Your Aug. 2 editorial “Fixing those flight delay follies” identified several apparent reasons for delays but not the underlying cause. Not addressed by your editorial is the most important conclusion of the referenced Office of Inspector General (U.S. Department of Transportation) report:
“Beyond the causal data provided by [the Federal Aviation Administration] and the air carriers, we found that most delays and cancellations occur once capacity at an airport or in the air space is exceeded [demand] and/or reduced [supply].”
For almost two decades, many transportation planning professionals have warned that the Chicago-region airports would be gridlocked by 2000. A 1986-1988 study, funded by the FAA and undertaken by a team headed by KPMG Peat Marwick, concluded that aviation demand would exceed the capacities of O’Hare and Midway by 2000. The study recommended a new airport be constructed in the south part of the region and be in operation by then. The states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, the Suburban Council of Mayors and the FAA adopted the recommendations. Subsequent State of Illinois studies reinforced, corroborated and detailed these findings.
The airlines, the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the City of Chicago have argued that the demand forecasts were exaggerated and that bigger planes, higher load factors, improved technology and the shifting of connecting passengers to other airports (such as Denver and Atlanta) would allow O’Hare and Midway to meet all the demand well into the next century.
Under the Clinton administration, the FAA lowered its forecast for the Chicago region and reversed its own 1984 finding that planning for a new Chicago airport should start immediately. At the same time, it continued to forecast a doubling of national air traffic between 1995 and 2012.
The long-predicted aviation crisis is upon us; and the costs to the Chicago regional economy are mounting. Your solution, “to switch brands,” is nearly impossible given that the two airlines at O’Hare control nearly 90 percent of its flights; also, it does not address the capacity issue. That leaves only two real options:
– Add runways to O’Hare; this would increase its capacity by 50 percent or 450,000 annual operations.
– Build the proposed south suburban airport near Peotone.
It is my opinion, and that of many in both the southern part of the region and living near O’Hare, that the second alternative is preferable, for the following reasons:
– The proposed south suburban airport (23,000 acres) contains all noise and air pollution over acceptable limits on site; the expansion of O’Hare (7,700 acres) would expose hundreds of thousands more to such adverse impacts.
– The proposed south suburban airport would help to balance the Chicago region, bringing thousands of new jobs to a job-starved area.
The proposed airport would allow the region’s cargo traffic to grow and bypass the congested urban transportation network.
– The proposed airport would allow the Chicago region to function more efficiently, both in the air and on the ground. Delays are fewer for all three New York airports, combined, than for O’Hare alone. Los Angeles, Washington-Baltimore, San Francisco and London are more efficient with three or more airports, reducing both access time and delay to passengers.
These, and many other reasons, make the south suburban airport the smart growth choice for Chicago.
