CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[10023]

On a somewhat unrelated note: why do they bother noting that the consulting contract is "no-bid"?

They're not laying pavement. Advisory businesses, like consulting, law or investment banking, are built on relationships and trust. No company has its advisers "bid" on a role - they may all come in and pitch, and from that they select the one that seems most thoughtful and helpful, but it's never, ever about how much they're going to charge for services. If there's a particular transportation consulting firm that the relevant people in City Hall have trusted for advice for many years, there's nothing surprising or wrong about using them again and again.

[VivaLFuego]

As someone with experience in government procurement of professional services, I can confirm that these aren't done via a low-bid process but rather via RFP, which, as 10023 says, is primarily qualification- and reputation-based, as it should be. However, contractor selection still involves an open process in which the finalists are brought in for presentations to an evaluation committee. "No-bid" suggests that the contract was awarded via "Sole Source" provisions, which is generally justified by projects involving proprietary knowledge of some sort. In a professional services context, sole source procurement is a natural fit for various technology services (wherein software code is held under copyright) and in certain instances where it is mandated by regulation, as it sometimes is for multi-stage planning processes.

Or it could just be sloppy reporting, which is the Occam's Razor answer to the question "why do they bother noting that the consulting contract is "no-bid"?"

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...n-runways.html

Chicago, Bensenville to ink O'Hare expansion deal
November 16, 2009 3:08 PM | No Comments

Chicago will pay Bensenville $16 million to drop its decades-long opposition to new runways at O'Hare International Airport, officials announced today.

The settlement of a court battle clears the way for Chicago to begin demolishing hundreds of abandoned homes in the village............


Demolition of more than 500 properties could begin later this year and will take up to a year to complete, said Rosemarie Andolino, Chicago aviation commissioner...........

Soto has said Bensenville residents are tired of the suburb's combative image and that cooperating with Chicago could result in a promised western-access roadway into O'Hare being built, along with a ring road running through the airport connecting the Jane Addams and Tri-State Tollways............

Neither Chicago-based United Airlines or American Airlines support Chicago's plans for a western terminal campus providing additional aircraft gates.

The western terminal facility is necessary for the promised western-access roadway to be built.............



-- Jon Hilkevitch

..

[spyguy]

^Finally.

Anyone see the RFQ (*PDF*) for the new South Air Traffic Control Tower?

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Project includes design of the South Air Traffic Control Tower (“SATCT”) and associated base building in the
southern section of O’Hare International Airport. The general basis of design for the SATCT Cab Tower Shaft and
Base Building will be the as-built condition of North Air Traffic Control Tower (“NATCT”). The OMP will provide the
selected Respondent as-built documents of NATCT for use in completing the SATCT design. The tower will be
approximately 219 feet tall to the top of tower with a 565 square foot cab and a 10,000 – 12,000 square foot base
building. Also included is site development including, utilities, drainage and parking for the Project: See Attachment A,
FAA Site Selection Report, June 5, 2009 for project site boundaries.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

^Finally.

Anyone see the RFQ (*PDF*) for the new South Air Traffic Control Tower?

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Project includes design of the South Air Traffic Control Tower (“SATCT”) and associated base building in the
southern section of O’Hare International Airport. The general basis of design for the SATCT Cab Tower Shaft and
Base Building will be the as-built condition of North Air Traffic Control Tower (“NATCT”). The OMP will provide the
selected Respondent as-built documents of NATCT for use in completing the SATCT design. The tower will be
approximately 219 feet tall to the top of tower with a 565 square foot cab and a 10,000 – 12,000 square foot base
building. Also included is site development including, utilities, drainage and parking for the Project: See Attachment A,
FAA Site Selection Report, June 5, 2009 for project site boundaries.

So, I guess this will give O'hare 4 tower. The oldest one no longer in use as a tower, then the one from about 1997, the one just completed and this newly proposed one.

[Jenner]

What's the status of the WGP? I see the above message regarding a study for the western terminal (which the arilines don't want), but what about Terminals 4 and 6?

Terminal 6 seems to make sense if you're going to add more international traffic.

However, the terminal 4 plan in the WGP seems rather inefficient in terms of displacing some of terminal 3, concourse L, and the plane allocation for the new terminal 4. I was looking at this more, and started to make doodles on paper. Finally I opened Photoshop, and started some drawings there. I think I have a design for terminal 4 that preserves terminal 3, and has about 18-20 planes for a terminal 4. Are conceptual designs discussed in this forum? Anyone interested?

[nomarandlee]

This is supposed to be a thread about any and all things O'Hare expansion (it has sometime touched on all future Chicago metro aviation at times actually). So put forth ideas if you got 'em.

I touched on what you were saying a few weeks ago. My hunch is that West T7 is being driven more by political considerations then practical logistical ones. The only real downside I see to new east terminals would that they would require demolishing of 2-3 utility buildings. I also did some quick very basic outline on an MSN map a few weeks ago of how I envision the configuration.

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...1830706E7!2981

[Jenner]

I created pretty big images, and didn't know that they would be this big. However, that should be easier for those who have high resolutions.

If you want to see the original WGP plan for terminal 4, click here:
http://www.users.millenicom.com/cjdu...hts_wgp_t4.jpg

Here is my proposed plan for terminal 4:


Things are not on an exact scale, but here are some notes:

- The distance between concourse L and the new terminal 4 is approximately the same distance between concourse L and K.

- The distance between the peninsulas on terminal 4 is based on the proposed distance of the peninsulas of the satellite concourse for the Western Terminal. I noticed that the diagrams in WGP for the Western Terminal had somewhat smaller distances on the satellite concourse, presumably for RJ and possible NB jets. This was a breakthrough to me, as this is able to provide space specifically for RJ (and maybe NB) for the north end of proposed terminal 4.

- The tram would have to be extended and re-rounded to accommodate the new terminal 4.

- This design leaves intact Concourse L on terminal 3, so it doesn't affect ongoing air operations.

- A new taxiway bridge, A22, right before the bridges over the expressway.

- I noticed that there seems to be a maintenance road currently where the H&R building is (not sure what function that building currently has). This road continues along the expressway and ends up at Terminal 5. Changes would have this road tunnel underneath Terminal 4, and an outlet provided taxiway A22 to get back onto the airfield.

- Parts of the terminal may hang over the expressway. Generally, the expressway is on the same grade as the airfield. The passenger area of the terminal is on the 2nd story, which could be built over the expressway and leave enough clearance for trucks/busses, without modifying the expressway (that would be a major headache).

- North part of design is used for Regional jets (see above), and the south end could be used for somewhat larger planes.

Thoughts?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Jenner

I created pretty big images,
Thoughts?

Not bad for a second post.

I look forward to more.

Welcome to SSP.

[Jenner]

Thanks. I was hoping an idea like this would be used rather than the WGP plan as conceived. This would in my mind, maximize the number of aircraft possible at Terminal 4 (about 20 planes) without interfering with terminal 3.
This is possibly enough to have a "mini-hub" operation.

This makes the assumption that the current trend continues to use mainly smaller aircraft and more frequent flights. I am not sure if the future trend carries this way or not.

Also, I am not sure who would use Terminal 4. Most other airlines have alliances which eliminate the need for an abundance of terminals, with the possible exception of Delta/Northwest. However, Delta/Northwest have many other hubs which circumscribe Chicago (Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati) to which making a Chicago hub (or mini-hub) would not make sense.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Jenner

- The tram would have to be extended and re-rounded to accommodate the new terminal 4.

- ... modifying the expressway (that would be a major headache).

Thoughts?

Some major roadway construction would probably be needed eventually to accommodate recirculation to T1-3, parking, and Hilton.

Also, access to T4 from one's parked vehicle has not realistically been addressed yet (I realize dealing with parking wasn't part of the scope of your attempt). I guess ample moving sidewalks and a single underground connector, augmented by the tram system, could suffice until an extension of the multistory garage could be built.

[denizen467]

Has any scheme or discussion under OMP or WGP (or anything semi-official) ever addressed the acres and acres and acres and acres of surface parking lots between T1 and T3 ?

I mean ... I'm surprised the city hasn't cashed in on this by now by having another hotel or something built there. And its potential has only increased over the years as traffic has grown at ORD and city coffers have dwindled.

Maybe the heating/utility plant could be put there?

[Kngkyle]

You would think United or American would jump on the opportunity to locate in a brand new western terminal. Like BA at Heathrow and Delta/NW in Detroit. I suppose it's just a sign of the times. They have no money to finance it.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by ★Kngkyle

You would think United or American would jump on the opportunity to locate in a brand new western terminal. Like BA at Heathrow and Delta/NW in Detroit. I suppose it's just a sign of the times. They have no money to finance it.

And they don't want the extra gates to invite increased competition to O'Hare.

[Jenner]

Originally Posted by ★Kngkyle

You would think United or American would jump on the opportunity to locate in a brand new western terminal. Like BA at Heathrow and Delta/NW in Detroit. I suppose it's just a sign of the times. They have no money to finance it.

I guess it would depend if the Western terminal would provide more gates than what the airlines are currently using. Also, there is the problem about how the western terminal is going to connect to the main core. If United moves to the western terminal, would you want your passengers to access it only via the western access road? Too many questions and issues, and not enough resolutions.

I also get the impression that expanding O'Hare's flight operations with more gates won't be allowed until the majority of the runway reconfiguration has happened. Once runways 10/28C and 9/27C are built, then the FAA could loosen the flight restrictions at O'Hare, thus allowing more gates to be used.

I do believe that they could start the planning phases for Terminal 6, Concourse N at the international terminal. I see that the future seems to have more connectivity to international destinations, especially Asia. You could have the Terminal 6 opening coinciding with the 10/28C and 9/27C runways opening, which should immediately allow jumbo aircraft operations. This would depend on getting agreements from International airlines to use the extra gate space.

[denizen467]

Has the siting of Terminal 6 generally been decided? Is it just to the east of T5 ? I seem to remember from a decade or so ago a scheme with terminals being built in the formerly military corner of the field (its northwestern corner).

[Jenner]

I was just going off the WGP plan for the proposed terminal 6, which connects to terminal 5. I don't think they have actually considered doing terminal 6 yet (but the planners seem very insistent on the western terminal). The WGP plans I'm using as a base are the master plans at http://www.ohare.com/MasterPlan/ .

[ardecila]

The western terminal makes perfect sense in the context of a western access and ring road. It would arguably have better road access than the eastern complex.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Jenner

I guess it would depend if the Western terminal would provide more gates than what the airlines are currently using. Also, there is the problem about how the western terminal is going to connect to the main core. If United moves to the western terminal, would you want your passengers to access it only via the western access road? Too many questions and issues, and not enough resolutions.

I think they planned on having an underground tunnel connecting the eastern and western terminals. Probably some sort of people mover like at Tampa except underground.

Just a conceptual design for the western terminal I found:



High speed rail and CTA connected to it. I guess we can dream.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by ★Kngkyle

I

High speed rail and CTA connected to it. I guess we can dream.

Thinking of dreaming what does one think the real timeline for an express line from O'Hare to downtown will be if completed or even ever?
We already know about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_'L'

Possible future projects

Other possible future expansions, identified in the "Destination 2020" Regional Transportation Plan, include:

New express service to O'Hare and Midway airports from a downtown terminal on State Street. A business plan prepared for the CTA calls for a private firm to manage the venture with service starting in 2008.

The project has been criticized as a boondoggle. The custom-equipped, premium-fare trains would offer nonstop service at faster speeds than the current Blue and Orange Lines.

Although the trains would not run on dedicated rails (construction of such tracks could cost more than $1.5 billion), several short sections of passing track build at stations would allow the express trains to pass Blue and Orange trains while they sit at those stations. The CTA has already pledged $130 million and the city of Chicago $42 million toward the cost of the downtown station. In comments posted to her blog in 2006, CTA chair Carole Brown said, "I would support premium rail service only if it brought significant new operating dollars, capital funding, or other efficiencies to CTA … The most compelling reason to proceed with the project is the opportunity to connect the Blue and Red subway tunnels," which are one block apart downtown. In the meantime, CTA announced that due to cost overruns, it would only complete the shell of the Block 37 station; its president said "it would not make sense to completely build out the station or create the final tunnel connections until a partner is selected because final layout, technology and finishes are dependent on an operating plan."

So in general what is the reality of this project now esp. in light of the 2016 loss? And when would we expect to see both Midway and O'Hare express trains fully funtional?

Perhaps some day also to Lincoln International in Peotone too down the road a way further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propose...burban_airport