CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[the urban politician]

^ Milwaukee's Mitchell already has this set up.

Once ORD and Midway complete their facilities, all 3 of Chicagoland's major airports will have enclosed, centralized rental car facilities

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

It's along Bessie Coleman Drive, where a unified, frequent shuttle bus could use the BRT-like dedicated lane now used by livery. And stretching things a bit, there might be enough critical mass somewhere in there to merit shuttle bus service involving CTA Blue Line River Road, the Rosemont complex, and/or the new casino and office complex.

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus? The people mover will provide the direct connection already. A shuttle bus is possible, and somewhat likely, but still a stupid idea.

It's my understanding that a big part of the recent terminal facelifts was providing vertical access from the baggage claims up to the bridges that lead to the people-mover. For those with only carry-ons who don't have to go down to arrivals level at all, it's probably EASIER to walk to the people-mover. If I'm having friends or family come get me at O'Hare, I always meet them in departures instead of arrivals... it's far easier to navigate on the top level.

I'm also excited about the possibilities for access that the people-mover extension opens up. With minimal expense, a proper Metra Airport Express can be run from either Union or Ogilvie up the North Central line to the O'Hare station. Travelers can then take the people-mover to whichever terminal they're headed to. The preliminary plans for OMP show this as basically a cross-platform transfer - super convenient. You can do this today, but you have to take an infrequent North Central train and then hop on a shuttle that takes you to the end of the people mover. It's a little daunting for people who aren't transit junkies...

Looking long-term, with some modifications at the Deval Junction in Des Plaines and some negotiations with the railroads, you could run semi-decent O'Hare service from the UP-NW and MD-N lines.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus?

Because that's what the articles say.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Why are you assuming that access will be provided via shuttle bus? The people mover will provide the direct connection already. A shuttle bus is possible, and somewhat likely, but still a stupid idea.

It's my understanding that a big part of the recent terminal facelifts was providing vertical access from the baggage claims up to the bridges that lead to the people-mover. For those with only carry-ons who don't have to go down to arrivals level at all, it's probably EASIER to walk to the people-mover.

Just elaborating on the news, providing people mover access there would not be a trivial project -- it would require building a line extension across a state highway into the new facility; probably buying some additional trainsets and possibly having to expand the trainset storage/maintenance facilities; and getting the entire new station built and outfitted and tested (platform doors; safety mechanisms; etc.). None of those things are necessary for the car rental facility by itself, and it would not be surprising if the idea is to insulate the car rental project from the transit infrastructure construction project -- given just how prone to delays and malfunctions rail projects can be. Just thinking of how long it has taken them to erect that new canopy around the T1-T2-T3 upper roadway (technically still not completed) makes me cringe.

But more broadly, access between the terminals (even with the feeble improvements from baggage claim) and the people mover is utterly pathetic for a world #2 airport. For example, in T1 there is 1 absurdly tiny and slow elevator, and 1 narrow escalator, just to get up to the skybridge. Then you have to go back down to the platform. The elevator wait is already annoying as it is; imagine that x20 (or some number, commensurate with people with lots of luggage, little kids, or frail people) if everybody currently using car rental shuttles is now trying to get up to the people mover.

In addition, the people mover has only 1 station for like 300 yards of terminal frontage, so on average people would need to hoof it (again, thinking of lots of luggage or unruly kids and a chaotic terminal) an entire football field (100yds from midpoint) just to get to/from the skybridge location. A shuttle bus could have 2 or 3 stops per terminal.

Also, a lesser point, but I wonder if United would be vocal about the fact that they would be the farthest station with the people mover, but the closest station (at least for departing pax) with a bus shuttle. They already make sure to gate popular business city flights out of Concourse B instead of C, so this sort of thing might make a difference to them. Also, bus shuttle routes could be tailored to limit stops to only 1 terminal, or to vary routes depending on congestion or time of day (for example, the significant luggage, and morning-heavy timing, of arrivals at T5).

Maybe the ridership to/from the car rental (and remote parking) facility would not be so big as to cause huge problems -- it is an interesting question what the figure would be -- but it's clearly a situation of spending capital funds up front to achieve an inferior service. (Hunch that bus-loving Mr. Downtown chimes in on this.) Personally I would kill for good rail over annoying buses any day, but as it is, they need to beef up the vertical access. I'm sure it's doable, but the way construction goes at ORD it'd be expensive and take forever.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm also excited about the possibilities for access that the people-mover extension opens up. With minimal expense, a proper Metra Airport Express can be run from either Union or Ogilvie up the North Central line to the O'Hare station. Travelers can then take the people-mover to whichever terminal they're headed to. The preliminary plans for OMP show this as basically a cross-platform transfer - super convenient. You can do this today, but you have to take an infrequent North Central train and then hop on a shuttle that takes you to the end of the people mover. It's a little daunting for people who aren't transit junkies...

Looking long-term, with some modifications at the Deval Junction in Des Plaines and some negotiations with the railroads, you could run semi-decent O'Hare service from the UP-NW and MD-N lines.

It is indeed exciting. (And it also worsens the bottlenecks between the people mover stations and the terminals.)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Because that's what the articles say.

From the Southtown article:

If it's financially feasible to extend the people-mover, which ends at Parking Lot E, shuttle buses would be eliminated altogether, they said.

Just elaborating on the news, providing people mover access there would not be a trivial project -- it would require building a line extension across a state highway into the new facility; probably buying some additional trainsets and possibly having to expand the trainset storage/maintenance facilities; and getting the entire new station built and outfitted and tested (platform doors; safety mechanisms; etc.).

A new maintenance facility for the people-mover trains is planned on the south half of Economy Lot F. The parking garage will lie to the north.

I'm assuming the rail construction is a substantial part of the $400 million... 5-story garages, even massive ones, can be built fairly cheaply using prefab components. The uncertainty over the rail extension, I'm assuming, is because the city doesn't yet know whether the rental companies will accept an $8 fee, or whether they will try to get the fee lowered, in which case the garage would move forward first, probably with provisions for a future rail extension.

access between the terminals (even with the feeble improvements from baggage claim) and the people mover is utterly pathetic for a world #2 airport

No argument here. It IS better than it was before, though, and definitely better-looking.

It's a tricky problem. The only cheap solution I can think of would involve frequent pedestrian crossings of the arrivals road, and then stair/escalators upward. I don't think the clearances are high enough to allow for a skybridge suspended from the bottom of the departures road...

Not that I'm insensitive to the comfort of air travelers, or that I don't think minimizing their walking is a good idea, but pretty much every airline terminal involves a substantial amount of walking with heavy bags. It's a big reason why air travel is so exhausting. That's not gonna change at O'Hare anytime soon. The only airport I know of that minimizes walking successfully is TIA, where the concourses are all radial, each linked to the central building with short tram lines.

[spyguy]

Old article that talks about this plan:

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

Inside Chicago's plan to get you to O'Hare
Published February 19, 2007

...In addition, the airport transit system, or People Mover trains, would be modernized. Twenty-four new People Mover cars would be added to the current 15-car fleet to meet future shuttle demand between the airline terminals and remote parking areas, city aviation officials said. Of the current 15 cars, 12 are in active use with three held in reserve.

The People Mover tracks ultimately would be extended to serve a new remote parking garage near economy parking lot F, officials said.

...The $117 million needed for the roadway project and $90 million for the People Mover enhancements would come from a $3 tax imposed on airline tickets.

[denizen467]

^ But the central car rental facility, not mentioned in that article, was a complete surprise (at least to me) last week. (FYI, that link doesn't work.)

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

From the Southtown article:

If it's financially feasible to extend the people-mover, which ends at Parking Lot E, shuttle buses would be eliminated altogether, they said.

I was just focusing on the "If" - the project is designed to work with shuttle buses, and (we all hope and expect) the people mover extension would be incorporated afterwards.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm assuming the rail construction is a substantial part of the $400 million... 5-story garages, even massive ones, can be built fairly cheaply using prefab components.

That's really an interesting question. I've always wondered why, for parking garages, precast is used sometimes, and pour-in-place is used in others. As far as I know, precast allows for much quicker work on site, and is presumably cheaper, but the joints every 3 or 6 feet or so provide for a slightly, but noticeably, bumpy drive through the garage. I almost think that for a giant car-rental garage they would want to avoid that, but it might not enter into their equation. However the structure's complexity itself - with concourses, the bus drop-off, rail station, rental company offices, and probably quite a few complicated ramps - might make it harder to do precast.

Even with pour-in-place $400 million does seem very high, but the additional cost might come not from the rail extension but from buildout of the concourses and offices, the people mover / Metra station/connection, bringing in underground utilities, and what might be significant roadway construction for on/off ramps with Mannheim.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The only airport I know of that minimizes walking successfully is TIA, where the concourses are all radial, each linked to the central building with short tram lines.

I got curious about this, but .. are you referring to an airport in Albania, or where??

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by denizen467

I got curious about this, but .. are you referring to an airport in Albania, or where??

I think he is referring to Tampa. The proper IATA code being TPA.


Orlando is also similar, and perhaps an even better example.

But both are not really comparable to O'Hare.

[Jenner]

According to the master plan, the maintenance facility would be relocated because International terminal 6 would be occupying the space where the current maintenance facility is located.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Even with pour-in-place $400 million does seem very high, but the additional cost might come not from the rail extension but from buildout of the concourses and offices, the people mover / Metra station/connection, bringing in underground utilities, and what might be significant roadway construction for on/off ramps with Mannheim.

While waiting to pick somebody up at the airport yesterday, I went to the cell phone lot at the site of the proposed rental facility.

The Metra station is laid out rather awkwardly, and there's not much room to expand. The roads in the area are also extremely confusing.

The long-term plan is to eliminate Zemke Blvd and then make Bessie Coleman instead curve to the west to meet Higgins where it turns north. The area has serious potential to serve as a great transportation center (Shady Grove in DC comes to mind). It'll be even better if they can integrate it with the office park to the north, which could actually make a half-decent urban center.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The long-term plan is to eliminate Zemke Blvd and then make Bessie Coleman instead curve to the west to meet Higgins where it turns north.

That's a huge extension - is the idea to provide frontage for some specific uses along either side of the extended road? That NE corner of the airfield looks totally underused and has great potential.

I wonder just how expansive the 5-story garage will be -- are they by any chance considering replacing the ALL the remote surface lots with this? I would think no, since the funding equation seems to rely on car rentals; if it were a gargantuan public garage with a car rental facility as merely one portion of it, the main funding source presumably would be bonds to be retired by parking fees (or a privatization), and there was no mention of that. But I guess they could yank that idea out of a drawer right after the new car rental surcharge/tax is set in stone.

It sure would be an efficient use of land, freeing up tons of space for future development. And it would give parkers protection from the weather, although perhaps the parking fees would no longer be so cut-rate since they'd be paying off a big construction project.

May they make no little plans.

[ardecila]

I think the idea is to turn Bessie Coleman into a huge service road, lined with facilities for aircraft maintenance, taxis, livery, maintenance for airport shuttles, etc... The long term plan also includes an exit on the NW Tollway for the Coleman extension road, allowing people from Schaumburg and further out to get to the airport more easily.

The vacated rental lots are NOT required for runway expansion, despite what the article said... 9L-27R isn't gonna be extended eastward from where it is now, and 9C-27C will be the same, but a few hundred feet further north. My guess is that they will just be turned over to additional surface-lot parking, potentially accessed off Mannheim. A medium-sized garage is planned for the NE corner of 190 and Bessie Coleman.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You sure they don't need them for signals or light strips?

[Jenner]

Relocation of the parking facilities and Bessie Coleman Dr. can be best summed up here (section 6.1.1.2):

The planned realignment of Bessie Coleman Drive, proposed as part of the WGP, has been altered to prevent penetration of the Runway 27C 14 CFR Part 77 approach surface. The standard OFA and RSA are contained within the airside limits of the airfield; however, the limits of the OFA-extension include existing auto parking areas as well as the ATS station located in Lot E. These facilities will ultimately be relocated and closed, respectively. The east RPZ is contained entirely on Airport property.

[spyguy]

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385957


Chicago seeks to soften airline resistance to O'Hare mega project
By Marni Pyke

Chicago's trying to thaw relations with United and American Airlines over modernizing O'Hare while suburban leaders are seeking to heat up interest in a related project - western access to the airport.

...Her letter speaks of increasing the use of passenger facility charges, which are ticket fees of $4.50 per passenger, to pay for construction. It also suggests the city is open to reducing the rent and landing charges in exchange for a deal on funding the final phase of O'Hare improvements.

[spyguy]

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...ationalai.html

CDA Selects Proposal to Redevelop Concessions at O’Hare International Airport Terminal 5

The Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) identified the proposal submitted by Westfield Concessions Management II LLC as the successful respondent to design, redevelop and operate the concessions program for the International Terminal 5 at O’Hare International Airport. The proposal provides for a complete re-design of the International Terminal’s concessions program to include new food and beverage, news and gifts, specialty retail, duty-free locations. Westfield Concessions Management II LLC will bear all design and construction costs. The enhanced concessions program will feature local, national and international brands.

---

The concessions at O'Hare suck in general and need to be revamped. Hopefully Westfield can pull it off.

[spyguy]

RFQ for New Economy Parking Structure @ O'Hare (*PDF*)

The Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) is proposing the development of an elevated parking
structure in the north east quadrant of the O’Hare International Airport on the property currently
occupied by Public Parking Lot F. This proposed development is herein referred to as the
“Project”. Note that the Project is the first phase of a multi-phase development programmed for
this area of the Airport.

A preliminary concept of this elevated parking structure has identified two connected structures.
This concept includes a seven-story structure at the west end of the site and rise to thirteen (13)
stories on the east. The facility will incorporate multiple uses such as a Rental Car Customer
Transaction Center and Offices, with employee and public support facilities, Rental Car
Parking/Storage, Public Parking and a Public Circulation Concourse connecting the Metra Station
to a new station for the extended Airport Transit System (ATS) with retail space provided adjacent
to the Circulation Concourse. Dedicated entrance and exit roads/ramps to and from the facility
will require close and significant coordination with IDOT and the Village of Rosemont.

In addition to the elevated parking structure there will be a Quick Turnaround Area (QTA) to
provide vehicle service for rental cars, including fueling facilities, car wash areas, administrative
offices, restrooms and other functions for the employees.

It is anticipated that the Parking Garage will accommodate a connection to a new Airport Transit
System (ATS) station either on the north side of the structure or alternatively through a pedestrian
bridge over Manheim Road – depending on the ultimate location of the ATS station and
associated ATS facilities. While this station is not anticipated to be a part of the Project, the
interface with the proposed station is a key element of this Project.

A covered walkway connection will be provided between the Metra Station and the Elevated
Parking Structure.

A Kiss-and-Fly Area accommodating transit and shuttles will be located to the north side of the
site being accessed off of Zemke Road.

The following are additional details related to the project description:

• Approximate dimensions of the facility footprint are 830’ x 365’.
• First Level – Rental Car Customer Service Area and, Offices, Public Support Facilities, Circulation Concourse and Retail Space
• Approximately 50,000 sf of Retail Space
• Approximately 50,000 sf Rental Car Customer Service Area
• Quick Turnaround Area of at least 300,000 sf at the furthest south end of the Lot F site

[VivaLFuego]

If the ATS isn't extended across Mannheim, that will be a rather unpleasant intermodal transit connection involving long winding tunnel/walkway paths a la Midway. The images seem to suggest both possibilities, but if it's only extended a quarter mile up to, but not across Mannheim, the extension will really only be serving the new rental car facility, not as a significantly improved connection to commuter rail.

There's also the regional question of where a hypothetical improved intercity rail system/HSR would serve O'Hare as an intermediate stop on service to points north and west; if at the current O'Hare transfer on the east side, then it would seem prudent to design this facility accordingly to eventually be expanded to accommodate such service, but that certainly doesn't sound like part of the scope.

[ardecila]

The bicycle station makes me laugh. How are bike riders supposed to even get near this area?

I agree with Viva that extending the ATS across Mannheim is crucial. The original plans always showed the tracks crossing Mannheim further south and then coming in parallel and immediately adjacent to the Metra station.

[202_Cyclist]

Residents battle to keep land state wants for south suburban airport
IDOT uses eminent domain to acquire land for Peotone plan



Vivian and Willis Bramstaedt live on land their family has farmed in Beecher for half a century. The state wants part of the land to build an airport. (David Pierini, Chicago Tribune / June 30, 2010)


By Joel Hood, Tribune reporter
June 30, 2010


Willis and Vivian Bramstaedt don't have big plans for retirement; they simply want to live out their remaining years on the land their family has farmed in rural Beecher since the 1950s.

But when a letter from the state arrived in April, the Bramstaedts knew their days on the land were numbered.

It may be years still before the Federal Aviation Administration gives the final stamp of approval on a controversial airport in south suburban Peotone designed to ease congestion at O'Hare and Midway. But already the Illinois Department of Transportation has quietly begun the process of eminent domain to force families such as the Bramstaedts off their land. Four such condemnation cases are under way in Will County courts, the first in what IDOT officials believe will be a wave of contentious negotiations through the court system. As the state ramps up pressure to buy while property values are low, some landowners are digging in their heels.

"Our schools are failing; our health system is falling apart; the state is out of money, and this is what they're doing?" asked Vivian Bramstaedt, 72. "It's bewildering. It doesn't make any sense."

It's also troubling to some lawmakers, who fear that the use of eminent domain before the FAA agrees to the project sets a dangerous precedent....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...,5454455.story