One interesting point I found is that one study found that the project won't reduce delays that significantly until the FAA uses the airspace more effieciently. I don't think this is the case, because the new configuration will increase arrival rates in Bad Weather, as in the current configuration ac arrival rates are reduced in bad weather, which is what contributes to the delays in ORD. Still, I found this article to be a good read. One obstacle is opposition from Henry Hyde, a powerful GOP congressman.
SLUAviator From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 357 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Wait, don't you mean Wisconsin is Chicago's biggest suburb?
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4683 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Henry Hyde is a powerful Congressman, but he is not seeking reelection in '06, so his successor will have far less influence in the House. His district includes the suburbs to the west and southwest of ORD.
Peter Fitzgerald did not seek reelction in '04, and his successor, Barack Obama, feels that the Chicago area needs an expanded ORD and, in the future, Peotone.
I personally think the GAO report is wrong. While the third parallel runway won't increase capacity much during clear weather, it should cut down delays during bad weather.
If you look at a map, every runway at ORD intersects with at least 1 other runway. Although 4R-22L doesn't intersect, aircraft departing 22L have to alternate with aircraft arriving on 27L.
Squirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
Yeh apparently this will be quite the expansion for ORD . . . which im quite excited for . . O'Hare expansion plan expected to surpass $15B
Chicago officials have requested an "unprecedented" $528 million in grants for the project, along with an additional $248 million to finance capital improvements over the next 20 years, the report said.
The proposed expansion plan, which has yet to receive FAA approval, calls for longer and wider runways and taxiways, new terminals and parking spaces for oversize jets and passenger jet bridges.
In 2001, the city estimated the expansion's first phase would cost $2.9 billion and the second phase $3.7 billion. That number was increased to $14.8 billion in 2004 to account for inflation.
AirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
I use to work on the O'Hare modernization Program and still talk to people who are involved (both City of Chicago and FAA) on a regular basis. I think that most people on this board have no idea about how large and how far along that this project is. There are thousands of engineers and planners that have working on this project for years. Almost every major airport engineering company in the United States is involved with this project in some way.
Phase one, the new North 9-27 runway and some other airfield improvements will definitely happen. The City of Chicago is expecting the FAA to issues the record of decision to begin construction in September 2005. This might slip a but probably not by much. The FAA is under immense pressure to reduce delays at ORD. ORD flow control delays are a major cause ground stops and other delays at airports all over the United States. The new north 9-27 runway will give the FAA a little breathing room at least for a few years. All design drawings for phase one are complete, financing is in place and most of the construction contracts have already been let. Construction is scheduled to begin the day the record of decision is issued and will go on 24 hour per day until the runway is complete. The rest of the program is more costly, controversial and will probably change over time.
Allstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 11): I use to work on the O'Hare modernization Program and still talk to people who are involved
In DH ORD Ops, we would talk sometimes about which way the airport would expand.
-You can't go west, because of the train tracks and there's too well developed businesses west of Wolf Rd.
-You can't go east, because of I-294 on the SE side and I-90 on the NE side.
-You can't really go north, because Touhy gives E-W access to Higgins road and the NW suburbs on one side, and the rest of Chicago on the other, and it has a decent set of businesses (including the UA building next to I-90) along the road.
-Irving Park, though, does not. There's Gun World and a few small businesses on the SW side of the airport, a few complexes along the way east towards Manheim and then the international carrier offices and cargo facilities.
A few of us figured that if they're going to expand, they would have to plow through Irving Park Rd. and move south. Do you have other ideas about that?
AirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 12): A few of us figured that if they're going to expand, they would have to plow through Irving Park Rd. and move south. Do you have other ideas about that?
You can find everything that you want to know at www.cityofchicago.org/OHareModernizationProgram. Drawings, land aqisition plans and many other details can be found there. This information has been availiable online since 2003.
AirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3651 posts, 
From South Korea, joined May 2005, 1008 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
