HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2008, 1:41 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_b View Post
If by raze you mean move a few roads and railroad tracks...
Well they would have to do that to expand it no matter what.

Really I would just prefer that they completely destroy all of the suburbs adjacent to Ohare and make it really really big with like 16 runways in each direction...

Also, they need to upgrade Amtrak Hiawatha to high-speed which would make MKE equally as close to downtown as O'hare. Already it only takes about 80 minutes to get to Union Station from Milwaukee Mitchell. If they up the speed from 75 to 90, that drops to just over an hour (50 min). If they up to to 115 then its under an hour, which is about how far Ohare is from Downtown Chicago by El on a good day. 115 isn't even that far fetched, they say that its possible with the current setup, they just need to do a few more grade separation and upgrade the switches or something. It sounds far cheaper than building Chicago a new Airport. Then again that will never happen because the state wants a new airport where they can charge ticket taxes and the likes...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2008, 3:21 AM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
While Peotone seems like a completely half-baked idea right now, it may not be so in 25-50 years. If we map out the course of sprawl, even assuming the outward growth rates will slow, Will, Kendall, and Kanakee will be completely filled in in 2 decades. We could see as many as 1 million new residents in that part of the state alone. Keep in mind that Chicagoland is expected to gain a total of 2 million additional residents by 2030 (http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/n...se_4-4-07.asp). There's no place to really go but south and southwest. And the growth is easily enough to support an additional airport. Obviously O'Hare expansion is still crucial and Peotone can never replace the importance of O'Hare, but Peotone may actually be viable if the growth projections are accurate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2008, 1:56 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 9,119
1 million of that 2 million new residents could easily be accommodated in Chicago city limits if there was a major commitment by the city to grow its population. Washington DC did this, vowing to add 100,000 residents by some date, I can't remember maybe 2020.
__________________
Beatboxing under the bath water


He is a serpent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2008, 4:08 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
^ DC has the demand to add as many as it wishes because of the jobs in the city center. There's simply a shortage of housing in the city, so if it can alleviate some of the pent up demand, it can easily add more people. Unlike DC, too high of a percentage of job additions in Chicagoland are still in the suburbs. Unless the CBD is able to attract at least another 150,000 jobs and effectively grow by 40-50%, I really don't see Chicago growing past 3.1 or 3.2 million. A high percentage of people seem to be attracted to proximity of work regardless of the physical environment they actually live in (see Texas, sunbelts). So whether it's Peotone, Gary, or some other S/SW location, we will need something. And since this is Illinois, it won't be Gary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 11:39 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
While Peotone seems like a completely half-baked idea right now, it may not be so in 25-50 years. If we map out the course of sprawl, even assuming the outward growth rates will slow, Will, Kendall, and Kanakee will be completely filled in in 2 decades. We could see as many as 1 million new residents in that part of the state alone. Keep in mind that Chicagoland is expected to gain a total of 2 million additional residents by 2030 (http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/n...se_4-4-07.asp). There's no place to really go but south and southwest. And the growth is easily enough to support an additional airport. Obviously O'Hare expansion is still crucial and Peotone can never replace the importance of O'Hare, but Peotone may actually be viable if the growth projections are accurate.
Going back to my original point ^

FAA head says Chicago could need new airport

CHICAGO - A new airport or vast expansion of one of Chicago's existing airports will be necessary to keep pace with booming demand for air travel in the coming decades, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday.

That's in addition to an ongoing $15 billion expansion of O'Hare International Airport pushed through by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Robert Sturgell, the FAA's acting administrator, told The Associated Press.

"Mayor Daley has done a great job in transforming Chicago with a plan, but they need another airport as well," said Sturgell, who didn't immediately offer details on where a new airport could be built in the nation's third largest city.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...0,630277.story
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 3:04 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
^ DC has the demand to add as many as it wishes because of the jobs in the city center. There's simply a shortage of housing in the city, so if it can alleviate some of the pent up demand, it can easily add more people. Unlike DC, too high of a percentage of job additions in Chicagoland are still in the suburbs. Unless the CBD is able to attract at least another 150,000 jobs and effectively grow by 40-50%, I really don't see Chicago growing past 3.1 or 3.2 million. A high percentage of people seem to be attracted to proximity of work regardless of the physical environment they actually live in (see Texas, sunbelts). So whether it's Peotone, Gary, or some other S/SW location, we will need something. And since this is Illinois, it won't be Gary.
Chicago's CBD, including North Michigan and the areas immediately adjacent to the Loop, has nearly 600,000 jobs already. It varies, but has been on a generally upward trend. If we say it's 550,000, then 150,000 new jobs in the city center would be 27% growth. To grow little over 25% by 2020 (12 years from now) isn't far off the city's longer-term economic growth rate. I think the Central Area can and will add at least close to 150,000 jobs by 2020 unless this downturn lasts more than 2 years (and it might).

But what woudl really help the city is to do whatever it can to encourage non-downtown-types of companies to locate in the neighborhoods. There are plenty of job categories that aren't great fits for a CBD, and they're just as important as any others when it comes to keep a city healthy and attractive.

And, perhaps most importantly, Chicago needs to be seen as a place where you can raise a family. Without families, it's only going to be able to grow so much. I think it's good for a city's soul to have kids grow up in the actual city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 3:54 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
...
And since this is Illinois, it won't be Gary.
Actually, for strategic reasons it would be in Chicago's best interest to tie both Milwaukee and Gary airports more tightly to itself. Strategic because it would bring Wisconsin and Indiana both into closer cooperation with the City even when the State of Illinois is at serious risk of killing its goose that lays the golden eggs. And also because it would take some pressure off our own airports.

If the State of Illinois was smart, they'd do two things to help matters: 1) support the airport in Rockford, to draw from Madison, and 2) Support high(er) speed rail between Chicago and Minneapolis and possibly St. Louis, Indy and Detroit. Doing that will reduce the pressure on our airports for regional travel, and possibly even reduce some auto travel, too. Take-offs and landings for direct flights between Minneapolis, Detroit, Indy or St. Louis and Chicago account for almost 10% of all O'Hare traffic, and 3% of Midway traffic. That's not a lot, but that's just commercial traffic - it could theoretically also cut into non-commercial traffic.

Planned appropriately, you could have airport express from the Loop to O'Hare on to Mitchen in Wilwaukee and then MSP and downtown Minn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 4:25 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
I was actually look at Live Maps a week ago flying over Kenosha and I saw that the Kenosha airport is right next to the Amtrak line and the interstate 94. I would put it right behind Gary and ahead of Peotone and Rockford in terms logistical practicability to become a third airport.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...____&encType=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 8:24 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
^ The Kenosha Metra stop is near the lakefront a good 5 miles from I-94 and the airport. Is the Amtrak stop farther west? Also, O'Hare and Mitchell are just too close to make Kenosha a viable option. Mitchell is only 30 miles away. Plus the SW is growing at a much faster rate than the fairly mature suburbs along the union pacific north line. We may not like it, but there will be an airport in Peotone by 2030. The land has already been purchased and there's just way too much slush for the State to pass up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 10:38 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
^ The Kenosha Metra stop is near the lakefront a good 5 miles from I-94 and the airport. Is the Amtrak stop farther west? Also, O'Hare and Mitchell are just too close to make Kenosha a viable option. Mitchell is only 30 miles away. Plus the SW is growing at a much faster rate than the fairly mature suburbs along the union pacific north line. We may not like it, but there will be an airport in Peotone by 2030. The land has already been purchased and there's just way too much slush for the State to pass up.
Yea, the Metra stop is on a different line that goes near downtown and which the UP-N line runs (about four plus miles east from the airport). The Hiawatha Amtrak line is less then 1/2 mile east from the airport. It also could be a natural destination to a MD-N extension that also uses that track.

While Will county is growing prodigiously Lake County is still a fast growing county as well I think. Plus, it can a pain in the arsse for wealthy northern burbs to get to O'Hare where a Kenosha airport could look more attractive. Between Midway and/or Gary I don't know how much there would be for a Peotone to really attract.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 4:35 AM
Markitect Markitect is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,513
It would be way easier to use Mitchell Int'l up in Milwaukee as a third airport for Chicagoland, versus the Kenosha Regional Airport. The infrastructure is pretty much already there (large terminals and parking garages, runways/concourses/hangars capable of handling larger aircraft), whereas in Kenosha, much of that would have to be built from the ground up.

There are also long-term plans at Mitchell that include adding a new runway and expanding the existing terminals in the coming decade. Both of those projects could surely accommodate air traffic transfered from some of Chicago's overburdened airports.

Mitchell also is right off I-94, just a little bit further north of Kenosha. Mitchell is also right on the Amtrak line with an airport station already in place serving the Hiawathas (Chicago-Milwaukee) and Empire Builders (Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-Seattle), whereas the Kenosha Airport has no station at all.

In terms of advertising, Mitchell began marketing itself as "Chicago's Third Airport" a few years ago, with a particular focus on Chicagoland's northern mass of suburbs. While it's just an advertising slogan for Mitchell, it seems to make a great deal of sense, surely moreso than Rockford or Kenosha at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 6:05 AM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 335
Honestly , air travel will be more restrictive and less available as fuel prices grow.... i think chi town air capacity after o'hare expansion will be enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 9:02 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
^ Not according to the head of the FAA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 11:58 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
Honestly , air travel will be more restrictive and less available as fuel prices grow.... i think chi town air capacity after o'hare expansion will be enough.
I think oil prices will stabilize, and I think with that stability will come a return to air travel.

But I also think that the U.S. would benefit from regional investments in high-speed rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2008, 9:15 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...092508.article

O'Hare runway opens in grand style

September 26, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Airlines squeezed by skyrocketing fuel prices and a decline in air travel have not yet agreed to finance Phase Two of Mayor Daley’s massive O’Hare Airport expansion project, let alone all of Phase One.

But, they picked up the tab for a celebration today fit for a king.

A 3,000-foot extension of east-west Runway 10/28 opened for business with hundreds of dignitaries on hand to witness the historic moment...............
..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2008, 2:51 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
So the big day is Thursday! First new ORD runway in practically 4 decades will be dedicated. I assume that sexy new control tower also will be up and running.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2008, 8:35 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,4128658.story

Airlines seek to scale back O'Hare's expansion
With new runway set to open Thursday, major carriers call further building plans 'premature and inappropriate'

By Jon Hilkevitch and Julie Johnsson | Tribune reporters
November 20, 2008

As the first new runway in Chicago in 37 years is set to open Thursday, major airlines serving O'Hare International Airport have unanimously called for halting the next phase of the ambitious expansion project, according to documents obtained exclusively by the Tribune.

American Airlines and United Airlines, the two largest carriers at the airport, said the O'Hare plan is flawed, according to the statements sent to city and federal authorities that oppose more spending on the project.

They called Chicago's effort to move ahead with the project "premature and inappropriate" because of the decline in air travel and the airline industry's uncertain future.

Delta Air Lines executives said Chicago failed to do its homework and they accused the city of mounting an "impulsive grab for [tax] funds."

Marking an unprecedented break with City Hall that contradicts the public appearance of solidarity on the $15 billion O'Hare project, executives at six of O'Hare's largest airlines advised city planners in letters sent this summer to downsize the large-scale remake of the airport to better fit the new economic realities of the struggling industry.

The airlines' position poses the latest threat to Mayor Richard Daley's efforts to modernize cramped and outdated facilities at O'Hare by 2014, a process critical to Chicago's bid to land the 2016 Olympics.

The goal of the O'Hare project is to replace the airport's outmoded layout of intersecting runways with a parallel runway system that promotes more efficient arrival and departure of airplanes. New passenger terminals are also envisioned to balance the growth in airfield capacity.

But American and United labeled the city's plan for a new passenger terminal on the west side of the airfield as "ill-conceived."

The letters also were sent to the Federal Aviation Administration, which must determine that the benefits of the expansion exceed the costs before the agency can approve federal grants and the use of passenger ticket taxes to pay for the project.

The Tribune this week reviewed the letters filed by American, United, Delta, Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines and ANA-All Nippon Airways. An additional airline, Aer Lingus, did not provide reasons for its opposition.

The tough new airline stance went far beyond a longtime reluctance to commit financially to the second phase, which includes key runways needed to increase O'Hare's flight capacity.

"Unfortunately, the city did not accept the more modest and financially prudent approach," United and American wrote in their dissent.

In a written response to the airlines' statements, the city told the FAA that the airlines let short-term financial concerns overshadow the long-term gains to be reaped from reconfiguring O'Hare.

"They would have the city stop OMP [O'Hare Modernization Program] development now, and restart it when the 'current market reality' improves," the city said. Doing so "will cause several years of delay and add significantly to its cost."

The airlines also complained the proposed western terminal's distance from the main terminal complex "is not conducive to the current or any proposed hub, spoke or international airline operations" and would disrupt passenger and baggage connections.

Seven years after Daley announced the project, the city lacks a strategy to pay for all of it, despite acquiring hundreds of homes and businesses in Elk Grove Village and Bensenville for runways that may not be built.

In addition to the airlines balking, the city's efforts to line up private investors have also fizzled.

The $565 million runway that opens Thursday on the northern flank of O'Hare is designed only to help reduce delays, and it barely will make a difference, according to the FAA. A new $65 million control tower exclusively to serve the runway also begins operation Thursday.

"Average delays with the new runway are expected to drop seven-tenths of a minute," FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said. "Further improvements will be seen with additional runways."

The airlines have lobbied for new runways at O'Hare for nearly 40 years, and they still see the need for long-term expansion. But this year, they have dug in their heels to oppose a city request to the FAA to use about $182 million in passenger ticket taxes for design and engineering work on the second phase. The rest of the project will be financed by general airport revenue bonds and federal funds.

The FAA is expected to make a decision next spring.

The city countered the airlines' charge of reckless decision-making by implying the companies had an underlying financial motive to halt the expansion project that would ultimately force travelers to pay higher airfares. "These carriers have an interest in restricting access to O'Hare by new competitive carriers," the city's response said.

After huge losses this decade, U.S. carriers are cutting costs, shrinking operations and questioning whether ambitious airport expansion plans crafted in the 1990s aviation boom are still needed.............

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

jjohnsson@tribune.com
rest of story in link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2008, 11:08 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Nov 16

__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2008, 3:28 PM
arenn arenn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 131
Why does everything cost so much more in Chicago? (I know, I know). $65 million for a new tower is very high. IND's new tower, the third largest in the country, was like $38 million, and the mid-30's is what I've seen elsewhere as well.
__________________
My Urban Affairs Blog: http://www.urbanophile.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2008, 5:57 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
While Peotone seems like a completely half-baked idea right now, it may not be so in 25-50 years. If we map out the course of sprawl, even assuming the outward growth rates will slow, Will, Kendall, and Kanakee will be completely filled in in 2 decades. We could see as many as 1 million new residents in that part of the state alone. Keep in mind that Chicagoland is expected to gain a total of 2 million additional residents by 2030 (http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/n...se_4-4-07.asp). There's no place to really go but south and southwest. And the growth is easily enough to support an additional airport. Obviously O'Hare expansion is still crucial and Peotone can never replace the importance of O'Hare, but Peotone may actually be viable if the growth projections are accurate.
this post is reason #1 why Peotone should be doused with gas and torched. The past 40 years of growth have been extremely taxing on the region's open spaces. From an ecological standpoint, maxing out O'Hare and expanding Gary makes a ton more sense then moving into greenfields.

Also, I don't think past development patterns can sustain themselves too far into the future. Architecture and land use policy has been changing quite drastically in recent years. If Illinois were to make Peotone a reality, it would be a very regressive state on land use.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.