"O'Hare plan is nation's gain"

Wednesday, July 18, 2001

O'Hare plan is nation's gain
AN OPINION BY MARY ROSE LONEY
The Chicago (IL) Sun Times


In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on the
state of our nation's roads, bridges, power lines and airports. The grade
was a D.

Three years later, ASCE upped the score to D+ based on condition, how well
capacity is meeting need and the sufficiency of funding. ASCE President
Robert Bein recently told Airports Magazine that, given the three years it
took to improve from a D to a D+, "at this rate, it will take at least 10
years to get back to a C. The trend is in the right direction, but the
questions is, should America settle for a grade of C, and can we afford to
wait another decade just to be average?"

The Chicago area is facing a unique opportunity to take a leadership role in
advancing a massive transportation upgrade--in the form of the ambitious
O'Hare development plan recently announced--to keep the Chicago area well
above average.

While the plan is both daring and somewhat daunting, it is the right choice
to ensure Chicago's continued strength as an air transportation hub. Here is
why.

It preserves O'Hare's unique dual hub status and it has financial backing.

O'Hare is the only dual hub airport in the United States, meaning that the
two largest airlines on the planet, American and United, have established
strong networks of service that fill O'Hare's 172 gates every day with
convenient and affordable service to every major market.

Our citizens enjoy more air service choices to more destinations than any
other city in the United States. To maintain this high level of competition
and choice, O'Hare must grow. The beauty of the O'Hare plan is that it will
cost local taxpayers nothing. O'Hare and Midway are financially
self-supporting, generating all the income needed to operate, maintain and
expand from airline landing fees, leases and other rents.

Passengers, not property taxpayers, also help cover costs by paying a ticket
tax and passenger facility charge. These funds, as well as airline-backed
bonds, would pay for the O'Hare plan.

It is technically feasible--and highly needed--to make O'Hare more
efficient.

Because O'Hare has grown up from its roots as a World War II airfield, its
runway configuration reflects an inefficient and complex design that can me
modernized. By reorienting O'Hare runways, air traffic controllers will be
able to more efficiently direct aircraft into and out of O'Hare. With FAA
input on the final runway layout, the plan will be the best opportunity
available to address congestion and delays and accommodate growth. There has
been strong reaction to the cost--at least $6 billion--but the value of
reconfiguring O'Hare airfield and preserving existing investments at O'Hare
must be considered.

O'Hare already enjoys 5 million square feet of terminal building space, 172
aircraft gates, numerous hangar buildings and cargo facilities, 15,000
public parking spaces and extensive rail and roadway systems. This value
must be factored in when comparing the benefit of the O'Hare plan to other
concepts, such as a Peotone airport.

It can and should be done now to keep pace with air travel demand and other
U.S. airport projects.


The demand for air travel has far outpaced airport development over the past
decade. Typical airport expansion projects, whether adding new runways or
terminal buildings, generally take at least a decade to plan, design, fund
and construct. In essence, we are moving at the speed of a propeller-driven
plane in a jet-powered age.

Today, global airline alliances, regional jets connecting more small cities
to big hubs like O'Hare and electronic ticketing are adding even more
pressure on airports to reconfigure and expand check-in facilities, gates
and airfield areas. Just about every major city in the United States is
undertaking multibillion-dollar upgrades to airfields and terminals. Yet as
they scramble to plan, design and construct adequate capacity, they face
strong headwinds.

As citizens, we generally recognize--and appreciate--the importance of sound
transportation systems, including roads, bridges and airports, as well as
reliable power generation. Yet most of us say NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard.

The result is that major airport expansion projects require years of public
debate, federal and local reviews and, often, litigation before they proceed
or flame out.

The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the average runway
expansion project in the United States requires 10 years from concept to
concrete. It did at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport and Philadelphia
International. I know because I spent part of my career as an airport
executive at both airports and managed a portion of those 10-year processes.
I also learned these projects can create positive benefits beyond the
airport itself if those in charge are willing to approach the challenge with
commitment and creativity.

It can and must be done. But two requirements are essential.

First, all of the parties involved in a major airport development program
must be willing to adopt an attitude that we can find common ground and all
gain something, rather then simply look at what we are giving up. Second,
U.S. airport development in the 21st century should serve to address, rather
than create, environmental conflict by offering greater opportunities for
achieving compatibility with surrounding communities.

Let's consider how the parties involved might address common ground. There
is general agreement that O'Hare and Midway are major economic engines,
producing not just air service but jobs, commerce and stimuli for
individuals and businesses to locate and stay here. The communities
surrounding the airports also have a huge stake and want to ensure that
airport operations are compatible with quality of life.

In Chicago, despite the vitriolic nature of airport debate, we have
precedence for balancing the benefits and conflicts. Back in the 1996, Mayor
Daley took a major step by inviting surrounding communities to the O'Hare
table. By forming the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, he empowered
suburban leaders willing to join him with the money and authority to
undertake an ambitious $300 million residential and school soundproofing
program.

As the commission grew in numbers, now 31 strong, so has its influence. In
1997, the members requested a larger role in addressing the operational
impacts of aircraft noise. As the city of Chicago's aviation commissioner, I
responded and, together, we led the process for negotiating the Fly Quiet
program that brought together the FAA, air traffic controllers, airlines and
suburban leaders.

The program designated certain runways for nighttime operations and, when
possible, directed aircraft with quiet technology in advance of the federal
requirement to do so. The success of these efforts required all of the
parties bringing--and leaving--something on the table.

We should also view airport development projects as opportunities, not
saboteurs, to greater compatibility with the surrounding communities. In
Philadelphia, wetlands replacement was a condition for moving forward on new
runway expansions. The airport could have easily, and at a much lesser cost,
chosen the replacement site in a wetlands preserve immediately next to
airport property. Instead, we selected a site 18 miles north of the airport
along the banks of the Delaware River.

Air and water quality initiatives, energy-efficient power generation, green
space expansion along airport peripheries, even public art displays have all
been made possible because of airport development efforts.

The parties to the airport debate could set the example that waiting another
10 years to achieve an average grade of C for its aviation infrastructure is
unacceptable.

The process should begin immediately by gathering all the parties --FAA,
airlines, business community, neighboring communities, city and state--at
the table.

Chicago's plan for O'Hare is technically feasible, financially backed and
urgently needed to ensure O'Hare's sustainability as a major air
transportation hub. Given the dominance that Chicago plays in our national
air transportation system, this is a rare opportunity to accelerate our
report card well above that D+ grade.

Chicago is an A+ city. Its transportation system should be nothing less.

Mary Rose Loney is president and CEO of an airport consulting firm.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID8

*****************************************