O'HARE PLAN IS NATION'S GAIN
An Opinion by Mary Rose Loney

CHICAGO SUN TIMES, July 18, 2001 - - 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.

Services | Experience | Press & Awards | Projects | Associates | Contact | Home
© 2000 The Loney Group, LLC