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)

kbud Sep 12, 2016 3:48 AM

Germany
 
Didnt Lufthansa also just cancel their Düsseldorf to ORD route? I thought this would help AA as lot.

nergie Sep 20, 2016 2:38 PM

Six Potential Options to Redevelop O'Hare
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...htmlstory.html

C. Sep 20, 2016 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie (Post 7568133)

Very cool concepts! Looks like O'Hare will be under continual construction for decades.

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/locator.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option1.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option2.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option3.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option4.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option5.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option6.png
Source: Chicago Tribune

NikolasM Sep 20, 2016 6:07 PM

Wowza. Those are some interesting ideas. Big changes coming, that's for sure!

C. Sep 20, 2016 7:19 PM

I like Option 3. It's big and bold! Option 1 is similar. The 5th is interesting.

ardecila Sep 20, 2016 9:28 PM

Hmm. Well, now we know the city is serious about an O'Hare express, prefers a mainline rail solution, and is willing to make some expensive changes to the terminal complex to bring the express train either into the existing Blue Line subway station, or a new underground station that is adjacent.

Each of these visions shows a line entering the airport on the axis of Balmoral Ave, probably from a connection to the Metra NCS line. How it gets from there to downtown remains to be seen, altghough there are really only two corridors they can use (Metra MD-W or CTA Forest Park Branch/CN Waukesha Sub)

N830MH Sep 21, 2016 2:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA (Post 7568575)
I like Option 3. It's big and bold! Option 1 is similar. The 5th is interesting.

I think I am agree with that. I like option 3. It's very big airport. It's right choice for me. There will be no terminal 1, 2, and 3. It's gonna to changes.

denizen467 Sep 21, 2016 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie (Post 7568133)
Six Potential Options to Redevelop O'Hare
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...htmlstory.html

These seem like arbitrary visions by some introductory planning class, since they don't seem to consider phasing or costs (e.g., the mere idea of tearing down T5, which actually is now being expanded, is unrealistic). However, the fact that they are willing to start thinking way outside the box is excellent.

One potential outside the box idea that they did not include: I-190 no longer needs to bow southwards to tangent at T5. It could be straightened from Mannheim to run due west all the way to the terminal loop. Obviously that's very expensive, but all of these plans are in the double-digit billions and the straightening would add tons more terminal/tarmac space north of T5. Conversely, if I-190 isn't straightened, it may be very difficult to make productive use of the pockets of land where Hertz/Avis, taxi staging, and no-longer-necessary empty space currently are.

One thing not mentioned in Schwieterman's commentary: Scheme #2 could create the world's longest building.

NikolasM Sep 21, 2016 5:40 AM

I think the first plan is very interesting. Nested terminals in the same loop, I assume the new one is for international airlines. Still doesn't provide western access but is that necessary? (I don't live there) It seems like an elegant solution.

denizen467 Sep 21, 2016 6:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7568747)
Each of these visions shows a line entering the airport on the axis of Balmoral Ave, probably from a connection to the Metra NCS line.

This is perfect, since there's a swath of unused land in Rosemont (and/or Chicago / Schiller Park) where a flyover/tunnel from NCS could be built to get on the Balmoral alignment, and then there is a dilapidated roadway r-o-w going west from there to T5 that could be excavated or built upon. Even west of T5 there are a couple stretches that would not be too horrible to run tracks through.

Unfortunately you need to know a little about the basic terminal layout to decide where to put the tunnel, so it could be a really long time before any airport express is running. I suppose they could tentatively run it down the existing NCS trackage to a temporary station at the CONRAC as a preliminary phase.

C. Sep 21, 2016 6:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7569264)
One thing not mentioned in Schwieterman's commentary: Scheme #2 could create the world's longest building.

Looks like it would be close to 2 miles long! Incredible.

denizen467 Sep 21, 2016 9:40 AM

^ Detroit and Dubai have terminal buildings around 0.9 and 1.1 miles long respectively. Beijing seems to have a 2-mile terminal but it is actually a string of 3 buildings separated to allow taxiing. The above ORD scheme is not close to 2 miles, but depending on how the specifics play out, at least 1 of the scheme's 2 giant midfield terminals has the potential at least to end up exceeding 1.1 miles. At some point an opening is needed to allow aircraft to taxi thru rather than around, so it's not necessarily wise to build a concourse with endless length, but having a ridiculously long building is kind of a fascinating spectacle nevertheless.

chiphile Sep 21, 2016 2:36 PM

Which idiot on MS Paint drew up these? Many of these drawings are needlessly destructive and make no sense, especially the obsession with erasing terminal 3 and then leaving that blank space empty. The total net addition of gates may even be negative with some of these dumb shit mock ups. Terminal 5 won't get torn down either, that makes no sense unless we're Dubai all of a sudden and drowning in money. Frankly, I've seen better MS Paint drawings here on this forum.

The only one that make sense in terms of a real gate increase, if they're going to do a full tear down, would be option 3 with basically two ATL terminals, that would be awesome. The rest is nonsense.

In reality I expect leaving the core terminals alone, and heavily redeveloping terminal 2. Everything west of terminal 1 is where we should see most of the new development. If United Airlines were smart, they'd get in on this now and try to develop their own terminal/gates west of terminal 1.

NikolasM Sep 21, 2016 4:12 PM

Doesn't solution 3 cause the airport to lose 4L-22R? There would be only one cross wind runway.

denizen467 Sep 22, 2016 6:57 AM

^ All except the 6th scheme would seem to require its closure (unless it's used solely as a NE departure runway, I suppose). Originally the City did voice a plan to eliminate only the 14/32 pair and leave both 4/22 runways, but, from an interview with the aviation commissioner about thirteen months ago:

Quote:

Evans has indicated it's likely the city will eventually close ... 4-Left/22-Right
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...news/150829901

denizen467 Sep 22, 2016 7:13 AM

In news this summer relevant to building these new midfield concourses:

Quote:

A controversial diagonal runway at O'Hare International Airport will close sooner than expected... . The Chicago Department of Aviation said Tuesday that Runway 14-Right/32-Left, located on the northwest side of O'Hare, will be "permanently" decommissioned in 2018. Previous plans were to retire the runway in 2019.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ews/160709545/


So construction of the first new replacement terminal could theoretically kick off just 2 years from now! Though potential locations for it would be somewhat limited until 4L/22R too were eventually eliminated. But for example starting two years from now Concourse C could be extended westwards or southwestwards from its southern end, such as in scheme 4 or 6 above. In fact, at that point UA could relocate itself out of Concourse E, which could then be demolished, and then the rest of the CBP concourse of scheme 4 or 6 could be constructed. Following that, it would probably be possible to demolish Concourse F and clear that space for another new concourse, all without waiting for 4L/22R to close or for other new midfield terminals. Looking at this overall, schemes 4 and 6 are the realistic ones and fall-backs in case the diagonal cannot be closed in time; along the lines of chiphile's comment the other four schemes are more like fanciful thinking and maybe thrown in to create additional pressure to eliminate the diagonal runway.

(They theoretically could start right now if they chose a site very far west, out of the way of the current runways, but it would be a long tunnel ride from the rest of the terminals for every passenger and every piece of baggage, which is expensive. And in any event, architecture, engineering, bidding, and funding would all take like 2 years anyway before construction anywhere could begin.)

ardecila Sep 22, 2016 4:33 PM

I'm a little concerned that, even under such a blank-slate approach, only schemes 3 and 5 contemplate western access.

It's kinda ridiculous that the Tollway is spending billions to build an airport ring road and extend the Elgin-OHare to the airport's western doorstep, but airport planners still think everybody should schlep around to Rosemont so they can enter from the east.

This just in - regional planning is still dead!

NikolasM Sep 22, 2016 6:21 PM

4L-22R looks like it would still work in solution one. Notice how the two linear terminals are shortened that are in its path.

k1052 Sep 22, 2016 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7571015)
I'm a little concerned that, even under such a blank-slate approach, only schemes 3 and 5 contemplate western access.

It's kinda ridiculous that the Tollway is spending billions to build an airport ring road and extend the Elgin-OHare to the airport's western doorstep, but airport planners still think everybody should schlep around to Rosemont so they can enter from the east.

This just in - regional planning is still dead!

I was kind of wondering why not just mostly build scheme 1 (but only with one APM connecting everything including T5) but start from the original western access/terminal plan adding satellite concourses as needed.

ardecila Sep 22, 2016 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 7571259)
I was kind of wondering why not just mostly build scheme 1 (but only with one APM connecting everything including T5) but start from the original western access/terminal plan adding satellite concourses as needed.

That's basically the layout at Atlanta. The second dropoff zone at the international terminal on the east side is very nice, I always meet friends on that side to avoid congestion.

I don't know if a huge western terminal complex is strictly necessary, but an arrival/departure building (with no gates) and an APM station would serve the same function. Combine that with some remote parking lots and you've got a workable plan...


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:36 AM.

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