|
Quote:
|
Rethinking ORD: O'Hare Super Strip
11.12.2010 By Clare Lyster http://archpaper.com/images/anp_logos/anplogo.gif Read More: http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4992 Quote:
http://archpaper.com/uploads/file/Lyster_O%27Hare_2.jpg |
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7054790.story
U.S. offers $3.4 million to design control tower at O'Hare By Jon Hilkevitch Although Chicago still has not lined up funding to build the final new runway planned at O'Hare International Airport, the U.S. government offered $3.4 million Monday to design an air-traffic control tower to serve the future airstrip. The proposed tower, to be located on the south airfield, would be the third control tower at O'Hare. It would serve the planned 7,500-foot runway 10 Right/28 Left, the southern-most runway of six east-west runways envisioned in the $15 billion O'Hare expansion project. ...LaHood offered another surprise. He said no one has approached him during his almost two years as transportation secretary about the proposed south suburban airport in Will County. |
Is the southern control tower only for the proposed southern most runway 10R/28L, or is it going to be used to control all of the runways on the south end of the field? Seems odd that you'd need 1 control tower for a single runway (or at least that is what I gathered from the article).
|
I'm not sure, exactly. Most parallel-runway airports have the runways fairly closely-spaced (DFW, LAX, SEA) but O'Hare will have very widely-spaced runways. That makes the job of the ATCs more difficult. I wonder if the central tower will be taken out of commission, to be replaced with the existing and future mid-field towers?
|
I looked at some sample airports, and DFW has 3 towers, ATL has 1 (biggest in US), and DTW has 1. My guess is that the ORD central tower may not be tall enough to see the entire airfield, and thus ancillary towers are needed to see the outer-most runways. This seems to be the model for DFW. ATL created one massive tower in order to see the whole airfield.
|
Having 2 or 3 is way cooler than having 1 big one. Especially given the sexy design they used for ORD (and the cookie cutter design used at ATL).
I wonder how many others have 3 -- it's probably an extremely short list (DEN?) if there are any at all. FYI the DFW towers look pretty smallish per satellite photo. |
Quote:
|
Eh... it's all overblown. Planning for the highway is going gangbusters. Every few weeks, they're having meetings and determining new things about how the massive new highway will look, function, and be constructed. It makes the CTA look laughable with their glacially-slow study process.
|
Quote:
Here's what I meant for the new United terminal. This is what we have now: http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8839/harej.jpg This is what could be: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4682/hareunited.jpg So, I really thought this one through. The western (left) satellite terminal is the United and Star Alliance International terminal with 23 gates for jumbo jets. This is accessible only from an underground train from the main terminal, the one with the 3 piers/concourses. The middle concourse if you notice has only one side with aircraft, that's because there would not be enough taxi room if both sides did, and also if you notice, the middle concourse is devoted entirely to small regional jets. Since most regional jet travelers are connecting, their gates are conveniently located in the middle of the entire complex. The concourse sizes are also very wide, to prevent crowding and ample gate seating areas, something people often complain about in U.S. airports. For departing international passengers, they would proceed to the north side of the main terminal, check in, eat at a fancy restaurant, the ride an express train straight to their gates (the yellow line). For international arriving passengers, those who have connecting flights have an immigration AND customs facility right in the international terminal, so they can connect to their domestic flights in the main terminal without ever leaving security. For international passengers headed home to Chicago, they have an express train straight to the main terminal (orange line) that takes them to a customs facility just for them and their luggage. Immigration is only done in the international terminal. For domestic passengers, yes the concourses are long but you have a train, plenty of moving walkways inside the concourses, and all the things you need or wished you needed. Connections are made easy with underground walkways and frequent trains (red line). United, Chicago, anyone listening? http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/175...naldiagram.jpg |
^ thats a great design. I think you made it a little too big though. That is probably enough for all the passenger operations not just United. As you're well aware, United and American are unlikely to support expansion if it means more gates for LCCs. I'd love for them to just demolish all the terminals and build that though, too bad it can't really be done and would cost a ton.
Looking at the scale you used, that terminal would have about 250 gates. Right now all of the terminals total 182 gates. So way more than is realistic. |
Quote:
The new design is modeled to rival delta's hub in Atlanta. It's essentially a Delta hub laid on top of the old terminals 1 and 2. Nothing outrageous compared to what's being built in Dubai, Beijing, etc. The numbers are also modest, a million flights per year (compared to the current 900K and 90-100 million passengers, compared to the current 70 million). I really think this terminal is doable with 3 billion dollars, minus road improvements and/or western access. Perhaps the new United/Continental would be interested in something like this, if they don't, another city WILL build something similar and take the traffic. |
Quote:
|
I decided to have a go at designing a new terminal as well. :D
I went with the similar design to Atlanta because I think it works perfectly and allows for easy expansion if needed. This terminal would be for all Star Alliance carriers and would have immigration and customs making the T5 arrivals unnecessary. http://kngkyle.com/uploads/2010-11-22_1912.png My inspiration for putting the widebody gates first comes from the McNamara terminal in Detroit. As you walk into the gate area you look into the eyes of a pair of 747s. International ops are the pride and glory of the airport and airline and should be shown off with this sort of grand entrance. 14 widebody gates is probably more than is needed but they can always be used for smaller aircraft. (unlike the reverse) In this layout, concourses A B C D have a total of 153 gates. That would be an increase of 72 gates which is a bit much. So to start off they could just build A B C to start and build D and on as needed. I know this will never happen but we can dream. ;) |
^ And the winner is..... simplicity!
Nice job, goes with the current design without major changes and can actually be done with the current layout. I like the idea of the big jets in the front, but for domestic business travelers who want the minimum distance between the road and their flights that may not be good. Flights to NYC and DC may also want to be in concourse A for the aforementioned reason. Otherwise I'll take your design over mine any day. I don't see why they couldn't easily build another midfield concourse west of the current concourse C. |
Something similar was proposed in the Master plan. You can look at the alternatives section, and Section 6 has something close to the above.
The major problem is the clearance for runway 4L/22R, as that runway would be unusable now. That would mean that you don't have parallel crosswind runways. Also the lack of a major taxiway between the concourses would mean that arriving airplanes may have to take long trips around the concourses to taxi. I have some other ideas for terminal 2. Perhaps in the next couple of days I'll post those. |
Quote:
|
This caught my eye:
2010/11/28 United Airlines Terminal Renovation airport terminal renovation Zemke Blvd, Chicago, IL 60666, USA Cook Bidclerk doesn't provide much: Renovation of a transportation facility in Chicago. Completed plans call for the extensive renovation of an airport terminal. ... Anyone have a clue? |
E/F-concourse.
|
Zemke is way up north near the long-term parking. Maybe this is about UA's cargo or maintenance hangars.
|
I do not believe it myself but I will post this here nonetheless.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,1638524.story Magazine says O'Hare best airport in North America Associated Press 6:07 AM CST, December 4, 2010 CHICAGO It may surprise some of the hordes of passengers passing through O'Hare International Airport, but the Chicago Department of Aviation says the facility has been once again won Global Traveler's award for "Best Airport in North America." The department says O'Hare has now won the magazine's award every year since 2005, and notes that the airport won a similar award from Business Traveler every year from 2000 to 2004. Global Traveler says O'Hare was recognized by business travelers who participated in a survey conducted between January and August of this year. The magazine says its readers are frequent premium travelers who average 16 round-trip international and 16 domestic flights a year. |
I guess the City That Works also has an airport That Works.
Most regular schmoes hate the size and complexity of O'Hare, but you gotta admire its efficiency. Atlanta may have more travelers passing through the airport, but that's inflated by layovers. I think O'Hare has many, many more passengers actually arriving and departing from the terminals to destinations in Chicago and the region. That means far more security lines, bag checking, a much bigger ground transportation system, etc. The airport does a seemingly good job with this - I got through security on last Monday (one of the busiest of the year) in 20 minutes. Many of the worst issues with O'Hare's operations were solved by the last new runway. The other new ones will strengthen the system even more. Any remaining issues are caused by the weather, which is hardly a factor in the control of O'Hare's planners and ATCs. I think the airlines are right, on some level - a new Western Terminal isn't needed. The city just needs to improve the ground transportation system to GET people to the airport faster. If this means a Western Transportation Hub with a subway/people mover extension, then that's cool. |
http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...0007d21c39____
Chicago Becomes Cathay Pacific's Next U.S. Destination 6 December 2010 Cathay Pacific will launch daily nonstop passenger service between Hong Kong and Chicago on Sept. 1, 2011. The route will be served by a Boeing 777-300ER aircraft. Chicago will be the airline’s first new American destination since 1998. The carrier currently serves Los Angeles, New York JFK and San Francisco in the United States with more than 50 flights per week. ...Cathay Pacific flight CX807 will depart Chicago daily at 3:25 p.m. Central and arrive in Hong Kong at 8 p.m. local the next day. Flight CX806 will depart Hong Kong at 11:45 a.m. local time and arrive Chicago at 1:45 p.m. Central time the same day. |
:previous: :banana: United is getting some competition. CP's entry would seem to be a good indicator that Uniteds HNK-ORD route is very strong
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I like O'Hare's terminal efficiency. However, I HATE the transportation setup. The trains are too far away and most of the moving walkways don't work. The rental car locations are a nightmare. I've flown 50 segments through O'Hare alone this year, and the travel options all suck, with the exception of getting a cab. Cabs are always easy.
|
^ Has a contractor been selected for the unified car rental facility building yet? Get that darn thing going already.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Regardless, this is great news for Chicago, and a bit of an eye-opener. Did not see this one coming, but it makes a lot of sense. |
Crain's Chicago Business article published 12/20 2010
GROUND STOP AT O"HARE? "United Airlines is pressing Mayor Richard M. Daley to slow the expansion of O'Hare International Airport. In recent weeks, representatives of Chicago-based United urged city officials to scrap the 2014 target completion date for the $8-billion project, delaying construction of two new runways until air traffic increases." http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-stop-at-ohare |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can't imagine a circumstance under which more runway capacity is anything but good for travelers. |
Quote:
O'Hare will be going from 6 mostly intersecting runways to 8, with 4 parallel runways and 2 pairs of crosswind runways. Adding additional runways beyond that really only makes sense in the context of an additional terminal, populated by additional airlines. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a western transportation concourse with parking facilities and transit linkages. I'm not sure that new gates and even more runways are a good use of money, though. |
The city should cut a deal partially complete the next set runway work in exchange for shelving the balance and Western Terminal until the airport starts hitting certain passenger traffic levels. Further the airlines should consent to fees that would fund refurbishments of the concourses that need it and the construction of the economy lot garage and extension of the ATS to lot F and the Metra connection.
Metra should also be leaned on to make some real use of the NCS line and provide regular express service to the O'Hare Transfer out of Union Station and actually make the trip in less than the 29 minutes it takes now. |
FedEx's replacement facility in the cargo area of the airfield is nearly done. After several months of installing and calibrating their labyrinth of conveyor belts, they will move in around late spring. The existing facility is right in the middle of one of the new runways that is now about halfway built (kind of painfully obvious in the recent satellite photos on Google), so it will be levelled, along with a couple of other cargo facilities. (The new FedEx facility is the one with the green roof in the satellite photos, next to Resthaven Cemetery (or what is left of Resthaven Cemetery I guess).)
I am curious when the rail line passing by this (sorry, not sure which freight co, but it is the one that crosses over Irving Pk Rd) will be relocated. |
^ Actually I just realized something interesting. That rail line has already been shifted recently. It used to run between Resthaven and St Johannes, in a gentle S curve. Now it runs south of the cemeteries, and has a sharper curve.
So the question is, will they re-route it a 2nd time when the time comes to build the far south runway -- that runway is planned to intersect the current route of the rail line. The only other option would be to bury the freight line into a trench underneath the runway, which I suspect is a non-starter. |
I would imagine that they would have to reroute it again for the final proposed solution, as well as reroute Irving Park Rd.
I've been busy with many designs for Terminal 2 rework, that I've finally uploaded them to a flickr page. There would be too many images to paste here. The page is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/36457406@N07/?saved=1. Perhaps someone affiliated with O'Hare may be interested in the designs. |
Quote:
I'm guessing the interim UP tracks have wooden ties and jointed tracks (large plates connect each segment of rail) instead of the modern, more expensive continuously-welded rail. Just a bit of rail geekery, but that would be a good sign that the current alignment is temporary. |
Crain's Chicago Business reported some big news about the O'Hare modernization project to subscribers yesterday -- I got the teaser in my email, but I can't find where I pulled up the story (it was on my iPhone). Anybody with a subscription care to enlighten us?
If I remember right, it was that the city is going to circumvent the airlines by issuing bonds with a repayment period to begin after the (2018 or so?) airlines-veto-power agreement rather than after the bond-funded construction is complete. The markets would have to buy the idea (I seem to remember that that could coalesce as soon as this week) and the courts would have to approve, if the airlines challenge it. What I don't remember, or never got from the article, is how much of Daley's original plan would be completed if this flies. |
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2...n-america.html
O’Hare deal would open gates for Virgin America By Julie Johnsson The city of Chicago has struck a deal with Delta Air Lines that could pave the way for upstart Virgin America to begin service at O’Hare International Airport. A proposed ordinance introduced by Mayor Daley in city council Wednesday would give the city control over the L concourse gates in Terminal 3. The gates have been largely vacant since Nov. 17, 2009, when Delta shifted its operations at O’Hare to merger partner Northwest Airline’s base in Terminal 2. |
I wonder if this will give the city leverage over the airlines in the expansion debate?
If the city loses, at least we get Virgin America flights. :shrug: |
Quote:
|
The CN line can probably be expanded to four tracks between Franklin Park Junction and the O'Hare Transfer Station. Two of those tracks would be dedicated to passenger service. This is less than 2 miles of track, so it shouldn't be too expensive - most of it is three or four tracks already. Once at the O'Hare Transfer Station, a people-mover extension will take passengers to the terminal, as per the existing plans.
If CN refuses to play ball, then Amtrak can expand the now-pathetic Mannheim station on the UP-W, or build a new station in the O'Hare cargo area near Irving Park Road, and run bus shuttles to the terminal. Option 3 has trains going up the west side of the airport to a station at York/Thorndale, where passengers would board a subway extension of the people-mover. O'Hare Master Plan calls for the underground people-mover to be separate from the existing one, but I think that's pretty wasteful. The advantage of Option 3 is that it lays the groundwork for a Western Terminal without the huge expense. The transfer point between the rail and people-mover could be tied into a kiss-and-ride at the end of the future Elgin-O'Hare. |
Speaking of the Elgin-O'Hare...
The plans for the east extension/airport bypass are progressing. The initial phase now will widen the existing Elgin-O'Hare to a 6-lane cross section, and the newly-constructed expressways will have 4-lane cross sections. There will be a minimum of new ramps at interchanges, and minor changes to allow for bus service in the shoulders. The second phase will widen the entire system of highways to a 10-lane cross section, with 8 general-purpose lanes and 2 bus lanes. The north leg will have rail in the form of the STAR line instead of bus lanes, so that's technically an 8-lane cross section. Roadway costs for the first phase are roughly $2.5 billion... IDOT has done a tolling study and found that they can issue $1.25 billion in bonds based on expected toll revenue. That leaves the remaining 50% of the cost to be borne by the Feds and/or the state budget (ha!) |
Fairly recent aerial shot of O'Hare
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2179/ohare.jpg Jun Seita/ flickr Notice the remains of Bensenville in the bottom left hand corner |
Quote:
|
"The CN line can probably be expanded to four tracks between Franklin Park Junction and the O'Hare Transfer Station. Two of those tracks would be dedicated to passenger service. This is less than 2 miles of track, so it shouldn't be too expensive - most of it is three or four tracks already. Once at the O'Hare Transfer Station, a people-mover extension will take passengers to the terminal, as per the existing plans.
If CN refuses to play ball, then Amtrak can expand the now-pathetic Mannheim station on the UP-W, or build a new station in the O'Hare cargo area near Irving Park Road, and run bus shuttles to the terminal. Option 3 has trains going up the west side of the airport to a station at York/Thorndale, where passengers would board a subway extension of the people-mover. O'Hare Master Plan calls for the underground people-mover to be separate from the existing one, but I think that's pretty wasteful. The advantage of Option 3 is that it lays the groundwork for a Western Terminal without the huge expense. The transfer point between the rail and people-mover could be tied into a kiss-and-ride at the end of the future Elgin-O'Hare." Everything possible should be done to vet all possibilities of building a one-seat ride to the terminals (a la Heathrow) - even if this means electrification. Value and usage of a transfer ride will inevitably be lower. |
I don't think it's realistic to build a new line into the very cramped East Terminals. There's no room above ground. If the city manages to get a West Terminal built, it's pretty easy to bring a high-speed rail line into there.
If direct access to the East Terminals is essential, then the city needs to use the existing Blue Line tracks, either by building express tracks on the Blue Line or by somehow building a track connection between the Blue Line and the freight rail network. |
While Amtrak could use the existing Metra lines (MD-N, and CN tracks), they could possibly tunnel some tracks to O'Hare, about where the CN tracks meet the Blue line. The tunnel would take them to the eastern campus, with a possible option to go further if a western terminal is opened.
I'm not sure that such a project would be feasible. Such service would have to have the ridership, as well as sustainable income. Additionally, using the MD-N tracks mean that you have several at-grade crossings, which would make it difficult to maintain a high speed corridor, as well as frequent trips. I'm guessing that O'Hare to downtown would probably take 20 minutes. You would at least need 2 trains running this corridor assuming you wait every 20-25 minutes for a train. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 2:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev