Even as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley presses ahead with his $6.6 billion plan to reconfigure O’Hare International Airport, last month’s terrorist attacks likely will radically alter the scope and design of the project, aviation experts say.
Security concerns have assumed a higher priority than reducing flight delays. As a result, much of the funding targeted for boosting airport capacity may be diverted to improving security while the airlines pare the amount of money they expect to have available for capital construction.
In addition, a sharp decline in air travel that may take years to overcome could pressure Daley to reduce the magnitude of a project expected to nearly double O’Hare’s capacity.
Daley, however, plans to ask Gov. George Ryan to approve his full eight-runway package next week during the first meeting between the two leaders since the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, said Daley spokeswoman Jacquelyn Heard.
Yet industry experts say that after the attacks, a reinvention of the airport–with a new focus on security–must be undertaken before new runways or terminals are built.
“There probably isn’t a terminal facility in design that isn’t being reviewed” to reflect pending security recommendations, said Paul Bollinger Jr., vice president of HNTB Corp., one of the largest aviation consulting firms in the U.S.
In fact, about a dozen projects at major airports throughout the country have been put on hold as a result of the attacks. And once work resumes, officials expect the projects to be smaller.
Aviation planners say that rows of parallel runways, the cornerstone of Daley’s O’Hare redevelopment plan, can no longer be the primary consideration. Emphasis on security could mean larger terminals, forcing additional changes to runway layouts.
Airport roads, including the mayor’s proposal to build a western-access roadway leading to a new terminal campus near taxiways and runways, will have to be designed to balance convenience with a heightened need to keep threats away from airplanes.
Planners say more secure airports will take up more space. Gargantuan baggage-sorting facilities would be needed to process millions of additional bags each year if authorities subject all checked luggage to greater scrutiny. That could render obsolete the intricate system of moving belts and luggage conveyers that are used at O’Hare.
Today, more than half of all travelers arriving at airports go directly to their gate, skipping long lines at terminal ticket counters. But that option would disappear if the government and the airlines were to permanently extend the restrictions on passenger carry-on items and require a preliminary security screening at checkpoints near the front door, as some security experts recommend.
Check-in areas would need to be expanded–beyond the plans the city’s consultants recommend for the pending $3 billion O’Hare World Gateway terminal-expansion project–to prevent bottlenecks.
“If it looks like the screening process will take a lot longer and become more involved, then those areas, such as the ticketing hall, will have to undergo some change to accommodate the numbers of people that would increase,” said Cedric Curtis, national director of aviation architecture for HNTB.
More space for ticket counters could push the front walls of terminals far outward, possibly prompting a realignment of the roadways where passengers are dropped off.
“Chicago should be evaluating the changes in security requirements and their impact on airport design,” said Jerry FitzGerald, president of Parsons Brinckerhoff Aviation Inc., a consulting firm. “There’s been a strong tendency to switch to check-in kiosks, and for passengers to go directly to the gate. That’s likely to change.”
The Daley administration, however, has indicated its determination to move forward with the runway realignment at O’Hare.
“I just want a decision. All we want is a decision,” Daley said last week. The governor missed a Sept. 1 deadline set by congressional leaders to respond to the O’Hare initiative.
John Harris, first deputy Chicago aviation commissioner, said Friday that the city is seeking bids for planning the reconfiguration of the airfield and has ordered its consultants to begin design of one new terminal.
Daley and Ryan agree that the demand for more air travel 10 to 15 years from now, when new runways would be complete, will be as strong as was predicted before Sept. 11. Both think that the recent declines in air travel are temporary and that a solution still is needed for the airport delays that are bound to resurface.
But Ryan said last week that it is not appropriate to talk about expansion plans now.
“I think everything kind of comes to a standstill right now until we get through what we’re going through,” Ryan said last week. “Our goal is to secure the airports that we have and make sure they are safe.”
Meanwhile, the federal government’s commitment to help bail out the airlines and to invest billions of dollars in aviation security is expected to siphon funds that would have been used to increase flight capacity.
“With this emphasis on security, we’ll be allocating some of those funds to meet security requirements rather than capacity enhancement projects,” said Paul Galis, deputy associate administrator for airports at the Federal Aviation Administration.
Airports and airlines decide whether to proceed with the huge cost of airport expansion. Most of the financing comes from bond sales by the airlines and from the passenger facility-charge tax collected on airplane tickets.
With the airlines preoccupied with their survival–passenger volume has declined by 53 percent since Sept. 11, according to the Air Transport Association–and with much passenger facility-charge revenue likely to pay for new security requirements, airport expansion funding is uncertain.
“It’s really a very scary situation,” said one airline executive. He said the carriers are focused entirely on laying off workers, restructuring routes and retiring planes–not, for the moment, on O’Hare expansion plans.
American Airlines officials said they still support Daley’s expansion projects, but said the timetable might need to be extended and the size of the project reined in.
It is less clear what more airport security–as well as the decline in air travel–would mean for Ryan’s proposed third airport near Peotone. Promoters say the flexibility of building from the ground up could make it a model of airport security.
“There are a host of constraints and security concerns in expanding an existing airport like O’Hare that are not present when you’re building a brand-new airport,” said Illinois Transportation Secretary Kirk Brown.
But airline officials and other critics of the proposed south suburban airfield point out that the sharp downturn in air traffic could scuttle the new airport. Even strong supporters of the Peotone airport, including U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), say it isn’t likely that federal funds will be available any time soon for such projects.
Just like the “hub” airports, new airports like Peotone would need highly trained, well-paid security screening personnel and expensive X-ray and explosives-detection devices.
Officials at airports from Boston to Los Angeles are rethinking expansion, focusing on reducing the size of projects and adding years to construction timetables.
Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport is reviewing its $2.5 billion expansion program to see what can be deferred. San Francisco International Airport, which opened a new international terminal in December, is slowing a runway reconfiguration program and delaying or canceling some contracts.
Airports have lost an estimated $2 billion since Sept. 11, because of declining landing fees and parking and concessions revenue, said Stephen Van Beek, vice president for strategic and policy planning at Airports Council International.
Right now, survival, not future growth, is the airlines’ priority.
A new assessment by Merrill Lynch expects the airlines to lose a combined $6.5 billion this year and $3.5 billion in 2002. Merrill Lynch analyst Michael Linenberg said it could take several years before passenger traffic catches up to 1999 levels.
The carriers have laid off more than 117,000 employees, mothballed hundreds of airplanes and dramatically reduced their flight schedules. Even if passenger demand rebounds sooner than expected, industry analysts said it would take at least two years for airlines to rehire personnel and restore their fleets.
Looking for a bright side, one airline executive said: “The situation gives us some breathing room so we won’t face the congestion crises. We’re off the hook for at least several summers.”
