Apparently not, the new passage looks like it will follow the course of the old one, but it will be heated/cooled. Hopefully more moving sidewalks are installed to speed up the long walk.

Consolidated rent-a-car facility photo (1 of 2) from November:

Sorry about the size. (If there is a way to embed these so they're smaller let me know.) Will write comments in a separate post.

https://i.imgur.com/n9w25Um.jpg
i.imgur.com/n9w25Um.jpg

Consolidated rent-a-car facility photo (2 of 2) from November:

Sorry about the size. (If there is a way to embed these so they're smaller let me know.) Will write comments in a separate post.

https://i.imgur.com/5Wvo8hW.jpg
i.imgur.com/5Wvo8hW.jpg

So the CONRAC has basically reached its final size (except for the future vertical expansion). But if you look at the surface space currently taken up by all the rental companies, it looks like they might be taking up more than 3 times the footprint of the CONRAC (i.e., 3 floors' worth of the new building, since its bottom 3 floors will be dedicated to car rental). So the new building seems barely sufficient to cover existing demand, much less future demand. Hopefully there would not be big obstacles to later converting parts of Floor 4 to rental services.

A couple other observations:

Since the top 3 floors are long-term self-park, you'd think there would be a direct (cruising speed) ramp straight up to Floor 4 for those users, rather than making every single vehicle putt-putt around the helix on its way in and out, which takes more time, burns (some) more fuel, and will be badly handled by future self-driving vehicles since they won't be able to see ahead further than 20 feet in the helix.

The siting of the ATS station seems increasingly unfortunate given the otherwise perfect location of the Metra NCS tracks, and the latest push for an airport express. Even if an airport express eventually is brought right into a tunnel in the terminal area, you can picture an interim phase of several or many years where a starter system runs just to the Metra station here.

Finally, will this new ATS terminus have no kiss-and-fly dropoff? You'd think a ramp off Mannheim right to the foot of the station would make sense, and would reduce the number of vehicles clogging the terminal loop.

What are they going to do with all those parking lots now? Hopefully build a street grid and construct a high density urban neighborhood complete with skyscrapers right?

A theoretical airport express that will command a premium will not use the O'Hare transfer station and make everybody haul over to the ATS, wait for it, then take the ride to terminals. Any express station will surely be walkable from the main terminal complex.

Yes and a cell lot.

America really has an abundance of cheap land, doesn't it?

Eventually. But a new tunnel connection between the existing Metra r-o-w and the terminals could cost more than the rest of the line put together, and in any event would probably be completed years later, especially since T2 v2.0 would have to be designed first and some degree of construction begun. In contrast, setting up an interim phase where an airport express runs to the O'Hare Transfer Station could be done nearly overnight (though gradually shrinking trip time to 20 minutes will take a fair amount of capital expenditure). A starter system like that would mean more realistic, phased capital investment, allowing the system to prove itself slowly as further phases are planned.

Remember, the ATS is getting new rolling stock, and with the heavy car rental usage coming up, frequency will be improved. There further could be some throughput benefit if they completed the loop where T1, instead of being a turnaround station, is connected via the north side back towards T5.

I think the much bigger determinative factor in airport express success is convenience of the downtown terminal. Block 37 is a terrible idea I think; it's got to be in the west loop, where an influx of taxis can be handled, and the office center of gravity has moved. A second station in River West or slightly upriver, like around Finkl, would be a good destination for people taking private cars from nearby neighborhoods like River North, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, etc. (in the case where MD-W / CSX alignments are not chosen); otherwise it's doubtful those people would drive backwards down to Union or Ogilvie.

Even if an airport express were $30 and took 30 minutes, that's still cheaper than a taxi, and you know exactly when it arrives, compared to the nail-biting vagaries of the increasingly congested Kennedy -- and also increasingly congested I-190 (it's hard to believe but at 6am on a Monday there is already a traffic jam there, worsened further by traffic not going to the airport but going onto I-294 southbound). Grabbing market share from taxi/uber should be easy; if not too pricey it also could grab market share from the family-member-giving-you-a-ride segment.

A cell lot need not be near the ATS (or this parking structure); in fact, it would probably be better to locate it far away so as to distribute vehicle congestion across Bessie Coleman and Mannheim.

There may be a way to get to the terminal complex without a tunnel by widening the 190 corridor. There's room for a pair of tracks on the north side of 190 if the taxiway bridges are widened. Might need some short tunnels or flyovers to avoid ramps, but that's still cheaper than digging a long tunnel through soft soil. The station itself could even be on the ground level of the garage if the city is willing to lose a few parking spaces.

I disagree about Block 37; I think it's the perfect location for a terminal. The office center of gravity may be shifting west, but the critical mass of hotels is still around the Mag Mile/Cultural Mile, and business travelers need to sleep somewhere. For Chicagoans, Block 37 offers excellent CTA connections to both rail and bus.

The challenge of Block 37, of course, is getting trains to there... it's not a challenge for Elon Musk, who probably plans to tunnel the whole route using his magical fairydust, but for everyone else the cost of accessing Block 37 without using the Blue/Red Line tunnels will be daunting.

In lieu of Block 37, it occurs to me that a developer might be able to develop the Thompson Center site with an O'Hare Express terminal (maybe tunnel below Randolph?) and have the real estate subsidize the rail construction, or vice versa. I doubt even a mile-high tower could generate enough revenue to fund a subway tunnel at US costs, though.

http://www.flychicago.com/business/m...px?newsid=1442

American Airlines Adds Service from Chicago O'Hare to a Dozen Destinations
Date: 01/18/2018 | Source: Chicago Department of Aviation

The full list of American Airlines' new destinations from ORD in 2018 includes:

Venice (VCE)
Vancouver (YVR)
Calgary (YYC)
Wilkes Barre-Scranton (AVP)
Bangor (BGR)
Burlington (BTV)
Charleston (CHS)
Wilmington (ILM)
Missoula (MSO)
Myrtle Beach (MYR)
Portland (PWM)
Savannah (SAV)

American also announced it will launch a new shuttle between ORD and New York LaGuardia (LGA) on April 4, 2018 that will offer business travelers hourly flights between the two cities with unique travel benefits such as dedicated gates, shortened check-in times and complimentary beer and wine in the main cabin.

Options for O'Hare Expansion
 

For some reason, I just find it fun to think of ideas of how to modify the O'Hare airport layout to find other solutions for expansion. I offer these ideas for you to discuss.


https://i.imgur.com/DNejRnd.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/KRMTS9A.jpg


For larger versions of these images, you can see them at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/364574...7692394231255/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/364574...7692394231255/

Moved Runway
I've taken runway 4L-22R from its current location near Concourse C going northeast and moved it to west in between the fuel tanks and maintenance area. I shortened this runway from its current 7500ft to 7000ft. I've shortened runway 9C-27C on the west end to accommodate the new runway shift.

Pros:

• Runway 4L-22R no longer intersects the main runways of 9C-27C (to be created) and 9R-22L which will be lengthened to handle jumbo jets.
• New (moved) runway 4L-22R can now be used for northeast takeoff and landing. Currently this runway is not used, but not decommissioned either.
• By moving the runway, the center of the airport space becomes open for development. Other diagrams proposed by the city usually show building structures accommodating this runway, which is not efficient.

Cons:

• Cost of moving the runway is expensive.
• More land must be purchased
• The moved runway intersects 9L-27R, which isn't necessarily bad. The intersection happens near the express ramp off 27R, so some engineering is needed to fix this. I don't expect this to be a showstopper.
• The new traffic route takes the planes over Maine West High School and several houses. Naturally there will be more noise from airplanes taking off, and politicians will need to address a solution.

Core Taxiway changes
Now that runway 4L-22R has been moved, and runway 14R-32L will be decommissioned, we can use those pieces to create new taxiways for the core terminals. The taxiways below concourses G and F will continue to extend toward taxiway and runway 14R-32L to form the new A and B taxiways for the core terminal. The inner taxiway will go northwest, and then curve to meet the end of the "former" 4L-22R runway. The outer taxiway will take the same course, and meet up at a proposed taxiway as designed during the O'Hare modernization program. Now terminals 1 and 2 can expand.

Terminal 1
The following changes happen here:

• There is enough apron space to create another through-taxiway system of the same size between concourses B and C to place on the west end of C. These taxiways are 400ft wide, allowing 2x200ft taxiways.
• There is enough space to create a new concourse D. This will house several jumbo jets. I estimate you can get 18+ planes at this concourse.
• Concourse C loses its jumbo jets in the middle to accommodate the new taxiways. Maybe some smaller planes can fit in that space.
• Concourse C can extend north some more to create more gates.
• Concourse D would link up to concourse C via tunnel. D is now distant from B, so you may need a tram system to carry people faster. Concourse C may want a northern tunnel to go to B.
• The RJ's in concourse F move to concourse B (see Terminal 2 plans). This makes some passengers who use RJs to go quicker from curb to plane. Now United is all in one terminal.
• (Optional) If Concourse B is used primarily for RJs, you may be able to shrink the apron to allow expansion of the terminal facility and baggage area by 25-50ft. I presume the terminal building needs to expand at the ends to allow a couple more baggage carousels.

Terminal 2
The following changes here:

• The taxiway change allows concourse E to extend further. I tried to maximize the apron space, and created another "Y". The outsides of the "Y" have 200ft aprons (standard), and the inner "Y" has a 150ft apron, usable for Delta Connection's RJs.
• In between concourses E and F will be straight 150ft taxiways as opposed to the angular taxiways.
• Concourse E gets 10+ new gates. This is enough to move Jet Blue, Frontier, Spirit, and maybe another carrier to concourse E. Now terminal 2 is used for all "other" airlines. Concourse L frees up for American to use.
• The taxiways between concourses F and G can really only allow RJs or very small mainline aircraft. So, you really can't use concourse F for anything other than RJs. I propose that American can move many of its RJs (not in G) to F. This now frees up other gates for American to reconfigure for mainline or jumbo jets (jumbo only applies at the extremities of H, K, and L)

Takeaways:

• If you look at the latest proposal from the city where they add a new concourse west of runway 14-32, you'll see that they keep the core intact, but don't address how the facilities will handle the new remote concourses. My guess is that the airport doesn't want to undertake a radical change away from the core infrastructure as that would be too costly. I like my proposal as it keeps the core intact, but just adds on.
• United and American get large increases in gate expansion for both airlines. Theoretically, American gets more gates, but both may get the same apron space.
  • American gets 5 gates at L (airline moves), plus 5 gates currently being built. American also gets 20+ gates at concourse F, for a total of 30 gates. American may reconfigure some gates to handle larger planes, which may mean a loss of gates at some concourses.
  • United gets 20-22 new gates at concourse D, plus 5-8 gates in C expansion for about 30 gates. United will have to manipulate its gates to move the RJs, and the jumbo gates at C are changed to handle smaller planes.
• United gets a nice new concourse, concourse D. They will have to solve the increase in passenger traffic and security flow in the terminal.
• American may not exclusively like the idea that concourse D and E are new, whereas their facilities still look old. It is possible that the modernization program will redo all of Terminal 2, at a large expense, so that American gets a new concourse F.
• American will need to start a shuttle bus service from concourse F to its other concourses.
• All the other airlines are consolidated at Terminal 2.
• I couldn't figure out a way to make an international customs terminal at Terminal 2. I suppose you can reconfigure the Concourse E extension to handle jumbo jets, but you do so at the expense of apron space, which takes away opportunities to add gates for other airlines.

Thoughts?

She is at again!
 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/...ticket-london/

She is at again! Serial stowaway arrested again. She sneak at TSA checkpoint without ticket & passport and then she sneak onto British Airways flight. She was hiding in the lavatory and then she got in the seat after the plane is takeoff. She flies to London. The cabin crew who realized her that she didn't have a ticket. She had no passport. British customs had sent her back to Chicago. They put her on next flight out.

She was banned ORD, MDW, Greyhound bus and Amtrak, as well. Can't you guys believe this? Why does she doing it? She didn't listen from the judge. She was supposed to stay at mental health for 2 years on her probation.

Ada Quonsett at it again? Mel Bakersfield and Tanya Livingston had to deal with her as well. ;) (If you are old enough you should be able to figure out what movie I am referencing).

Actually, her real name is Marilyn Hartman. She is serial stowaway. She's trying to sneak on the plane without ticket for numerous times. She was banned ORD, MDW, Greyhound bus and Amtrak, as well. She was not supposed to be there. She didn't listen from the judge. She didn't wear an electronics ankle monitoring bracelet. She should wear it. She cannot be allowed to removed the electronic ankle monitoring. She needs to be punished again.

Ah, yes. Way back, when flying out of Lincoln International was special.

https://i.imgur.com/ruhC5f3.jpg

United on their call today releasing FY 2017 earnings said they intend to grow domestic capacity by 4-6% per year for the next 3 years in order to better compete with American and Delta. ORD was mentioned as one of the main targets of that growth. Also they stated that starting in February 2018 ORD will be a banked hub instead of rolling, which means shorter overall connecting times.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ssenger-record

January 24, 2018

O'Hare has a record year


Passenger and cargo business at O'Hare International Airport hit record levels in 2017, according to preliminary figures released by the city today—news Mayor Rahm Emanuel promptly hailed as a sign his airport modernization plans are working.

But while the trend is good, total growth over the past 17 years is modest compared with other big U.S. airports. Continuing and accelerating that growth will depend on O'Hare's largest carrier, United Airlines, sticking with its plans to bulk up at its hub airports. It also will depend on the city finalizing a tentative deal to add dozens of new gates to the airport's newly expanded network of gates, something that could happen quite soon.
Here's the news:

According to the Chicago Department of Aviation, the total number of passengers—the number of people getting on or off flights here—hit 79.8 million last year, up 2.4 percent from 2016 and setting a new record. 2016's 78 million also was a record, and followed a 15-year stretch in which O'Hare's business effectively stalled.

Back in 2000, for instance, the airport handed 72.1 million passengers, according to data on the city's website. ...

In comparison...Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International remains No. 1—grew its passenger count from 66.7 million to 80.9 million just between 2014 and 2016.

INTERNATIONAL GROWTH
Much of O'Hare's relatively slow growth has been concentrated on the international side, a point Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans has made in numerous public forums. The city just released final 2017 international figures for O'Hare, showing passenger growth increased 6 percent.
O'Hare lately has shown faster growth in cargo. It grew 1.9 million tons last year, just under 12 percent, according to the city.

Sparking faster growth, and the jobs and other economic benefits that come with it, depends in part on whether United continues with plans it announced to keep adding service at its biggest midcontinent hubs, including O'Hare.
The carrier yesterday announced plans for 4 percent to 6 percent growth in seat capacity for the next three years, concentrated at the midcontinent hubs,

...


Midway Airport handled 22.4 million passengers last year, "one of its highest annual totals," according to the city.

Only problem with banking is it lowers daily flight count per gate.

Not necessarily. That would depend entirely on the number of banks they operate per day. At UA's investor call part of their pitch was more efficient use of their assets. Specifically, better utilization of their gates and planes. I'm not sure how many banks they are pursing at ORD but based on their statements I think we'll see higher gate utilization not lower. Every time I'm at ORD I take note of the flights departing at other gates and how long until they depart. I often see the next flights being 2-3 hours into the future. That is terrible utilization and means there is plenty of slack for growth. That is why I don't fully buy the "UA and AA need more gates to expand at ORD" - no they just need to efficiently use what they have. Although they could probably use some new gates as well, at least in the not too distant future.

United today serves about 145 million passengers per year. So their 4-6% growth per year means 6 to 9 million more per year. They specifically mention ORD, DEN, and IAH as the target of that growth. If ORD grows proportional to it's existing size within the UA network then ORD should be pushing 90 million passengers by 2020 and that is only considering UA growth with everyone else being flat.

I eagerly await the announcement of the terminal expansion plan. Should happen any week now.

I like banking in general but I cannot figure out how it saves money. You bring all the flights to point in time so they all depart around the same time. They do have rolling banks on banking schedules so that helps, but in general banking wastes gate space. I am not talking about long sitters, just the live banking flights. Also you have to have more manpower and equipment at every gate because they all depart around the same time. Before you could stagger flights and people/equipment. Connections are better with banking so that is the real reason, but does that generate enough money to offset the added costs? I think not..