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)

whyhuhwhy Apr 20, 2007 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2781170)
Nice to see the area with 70% of the state's population and the worst congestion getting 45% of the money.

Unbelievable. Can someone explain this to me? I mean it does not add up. Wouldn't your prudent point be the first thing that pops into any legislature's mind? Why does 70% of the population get 45% of the funding, especially when you consider it is the area with the worst congestion.

trvlr70 Apr 20, 2007 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 2781924)
Unbelievable. Can someone explain this to me? I mean it does not add up. Wouldn't your prudent point be the first thing that pops into any legislature's mind? Why does 70% of the population get 45% of the funding, especially when you consider it is the area with the worst congestion.

Density. Just because Chicagoland has the biggest population, it doesn't mean that it has the greatest miles of roads that need to be repaired. Illinois is a big state and has many highways....some of which do not go though Chicago.

orulz Apr 25, 2007 3:07 PM

Since this thread seems to be dealing with all matter of airport issues around Chicago rather than just the O'Hare expansion, thought I'd post this here, as I don't think it's been posted yet.

It's the architect's page for the new design for the Gary-Chicago airport. The architect is Solomon Cordwell Buenz. It's highly intermodal, and it's sleek and modern in a very European sense.

It clearly involves relocating the South Shore line, probably to the north of the airport. This would bypass the current Clark Road and East Chicago stations, but probably bring the line through downtown East Chicago instead.

Wonder whether this is just a dream, or whether The Gary Chicago Airport Authority has the pull to make it happen. Regardless, this sounds WAY better than some massive airport way out in the boonies that chews up farmland and doesn't connect to transit.

http://www.scb.com/images/project/98/1.jpghttp://www.scb.com/images/project/98/2.jpghttp://www.scb.com/images/project/98/3.jpghttp://www.scb.com/images/project/98/4.jpg

VivaLFuego Apr 25, 2007 4:27 PM

^ It's a cool idea, and awesome how the transit literally runs into the terminal the way it's supposed to be. I know Gary/Chicago is currently seeing some work done to it's terminal as part of the FTA expansion project (also lengthening the main runway), but obviously nothing quite on that grand scale. Gary really has great potential to be Chicago's Gatwick or Stanstead (or Newark, since NW Indiana is our Jersey); not particularly close to the CBD, but still easily accessible by rail, and further conveniently serving a large chunk of the metropolitan area with discount flights.

Marcu Apr 25, 2007 5:49 PM

Currently, the southshore gary airport stop is a good 1.5 miles away and it's virtually impossible to make the walk (unless you wish to walk down a 55mph industrial highway with no sidewalks through one of the most crime-ridden parts of the country). There is no way in hell they would ever move the southshore line to accompany airport traffic. A more likely solution will be either a people-mover type concept that goes back and forth from the southshore stop to the terminal or a shuttle.

VivaLFuego Apr 25, 2007 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2793963)
Currently, the southshore gary airport stop is a good 1.5 miles away and it's virtually impossible to make the walk (unless you wish to walk down a 55mph industrial highway with no sidewalks through one of the most crime-ridden parts of the country). There is no way in hell they would ever move the southshore line to accompany airport traffic. A more likely solution will be either a people-mover type concept that goes back and forth from the southshore stop to the terminal or a shuttle.

Start with a bus shuttle with times posted at the terminal and the station, scheduled to coordinate with arriving and departing trains.

Eventually, you could build a mile-long brach breaking off the main line to enter the airport; Operationally, you could (1) add train runs that only travel between the airport and downtown Chicago to both boost frequency on this higher commuter ridership portion of the line (i.e. through Hegewisch, Hammond, East Chicago) as well as provide more frequent service for travelers between the airport and downtown (every 30 minutes would be optimal, eventually. The other operational option (2) would be something like BARTs SFO connection, where trains pull off the mainline into the airport station, then reverse back out on to the main line.

nomarandlee Apr 25, 2007 9:35 PM

Gary would be a good airport for Ryan Air and their new American service. Midway I think would be too small and Ryan is planning on using secondary airports for its new service. That would be a big coup for them if they were to get such service.

bnk Apr 25, 2007 10:06 PM

What are the projected fights out of O'hare after the completion of the expansion project?

http://www.western-star.com/s/conten..._0105_COX.html


Atlanta bests Chicago for busiest airport designation
By JIM THARPE
Cox News Service

Friday, January 05, 2007

ATLANTA — Chicago has Oprah. Atlanta has Elton. Chicago had Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Atlanta had Gen. William T. Sherman.

And for the second year in a row, Atlanta had more airplanes taking off and landing at the big airport than Chicago did at theirs.

The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed Thursday that Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport had yet again trumped Chicago's O'Hare for the title of nation's busiest airport when measured in terms of takeoffs and landings.

Hartsfield-Jackson and O'Hare have vied for the No. 1 bragging rights since the late 1990s when Atlanta's airport stepped up to challenge O'Hare's long reign. In 2005, Hartsfield topped O'Hare in both passengers and the number of takeoffs and landings, making it the busiest airport in the world — a title it still holds, according to the Airports Council International.

"What this is indicative of is the continued robust economy in the city of Atlanta, the good weather we have and the ever-increasing number of corporate headquarters that are being set up here," said Mario Diaz, deputy general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson.

O'Hare, however, is under flight restrictions, and it shares metro area air traffic with Midway Airport — two factors that cut into Chicago's standing.

London's Heathrow came in third worldwide behind Atlanta and Chicago in the most recent ranking of airports worldwide, as measured by passengers and cargo.

Final passenger numbers for 2006 have not been calculated, but through November, Hartsfield counted about 78 million passengers, while O'Hare had about 70 million, airport spokeswoman Sterling Payne said. In 2005, Hartsfield had 86 million passengers, compared with 77 million for O'Hare, and officials predicted Atlanta would again top O'Hare in total passenger traffic.

"There's no way they can catch up" with December numbers, Diaz said.

Atlanta's airport recorded 976,313 takeoffs and landings in 2006, compared with 958,643 for O'Hare, according to

the FAA.

Dallas Fort-Worth came in third nationally with 702,713. Chicago's Midway had 298,547.

The top numbers were down a bit compared with last year, said Kathleen Bergen, spokeswoman for the FAA's Atlanta office, which oversees the Southern region.

Atlanta's air traffic was down about 0.4 percent, while Chicago's was off about 1.4 percent and Dallas' about 2.2 percent.

"We attribute that to a bit of a slower pace in the industry in general," Bergen said.

Wendy Abrams, spokeswoman for Chicago's Department of Aviation, said Chicago officials were not surprised Atlanta bested O'Hare for a second year running.

"O'Hare's flight restrictions, which are scheduled to expire next year, have limited our ability to land and depart aircraft and, ultimately, meet the demand for air service that continues to grow at our airport," she said.

The FAA limited the number of flights coming into O'Hare because of overscheduling by airlines. The restrictions will be lifted once airport expansions are completed.
Atlanta, meanwhile, opened a fifth runway in May 2006, and Delta added 23 new international flights to its hub even as it tried to climb out of bankruptcy, Diaz said.

He pointed out that Atlanta and Chicago might not have much longer to brag about on the "busiest" front in coming years. A rising middle class in China and India could swell air travel in those countries, making the Atlanta-Chicago rivalry a thing of the past.

"We all understand that being the world's busiest is the most fleeting event around," he said.


Jim Tharpe writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

nergie Apr 26, 2007 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 2794699)
What are the projected fights out of O'hare after the completion of the expansion project?

http://www.western-star.com/s/conten..._0105_COX.html


Atlanta bests Chicago for busiest airport designation
By JIM THARPE
Cox News Service

Friday, January 05, 2007

ATLANTA — Chicago has Oprah. Atlanta has Elton. Chicago had Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Atlanta had Gen. William T. Sherman.

And for the second year in a row, Atlanta had more airplanes taking off and landing at the big airport than Chicago did at theirs.

The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed Thursday that Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport had yet again trumped Chicago's O'Hare for the title of nation's busiest airport when measured in terms of takeoffs and landings.

Hartsfield-Jackson and O'Hare have vied for the No. 1 bragging rights since the late 1990s when Atlanta's airport stepped up to challenge O'Hare's long reign. In 2005, Hartsfield topped O'Hare in both passengers and the number of takeoffs and landings, making it the busiest airport in the world — a title it still holds, according to the Airports Council International.

"What this is indicative of is the continued robust economy in the city of Atlanta, the good weather we have and the ever-increasing number of corporate headquarters that are being set up here," said Mario Diaz, deputy general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson.

O'Hare, however, is under flight restrictions, and it shares metro area air traffic with Midway Airport — two factors that cut into Chicago's standing.

London's Heathrow came in third worldwide behind Atlanta and Chicago in the most recent ranking of airports worldwide, as measured by passengers and cargo.

Final passenger numbers for 2006 have not been calculated, but through November, Hartsfield counted about 78 million passengers, while O'Hare had about 70 million, airport spokeswoman Sterling Payne said. In 2005, Hartsfield had 86 million passengers, compared with 77 million for O'Hare, and officials predicted Atlanta would again top O'Hare in total passenger traffic.

"There's no way they can catch up" with December numbers, Diaz said.

Atlanta's airport recorded 976,313 takeoffs and landings in 2006, compared with 958,643 for O'Hare, according to

the FAA.

Dallas Fort-Worth came in third nationally with 702,713. Chicago's Midway had 298,547.

The top numbers were down a bit compared with last year, said Kathleen Bergen, spokeswoman for the FAA's Atlanta office, which oversees the Southern region.

Atlanta's air traffic was down about 0.4 percent, while Chicago's was off about 1.4 percent and Dallas' about 2.2 percent.

"We attribute that to a bit of a slower pace in the industry in general," Bergen said.

Wendy Abrams, spokeswoman for Chicago's Department of Aviation, said Chicago officials were not surprised Atlanta bested O'Hare for a second year running.

"O'Hare's flight restrictions, which are scheduled to expire next year, have limited our ability to land and depart aircraft and, ultimately, meet the demand for air service that continues to grow at our airport," she said.

The FAA limited the number of flights coming into O'Hare because of overscheduling by airlines. The restrictions will be lifted once airport expansions are completed.
Atlanta, meanwhile, opened a fifth runway in May 2006, and Delta added 23 new international flights to its hub even as it tried to climb out of bankruptcy, Diaz said.

He pointed out that Atlanta and Chicago might not have much longer to brag about on the "busiest" front in coming years. A rising middle class in China and India could swell air travel in those countries, making the Atlanta-Chicago rivalry a thing of the past.

"We all understand that being the world's busiest is the most fleeting event around," he said.


Jim Tharpe writes for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Here we go again the world's biggest pissing contest. How many times do we have to hear about this rivarly? Enough already.

Rail Claimore Apr 26, 2007 6:05 PM

^Till one outright pulls away from the other... obviously. I don't think that'll happen any time soon though, so long as both expansions are now going full-speed ahead.

nergie Apr 26, 2007 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore (Post 2796958)
^Till one outright pulls away from the other... obviously. I don't think that'll happen any time soon though, so long as both expansions are now going full-speed ahead.

The problem is this topic becomes a bit tiresome, the expansion projects are quite interesting. Is there a thread for the proposed ATL expansion?

Rail Claimore Apr 27, 2007 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie (Post 2797397)
The problem is this topic becomes a bit tiresome, the expansion projects are quite interesting. Is there a thread for the proposed ATL expansion?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=102191&page=6

Interesting updates have been a bit slow as of late, what with the new runway and control tower completed last year. It should pick up once more news on the new international terminal is known.

Chicago Shawn Apr 27, 2007 6:26 AM

^So that is what they have been doing to the parking garage. It makes sense now, what a innovative way to speed up efficentcy while just altering existing structure. The walkway between the train and the terminal has also improved in asthetics, but its now nearly twice as long. I actually used it this evening as I had to take a leak before boarding the Orange Line. I love the fact that Midway is so intergrated into the urban fabric that I can walk right into the terminal from the street and use the bathrom. Its the nation's most urban airport.

Kngkyle May 7, 2007 9:03 PM

Runway Target Date: Nov. '08

By TODD WESSELL

Journal Editor

Two runways at O'Hare Airport---one a new northern landing area, the other a 3,000 ft. long extension of an existing runway---are scheduled to open on Nov. 20, 2008, local business people were told Wednesday morning.

About 75 members of the Rosemont Chamber of Commerce heard Chris Armand, director of the O'Hare expansion program, explain the project's schedule and work progress. The event was held at the Rosewood Restaurant in Rosemont.

Armand said 2007 and 2008 are the two "biggest years" of the Airport's multi-billion dollar expansion program. Work includes reconfiguring the facility's runway system as well as probably building a new western access near York Road Elk Grove Village. Total cost estimates have ranged between $6.5 billion and $15 billion.

A significant aspect of the project is the building of six east-west runways including the new northern runway that parallels Touhy Avenue in Des Plaines. Construction on the 7,500 ft. long runway is currently underway. In order to perform the work, Chicago had to purchase property that was in the City of Des Plaines south of Touhy and west of Mt. Prospect Road.

Armand told the business people that the northern runway will be O'Hare's first new runway since 1971. He said it will reduce delays at O'Hare "up to 80%".

"Unfortunately, we're No. 1 in something and that's delays," Armand said later.

The other runway work that is scheduled to be completed is near the south section of O'Hare. That runway currently spans 10,000 ft. and will be expanded to 13,000 ft. Armand said it will be used to help handle anticipated growth in foreign air travel to O'Hare. A third runway will also be expanded to handle the larger, wider airplanes. Work on that will not be completed until 2011.

Besides runway work, construction is also currently underway on a new control tower at the north end of the Airport. Armand said the shaft of that structure will be built by this fall and the facility turned over the FAA next March.

"The sooner we can get things done, the sooner we can get the benefits," said Armand. "Our goal is to be aptly prepared for the Olympics", which, if Chicago is chosen would be held in the summer of 2016.

http://www.journal-topics.com/dp/07/dp070504.2.html

nomarandlee May 14, 2007 1:34 PM

DALEY'S PLAN | Would pay for new runway, refinancing
 
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...hare14.article

City may borrow $1 bil. for O'Hare
DALEY'S PLAN | Would pay for new runway, refinancing

May 14, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND MONIFA THOMAS Staff Reporters/fspielman@sun times.com, mjthomas@suntimes.com

Mayor Daley is asking the City Council to authorize a $1 billion O'Hare Airport bond issue -- the second-largest in Chicago history -- to finance construction of a new runway, refinance existing O'Hare debt and bankroll $100 million in airport improvements.

The massive borrowing, quietly introduced at Wednesday's City Council meeting, would be paid off with revenues generated by a $4.50 fee tacked on to airline tickets, known as a passenger facility charge (PFC).

The city won't issue the bonds unless the Federal Aviation Administration approves its request to use $1 billion in ticket-tax money to pay for the first phase of the mayor's massive runway expansion project.

That request, made last fall, is separate from the city's more recent application for $270 million in PFCs to help finance $400 million in overruns tied to land acquisition and litigation for the multibillion-dollar project.

1 runway to open by '08

Unlike the $270 million, the city's request for $1 billion in ticket taxes to back the bond issue "reflects completely the financial plan we put forth in 2003," O'Hare modernization chief Rosemarie Andolino said.
An estimated $500 million of the bond proceeds would be earmarked for runway construction, the first in decades at O'Hare.

Runway 9L/27R on the northernmost portion of O'Hare near Touhy and Mannheim is scheduled to open by November 2008. All of the property has been acquired and cleared.


Other projects

The site is now being graded in preparation for pouring concrete, said Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the O'Hare Modernization Project.
Roughly $400 million would be used to refinance existing airport debt at reduced interest rates. Another $100 million would bankroll O'Hare projects unrelated to Daley's runway expansion project.

Two years ago, a $1.5 billion bond issue needed to jump-start O'Hare expansion was nearly grounded because of accusations that an underwriter had not come clean about its past ties to slavery.

Chicago2020 May 14, 2007 9:29 PM

Just get it done Mayor. O'Hare will be even better with all the improvements and new additions

UglymanCometh May 14, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jersey Mentality (Post 1606032)
They want to build one way way out in south suburban Southern Will County in this town called Peotone which is like 45 miles south of the Loop.

They've been talking about that for at least a decade now... I didn't know that it was still being pushed for.

Doesn't Gary have an airport that could be expanded/upgraded?

alwaysonthefly May 14, 2007 11:32 PM

Rockford...
 
makes a great deal more sense than most of the other 'options':
1. A former USAF base with long enough runways to be UPS's 2nd largest air hub (lotsa heavy metal already operates there between dusk and dawn);
2. Triangulated (roughly) between Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison;
3. Situated northwest of ORD - just up I-90 - where the significant population growth from Chicago is projected over the next 20-25 years.

Along with Gary (southeast of Chicago), RFD makes perfect sense as a primary reliever airport for the entire Chicagoland area!

nomarandlee May 16, 2007 5:31 AM

:previous:

More of the same with a little more.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

Midway seen as likely to hit wall
Report predicts capacity problem


By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published May 16, 2007

The federal government on Tuesday placed Midway Airport on a watch list of U.S. airports that are steadily losing their ability to add more flights.

The Southwest Side airport, increasingly popular among travelers attracted to Midway's abundance of low-cost airlines, is expected to become capacity-constrained between 2015 and 2025, according to a new analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The impending crunch means severe flight delays would become a daily routine at landlocked Midway, just as they now are on many days at O'Hare International Airport, which is at the bottom of the list of U.S. airports for on-time performance.

"Midway will benefit somewhat from the next-generation air-traffic control system and all kinds of new avionics, but clearly we know that a lot more cannot be done and some choices will have to be made,"
said a high-ranking FAA official in Washington.

Midway served an average of 51,694 passengers a day in 2006, up from 42,822 passengers in 2000, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation. Daily takeoffs and landings remained stable at about 800 flights through the period.

Chicago's plans to build new runways at O'Hare "may help offset some of the additional activity forecast for Midway," the FAA report said. "But additional solutions may be needed as well, including a new airport that is now being considered" in Will County near Peotone, the report said.

The FAA assessment did not identify the Chicago metropolitan area as needing additional aviation capacity this year, because of available runway capacity at smaller airports. But the report made several assumptions in predicting an adequate supply of air service into the future for Chicago-area travelers.

The report took it for granted that Chicago's $15 billion O'Hare expansion—which is behind schedule and over budget—would be completed by 2013 on the city's original timetable. The first new O'Hare runway, part of a total realignment of the airfield, is expected to open in late 2008. But city officials offer no timeline for completion of the whole project, which is only partially paid for.

In addition, the FAA report presumed that Chicago Rockford International Airport and Gary-Chicago International Airport would serve as secondary commercial passenger airports in the Chicago region, along with Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, over at least the next several decades. But no airlines currently provide regular service to Rockford or Gary.

The FAA review of airports and passenger demand in metropolitan areas through 2025 concluded that Chicago's effort to expand O'Hare—along with runway projects and construction of new airports in cities on the East and West Coasts—are vital to serving the needs of the national airspace system over the next 20 years.

"By 2025, cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, Chicago and San Diego are going to have to risk the lost revenue, lost business and lost appeal that comes with chronic airport delays or they're going to have to consider building new airports," U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in Washington.

Houston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Phoenix also were included in the list of cities that must begin planning for increasing numbers of air travelers, Peters said.

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

alwaysonthefly May 16, 2007 11:45 AM

What, "no airlines provide regular service at Rockford..."?
 
Guess somebody's asleep at the wheel; the Friendly Skies folks provide multiple daily RJ frequencies between Rockford and Denver (with connecting service at UA's DEN hub to their Left Coast destinations) - and have for over a year now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.

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