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)

spyguy Nov 28, 2006 10:44 PM

If that's the control tower, it looks pretty sweet.

Edit: found another image on the O'Hare website
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2391/ordnatct3ts5.jpg

Chicago2020 Nov 29, 2006 1:19 AM

It looks Different, and thats a good thing in my opinion :tup:

Marcu Nov 29, 2006 8:02 AM

I was walking near the lake a few days back and happened to notice planes flying overhead every 30 seconds or so. I guess I was under a flight path. I suddenly remembered those "not enough air space" arguments from before the expansion began. Is it really possible for planes to fly into ohare 10 or 15 seconds behind one another? If expansion predictions come to fruition, there's absolutely no airport in the world that will be able to match ord's volume by any measure.

hoosier Nov 30, 2006 5:10 AM

I need to make a concerted effort to check out the airport once it is renovated. It should be amazing!

Marcu Dec 1, 2006 8:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosier
I need to make a concerted effort to check out the airport once it is renovated. It should be amazing!

Don't worry just take a few flight out of O"hare. I'm sure at least one will be delayed enough for you to wonder around.

denizen467 Dec 1, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020
Rendering of O'Hare Terminal 7 at Remote Parking Lot F Location

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8/t7renddg8.gif

Where is T7 ? That looks like just the rail-auto intermodal terminal.

Rail Claimore Dec 1, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu
I was walking near the lake a few days back and happened to notice planes flying overhead every 30 seconds or so. I guess I was under a flight path. I suddenly remembered those "not enough air space" arguments from before the expansion began. Is it really possible for planes to fly into ohare 10 or 15 seconds behind one another? If expansion predictions come to fruition, there's absolutely no airport in the world that will be able to match ord's volume by any measure.

If ORD is expanded to potential, its runway layout will allow for four takeoffs or landings at once provided ATC maintains good runway usage discipline. But what's much more likely is continuous trimultaneous operations for both landings and takeoffs. Takeoffs will probably use the two runways adjacent to the terminal (9R and 10L) along with 10R (the southernmost runway), and landings will use 9C, 10C, and 9L (the northernmost runway). The only big concern when it's all done is O'hare's inefficient taxiway layout, particularly on the north airfield.

DFW and DEN are the only other major airports that either have or will have this much operational capacity, but that's mainly because both airports have much more room to expand.

denizen467 Dec 3, 2006 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
DFW and DEN are the only other major airports that either have or will have this much operational capacity, but that's mainly because both airports have much more room to expand.

Wasn't ATL also moving toward a similar layout?

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 1:10 PM

^We just opened our 5th runway this past May, but we're maxed out now.

Rail Claimore Dec 3, 2006 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
^We just opened our 5th runway this past May, but we're maxed out now.

Yes, ATL does allow for trimultaneous operations now, but operations aren't quite as flexible as having a 6th runway north of the current airfield. I doubt we'll be seeing something like that soon though.

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 6:29 PM

Rail - I really don't think the 6th runway to the north will ever happen.

There is a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement" between the Airport and College Park & Hapeville that in exchange for support of the now built 5th runway, Hartsfield-Jackson would never seek the 6th runway. The buyout would be prohibitively expensive - both towns are gentrifying rapidly.

nergie Dec 3, 2006 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
Rail - I really don't think the 6th runway to the north will ever happen.

There is a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement" between the Airport and College Park & Hapeville that in exchange for support of the now built 5th runway, Hartsfield-Jackson would never seek the 6th runway. The buyout would be prohibitively expensive - both towns are gentrifying rapidly.


Is there no room to expand south of the 5th runway? I have only flown in once since it was open. It is awesome how it spans I-285.

ORD for does not have the room to build the far perimeter taxiways as does DIA and DFW. I wish the senior Daley would have grabbed a 100 or so square miles when the Higgins Annex occurred. This would have made ORD expansion less painful.

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 7:52 PM

nergie - No, there really isn't any room in that direction either.

The only expansion we'll be seeing from now on will be terminals only - we really are at this point maxed out. The new consolidated rental car center is actually across I-85 from the terminal - that's how hemmed in we now are.

nergie Dec 4, 2006 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
nergie - No, there really isn't any room in that direction either.

The only expansion we'll be seeing from now on will be terminals only - we really are at this point maxed out. The new consolidated rental car center is actually across I-85 from the terminal - that's how hemmed in we now are.

Are the local authorities looking at alternative airports, I read an FAA study about ATL, and PHI needing another airport. Coincedentally, the report also keys on need to expand ORD and add another airport to Chicagoland.

Well here is hoping you guys do not have to go through the garbage Chicago had to to get this expansion of ORD to get off the ground. Heck even now there is still a battle over expanding the southern part of the airport. It centers around cemetaries being relocated.

Rail Claimore Dec 4, 2006 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Are the local authorities looking at alternative airports, I read an FAA study about ATL, and PHI needing another airport. Coincedentally, the report also keys on need to expand ORD and add another airport to Chicagoland.

Well here is hoping you guys do not have to go through the garbage Chicago had to to get this expansion of ORD to get off the ground. Heck even now there is still a battle over expanding the southern part of the airport. It centers around cemetaries being relocated.

ATL had to deal with a cemetary as well. In the end, they decided to keep it but limit visitations to twice a year. ORD doesn't have that option considering the cemetary is directly in the way of the future runway. ATL's case was one of just relocating a taxiway or something like that.

Even if southern expansion was possible at ATL, it wouldn't make much sense considering almost all the operations at the current airfield center on the four main runways. If ATL could build a sixth runway, as far as airport operations go, north would be ideal. Any new runway at ATL has a snowball's chance in hell of happening regardless. After the terminal expansions, ATL is done with expansion.

The city of Atlanta has two big tracts of land way out in the exurbs that will serve as a location for a possible second airport... but I really doubt either will ever be needed, much like Peotone wasn't needed for Chicagoland. There are already two plausible options for new commerical service in the Atlanta area: Dobbins ARB and Lawrenceville.

Back on topic with ORD... I think ORD is pretty much done after this modernization project. Just by looking at the layout, you can tell that the designers were pressed for space, especially when looking at the south airfield and seeing how close future runway 10R will be to 10C and 10L thanks to Bensenville Yard. ORD is completely surrounded by either expressways, railroads, or both. Any future investments in the airport after this will be with tweaking the terminals and what not. If anything does strike my curiosity about it all, it's why they're keeping runway 4L, which will intersect future 9C and 9R.

nergie Dec 4, 2006 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
ATL had to deal with a cemetary as well. In the end, they decided to keep it but limit visitations to twice a year. ORD doesn't have that option considering the cemetary is directly in the way of the future runway. ATL's case was one of just relocating a taxiway or something like that.

Even if southern expansion was possible at ATL, it wouldn't make much sense considering almost all the operations at the current airfield center on the four main runways. If ATL could build a sixth runway, as far as airport operations go, north would be ideal. Any new runway at ATL has a snowball's chance in hell of happening regardless. After the terminal expansions, ATL is done with expansion.

The city of Atlanta has two big tracts of land way out in the exurbs that will serve as a location for a possible second airport... but I really doubt either will ever be needed, much like Peotone wasn't needed for Chicagoland. There are already two plausible options for new commerical service in the Atlanta area: Dobbins ARB and Lawrenceville.

Back on topic with ORD... I think ORD is pretty much done after this modernization project. Just by looking at the layout, you can tell that the designers were pressed for space, especially when looking at the south airfield and seeing how close future runway 10R will be to 10C and 10L thanks to Bensenville Yard. ORD is completely surrounded by either expressways, railroads, or both. Any future investments in the airport after this will be with tweaking the terminals and what not. If anything does strike my curiosity about it all, it's why they're keeping runway 4L, which will intersect future 9C and 9R.


Thanks for the info, I believe 4L and 4R are needed for the nasty cross winds ORD experiences. If these were eliminated there are no cross wind runways. If anyone here can shed more light please do

Chicago2020 Dec 5, 2006 6:55 AM

http://www.ohare.com/FACE/T3Exp3.jpg

Chicago2020 Dec 5, 2006 7:16 AM

Virgin Air to resume O’Hare flights

The Associated Press
Published December 4, 2006, 4:43 PM CST


Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Sir Richard Branson said Monday he's bringing his planes back to Chicago and wants to reduce fuel consumption by towing them to and from runways.

Beginning in April, Virgin Atlantic will offer daily service between London's Heathrow Airport and O'Hare International Airport. The airline cut that route after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"As far as I'm concerned, we're going to be here to stay," said Branson, a British business mogul who also is involved in environmental causes.

Virgin Atlantic currently flies to 27 destinations worldwide and carried 5 million passengers last year.

Branson said towing airplanes would reduce the time jet engines run, saving fuel and cutting emissions. Under Branson's plan, planes would be towed to a holding area closer to the runway, where engines would be started for takeoff.

Mayor Richard M. Daley said the city was willing to study the idea and would talk to federal aviation officials about it. One consideration is whether towing would slow operations at O'Hare, where delays have a ripple effect around the country.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said many questions about safety and efficiency must be resolved.

Planes aren't all Branson dabbles in. The tycoon is also in the music business with his Virgin Megastores.

But Branson acknowledges brick-and-mortar music stores like his must evolve to stay alive in an era of music downloads. He knows it won't be easy and says there could be a time when music stores disappear.

"Hopefully, Virgin Megastores will be the last, the last standing," he said.

denizen467 Dec 5, 2006 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

T2 ?

Rail Claimore Dec 6, 2006 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Thanks for the info, I believe 4L and 4R are needed for the nasty cross winds ORD experiences. If these were eliminated there are no cross wind runways. If anyone here can shed more light please do

If crosswinds are a major factor in the runway layout, then the new plan should have kept 14L and 14R, which are actually the most important runways since winds in the area frequently blow from NW to SE. However, Mayor Daley wants to minimize commercial aircraft flying over downtown. Still though, considering ORD is about 17 miles from the Loop, that's plenty of distance to minimize such concerns as it is.

Considering those runways are two of three longest, not eliminating them would hinder operations on the four future E-W runways adjacent to the terminals, all of which will be longer than all of the current runways at ORD except 14R. My guess is that 4L and 4R are being kept primarily for general aviation and smaller regional planes. 4R isn't a major concern because that runway doesn't intersect any other runways even now, and most planes that use it take off and land from the SW. Having many operations on 4L though would limit operations on future 9C and 9R. Ideally, 4L would be moved either west of the current north airfield (which would require taking up more of Elk Grove Village), or farther north of its current location, where it would take up a big chunk of Des Plaines and would require tunneling of the NW tollway.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 AM.

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