5 ms·

As the article points out, expanding the two airports in Chicago are out of the question. And because it is more or less impossible to build a new airport, the

As the article points out, expanding the two airports in Chicago are out of the question. And because it is more or less impossible to build a new airport, they are planning to build a "new" airport. Which means that this tiny little thing [1][2], which handles a dozen or two Cessna flights per day, is intended to "grow" into a 4000 acre major international airport. When it grows to its full footprint, the western edge will be the railroad right of way that carries one of the Chicago commuter rail lines and the Amtrak route that serves the Chicago-UIUC-Memphis-New Orleans line. Plus an existing Interstate with existing interchanges a mile west of that. Very little infrastructure is needed outside of the airport boundaries. Still a lot of opposition though, and years behind schedule. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3774859,-87.676198,14.2z?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3774859,-87.676198,14.2z?ent... [2] https://www.bultfield.com https://www.bultfield.com

ryandrake 3y ago
Airport expansion is almost as difficult as building new. In my neck of the woods, some have suggested that the (primarily general aviation) Livermore airport would make a great “reliever” airport for the Bay Area jets, but this is constantly being fought by residents, mostly people in posh Pleasanton, which is on the flight path. It’s understandable that people don’t want more jets flying above their homes, yet, East Bay travelers would benefit the most from such development.
- jimberlage 3y ago
  "...yet, East Bay travelers would benefit the most from such development." True, but who do you personally know who would trade a small benefit every time they fly for a moderate nuisance at their house? I'm not sure even pilots would ask for the flight benefit.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  Good point. The Livermore airport is pretty hemmed in already; it looks like it would be pretty difficult to do much expansion and you have all those houses that are already under the runway approaches. I'm guessing that when you say "Bay Area jets", you are talking private jets, not 737s, right? In the case of the South Suburban Chicago Airport, noise is less of an issue. People don't want traffic and they don't want farms turned into warehouses and light industrial. And then the housing built for the thousands of jobs created. It's essentially opposition to sprawl, which I think is a pretty legitimate concern. I think the state could try to do things to help prevent it from being as bad as it could be (forest preserves, open space, minimum zoning, etc). Though I don't think they want to, because the alternative to this airport is that the one just across the border in Indiana would get enlarged, leading to all that economic development going to a different state.
DrBazza 3y ago
Unfamiliar with this, but are you suggesting that the airport would cover the railroad, or simply just finish before it? If it covers it, then from the satellite pictures it would be trivial to bury the line in a cut-n-cover tunnel for little expense. The fact that a rail line runs there already seems ideal for a modern airport.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  The property line would end at the railroad right of way. A passenger station would be built to provide service to the airport. The current talk is to build it as a cargo airport, but the original concept was a passenger airport to serve the growing population in Illinois and Indiana that find access to the existing airports inconvenient. There is every reason to believe that if it is built it will start serving passengers just as soon as they can get airlines to agree to use it for passenger flights. As you can see from the recent law, they are adding cargo to the list of reasons for building the airport; they are not replacing passenger service ;) https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2531&GAID=17&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=147637&SessionID=112&GA=103 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2531&...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Cargo airports should be built even further out, because cargo doesn't care about waiting around. Of course, there's also the factor that cargo flights are insane to begin with, if you take a bit to think about it.
duped 3y ago
That project is a cargo airport, not passengers. At least initially.
selectodude 3y ago
South suburban airport is dead as dirt. Rockford and Gary have more than picked up the slack.

ryandrake 3y ago

Airport expansion is almost as difficult as building new. In my neck of the woods, some have suggested that the (primarily general aviation) Livermore airport would make a great “reliever” airport for the Bay Area jets, but this is constantly being fought by residents, mostly people in posh Pleasanton, which is on the flight path. It’s understandable that people don’t want more jets flying above their homes, yet, East Bay travelers would benefit the most from such development.

jimberlage 3y ago
"...yet, East Bay travelers would benefit the most from such development." True, but who do you personally know who would trade a small benefit every time they fly for a moderate nuisance at their house? I'm not sure even pilots would ask for the flight benefit.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
Good point. The Livermore airport is pretty hemmed in already; it looks like it would be pretty difficult to do much expansion and you have all those houses that are already under the runway approaches. I'm guessing that when you say "Bay Area jets", you are talking private jets, not 737s, right? In the case of the South Suburban Chicago Airport, noise is less of an issue. People don't want traffic and they don't want farms turned into warehouses and light industrial. And then the housing built for the thousands of jobs created. It's essentially opposition to sprawl, which I think is a pretty legitimate concern. I think the state could try to do things to help prevent it from being as bad as it could be (forest preserves, open space, minimum zoning, etc). Though I don't think they want to, because the alternative to this airport is that the one just across the border in Indiana would get enlarged, leading to all that economic development going to a different state.

DrBazza 3y ago

Unfamiliar with this, but are you suggesting that the airport would cover the railroad, or simply just finish before it? If it covers it, then from the satellite pictures it would be trivial to bury the line in a cut-n-cover tunnel for little expense. The fact that a rail line runs there already seems ideal for a modern airport.

Kon-Peki 3y ago
The property line would end at the railroad right of way. A passenger station would be built to provide service to the airport. The current talk is to build it as a cargo airport, but the original concept was a passenger airport to serve the growing population in Illinois and Indiana that find access to the existing airports inconvenient. There is every reason to believe that if it is built it will start serving passengers just as soon as they can get airlines to agree to use it for passenger flights. As you can see from the recent law, they are adding cargo to the list of reasons for building the airport; they are not replacing passenger service ;) https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2531&GAID=17&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=147637&SessionID=112&GA=103 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2531&...
- bombcar 3y ago
  Cargo airports should be built even further out, because cargo doesn't care about waiting around. Of course, there's also the factor that cargo flights are insane to begin with, if you take a bit to think about it.

duped 3y ago

That project is a cargo airport, not passengers. At least initially.

selectodude 3y ago

South suburban airport is dead as dirt. Rockford and Gary have more than picked up the slack.