance lounge or Oneworld Alliance. I am not quite sure if they have their own lounge for UA & AA. I think they will keep separately.

wchicity Feb 27, 2018 3:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N830MH (Post 8100420)
Sounds like that. I think they will build Star Alliance lounge or Oneworld Alliance. I am not quite sure if they have their own lounge for UA & AA. I think they will keep separately.

Honestly, I think that would be for the best. Usually Star Alliance/oneworld alliance lounges are much nicer than even the newest United/Admirals clubs.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.