HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #781  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2010, 11:16 PM
nergie nergie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
As much as people complain about corruption and circumvention of the democratic process in this country (and in particular, this city), people sure seem to prefer pure authoritarian iron-fisted power when it comes to executing the projects and programs they like.

What do you want Daley to do? Call the heads of the airlines into a room and say either their brains or their signature will be on that piece of paper? Would you want to live in a country that works like that anyway?

Construction initiated by local government can only be paid for via bond issues, and bond issues require a revenue source to back the debt service payments. If it went to a vote, do you think people would choose a tax increase to pay for new runways? Daley's got no leverage here, so he'll have to concede something to the airlines.
I agree, just venting a bit. I am well aware of what is going on here, but it just seems this project gains momentum, see cemetary decision, but then something else comes along threatening to delay the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #782  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2010, 6:33 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
Isn't the promise of a Western Terminal part of the deal for the Dupage suburbs agreement to drop the opposition to O'Hare expansion?
I thought that was the western highway and not the terminal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #783  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2010, 8:40 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by nergie View Post
I agree, just venting a bit. I am well aware of what is going on here, but it just seems this project gains momentum, see cemetary decision, but then something else comes along threatening to delay the project.
Two different parts of the project. The cemetery stands in the way of a new runway. The airlines are eager to play ball in order to get the new runways built; it means more capacity for their jets to arrive/depart on time, which means they'll attract more customers.

The western terminal is completely different. The addition of more gates means that competing airlines can get into O'Hare and steal some of the business from O'Hare's current airlines. Not popular.

Besides the airfield improvements (new runways, taxiways, ATC improvements, ARFF, relocated cargo terminals) there is also quite a bit of highway work to be done on the east side, effectively doubling the capacity of I-190 by shifting traffic coming from the Tri-State onto an entirely new access highway, reconfiguring Mannheim and Bessie Coleman, extending the ATS to Remote Lot F/Metra Station, and new lots/garages. It's not clear how much of this is needed now that World Gateway has been placed on the backburner, but quite a bit of it can and will be done. The airlines support it.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #784  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2010, 11:14 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,483
^ Except that this latest flap isn't over the Western Terminal - it's over increased landing fees and rent to pay the debt service for bonds that were already issued to pay for construction that is already in progress.

The airlines saying they're walking away from any talk of cooperation/acceptance on the western access & erminal is part of their bargaining leverage.

Of all the bad news and struggles for OMP, this one is really bad. The western terminal was a dubious plan anyway; the city would be foolish to ever have expected the big 2 airlines to support it's construction, the best that ever could have happened was the 2 airlines tolerating it. The western access design/construction should have been broken out as a seperate phase (e.g. have a Phase 3a and 3b) and not bundled with the rest, since it's just another wrench in a complex financing scheme that can make the deal collapse.

This latest news is so bad specifically because the airlines are no longer just objecting to something they never would have supported anyway (the terminal) - they're objecting to the financing for the runways themselves, to some extent even the financing that has already been obtained with debt service payments that are already due. The idea was that the airlines wouldn't pay any increase and the city would cover debt service until the runways open and actually benefit the airlines, at which point the airlines would chip in their share and compensate the city. That this arrangement wasn't apparently set in contractual stone is mind-boggling; and if the deferral of increased fees was in a contract, then we the public don't have all the information on why things are changing.

This blow up isn't merely jeopardizing future stages of the project, it's jeopardizing current stages, potentially meaning the city would be on the hook to make up for the debt service payments out of its own operating budget if they can't get some sort of increased revenue via landing fees and rent, which require airline consent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #785  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 1:48 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/transpo...port14.article

Milwaukee's Mitchell wants to be Chicago's 3rd airport
February 13, 2010

GANNETT NEWS
As a third Chicago airport, Peotone is largely in neutral. Gary's efforts have come up short as well.

But Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport is making a run at it.................

- "Part of our strategy is to reach down into that northern Illinois area," AirTran CEO Bob Fornaro says. "Within 60 miles of Milwaukee, there are about 3½ million people. Part of the market certainly extends into northern Chicago. So we think there's a lot of potential from north Chicago."..............

Mitchell Airport director Barry Bateman estimates that nearly a million of Milwaukee's 8 million passengers come from Illinois.

-AirTran isn't the only carrier operating out of Milwaukee that has its eye on travelers from Chicago's north suburbs and has thoughts of making the airport one they'd embrace. Midwest Airlines, which also operates a hub at Milwaukee, does, too.

"There's clearly a value in promoting" Milwaukee as the third Chicago airport, says Jim Reichart, director of advertising at Midwest. "There are huge populations of upscale business travelers. That's really what our target's been over the years. For them to come up to Milwaukee is really just as easy as going to O'Hare."

William Swelbar, a research engineer at the MIT International Center for Air Transportation and author of the Swelblog aviation blog, agrees that the lucrative suburban market north of Chicago is big enough to help bump up passenger numbers in Milwaukee. "No doubt the northern Chicagoland suburbs have a rich economic base," he says.

He says Mitchell Airport already is an alternative to O'Hare for some northern Illinois customers. But Swelbar has some doubts whether it can siphon enough Illinois customers to stake a legitimate claim as the third Chicago airport.

"We have been hearing for 20 years about the draw of Milwaukee to this populace," he said. If anything can make that happen, Swelbar acknowledges, it's the new competition at Milwaukee, which includes the entrance of low-cost giant Southwest in November..................


..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #786  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 8:35 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,420
I don't think Milwaukee can really compete except for long-distance flights to the West Coast and so forth. I'm not gonna drive 90 minutes up to Milwaukee to take a 60-minute flight. Of course, I wouldn't drive to Peotone either.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #787  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 3:43 AM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,215
^ The population of Lake County is 715,000; McHenry County is about 320,000. The article clearly states at least 4 times that the Northern suburbs is where Mitchell "Illinois" customers are from.

Quote:
- "Part of our strategy is to reach down into that northern Illinois area," AirTran CEO Bob Fornaro says. "Within 60 miles of Milwaukee, there are about 3½ million people. Part of the market certainly extends into northern Chicago. So we think there's a lot of potential from north Chicago."..............
I think it is pretty clear that Gary/Chicago is not going to make it as the "Third" airport. Hell Northwest Chicagoland at Rockford moves more passengers and cargo than Gary. I wonder how much longer Mayor Daley is going to prop up Gary with the annual subsidy paid to Gary from O'Hare landing fees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #788  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 4:13 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
^ The population of Lake County is 715,000; McHenry County is about 320,000. The article clearly states at least 4 times that the Northern suburbs is where Mitchell "Illinois" customers are from.
No, the entire Milwaukee Metro Area is 3.5 Million.

Of the 8 million passengers, 1 million were from Illinois, or the north suburbs' 700K + 300K, not including Rockford.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #789  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 5:39 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,215
^sammyg I am not questioning the metro area population or the statement from Barry Bateman-Mitchell airport spokesman. My reply was to ardecila...and his comment that he would not choose Mitchell since he is 90 minutes away.

It is clear that Milwaukee Mitchell airport is targeting the northern illinois suburbs. As a resident of Central Lake county I see plenty of billboard, print , direct mail and hear local radio ads for Mitchell. Mitchell nor the airlines are targeting Chicago, Dupage or suburban Cook County air passengers. It has been a longtime strategy of Midwest Express and now AirTran and Southwest Air to target the Lake County market. Other airlines at Mitchell are Delta, Air Canada, US Air, Northwest and Frontier (which has many choices to Denver and other Ski towns) and Mitchell even list the Amtrak trains on their Arrivals and Departures board.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #790  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 11:23 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
^ The population of Lake County is 715,000; McHenry County is about 320,000. The article clearly states at least 4 times that the Northern suburbs is where Mitchell "Illinois" customers are from.
I'm from Lake County, near the border with McHenry. I wouldn't drive up to Mitchell because the time saved, in reality, is almost nothing. I could be behind the wheel driving up to Milwaukee or waiting in line at O'Hare, but I spend the same amount of time, and flights from Milwaukee to most destinations are actually 10-15 minutes longer because Milwaukee is further north. Usually, I have no problems with O'Hare's security, either. It's fast and pretty efficient. It gets crippled by snowstorms and has problems with delays, but what airport doesn't? There are also express buses that pick up near my town and take me straight to O'Hare, so I don't even need to drive myself or get a friend/family member to take me.

Pragmatically, the advantages of having a mega-airport only 20 miles away far outweigh the positives of having a less crowded, small-city airport 70 miles away.

The only reason I would go to Milwaukee is cost savings. It's not hard to get deals flying out of Milwaukee - but you're restricted by limited departure times. It's just not easy to drive up to Milwaukee in time to catch the red-eye, when that requires you to wake up at 4am. And the next flight doesn't leave until noon or later, usually.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #791  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 4:01 AM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,215
^Arde.. youre in Barrington, of course your not going to use Mitchell when you have every destination option available at OHare. I'm not sure what your argument or point is. You dont want to use Mitchell. Fine. The spokesman for Mitchel said that 1 million of their customers are from Northern Chicago suburbs. That is a fact - or at least their facts. What is the dispute?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #792  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 6:25 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,420
Oh, I understand that there are plenty of people who might use Mitchell. I guess I just don't see the purpose of having a "third airport" at all when the only available options are so far away that they won't effectively reduce crowding at O'Hare and Midway. Part of the problem is that O'Hare is already such a goliath that its protected airspace is massive. It requires a lot of complex ATC co-ordination to manage the airspace of O'Hare and Midway simultaneously. For this reason alone, proper planning would put the airport out in the middle of nowhere - which won't do jack to relieve the strain at O'Hare. It's almost a catch-22. For the next couple of decades at least, Chicago and Illinois should focus their efforts on adding capacity at the two existing airports if they want to relieve crowding.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #793  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 11:56 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,215
^OK fair enough. But I believe the article above is saying the same thing as you.."Chciago doesn't need a third airpoirt" but with a different argument. "Milwaukee IS that third option"..


I have reposted the article here....

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...kee11_CV_N.htm

Milwaukee airport wants to be considered Chicago's third one

By Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAY
Mention Milwaukee, and many people would think of city icons such as bratwurst, Miller Beer or even Laverne and Shirley.

But the city's General Mitchell International Airport is quickly putting Milwaukee on the map for travelers in the Midwest.

FLIGHT NEWS: Our Today in the Sky community

Mitchell has emerged as one of the USA's fastest-growing airports by becoming a flashpoint for discount competition. It reported record passenger numbers in each of the last three months of 2009, a year when many other big U.S. airports saw steep declines.

Helping drive Mitchell's popularity is AirTran Airways (AAI), which believes the airport can be bigger still. The discount airline says it can help turn Mitchell into a long-sought third Chicago airport, joining O'Hare and Midway.

Sound crazy?

Not so, says AirTran, which has steadily expanded its Milwaukee hub the past five years.

"Part of our strategy is to reach down into that northern Illinois area," AirTran CEO Bob Fornaro says. "Within 60 miles of Milwaukee, there are about 3½ million people. Part of the market certainly extends into northern Chicago. So we think there's a lot of potential from north Chicago."

Mitchell airport director Barry Bateman estimates close to a million of Milwaukee's 8 million passengers come from northern Illinois.

AirTran isn't the only carrier operating out of Milwaukee that has its eye on travelers from Chicago's northern suburbs and has thoughts of making the airport one they'd embrace. Midwest Airlines, which also operates a hub at Milwaukee, does, too.

"There's clearly a value in promoting" Milwaukee as the third Chicago airport, says Jim Reichart, director of advertising and brand at Midwest. "There are huge populations of upscale business travelers. That's really what our target's been over the years. For them to come up to Milwaukee is really just as easy as going to O'Hare."

William Swelbar, a research engineer at the MIT International Center for Air Transportation and author of the Swelblog aviation blog, agrees that the lucrative suburban market north of Chicago is big enough to help bump up passenger numbers in Milwaukee. "No doubt the northern Chicagoland suburbs have a rich economic base," he says.

He believes Mitchell airport already is an alternative to O'Hare for some northern Illinois customers. But whether it can siphon enough Illinois customers to stake a legitimate claim as the third Chicago airport, Swelbar says somewhat skeptically, "We have been hearing for 20 years about the draw of Milwaukee to this populace." If anything can make that happen, Swelbar acknowledges, it's the new competition at Milwaukee, which includes the entrance of low-cost giant Southwest in November.

"Milwaukee has never had a carrier with a domestic network of the breadth that Southwest offers," he says. "Nor has Milwaukee ever been home to a carrier like AirTran that seems very comfortable in making secondary markets within the catchment area of a larger hub work. So if Milwaukee is to live up to the moniker of Chicago's third airport, there is no time like the present."

Even AirTran CEO Fornaro acknowledges that the presence of Southwest, regarded as one of strongest competitors in the U.S. airline industry, has advantages.

Crazy to fly from Milwaukee?

"Nobody really wants to compete with Southwest," Fornaro says. "But the upside is they'll bring a lot of loyal Chicagoans with them. That will raise the profile of Milwaukee among Illinois residents who might not have considered the airport before."

It could also raise the profile of Milwaukee as an alternative airport for greater Chicago, much as Southwest has done for Baltimore to greater Washington, D.C., or Providence to greater Boston, says Kit Mueller, a 36-year-old technology consultant from Chicago.

Mueller, who says he travels up to 30 times a year for a combination of both work and pleasure, is a convert to Milwaukee.

Unlike the northern Illinois residents most Milwaukee airlines seek, Mueller actually lives in The Loop in central Chicago — about 90 miles from Mitchell airport. Still, he says, he prefers Mitchell over O'Hare, saying the ride to Milwaukee on Amtrak's Hiawatha line doesn't take him any longer than Chicago's Blue Line "El" train to O'Hare.

"I've been somewhat the evangelist of late," Mueller says. "Whenever we're talking travel, I'm like, 'Always check Milwaukee,' " he says, though he adds Chicago's downtown Midway is still his airport of choice.

Mueller says some people think he's crazy "at first" when he tells them he prefers Milwaukee. "But two people have actually come with me" to Mitchell, he says, claiming they warmed to the idea after giving it a chance.

Having Mueller's endorsement is fine, but he isn't the target Chicago audience for Mitchell and its airlines.

"While Milwaukee is only 70 miles from O'Hare and 90 miles from downtown Chicago, those aren't the important numbers," says Mitchell director Bateman. "For the majority of our customers who live in the high-income, frequent-traveler northern Illinois tier, Milwaukee is only a 45- to 50-minute drive on the interstate — the same amount of time it takes them to drive to O'Hare."

While Southwest may have enhanced Milwaukee's position in the Chicago 'burbs, the big battle at the airport now is between AirTran and Midwest........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #794  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 8:56 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Oh, I understand that there are plenty of people who might use Mitchell. I guess I just don't see the purpose of having a "third airport" at all when the only available options are so far away that they won't effectively reduce crowding at O'Hare and Midway. Part of the problem is that O'Hare is already such a goliath that its protected airspace is massive. It requires a lot of complex ATC co-ordination to manage the airspace of O'Hare and Midway simultaneously. For this reason alone, proper planning would put the airport out in the middle of nowhere - which won't do jack to relieve the strain at O'Hare. It's almost a catch-22. For the next couple of decades at least, Chicago and Illinois should focus their efforts on adding capacity at the two existing airports if they want to relieve crowding.
The ATC isn't really all that difficult. The real reason there isn't a third airport any closer than Peotone, Gary, or Milwaukee, is that there is nowhere to build it. There are no large open tracts of land any closer than Peotone, I mean no one is going to buy the argument that its a good idea to raze an entire suburb when we just expanded O'Hare by that similar method.

Milwaukee will become a third airport assuming the Hiawatha becomes high-speed and the Milwaukee KRM line gets built hooking Mitchell up with the Metra System. If the rail connection between Mitchell and downtown Chicago drops to an hour or less, why wouldn't you fly into Mitchell if you were a businessperson taking a trip to Chicago? You don't deal with the hassle of O'Hare, the $20 ticket isn't a big deal because you can just expense it, And the new train sets that the Hiawatha will be getting will probably be far nicer than even the plane you just rode on.

In addition to that, if you need to get downtown Chicago, you don't want to take any flights that arrive around rush hour because it will take you upwards of 1.5 hours to get downtown that time of day. If you could spend less time in security and completely eliminate the potential of getting stuck in traffic or having to take the unreliable El that is less than 15 min faster than the Hiawatha (again assuming they make it high speed), why wouldn't you fly into Mitchell?

I agree that it makes little to no sense to drive to Mitchell if you live near O'hare but I think it actually makes quite a bit of sense to use Mitchell if you need to fly and you are downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #795  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 11:34 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
You don't deal with the hassle of O'Hare,
Everyone always says this, but for the last few years I've had nothing but decent experiences into and out of O'Hare. The price difference would have to be truly remarkable for me to rejigger an itinerary just to 'avoid' O'Hare or Midway by going to Milwaukee or Gary or Peotone.

Also, if you're on business and can expense a cab/limo, I'd rather be at O'Hare than Milwaukee, and if you're taking rail, the Blue Line runs every 4-10 minutes depending on time of day, the Hiawatha will have 7 trains a day, and thus would require some level of schedule coordination with the airlines to make it a desirable airport access mode in either direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #796  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2010, 1:06 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Everyone always says this, but for the last few years I've had nothing but decent experiences into and out of O'Hare. The price difference would have to be truly remarkable for me to rejigger an itinerary just to 'avoid' O'Hare or Midway by going to Milwaukee or Gary or Peotone.

Also, if you're on business and can expense a cab/limo, I'd rather be at O'Hare than Milwaukee, and if you're taking rail, the Blue Line runs every 4-10 minutes depending on time of day, the Hiawatha will have 7 trains a day, and thus would require some level of schedule coordination with the airlines to make it a desirable airport access mode in either direction.
Not to mention that the long-term HSR plans call for an O'Hare stop between Chicago and Milwaukee anyway. I had the experience of doing an air-to-commuter-rail transfer last December at BWI. My trip into DC on MARC was on the Northeast Corridor, so we were flying at 90mph, but I still had to wait about 40 minutes in the freezing Amtrak station after a 20 minute flight delay messed up my schedule and made me miss my first train. Given the choice of flying into Reagan, where I can afford to get a cab or take Metro, I would take that in a heartbeat.

And, yea, O'Hare has been a breeze for me as well the last few years. Of course, this is probably due to the 15% drop in passenger traffic, at the same time that a major new runway opened, terminal renovations were completed, and security procedures were streamlined. Hell, even Thanksgiving wasn't bad.


Crain's
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #797  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2010, 3:31 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Well that's why I said "if" they get high speed rail. I also doubt there will be an O'Hare stop if there is HSR because that would basically negate all of the time gains of going faster. Not only would an O'Hare stop slow the train down, but it would route it through an out of the way section of rail corridors that have a lot of Metra and frieght traffic. The Hiawatha currently runs along a realatively straightforward corridor that, while it occasionally must pull over for freight or Metra, is almost always a clear shot.

I don't know about your antedotial evidence, but every time I've flown out of O'Hare my flight has been delayed. Also, the wait time once you depart the gate for the use of a runway is absurd. The only time I've had a delay relating to MKE was when I was supposed to fly back from Denver (I had just spent 3 days there because the "storm of the century" in 2003 had just hit and buried the city) and we almost had to reroute into Rockford and take a bus up to MKE due to pea-soup fog. That fog lifted before we got there and it was all cool. I don't really mind the security at O'Hare, I mind the fact that everything is always delayed there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #798  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 7:28 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,107
Sigh... well at least they got 20 moved so far. Kind of surprised they even started.
City Barred from Removing Graves Near O'Hare
Court grants next of kin time to appeal

Those buried in St. Johannes Cemetery can rest in peace, for now.

A state appellate court granted a temporary restraining order Thursday night, stopping the City of Chicago from relocating any more graves from the historic cemetery that borders O'Hare International Airport.

"We said there are some very important constitutional issues that involved religious rights that the circuit court had refused to hear," attorney Joseph Karaganis said of the motion-to-stay filed February 10, reports the Daily Herald. "It would make no sense if the cemetery was gone by the time the appellate court heard these issues."

The City had removed approximately 20 graves so far to make way for a new airport runway. The court order, however, bars any further disinterment even if the city has already received permission from next of kin.

read more... http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...-84761197.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #799  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 8:01 PM
Haworthia's Avatar
Haworthia Haworthia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 211
This is ridiculous.

I worry about this country, and particularly this state. We can't seem to get a damn thing done. Can't fix our transit systems. Can't deal with long term liabilities like pensions (or social security on a nation level). Can't balance a budget. Can't redo a flippin airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #800  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 8:46 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haworthia View Post
This is ridiculous.

I worry about this country, and particularly this state. We can't seem to get a damn thing done. Can't fix our transit systems. Can't deal with long term liabilities like pensions (or social security on a nation level). Can't balance a budget. Can't redo a flippin airport.
You act as if expanding one of the busiest largest airports in the world is as easy as fixing up your garage. Things are happening, Bensenville dropped their opposition, they opened one of the runways. This is just one more thing that will get done soon enough. The court only stopped it temporarily, things will get back on track.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:34 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.