Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Illinois Gov. Authorizes Third Chicago Airport  
User currently offlinejns13 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 31 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14222 times:

Saw the following article on the local NBC5 news tonight.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...ird-Airport-Peotone-216907011.html

Now, I know this has been discussed on here before, but more as a possibility. Although the FAA still must approve such a project, it seems the legislature, or at least the governor, is determined to make this happen.

Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive. Being from the Chicago suburbs, I simply cannot see this being a success. While I understand that a good portion of the passengers using Chicago airports are transiting and/or arriving from international destinations, there is also a massive population in the suburbs and city itself that travel, and the location for this potential third airport, Peotone, is remote, to put it lightly. The existence of huge infrastructure as well as the current expansion plans for O'Hare render this project further obsolete, at least in my opinion.

I'd really like to hear everybody's opinions, though. I'm pretty inexperienced in the grand scheme of things, but this whole deal seems doomed to failure, and building an airport that won't be used to "create jobs" in rural Illinois seems like giving a poor man who has no access to fuel a car. I'd love to hear your discussion, though; apologies if this has been posted already.

Thanks,

Jordan

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17285 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14215 times:

I can only assume this must mean the pension problem has been solved, so great news!


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14170 times:

In addition to the stupidity of a third airport, just WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone? Anyone for a three way, split operation in Chicago?  


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14058 times:

Great, soon Top Gear can film an episode at an Amerian ghost airport. The O'hare expansion pretty well takes care of runway capacity. The only thing Chicago needs is more gate space at O'hare, which is totally doable.

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13838 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone?

Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers. AA and UA said a long time ago they are not interested in Peotone. AA and UA have invested way too much into ORD to abandon it in favor of Peotone.


User currently onlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4930 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13690 times:

Let me be the first to say it, is Chicago building the next Mirabel? (YMX).

I saw the news broadcast on the Chicago 12:00pm news today. They actually have broken ground for this airport. they said that while the airlines have fought it they expect a lot of the passengers to come from the SW side of Chicago. Has everyone forgot about MDW?

I can see it now. Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport. They put in a token number of flights. Then they complain that it is difficult to make the region work with 3 airports. Then traffic ebbs and flows for quite a number of years. This is the same thing that happened when MDW was upgraded and started airline service again in 1967-68.

Cargo carriers won't like it because then any cargo that arrives at Peotone will have to be trucked to Chicago, adding costs.
There is already enough truck traffic on I-57, they don't need anymore.

I think it'll make a nice GA airport that people will try, but in the end not use because who wants to drive 60 miles to get on an airplane at an airport in the middle of no where.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
This is the same thing that happened when MDW was upgraded and started airline service again in 1967-68.

Hasn't this Peotone thing been going on SINCE 1967?   

Also, look at what happened to BLV? That was SUPPOSED to relieve the THEN congested STL. Now, I think Allegiant is the only airline who kisses that runway. Correct me if I'm wrong though.



You're Losing The Game!
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13469 times:

Yes, Peotone has been going on since 1967. My concern is that it is a bit beyond the populated area. Metropolitan Chicago generally ends at the terminus of the commuter railroads, with some exurban communities beyond that. The boundary would be about 10 miles north of the "South Suburban Airport" site.

Of course, development would then radiate from the new airport to meet the current developed area, but there would be little population to the east, west, or south. Everything would come from the north or northeast. Peotone, Beecher, and Monee probably don't want to be overrun, so that can lead to lawsuits and delays.

There is infrastructure at GYY, and that is being improved. Peotone would have to be built from the beginning, it would need an exit off of I-57 and probably would get a spur. Midwest winters aren't kind to construction, and expenses mount quickly.

Then there is the 5000' runway at Bult Field, a GA airport immediately to the east of the Peotone site. Peotone would have to buy out Bult's owners.

Originally, the idea was that high speed rail would solve the access problem, but no one thinks of how long it takes to get to the magical bullet train. If it leaves from Union Station in Downtown Chicago, there is no problem with right of way, but passengers will need to take slow commuter trains or Amtrak to get to the station, and possibly need to transfer from another commuter station (Amtrak uses Union Station).

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport.

Peotone is a State of Illinois project.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13397 times:

Let's not forget that Illinois and Indiana very recently agreed to build the ILLIANA Tollway connecting I-65 in Indiana with I-57 in Illinois. It will go right next to the proposed Peotone site. I guess if you're gonna build a modern shiny new road, you might as well build an airport for drivers to go to!

User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13096 times:

This really is a stupid airport. I can't believe it's going forward.
MDW and ORD answer all our questions for travel already.
We're from Orland Park, in the deep south Suburbs and using ORD and MDW are breezes.
Why on earth would we go to Peotone? And to echo another good question, what airline is going to fly from there without being blackmaled?
Chicago's air capacity is fine for quite a while, with gate additions maybe helping in the future.
And Milwaukee is a decent overflow. It's a nice, direct train ride away.
What on earth is a 2nd remote (3rd if you count Rockford) going to really help?

IDIOTS.


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12865 times:

This isn't about moving airlines from ORD/MDW to Peotone, this is all about political patronage for jobs, consulting contracts, land purchasing and the sorts for specific groups.

For those who live in Illinois, this falls along the line of the Prairie Parkway out in the far western burbs. Money was going to be made off those selling the land and building a highway few or non would use.

Illinois Department of Transportion will manage the facility via private development.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...port-0726-20130726,0,1995914.story

Here's something that falls along the same line....The Port of Chicago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...1_cargo-port-the-port-lake-calumet

Can you see the pattern here...


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12766 times:

All I can say is Quinn is a fricken idiot! For all of the reasons stated by the smart people of this forum above...

User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3090 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12714 times:

Quoting jns13 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive. Being from the Chicago suburbs, I simply cannot see this being a success.

I doubt if there is one A-Net member that believes this is a good idea for the reasons they have provided on this forum for a numbers of years. We know from past discussions that the airlines are not interested in it. Many believe it is too far south. Most if not all of us believe that ORD and MDW are providing what is needed. GYY will be what it will be when its runway is extended. Clearly an unnecessary expense at a time when everybody knows funds are tight and money shouldn't be spent.


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3517 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12600 times:

Shut the front door.

From a political standpoint, this authorization is all about the "potential" jobs that constructing an airport at Peotone would bring in. I don't think it will ever happen, but from Quinn's perspective, he can say "I authorized the Peotone airport, which would create XY,000 new jobs for union workers over three years - but we're still hamstrung by the FAA in Washington so there's no way we can build it."

So no money is appropriated, the Fed isn't going to authorize it, and the project will continue to be talked about ad nauseum.

I didn't realize this project has been discussed since the late 60s though ... I grew up on the Iowa side of the Quad Cities (roughly 200 miles west of Chicago) and I remember hearing advertisements on the radio against a Peotone airport in the mid '90s.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12484 times:

The proposed Lake Calumet Airport was a better idea than this. I question how serious they were about it but there were some really nice renderings. I don't really have a problem with Illinois setting the land aside for a future airport at Peotone but now is not the time. O'Hare expansion will take care of a lot of the regions problems. Chicago-Gary has been a hard sell. The new runway expansion may not have a customer with Allegiant pulling out. Anyone think Peotone would really do better than Gary?

User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12439 times:

Hurry up, you may beat BER!  

But seriously, it would be completely foolish of him to build this if there are not any commitments from airlines. Would Allegiant or Spirit fly from there? I assume Southwest wouldn't think of moving flights there with how many they have at MDW.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 386 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12303 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
I can see it now. Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport.

Emanuel has always been against the Peotone Airport in favor of expanding O'Hare further. Peotone brings no benefits to the city of Chicago. It's the state that is pushing it.


User currently offlineSurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2832 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12140 times:

Unbelievable. Where do I even begin? Illinois now has the worst finances of any state in the country, yet they are more concerned with a pork barrel airport project than tackling their fiscal problems? Unlike California, which has taken painful but necessary steps to rectify its similarly poor finances, Illinois does not seem to be doing anything but ignoring the problem - and getting worse! With its credit rating lower than all other states, Illinois will pay hefty interest rates to fund things like this airport. The bond issue covering the airport land purchase alone will likely cause about $18 million in *extra* interest payments per year, or $450 million over the life of the 25 year bond. Now, that's a $1.3 billion bond issue covering all kinds of infrastructure projects, but I wouldn't be surprised if greenfield airport construction alone may cost a similar amount. For the sake of Illinois taxpayers, I can only hope the state doesn't actually spend more money on building this absolutely unnecessary airport. They are already paying dearly as it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...is-credit-rating-st_n_3496264.html

Other than pork barrel spending, I just don't understand the rationale behind this airport. Chicago has recently invested billions in its two existing airports, including the new MDW terminal and improved ORD runway configuration. MDW is close to downtown Chicago, and a key economic engine for an otherwise impoverished part of the city. The runways may be short, but WN and other LCCs seem perfectly happy with MDW. ORD is at the heart of the suburban business/industrial corridor, and close to the wealthiest Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs. At ORD, hub carriers AA and UA have more than enough room for their needs, new domestic entrants like B6 and VX managed to find space in the domestic terminals, and foreign carriers continue to add service. Both airports are directly linked to the city's el network. As for a third airport, MKE has a direct train link with the city of Chicago and is an easy drive from the northern suburbs. Other "Chicago" airports have fared poorly - RFD is no more than a quasi-charter vacation package gateway, with no proven ability to support any actual network service (i.e. NW to DTW/MSP, UAX to DEN, F9 to DEN), while GYY seemingly can't support any commercial service at all.

I'm not aware of any airlines supporting this project - even the likes of G4 or NK. Most of the money is on the other side of town, and unless they took a drastic step like shutting down MDW (won't happen, and in such a scenario I'd expect WN to pay for an ORD west terminal before going way into the boonies) the airport would probably only get cargo and GA. Seems like an incredible waste of time and money at a time when Illinois should be cutting back on its spending.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12059 times:

So why did Chicago just expand ORD? I don't see how IL needs an expanded major hub at ORD plus a DFW sized new hub in the greater Chicago area.

User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4542 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11989 times:

So stupid. If they really needed a 3rd major pax airport, I would think upgrading LOT would make a lot more sense or if they needed a new airport then put it on the west side of Plainfield south of Aurora. LOT has a ton of room though to expand.


Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11945 times:

The will come when Chicagoland will need a third airport, but that is probably 30 or 40 years into the future. Back in the 1970s, the 6-county area had about 6 million residents. Now, the area has more than 8 million residents. The growth in the metro area is beyond the collar counties and in the southwest suburbs.

If you believe aviation pundits, today's 600 million air travelers will be around 1 billion by 2030. You have to assume that the growth of air traffic in and out of the Chicago area would be similar to national growth.

Yes, ORD has plenty of capacity, but the belief is that with the proposed configuration of 6 east-west runways plus 2 cross runways, the operational limit is around 1.6 million. Back in the peak years about a decade ago, ORD was close to 1 million annual operations. So, the expansion program will only add about 60% more capacity over the peak operations.

Plus, there is a question on how to increase gate space. The City wants to build a western terminal, but no one has figured out how to connect the proposed terminal to Terminals 1,2,3, and 5. Years ago, there was a proposal to build a new Terminal 4 (AA/oneworld international flights) and new terminal 6 (all non-UA/AA domestic), and make Terminal 2 an international terminal for UA/Star. So, who knows if and when the City will increase gate space. And frankly, other than B6 and VX, who is going to use additional gate space? AA certainly has room to expand, even after the US merger. There are several gates that don't have jet bridges. Those could be easily put back in service. For UA, it's more likely that some RJ frequencies would become mainline frequencies, before we see UA being short of gate space.

MDW will eventually reach its operaitonal limit. WN can't keep adding flights, and no one wants to see MDW built out beyond its current boundaries. Plus, running runways over 55th, 63rd, Cicero, and Central would be an engineering nightmare.

That said, here's the major problem.

While driving to Peotone from the Loop and the south surburbs is relatively easy, it's getting there from the western suburbs that's the issue. There is a fair amount of population west of Chicago, as well as a large amount of office space along I-88, including Oak Brook, Downers Grove, Lisle, and Naperville. Major corporations with offices in that corridor include McDonald's, BP, Navistar, Aetna, and Exelon.

People going to and from the west suburbs can't easily get to Peotone. There had been a plan to extend I-355 from I-80 to I-57. But, becasue it took so long to get the extension from I-55 to I-80 built, the area of the proposed route to I-57 became very developed. The Tollway Authority has said that the purchase of land for the extionsion would be quite high, compared to the costs for buying land for I-290 to I-55 and I-55 to I-80.

So, getting to Peotone from some place like Hinsdale, Westmont, or Bolingbrook will mean getting on to I-294 and heading south to I-57 (work has stared on the 294/57 interchange), or taking I-355 to I-80, and then probably taking secondary streets and highways to the airport.

That is not a way to get people to switch from ORD and MDW.

By the same token, Gary still has plans to lengthen the main runway at GYY. If Chicagoland keeps expanding along I-90, RFD becomes a potential third airport. I know people in the northern suburbs who use MKE, since traffic on I-294/I-94 is often lighter than going south towards ORD.


User currently offlineillinoisman From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11785 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers.

If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable. No need to build another freaking airport when that is primarily what RFD is for. It's already a large hub for UPS, so quit wasting time and money and expand that airport if even necessary.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
They said that while the airlines have fought it they expect a lot of the passengers to come from the SW side of Chicago.

Yeah, I really want to spend $20 on gas to drive down to Peotone instead of going to ORD or MDW...NOT! Why build an airport near Peotone when you can just spruce up GYY?


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11733 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 15):
Hurry up, you may beat BER!  

Hahaha! Laugh for the day!

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 21):
If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable

You can never have enough cargo airports. :P jk I totally agree.

Seriously?! Peotone? If you are going to build a new airport at least pick a more intelligent location. I agree that Lake Calumet and out near Aurora are much better places. I believe we discussed this recently in a Chicago Airport Thread.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 20):
If Chicagoland keeps expanding along I-90, RFD becomes a potential third airport.

They would sure like that. I think because of expansion there that RFD is more viable then Peotone.


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11696 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Let me be the first to say it, is Chicago building the next Mirabel? (YMX).

That's exactly what came to my mind first. Such a transit-only airport will probably never work.



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3704 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11664 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 15):
Would Allegiant or Spirit fly from there?

NK expressed interest at one time, but is mostly interested in GYY right now because of their ORD gate situation and the airport expansion in progress. Even with the volatile state of service at GYY, I could see NK running at least 10 flights a day from there before the first slab of concrete is poured in Peotone.

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 21):
If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable. No need to build another freaking airport when that is primarily what RFD is for. It's already a large hub for UPS, so quit wasting time and money and expand that airport if even necessary.

The City of Chicago has always advocated expanding RFD and GYY over building Peotone, and the Chicago Department of Aviation has agreements with both airports. The Chicago-Gary Airport Compact came about in 1995, while the similar deal for RFD came about a decade later. There are also plans to both extend the South Shore Line to GYY and make RFD a key stop on a new Metra line that is in the works. There are no such rail plans for Peotone.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 16):
Emanuel has always been against the Peotone Airport in favor of expanding O'Hare further.

As did Mayor Daley before him. I remember reading an Airways magazine article from 19 years ago where Daley pounced on the mere idea of Peotone and how much a cab ride to downtown would cost.

No one has mentioned this: The Illinois governor's race is next year. Expect the Republican opponent to Pat Quinn to turn Peotone and the use of tax dollars on the project into an election-year issue.

And don't forget the FAA's veto power- up to this point, the FAA has supported expansions at RFD and GYY over building a greenfield airport in Peotone. And I don't see that changing, given that the POTUS is a Chicago guy, not a downstate guy like Quinn - and it's the downstate and south suburban folks pushing Peotone the hardest. They need to only look in their backyard at BLV to get a taste of reality.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6988 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11868 times:

Quoting jns13 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive.

Well I have seen articles stating it is also about jobs in the south, now if ORD and MDW are providing jobs for folks in the metro area proper as well as the south there would be no support for the idea.

Second, I guess after DFW and DAL everyone may I say may be of the opinion that ORD will have to close for this new airport to have traffic, so far the aricles I have read seem to indicate that cargo will be the primary user with pax traffic second. If cargo moves it provides additional movement space at ORD, if they do a lot of movement at night, the noise in and around ORD would be less, does anyone benefit?

Third, which carriers right now would like to increase service into the Chicago area but cannot because of the gorrilla's at ORD (be they the FAA or airlines) and the space restrictions at MDW, could we also have a case of if you build it they will come?

Lastly, after the Megis Field disaster, someone may actually be looking at doing the same on a more grand scale, assumption being what it is I would say MDW would have X's on its runways versus ORD, so the question is, which of the majors presently using ORD would like to see MDW go away, imagine the economic benefit to the airport and the airlines?
I expect the airlines and the airport to look our for themselves, not the local economy.


User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3704 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11856 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 25):
Third, which carriers right now would like to increase service into the Chicago area but cannot because of the gorrilla's at ORD (be they the FAA or airlines) and the space restrictions at MDW, could we also have a case of if you build it they will come?

As I've said before, NK wants to grow more in Chicago, but can't get additional gates. Although I expect US to release their 3 gates at ORD T2 following their merger with T3-using AA (leaving those gates plus E8 open, for a total of 4 vacant gates in T2), I also expect NK to start serving GYY soon, as it's an airport that they have expressed interest in many times - and they can have the whole terminal to themselves.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12047 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
In addition to the stupidity of a third airport, just WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone? Anyone for a three way, split operation in Chicago?  

You mean, like New York City, which split airport capacity 3 ways since the 1960s? That's when the metro area was smaller (Chicago-sized) and airline capacity a fraction of what it is now. Los Angeles could be thought of as split 5 ways with smaller airports. Why does Chicago have to be satisfied with 2, if planning for a 3rd can be done?

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 8):
I guess if you're gonna build a modern shiny new road, you might as well build an airport for drivers to go to!

Somewhat like E-470 and DEN, though DEN was first. I still try to avoid E-470.

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 18):

So why did Chicago just expand ORD? I don't see how IL needs an expanded major hub at ORD plus a DFW sized new hub in the greater Chicago area.

Airports still need to upgrade even when new ones are planned, to be able to accommodate existing and near-future capacity. That's what happened at Stapleton before DIA, at Love before DFW, and even between terminals at places like PHX, LAX, and LAS.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 22):
I agree that Lake Calumet and out near Aurora are much better places.

If I recall the arguments, Lake Calumet was too confined to accommodate any growth, and the environmental cleanup was prohibitive. Of course, I don't know its status now.


-Rampart


User currently offlinevictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 499 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11968 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 10):
This isn't about moving airlines from ORD/MDW to Peotone, this is all about political patronage for jobs, consulting contracts, land purchasing and the sorts for specific groups.

For those who live in Illinois, this falls along the line of the Prairie Parkway out in the far western burbs. Money was going to be made off those selling the land and building a highway few or non would use.

Political patronage for jobs, and consulting contracts??? I'm shocked that you would insinuate such a thing could occur in Illinois 


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1775 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11903 times:

This airport will be so far from the main populated areas that Ryanair could fly there and call it Chicago South   


Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlinescutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 389 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11853 times:

Amazing. I can't believe this is popping up again.

For god's sake, if you want to spend money then upgrade Amtrak to MKE, at least that stands a chance at actually being used...


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6999 posts, RR: 13
Reply 31, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11780 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone?

Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers. AA and UA said a long time ago they are not interested in Peotone. AA and UA have invested way too much into ORD to abandon it in favor of Peotone.

I don't even buy that. There is a ton of belly cargo intermingling with freighters at ORD. That's not going to work if they move the cargo carriers elsewhere. I don't think even Fedex or UPS would move because of their new initiative to use belly space on scheduled carriers for long-haul. So, I see this being the airport for Hooters Air Part Deux.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11756 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 27):
Somewhat like E-470 and DEN, though DEN was first. I still try to avoid E-470.

Why? Of course I do live closer to the Northwest Parkway segment...

Quoting rampart (Reply 27):
If I recall the arguments, Lake Calumet was too confined to accommodate any growth, and the environmental cleanup was prohibitive. Of course, I don't know its status now.

I believe it. But at least it would be used to its capacity.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11689 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 32):
Why?

If you're asking about E-470, it's because anytime I'm in Denver I'm renting a car, and the rental companies have a ridiculous surcharge for the toll thingy. I choose not to just because I hate surcharges, and it usually makes little difference in the timing for where I'm going south or west or to downtown, so I can completely avoid the toll road.

I think the Lake Calumet Airport boat has long since sailed. How's that for a terrible mixed analogy?

-Rampart


User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11624 times:

Quoting Marcus (Reply 29):
This airport will be so far from the main populated areas that Ryanair could fly there and call it Chicago South

Maybe Ryanair can start international flights from here?  


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 871 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11538 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers. AA and UA said a long time ago they are not interested in Peotone. AA and UA have invested way too much into ORD to abandon it in favor of Peotone.

I'm sorry but when I read your post I had to laugh. FedEx, UPS, DHL, and other cargo companies moving their operations to Peotone is absolutely crazy and will never happen reason being when you drive thru the suburbs surrounding O'Hare the one thing you notice is a ton of freight companies and trucking companies surrounding the perimeter of O'Hare international airport. FedEx just opened a brand new cargo facility at ORD they are not going to abandon that facility and start over in Peotone UPS and DHL have just as much invested in ORD as FedEx. As far as Atlas and Polar and many of the other cargo airlines that fly into and out of ORD none of these airlines will go to Peotone unless the freight and trucking companies move to Peotone. Of course on the flip side the freight and trucking companies would want the airlines to commit to moving first before they decide to move. Then it becomes the chicken or the egg concept which came first the chicken or the egg and thats a debate that people have had for years so I don't see cargo airlines moving to Peotone.

I think Peotone has been and will continue to be a complete waist of tax payer dollars. AA, UA, DL, and WN have all said no when they were approached about moving their operations to Peotone. Many other airlines already told the governor and other Illinois politicians the exact same thing they will not move or start up their operations in Peotone. MDW is the closest airport to downtown Chicago at about 12 miles away. ORD is about 18 miles from downtown Chicago on a good traffic day you could be at the airport in 20 minutes on really bad day it could take you upwards of 1.5 hours to get to ORD. Now comes Peotone at more than 40 miles away from downtown Chicago. Gary International Airport is closer to Chicago than Peotone would be. Of course the governor and others have said that Illinois will widen the I57 expressway which gets reduced to 2 lanes in each direction once you reach 195th street. The governor has said Illinois will build a high speed rail system that will be able to take passengers from downtown Chicago to Peotone in record breaking time although they can't even fix the problems with CTA and Metra trains. They have also said they will make it worth businesses while if they do decide to move to Peotone. How? This stupid governor has said a lot but as always he has failed to deliver on any of this promises which is why just about all of the businesses that he would need to make Peotone a success have said no were are not committing to this ridiculous idea especially since Illinois has no money thanks to the fact that the governor and our elected officials don't have the stomach to even take on and solve the pension problem.

If Chicago really does need a 3 airport (which we don't) why not invest in Gary's Airport and make that airport more attractive to travelers than build another airport that will go largely unused by commercial airlines kind of like how Gary is today the airport is underutilized.


User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11441 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 27):
You mean, like New York City, which split airport capacity 3 ways since the 1960s? That's when the metro area was smaller (Chicago-sized) and airline capacity a fraction of what it is now. Los Angeles could be thought of as split 5 ways with smaller airports. Why does Chicago have to be satisfied with 2, if planning for a 3rd can be done?


I think the difference is that EWR/JFK/LGA are all relatively close to a vast majority of NYC's population, not 45 miles away from city centre like Peotone. Planning for a 3rd airport is smart, but if the state is broke and they city has already heavily invested in MDW/ORD, why build the 3rd one now. Peotone probably won't be needed until ORD has replaced T1-T5 and added T6-T-9.



The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11406 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 33):
If you're asking about E-470, it's because anytime I'm in Denver I'm renting a car, and the rental companies have a ridiculous surcharge for the toll thingy

Makes sense. Living two minutes from the parkway makes me a bit more likely to use it.

Quoting kordcj (Reply 36):
Planning for a 3rd airport is smart, but if the state is broke and they city has already heavily invested in MDW/ORD, why build the 3rd one now.

That's the thing.       It's not a worthwhile investment currently.


User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3090 posts, RR: 10
Reply 38, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11350 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 35):
If Chicago really does need a 3 airport (which we don't) why not invest in Gary's Airport and make that airport more attractive to travelers than build another airport that will go largely unused by commercial airlines kind of like how Gary is today the airport is underutilized.

After all is said and done I think what you have stated above is exactly what will actually happen. Initial improvements starting with lengthening their main runway is in progress as we speak except for the contaminated soil which has to be cleaned up first.

Courtesy: Northwest Indiana Times

Gary Airport Leaders Not Intimidated By Newly Funded South Suburban Airport

"This is all about politics," Boyd said. "Illinois built one disastrous airport, the (little-used) MidAmerica St. Louis Airport. Why do they want another one? Gary isn't a garden spot, but its airport has good access and is already there."

"Gary airport officials will continue to press forward with its $166 million runway expansion project and efforts to encourage more development nearby. Gary airport leaders said the South Suburban Airport would be too far out of the way to be a viable competitor for freight, passenger service or general aviation."


http://www.nwitimes.com/business/loc...0-1ab4-53cf-a2dd-6324bd4f9807.html


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11008 times:

Quoting kordcj (Reply 36):
I think the difference is that EWR/JFK/LGA are all relatively close to a vast majority of NYC's population, not 45 miles away from city centre like Peotone.

I can see that. But, back when the NYC airports took form (and that's going back to the 1920s and 1930s), it made most sense to occupy coastal marsh. That doesn't happen today, and the option in Chicago's case (as it would be in NYC's case if they had to now) would be to go far out into least-developed land. That, or expand on GYY or RFD as others have suggested (which does seem more reasonable to me.) But it does make sense to have some large stash of land for an eventuality. DIA looked ridiculously far-out, and still does, but city is rapidly growing toward it. Look at DFW, and IAH, both in former exurban wilderness! Las Vegas is doing the same while investing hugely in new structures at LAS.

-Rampart


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10971 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 24):
And I don't see that changing, given that the POTUS is a Chicago guy, not a downstate guy like Quinn - and it's the downstate and south suburban folks pushing Peotone the hardest. They need to only look in their backyard at BLV to get a taste of reality.

Actually, Pat Quinn grew up in west suburban Hinsdale, and I believe he is a Chicago resident. As for downstate support of Peotone, I think it's a non-issue down there. No one really cares what airport Chicagoan and suburbanites use.

Quoting par13del (Reply 25):
Lastly, after the Megis Field disaster, someone may actually be looking at doing the same on a more grand scale, assumption being what it is I would say MDW would have X's on its runways versus ORD, so the question is, which of the majors presently using ORD would like to see MDW go away, imagine the economic benefit to the airport and the airlines?

From what I gather, the City is more in bed with WN than either major tenant at ORD. Before leaving office, Mayor Daley became very adament that ORD get more airlines to keep airfares at ORD reasonable. Both UA and AA were pointing out that WN at MDW does more to keep air fares down than letting a few more B6 and VX flights.

By the same token, some airlines feel that they don't get a fair shake at MDW. Whatever WN wants, WN gets. Considering how much the City spent to build a brand new terminal and concourse complex, the City isn't about to close MDW.

The reasons for closing CGX were: a) Daley had said that only rich Republicans use CGX (even though the no. 1 proponent of biz jets, Warren Buffet, is a Democrat), and b) his wife, the late Maggie Daley, believed that a park made better sense for the site than an airport used by the business community.


User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10836 times:

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 21):
Why build an airport near Peotone when you can just spruce up GYY?

GYY is in Indiana and last I heard, Indiana voters can't cast ballots in Illinois.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6988 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10825 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 40):
By the same token, some airlines feel that they don't get a fair shake at MDW. Whatever WN wants, WN gets. Considering how much the City spent to build a brand new terminal and concourse complex, the City isn't about to close MDW.

Is there room to grow at MDW for the legacies, and if they are now in bed with WN, is that because the legacies were entrenched at ORD and were not interested?
I can certainely see certain politicians giving WN the boot after developing an alternative market to go after the "big boys" but I can also understand standing by the carrier that put your airport on the map in a significant way.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 41):
GYY is in Indiana and last I heard, Indiana voters can't cast ballots in Illinois.

True, but remember that CVG isn't in Ohio. It's across the river in Kentucky. If you go to either ORD or MDW, you see a lot of Indiana license plates in the parking lots and in front of the terminals. Getting to GYY from the Loop is fairly easy, and it would be far easier to connect the South Shore rail line to the GYY terninal than to start rail service to Peotone. MKE has had an Amtrak stop for years.

The problem is that people in the south suburbs who don't live near Peotone are in favor of it. But, people who live under possible flight paths of Peotone are worried that they will some day suffer the way people in suburbs near ORD have suffered with noise.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10739 times:

A couple things here:
1. Peotone is more than twice as far from the Loop as O'Hare.
2. There is no transportation link from Peotone to The Loop.
3. Gary and Milwaukee both have airports, and Gary is quite underserved.
4. There isn't an appreciable amount of people who would find it convenient to go South, and most of the money is North and West of the city, from which it is easier to get to O'Hare and Midway.
5. Unlike O'Hare and Midway, there is N.O.T.H.I.N.G further South of Peotone to increase its catchment area. And is Chicago even big enough to warrant another airport? Typically the only cities with more than two airports are much bigger than Chicago.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 9):
And Milwaukee is a decent overflow. It's a nice, direct train ride away.
Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
I can see it now. Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport.

Peotone is a separate jurisdiction not even in the same county as Chicago. Rahm (the correct spelling) opposes this.

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 18):
So why did Chicago just expand ORD?

This is pushed by the state. Chicagoland and the rest of Illinois might as well be two separate countries.

[Edited 2013-07-26 14:17:47]

User currently onlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4930 posts, RR: 19
Reply 45, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10350 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 44):
Peotone is a separate jurisdiction not even in the same county as Chicago. Rahm (the correct spelling) opposes this.

Come on now, you don't think the City of Chicago is going to idly sit by and watch a project like this pop up in their own front yard without throwing in some kind of interference, especially when revenues that they receive from ORD/MDW move out of town down the road a little bit. The fight hasn't yet begun.

And look who is involved in this....well what do you know.....

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...king-ceremony-for-peotone-airport/

http://chblog.ozarkattitude.com/2012...ckson-jrs-groundbreaking-just.html



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10280 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 45):
Come on now, you don't think the City of Chicago is going to idly sit by and watch a project like this pop up in their own front yard without throwing in some kind of interference, especially when revenues that they receive from ORD/MDW move out of town down the road a little bit. The fight hasn't yet begun.

read the rest...

Quoting luckyone (Reply 44):
Rahm (the correct spelling) opposes this.

So, no. I don't envision Mayor Emanuel encouraging airlines to use a new facility outside of Chicago.


User currently onlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4930 posts, RR: 19
Reply 47, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10215 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 45):
Come on now, you don't think the City of Chicago is going to idly sit by and watch a project like this pop up in their own front yard without throwing in some kind of interference

I think that's what I said in the statement above. Chicago will find a way to delay this project.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9808 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 31):
I don't even buy that. There is a ton of belly cargo intermingling with freighters at ORD. That's not going to work if they move the cargo carriers elsewhere. I don't think even Fedex or UPS would move because of their new initiative to use belly space on scheduled carriers for long-haul.

I also don't see that much freight relief coming to ORD. Just look at Southern California. ONT is the West Coast hub for UPS, and warehouses surround it to the point where you can see them on satellite photos, but LAX is a much larger freight center.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 35):
when you drive thru the suburbs surrounding O'Hare the one thing you notice is a ton of freight companies and trucking companies surrounding the perimeter of O'Hare international airport.

A lot of light industry surrounds ORD, and that means things need shipped to and from them.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 40):
From what I gather, the City is more in bed with WN than either major tenant at ORD.

The Daleys were south siders and always wanted MDW to succeed.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 43):
it would be far easier to connect the South Shore rail line to the GYY terninal than to start rail service to Peotone. MKE has had an Amtrak stop for years.

Yes it would, but... Amtrak (on the Illinois Central tracks) runs alongside Governor's Hwy (State Route 50), which is the western edge of the proposed airport. There are three daily routes, one Chicago-Memphis-New Orleans, the other two are Chicago-Carbondale, which is the location of Southern Illinois Univ. All three also stop in Urbana which serves the main University of Illinois. It still is easier to add GYY because you don't have to build the airport to start the service.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 44):
5. Unlike O'Hare and Midway, there is N.O.T.H.I.N.G further South of Peotone to increase its catchment area.

Or east or west.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17285 posts, RR: 46
Reply 49, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9753 times:

[quote=type-rated,reply=45][And look who is involved in this....well what do you know...../quote]
I thought he was spending with Amanda Bynes? Who let him out??



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 50, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9776 times:

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 18):
So why did Chicago just expand ORD? I don't see how IL needs an expanded major hub at ORD plus a DFW sized new hub in the greater Chicago area.

In my opinion, the PERCEIVED necessity for Peotone is in the minds of those that stand to benefit most from the sales of land, revenues, etc. that MIGHT be brought about by its construction. There is no REAL need, considering the economic climate in the state. Even if the economic situation was looking rosy, there STILL would be no need. Somewhere, someone benefitted from the construction of infrastructure at BLV at Scott AFB to make it a commercial airport. How much actual use does BLV get, if any?

Quoting enilria (Reply 31):
I don't even buy that. There is a ton of belly cargo intermingling with freighters at ORD. That's not going to work if they move the cargo carriers elsewhere. I don't think even Fedex or UPS would move because of their new initiative to use belly space on scheduled carriers for long-haul. So, I see this being the airport for Hooters Air Part Deux.

Hehehehehehe........he said "belly" and "Hooters" in the same paragraph. Now I'm gettin' excited.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinejns13 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9019 times:

I think, as several have mentioned, that Mirabel serves as the best comparison: built for demand that wasn't there, and now seen as a bit of a white elephant. I think there's no question that building this will create jobs and contracts but I'd think that creating all of those jobs and then seeing the airport fail would be even more financially ruinous.

This whole affair begs the question, though, who exactly is Quinn pandering to besides contractors? As was mentioned, Chicagoland is essentially a separate state from the rest of Illinois, so the rest of Illinois frankly can't be bothered. As for Chicagoland itself, well, we REALLY don't like change unless it's absolutely guaranteed to make life tangibly easier for us. Take the Sears tower. A few years ago, it was renamed the Willis tower. I still call it the Sears tower, I refuse to call it the Willis tower, and 95% of Chicagoland refuses to call it the Willis tower. Renaming a building isn't the same as building a multi-billion dollar airport, but I can guarantee that Chicagoans will go out of their way not to use it just to maintain the admittedly more convenient status quo.

Also mentioned in the article was the factor of alternative uses for the money, aka the pension crisis and Chicago/Illinois' increasingly broke education system. There's certainly a disparity between the suburbs and city that could be fixed with the money, I can say that much: I live in the suburbs and just graduated from a newly built, $125 million high school, meanwhile CPS teachers were on strike for weeks this year due to falling pay and job cuts. Let's get our priorities, straight, Quinn...


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 52, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 48):
A lot of light industry surrounds ORD, and that means things need shipped to and from them.

Just as an FYI, when I worked at DL cargo at ORD from '71-'80, we averaged about 90 outbound (mainline, of course) flights a day and we originated more cargo (in terms of numbers of shipments) than any other station on the system. This is, of course, because of all the manufacturing going on in the Chicago area. We even had truckers bringing in machine parts from factories in central Illinois to be shipped out of ORD.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7351 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers.

Besides the fact that RFD exists for this purpose, cargo is more and more reliant on transferring of belly cargo in passenger aircraft to cargo aircraft and visa versa.


User currently offlineMKENut From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6926 times:

We sit up here in Wisconsin and just laugh at Quinn. He is mismanaging the State of Illinois and will probably end up in jail after he leaves the governor's office. Lets focus on MKE, GYY and RFD before building another airport in the region.

User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

Quoting MKENut (Reply 54):

I could not have said it better myself. MKE still has flights from ORD. If HSR was established to MKE, I think it would make MKE a bit more attractive for domestic flyers to major destinations given the demand and not having to travel out of ORD. At the same time,I think it would add to the catchement area of ORD for non-stops to regional and international destinations that do not have non-stop service from MKE. With all the money being poured into ORD, the failure of MidAmerica, and HSR, a brand new airport does not make any sense.

The question should be, what would be the functions of GYY and RFD?


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

I found the renderings for the Lake Calumet Airport proposal. They look way better than Peotone.

http://urbandesign.g2a2.com/Urban_Design/City_and_Airport.html#5

I suspect the only reason it was really pushed was to force environmental cleanup in the area though. That was probably more important than whether the airport ever got built. Since it never got approved the cleanup never happened either.

Quoting rampart (Reply 33):
I think the Lake Calumet Airport boat has long since sailed.

or sunk  


User currently offlineFLDude From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6212 times:

Quoting AS739BSI (Reply 55):
Quoting MKENut (Reply 54):
I could not have said it better myself. MKE still has flights from ORD. If HSR was established to MKE, I think it would make MKE a bit more attractive for domestic flyers to major destinations given the demand and not having to travel out of ORD. At the same time,I think it would add to the catchement area of ORD for non-stops to regional and international destinations that do not have non-stop service from MKE. With all the money being poured into ORD, the failure of MidAmerica, and HSR, a brand new airport does not make any sense.

The question should be, what would be the functions of GYY and RFD?

Reading this thread makes it pretty obvious why Peotone is proposed.

My answer would be improve the rail links to RFD, GYY, and MKE, and let those serve as Chicago's overflow airports.

Of course, that would require cross border governmental cooperation. Which, given tendencies to empire build, is rare.

Empire building, contracts for your friends, Get Mine Now. It's not the just The Chicago Way. It's The American Way. Lol


User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 772 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Knowing the politics in Chicago and Illinois one really has to ask the question "Where is the land that the governor owns or who is he doing a favor for"? Just follow the money trail.

Chicago is well served by both MDW and ORD and once ORD gets another runway there really is no need for a new airport. There are many places that could use a second airport, most obvious is ATL. A second airport on the north side of ATL is probably the most needed airport in the US.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 58):
A second airport on the north side of ATL is probably the most needed airport in the US.

However, if most of ATL's traffic is connecting rather than O&D, what is the use of having another airport? And, if one airline has the preponderence of flights at ATL, I hardly think they're going to want or need to split their operation.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5577 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 59):
And, if one airline has the preponderence of flights at ATL, I hardly think they're going to want or need to split their operation.

"Splitting operations" has been mentioned several times. In Atlanta's case, there is no need to split operations. Either there will be sufficient O&D demand at a new airport to justify new service, or new carriers will establish that don't already have a major infrastructure in ATL. This is how Los Angeles or New York work. Nobody expects Delta to split large portions of their operations to a new airport. If Chicago works the same, nobody should expect United, American, or Southwest to split their operations, either. Again, look at the New York or Los Angeles models. UA has a superhub at EWR, yet still serves LGA connecting other hubs. AA, US, B6, and DL still serve EWR. No problem. In LA, DL and UA manage to serve BUR and SNA fine with large operations chugging along at LAX.

I've said before, Atlanta is an anomaly among large US metro areas in not having a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) airport, for its size.

-Rampart


User currently offlinehohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Chicago does not want this airport, IL state wants it. But their financial situation is precarious. IL does not want to be the first state to be declaring bankruptcy, so I hope they shelve this project now before they waste any more money. Also Chicago and Illinois are NOT growing much, the population growth is at a snail's pace. In fact it is likely that they will lose population.

User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5472 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 38):
After all is said and done I think what you have stated above is exactly what will actually happen. Initial improvements starting with lengthening their main runway is in progress as we speak except for the contaminated soil which has to be cleaned up first.

I don't know enough about the whole situation to comment with any degree of certainty but, I would think politics are playing a huge role here...GYY is in another state and I would guess IL wants to keep the jobs and glory in house.

I have to say though I think Gary does make more sense; why start from scratch when you have an established but underused airport that's closer to the city and has good transportation links close by?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12784 posts, RR: 100
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What are they thinking? Do they really think there is a shortage of hubbing capacity not *very* convenient to O&D?

Have they talked to STL, PIT, MEM, CVG, or RDU? The USA needs airport expansion, but at high O&D sites.

AA and UA won't move. They need to concentrate their hubs.

But hey, with Illinois politics, I'm *sure* this would be built cheap enough to attract G4 and NK as operators...   

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 1):

I can only assume this must mean the pension problem has been solved, so great news!

   Nope, they've found a sure fire place to invest what pension money they have!  
Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
In addition to the stupidity of a third airport, just WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone? Anyone for a three way, split operation in Chicago?

'crickets chirp'

Hopefully they pay some good consultants to stop the stupidity early...

Quoting XJET (Reply 3):
Great, soon Top Gear can film an episode at an Amerian ghost airport.

  

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 23):
Such a transit-only airport will probably never work.

There are too many other candidates in line.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 44):
3. Gary and Milwaukee both have airports, and Gary is quite underserved.

Milwaukee has the best potential...

Quoting FLDude (Reply 57):
My answer would be improve the rail links to RFD, GYY, and MKE, and let those serve as Chicago's overflow airports.

I'm ok with that. Give them a chance... I don't think they'll thrive, but that would be a lot less costly to try. Start with MKE... that starts with a local O&D base.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 62):
I have to say though I think Gary does make more sense

That's my thought as well. Peotone is much further out than Gary. If GYY was a runaway success with limited options to expand than maybe there would be a case for Peotone. GYY has struggled to find a long term tenant and Allegiant is pulling out. It remains to be seen if they would be interested in coming back after the runway expansion is complete. They've claimed in the past they need that to run flights to west coast. The area north of GYY all the way to Lake Michigan looks like it could be set aside for further parallel runways too. I suspect there are environmental cleanup issues there though.


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4542 posts, RR: 22
Reply 65, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5418 times:

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 62):
I have to say though I think Gary does make more sense; why start from scratch when you have an established but underused airport that's closer to the city and has good transportation links close by?

GYY makes a lot less sense than just upgrading KLOT. That airport is actually in IL, near close to some of the bigger SW suburbs, and has room to expand.



Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 438 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 65):
GYY makes a lot less sense than just upgrading KLOT.

I have always been an advocate for upgrading LOT, DPA and ARR to cover what GYY could do. I think that if you built a proper terminal at DPA you could cover more of the issue there, then build the third runway that they have planned at LOT and expand the ramp space at both LOT and ARR to cover what GA capacity would be lost at DPA.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 67, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting jns13 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive.

Pretty much.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 10):
This isn't about moving airlines from ORD/MDW to Peotone, this is all about political patronage for jobs, consulting contracts, land purchasing and the sorts for specific groups.

Exactly right. It's a power play by Quinn and an idiotic one at that. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 17):
Seems like an incredible waste of time and money at a time when Illinois should be cutting back on its spending.

Your entire post is totally right on. It's just insanity to even contemplate this.


User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 65):
GYY makes a lot less sense than just upgrading KLOT. That airport is actually in IL, near close to some of the bigger SW suburbs, and has room to expand.

Yeah, agreed, that does make sense too; I hadn't even thought of LOT. Regardless of which one (LOT or GYY) though they definitely seem like better options and spending tens of millions of dollars on a brand new airport that isn't even close to the city it is supposed to be serving.

Even if LOT or GYY became a sort of TEB and pulled the majority of the GA traffic away from MDW it would help alleviate traffic delays from the main airports and free up more slots for the airlines. If the upgraded airport could also pull away some commuter and LCC traffic or even the lions share of the cargo traffic to the Chicago area it would certainly pay for itself in a relatively short period of time.

In some ways I kind of envy Chicago though; having three decent options for expanding air service to their city and not being able to choose which one to go with is a nice problem to have...New York and dozens of other cities around the world would love to have that issue. Even back home here in the Boston area...how long have we been wishing for ORH to become a viable reliever for BOS and I'm said to say it will probably never happen in my lifetime.


User currently offlinewestindian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5147 times:

Very superficial, I know, but as an aviation lover, I must bring this up:

Some years ago, Meigs Field was closed, much to the chagrin of many, many people (especially flightsim guys       . Now, there's talk of a third airport for Chicago.

You can't make this stuff up.   



God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 69):

Ha, it was only a matter of time before someone brought it up!  

Meigs could never have handled the equipment or schedules the third airport would be asked to take on though.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 70):
Ha, it was only a matter of time before someone brought it up!  

Yes, all the way back in reply 25 (granting the missed spellcheck):

Quoting par13del (Reply 25):
Lastly, after the Megis Field disaster, someone may actually be looking at doing the same on a more grand scale,

Remember when Air Illinois had service to CGX? Twin Otters, or was it the HP Jetstreams, to Springfield?

Somewhat like the lack of support for new airlines here on A.net, I am surprised by the lack of support for new airports. Don't we all like airports?? I look at it this way: Chicago is planning years into the future, where many cities are not. This is not needed in 5 or 10 years. But what is the lifespan of the current renovations at ORD? 20 years? What will the airline industry be in 20 years? VERY hard to predict. But cities that have made bold moves to keep WELL in advance of the evolution of airlines are doing OK. That would include DFW and DEN. JFK was bold in the 1960s, but it's trying to adjust to trends of the past 50 years, which is why PANYNJ is looking at additional capacity in SWF. Not now, but for the future. I think of cities like Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, Miami, and San Diego that will probably wish they were more forward with planning 20 years from now. And if air travel collapses in that time, well, there will be land that might be useful for more pressing social needs in the future.

On the flip side, there are cities which have overbuilt not knowing about the retraction (or consolidation) of airlines, which would include STL, MCI. Chicago being what it is, I don't think they need to worry about overbuilding. All they need at this point is some contingency land. That's all we can hope for with a 20 year horizon.

-Rampart


User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Why not also resurrect the new St. Louis airport in Waterloo plan?

[Edited 2013-07-29 12:15:15]

User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 71):
Chicago being what it is, I don't think they need to worry about overbuilding. All they need at this point is some contingency land. That's all we can hope for with a 20 year horizon.

That's well and good. I actually agree.
If IL and Chicago want to reserve land in Peotone...or even around the DuPage airport area, I'm all for that.
But to BUILD it now?
Seems so stupid. ORD and MDW are decently located to serve everyone I've talked to over the years.
I for one, nor do my friends/family want to drive down to nowhereville Peotone.

Now, in 25yrs if there's a population boom and Peotone finds itself in the midst of being the "new south suburbs".........GREAT.

Reserve the land, don't build now.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 73):
or even around the DuPage airport area, I'm all for that.

I doubt that. It was the NIMBYs that shut down the DuPage County airshow in the 70s and how much growth has taken place in that area, since then?

Quoting rampart (Reply 71):
Somewhat like the lack of support for new airlines here on A.net, I am surprised by the lack of support for new airports. Don't we all like airports?? I look at it this way: Chicago is planning years into the future, where many cities are not. This is not needed in 5 or 10 years. But what is the lifespan of the current renovations at ORD? 20 years? What will the airline industry be in 20 years? VERY hard to predict. But cities that have made bold moves to keep WELL in advance of the evolution of airlines are doing OK. That would include DFW and DEN. JFK was bold in the 1960s, but it's trying to adjust to trends of the past 50 years, which is why PANYNJ is looking at additional capacity in SWF. Not now, but for the future. I think of cities like Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, Miami, and San Diego that will probably wish they were more forward with planning 20 years from now. And if air travel collapses in that time, well, there will be land that might be useful for more pressing social needs in the future.

This might make sense if it was Chicago that was pushing it, but it's not......it's the state of Illinois, so the only reasonable explanation I can see why the state wants it is because someone has land to sell, etc.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1772 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Wonder how this will affect MKE?

User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 74):
This might make sense if it was Chicago that was pushing it, but it's not......it's the state of Illinois,

Devil's advocate here, but what if this is Illinois realizing that some big-picture planning is in order that Chicago is not realizing? Several posters here have mentioned that Chicago does not necessarily plan well between municipalities, and there is no shared planning between states (apart from the Illiana tollway?). Some metro areas that span states have multiple partners in airport planning: Metro Washington, PANYNJ, for example. Chicago ought to be involving Gary and Milwaukee and other neighboring cities (if they aren't already), and Illinois with Wisconsin and Indiana.

-Rampart


User currently offlineMKENut From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 76):
Chicago ought to be involving Gary and Milwaukee and other neighboring cities (if they aren't already), and Illinois with Wisconsin and Indiana.

I agree, but Chicago and Milwaukee are rivals and there is no real interest in talking much less cooperation. Sad but true.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 78, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting MKENut (Reply 77):
I agree, but Chicago and Milwaukee are rivals and there is no real interest in talking much less cooperation. Sad but true.

Which I think is the reason Illinois is pushing the airport, because Chicago isn't.
Everyone should read the history of Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport and how it started.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12784 posts, RR: 100
Reply 79, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Let me be the first to say it, is Chicago building the next Mirabel? (YMX).

Said early and well. There is no O&D need where this airport is proposed. WIth connecting traffic having poor yield vs. O&D, this 3rd airport will be an expensive way to sell land.

Normally I am all for airport expansion as the NIMBYs normally delay it. But this is a waste of money. Chicago needs more capacity where there is already capacity. Not another split-hub.

Quoting kordcj (Reply 36):
I think the difference is that EWR/JFK/LGA are all relatively close to a vast majority of NYC's population, not 45 miles away from city centre like Peotone.

And they are near *wealthy* population. Just as SNA and SNA in the Los Angeles region. Peotone is the wrong way from the job centers.

If Chicago was replacing a 2-runway airport with something more significant (e.g., building DEN, IAD, IAH, or DFW), then the new airport would work. But we're talking about going head to head with AA and UA at an established base with large FF membership.

As you note, this is another Mirabel (wasted money).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 74):
This might make sense if it was Chicago that was pushing it, but it's not......it's the state of Illinois, so the only reasonable explanation I can see why the state wants it is because someone has land to sell, etc.

That makes a lot of sense, but there are two other plausible reasons, even though I agree that there will be a lot of politically connected construction contracts.
1. A boost for the south suburbs and the far-off dream of developing the Chicago/Champaign-Urbana corridor to the same extent as Chicago/Milwaukee is developed.
2. O'Hare is landlocked, it has its NIMBYs, and quality of life in the communities surrounding ORD is not perceived as being Chicago's primary concern. The state does have a legitimate interest in mitigating those concerns while also addressing the region's economic development, including the ORD region.

O'Hare is not really contiguous to Chicago. When Chicago incorporated it, the property was about 3 miles west of the western boundary. They annexed as much unincorporated land as they could, but still needed to annex a road for the last mile to get to the airport (AFB) itself. So all but 100 feet of the ORD perimeter is a boundary with a suburban area.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1772 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Actually wouldn't this be a FOURTH airport? What about Rockford?

User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 422 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

This is so dumb I can't even explain.

We will have at most 5 major airlines in the US before the end of the calendar year. 2 of which have hubs at ORD and another has a hub at MDW, so they will not serve this airport at all so that limits the carrier options.
It leaves DL, all of the ULLCs plus VX, B6 as the major carriers to be options at this new airport.
Seems like a bad scenario to start with


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 60):
Again, look at the New York or Los Angeles models.

You can't use the NY or LA situation as "models" for Chicago, because they are completely different situations.

1. NY and LA's airports have been around for decades, none of them are "new-build".
2. NY and LA have grown much faster than Chicago (and continue to do so), and they serve much larger metro populations.
3. Illinois is in the worst financial shape of probably any state in the union, California included.
4. Chicago doesn't want it.
5. The airlines don't want it.

The only way this would work is if Illinois pulled a "Denver" and shut down either or both ORD and MDW when this new airport opened. Which will never happen.

It's a make-work program, similar to the kind that has resulted in all kind of "ghost airports" in Spain and elsewhere.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...years-thats-falling-rack-ruin.html


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Also, speaking of the Spanish "ghost airports", this quote caught my attention:

All of these airports share some things in common. They’re located off the beaten path. There are already other established airports nearby. And, says Spanish economist Lluis Renart, local politicians have fallen victim to hubris.

“I think that unfortunately, in the last few years, some politicians seem to think that a political decision was something they could decide via pure power exertion without taking into account any sort of economic rationality.”

In other words, local political bosses have pushed through these mega projects with little oversight. And little study. The benefit to them? In the short run, the promise of jobs gets them votes. And they levy taxes on the construction costs.


Sound familiar?

http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/spain-castellon-airport/


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

I'm not sure what everyone is up in arms about. The article clearly states that Illinois is only purchasing the land only, not building the airport.

"The bill allows Illinois to pay more than $70 million dollars for the land."

IF the airport is to be built, it looks like it will be a private venture:

"Jackson and a group of 21 municipal governments in the Chicago area sought the go-ahead from Quinn last year, saying they lined up $700 million in private funds and two developers."

So who cares if an airport is built with private money?

Furthermore, the article states the "groundbreaking" was only a symbolic one. Nothing is being built now or in the near future. No one here can state a new major airport will definitely not be needed in the Chicago area 40 years or more from now. There is nothing wrong with safeguarding land for that eventuality. If an airport will not be built by then the state can sell the land, most likely at a profit.



FLYi
User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3643 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 85):
I'm not sure what everyone is up in arms about. The article clearly states that Illinois is only purchasing the land only, not building the airport.

Clearly you're not from Illinois to understand what this means.

It's not symbolic, taxpayer dollars will be spent to purchase land, contracts to political friends for studies and the such. Illinois has far bigger issues than this political pork barrel project to appease a few people.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 87, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 83):
You can't use the NY or LA situation as "models" for Chicago, because they are completely different situations.

1. NY and LA's airports have been around for decades, none of them are "new-build".
2. NY and LA have grown much faster than Chicago (and continue to do so), and they serve much larger metro populations.
3. Illinois is in the worst financial shape of probably any state in the union, California included.
4. Chicago doesn't want it.
5. The airlines don't want it.

I didn't mean these to be models. Just examples. Obviously, every city is different. That said, the short-sightedness of most here is amazing. This is L O N G term planning. To answer your points.

1) JFK was new build in the 1950s and 60s, newer than ORD. Newark was rebuilt in the 70s.
2) NYC is 2x that of Chicago. LA is 30% larger. And while growing slower (but still growing), Chicago is huge by most comparisons. Chicago is roughly the same size as the SFO-San Jose metro area which has 3 major (but confined) airports.
3) Yes, now. Hopefully it won't be for the majority of the next 50 years, a good planning time frame. Or are you expecting this to rise from the prairie in 2 years?
4) Neither did Dallas in 1969, or Houston in 1972, or Denver in 1985. But those were the short-term thinkers, as most are here.
5) Neither did BN or AA or DL in Dallas, or CO, FL, or UA in Denver. Fortunately for good progress, planners don't always listen completely to airlines.

-Rampart


User currently offlineFRAborn From Germany, joined Feb 2013, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 78):
I agree, but Chicago and Milwaukee are rivals and there is no real interest in talking much less cooperation. Sad but true.

And with one state have a backwards thinking Governor and the other spending money they don't have, a HSR connection ( or any type or cooperation) will never happen.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3424 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 85):


"The bill allows Illinois to pay more than $70 million dollars for the land."

I don't know how much clearer this can be said, but let me give it a shot.........THIS IS MONEY THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE!!


Sorry I had to yell, but that sometimes happens with us "short term thinkers".  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 90, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 89):
I don't know how much clearer this can be said, but let me give it a shot.........THIS IS MONEY THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE!!


Sorry I had to yell, but that sometimes happens with us "short term thinkers".

Money they don't have, or priorities not in order?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/illinois_state_spending.html

$12.4 BILLION on welfare? 10.7 BILLION on transport, which still puts that near the bottom of the list?

There's probably 100 things that could be cut out of the budget before sacrificing and limiting the future potential of Chicago's commercial aviation scene in the decades ahead. At least one of us isn't yelling.

[Edited 2013-07-31 20:40:04]


FLYi
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 27):
Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 8):
I guess if you're gonna build a modern shiny new road, you might as well build an airport for drivers to go to!

Somewhat like E-470 and DEN, though DEN was first. I still try to avoid E-470.

LOL everyone avoids E-470 its almost always empty.

I think this is a bad time to build such an airport. There is so much empty gate space and airports fighting for service in the US look at STL, MCI, IND, PIT all have gates sitting there. Chicago already has two large airports the money would be better spent improving those for higher traffic flows.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 90):

I don't think you understand..........they're allocating $70mil for land for an airport that CHICAGO doesn't want, but "some" in the rest of the state, do.......also for an airport that does nothing for CHICAGO because it's too far from downtown.......for an airport that none of the airlines want........


Should I go on?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3115 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 92):
.they're allocating $70mil for land for an airport that CHICAGO doesn't want, but "some" in the rest of the state, do.......also for an airport that does nothing for CHICAGO because it's too far from downtown.......for an airport that none of the airlines want........

Again, I don't think anyone here can predict what Chicago's aviation needs will be decades from now... that includes Chicago and the airlines. Not to mention what 'too far' away will be then, considering the ongoing growth of suburbs. Furthermore, City of Chicago residents only make up a portion of the overall traffic figures at ORD, so yes it's good to see the 'rest of the state' have a say.



FLYi
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 89):
Sorry I had to yell, but that sometimes happens with us "short term thinkers".  

That explain a lot. Short term thinking and short tempers.  

Seriously, I know it's not needed now. or in 5 or 10 years. But now is the time to buy land. It's cheaper than it will be in 20 years. When an airport may very well be needed.

-Rampart


User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Being from the South Suburbs..........if all they're doing is RESERVING land for future use, then I'm ok with that.
But those of us from IL often know better.

When I was a kid, like 10-15yrs ago, I remember a south side boom going on. Everyone was moving to Plainfield, Mokena, Kankakee, Oswego etc etc. The area exploded with growth........then the bad economy hit and it all stopped.
When things get better, and they will (5-10-20yrs from now) and the southern expansion continues, I could see a need for a southern airport site.
I do believe it is prudent to reserve the land when the expansion eventually reaches the Peotone area and there's a need for air travel down there.
But right now there's no need. So they better hold off on building anything for a good 10yrs.


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Here's the short term thinking, 45 years....This airport was first discussed back in 1968. Politics my friend...this airport is all about politics, money and the promise of jobs, not aviation.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 93):
Again, I don't think anyone here can predict what Chicago's aviation needs will be decades from now... that includes Chicago and the airlines. Not to mention what 'too far' away will be then, considering the ongoing growth of suburbs.



What ongrowing growth?? The far termus of growth stopped like a dead weight once the housing market crashed. I live on the farthest ring of last growth and we're done. Nothing is being built south or west of where I'm located (and lets say it's out towards this topic) The rate of people moving out is far exceeding that of people moving in. Without getting into my personal life, I've sat on a couple of boards where I've seen the data.

The point of population growth (if there will be any in Illinois) will be heading back towards downtown chicago and first ring outside Chicago, not outward to a point where it's all corn fields.


User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3090 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 81):
Actually wouldn't this be a FOURTH airport? What about Rockford?
RFD reacts to this story including remarks from RFD Director, Mike Dunn:

Courtesy: WIFR-TV - Video Report At Link

Peotone Airport Approved; Competition for RFD?

http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/P...ompetition-for-RFD--217021061.html

[Edited 2013-08-01 10:51:19]

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 98, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 97):

Hell, RFD is even further away than Peotone.......logistically, I doubt if it's much better....BUT, it is handier for those that live in the far north/NW suburbs and along the Illinois/Wisconsin border.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 99, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 96):
The point of population growth (if there will be any in Illinois) will be heading back towards downtown chicago and first ring outside Chicago, not outward to a point where it's all corn fields.

That might imply that MDW property might be better suited for urban residential infill eventually. With all the capacity in ORD an all...  


User currently offlineytib From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 567 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

At least with MidAmerica Airport outside of St Louis (but in Illinois) the field was already there.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 101, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting ytib (Reply 100):
At least with MidAmerica Airport outside of St Louis (but in Illinois) the field was already there.

And I'm guessing that the taxpayers paid for it twice......once as Scott AFB and the second time as BLV......am I right?


At least it was useful once.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15692 posts, RR: 26
Reply 102, posted (11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting ytib (Reply 100):
At least with MidAmerica Airport outside of St Louis (but in Illinois) the field was already there.

Actually they basically built a whole new airport connected to Scott AFB by one taxiway and a shared control tower.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../commons/b/b1/Scott_AFB_-_2008.jpg



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):

Actually they basically built a whole new airport connected to Scott AFB by one taxiway and a shared control tower.

But WHY? Some politician have some farmland he wanted to unload?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15692 posts, RR: 26
Reply 104, posted (11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 103):
But WHY? Some politician have some farmland he wanted to unload?

I was too young at the time to remember why it was built that way. As for the airport itself it was a case of it making decent sense at the time, like the new runway at STL, but quickly became very unnecessary. I also suspect that the huge addition was partly a ploy to avoid being BRAC'd. which has worked so far.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineYXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 962 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 16):
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 16):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
I also suspect that the huge addition was partly a ploy to avoid being BRAC'd. which has worked so far.

Can you Explain what you mean by "BRAC'd"? Please...



I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 106, posted (11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

BRAC is the Base Closure and Realignment Commission.........charged with finding military bases that are unecessary (in their minds, apparently).......Not sure if Scott AFB was in this situation or not.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 95):
I do believe it is prudent to reserve the land when the expansion eventually reaches the Peotone area and there's a need for air travel down there.
Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 96):
What ongrowing growth?? The far termus of growth stopped like a dead weight once the housing market crashed. I live on the farthest ring of last growth and we're done. Nothing is being built south or west of where I'm located (and lets say it's out towards this topic) The rate of people moving out is far exceeding that of people moving in. Without getting into my personal life, I've sat on a couple of boards where I've seen the data.

That, coupled with gas around $4.00/gal means we have probably seen the suburbs extend about as far as they realistically can. As it is, the outer burbs like Aurora and Tinley Park can already be an hour's drive--and that can be on a good day--and with the city and Cook County doing just about everything it can do bring jobs into the Loop, I don't see an enthusiastic response to any outer ring development. And have you seen rents in Oak Park (inn ring suburb)?? They're getting almost as expensive as North Side neighborhoods.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Even with effort of putting jobs into the Chicago Loop, that doesn't stop Naperville/Lisle from being a tech center. If businesses continue to grow there, you will continue to see development west of Aurora.

Quoting FRAborn (Reply 88):
And with one state have a backwards thinking Governor and the other spending money they don't have, a HSR connection ( or any type or cooperation) will never happen.

There was HSR between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis in the 1930s.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineYXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 962 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

It may not be HSR between Chicago an Milwaukee but the train that runs between the to cities does it in 90 minutes with 3 stops on the way. One reason the HSR money was turned down by our Governor was they did not see the value of spending nearly $400 Million to rebuild the tracks between Milwaukee and the State line if Illinois was not going to spend the money to up grade the track on there side. So the train would still have to Slow down to 80 mph once it got close to the state line and with one stop in Racine county It would not ever reach the150 mph speed before getting to the state line. So who really killed the HSR line between MKE and Downtown Chicago. I would love to have seen the HSR line between the two points, but as some others have stated the lack of cooperation between the states have not been very good in many years. And to get any kind of a rail line between ORD or MDW with MKE or GYY is a total wild dream. You have a better chance of that happening with RFD. IF and that's BIG IF, Peotone airport plan would ever happen the only way it would be successful is if they force the closing of ORD and make the airlines move to the new airport. If that happened it would only benefit MKE and RFD, but that would not happen for another 20 years.


I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 110, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 107):
As it is, the outer burbs like Aurora and Tinley Park can already be an hour's drive--and that can be on a good day--

I worked at ORD for 8 1/2 years ('71-'80) and drove every day from out past Aurora and it took me, on a good day, at least an hour to get to work in the daytime. It's got to be more than that, now, considering all the developement and traffic along the East-West Tollway.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 108):
you will continue to see development west of Aurora.

I hope not. My hometown of Yorkville is already overdeveloped, from 1600 people when I was in high school ('66) to 12K+, now. Keep your crime, traffic and other problems in close to Chicago, ok?

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 108):
There was HSR between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis in the 1930s.

That's only because the train WAS the main means of travel in that time period.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 109):

It is hard to say who would benefit in air transportation from an HSR line. Some might go to ORD for a direct non-stop flight. Those who want to avoid the crowds of ORD might consider hoping up 20 minutes from the Loop for better availability on flights and less chaos at MKE. I am not sure I see too much of a future at RFD. It is sad that Illinois refuses cooperation with neighboring cities in order to say the airport is in Illinois when there is plenty of space available elsewhere.

This proposal makes Lake Calumet a much better proposal in terms of location, but still was and is a bad idea. If we actually used what we had first, we wouldn't be the infrastructure mess we are in today.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 112, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Makes me wonder what would have happened if WN hadn't come along......what would MDW's future have been? Don't forget that MDW was a virtual graveyard in the mid-70s and only came back to life when WN came to town.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Third Chicago Airport? posted Tue Aug 7 2001 00:23:15 by Traytable
Third Chicago ("Lincoln National") Airport News posted Thu Apr 8 2004 19:06:29 by Mikey711MN
Boy, 9, Forgotten At Chicago Airport posted Mon Jul 26 2010 18:26:50 by aaflt1871
ZRH To Be The Third A 380 Airport In Europe posted Sat Mar 27 2010 12:37:25 by ZRH
3rd Chicago Airport Back On Agenda posted Thu Mar 19 2009 17:04:52 by AmricanShamrok
Third Istanbul Airport Ready By 2013.. posted Tue Nov 11 2008 10:03:57 by Beaucaire
Third Australian Airport In AirAsia X Bid posted Wed Mar 26 2008 21:28:18 by REALDEAL
Jetblue To GYY (Gary/Chicago Airport) Soon? posted Wed Jun 7 2006 01:04:37 by InTheSky74
Improvements At Gary/Chicago Airport GYY posted Sat May 14 2005 19:06:42 by BravoGolf
Is Gary, IN A Viable 3rd Chicago Airport? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 19:47:20 by DAYflyer