 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO |
Staff |
Links |
Guest Column
|
|
New airport needed Despite setback of losing federal planning funds, third airport is an economic 'bottom line' and should move forward at south suburban site By RUDOLPH BANOVICH and MICHAEL RITTOF |
Lost in the myriad of information that has surrounded the proposal to construct a third regional airport for metropolitan Chicago is the premise that originally launched the project: an acknowledgement by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) that more capacity is needed to handle projected passenger demand increases, and that a failure to do so will result in severe delays and the migration of aviation activity and its powerful economic stimulus from the Chicagoland region to other facilities that can handle what our airports cannot.
The origins of the quest to build a new national/international airport span a decade. For sake of brevity, though, we limit our references to the original site selection which began in 1986 with a review of 20 possible locations. From that analysis emerged four suitable contenders: three south suburban locations (situated on farmland but adjacent to emerging population centers) and an expansion of the Gary Regional Airport in Indiana. Later came Chicago's controversial Lake Calumet entry, which was able to win favor with the Bi-State Policy Committee, but failed to impress the Illinois legislature. The latter rejected legislation to create a regional airport authority, citing costs and residential relocation at Lake Calumet among its reasons, and it was subsequently withdrawn by Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Now the state of Illinois and Gov. Jim Edgar are advocating further analysis of the south suburban site between Peotone and University Park, 32 miles south of Chicago's Loop. Following procedure, the state made application with the FAA for funds to begin a mandatory Master Plan study of the site. However, the funds were withheld by the FAA, which cited a lack of "regional consensus," pointing to Chicago's refusal to support the process. Gov. Edgar has stated that he would consider, despite this minor setback, using either state or private dollars to move ahead with the planning process. We think it is an excellent suggestion which merits support on several levels.
Based on a comprehensive, independent analysis commissioned in 1989 by the FAA — with additional funding from the city of Chicago and the states of Indiana and Illinois — and performed by the engineering firm, TAMS, we know the following to be technically accurate:
•The capacity of O'Hare is 825,000 commercial operations—a count of the individual landings and takeoffs by commercial airlines.
•The capacity of Midway is 234,000 commercial operations.
•Based on 1993 FAA forecasts, demand on our region's airports will reach 1,313,200 operations by the year 2000, creating a capacity shortfall of 254,000 operations.
•O'Hare is approaching its operational capacity, registering 804,000 commercial operations in 1992.
•Delays historically at O'Hare have averaged 12 minutes per arriving and departing aircraft.
•The FAA's criteria for severe congestion is 20,000 delay hours. Last year O'Hare logged more than 100,000 hours in delays.
Beyond the severe congestion and safety risks, the inability of our region to match capacity with air traffic growth also carries bad economic tidings. The O'Hare Delay Task Force studied the economics of O'Hare congestion and determined that each minute of delay costs the airlines more than $30 in additional fuel, labor and aircraft expenses. Multiplied by last year's delay figures, the airlines at O'Hare suffered more than $300 million in delay-related losses. Ironically, this cost exceeds the total projected federal contribution of $ 184 million required to complete Phase One construction of the proposed new airport between Peotone and University Park.
Allowing the region's air capacity woes to continue unaddressed creates other problems that extend well beyond the airline industry's pocketbook. Chicago has benefitted from the recent and significant growth in international flights and has the obvious potential to become a major international hub because the airports in the Northeast and on the West Coast, which currently claim this distinction, have or are about to reach saturation. Without major capacity increases, however, Chicago and the region could lose its competitive advantage in the fast-growing world market.
l0/January 1994/Illinois Issues
And the bad news doesn't end there. Failure to add capacity will also result in a net job loss to the region and Chicago. According to TAMS Working Paper 11-A, which closely examined the "no-build" alternative, failure to expand capacity will result in "161,000 to 167,000 air industry-related job losses by the year 2020 and an increase in air travel costs to and from Chicago. The latter factor, plus a decline in the region's national share of flight frequency, will negatively impact the local convention industry. Finally, the desirability of the region as a location for headquarter offices and new and growing businesses will decline with commensurate job losses."
Building new airports has never been easy. They are large developments whose ebb and flow magnetically attract controversy. Some have argued that the state should supplant the new airport with a regional high speed rail system. This option was given its own chapter in the TAMS analysis, which looked at a "hub-and-spoke" system connecting six Midwestern cities with Chicago in the center. The analysis determined it was cost prohibitive and that even if all of the travellers who could possibly use the system were forced to use it, the net reduction on traffic at O'Hare would be less than 10 percent.
The bottom line is clear: The state and region need a new airport as do southern Cook and Will, Kankakee and Grundy counties. There are 2.5 million people who live in our area (including northwest Indiana) who could access the new airport by car in less than 45 minutes. Building the airport between University Park and Peotone would also help create economic growth and balance in a region that has seen development and jobs explode in the west, northwest and northern sections due to the the development of O'Hare; the exact opposite phenomenon — net job loss — plagues the south, due largely to a retrenching industrial base and lack of a major airport to service the region's cargo and commercial needs. The new airport will create more than 100,000 new construction jobs and 170,000 annual new permanent jobs through the year 2020, according to the TAMS report. And, like O'Hare, the new airport will also generate billions of dollars in annual economic revenues for the region and state.
Last December a ranking official with the FAA, responding to questions about air capacity in the region, said air travel will not be permitted "to grow beyond a safe level," and added that it would "behoove the region to provide itself with further economic development vis-'a-vis a very badly needed airport." Our organizations and membership and the hundreds of thousands of other individuals who support this project and represent government, business, the community, labor and education, agree and hope strongly that the partisan regional and federal bickering that has tied up progress on this issue will be resolved and that we will get on with the task of building a new airport and doing what is right for the region, the state of Illinois and the nation.
Rudolph Banovich is president of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, representing 40 communities in south/south-west Cook County and eastern Will County. Michael Rittof is president of the Will County Governmental League, representing 22 Will County municipalities and the County of Will.
January 1994/Illinois Issues/11
|
|