CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion - Page 6

VivaLFuego · #**101** Posted **Dec 22, 2005, 3:09 PM**

^ I'm not a freight rail expert, but suppose maybe its possible to relocate that freight yard south about 1/2 mile, still leaving plenty of room for 2 long parallel runways that can be used simultaneously?

I don't know what the historical precendent for acquiring industrial land for such projects is, but I imagine its much easier politically and probably not a great deal different economically than taking over residential areas.

Do any air buffs know if the flight patterns would conflict? To me it seems having east-west runways at midway would be the best case scenario since the O'hare runways will be east-west.

Sure this expansion would be expensive, but hardly more expensive than building an entire new airport, and it would provide for 2 large, legitimately international airports...

Then just add a crosstown airport express and they'll function as one

HowardL · #**102** Posted **Dec 22, 2005, 8:24 PM**

From the Trib:

City closes $1.5 bil. bond sale for O'Hare

December 22, 2005

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

The city of Chicago said it closed its largest-ever bond sale of $1.5 billion on Thursday, providing funds for the recently approved makeover of O'Hare International Airport.

Close to $1.3 billion of the total is designated for the city's O'Hare modernization program, partially funding the costs of land acquisition, wetland mitigation, planning, design and engineering associated with runway construction.

The other $262 million of the bond sale proceeds will be used to pay off existing airport debt which was obtained at higher rates, officials said.

Nearly 100 institutional investors bought the securities in strong demand that resulted in a lower-than-expected interest rate for the city, Chief Financial Officer Dana Levenson said.

"Mayor (Richard) Daley's vision of a modernized O'Hare is moving full steam ahead, and this historic bond sale is another important milestone that has been reached as this critical project is implemented," said Rosemarie Andolino, the program's executive director.

O'Hare is the world's second-busiest airport behind Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in both total passengers and total flights, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The city says the overhaul will reconfigure intersecting runways into a more modern, parallel layout, substantially reducing delays and allowing for increased capacity as well as construction of a new terminal facility with more gates and parking on the airport's west side.

texcolo · #**103** Posted **Dec 23, 2005, 6:44 AM**

I think if there is any danger of making Ohare less effecient, they should scrap expansion plans.

I think they should turn Midway into Stapleton II. It would be a real boon of urban redevelopment to a depressed part of town.

I think the only viable option would be to make Gary/Chicago International.

spyguy · #**104** Posted **Dec 23, 2005, 7:04 AM**

1. How would reconfiguring the runways so they're parallel, improving terminals, and creating a new terminal make O'Hare less efficient?
2. Midway isn't a small operation. It may become Southwest's largest operation in a few years. Plus the fact that the city spent $1+ billion on renovation recently

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is this Stapleton you speak of?

Rail Claimore · #**105** Posted **Dec 23, 2005, 11:39 AM**

^Having new parallel runways that far north and south of the main terminal complex (not the ones right next to it) will increase taxi times on the ground itself. It will mean getting more planes in and out of airspace but will mean potential congestion and inefficiency of ground operations because planes landing at the far north and far south runways will have to taxi another mile or so, AND cross two more runways to get to the terminal complex. DFW is mitigating this problem by building circumferential taxiways around its main runways so that planes on the ground can taxi as others land and takeoff using those runways. O'hare doesn't have room for such a system according to some (I think it does, but barely enough). The only way O'hare will get good efficiency out of those north and south runways is by carefully balancing passenger and cargo operations throughout the whole airport.

TransitEngr · #**106** Posted **Dec 30, 2005, 1:35 AM**

Look guys (and gals if there are any)... no offense, but these airport engineers actually do know what they're planning/designing for O'hare. And they're not just thinking about it, they've studied dozens of other airports around the world, many of them have dozens of years worth of experience in this field, and they're using very accurate forecasting software. One of my co-workers is an airport engineer, and one of my best friends works for the OMP as a software engineer. With all of the negative press and negative writings in here I think people would be shocked to find that there are actually very brilliant people working on this, and the plan to make the runways parallel WILL actually make O'hare considerably more efficient.

Midway is a keeper, it's close to downtown it's great for smaller (737, etc) jets.

Gary-Chicago will continue to grow and it's great that it has plans to integrate nicely with rail transit.

Peotone... waste, waste, waste. It's open farm land right now. Shit, this is Chicago, not Houston for God's sake, let's value our existing urban infrastructure, and let's value our rural farm land by not confusing the two. FYI.... b/c of suburban sprawl... America will be a net importer of food... um... ooops... we already became one... in 2005.

chiphile · #**107** Posted **Dec 30, 2005, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

^Having new parallel runways that far north and south of the main terminal complex (not the ones right next to it) will increase taxi times on the ground itself. It will mean getting more planes in and out of airspace but will mean potential congestion and inefficiency of ground operations because planes landing at the far north and far south runways will have to taxi another mile or so, AND cross two more runways to get to the terminal complex. DFW is mitigating this problem by building circumferential taxiways around its main runways so that planes on the ground can taxi as others land and takeoff using those runways. O'hare doesn't have room for such a system according to some (I think it does, but barely enough). The only way O'hare will get good efficiency out of those north and south runways is by carefully balancing passenger and cargo operations throughout the whole airport.

it's not like those runway crossings will occur right in the middle of the runway, the planes will just have to cross at the last unusable edge. Until land and hold short operations were phased out, planes would cross on a regular basis at O'Hare and only but a couple close calls happened.

The Cheat · #**108** Posted **Dec 31, 2005, 12:36 PM**

Stapleton is the old Denver international airport. It was turned into suburban subdivisions after the new DIA opened.

jpIllInoIs · #**109** Posted **Dec 31, 2005, 3:49 PM**

If the High Speed rail system were prioritized, Chicago's air capacity would be greatly increased. High speed links to Gary-Chicago Int'l. Chicago-Rockford Int'l. and Milwaukee Mitchell would provide relief to the expanded O'Hare.
Sigh, At least Milw has an Amtrack station now.
This post could go on the High Speed rail thread, but it goes to show how these 2 issues are closely linked.

nergie · #**110** Posted **Jan 4, 2006, 1:52 PM**

Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

VivaLFuego · #**111** Posted **Jan 4, 2006, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie

Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

I would agree with you, but if you take O'hare + Midway we blow them out of the water, so, no sweat.

nergie · #**112** Posted **Jan 4, 2006, 11:03 PM**

Granted with Ohare and Midway, Chicago is the largest domestic air market. I read somewhere that Chicago's domestic air market is larger than NYC and LA. I really am not fond of Atlanta, it's airport is a symbol of the city and how sprawled it is. It really feels like a bunch of Schaumburgs put together.

STR · #**113** Posted **Jan 4, 2006, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitEngr

Look guys (and gals if there are any)... no offense, but these airport engineers actually do know what they're planning/designing for O'hare. And they're not just thinking about it, they've studied dozens of other airports around the world, many of them have dozens of years worth of experience in this field, and they're using very accurate forecasting software. One of my co-workers is an airport engineer, and one of my best friends works for the OMP as a software engineer. With all of the negative press and negative writings in here I think people would be shocked to find that there are actually very brilliant people working on this, and the plan to make the runways parallel WILL actually make O'hare considerably more efficient.

No offense, but I really doubt you're very familiar with the KORD epxansion planning process. The capability of the planners is not questioned, by anyone, anywhere. The question is whether the fundemental idea of expanding O'Hare is right, and secondarilly, whether the plan (which was influenced by politicians as much as engineers) is the best use of public resources.

What is proposed is NOT the ideal layout for such an airport. It is the best design considering an enourmous number of politcal and financial constraints, but those constraints have resulted in the non-ideal layout. The major points being the very close proximity of the runways (amoung the many other signicant number of FAA waivers),the lack of a radial taxyway, and the amount of existing infrastructure that must be torn down to make way for the new (i.e. the recently completed United cargo terminal will need to be demo to make way for a new runway).

the urban politician · #**114** Posted **Jan 5, 2006, 4:23 AM**

Chicago's 3rd airport needs to be Gary and anybody who thinks otherwise is a stupid idiot

Lets can Peotone and make some good decisions. The ultimate advantage of Gary is that it's already there, it already is close to having a rail connection, with all the infrastructure, to DT Chicago, and it has the Government of an entire state (Indiana) willing to fund it. If Illinois and Indiana can get together on this one, then we don't need to ass-rape hundreds of acres of farmland SW of the city to build a useless, redundant airport when we've got great prospects right across the state line

STR · #**115** Posted **Jan 5, 2006, 6:11 AM**

^Of the 3 options for expanding Chicago's cpacity, that is by far the smartest option. Expanding O'Hare is incredibly expensive compared to the modest gains expected from it. Peotone is in the middle of nowhere, while it's start-up costs are less than expanding O'Hare, bringing transit to will more than surpass KORD.

The only problem with Gary is...it's in Gary; it's not in control of the powers-at-be in Springfield. This is why the spectacularly bad idea of Peotone even exists, no one in Illinois (save for Chicago) wants to give Indiana anything.

VivaLFuego · #**116** Posted **Jan 5, 2006, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago's 3rd airport needs to be Gary and anybody who thinks otherwise is a stupid idiot

Lets can Peotone and make some good decisions. The ultimate advantage of Gary is that it's already there, it already is close to having a rail connection, with all the infrastructure, to DT Chicago, and it has the Government of an entire state (Indiana) willing to fund it. If Illinois and Indiana can get together on this one, then we don't need to ass-rape hundreds of acres of farmland SW of the city to build a useless, redundant airport when we've got great prospects right across the state line

I've still yet to hear why we NEED to go the 3rd airport route....could someone tell me why Bedford Park, IL can't be turned into the Midway Airport expansion for alot less money than building a new airport? Gary can't expand much, unless you start filling in the lake. Obviously it makes more sense than Peotone, but theres tons of infrastructure that needs to be built if it were to be a major commercial airport.

Midway, its all there....just need longer runways and a configuration that allows at least 2 to be used at once without interfering with O'hare. Bedford Park is a giant industrial park and rail yard. Move the rail yard south, turn the rest into 2 parallel east-west runways of 8000ft or more. Whats the holdup, other than it not helping the downstate leeches? oh...

Rail Claimore · #**117** Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie

Fellow Posters I read yesterday for the first time ever O'Hare was supplanted by Atlanta as the busiest airport in terms of flights and passageners. The main reason were the flight caps instituted by the FAA during peak travel periods. What I find odd, is if flight caps at O'Hare help with delays why doesn't the FAA institute a similar policy at ATL which ranks among the worst airports for on-time performance. It is a competitive disadvantage, and only makes the O'Hare expansion project more important.

What I find hard to believe a metropolis half the size of Chicago has a busier airport, it is all Delta it is ridiculous that people complain about duopoloy American/United have at O'Hare meanwhile Delta controls over 80% of ATL's flights. As a Frequent Traveller, who has been to Atlanta, I hope that O'Hare expansion is completed to it's fullest extent so the City/Airport can regain it's position atop the Aviation world.

Airtran takes up a chunk of ATL operations as well. You want a one-airline dominated airport, you'd be better off complaining about DFW where AA operates over 90% of commercial flights into and out of.

ATL is a hub for the same reason ORD and DFW are... they're conveniently located in major centers of regional population, and are the keystones in the US domestic air transportation system. Numbers really don't matter when you get that big, they're just something for politicians to brag about.

I happen to like Atlanta's airport, always have. And most transportation planners do as well, thus the reason it's design has been copied globally. That's what O'hare is trying to do with its expansion, only O'hare is going halfway with the new western terminal complex. If it were up to me, O'hare would get rid of its existing terminals completely in favor of parallel concourses perpendicular to the runway layout.

Chicago Shawn · #**118** Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR

^Of the 3 options for expanding Chicago's cpacity, that is by far the smartest option. Expanding O'Hare is incredibly expensive compared to the modest gains expected from it. Peotone is in the middle of nowhere, while it's start-up costs are less than expanding O'Hare, bringing transit to will more than surpass KORD.

The only problem with Gary is...it's in Gary; it's not in control of the powers-at-be in Springfield. This is why the spectacularly bad idea of Peotone even exists, no one in Illinois (save for Chicago) wants to give Indiana anything.

Although, the overall costs are less than O'hare expansion, the taxpayers will be shelling out more for Peotone. The vast majority of O'hare's exapnsion will come from airport bonds which will be paid for through ticket taxes and gate fees. Peotone on the other hand requires the state to buy all the land, the state to upgrade all the farm roads and the state to build the thing (although they have been serching for a private developer to build it). Then once all the neighboring land becomes engulphed in sprawl, the state taxpayers will agian be shelling out cash to upgrade all the roads to support all the new auto-centric suburbia that developed around the airport.

nergie · #**119** Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 7:16 PM**

Rail Claimore,

I was not complaining about ATL, rather finding it hard to believe that an airport that constantly performs in the bottom 5% of on-time statistics is not subject to similar caps if it works at O'Hare.

I agree the airport is a well designed and planned, it also was built in the late 70's unlike O'Hare.

I disagree with AirTran's position. ALT is driven by Delta and it is over 85%, and as for DFW prior to Delta's reduction it had a similar split as ATL. Air Tran does not bring in nearly the connecting passengers that Delta does and I find it hard to believe people think that 15% of an Airport's total flight is considered large. Honestly, in traditional term 15% is a focus city not really large scale hub. Atlanta lives and dies with Delta, as you say it is an important domestic airport but if the Airport does not have the connecting passegeners several INTL flights will be lost. Besides NYC, CHI, SF, MIA and LA, there are very few INTL markets in the US that can be sustained by the local population. Most of the mid-continent INTL airports such as MSP,DET and DFW are driven by connecting passengers brought in because they are large hubs. ATL is no different.

spyguy · #**120** Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 7:57 PM**

I won't post the whole thing here, but you can read on if you'd like:

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/dupa....asp?id=141207

Town calls law O’Hare revenge

Move blocks Bensenville’s police-fire cross-training

By Justin Kmitch
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2006

With one stroke of the pen, Bensenville officials say, Gov. Rod Blagojevich destroyed a nearly $1 million public safety program they’ve worked four years to perfect.

The program, which cross-trained police officers as firefighters and emergency medical technicians, was deemed illegal by legislation signed into law by Blagojevich late Friday.

The law makes it illegal in non-home-rule towns such as Bensenville for police officers to perform firefighters’ duties and vice versa.

Village Manager and Interim Public Safety Director Jim Johnson said all firefighting gear was immediately removed from the police vehicles and officers ordered not to respond to emergencies as firefighters.

All 32 trained public safety officers also were immediately stripped of their raises, some as high as 12 percent, depending on their level of training.

Johnson said the bill was aimed at hurting Bensenville because of the village leadership’s opposition to expansion of O’Hare International Airport.
......