The third airport is in the news every day. The question these stories focus on is: Where will it go?
We read in the papers that a neighborhood group opposes the site in their back yard and says it should really go somewhere else. We hear on the radio that economic development groups want the airport in their back yard because of jobs. But no one has asked the fundamental question. Do we need a third airport? This question has not been answered satisfactorily.
First, those who want this airport pin their hopes on overly optimistic air traffic projections. While they forecast passenger growth at 4.3 percent annually through 1995 and 2 percent thereafter, the actual figures for the last three years have averaged just 1.46 percent with the first third of 1991 actually being down 5.5 percent.
Second, the projections also fail to account for many factors that are likely to influence air traffic. They assume a steady (1.6 percent) rise in oil prices, but as we have seen, the price of oil is given to significant increases. Also unaccounted for is how communications technology may replace air travel. Video-conferencing and the fax machine have already begun to do this, and more advances are on the way.
Third, changes are coming to the aviation industry that will extend O`Hare`s capacity. Larger, quieter aircraft that carry more passengers with less noise impact should be in operation by the year 2000. New air traffic control technology will allow planes to take off and land closer together and operate in poorer weather.
The Sierra Club questions the wisdom of placing even more emphasis on aviation, an oil-dependent mode of transport, at a time when we are increasingly aware of the disastrous consequences dependence on oil has for our environment and national security. A high-speed ground system has clear energy and environmental benefits over air travel. High-speed trains have been used for years in Western Europe and Japan.
Such a system, deployed here, would have several advantages. By linking O`Hare with Milwaukee`s Mitchell Field and Rockford through high-speed rail, we could create a mega-airport, effectively increasing O`Hare capacity by nearly 50 percent. Moreover, a high-speed ground system could significantly ease O`Hare`s traffic burden.
About half of O`Hare flights are to or from cities within 500 miles. If we could siphon off just half of these flights with fast ground links, O`Hare`s capacity could be extended indefinitely. Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota recently approved further study of a high-speed rail route serving Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis-St. Paul. This is a step in the right direction; we should be looking at Chicago as a fast-rail hub for the region`s cities.
Before massive public resources are committed and homes, farmland, wetlands and prairies are destroyed, we need to consider the alternatives and take a realistic look at the demand for this facility.
