[Senate Hearing 107-1083]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1083
AIR TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY IN
THE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGION AND ITS
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
SYSTEM
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-897 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD,
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 15, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Durbin...................................... 5
Statement of Senator Fitzgerald.................................. 4
Senator McCain................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 3
Witnesses
Bayh, Hon. Evan, U.S. Senator from Indiana, prepared statement... 26
Crown, Lester, Chairman, Material Service Corporation and Chair
of Civic Committee's Aviation Task Force....................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Gutierrez, Hon. Luis, U.S. Representative from Illinois.......... 22
Hamos, Hon. Julie, Chair, House Aviation Committee, State of
Illinois....................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Hyde, Hon. Henry, U.S. Representative from Illinois.............. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Jackson, Hon. Jesse L., Jr., U.S. Representative from Illinois... 14
Prepared Statement........................................... 16
Karaganis, Joe, General Counsel, Suburban O'Hare Commission...... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Kernan, Hon. Joe, Lieutenant Governor, from the State of Indiana. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, prepared
statement...................................................... 26
Manzullo, Hon. Donald A., U.S. Representative from Illinois...... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Paesel, Edward W., Executive Director, South Suburban Mayors and
Managers Association, representing the Keep Chicago/Illinois
Flying Coalition............................................... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Schwiebert, Mark, Mayor, City of Rock Island..................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Visclosky, Hon. Peter J., U.S. Representative from Indiana,
prepared statement............................................. 27
Walker, Thomas R., Commissioner of Aviation, Chicago, Illinois... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Weller, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Representative from Illinois............ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Wheeler, Linda M., Director, Office of Planning and Programming,
Illinois Department of Transportation.......................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Appendix
Wietecha, Ronald W., Mayor, City of Park Ridge, Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 115
AIR TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY IN THE CHICAGO ILLINOIS REGION AND
ITS EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Chicago, IL.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m. in room
2525, Dirksen U.S. Courthouse Building, Hon. John McCain,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone
here to this very important hearing this morning. And I'm
joined here by my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller of West
Virginia, who's the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and
plays a very critical and vital role in the deliberations and
actions of the Commerce Committee. My colleague and friend,
Senator Dick Durbin as well as Senator Peter Fitzgerald.
We'd like to welcome all the witnesses today and those of
us who have a brief opening statement. And then we would like
to welcome our first panel of witnesses and we would urge our
colleagues from the first panel to try to keep their opening
remarks to 3 minutes since we have two additional panels to
hear from this morning. And we appreciate the courtesy and we
are very grateful that you would take the time from your busy
schedules to join us this morning.
As everyone who flies is well aware, air travel is reaching
a crisis point. In critical areas around the nation, such as
Chicago, the demand for air services is pushing existing
capacity to its limits. Deregulation of the airline industry
unleashed a great revolution in travel, one that greatly
benefited the flying public. As a consequence, the demand for
flying is reaching new heights. But the lack of critical
infrastructure is threatening to take us backwards. Given the
importance of aviation to our future, I don't think that this
is an acceptable option.
The Chicago area will, without a doubt, play a key role in
the future of the national air transportation system, not
including the work of the latest corporate giant to call the
Windy City home. Because O'Hare is a major hub for the two
largest airlines in the world, it plays a critical role in the
efficiency of the whole air transportation system. While the
airport can reasonably handle current demand on a good weather
day, it is the reality of seasonal severe weather and the
prospect of continued growth in air traffic that threaten
Chicago and the nation with aviation gridlock in the not too
distant future.
The bottom line is that we now face a serious national
problem. And I emphasize a national problem that requires
numerous regional solutions. Right now, the Federal Government
does not build airports or runways, it merely assists local
officials in doing so. But conflicts and indecision at the
local level are threatening the economic well-being of this
nation.
I fully recognize the difficulties associated with building
new airports and expanding those in urban and suburban
communities. Not-in-my-backyard attitudes are all too common,
even among those who otherwise complain about airline delays.
Progress in transportation is rarely easy, but any negative
impacts are virtually always far outweighed by the benefits.
Undoubtedly, some communities were harmed by the construction
of the interstate highway system, but I think we all can agree
that it produced a tremendous national gain. We must think of
airport infrastructure in the same way.
I'm no stranger to the controversies and politics
surrounding airport development in this area, I do not come
here to advocate a particular solution. I do not know whether
it would be best to expand O'Hare, to build a new airport in
Peotone, to expand existing facilities in outlying areas, or to
directly undertake all of these actions.
The only thing that is not an option is inaction on the
part of state and local officials. While I am reluctant,
extremely reluctant to interfere with local and regional
decisionmaking in this area, failure to act could force the
Federal Government to become involved in the situation. I think
we've already seen the beginnings of that with the introduction
of bills in Congress to take away certain elements of state
control of the expansion of O'Hare.
I'm anxious to hear from today's witnesses. There are a
wide variety of viewpoints represented here, and it should make
for a spirited discussion. The one message I have at the outset
is that something must be done soon. I strongly encourage
everyone to work quickly and cooperatively toward a solution.
If it is not to be done at the local level, the pressure to
impose a result from above will grow rapidly.
I want to thank all of you for being here today. There are
people who asked to testify today and we simply could not
because of capacity. But their written statements will be
included in the record of this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
As everyone who flies is well aware, air travel is reaching a
crisis point. In critical areas around the nation, such as Chicago, the
demand for air services is pushing existing capacity to its limits.
Deregulation of the airline industry unleashed a great revolution in
travel, one that greatly benefitted the flying public. As a
consequence, the demand for flying is reaching new heights. But the
lack of critical infrastructure is threatening to take us backward.
Given the importance of aviation to our future, I do not think that
this is an acceptable option.
The Chicago area will, without a doubt, play a key role in the
future of the national air transportation system--not including the
work of the latest corporate giant to call the Windy City home. Because
O'Hare is a major hub for the two largest airlines in the world, it
plays a critical role in the efficiency of the whole air transportation
system. While the airport can reasonably handle current demand on a
good weather day, it is the reality of seasonal severe weather and the
prospect of continued growth in air traffic that threaten Chicago and
the nation with aviation gridlock in the not too distant future.
The bottom line is that we now face a serious national problem that
requires numerous regional solutions. Right now, the Federal Government
does not build airports or runways--it merely assists local officials
in doing so. But conflicts and indecision at the local level are
threatening the economic well being of the nation. I fully recognize
the difficulties associated with building new airports and expanding
those in urban and suburban communities. Not-in-my-backyard attitudes
are all too common, even among those who otherwise complain about
airline delays. Progress in transportation is rarely easy, but any
negative impacts are virtually always far outweighed by the benefits.
Undoubtedly, some communities were harmed by the construction of the
interstate highway system, but I think we all can agree that it
produced a tremendous national gain. We must think of airport
infrastructure in the same way.
Although I am no stranger to the controversies and politics
surrounding airport development in this area, I do not come here to
advocate a particular solution. I do not know whether it would be best
to expand O'Hare, to build a new airport in Peotone, to expand existing
facilities in outlying areas, or to directly undertake all of these
actions. The only thing that is not an option is inaction on the part
of state and local officials. While I am reluctant to interfere with
local and regional decision making in this area, failure to act could
force the Federal Government to become involved in the situation. I
think we have already seen the beginnings of that with the introduction
of bills in Congress to take away certain elements of state control of
expansion of O'Hare.
I am anxious to hear from today's witnesses. There are a wide
variety of viewpoints represented here, and it should make for a
spirited discussion. The one message I have at the outset is that
something must be done soon. I strongly encourage everyone to work
quickly and cooperatively toward a solution. If it is not to be done at
the local level, the pressure to impose a result from above will grow
rapidly.
Senator McCain. Senator Rockefeller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McCain.
I agree. Air transportation and airport capacity is a national
issue. It may take form in a local situation but it is a
national issue. Delays in Chicago or New York affect people
throughout the country. They affect people where I come from.
You get used to not being affected because you're in a big
place. Some of us live in little places, live and die off of
what happens according to your airport capacity.
You had a lot of delays last year. In the summer, a lot of
bad weather. And other conditions, disputes, et cetera. And the
nation paid a terrible price for that. And a lot of it was
because you didn't have the capacity. So last year as part of
Air 21, we fought hard to make sure the small communities had
access to O'Hare by phasing out the high density rule, which
they had put out.
We did this because we want people to come here to visit
because people want to be here to visit and to go from here to
other places in the country and around the world. We need
Chicago to thrive. We need Chicago to grow.
Now, I understand that the mayor and the Governor are going
to make a decision by July 1st. I pray that that is the case.
If nothing is done, the leaders in Illinois, as Senator McCain
has indicated, need to know that delay is not an option.
Congress is not going to stand for that. Either solve the issue
or it will be solved for you.
You clearly need to expand and modernize O'Hare. That's
clear to me anyway. All of our constituents want access to the
world. And O'Hare is the way that we get there, whether the
world is the world or the world of America.
The state continues to study Peotone. That's good. Funding
acquisition of the land, studying the environmental issues.
I've been through some similar fights in the state of West
Virginia with so-called regional airports. I've been through
those in my political career.
Right now, as far as I can tell, there's not a whole lot of
support for Peotone. But that could change and I have to
recognize that. And that could change. And----
Senator McCain. If I may interrupt just for a second,
Senator Rockefeller. This is a congressional hearing. And we
cannot conduct it if it's going to be interrupted by members of
the audience. We hope you will give the same respect to Members
of this Committee and witnesses, that they deserve. And I will
urge you at this time to refrain from any comments that you
would wish to make, understanding the emotions surrounding this
issue. So, I would ask for your courtesy. Thank you. Please.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I say,
that could change because we went through the same situation in
Washington with Dulles. That was evidently not possible. Now,
they're building on billions and billions of dollars. So, it's
an evolving situation. Let's see what's going to happen.
But when the decision is made to expand O'Hare and/or build
Peotone, I have a bill pending, along with Senator McCain and
Senator Hutchison, that if enacted, will facilitate, and make
more easy the building of runways across the country that get
on the right kind of lists, we're likely to take this up in
July.
I end by saying this, the issue is simple. We can either
spend another 10 years arguing over what to do or we can act
today and soon for the future. Airport development means jobs
and opportunities for you. It means jobs and opportunities for
your airport for my state. There is a direct and total
connection with all states and O'Hare. It's one of the great
airports of the world, as is transportation in the midwest.
And I end by saying claims of secret studies and the like,
which we'll probably hear about, are past actions or inactions
or charges or counter charges are simply not relevant, at least
to me, here today. The issue is only what and when will a
decision be made and who will make it? You or the Congress?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator McCain. Thanks, Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
I want to thank you for coming to Chicago. And I want to thank
Senator Rockefeller as well. I appreciate the interest of my
colleagues in solving the problems we have in aviation in
Chicago.
We really do have a crisis in the skies over the Chicago
region. And in my judgment, the reason for that crisis are
because we don't have enough capacity. We haven't built enough
capacity.
It's kind of like the reason why they have a problem with
energy in California. They have a crisis in California because
they haven't built any new power plants in the last 10 years.
And yet their demand for electricity has gone way up. Well, in
the last 20 years in this country, demand for aviation travel
has gone up by 400 percent. But nowhere in this country have we
built any new airports except in Denver, Colorado, where we
replaced Stapleton Airport with Denver International Airport.
In my judgment, all of us recognize the need or most of us
probably in this room recognize the need for more capacity. And
the question becomes, where is it most feasible, cost effective
and where would it be quickest to add that aviation capacity
for the Chicago region? This debate has been going on for 30
years. Back when O'Hare first reached capacity in 1969, Mayor
Daley, the old Mayor Daley, attempted to build a third Chicago
airport out in Lake Michigan. Some of us here are old enough to
remember that.
And then it went on throughout the 1980's. We had a number
of studies. A study in 1988, in which the city of Chicago and
the FAA participated. Both concluded that it was not feasible
to expand Midway or O'Hare and that the area needed a third
airport by the year 2000. So, I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses. I thank my colleagues for being here and
together, perhaps, some good can come out of this Commerce
Committee hearing.
Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Senator. You're welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Chairman McCain and
Chairman Rockefeller, this is an oddity to have two chairmen at
the same hearing. It reflects, I think, two things. A Senate in
transition as well as a bipartisan approach to a very important
issue which really doesn't know a partisan boundary. And I'm
glad that you are here today and I hope that your presence and
the experience that you have will indicate how serious this
issue is.
It's an issue, unfortunately, that we have been circling
for a long time. It's time to bring it to a landing. It's time
for us to come to a conclusion. We may say that O'Hare is
Chicago's airport and it certainly is. But this hearing today
makes it clear that O'Hare's problems are America's problems.
O'Hare means so much to us that I think our first priority
must be to modernize O'Hare. To take what was adequate 40 years
ago and to really build it for the 21st Century so that we have
safe runways, so that we have efficient air operations at
O'Hare. The jobs that are at stake, the economic opportunities
that's at stake; we'll hear about it a lot during the course of
this hearing.
This is our chance. Chicago can't be a world class city
with a second class airport. And we have to dedicate ourselves
to making certain that O'Hare is a world class airport for the
21st Century.
You're going to hear testimony from a number of people
today. One, I invited. Mayor Mark Schwiebert, came up from Rock
Island, Illinois, to speak for the downstate communities. The
six downstate Illinois airports that understand the importance
of O'Hare. As Senator Rockefeller spoke for West Virginia,
there are so many cities that are not in the city of Chicago
but nearby that count on this airport for their own economic
future.
We have a number of letters which I'll make part of the
record from mayors downstate who wish they could be here today
and testify about the importance of this hearing.
Let me say a word too about Peotone. I don't believe that
this should be an either/or situation. I honestly believe that
we should make our first dedicated priority to modernizing
O'Hare but continue our efforts to explore the possibility of a
third airport. I have signed on for the environmental analysis
for Peotone. I know that there are people here from Rockford
and Gary and other airports that want to be heard. But I
believe that we should not preclude the third airport option.
As far as I can see it at this point, no greenfield
development anywhere in the state of Illinois can replicate the
infrastructure investment at O'Hare. No engineer can redesign
the 7,000 acre airport at O'Hare beyond its capacity limits. I
think those two things are very obvious to us.
I also think it's important to note that John Carr,
President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association,
has written in support of modernizing O'Hare. The men and women
who are responsible for landing us safely are begging us to do
something to make O'Hare a safer airport. How can we, in good
conscience, ignore their plea? I would ask that the letter from
Mr. Carr be part of the record later in the course of the
hearing.
Let me just conclude, too, Mr. Chairman, we will not
discuss it today but most of the people who live around O'Hare,
when asked about the major problem at O'Hare, don't identify
airplanes. They identify traffic. The congestion around O'Hare
has reached an intolerable level. Governor George Ryan should
be commended for taking on the Hillside Strangler. Our next
responsibility is the O'Hare Strangler.
We have to make certain that modernization of O'Hare
includes modernization of the traffic around O'Hare so that
people who have invested their life savings in a home don't
find themselves hopelessly mired in traffic congestion. That
should be part of this overall solution.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Both Mr. Chairmen, thank you for
joining us today.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement from National Air Traffic Controllers Association
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association appreciates the
opportunity to submit the following statement on Chicago airport
capacity to the Senate Commerce Committee.
NATCA is the exclusive representative of over 15,000 air traffic
controllers serving the FAA, Department of Defense and private sector.
In addition, NATCA represents approximately 1,200 FAA engineers, over
600 traffic management coordinators, automation specialists, regional
personnel from FAA's logistics, budget, finance and computer specialist
divisions, and agency occupational health specialists, nurses and
medical program specialists.
NATCA supports additional runways at Chicago O'Hare International
Airport to handle the current levels of traffic as well as anticipated
future growth. Because of its location, and the fact that two of the
largest airlines operate hubs there in addition to 50 other airlines,
Chicago O'Hare is extremely important to the National Airspace System.
The ripple effect on the rest of the system is tremendous; congestion
at Chicago O'Hare leads to delays at airports across the country.
There is no question that increased airport capacity will have a
significant impact on reducing airline delays, and capacity can be
increased through construction. Fifty miles of concrete poured at our
nation's 25 busiest airports will solve most of our aviation delays. A
new runway can allow 30 to 40 more operations per hour. NATCA commends
the Committee for taking a proactive role in the debate over aviation
delays and airport construction.
RUNWAY CONFIGURATION AT CHICAGO O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
An airport's capacity to handle air traffic is a function of its
size, the layout of its runways, the air traffic patterns, both
arriving and departing, and the timeframe in which a surge of traffic
must be dealt with due to airline scheduling. Chicago O'Hare has seven
runways. One of these runways, however, is short and restricted to
general aviation aircraft leaving six main runways for commercial
aircraft. These six runways consist of three sets of parallel runways,
each set intersects with another set of parallel runways. The longest
runway is 13,000 feet.
Normally, the six main runways can handle 40 operations (arrivals
or departures) each, per hour. Most of the time all six runways are
used simultaneously. Air traffic controllers at O'Hare try to use three
of the runways strictly for arrivals, and the other three runways
strictly for departures. Theoretically, this would give Chicago O'Hare
an arrival rate of 120 per hour, along with a departure rate of 120 per
hour. However, this is not the case.
The actual arrival/departure rate at Chicago O'Hare is 100 an hour,
about 40 less than expected. The main reason is that all the runways at
O'Hare intersect at some point. Separation rules for intersecting and
converging runways are stricter than for parallel runways. Applying
these rules slows down the operation and therefore reduces the arrival
and departure rates. In addition, under certain wind conditions there
are times when only five of the six major runways can be used.
The actual arrival/departure rate will decline to less than 80 an
hour during inclement weather. At all times, Chicago O'Hare uses at
least two runways for arrivals. During peak time periods (every hour
and a half), three or occasionally four runways will be used for
arrivals. When. controllers are using three runways for arrivals, a set
of parallel runways is used along with either a converging or an
intersecting runway as the third. However, certain weather conditions/
minimums must exist to use converging or intersecting runways.
These minimums are referred to as Visual Flight Rule (VFR)
conditions. VFR minimums are a 1000 feet above ground level cloud
ceiling and visibility of at least three miles. When the weather
conditions drop below VFR, converging and intersecting runways cannot
be used. Therefore, the airport is restricted to two parallel arrival
runways. The reason is that in poor weather aircraft can not see each
other as well and enter the clouds quicker. An aircraft exercising a go
around would be pointed at other aircraft, and aircraft pointed at each
other while entering clouds at the same time is not safe. Limiting
arrivals to parallel runways eliminates this concern.
Airlines that use Chicago O'Hare are aware that when weather
conditions fall below VFR only two runways are available for arrivals,
and that the arrival rate will be reduced to 80 or less per hour. This
is when capacity management becomes even more critical. Responsible
scheduling of flights within airport capacity limits will go a long way
toward alleviating delays.
LAND AND HOLD SHORT OPERATIONS (LASHO)
NATCA supports the use of land and hold short operations to
increase airport capacity and help alleviate delays. LAHSO is a
procedure in which the air traffic controller clears an aircraft to
land on one runway with additional instructions to hold short of an
intersecting runway where simultaneous operations are taking place.
This procedure allows controllers to use intersecting runways as if
they do not intersect at all, thus allowing for the maximum arrival and
departure rates.
LAHSO has been used safely and effectively at Chicago O'Hare and
other airports for over 30 years to reduce airport delays and
congestion. In fact, the runway configuration at O'Hare is conducive to
the use of LAHSO. NATCA will continue to work with the FAA, the pilots,
and other stakeholders to maximize the use of this capacity enhancing
tool.
SOLUTIONS TO THE CAPACITY PROBLEM AT CHICAGO O'HARE
The key to increasing capacity at O'Hare is to reduce the number of
converging and crossing runways and to increase the number of parallel
runways. Adding one more parallel runway would increase the arrival and
departure rates to 120 an hour during all weather conditions. This
would basically eliminate all the delays we have today.
In addition, the remaining runways should be positioned so that
they do not intersect with other runways or at least intersect: at
preferred points. This would allow aircraft to takeoff without being
affected by arrivals. Just look at Hartsfield International Airport in
Atlanta. With only four runways (they are building a fifth), this
airport is often cited as the busiest in the world. This is because the
four runways are parallel and do not intersect or converge at any
point. Parallel runways would eliminate the above-mentioned issues
associated with weather and LAHSO.
CONTROLLER INVOLVEMENT WITH ADDING RUNWAYS OR RECONFIGURING
CHICAGO O'HARE
A number of proposals have been submitted for new runways at
Chicago O'Hare. It is the FAA and the air traffic controllers that
establish and implement the traffic patterns. Therefore, NATCA
respectfully requests to be actively involved in any decisions
regarding the building and location of new runways or reconfiguration
of current runways. The FAA and NATCA can provide significant input as
to which runway configurations will provide the most benefit and
capacity to the airport operation, while maintaining safety.
The location of runways, even parallel runways, can create
situations that force air traffic controllers to route taxing aircraft
across active runways. This situation is common at airports where
runways are all parallel to each other. Any time an aircraft is forced
to taxi across a runway, the chance of error exists. Runways can be
configured to eliminate any such risks.
CONCLUSION
Without expanding domestic airspace and airport capacity, and
addressing the issue of capacity management, delays will not only
continue to increase but they will reach the point of gridlock in. the
foreseeable future. NATCA looks forward to working with the Committee,
the FAA, the pilots, airlines, airports, and other interested groups to
develop and implement concrete solutions. We want to be part of the
solution.
______
National Air Traffic Controllers Association,
June 12, 2001.
Hon. Richard Durbin,
U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing to express my strong support for
additional runways at Chicago O'Hare International Airport to handle
the current levels of traffic as well as anticipated future growth. I
spent 10 years working as a controller at Chicago Terminal Radar
Approach Control, so I am all too familiar with the challenges we face
regarding capacity at O'Hare. The ripple effect on the rest of the
system is tremendous, leading to delays at airports across the country.
Airline delays and cancellations, capacity and access constraints,
and traffic congestion continue to plaque our National Airspace System.
Passenger frustration is over the top and customers are unhappy. Part
of the reason the country is faced with this capacity crisis is that
airport construction--terminals, taxiways, runaways, gates--has not
kept pace with passenger growth. Only nine new runways were opened at
the country's 100 largest airports between 1995 and 1999. And, only
three of these nine runways were built at the nation's 28 largest
airports.
There is no question that increased airport capacity will have a
significant impact on reducing airline delays. Capacity can be
increased through construction, and AIR-21 provides the necessary
financial resources. Fifty miles of concrete poured at our nation's 25
busiest airports will solve most of our aviation delays. A new runway
can allow 30 to 40 more operations per hour.
Because of its location, the fact that two of the largest airlinea
operate hubs there, and that 50 other airlines operate there, Chicago
O'Hare is extremely important to the National Airspace System. New
runways at O'Hare will also help efforts to improve air service to
small and mid-sized communities.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working
with you on this important matter.
Sincerely,
John S. Carr,
President.
______
Capital Airport,
June 11, 2001.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing to express our support for
expansion and the modernization of O'Hare International Airport in
efforts to reduce airline congestion and delays.
Not only is O'Hare an extremely strong and important destination
airport for Springfield and other downstate passengers, Illinois too
benefits from the preeminent role Chicago's O'Hare plays as a passenger
hub from a connectivity point of view to the world. There are only a
very limited number of other airports throughout the world that are as
vital to air transportation as O'Hare, and we in Illinois, are the
fortunate beneficiaries of this dynamic economic force.
Recently, much discussion about O'Hare expansion versus reliever
airports such as Rockford and Peotone has occurred at the local,
regional, State and Federal levels, again indicating O'Hare's
importance to air transportation. While we have no intention to take
one posit on over another, it is clear that O'Hare is one of the most
successful hub airports in the industry. It is because of this success
that O'Hare operates, according to the FAA, at/or over capacity during
parts of every day, causing flight delays and cancellations, which
negatively impact Springfield and other downstate passengers.
It only makes sense to continue to expand and modernize O'Hare
since it is a successfully proven airport facility that we know has
served Springfield's passengers for decades. State and Federal
officials should not overlook expansion and modernization opportunities
at O'Hare, nor should they abandon consideration of other alternatives.
I respectfully request that you support and help accelerate O'Hare
expansion and modernization. The O'Hare airport operation is simply too
important to Springfield and the whole of Illinois to let the delay in
growth and modernization continue.
Sincerely,
Robert W. O'Brien, Jr., A.A.E.,
Executive Director of Aviation.
______
Office of the Mayor,
City of Quincy, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing to express my support for
expansion of O'Hare International Airport.
As you know, O'Hare is the No. 1 destination for Downstate Illinois
passenger air service. Thanks to O'Hare, many communities, like Quincy,
enjoy one stop service to anywhere in the U.S. and the world.
O'Hare also provides economic development and tourism potential for
this community that is unmatched by any other source.
A great deal has been written lately about O'Hare expansion versus
Peotone construction. I'm not taking sides in that fight. I simply
believe it is shortsighted not to do everything possible to modernize
O'Hare. After all, the airport was designed in the 1950's, complete
with intersecting runways. It needs to be brought into the 21st Century
in order to accommodate larger aircraft, improve efficiency, and ensure
maximum safety for the traveling public.
According to the FAA, O'Hare operates at or over capacity for
portions of everyday. And the Federal forecasts call for increased
delays and cancellations. All this negatively impacts smaller
communities. We're the first to see reduced service or terminations. If
Downstate Illinois is to grow passenger air service and expand economic
development, we need an expanded, modern O'Hare.
State and Federal officials should not turn their backs on O'Hare
and third airport supporters shouldn't attempt to tear down O'Hare in
order to build Peotone. I respectfully ask you to help expedite O'Hare
expansion. It is simply too important to Downstate Illinois to delay.
Very truly yours,
Charles W. Scholz,
Mayor.
______
Chamber of Commerce,
Decatur & Macon County, June 11, 2001.
Hon. Richard Durbin,
332 Dirken Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing to express my strong support for
improvements and expansion at O'Hare Company International Airport.
As you are well aware, downstate communities such as Decatur have
been fighting a losing battle over air service. In the last 4 years we
have twice lost service to Chicago O'Hare, and are currently without
it. O'Hare International is the No. 1 destination for both business and
leisure travelers from Central Illinois, as it offers air service to
the rest of the world.
We had hoped that when slot restrictions were lifted our community
would have a better chance at once again offering passenger air service
to O'Hare. However, the FAA reports O'Hare operates at or over capacity
every day. Crowded conditions there make the possibility of restoring
our air service to O'Hare extremely unlikely.
Just because we are a smaller community in Downstate Illinois, we
should not be forgotten! We are home to big business, and for the
competitive, global business climate of this century our travelers need
access to safe, efficient travel. This will not happen unless major
changes are made to the Chicago O'Hare facility.
If we have any chance at all of attracting a commuter airline to
serve our passengers through O'Hare, major improvements must be made. I
am writing to express my support for expansion and modernization of
O'Hare International.
The Chamber of Commerce for Decatur and Macon County is not at this
time taking sides in the controversy over construction of a third
airport in Peotone. However, modernizing O'Hare is imperative to the
future economic development of our community and the State of Illinois.
Sincerely,
Julie Moore,
President.
______
Metropolitan Airport Authority,
Rock Island County, Illinois, June 11, 2001.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings, Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I would request this document be entered
into the record for the hearing that is going to take place on June 15,
2001, at the Dirksen US Courthouse in Chicago, Illinois, before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Air
Traffic Congestion and Capacity in the Chicago, Illinois Region and its
Effect on the National Air Traffic System.
The Quad City International Airport is critical to the economy of
Western Illinois and Eastern Iowa. It serves a 60-mile catchment area,
including Rock Island, Moline, East Moline, Davenport and Bettendorf
and includes approximately 1.2 million people. The airport will enplane
over 400,000 passengers in 2001, which is a 56 percent increase over
the past 6 years. The Quad City International Airport is expected to be
the fifth fastest growing airport in the next 5 years. In order to
accommodate this growth, the Airport Authority of the Quad Cities has
constructed a new $18 million terminal concourse expansion that has 12
new gates, two new baggage carousels, a frequent flyer lounge, a new
restaurant and snack bar, and a new gift shop. The airport serves six
different hubs: St. Louis, Chicago O'Hare, Minneapolis, Detroit,
Denver, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. For a region of our size, this is very
good service.
Today, we don't have reliable and frequent air service to O'Hare.
This is very devastating to the businesses in our region. Back on July
31, 1999, American Airlines terminated service from the Quad Cities to
O'Hare because of slot needs of American for service to another
community. That left the airport with five daily flights by United
Express to Chicago from the Quad Cities. This does not satisfy our
demand for service to O'Hare and beyond and leaves no margin for error
if a flight is delayed or canceled. Every day, people drive to Chicago
to make their international connections. The reason for this is because
of air traffic or weather delays.
Greater capacity at O'Hare is critical for our businesses as well
as our other passengers that want to fly on United Airlines through
Chicago. We in the Quad Cities would like to see additional runways at
O'Hare to provide more capacity. Midwestern communities depend on
service to O'Hare. The need for these new runways is now, not 10 to 15
years that it often takes to complete a runway project. We also need a
more efficient environmental review process, so that these critical
construction projects can be quickly completed to meet current and
future demand. The proposed funding for the expansion at Chicago O'Hare
can be through Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) and will not be a
burden on the taxpayers of Illinois.
I would urge your support for new runways at O'Hare. This will help
many communities retain and gain access to one of the busiest airports
in the world.
Sincerely,
Bruce E. Carter, A.A.E.,
Director of Aviation.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much. Our first panel
witness is the Honorable Jerry Weller, U.S. House of
Representatives and the Honorable Donald Manzullo and the
Honorable Henry Hyde and the Honorable Jesse Jackson, Jr., the
Honorable Joseph Kernan, who is the Lieutenant Governor of
Indiana and the Honorable Julie Hamos, the Illinois State
Representative.
We usually begin by both age and seniority and Congressman
Hyde fits both of those categories, so we'll begin with you
Congressman, Chairman Hyde. Thank you and welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. HYDE,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Congressman Hyde. Thank you, Senator. I note that my hair
is no whiter than yours.
In any event, because you've asked us to confine our
remarks to 3 minutes, I will try to cut to the chase. My good
friend, Senator Rockefeller, assumes that O'Hare is to be
enlarged. And we hope that's an issue here. The quality of life
for the thousands of people who live around O'Hare and who
assert that 900,000 plus operations in and out is a saturation
point. And there are questions of pollution, noise, safety that
ought to be considered when the critical decision is made as to
whether to enlarge O'Hare or build an airport or do both.
Constructing more runways at O'Hare, I assert, would be
harmful to public health, the economy and the environment. I
believe we must build a new regional airport now. The question
is, where do we put the capacity? Do we build a third gateway
to the world?
Let's take a look at the alternatives, which are
straightforward. We can build new runways at a new airport, at
O'Hare, at Midway, or a combination of all of the above. It's
been suggested adding Gary or Rockford to the mix.
Given these options, the following facts are clear. The new
runways can be built faster at a new airport as opposed to
O'Hare or Midway. Simply from the standpoint of physical
construction, as well as paper and regulatory planning, the new
runways can be built faster at a greenfield site.
More new runway capacity can be built at a new site than at
O'Hare or Midway. It's obvious that more new runways can be
built at a new, larger greenfield site. Additional space can be
acquired at Midway or O'Hare by destroying densely populated
surrounding residential communities, but only at tremendous
economic and environmental cost.
The new runways can be built at far less cost at a new
airport than at O'Hare or Midway. New runways can be built
cheaper at a greenfield site. Given the enormous public
taxpayer resources that must be used for any of the
alternatives, the Bush Administration must compare the overall
costs of building runway capacity at a new airport versus
building the same capacity at O'Hare or Midway.
Construction of a new airport will have far less impact on
the environment and public health than would expansion of
either Midway or O'Hare. Midway, and later O'Hare, were sited
and built at a time when concerns over environment and public
health were far less than they are today. As a result, both
existing airports have virtually no environmental buffer. In
contrast, the site of the new South Suburban Airport has, by
design, a large environmental buffer which will ameliorate
most, if not all, of the environmental harm and public health
risk from the site. We can create the same or similar
environmental buffer around O'Hare, but at a cost of tens of
billions of dollars, and enormous social and economic
disruption.
Construction of the new capacity at a new airport offers
the best opportunity for bringing major new competition into
the region. When comparing costs and benefits of alternatives,
the Senate must address the existing problem of monopoly or
duopoly fares at ``Fortress O'Hare'' and the penalty such high
fares are inflicting the air traveling public. Bringing in one
or more significant competitors to the region would benefit all
airline passengers through increased competition and reduced
fares. The only alternative that has the room to bring in
significant new competition is the new airport.
May I add one final perspective? Adding another runway at
O'Hare and allowing a ``point-to-point'' small airport to be
built in the South Suburban Site is an unacceptable
alternative. Why? There's no room for real competition, and as
I previously stated, this increase in traffic at O'Hare will
have serious environmental and public health impacts on
surrounding communities. I can't over-emphasize this point.
Also, assuming the new airport is built as a compromise, this
alternative guarantees the new airport will be a ``white
elephant'', much as the Mid-America airport is near St. Louis
today.
Concluding, I'm convinced we must build a new regional
airport now. In this serious match of tug of war over airport
capacities, the arguments presented in favor of a new airport,
the Third Gateway to the World, are factual, compelling and I
hope very persuasive to you.
Thank you, Mr. Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
U.S. Representative from Illinois
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to present
my views on the vital question of what to do about the Chicago region's
aviation capacity problem. My congressional district encompasses O'Hare
Airport and many of the residential communities surrounding O'Hare.
As we all know, the decisions as to where to put new airport
capacity will have a dramatic effect on our national aviation system as
well as our environment, and the health, and quality of life of
hundreds of thousands of O'Hare area residents. A tug of war has begun
over where to create this new capacity. On the one side we have
advocates of building a new facility that will be able to meet capacity
problems now and accommodate future growth. On the other side, we have
advocates of expanding O'Hare. It is no secret which team I am on.
Here are the key points I wish to bring to your attention:
For the reasons I discuss below, constructing more runways at
O'Hare would be harmful to the public health, economy and environment.
I am convinced that we must build a new regional airport NOW. The
question is where do we place this new capacity. Do we build a Third
Gateway to the World? YES.
However, for the pundits, let us take a look at the alternatives
which are straightforward: we can build new runways at (1) a new
airport, (2) at O'Hare, (3) at Midway, or (4) a combination of all of
the above. It has also been suggested adding Gary or Rockford to the
mix of alternatives. Given these options the following facts are clear:
1. The new runways can be built faster at a new airport as opposed
to O'Hare or Midway. Simply from the standpoint of physical
construction (as well as paper and regulatory planning) the new runways
can be built faster at a ``greenfield'' site.
2. More new runway capacity can be built at a new site than at
O'Hare or Midway. It is obvious that more new runways can be built at a
new, larger greenfield site. Additional space can be acquired at Midway
or O'Hare by destroying densely populated surrounding residential
communities--but only at tremendous economic and environmental cost.
3. The new runways can be built at far less cost at a new airport
than O'Hare or Midway. New runways can be built cheaper at a
``greenfield'' site. Given the enormous public taxpayer resources that
must be used for any of the alternatives, the Bush Administration must
compare the overall costs of building runway capacity at a new airport
versus building the same capacity at O'Hare or Midway.
4. Construction of a new airport will have far less impact on the
environment and public health than would expansion of either Midway or
O'Hare. Midway, and later O'Hare, were sited and built at a time when
concerns over environment and public health were far less than they are
today. As a result, both existing airports have virtually no
``environmental buffer.'' In contrast, the site of the new South
Suburban Airport has, by design, a large environmental buffer which
will ameliorate most, if not all, of the environmental harm and public
health risk from the site. We can create the same or similar
environmental buffer around O'Hare or Midway--but at a cost of tens of
billions of dollars, and enormous social and economic disruption.
5. Construction of the new capacity at a new airport offers the
best opportunity for bringing major new competition into the region.
When comparing costs and benefits of alternatives, the Senate must
address the existing problem of monopoly (or duopoly) fares at
``Fortress O'Hare'' and the penalty such high fares are inflicting the
air traveling public. Bringing in one or more significant competitors
to the region would benefit all airline passengers through increased
competition and reduced fares. And the only alternative that has the
room to bring in significant new competition is the new airport.
Let me add one final perspective--adding another runway at O'Hare
AND allowing a ``point-to-point'' small airport to be built at the
South Suburban Site is an unacceptable alternative. Why? There is no
room for real competition, and as I previously stated, this increase in
traffic at O'Hare will have serious environmental and public health
impacts on surrounding communities. I cannot over emphasize this point!
Also, assuming the new airport is built as a compromise, this
alternative guarantees the new airport will be a ``white elephant''--
much as the Mid-America airport near St. Louis is today.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am convinced that we must build a new regional
airport now. In this serious match of tug of war over airport capacity,
the arguments presented in favor of building a new airport--the Third
Gateway to the World--are factual, compelling, and very strong. On
behalf of my team members who share my side of the rope in this tug of
war, I say to our opponents--We are NOT the weakest link. Thank you and
good bye.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Chairman Hyde.
Congressman Jackson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JESSE L. JACKSON, JR.,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Congressman Jackson. I want to commend and thank Members of
the Senate Aviation Subcommittee for holding this hearing. And
I share your concerns about Chicago's aviation crisis. In fact,
I ran on this issue in 1995 and I've been working virtually
non-stop to resolve it ever since.
I also want to welcome the straight talk expressed to the
Chicago aviation crisis. We've been waiting for straight talk
for a number of years. And while I'm a not a relative newcomer
to this nearly 20-year struggle, I have heard all the arguments
for and against all of the options that would be presented
today. And I firmly believe that the best solution by far,
short-term and long-term, is a new third airport in the south
suburbs near Peotone, Illinois.
First, a little background. In 1984, the federal Aviation
Administration determined that Chicago was running out of
capacity. Indeed, it accurately predicted that Chicago would
hit gridlock by 2000. As a result, the FAA directed Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin to conduct a feasibility study for a
third regional airport.
The states responded. They conducted an extensive study of
numerous potential sites, including Chicago's south side,
Joliet, Kankakee, Milwaukee, and Gary, Indiana. The study
concluded almost 10 years ago that gridlock could best be
avoided by building a new south suburban airport.
So, this crisis is no surprise. Moreover, it was avoidable.
During my 6 years in Congress, I have written countless letters
and articles, and held numerous meetings with top officials to
advocate my position. I've met and attempted to persuade
President Clinton, President Bush, Vice President Gore;
Transportation Secretaries, Slater and Mineta; FAA
Administrator Garvey; fellow Members of Congress; Illinois
Governors Edgar and Ryan; the bipartisan leaders and members of
the Illinois General Assembly; Mayor Daley and members of the
City Council; and the CEO's of the major airlines. And many
have agreed with me.
Despite those efforts, I watched in amazement as this
crisis deepened, and those in positions to fix it failed or
refused to act. We're here today because of a lack of
leadership and a good dose of obstruction. Sadly, the
opposition is not based on substantive issues: capacity,
safety, consumer protection or efficiency. Instead, it is
rooted in patronage, greed and parochial politics.
Chicago City Hall opposes the Peotone Airport because it
lies----
Senator McCain. One second.
Congressman Jackson. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. I would ask again our spectators to
restrain their remarks during this hearing. Again, I would
appreciate the courtesy. Thank you.
Congressman Jackson. And I would join you in that, Senator.
We are trying to have a hearing here and I would appreciate it
if supporters of our point of view would just allow the hearing
to continue.
Chicago City Hall opposes the Peotone Airport because it
lies outside the City's political jurisdiction. O'Hare is the
City's greatest asset and economic engine. A new airport
threatens the status quo.
Meanwhile, O'Hare's dominant carriers, United and American,
have engaged in aggressive, sometimes misleading lobbying
effort to block a new airport and new competition from entering
their already constrained market.
And finally, the Clinton FAA stalled the Peotone proposal
despite its own dire warnings of approaching gridlock to
placate City Hall. Specifically, the FAA, one, mandated, which
is not in federal law at all, regional consensus, which
requires Chicago's approval for any new regional airport. It
doesn't require any approval of any of the new, of the mayors
and elected officials that you'll hear here today about what's
taking place at O'Hare Airport. Only to build a new airport
requires Chicago's stamp of approval.
The FAA removed Peotone from the NPIAS list in 1997, after
Mayor Daley requested that it be removed after it emerged as
the front runner. Peotone had been on NPIAS for 12 years. They
held up Peotone's environmental review from 1997 to 2000 and
allowed the city to use Passenger Facility Charges, which
Congress created to finance construction of a third airport to
gold plate O'Hare.
Ironically, those same parties who created this aviation
mess are now saying, trust us to clean it up. But their hands
are too dirty. Fortunately, there is a better alternative.
There is a solution that puts public safety before patronage;
consumer interest before corporate greed; transportation
efficiency before politics. And that option is Peotone.
Some witnesses today will say expand O'Hare and build
Peotone, knowing full well that expanding O'Hare will doom
Peotone for years, perhaps forever. Others will say expand Gary
or Rockford, knowing full well that preliminary studies
concluded that major expansions at those locations are
impractical and cost prohibitive.
Others will argue that Peotone will turn out to be like the
downstate Mid-America Airport, unused. They will contend that
no airline has committed to using Peotone. But that's a
circular argument. First, I've never advocated building Peotone
without such an airline commitment. And, more important, no
airline will ever commit to using Peotone without a government
commitment to building Peotone. Nevertheless, four airlines
have expressed an interest in operating there. They are Virgin,
Spirit, Air Trans and American, most recently in a Chicago
newspaper article.
The Peotone proposal, Mr. Senator, is the best solution by
far for many reasons. Compared to O'Hare expansion, building
Peotone is, quite simply, quicker, cheaper, safer, cleaner and
more permanent.
For those of us who support government efficiency, it is
quicker. Peotone can be built in 3 to 5 years. Conversely,
adding runways at existing airports commonly takes 15 to 20
years, not including the lawsuits associated with this
controversy.
The new Atlanta runway will be 20 years from conception to
completion. Detroit's new runway, which faced no opposition,
took 13 years. In this case, quicker is better.
For those of us who are fiscal conservatives, cheaper.
Peotone's inaugural airport would cost $600 million. A two-
runway Peotone, $2.5 billion, a four-runway Peotone, $5
billion. By comparison, retro-fitting O'Hare would cost $8 to
$15 billion and offer less growth potential. By the time we
build a new runway at O'Hare, Mr. Senator, it is already time
to build another runway at O'Hare because it can't possibly
keep up with growth.
Let me conclude on this note, Mr.----
Senator McCain. You've used your 3 minutes twice, now.
Congressman Jackson. Let me just conclude on this note, if
I might. It's time for a bold new straight talk approach. We
can do better. We must do better. We must build a third airport
immediately for the sake of taxpayers, consumers, public safety
and the environment.
Once again, thanks for your attention and interest. And I'm
confident that you will do the right thing for Chicago and the
nation. I'll be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.,
U.S. Representative from Illinois
I want to commend and thank Members of the Senate Aviation
Subcommittee for holding this hearing. I share your concerns about
Chicago's aviation crisis. In fact, I ran on this issue in 1995. And I
have been working virtually non-stop to resolve it ever since.
While I'm a relative newcomer to this nearly 20-year struggle, I
have heard all the arguments for, and against, all of the options that
will be presented today. And, I firmly believe that the best solution,
by far--short-term and long-term--is a new Third Airport in the South
Suburbs near Peotone, Illinois.
First, a little background. In 1984, the Federal Aviation
Administration determined that Chicago was quickly running out of
capacity. Indeed, it accurately predicted that Chicago would hit
gridlock by 2000. As a result, the FAA directed Illinois, Indiana and
Wisconsin to conduct a feasibility study for a Third Regional Airport.
The States responded. They conducted an extensive study of numerous
potential sites--including Chicago's South Side, Joliet, Kankakee,
Milwaukee (WS) and Gary (IN). That study concluded almost 10 years ago
that gridlock could be best avoided by building a south suburban
airport.
So, this crisis is no surprise. Moreover, it was avoidable. During
my 6 years in Congress, I have written countless letters and articles,
and held numerous meetings with top officials to advocate my position.
I've met and attempted to persuade President Clinton and President
Bush; Vice President Gore; Transportation Secretaries Slater and
Mineta; FAA Administrator Garvey; fellow Members of Congress; Illinois
Governors Edgar and Ryan; the bipartisan leaders and members of the
Illinois General Assembly; Mayor Daley and members of the Chicago City
Council; and the CEOs of the major airlines. And many agreed with me.
Despite those efforts, I watched in amazement as this crisis
deepened, and those in positions to fix it, failed, or refused, to act.
We're here today because of a lack of leadership and a good dose of
obstruction. Sadly, the opposition is not based on substantive issues--
capacity; safety; consumer protection; or efficiency. Instead, it is
rooted in patronage, greed and parochial politics.
Chicago City Hall opposes the Peotone Airport because it lies
outside the City's jurisdiction. O'Hare is the City's greatest asset
and economic engine. A new airport threatens the status quo.
Meanwhile, O'Hare's dominant carriers--United and American--have
engaged in an aggressive, sometimes misleading, lobbying effort to
block a new airport--and new competition--from entering their already
constrained market.
And finally, the Clinton FAA stalled the Peotone proposal--despite
its own dire warnings of approaching gridlock--to placate City Hall.
Specifically, the FAA: (1) Mandated ``regional consensus,'' which
requires Chicago approval for any new regional airport; (2) Removed
Peotone from the NPIAS list in 1997, after it emerged as the
frontrunner. Peotone had been on the NPIAS for 12 years; (3) Held up
the Peotone environmental review from 1997 to 2000; and, (4) Allowed
the City to use Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)--which Congress
created to finance construction of a Third Airport--to goldplate
O'Hare.
Ironically, those same parties who created this aviation mess are
now saying ``trust us to clean it up.'' But their hands are too dirty.
Fortunately, there is a better alternative. There is a solution
that puts public safety before patronage; consumer interest before
corporate greed; transportation efficiency before politics.
That option is Peotone.
Some witnesses today will say expand O'Hare and build Peotone,
knowing full-well that expanding O'Hare will doom Peotone for years,
perhaps forever. Others will say expand Gary or Rockford, knowing full-
well that preliminary studies concluded that major expansions at those
locations are impractical and cost-prohibitive.
Others will argue that Peotone will turn out like the Downstate
Mid-America Airport--unused. They will contend that no airline has
committed to using Peotone. But that's a circular argument. First, I
have never advocated building Peotone without such an airline
commitment. And, more important, no airline will ever commit to using
Peotone without a government commitment to building Peotone.
Nevertheless, four airlines have expressed an interest in operating
there. They are Virgin Atlantic, Spirit Airlines, Air Trans and
American Airlines.
The Peotone proposal is the best solution, by far, for many
reasons. Compared to O'Hare expansion, building Peotone is, quite
simply--quicker, cheaper, safer, cleaner and more permanent.
Quicker. Peotone can be built in 3 to 5 years. Conversely, adding
runways at existing airports con unonly takes 15 to 20 years. The new
Atlanta runway will be 20 years from conception to completion.
Detroit's new runway, which faced no opposition, took 13 years. In this
case, quicker is better.
Cheaper. Peotone's inaugural airport would cost $600 million. A
two-runway Peotone, $2.5 billion. A four-runway Peotone, about $5
billion. By comparison, retro-fitting O'Hare could cost $8 to $15
Billion, and offer less growth potential.
Safer. Peotone features long, parallel runways, compared to
O'Hare's short, crisscrossing layout.
Cleaner. The most environmentally friendly airport ever designed,
Peotone is surrounded by a mile-wide buffer zone to contain noise and
pollution. That same-sized ring around O'Hare is home to 250,000
people.
More Permanent. Peotone provides plenty of room to build future
runways--each cheaper, quicker, safer and cleaner than at O'Hare.
The bottom line is obvious. Cramming more planes into the nation's
most overcrowded, over-priced and worst-performing airport defies
logic. The City and the Airlines had 10 years to fix the problem.
Instead, they ignored and, worse, compounded it.
If not for their opposition, Peotone would be under construction,
or even operational today. And we wouldn't need to be here.
It's time for a bold new approach. We can do better. We must do
better. We must build a Third Airport, immediately. For the sake of
taxpayers, consumers, public safety and the environment.
Once again, thanks for your attention and interest. I am confident
you will do the right thing, for Chicago and for the nation.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you, sir, and we're very impressed by
your passion and commitment on this issue. Thank you.
Congressman Weller, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY WELLER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Congressman Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee. And I'll commend my friends in the Senate for
your interest in an issue which is so important not only in the
Chicago region but to our nation.
Today I come before you as a supporter of O'Hare, a
supporter of Midway as well as a supporter of building a third
airport at Peotone. And I appreciate the opportunity to
testify.
One thing all of us in this room know is that we have a
capacity problem here in the Chicago region, a capacity problem
that affects our nation's aviation infrastructure. Forecasts as
early as 1980's consistently showed that aviation growth in
this region would outpace capacity to a critical level by the
turn of the century. Forecasts have now come true and we've
failed to lay one square foot of concrete to relieve this
situation. Consequently, this region as well as our nation, are
now facing aviation gridlock. And air travel is expected to
double in the next 10 to 15 years.
We're here today to present solutions to this aviation
capacity problem, not determine who gets tax revenue, not to
determine who gets contracts and patronage, or whose airlines
gain a better market share. The failure to address the capacity
crisis is the direct result of political decisions to block the
addition of aviation capacity in the Chicago region.
My testimony today conveys one message: it is time to stop
playing politics and start building infrastructure. Build the
south suburban airport at Peotone and add a runway to Chicago
O'Hare now. We must do both now as the Chicago region and the
nation can no longer afford to continue to allow politics to
block the way of solving our capacity crisis in the Chicago
region.
The best long term solution to address the capacity problem
is to build the south suburban airport at Peotone. The Peotone
Airport would be built faster and far less costly than a new
runway at O'Hare. The airport could be operational in 4 to 5
years with the initial cost of $560 million. This airport will
serve 2\1/2\ million people living within 45 minutes of the
proposed site, many of whom are now 2 hours or more from the
site of O'Hare. The airport as planned will also have room to
grow to meet capacity needs for up to six total runways.
Chicago O'Hare will continue and always will be the leading
airport in the Chicago region. We must continue to make sure
that O'Hare has the capacity to accommodate continued growth in
the Chicago region.
Now, we talked about building a runway but I think it's
important to note that if we add a runway to O'Hare, it would
decrease capacity at O'Hare during that runway's construction.
New runways will likely require the movement of existing
runways for safety in air traffic patterns, causing extensive
closures and delays and increasing the need for an additional
airport.
Further, new runways will add limited capacity but will not
meet the projected doubling of aviation growth over the next 10
to 15 years. I'd also note that a new runway at O'Hare would
cost one billion dollars. And if existing infrastructure must
be moved, the cost will be much higher. And it's expected to
take 8 to 15 years for the development of one runway at O'Hare.
Clearly, time is a concern. Capacity is a problem. We need
to address it. Even with the development of a third airport,
O'Hare and Midway will continue to prosper. But I would note
that time and time again, politics have prevented the south
suburban third airport at Peotone from moving forward.
A south suburban third airport at Peotone has been
extensively planned and designed. And the Illinois Legislature
has taken a bold step forward by appropriating funds requested
by our Governor, Governor George Ryan for land acquisition.
We're ready to move forward in building an airport to meet the
needs of the 21st Century if political roadblocks are removed.
I would note, as you're aware, that Members of the Senate
and Senators Grassley and Harkin have urged the Federal
Government to step in and remove our Governor from the airport
planning process. My colleague, Representative Lipinski, has
also introduced legislation to remove our Governor from this
planning process.
I would respectfully ask that the Committee deny these
political and legislative tactics and preserve the role of
Illinois' Governor in airport siting and planning. And further
I would ask the Committee's support to urge the FAA to continue
moving forward on completing the Environmental Impact Study
which should be done at the end of this year and to replace and
put back onto the NPIAS List the south suburban third airport
at Peotone.
We should do both. We need to add a runway at O'Hare. We
need to build a south suburban third airport at Peotone. Thank
you.
The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry Weller, U.S. Representative from
Illinois
I want to express my gratitude to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation for traveling to Chicago to explore
solutions to the Chicago aviation capacity crisis. I come to you today
as a supporter of O'Hare, Midway and the proposed South Suburban
Airport at Peotone and am pleased to testify in front of this Committee
today.
Mr. Chairman, every one of us in this room knows we have a serious
aviation capacity problem. Forecasts as early as the 1980s consistently
showed that aviation growth in our region would outpace capacity to a
critical level by the turn of the century. The forecasts came true, but
we have failed to lay one square foot of concrete to relieve the
situation. Consequently, the region and the nation are facing aviation
gridlock. And air travel is expected to double in the next 10 to 15
years.
We are here today to solve the aviation capacity crisis, not who
gains tax revenue, gets contracts and patronage, or whose airlines gain
market share. The failure to address the capacity crisis is the direct
result of political decisions to block the addition of aviation
capacity in the region. My testimony today conveys one message: it is
time to stop playing politics and start building infrastructure. Build
the South Suburban Airport at Peotone and add a runway to Chicago
O'Hare now. We must do both as the Chicago region and the nation cannot
afford to continue to allow politics to block the way of progress.
The best long term solution to address the capacity is to build the
South Suburban Airport at Peotone. The Peotone Airport could be build
faster and far less expensively than a new runway at O'Hare. The
airport could be operational in four to five years with an initial cost
of only $560 million. This airport will serve 2.5 million people living
within 45 minutes of its proposed site--many of whom are now two hours
or more from O'Hare. The airport as planned will also have room to grow
to meet capacity needs for up to 6 total runways.
Chicago O'Hare Airport is still and will always be an important
component of the regional and national air system. We must continue to
make sure that O'Hare grows while serving passenger and cargo needs
effectively and safely. An important component of O'Hare's growth may
be the addition of one or two new runways. However, it must be clearly
noted that building additional runways at O'Hare may actually decrease
capacity for the time that they are under construction.
New runways will likely require the movement of existing runways
for safety and air traffic patterns, causing extensive closures and
delays and increasing the need for an additional airport. Further, new
runways will add limited capacity, but will not meet the projected
aviation growth over the next 20 years. The new runways will also cost
at least $1 billion each, and if existing infrastructure must be moved,
the costs will be much higher. Building and constructing a new runway
at O'Hare will also take 8 to 15 years, as there is still much of the
initial planning and development still yet to do. Clearly, the time and
capacity constraints of new runways at O'Hare reinforce the need to
build the South Suburban Airport.
Even with the development of a third airport, projections show
O'Hare can plan on a 40% increase in passengers and Midway can plan on
a doubling of demand. Unfortunately, time and time again, politics has
prevented the South Suburban Airport from moving forward. The South
Suburban Airport has been extensively planned and designed and the
Illinois Legislature has taken a bold step forward by appropriating
funds requested by Governor Ryan for land acquisition. We are ready to
build an airport for the needs of 21st century if political roadblocks
are removed.
As you are aware, Senators Grassley and Harkin have urged the
Federal Government to step in and remove Governor Ryan from the airport
planning process. Representative Lipinski has introduced legislation to
this effect also. I would respectfully ask the Committee to deny these
legislative tactics and to preserve the role of Illinois' Governor in
airport siting and planning. Further, I would ask that the Committee
urge the Federal Aviation Administration to place the proposed South
Suburban Airport back on the National Plan for Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS List) and to expedite the processing of the
environmental impact statement. These two steps are vital to the
development of the expedited solutions of Chicago and our Nation's
Aviation Capacity Crisis.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Congressman Weller.
Congressman Manzullo.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Congressman Manzullo. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. I've come here as a United States
Congressman, as a lifelong resident of the Rockford area. Our
Congressional district runs from within one county of Lake
Michigan all the way to the Mississippi River, a frequent
participant in air flights out of O'Hare. And I'm also a
private pilot, though not current on my license.
I have the answer to all of your concerns. I have the
answer to Senator McCain's concern that something must be done
soon. To Senator Rockefeller's concern that delay is not an
option. To Senator Fitzgerald's concern that we need the
quickest and least expensive option. To Senator Durbin's
concern that O'Hare traffic congestion. To Congressman Hyde's
concern on the impact of quality of life. And that's in
Rockford, Illinois.
We have an airport that has had over 150 million dollars of
infrastructure improvements, that has a 10,000 foot runway,
Category III Instrument Landing System, a Glycol Retention and
Treatment facility, a taxiway system to accommodate wide-body
aircraft. It is the midwest hub for UPS. It could handle up to
a million enplanements in 1 year without any major cost.
It can handle up to 15 million enplanements a year. O'Hare
handles 34 million. We can go to 15 million enplanements per
year by adding one runway. And we can go to a million
enplanements a year without spending one dime and we can do it
tomorrow.
Now, Rockford Airport is 1 hour away from O'Hare Airport.
Each year, 400,000 people from the Rockford area ride the bus
to O'Hare Airport. Another 800,000 people drive to O'Hare from
our area. More than 2.2 million people live and work within a
45-mile radius of Rockford, Illinois.
And we're not, you know, we're not landing airplanes in
corn fields. And we're not talking about spending billions of
dollars here and there. These are real live brand new Boeing
aircraft, 757's that landed in Rockford a couple of weeks ago
because of the fog and the inability to use the landing systems
at O'Hare because of congestion.
Now, if you want something done soon, just start with these
airplanes as a point of origin. It just does not make sense to
talk about spending billions and billions and billions of
dollars of taxpayer's money waiting 3 years, 7 years, 10 years.
This airport is built. It's bought and paid for.
It can handle 747's and we've spent over 140 million
dollars worth of improvements. Now, this may be too easy for
Congress. This is the Dirksen Building. And this is where
Senator Dirksen said, ``a million here, a million there. After
awhile it begins to add up.''
But this congressman has a solution that doesn't cost one
dime and the solution could be implemented tomorrow. And I'm
done with 8 seconds over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald A. Manzullo,
U.S. Representative from Illinois
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on the growing problem of airline delays at O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago. O'Hare suffered the worst flight
delays in the Nation last year. This is a chronic problem that impairs
the entire air transportation system in the United States because our
nation's two largest airlines have hub operations at O'Hare. The
continuous delays slow U.S. commerce and shipping, as well as the
traveling public.
While some proposed solutions to this problem could cost hundreds
of millions of dollars and take up to 10 years to implement, I am here
today to offer a suggestion that would immediately begin to alleviate
O'Hare's problem without the need for any more Federal spending.
The congressional district I represent in northern Illinois
includes our state's second largest city--Rockford. Rockford is home to
the Greater Rockford Airport, which is about an hour's drive northwest
of O'Hare Airport. Over the past 6 years, the Greater Rockford Airport
has undergone more than $150 million of infrastructure improvements.
These improvements include a new 10,000 foot runway that can land any
jet aircraft flying today, a Category III Instrument Landing System, a
Glycol Detention and Treatment facility, and upgrades to the taxiway
system to accommodate wide-body aircraft. The airport's other runway is
8,200 feet long.
The Greater Rockford Airport is primarily a cargo airport and home
to United. Parcel Service's second largest hub. The airport also houses
a modern passenger terminal that can immediately handle up to 1 million
enplaned passengers annually. There is sufficient room for expansion.
While the debate over how to deal with the growing capacity problem
at O'Hare continues, and may go on for years, Rockford stands ready
today to help relieve the tremendous congestion at O'Hare. The Greater
Rockford Airport has unconstrained airspace and with modest investments
can accommodate up to 3 million enplaned passengers annually.
Some have said that the Greater Rockford Airport is too far from
Chicago to offer serious relief to O'Hare. However, more than 400,000
people ride the bus each year from Rockford to O'Hare. Another 800,000
people drive out of Rockford's market service area each year to fly
from O'Hare and other airports. More than 2.2 million people live and
work within a 45-mile radius of Rockford.
Many do not realize that more than half of the 34 million people
who fly into O'Hare each year are connecting passengers. About 16
million passengers originate their flights out of the Chicago region.
When you consider transferring 3 million of those originating
passengers to an airport such as Rockford, you are talking about
relieving up to 20 percent of the congestion at O'Hare. Again, that is
an immediate 20 percent reduction in congestion at O'Hare.
This can be done without spending hordes of money or waiting for a
study to be completed. The Greater Rockford Airport is ready today to
take on additional air passenger service.
In fact, the Rockford Airport is already used as a back up for the
Chicago airports during bad weather. Just last week, five large jets
were diverted to Rockford when heavy fog blanketed Chicago. The 757s
and DC-9s landed at Rockford and de-planed their 600 passengers into
the Rockford terminal building for several hours before the fog lifted
and they could head back to Chicago. As you can see from the front-page
story in the Rockford Register Star, the Greater Rockford Airport
handled the situation with ease and could do so and more every day.
I call on this committee, the Department of Transportation and the
airlines to do the right thing for the traveling and shipping public
and fully utilize existing airports that are capable of immediately
reducing congestion and delays at our nation's major airports. In the
Chicago region, that airport is the Greater Rockford Airport.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to working with you in the future on this matter.
Senator McCain. Thank you, sir. I believe you said sooner
or later you'd talk about real money. I think we're talking
about real money. I thank you, Congressman Manzullo.
Congressman Gutierrez, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS GUTIERREZ,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Congressman Gutierrez. Thank you very much.
Senator McCain. I think we need to get a microphone down to
you.
Congressman Gutierrez. I want to thank you, Senator McCain
and Members of the Committee, for taking the time to come to
Chicago and hear our views. I also want to thank my colleague,
Congressman Bill Lipinski. His leadership and determination on
this issue is exemplary of the way Bill Lipinski conducts
himself every day as a Member of Congress.
All of my colleagues here today agree we must find a way to
meet the growing demand for air service and to provide better,
more efficient service to consumers. We must act now to limit
unacceptable delays and to assure passenger safety. And we must
confront this challenge with a solution that is practical, cost
effective and can be implemented quickly.
For these reasons, I strongly believe we should expand the
capacity of O'Hare International Airport by building additional
runways. We know that the status quo of long delays and
inefficient service at O'Hare Airport and many of America's
critical airports is simply unacceptable.
I believe that immediate, and let me emphasize that word,
immediate action is needed. The facts are clear. In the year
2000, O'Hare was the third most delayed airport in America.
Demand at O'Hare is expected to grow by 18 percent during the
next decade alone. As we examine the challenges before us, I
believe it is vital that we not lose sight of this fundamental
fact.
The increase in demand for air travel is at O'Hare Airport.
O'Hare International Airport is the domestic and international
hub that serves more than 30 airlines. O'Hare is the hub that
serves more cities than any other airport. O'Hare is where the
airlines and most travelers want to fly. O'Hare is where our
air travel is established and it is O'Hare where the demand is
and will continue to be in the future.
I think it would be a mistake to make substantial risky
unneeded investments in massive non-O'Hare solutions to what is
fundamentally an O'Hare challenge. If more Cub fans were
clamoring to watch a game at Wrigley Field, it wouldn't make
much sense to send them to Milwaukee to catch a game at Miller
Park or to build a new stadium miles away.
Nor does it make sense to devote our time, resources and
efforts to untested solutions that don't respond specifically
to consumer or airline demand. In 1991, the Chicago Delay Task
Force recommended that new runways be added to O'Hare to reduce
delay and improve efficiency. It said, ``new runways represent
the greatest opportunity to reduce delays in Chicago,
particularly during bad weather conditions''.
Quite simply, additional capacity at O'Hare is by far the
most workable, cost affective, and timely way to meet air
travel demand of the next decade.
I want to emphasize the need for a quick solution to this
problem. Each day delays mount and the need for action
increases. Reconfiguring O'Hare Airport and adding a runway is
the most direct route to averting an impending crisis.
But this crisis can only be averted if we move beyond
politics to a practical solution. That's why I support H.R.
2107, the End Gridlock at our nation's Critical Airports Act of
2001. This legislation preempts state statutes that act as
obstacles to the development of our nation's critical airports.
In Illinois, the Governor has virtual veto power over
airport development. In only one other state, the state of
Maryland, is the Governor's power so broad. H.R. 2107 would end
the political stalemate that holds air travelers in Illinois
and across America hostage by allowing local airport authority,
in this case, the city of Chicago, Department of Aviation, to
apply for and receive federal funds directly from the federal
Aviation Commission.
I think this is a sensible solution. While this solution
streamlines the process, it in no way prevents extensive local
input. The concerns of the Governor and all interested parties
will be heard. The city of Chicago, Department of Aviation will
be required to hold public hearings, solicit public comment and
work to build a consensus for a solution.
In addition, H.R. 2107 in no way, and I reiterate, in no
way weakens or changes any environmental laws or regulations. A
new runway at O'Hare will still have to meet all state and
federal environmental standards. But H.R. 2107 doesn't weaken
something; does weaken something. The grip of politics on a
vital issue. It will weaken the frustration that all consumers
increasingly feel about the future of air travel in Chicago and
across our country.
While I have tremendous respect for the motives and the
reasons of those who are promoting other alternatives, I simply
do not believe that the facts and logic regarding air travel in
our area and across America merit the vast investment,
uncertainty and long wait for action that those proposals could
entail.
What makes sense for every Chicagoan and every American who
deserve safe, efficient, reliable air service is to take the
necessary steps as soon as possible to make O'Hare Airport the
safest, most reliable, most efficient airport in the world.
Expanding O'Hare is the way to achieve that goal. And I
urge this Committee to give that sensible option their very
serious and favorable consideration. And I thank the Members of
the Committee for hearing my testimony.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Congressman Gutierrez.
Lieutenant Governor Kernan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH E. KERNAN,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Lt. Governor Kernan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee. I'm the Lieutenant Governor from the
state of Indiana. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I,
like Congressman Manzullo, am a pilot and have flown in these
crowded skies. And this is a problem that gets worse every day.
And I, like the Congressman, have an immediate solution as
well. A solution to the delays, the diverted flights and
disgusted passengers. And that solution is just minutes away at
the Gary/Chicago Airport.
The Gary/Chicago Airport provides a logical congestion
relief solution to Chicago's air traffic problems. Currently
our airport has over 80 based aircraft and more than 60,000
annual aircraft operations. It has two runways, the longest
being 7,000 feet, longer than any runway at Midway. And it also
has a precision instrument landing system.
The Gary/Chicago Airport is closer to downtown Chicago than
other airports. An estimated 2\1/2\ million Chicago area
residents live within a closer drive to Gary/Chicago Airport
than to O'Hare. And 1.1 million residents are closer to Gary/
Chicago than to Midway. Gary/Chicago offers ease and
convenience for Chicago area travelers.
Just this past week, Governor Frank O'Bannon, Senator
Richard Lugar and Senator Evan Bayh, along with Congressman
Peter Visclosky and Gary Mayor Scott King met with
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in Washington. In
Indiana, there is strong bipartisan support for the Gary
Airport solution.
There are financial advantages to proceeding with the Gary
Airport reliever plan as well. Estimates have shown that the
total environmental and construction costs for a runway
expansion at Gary/Chicago Airport would amount to only $65
million compared to many times that cost for other solutions.
With Gary/Chicago, air passengers, and most importantly
taxpayers, get the best deal. The timing advantages of the
Gary/Chicago are clear. We're working with the FAA to approve a
master plan, an airport layout plan which will provide the
foundation for continued airport development. That plan is
scheduled to be completed in November of this year.
The Gary/Chicago Airport has planes taking off and landing
today, and has the capacity for more. We in northwest Indiana
and north central Indiana have long viewed O'Hare and Midway as
a part of our transportation solution, irrespective of the fact
that these airports are located in Illinois.
We believe that fairness dictates that Gary/Chicago Airport
should be a part of this solution. It is logical. It is cost
effective and can be implemented immediately.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my testimony as well as
written testimony that I have from Senator Lugar, Senator Bayh
and Congressman Visclosky also be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kernan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph E. Kernan, Lieutenant Governor
from the State of Indiana
Senator McCain, Members of the Committee, I am Indiana Lt. Governor
Joseph Kernan, and I am here to speak on the merit of the Gary/Chicago
Airport as a reliever to the nation's and the Chicago area's air
congestion problems. These problems arise from insufficient airport
runway capacity. There is an immediate solution to the delays, diverted
flights and disgusted passengers. . . . that solution is just minutes
away at the Gary/Chicago Airport.
Let me begin by saying that I understand this troubling situation.
I have been a pilot since 1969, and I have flown in these crowded
skies. The problem is a serious one--the number of air travelers has
more than doubled since 1980, and is expected to additionally increase
by more than 50% in the next ten years. Corresponding with the
increased number of passengers, the number of airline delays is
increasing as well. According to the Federal Aviation Administration,
delays are up by 20% just from 1999 to 2000. And, as we know, O'Hare
ranks third in the nation's airports for congestion. The Chicago
Airport system provides 84 million travelers access to more than 200
destinations around the world. This number will increase significantly
in the coming years, placing strains on the two largest airports in
Chicago's current system. Real, comprehensive solutions must be
implemented, and now. The safety of our flying citizens is at stake.
Let me explain why the Gary/Chicago Airport provides a logical
congestion relief solution to Chicago's air traffic problems. There are
four main advantages to using Gary/Chicago Airport as a reliever:
logistical advantages, community advantages, financial advantages, and
timing advantages.
Let me begin with the logistical advantages. Currently, the Gary/
Chicago Airport has over 80 based aircraft and more than 60,000 annual
aircraft operations. It has two runways, the longest being 7000 feet--
which is longer than any runway at Midway Airport. The Airport has a
precision instrument landing system for use during inclement
conditions. Gary/Chicago Airport is closer to downtown Chicago than
other airports. Gary /Chicago has easy access to both highway and
commuter rail transportation. An estimated 2.5 million Chicago area
residents live within a closer drive to Gary/Chicago Airport than to
O'Hare, and 1.1 million residents are closer to Gary/Chicago Airport
than to Midway. Gary/Chicago offers ease and convenience for Chicago
area travelers, without the nuisances of flying out of O'Hare.
Second, Gary/Chicago Airport provides significant community
advantages. More than 9,000 Indiana and Illinois residents have signed
petitions in favor of the Gary/Chicago Airport. Such tremendous
community support is lacking for other potential options for congestion
relief. Just this week, these petitions were presented to U.S.
Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, in a meeting with
Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon, Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh,
Congressman Peterr Visclosky, and Gary Mayor Scott King. This bi-
partisan group of elected leaders emphasized the importance of the
Gary/Chicago Airport, and reiterated the strong local, state and
federal support behind the use and expansion of the Gary/Chicago
Airport. This support is critical as local opposition will continue to
delay other potential airport proposals. Gary/Chicago has the broad
based community support needed to solve this problem.
There are financial advantages to proceeding with the Gary/Chicago
Airport reliever plan as well. Building new runways and airports are
costly projects. Environmental review costs alone have totaled up to
$250 million for individual new runway projects. However, estimates
have shown that the total environmental and construction costs for a
runway expansion at Gary/Chicago Airport would amount to only $65
million. Costs for a similarly constructed start-up airport would cost
about $500-600 million. With Gary/Chicago, air passengers, and most
importantly taxpayers, get the best bang for their buck.
The timing advantages of the Gary/Chicago Airport are clear. Gary/
Chicago is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to receive
approval of their Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, which will
provide the foundation for the airport development. This reasonable
development plan will provide additional runway and terminal facilities
so that the airport can handle significant amounts of increased air
passengers. The expanded runways will accept much larger planes than
even Midway can accommodate. The approved plan is expected in November
of this year. Other options will take 15-20 years before a plane lands
or takes off while Gary/Chicago Airport has planes taking off and
landing today and has the capacity for more.
Fairness dictates that Gary/Chicago Airport receive due and
appropriate consideration in solving these tremendous air traffic
problems. This fair and equal treatment is not only the right thing to
do, but is in the best interests of the air travelers who so badly need
a workable solution. To pre-empt Gary/Chicago's contributions to
helping solve this problem ultimately works against those whom we
serve. Gary/Chicago must, and I dare say will, stand on its merits as a
viable, logical solution to the congestion concerns of the nation and
the Chicago area.
Gary/Chicago Airport passenger traffic has increased over 400%
since 1997. The Airport is meeting the demands of the Chicago
metropolitan area, and still has more than enough room to accommodate
additional traffic in the Chicago area. When looking for an immediate,
cost effective solution to air congestion concerns, you must look no
further than Gary/Chicago Airport. This Airport has the ability to meet
the needs of today's air travelers today . . . not in 10 years . . . or
15 years . . . or 20 years . . . but right now . . . today.
I thank you for your time, and for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Richard G. Lugar, Hon.
Evan Bayh, and Hon. Peter J. Visclosky follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator from Indiana
I appreciate the Committee holding today's hearing on this issue of
great interest and importance to our nation's aviation system, the
Chicagoland area, and to Indiana. I welcome this opportunity to share
with the Commuttee my thoughts about the valuable role the city of Gary
and Northwest Indiana will play in helping relieve air traffic
congestion in the region.
The Chicago region needs additional airport capacity and some of
this capacity can be accommodated at the Gary/Chicago Regional Airport.
Throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of
the Gary/Chicago Regional Airport as a viable part of the solution that
will help meet the current pressing air traffic needs of the region.
Earlier this year, the Gary Airport submitted to the FAA a draft of
its Phase II 20-year Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan. This effort
proposes an expansion of existing airport facilities, including
navigational improvements, runway extensions and construction of a
parallel runway. I strongly support the Airport's plan for future
growth and believe this Master Plan is an essential part of the
solution to helping relieve air traffic congestion now and in the long
term. It is especially important to keep in mind that the Gary/Chicago
Regional Airport today is an active, fully operational aviation
facility with a 7,000 foot main runway and a crosswind runway that can
help provide immediate relief to the problem of aviation congestion in
the Chicago region.
On June 12, I hosted a meeting in Washington with Transportation
Secretary Mineta and was joined by my colleagues Senator Bayh and
Congressman Visclosky, along with Indiana Governor O'Bannon and Gary
Mayor King. During this productive and positive meeting, we emphasized
to Transportation Secretary Mineta our strong and unified support for
the Master Plan/ALP submitted by the Gary/Chicago Regional Airport that
is currently being evaluated by the FAA. We specifically requested
Secretary Mineta's assistance in ensuring that Gary's Master Plan/ALP
receive full and fair consideration, and that the FAA work to expedite
their consideration of Gary's plan. We hope Gary's Master Plan/ALP will
be approved by the FAA this year.
The problem of air congestion in the Chicago region and the urgent
need for relief should be national priorities. I believe that existing,
operating, regional airport facilities such as the Gary/Chicago Airport
should be included as part of both short-term and long-term solutions
to this aviation safety and public transportation challenge.
I appreciate the Committee conducting this important hearing today,
and I also appreciate this opportunity to share my thoughts about this
issue of great importance to the Chicago region and to Northwest
Indiana.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator from Indiana
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me
to express my views on the challenges of addressing air traffic
congestion and insufficient capacity in the Chicago area, and the
effects these problems have on our nation's air transportation system.
I also want to thank the Committee for addressing an issue which is of
great importance to many of my constituents in Northwest Indiana, and
throughout the State. (Today,) I am pleased to (again) offer my support
for the Gary/Chicago Airport (GCA) as a regional partner in the effort
to alleviate air traffic congestion and increase capacity in the
Chicago area.
The problems of air traffic congestion and lack of capacity are
especially acute in the Chicago metropolitan area where long delays are
now routine at Midway and O'Hare International Airports. Without
prudent investment in our existing infrastructure, there is no reason
to believe that these problems will correct themselves. In fact, the
Federal Aviation Administration estimates that the number of flights
nationally will increase 33 percent in the next 10 years. Also, the
number of people utilizing air travel is also expected to continue its
rapid ascent.
Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes from downtown Chicago lies what I believe
is a viable solution to this growing problem. The GCA views itself as a
regional partner in this effort, and currently operates under a bi-
state compact to provide reliever service to both Midway and O'Hare
Airports. Not only is GCA strategically positioned to meet the needs of
residents in Northwest Indiana, but it is also ideally situated for
those air travelers wanting to access Chicago's central business
district. Furthermore, GCA offers passenger service and is equipped to
handle over 150,000 flights per year. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced now,
and have been since my days as Governor, that GCA can serve to
immediately relieve the region's air traffic congestion and increase
capacity in the Chicago area.
GCA is functionally sound and poised for dramatic growth. In
January of 2001, GCA submitted its Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan for
review and consideration by the FAA. After meeting this past week with
Secretary of Transportation Mineta on this very issue, he assured me
that an expedited review of GCA's Master Plan/Airport Layout Plan would
be completed by November of this year.
Mr. Chairman, GCA should be a pail of any regional solution to the
air traffic congestion and undercapacity problems in the Chicago
metropolitan area. GCA is an existing and functioning facility with a
bright future that can immediately serve as a reliever to Chicago's
O'Hare and Midway Airports. I ask that you and the Committee give the
GCA full consideration when reviewing options and strategies aimed at
addressing the problems facing our nation's air transportation system.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter J. Visclosky,
U.S. Representative from Indiana
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the important issue of air traffic congestion in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area, and to discuss the increasing role of the Gary/
Chicago Airport (GCA) as a regional partner in resolving this capacity
problem.
The growing demand that has been placed on Chicago's O'Hare
International and Midway Airports has stretched the resources at those
facilities to their limits. O'Hare has only been able to grow by 1
percent or less for the past 3 years, and Midway, absorbing the excess,
is estimated to have an additional one million passengers per year for
the next 2 years.
I am a supporter of increased airport capacity in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area, and I commend the Federal Aviation Administration
for seeking solutions that will increase our regions capacity. However,
we must not think of this issue as a Chicago problem, or an Illinois
problem. Air congestion is a regional problem, demanding a regional
answer. As a resident of Northwest Indiana, and the Representative of
Indiana's First Congressional District, I feel that my constituents and
I have a vested interest in the air traffic congestion challenges
facing the Chicago metropolitan region.
Many of my colleagues have suggested that the only solution to this
problem is to build another airport. I believe that building another
airport at this time would mean unnecessarily spending millions of
taxpayer dollars and destroying irreplaceable acres of green space.
Additionally, this crisis cannot wait the length of time that it
necessitates to build another airport. It is irresponsible to believe
that the region's current over capacity can wait 20 years for a
solution.
GCA, located only thirty minutes from downtown Chicago, is well
positioned to provide immediate relief to many of the congestion issues
currently facing O'Hare and Midway Airports. In fact, it already
operates under a bi-state compact to provide reliever service to both
Chicago airports. GCA currently offers daily passenger service, and has
the ability to triple its number of flights without additional capital
expenditures. The airport is severely underutilized, and without
further construction, or additional funding, GCA could accommodate as
many as 150,000 flights per year.
On May 2, 2001, GCA submitted the second draft of a 20-year Master
Plan to the Federal Aviation Administration. The Master Plan outlines
the airport's existing facilities, ability to handle air traffic,
growth and economic forecasts, and identifies the short and long-term
infrastructure needs that will facilitate continued growth and
expansion. Additionally, GCA is designated as a foreign trade zone. It
has over 13 acres available for developing air cargo operations, and
8,200 acres of an Airport Development Zone offering tax and investment
benefits for businesses. As capacity has become maximized at the
Chicago airports, GCA has played an increasingly valuable role in
delivering passenger and cargo service to the area.
In a recent meeting with the Secretary of Transportation Norman
Mineta, I expressed the importance of the role GCA already plays in
reducing congestion in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, and requested
that the Secretary expedite the review of the Master Plan, in
recognition of that increasing role. As you continue your efforts to
address Chicago's capacity issues, we urge you not to ignore GCA as a
critical element in resolving many of these challenges.
I thank you for your time and your consideration in this very
important matter. I look forward to continuing to work with you to find
a practical solution to this very serious problem.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor
Kernan. And I do question your pilot skills, but I appreciate
very much your input here today. Thank you very much.
Lt. Governor Kernan. Thanks, Senator.
Senator McCain. Representative Hamos. Have I pronounced it
right?
Representative Hamos. Yes, you have. Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you and welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE HAMOS, CHAIR, HOUSE AVIATION COMMITTEE,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Representative Hamos. Thank you. Thank you distinguished
Senators and my distinguished panel at this table. I am the
Chair of the Illinois House Aviation Committee, which was set
up just this year to study the airports in Illinois.
Now, aviation policy is not really a matter of state
concern so much so. But this year, the Governor made it a state
issue when he put funding for a land acquisition for a new
Peotone Airport square and center in his budget address. And so
we were created, in fact, to respond to that. And we studied
six hearings and many witnesses later. We learned that there
was consensus only on one issue. And that is that the air
transportation demand will increase continuously and steadily
in this region. And that airport capacity must also increase
substantially.
I would like to announce that after studying Peotone
Airport and the funding for land acquisition in a regional
context, we, the Illinois Legislature, did respond to the
Governor's request and we did agree to authorize 75 million
dollars of funding for land acquisition at Peotone Airport.
I would hope that the Congressmen and the other advocates
for Peotone recognize that our legislative action is, indeed,
their victory. Now, this was not a blank check. We also said
that no airport construction should begin until there are
airline attendants and an airport operator identified and until
there is an airport financing plan in place that includes
federal, local and airline funding, as with any other airport.
But by responding to the Governor's request, we believe
that we did set the stage for a political deal, if that is what
is now needed to move this important issue forward. And at the
same time, the House Aviation Committee studied the capacity
needs of the entire region; both short term and well into the
future.
We rejected the either/or dichotomy that has dominated this
airport debate. Peotone or O'Hare, Peotone or Gary. In fact, we
consider the five existing airports and potentially a new one
at Peotone with the potential to serve this region as air
travel demand increases. All of these six airports must
function at top efficiency.
And to that end, we urge the city of Chicago to immediately
begin an engineering and environmental analysis, a thorough
one, for the reconfiguration or construction of one or two new
runways. We recommend developing new strategies for marketing
the smaller existing airports at Rockford, Gary, and in
Milwaukee, as reliever airports for O'Hare and Midway. And we
made some recommendations on what these new strategies could
be.
We recommended streamlining the regulatory approval
process, much like you're doing at the federal level, but we
can get the state level as well. And then finally, we did
recommend funding for land acquisition for Peotone Airport.
In the report that was released by the Vice Chair, George
Scully and myself, which I would like to place into the record,
we articulate----
Senator McCain. We have that.
Representative Hamos. Thank you. We articulated this as a
regional airport network. And it includes and incorporates all
six airports in this region. This puts us in the same league as
New York, Los Angeles, London and Boston, each of which of have
five or six regional airports.
Let me conclude by pointing out that recently we were proud
to learn that Boeing selected Chicago as the new home for its
international headquarters. This was accomplished because the
Governor, the Mayor, the civic and business community came
together to work on this mutual goal. It is now the same level
of regional cooperation that is needed among our political and
business and civic leadership to move us forward on aviation
policy for the benefit of the entire region.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Julie Hamos, Chair, House Aviation
Committee, State of Illinois and Hon. George Scully, Vice-Chairperson,
House Aviation Committee, State of Illinois
Blueprint for Action: Creating a Regional Airport Network
(Executive Summary)
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Air travel demand will increase continuously and steadily in the
metropolitan Chicago region, although the specific impacts for each
airport will be determined by market forces.
Airport capacity throughout the region must increase substantially
to meet the projected travel demand.
Future projected demand can be accommodated only if all five
existing airports in the Chicago metropolitan region and a new Peotone
Airport have a role.
Strategies also are needed to relieve air traffic congestion in the
short-term, coupled with long-term solutions looking fifty years ahead.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1. Creating A Regional Airport Network
The Chicago metropolitan region's airport network should include:
O'Hare International Airport, Midway Airport, Gary/Chicago Airport
(Gary, IN), Greater Rockford Airport (Rockford, IL), General Mitchell
International Airport (Milwaukee, WI) and a new Peotone Airport.
The debate over ``Chicago's 3rd Airport'' is actually about the
``Region's 6th Airport''--putting Chicago in the same league as New
York, Los Angeles, Boston and London, all with five or six regional
airports.
All political leaders must cooperate to promote this network on
behalf of the entire region.
Recommendation #2. Expanding Capacity at O'Hare International Airport
The city of Chicago and the airlines should immediately begin an
engineering and environmental analysis for the reconfiguration and/or
construction of one or two rtulways.
The State of Illinois should provide $15 million to undertake an
engineering plan for key roadway improvements at O'Hare.
Recommendation #3. New Strategies for Smaller Existing Airports
The State of Illinois and Federal Government should promote
commercial service at the three regional airports with existing
capacity: Greater Rockford Airport, General Mitchell International
Airport (Milwaukee, WI), Gary/Chicago Airport (Gary, IN).
A bi-state Illinois-Indiana process should explore tax and economic
benefits for Illinois residents from Gary/Chicago Airport as well as
other transportation improvements for the south suburbs.
The RTA should review the commuter rail linkages between the
smaller existing airports and major population and job centers.
Recommendation #4. Land Acquisition for Peotone Airport
The State should take a proactive approach to future airport
capacity by acquiring land for Peotone Airport--within a $75 million
limit and with full disclosure of all persons selling land to the
State.
No airport construction should begin until there is a favorable
environmental impact statement, until airport operator(s) and airline
tenant(s) are identified, and until there is a financial plan with
Federal, local and airline funding.
If no airport is built, the State should commit to use or sell the
land only for farming or open space purposes.
Recommendation #5. Expedited Regulatory Processes
The State should organize a task force--including key State
agencies, airport operators and municipal governments--to organize
expedited regulatory review and approval for runway and other airport-
related development.
______
General Observations
1. There appears to be consensus that air travel demand will
increase continuously and steadily in the metropolitan Chicago region,
although the specific impacts for each airport will be determined by
market forces: the combination of regional population, job patterns,
personal income and airline business decisions.
2. There appears to be consensus that airport capacity throughout
the region must increase substantially over time to meet the projected
travel demand if this is to remain a vibrant metropolitan region
capable of competing in a global economy.
3. Future projected demand for the next fifty years can be
accommodated only if all airports in the Chicago metropolitan region
have a role: O'Hare International Airport, Midway Airport, Greater
Rockford Airport (Rockford, IL), Gary/Chicago Airport (Gary, IN),
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI) and the new
Peotone Airport (Peotone, IL). These airports have plans to expand
capacity as well as to market their facilities to airlines to enhance
service to their own airports.
4. Strategies also are needed to relieve air traffic congestion in
the short-terra, coupled with longterm solutions to capture anticipated
growth in air travel demand.
OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AIRPORTS
I. Passengers Projected to Be Served
During the 2001 spring legislative session, the House Aviation
Committee heard testimony regarding six regional airports currently
serving or with plans to serve the Chicago metropolitan region: O'Hare
International Airport, Midway Airport, Greater Rockford Airport, Gary/
Chicago Airport, General Mitchell International Airport and a proposed
Peotone Airport. The following is a summary of factors reviewed by the
Committee and summarized here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Hare International Airport.............. Currently 34 million
enplanements.
Projected to increase to 45
million by 2012.
FAA projects 55.7 million
enplanements by 2015; new
study projects demand to
grow by 18 percent over
next 10 years.
Midway Airport............................ Currently 7.4 million
enplanements.
Projected to increase to 8.5
million enplanements by
2012.
FAA projects 10.2 million
enplanements by 2015.
Greater Rockford Airport.................. Only cargo operations
currently.
400,000 persons take a bus
and 800,000 drive from
Rockford to O'Hare
annually.
Can handle over 3 million
enplanements per year with
terminal changes;15 million
enplanements with
additional runway.
FAA projects 33,212
enplanements by 2015
without major increases in
commercial service.
Gary/Chicago Airport...................... Currently 24,978 en
planements per year (note:
corrected on 6/5/01).
Can handle 15 million
enplanements per year with
3-phase master plan.
FAA projects 67,082
enplanements by 2015
without major increases in
commercial service.
General Mitchell International Airport.... Currently 3 million
enplanements per year.
Projected to increase to 4.5
million enplanements by
2010.
FAA projects 5.3 million
enplanements by 2015.
Proposed Peotone Airport.................. Projected at 1 million
enplanements upon
construction; potentionally
30 million enplanements
with all proposed runways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: An ``enplanement'' is one measure of airport activity; it equals
one passenger boarding one plane.
II. Airport Plans to Meet Projected Passenger Demand
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Hare International Airport.............. World Gateway Project, being
reviewed by FAA, to
accommodate larger
aircraft, new customs/
immigration sites for
international passengers,
new terminal.
FAA, city of Chicago and
airlines planning to
reconvene Delay Reduction
Task Force to update
airspace, operations,
airfield, terminal
improvements and demand
management, including
reconfigured and/or new
runways.
Midway Airport............................ Completing terminal
development program and new
concourses.
Completing surrounding
roadway improvement and new
parking structure.
Greater Rockford Airport.................. 27th most active cargo
airport in the Nation
currently.
Expanded passenger service
to result in expansion of
terminal building with 20
departure/arrival gates.
Plans to construct 3rd
runway of 8,000 feet, if
new commercial service.
Plans for another passenger
terminal building, if
necessary after 3rd runway
is built.
Sufficient room to expand
parking if needed.
Gary/Chicago Airport...................... Has runway that is longer
than Midway's longest
runway.
Has master plan in three
phases, depending on level
of commercial service; long-
term goal to expand airport
to 1,700 acres from 700
acres, build second major
runway, new passenger
terminal and parking
garage.
General Mitchell International Airport.... 3rd parallel air carrier
runway by 2015; 6 new gates
by mid-2003 to add to the
existing 42 gates, all
currently leased to
airlines.
3,000-space addition to
current 6,000-space parking
structure in late 2002,
with 2,000 additional
planned after.
Renovations for terminal
facilities, baggage claim
and central concession
mall.
Proposed Peotone Airport.................. Inaugural Phase: One runway;
one terminal; 12 gates.
Phase II: Additional runways
and additional terminal.
Phase III: Total of 6
parallel runways;
additional terminal and
gates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Ability to Finance the Airport Development Plans; Need for
Additional Resources From the State of Illinois.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Hare International Airport.............. World Gateway Program
planned to be funded
entirely with airline-
supported debt, Passenger
Facility Charges, Federal
grants.
No IL general revenue funds
are needed for operations
or improvements.
Midway Airport............................ Terminal expansion funded
entirely with airline-
supported debt, Passenger
Facility Charges, Federal
grants.
No IL general revenue funds
are needed for operations
or improvements.
Greater Rockford Airport.................. Expanded terminal to be
funded with revenue bonds
leveraged by Passenger
Facility Charges.
No IL general revenue funds
are needed for operations
or improvements.
Gary/Chicago Airport...................... Currently receive PFC
proceeds under an agreement
with O'Hare and Midway (to
date: over $11 million).
No PFC charges currently
imposed on Gary flights.
No IL general revenue funds
are needed for operations
or improvements.
General Mitchell International Airport.... 15-year capital improvement
plan uses Federal grants,
user fees paid by
passengers and airlines.
No IL fiends are needed for
operations or improvements.
Proposed Peotone Airport.................. Only funding is from State
Illinois FIRST bonds for
land acquisition.
No Federal, local, private
or airline funds have been
identified yet for
construction or operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1. Promoting the Regional Airport Network
While it is impossible to predict the precise scope of future air
travel demand, it is clear that an effective regional airport network
is critical to the economic vitality of the northeastern Illinois
region. Based on a consensus that regional airport capacity must
increase over time to meet air travel demand, this network should
incorporate: O'Hare International Airport, Midway Airport, Gary/Chicago
Airport (Gary, IN), Greater Rockford Airport (Rockford, IL), General
Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI) and a new Peotone
Airport (Peotone, IL).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The general aviation airports and smaller ``reliever'' airports
(designated to reduce the general aviation traffic at O'Hare and
Midway) are valuable assets of the region. The role of airports such as
Meigs, Palwaukee, Lansing, Schaumburg, Aurora and Waukegan will be the
subject of further study by the House Aviation Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This current airport network already is fortunate to house major
operations for United, American, Southwest, American Trans Air and
Midwest Express airlines, with O'Hare poised to secure its position as
the nation's premier international hub. Accordingly, the current debate
over ``Chicago's 3rd Airport'' is actually about the ``Region's 6th
Airport''--putting the Chicago metropolitan area in the same league as
New York with its 6 regional airports, Los Angeles with 5 regional
airports, Boston with 6 regional airports, and London with 5 regional
airports.
This Blueprint for Action is presented against a backdrop of a 20-
year history of airport decisions in the Chicago metropolitan region
that have been clouded by parochial interests and political
motivations. This no longer can be an ``either-or'' proposition: O'Hare
or Peotone; Gary or Peotone.
Today must start a new day for aviation policy in Illinois--
requiring political leaders in Illinois to work cooperatively for the
benefit of all airports throughout the region.
Recommendation #2. Expanding Capacity at O'Hare International Airport
In order to expand the future capacity of O'Hare International
Airport, the city of Chicago and the airlines should immediately begin
an engineering and environmental analysis for the reconfiguration and/
or construction of one or two runways.
The concept plan to be provided by the city of Chicago by July 1
and the Delay Reduction Task Force to be reconvened by FAA are
important first steps. However, the next step of a thorough engineering
and environmental analysis will be necessary for the Governor to
consider a certificate of approval, for the Federal Aviation
Administration to consider approval of an environmental impact
statement, and for O'Hare neighbors to have an opportunity to review
and comment on the airport's plans.
Under current law (Illinois Aeronautics Act, Section 48), the
following analysis is required before a Governor can grant a
certificate of approval: (1) the proposed location, size and layout of
a new or reconfigured runway; (2) its relationship to the national
airport plan, the Federal airways system, the State airport plan and
the State airways system; (3) whether there are safe areas available
for expansion purposes; (4) whether the adjoining area is free from
obstructions; (5) the nature of the terrain; (6) the nature of the uses
to which the runway will be put; and (7) the possibilities for future
development. Illinois policymakers as well as O'Hare critics are
requesting Section 48 information and more: Where would runways be
built? How would runways function? Would any displacement of homes or
businesses be necessary? Would there be noise and/or air quality
impacts?
The current debate in Congress to preempt states with respect to
gubernatorial review of runway development underscores the critical
role of O'Hare International Airport within the national air
transportation system. It would be preferable to identify and address
our own transportation priorities. Whether or not gubernatorial action
ultimately will be necessary, the city of Chicago and the State of
Illinois must have plans in place for expansion of O'Hare and regional
airport capacity.
In addition, planning should proceed on key roadway improvements
that would make O'Hare function more efficiently. The State of Illinois
should provide $15 million to undertake an engineering plan for the
expansion of Interstate 190 and the construction of a Lee Street
Interchange at I-90.
Recommendation #3. New Strategies for Smaller Existing Airports
The State of Illinois and Federal Government should encourage
commercial service at the region's smaller existing airports (Greater
Rockford, Gary/Chicago, General Mitchell) that have existing capacity
to ease congestion in the short-term, long before additional runways
are built at any other airport. With Midway Airport as the model--
standing empty just 25 years ago--it is hoped that future market
demands will require service expansions at these airports.
Of the three airports, Gary/Chicago Airport has the potential to
serve both downtown Chicago and the underserved south suburban and
collar county communities. The role of Gary/Chicago Airport as part of
the regional airport network should be analyzed through a bi-state
process that examines potential tax and economic advantages for
Illinois south suburban communities. The planning process might also
consider the creation of an efficient bi-state transportation district
with key improvements in airport, port, rail freight, high speed
passenger rail, roadway and intermodal facilities located throughout
that region.
To encourage access to airports by transit, the Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA) should review the commuter rail linkages
between the smaller existing airports and major population and job
centers, possibly across State lines. The Midwest process that
initiated high speed rail is an example of this type of innovative
multi-state transportation planning.
Recommendation #4. Land Acquisition for Peotone Airport
With regional air travel demand exceeding airport capacity well
into the future, the State should take a proactive approach by
acquiring land for the future Peotone airport. As with any other
economic development project, the State of Illinois should promote
Peotone Airport while protecting the State's own economic investment
within reasonable guidelines, as follows:
A limit of $75 million of Illinois FIRST bonding should be
placed on land acquisition costs;
Full disclosure of all individuals and entities, including
beneficiaries of land trusts, should be required in any agreement for
the use or acquisition of land;
No airport construction should be commenced until there is
a favorable FAA approval of the pending environmental impact statement;
No airport construction should be commenced unless airport
operator(s) and airline tenant(s) are identified, capable of assuming
significant responsibility for airport operations;
Any financing plan for airport construction should include
Federal, airline and local finding, and should not use revenues from
any other existing airport; and
If no airport is built, the State should commit to use or
sell the land only for farming or open space purposes.
Recommendation #5. Expedited Regulatory Processes
Based on future demand for air travel, airports throughout Illinois
may plan runway or other airport development within the next 5-10
years. In order to expedite the regulatory process for airport-related
construction, a task force should be created now--including the
Illinois Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection and
Natural Resources, key airport operators and municipal governments--to
review all regulatory approvals and to plan for a coordinated process
of agency reviews. To accelerate any airport development, the task
force should place high priority on completing agency approvals and
other project coordination activities in an expedited manner.
This task force would complement similar efforts being proposed at
the Federal level, expediting Federal agency regulatory approvals.
Senator McCain. Thank you. I just have one brief question.
What has been the reception to your committee's recommendation?
Representative Hamos. Well, we did release it right at the
end of the session. And, of course, it became part of the
process for the appropriation which followed immediately right
after it.
Senator McCain. And then generally, the reception to----
Representative Hamos. I'm not sure yet. Seemingly positive.
But I don't know yet.
Senator McCain. Do we have a question? If not, I want to
thank all of you for taking the time from your busy schedules
and joining us here this morning, which is indicative of your
involvement and commitment to this issue. And we look forward
to working with you because we all have to work together----
Representative Manzullo. Senator McCain, I'd like to have
my statement made part of the record.
Senator McCain. Without objection, all statements shall be
made part of the record. Thank you, thank you very much.
The next panel will be the Honorable Jane Garvey, who's the
administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Tom
Walker, Aviation Committee for the city of Chicago and Linda
Wheeler, who's the Director of the Illinois Department of
Transportation. I'd like to welcome you.
I'd like to get order from everyone, please. Would you
constrain conversation on my left, please? Thank you. Thank you
very much. Thank you. Welcome. We'll begin with you, Ms.
Garvey. Welcome back before the Committee. And we thank you for
taking the time to be here with us today. And we are very
appreciative. We know you've had other commitments that you had
to cancel. And we thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Senator, Chairman McCain
and Chairman Rockefeller and Members of the Committee. It's
really my pleasure to be here today to discuss airport capacity
issues of the Chicago region. I am also particularly pleased to
represent Secretary Mineta. He has made finding solutions to
some of our capacity limitations in all modes of transportation
one of his top priorities.
However, from the vantage point of the Federal Government,
and for those of us at the FAA, our challenge really is to
address these issues from a systems perspective. What we see at
a number of our top airports is an imbalance between capacity
and demand growth. And that brings into sharp focus the need
for communities to make informed decisions today in order to
accommodate future demand.
Our recent airport capacity benchmark report, which was
just issued last month, documents that there are a handful of
airports, including Chicago O'Hare, where demand exceeds
capacity and where, particularly in adverse weather conditions,
the resulting delays have impacts throughout the National Air-
Space system.
Last year, as you all know, O'Hare was ranked the second
busiest and the third most delayed airport in the country. It's
one of the eight airports with which we worked to develop
specific action plans to address delays. In the case of O'Hare,
one of the recommendations included in the action plan calls
for the City, the airlines and the FAA to return to an approach
that was successfully used in 1991 to reduce delays.
And we certainly want to applaud the City for stepping up
to the plate once again in forming a second O'Hare delay task
force to look at a number of delay reduction alternatives, both
for the short and the long term. We expect that work to be
completed in about 6 to 9 months. And we're looking forward to
working with the participants on that delay task force.
Certainly, addressing the delays at O'Hare is a critical
element in meeting the aviation needs of this region. But
O'Hare, as many of the previous panelists have pointed out, is
only part of Chicago's regional airport system. There are five
major commercial service airports that serve this part of the
country.
They include not only the two air carrier airports operated
by the City, but also the Greater Rockford, Milwaukee and Gary,
Indiana airports. In our view, discussions about increased use
and improvements to any or all of those facilities is welcome
and necessary. And I want to reiterate what Senator Durbin said
earlier this year in Chicago, and elsewhere. It doesn't have to
be an either/or proposition.
I want to also mention that over the last several years,
the FAA has worked actively with the Illinois Department of
Transportation to reach an agreement on how best to proceed
relative to IDOT's proposal for a south suburban airport. We
reached agreement last year to focus on a tiered approach for
the Environmental Impact statement, the EIS. The tiered
approach recognizes that the state is approaching a new airport
site in stages, site approval and land banking first and
infrastructure considerations later as market demand develops.
Work on the tiered EIS is well underway. We certainly would
hope to have it completed by next March. In fact, we're looking
at moving that up even sooner. A number of you have focused,
and I think rightly so, on the appropriate role that the
Federal Government plays. In a deregulated domestic aviation
industry, the Federal Government no longer controls where, how
or when airlines provide their services. Nor are we the driving
force in airport capacity development.
What drives those considerations today is the market, the
local and regional decisionmaking and partnership with the
aviation industry in response to that market demand. But I want
to underscore, and I really want to say this as clearly as I
can, that we at the federal level, particularly at the FAA will
provide any support, and any technical assistance that we can.
And we will continue to do our part in modernizing the air
traffic control system and implementing the operational
efficiencies wherever possible.
We are very, very pleased to be here today and really
applaud the leadership that this Committee has taken not only
here in Chicago but nationally for our aviation system. And I
look forward to and welcome any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garvey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration
Senator McCain and Members of the Committee: It is a pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss increased airport capacity in the
Chicago region, particularly the efforts to reduce delays at O'Hare and
to landbank a site for a possible South Suburban airport. I am
particularly pleased to be here in Chicago because it is recognized as
such an important part of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Today's hearing is very timely because it focuses our attention on
congestion not only in this region but also in our aviation system as a
whole. Secretary Mineta has made the effort to deal with the capacity
limitations in our aviation sector--one of the underlying causes of
airline delays--one of his top priorities. As we enter the summer
travel season, we will have daily reminders of the need to employ both
short and long-term measures to meet the challenge of delays--a
challenge that will grow increasingly difficult as forecasted growth
continues.
I think it is important to understand our many ongoing efforts to
address the challenges posed by congestion. The Airport Capacity
Benchmark Report 2001, which the Secretary released last month,
documents that we are faced with very challenging capacity issues. Our
hope is that this report will provide valuable data that will be used
to assist the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), airports,
airlines, and other system users in making informed decisions and
investments that can ultimately help better manage the ever increasing
demand for capacity, while at the same time reducing the causes of
delays. Much of the information in the report documents what you, as
frequent users of the system, probably know intuitively. But this
information now provides all of us, Congress, the FAA, the airports,
the airlines, and local communities, with a common set of metrics to
measure the capacity of an airport.
Our report documents that there are a handful of airports--
including Chicago's O'Hare International airport--at which demand
exceeds capacity and where, in adverse conditions, the resulting delays
have impacts throughout the National Airspace System (NAS). In 2000,
O'Hare was ranked the second busiest and the third most delayed airport
in the country. Overall, slightly more than 6% of all flights were
delayed significantly (i.e. more than 15 minutes). On good weather
days, scheduled traffic is at or above the capacity benchmark (200-202
flights per hour) for 3\1/2\ hours of the day and about 2% of the
flights are delayed significantly. In adverse weather, which may
include poor visibility, unfavorable winds, or heavy precipitation,
capacity is lower (157-160 or fewer flights per hour) and scheduled
traffic exceeds capacity for 8 hours of the day. The number of
significantly delayed flights jumps to 12%.
Planned airport construction at O'Hare, known as the World Gateway
Program, includes terminal construction, taxiway extension, and
modifications that will reduce gate congestion delays and delays on the
airport surface, but will not materially add to airside capacity.
Improved avionics and air traffic procedures are expected to increase
O'Hare's capacity in good weather (by 6%) and in bad weather (by 12%)
over the next 10 years compared to today. However, demand at O'Hare is
projected to grow by 18% over the next decade. This imbalance between
capacity and demand growth can be expected to significantly increase
delays at O'Hare.
Of course, O'Hare is not alone. Other airports across the country
are experiencing similar delays. From our vantage point at the Federal
level, we try to address transportation from a systems perspective. We
believe that is key to moving people and goods safely, reliably and
efficiently. The FAA has developed action plans for eight of our most
congested airports, including O'Hare. These eight airports represent
the biggest challenges in the NAS. When they suffer delays, there's a
domino effect on the entire system. Each of the eight airports is
unique, and new runways are not an option for all of them. It is our
hope that, working with our partners in the aviation community,
implementing these action plans will maximize the growth of capacity
and increase efficiencies in the system. I know you are also aware of
our most recent initiative to address aviation capacity challenges--a
Federal Register notice seeking the broadest possible input on steps to
take at LaGuardia Airport to address congestion and delays.
In the case of O'Hare, the action plan calls for the city of
Chicago, the airlines and the FAA to revisit the 1991 Chicago Delay
Task Force Study. That successful collaboration resulted in a report
that included specific recommendations for reducing delays at O'Hare.
The majority of the recommendations were implemented--relating for the
most part to air traffic procedures and physical development--and the
City of Chicago estimates that they resulted in a 40% reduction in
delays at the airport. The 1991 study also recommended additional
runways and related infrastructure improvements, but as you know, those
were not adopted.
I applaud the City for now stepping up to the plate once again. The
City has formed a second O'Hare Delay Task Force to identify both short
and long-term solutions to the delay situation at the airport. It is
being chaired by both City and FAA officials with broad representation
from the stakeholders, including: the Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT); the Indiana Department of Transportation;
airlines; and aviation interest groups. The FAA will provide technical
assistance through our headquarters, regional, and field staff. The
task force will examine a broad band of alternatives to increase
capacity and reduce delays. Those alternatives will include airfield
and technology improvements, air traffic procedures, and collaborative
decision making. The first meeting of the O'Hare Delay Task Force was
held on June 5. While we expect the work to take approximately nine
months (the first Task Force took 2 years), we are hopeful that action
will be taken on delay reducing initiatives as they are identified and
not deferred for a formal report at the end of the study. As before,
while the Task Force will make recommendations, it will be up to the
airlines, the FAA and/or the City to accept and implement the
recommendations.
But O'Hare airport is only part of Chicago's regional airport
system. There are five major commercial service airports that serve
this part of the country. They include not only the two air carrier
airports operated by the City of Chicago--O'Hare and Midway--but also
the Greater Rockford, General Mitchell International (Milwaukee), and
Gary/Chicago airports. In our view, discussion about increased use and/
or improvements to any or all of these facilities, including increasing
the capacity of these airports through runway construction, is welcome
and necessary. Whatever the upshot of these activities may be, it is
also the case that they can proceed along with the ongoing
consideration of a possible new supplemental airport for the region.
Meaningful discussion must include both short and long-term plans for
improvements to the system. Here in Chicago as elsewhere, it doesn't
have to be an ``either/or'' proposition.
At the same time, we recognize that there is a great deal of
controversy about aviation needs in the Chicago area. I don't have to
reiterate to those gathered here today a detailed history of the
challenges the region has faced over the past 15 years or so. Suffice
it to say that efforts have been underway for some years to locate a
site for a supplemental commercial service airport in the Chicago
region. These efforts have been attended by a lack of consensus on a
suitable site for the airport, the size of airport infrastructure, the
role of existing airports, and the degree to which air carriers may
institute service at a new site.
Over the past several years the FAA has worked actively with IDOT
to reach an agreement on how best to proceed relative to IDOT's
proposal for a south suburban airport near Peotone, Illinois, which is
approximately 35 miles south of Chicago. Initially we disagreed with
IDOT over the scope and timing of the proposal. The disagreement
between the agencies was entirely technical and based on the fact that
we believed that the State, in its earlier proposals, had overestimated
the potential demand at a new airport and that the scale of the
proposed new airport exceeded that demand.
Early last year, however, we reached agreement on going forward
using a tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) approach. We agreed
to complete a Tier 1 EIS for the first part of the State's proposal.
The Tier 1 EIS considers site approval of a location for a possible
future airport and landbanking, at State expense, for such a site to
protect it from encroaching development. IDOT's proposal is to develop
airport infrastructure at the site as aviation demand develops. At this
stage, IDOT and FAA are not considering any future airport development;
rather that will be done at a later time. This tiered approach
recognizes that the State is approaching a new airport site in stages--
site approval and landbanking first, and infrastructure considerations
later.
Work on the tiered EIS is well underway. The FAA has devoted
significant resources to the EIS to complete it as fast as possible. It
is one of four airport proposals nationwide where FAA has established a
dedicated EIS team to guide and expedite the work. The first step in
the process, known as ``scoping''--where the scope of the issues to be
addressed are identified--has been completed. The scoping process
included public meetings where Federal, State and local agencies, and
the interested public provided input to the project. The FAA and its
consultants are now nearing the end of the second step, completion of
technical analyses and issuance of a Draft EIS by late summer. The
Draft EIS will then be available for public and agency review,
whereupon the EIS team will assess whether its March 2002 schedule for
completing the EIS can be accelerated any further.
It is important to note the Federal Government's role in this
endeavor. In a deregulated domestic aviation industry, the Federal
Government no longer controls where, how and when airlines provide
their services. Nor are we the driving force in airport capacity
development. What drives those considerations now is the market, and
local and regional decision making, in partnership with the aviation
industry, in response to that market demand. Certainly, we at the
Federal level will provide any support and assistance that we can, and
will do our part in continuing to modernize the air traffic control
system and implementing ATC efficiencies wherever possible. However,
the Federal Government cannot and should not solve State and local
planning challenges. In Chicago, past efforts to deal with airport
capacity limitations in the region failed because of lack of consensus.
That appears to be changing. It is a very positive development that the
City and State appear to be coming together to reach consensus for both
short and long-term measures to deal with the predicted growth in
operations at the region's airports. We stand ready to assist in any
way that we can.
Mr. Chairman, I know that this Committee is as committed as
Secretary Mineta and I are to finding the solutions to the capacity
challenges we are facing. I also know that our counterparts in local
and state government as well as in the aviation industry share our
commitment. It is my hope that as we continue to work together on these
challenges, and that the effort here in Chicago will be a model for the
rest of the country in how best to achieve solutions--even with a past
history of controversy--that will benefit not only the local community,
but the Nation as a whole.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Ms. Garvey.
Mr. Walker, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. WALKER,
COMMISSIONER OF AVIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairman McCain and Chairman
Rockefeller, Senator Durbin and Senator Fitzgerald. I'm truly
pleased to appear before you here today and to welcome you to
the great city of Chicago.
Senator McCain. Mr. Walker, your complete statement will be
made part of the record as well as the other witnesses.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much. I'm privileged to be the
head of the Chicago Airport System and it's difficult to
overestimate the national and international importance of
Chicago's two major airports. In the year 2000, more than 87
million passengers passed through the doors of Chicago
airports; 72.1 million at O'Hare and a record breaking 15.6
million at Midway.
Between O'Hare and Midway, we have approximately 3,300
commercial passenger flights per day to 255 separate markets,
including 191 nonstop destinations provided by 60 different
passenger airlines.
O'Hare itself serves 138 non-stop domestic destinations,
with an average of 2,500 commercial flights per day. In many
ways, O'Hare is the hub of the national aviation system. When
O'Hare sneezes, the country gets the flu. It is a hub for the
two largest airlines in the world. It is at the crossroads of
our great nation.
Twenty-four essential air service airports are being served
from O'Hare, vital service that I know is important to Members
of this Committee. That includes 16 daily flights to Phoenix as
well as three to Tucson. O'Hare delays have a crippling effect
on the national system and must be addressed to ensure that
communities across the country have access to O'Hare today and
into the future.
O'Hare supports more than 500,000 jobs and generates over
$35 billion in annual economic impact. O'Hare truly is a magnet
for business, as evidenced most recently by Boeing's decision
to relocate their headquarters here to Chicago.
All of this service by so many different airlines
translates into an extraordinarily competitive environment for
Chicago area travelers. The most recent DOT airfare surveys
indicate that the average fare in Chicago, which is the third
largest city in the country, is $183, which places Chicago
fares lower than 19 other major cities.
This is a tribute to our carriers and to our stewardship,
but we cannot and will not rest there. We know that Chicago
status as the preeminent transportation hub is not just
geographic happenstance, but the result of careful planning,
strategic vision, and capital investment.
It is also the result of sensitivity to those adversely
affected by noise. The Chicago Airport System has the most
aggressive noise mitigation program in the country. It is also
the result, it will have spent $394 million in communities
around O'Hare and Midway by the end of 2001 to provide sound
insulation for over 4,500 homes and 99 schools.
So that there can be no doubt, we fully understand and
appreciate congressional frustration with the impasse over
O'Hare delay. We understand the frustration of passengers,
including the many Members of Congress who connect through
O'Hare for their flights from their districts when they cannot
get to where they're going on time. Congress is right to be
interested in solving this problem and we appreciate your being
here today.
For its part, the City has tried hard to do everything
possible to maximize the efficiency of O'Hare. Our written
statement contains many of these efforts. With our carriers
active support and at no expense to local taxpayers, we have
invested billions of dollars in capacity development at our
airports.
As a result of these efforts, the City saw a 40 percent
reduction in delays from 1988 to 1998. Unfortunately, the
delays were up in 1999. And then, as everyone here knows, the
year of 2000 brought a summer of horrendous delays across the
country, including here at O'Hare.
We know that delays cost money. Delays mean misconnections,
late meetings, missed events, less family time and more
headaches, which none of us need. Obviously the City does not
run the FAA's air traffic control system. It cannot control
thunderstorms or tell the airlines when to fly and what
aircraft to use.
Nor can we, given the current political climate,
unilaterally construct runways to reduce the delays at O'Hare
without time consuming, costly challenges. Yet, we've heard
loud and clear the clarion call for delay reduction at O'Hare
from the FAA, from our two hub carriers, from the Chicago
region's business community, from travelers everywhere, and
most certainly from Members of this Committee and other
congressional leaders. Without question, we need to be sure
that O'Hare operates efficiently in good and bad weather.
Mayor Daley has asked us to take a hard look at all
available options for increasing the efficiency of O'Hare and
meeting our long-term capacity needs. We supported the FAA's
call to form a new Chicago Delay Task Force. And this Delay
Task Force in 1991 was a productive, professional effort to
focus the best technical minds at root causes and corrective
fixes.
It contributed greatly to the 40 percent reduction in
delay. Unfortunately, the 1991 Task Force recommendations for
two new runways went unheeded. And runway development has not
enjoyed the support of Illinois' last three Governors.
While we are encouraged that the current Governor, Governor
Ryan, for the first time asked to at least see an O'Hare runway
plan, he continues to say he does not support runways at
O'Hare. The Mayor has asked us by July 1 to forward conceptual
runway plans to Governor Ryan to help meet the region's
aviation needs and we will do so.
Here's the bottom line. O'Hare's delay problems can only be
addressed at O'Hare. 70 percent of O'Hare passengers are
connecting or international passengers. And their needs cannot
and will not be met at any other airport. And certainly not by
one 45 miles from the Loop.
Let's invest in existing airports. Support existing relief
of airports and expedite critical delay reduction projects. The
fastest, most economical way to improve efficiency in our
nation's aviation system is to improve what we already have.
And any plan must protect local taxpayers.
So, what can Congress do? From our perspective, it ought
not to take 10 years, as estimated by the FAA, to plan and
build a runway. A number of proposals, such as the EASE
proposal to streamline environmental processing, hold great
promise. And we've talked about these suggestions in our
written statement.
We appreciate, respect and welcome congressional attention
to O'Hare's problems. We recognize that some projects are so
essential to our nation's infrastructure that they deserve your
attention.
It is not just national need that dictates solutions to our
capacity efficiency problems at O'Hare. Failure to address
delays in Chicago now has the potential to cripple the entire
economic engine that O'Hare is and leave passengers stranded
throughout the country. And that is not an option.
Now, that concludes my remarks. And I'll take any questions
at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas R. Walker, Commissioner of Aviation,
Chicago, Illinois
Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Durbin, and Senator
Fitzgerald, I am Thomas R. Walker, the city of Chicago's Commissioner
of Aviation. I am pleased to appear today and to welcome you to the
great city of Chicago on behalf of our Mayor, Richard M. Daley. He
regrets that he cannot be here in person, as he is out of the country.
I am privileged to run the Chicago Airport System. Without
question, we truly are fortunate here in Chicago with the wide variety
of airlines, fares, and destinations offered by our two commercial
service airports--O'Hare International and Midway. It is difficult to
overestimate the national and international importance of Chicago's two
major airports. In 2000, more than 87 million passengers passed through
the doors of Chicago's airports: 72.1 million at O'Hare and a record-
breaking 15.6 million at Midway. Between O'Hare and Midway, we have
approximately 3,300 commercial passenger flights per day to 255
separate markets, including 191 nonstop destinations--provided by 60
different passenger airlines, as well as an equally impressive number
of cargo flights operated by 23 different cargo airlines.
O'Hare itself currently serves 138 non-stop domestic destinations,
with an average of 2,500 commercial flights each day. In many ways,
O'Hare is the hub of the national aviation system. When O'Hare sneezes,
the country gets the flu. It is a hub for the two largest airlines in
the world. It is at the crossroads of our great nation. In addition,
twenty-four essential air service airports are being served from
O'Hare--vital service that I know is important to many Members of the
Committee. O'Hare delays have a crippling effect on the national system
and must be addressed to ensure communities across the country have
better access to O'Hare today and into the future. We all have a stake
in ensuring O'Hare's health and vibrancy.
O'Hare supports more than 500,000 jobs and generates over $35
billion in annual economic impact. O'Hare is truly a magnet for
business, as evidenced most recently by Boeing's decision to relocate
its headquarters to Chicago.
Not only do we enjoy the only true dual hub in the country at
O'Hare, but we also have the nation's preeminent point-to-point
airport, Midway, which is served by many of our nation's leading low-
fare carriers, including Southwest and American Trans Air.
All of this service by so many different airlines translates into
an extraordinarily competitive environment for Chicago area travelers.
The most recent DOT airfare surveys from the 4th Quarter 2000 indicate
that the average airfare in Chicago, which is the third largest city in
the country, is $183, which places Chicago fares lower than 19 other
major cities. That is a tribute to our carriers and to our stewardship,
but we cannot and will not rest there.
For over a century, the City has been proud of its historical
status as the preeminent transportation hub in the country. We know
that this status is not just geographic happenstance, but the result of
careful planning, strategic vision, and capital investment. It is also
the result of sensitivity to those adversely affected by noise. The
Chicago Airport System has the most aggressive noise mitigation program
in the country. It will have spent $394 million in communities around
O'Hare and Midway by the end of 2001 to provide sound insulation for
4,500 homes and 99 schools. However, because of past and current
objections by Illinois Governors; the City has not been able to make
certain investments in its aviation infrastructure to deal with our
current challenges.
So that there can be no doubt, we fully understand and appreciate
congressional frustration with the impasse over airport delay: relief
at O'Hare. We understand the frustration of passengers, including the
many Members of Congress who connect through O'Hare for their flights
to and from their districts, when they cannot get to where they are
going on time. Congress is right to be interested in solving this
problem, and we appreciate your being here today.
For its part, the City has tried hard to do everything possible to
maximize the efficiency of O'Hare. Unlike many other airports, Chicago
has a unique seven-runway, intersecting configuration. Back in 1991,
the City and the FAA partnered to form a Delay Task Force, which was a
productive, professional effort to focus the best technical minds at
root causes and corrective fixes. It led to 11 specific O'Hare
recommendations and 28 total recommendations, which when implemented
contributed greatly to a 40 percent reduction in delays over the
ensuing decade. Unfortunately, the 1991 Task Force recommendations for
two new runways went unheeded.
Additionally, we have worked with the FAA to improve central flow
procedures, relieve choke points, and re-design terminal airspace. We
have reconfigured taxiways to improve efficiencies: We built new hold-
pads. We built anew international terminal with 21 new gates. We
supported the orderly phaseout of the archaic High Density Rule. We
have worked with the FAA and carriers to implement Collaborative
Decision Making. We have embarked on the ambitious World Gateway
Program, which will add two new terminals and up to 30 new gates. With
our carriers' active support, and at no expense to local or State
taxpayers, we have invested billions of dollars in capacity development
at our airports.
As a result of these efforts, the City saw a 40 percent reduction
in delays from 1988-1998. In 1988, O'Hare had 793,355 operations and
43,943 delays, or 55.4 delays per 1,000 operations. In 1998, O'Hare
operations had increased by approximately 2 percent per year to
896,104, yet delays decreased dramatically, to 26,563 annually, or 29.6
per 1,000 operations. Unfortunately, delays went up in 1999 to 49,202
or 54.9 per 1,000 operations; while O'Hare operations stayed constant
at 896,262. Then, as everyone here knows, the year 2000 brought a
summer of horrendous delays across the country, including O'Hare. Bad
thunderstorms, loss of land-and-hold-short (LAHSO) procedures, (which
alone resulted in a reduction of 36-40 arrivals and departures per hour
in one of the most commonly used runway configurations), increased
demand, and labor problems at one of our hub carriers contributed to an
awful season of delays. The result was an inordinate and unacceptable
increase in delays. Again, operations were up only 1.4 percent, to
908,989, yet delays were 57,545, or 63.3 delays per 1,000 operations.
Clearly, not enough was done in the early 1990's to address O'Hare's
long-term delay problem. Despite the City doing everything it could,
recommended runways were not added to O'Hare at the time.
To cope with this rise in delays, we have tried to make our airport
as comfortable and appealing as possible for those travelers forced to
wait at O'Hare, but we know that is a poor substitute for being on
time. We know that delays cost money--$166 million in airline
operations and billions to travelers each year. Delays mean missed
connections, late meetings, missed events, less family time, and more
headaches, which none of us need. Obviously, the City does not run the
FAA's air traffic control system, control thunderstorms, or tell the
airlines when to fly or what aircraft to use. Nor can we, given the
current political climate, unilaterally construct runways to reduce
delays at O'Hare without time-consuming costly challenges.
Yet, we have heard loud and clear the clarion call for delay
reduction at O'Hare from the FAA, from our two hub carriers, from the
Chicago region's business community, from travelers everywhere, and
most certainly from Members of this Committee and other congressional
leaders. Without question, we need to be sure that O'Hare operates
efficiently in good and bad weather.
Mayor Daley has asked us to take: a hard look at all available
options for increasing the efficiency of O'Hare and meeting our long-
term capacity needs. We supported the FAA's call to re-constitute the
Chicago Delay Task Force.
We are hopeful that the new Task Force will examine the full range
of delay-reducing ideas, including runways, and arrive at a consensus
on new recommendations, hopefully in the next 6 to 9 months. In the
meantime, the Mayor has asked us by July 1st to forward conceptual
runway plans to Governor Ryan to help to meet the region's aviation
needs, and we will do so. While we are encouraged that the current
Governor, for the first time, asked to at least see an O'Hare runway
plan, he continues to say he does not support new runways at O'Hare.
This is not new, since runway development has not enjoyed any of the
last three Govenors' support.
We certainly are not pleased that O'Hare became the third most
delayed airport per flight in the country. According to the FAA's
Capacity Benchmarks, O'Hare's current scheduled traffic meets or
exceeds its good weather capacity for 3\1/2\ hours of the day and
exceeds adverse-weather capacity for 8 hours of the day. On adverse
weather days 12 percent of O'Hare's flights are delayed. The FAA
believes that demand at O'Hare is expected to grow by 18 percent over
the next decade, and that ``[t]his imbalance between capacity and
demand growth is expected to significantly increase delays at O'Hare.''
Obviously, we share the Committee's view that something must be
done to alleviate congestion at O'Hare. Equally obvious, we
respectfully submit, is the plain fact that O'Hare's delay problem can
only be addressed at O'Hare. Seventy percent of O'Hare's passengers are
connecting or international--their needs cannot and will not be met by
any other airport, and certainly not by one 45 miles from the Loop.
Let's invest in existing airports, support existing reliever airports,
and expedite critical delay-reducing projects. The fastest, most
economical way to improve efficiency in our nation's aviation system is
to improve what we already have. And, any plan must protect local
taxpayers.
So, what can Congress do to help? From our perspective, it ought
not to take ten years, as estimated by the FAA, to plan and build a
runway.
A number of proposals, such as the EASE proposal developed by the
Airports Council International-North America and the American
Association of Airport Executives, to streamline environmental
processing, hold great promise. Additionally, a number of other
legislative proposals designed to plan and build critical capacity
projects have merit and are deserving of your consideration, including
(a) designating critical national airport capacity projects; (b)
mandating priority, concurrent processing at all Federal agencies; (c)
allowing airports to fund runway-specific FAA staff/consultants; (d)
encouraging FAA to broaden its use of categorical exclusions; (e)
allowing airports to use airport revenue for off-airport noise
mitigation; (f) eliminating both the off airport alternatives and ``no
build'' analysis for national priority projects; (g) restricting
judicial review for such projects; and (h) eliminating 49 U.C.S.
Sec. 47106(c)(1)(B) governor's certificates.
Regarding the latter element, the FAA and most agree that the
Federal requirement for governor's certificates for clean air and water
requirements is redundant and unnecessary. More broadly, however, a
number of major airport operators, including the City, confront the
additional impediment of having to ``channel'' airport fund requests or
receipts through an additional layer of State approval.
With respect to such State and local ``approvals,'' we are aware of
bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House to consider
preemption of State and local impediments to runway construction at
certain airports, including O'Hare. Given the enormous interstate
commerce implications of delays at O'Hare, we fully understand
congressional interest in playing a useful role in resolving the
current runway impasse.
As one of the busiest airports in the world, O'Hare is a vital link
to moving people and goods everywhere. We are mindful of its unique
status, and the need to make real improvements in real time to reduce
delays now and in the future. We do not have the luxury of time in
developing answers to this problem. We appreciate, respect, and welcome
congressional attention to O'Hare's problems. We recognize that some
projects are so essential to our nation's infrastructure that they are
deserving of your attention. Developing infrastructure at O'Hare and
several other national priority capacity projects is essential to
keeping our nation's economy running smoothly.
Failure to address delays in Chicago now has he potential to
cripple the economic engine that is O'Hare, and leave passengers
stranded throughout the country. That is not an option.
The City applauds the Committee's efforts to examine this issue.
CONCLUSION
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you or other Members of the Committee may have.
Senator McCain. Thank you, sir.
Miss Wheeler, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LINDA M. WHEELER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
PROGRAMMING, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Wheeler. Thank you. The problems at O'Hare are reaching
a crisis stage. U.S. DOT in March reported that O'Hare had the
worst delays in the nation last year with nearly 10,000 flights
more than an hour late. The primary cause for this dismal
record is the lack of capacity at O'Hare.
For the past 2 years, as delays were soaring by 60 percent,
the number of domestic passengers at O'Hare actually declined
by nearly 2 percent in 2000. While domestic passengers
nationwide grew by more than 4 percent per year.
Besides delays, this lack of capacity has allowed the
development of a fortress hub where airlines that want to
compete cannot enter the market. Where additional communities
that want service to O'Hare, cannot get in. And smaller
communities that have service have been pushed out. And where?
According to U.S. DOT data, in 1999 O'Hare's fares were 34
percent higher on a per mile basis than the average fares of
the 68 hub airports.
We've been working to address that capacity shortfall since
1984 when the FAA, as part of its approval for O'Hare's last
airport layout plan, recommended that the state study the
development of another air carrier airport to serve the Chicago
metropolitan area.
Extensive studies have identified the optimal site on which
to construct a new airport to supplement the 40-year-old
O'Hare. Located in the south suburbs, abutting the Chicago
urban area boundary, this site will be nearly three times the
size of O'Hare with abundant room to grow to meet future demand
while still containing onsite all objectionable noise.
We have submitted our data to FAA, which is preparing the
Environmental Impact Study. The federal record of decision is
expected by next March or sooner. We've begun land acquisition
on the site. The state Legislature has authorized 75 million
dollars to purchase the 4100 acres needed for the opening day
airport and to undertake protective acquisition on the
remainder of the 24,000 acres.
The inaugural stage of this airport could be operational in
less than 5 years at a cost of under 600 million dollars. While
we believe the long term answer is the south suburban airport,
we're pleased that the city of Chicago and the FAA have
convened a Delay Task Force to examine a range of strategies
for treating O'Hare delays. We're a member of that task force.
And we intend to work diligently with the City and the FAA on
this endeavor.
We also believe it's necessary to consider the role of
underutilized existing airports. But that decision ultimately
rests with the airlines. We believe the airlines need to look
beyond the bottom line and consider how such airports might
provide short term relief.
To that end, Governor Ryan has written to both American and
United Airlines urging them to consider using the Greater
Rockford Airport for relieving congestion at O'Hare.
Finally, let's talk about runways at O'Hare. While Governor
Ryan has not been a proponent of additional runways, he's never
rejected a plan because no plan has ever been forwarded by the
City. Therefore, the rush to consider new runways leaves a
multitude of unanswered questions. Would they solve the delay
problems at O'Hare? And if yes, for how long? What are the
costs? Not only in dollars, but also in terms of additional
persons affected by noise and businesses and homes displaced.
What are the environmental consequences and how would they
be remediated? Since no environmental work has been initiated,
how long would they take to construct? Seven? Eight? Even ten
years?
And finally, how do new runways at O'Hare compare in terms
of costs, benefits, and environmental and social impacts to the
state's plans for the south suburban airport? No one knows
these answers. That's why the Governor has asked, and the City
has agreed, to submit a plan for O'Hare by the beginning of
July.
We understand that O'Hare is a critical asset not just for
our region but for the whole nation. We're working on many
fronts to seek solutions, but the real critical need is to add
capacity to secure our aviation future.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wheeler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda M. Wheeler, Director, Office of Planning
and Programming, Illinois Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony concerning Air Traffic Congestion and
Capacity in the Chicago, Illinois Region and its effect on the National
Air Traffic System. We thank Chairman Hollings and the members of the
Committee for their willingness to focus on proposals to expand airport
capacity in and around Chicago.
There is no question that O'Hare Airport has powered the economy of
the Chicago area and much of the midwest region. It has created
hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributed billions of dollars to
the economy. The city of Chicago has done an outstanding job of
attracting new international air service, while engineering Midway
Airport's rebirth as one of the premier, low-fare, new entrant airports
in the country.
But, for the last several years, there has been less to boast about
when it comes to aviation in our region. Strong demand for air travel
has outstripped the available airport capacity at O'Hare and has forced
the airlines to maintain schedules that leave no margin for error in
poor weather. A single rainstorm can throw the entire schedule of
flights into chaos causing delays and cancellations to ripple across
the country.
It has been clear for some time, that there is an aviation capacity
crisis in the Chicago area. Addressing delays requires addressing
capacity--the two issues are interrelated. Competition, fares and
service in the midwest, however, should also be considered in any
action to solve the delay and capacity problems. Those specific
concerns will be discussed in the latter part of our testimony.
Almost twenty years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
recognized the pressing need for additional airport capacity. In its
1984 Record of Decision approving the last layout plan for O'Hare
Airport, the FAA recommended that the Illinois Department of
Transportation study the ``. . . development of another air carrier
airport to serve the Chicago Metropolitan Area . . .''
Between 1984 and 1993, the state of Illinois, in cooperation with
the states of Indiana and Wisconsin, the city of Chicago and the FAA,
has conducted five airport studies that have evaluated a total of
seventeen different sites. The airlines, business leaders and suburban
communities were active participants in those studies. Over time, the
studies have narrowed the number of viable sites down from fifteen to
five to one. The best and most viable site for Chicago's third major
airport is the proposed South Suburban Airport north of Peotone in
eastern Will County.
Once the best site was identified, the state of Illinois proceeded
with the necessary engineering studies. As a result of the state's
efforts (listed below), the South Suburban Airport is ready to move
forward.
In 1994, the state of Illinois initiated Phase I
Engineering to prepare a master plan, an Environmental Assessment and a
financial feasibility analysis for the development of the South
Suburban Airport.
In 1998, the state of Illinois completed the Environmental
Assessment, which was submitted to FAA for review and approval.
On March 3, 1999, the state of Illinois submitted a
revised plan for an ``Inaugural Airport'' at the Peotone site to the
FAA. This submittal included additional data on the initial operations
for a one-runway airport.
On January 27, 2000, the state of Illinois submitted to
the FAA a proposal to begin a `tiered' Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the purpose of beginning land acquisition.
On May 23, 2000, the FAA agreed to begin the preparation
of a `Tiered' EIS document.
On February 21, 2001, Governor George H. Ryan announced
the Illinois Department of Transportation would begin land acquisition
at the Will County airport site.
On March 7, 2001, the Illinois Department of
Transportation began advertising for consultants to handle land
acquisition from willing sellers.
On April 4, 2001, the Illinois Department of
Transportation opened the Matteson project office and began the land
acquisition process by accepting applications from willing sellers and
hardship cases.
The South Suburban Airport will supplement O'Hare and Midway and
will be capable of growing to meet future demand. The Inaugural stage
of the airport could be operational in less than five years at a cost
of under $600 million. The entire 23,000-acre footprint will allow the
construction of six parallel runways, with all objectionable noise, air
pollution and water runoff retained on site. Such an airport will meet
air carrier demand for 20 years, and beyond.
Expanding the aviation capacity of the Chicago Region is and has
been a paramount objective of the state of Illinois. The South Suburban
Airport has been the vehicle for this expansion.
Providing improved service with competitive air fares will also be
impacted by the approach taken to increasing capacity in the Chicago
region. Through a series of studies undertaken by the Illinois
Department of Transportation since 1996, it became evident that
increased capacity was, and remains, necessary to:
Ensure reasonable competition: O'Hare is a fortress hub of
two powerful airlines, American and United who, with affiliates,
control 88 percent of domestic passenger operations. These two airlines
have prevented other airlines from establishing a competitive presence
at O'Hare. Many airlines are unable to expand in the Chicago market.
Restore competitive airfares: The lack of competition has
caused airfares, post 1995 at O'Hare, to skyrocket. According to US DOT
data, O'Hare's fares per mile were 21 percent above the average of the
68 large and medium hub airports in 1995; by 1999, O'Hare's fares were
34 percent higher. Lack of competition and higher fares affect, not
only Chicago residents and businesses, but also the economies of other
midwestern communities that rely on Chicago Area Airports and their
gateways to national and global economies.
Prevent loss of non-stop service from O'Hare: In 1996,
Illinois Department of Transportation research predicted that, without
expanding the region's aviation capacity, at least 44 cities (mostly
midwestern) would, by 2020, lose service to O'Hare and, through O'Hare,
to the national aviation system. Those losses would occur in stages.
First, fares to these markets would increase, reducing demand. This
would lead to fewer flights and, eventually, to abandonment of service.
That forecast proved to be accurate. The feared service loss and
abandonments are on target. To date, the hardest hit communities have
been mid-size cities in Illinois and Iowa.
The South Suburban Airport will create competition, by providing a
new airport for airlines wanting to enter the Chicago market. It will
also provide airport access to the 2.5 million underserved people who
live on the south side of Chicago, its south suburbs and northwest
Indiana.
For now, however, we need to look at the existing air systems.
While delays at O'Hare continue to grow, underutilized airports in the
region may provide opportunities for short-term relief. On March 21,
2001, the department wrote letters to United and American Airlines,
urging them to make maximum use of the Greater Rockford Airport to
relieve congestion at O'Hare.
In addition, at the urging of the FAA, the city has convened the
second Chicago Delay Task Force in a decade. The task force has
initiated its evaluation of the problems at O'Hare and will make
recommendations in six to nine months. The state of Illinois is an
active participant and looks forward to working with the city and the
FAA to examine all methods to reduce delays.
With all of this new awareness of delays, there is much talk, in
many circles, about runways. Some critics have said that Governor Ryan
is standing in the way of O'Hare runway expansion. While he has not
been a proponent of runways at O'Hare, he has never rejected a plan to
alter or add runways there because no plan has ever been forwarded by
the city of Chicago.
Because the city has not forwarded a plan, the rush to consider new
runways leaves a myriad of unanswered questions. If runways are added
to O'Hare, will that solve the delay problems at O'Hare . . . and if
yes, for how long? What are the costs of this plan . . . not only in
dollars but also the costs to people in terms of noise and
displacements? What are the environmental consequences of these
runways? How would these consequences be remediated? Will they meet
current federal and state laws and regulations? Since no environmental
work has been initiated, how long will it take to construct the runways
. . . is an estimate of 7, 8 or even 10 years unreasonable? And
finally, how do new runways at O'Hare compare, in terms of costs,
benefits, and environmental and social impacts to the state's plan for
the South Suburban Airport?
No one knows the answers to these questions because an expansion
plan for O'Hare does not currently exist. For that reason, Governor
Ryan has asked the city to submit a plan for O'Hare. The city has
agreed to submit at least a conceptual plan by the beginning of July.
Within the last few months, in part because of the call to action
from civic organizations, members of Congress and state and local
officials, the heated debate about airport capacity has become a more
rational dialogue. The state of Illinois believes that the South
Suburban Airport is critical to the development of a long-term solution
to delay problems in Chicago and throughout the nation.
Finally, we will work diligently with the Delay Task Force to
identify solutions for O'Hare, and we will discuss and review any
proposal brought forward by the city.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Ms. Wheeler.
Ms. Garvey, there's been no consensus on the best way to
combat delays at O'Hare in the short term. This is in part
because the different parties can't agree on how quickly
Peotone might be built versus expansion at O'Hare. In your
opinion, which could be built more quickly, a new airport or
new runways at O'Hare?
Ms. Garvey. That's a difficult question in a sense to
answer because just listening actually to Ms. Wheeler's
comments, I think the questions she posed at the end of her
testimony are exactly the kinds of questions to ask whether
you're thinking about a new airport or a new runway.
We're putting together a great deal of information that
we'd like to submit to the Committee about which----
Senator McCain. How soon could we get that?
Ms. Garvey. We could probably get that to you by next week.
We've got some of the airports already pulled together. But I
think, in fact, what you have to really look at are what are
the environmental considerations? What are the potential plans,
what's the airport use or the airline use, and so forth.
So we can give you a sense of what's occurred at different
parts of the country and that may be helpful.
[Information referred to follows:]
Projected Costs in Response to Senate Commerce Committee Hearing
PROJECTED COST FOR A NEW RUNWAY AT CHICAGO O'HARE
On July 1 Mayor Daley presented a concept paper (copy attached) on
proposed future development of Chicago O'Hare. The concept paper is
currently under review by Governor Ryan and others.
projected cost for a new airport in peotone (south suburban airport)
An initial airport development proposal, referred to as the
``Inaugural Airport'', was described to the FAA by the Illinois
Department of Transportation,(IDOT) in 1999. The inaugural airport
would be built on 4,100 acres with a 12,140, x 200, runway, parallel
taxiway, an approximately 10 to 15 gate terminal, cargo and general
aviation facilities, access to Interstate 57 and Highway 1, an air
traffic control tower and airport surveillance radar. A cost estimate
has not been provided to the FAA. The FAA has begun a tiered
environmental impact statement (EIS) process on land only. This first
tier EIS will evaluate the IDOT's proposed landbanking of the South
Suburban Airport site and IDOT's request for FAA acceptance of the site
for potential future development. The EIS will include broad brush
assessment of potential infrastructure impacts sufficient to determine
the environmental viability of the site for future commercial airport
development, but not at the necessary level of detail to approve
infrastructure. Subsequent EISs--i.e., additional tiers--would be
required for proposed infrastructure development and any FAA approvals
related to infrastructure. A detailed cost estimate would be included
in the development of subsequent EISs, if undertaken. We anticipate the
first tier EIS will be approved by the spring of 2002. The State of
Illinois will fund the landbanking.
PROPOSED AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS FOR GARY/CHICAGO AIRPORT
The airport currently has two runways (7,000 x 150 and 3,603 x 100)
and a terminal with one jet boarding bridge and the ability to add an
additional boarding bridge. A master plan study is underway and will be
completed in early November. The draft master plan includes the
following future development:
1,900, runway extension and two high speed taxiways.
Estimated cost: $55 million,
expand the terminal to 5 gates. Estimated cost: $13
million,
de-icing pad. Estimated cost: $3.5. million.
While the runway extension is justified it is a brown field site
(environmentally questionable). It will also require relocating a
railroad, assuming the railroad will go along with the relocation, as
well as relocating a high-tension power line. The environmental impact
statement process is just beginning for the runway extension. Current
activity does not warrant the terminal expansion. Gary/Chicago Airport
did not have scheduled air carrier service until 1999 when Pan Am
Airways began serving Gary with two flights a day.
PROPOSED AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FOR GREATER ROCKFORD AIRPORT
The airport currently has two runways (8,199 x 150 and 10,000 x
150), 1 jet boarding bridge with the potential to add 2 more, and 2
ground boarding positions. Rehabilitation of the 8,199, runway will
begin this fiscal year and will be completed in fiscal year 02 at a
total cost of $8 million. The airport master plan includes a new 8,000,
parallel runway to meet future demand at an estimated cost of
approximately $21 million. At this time justification for the proposed
runway has not been demonstrated. The current airfield configuration is
adequate to meet current needs. Greater Rockford Airport has had
sporadic scheduled air carrier service. In 2001, they lost scheduled
service. Approximately 600,000 people board a bus or drive each year
from Rockford to Chicago O'Hare. Four cargo carriers serve the airport
with UPS using Rockford as a cargo hub.
Major New Airports
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Construction Federal
Locid City, State Airport Planning Decision Construction Opening Cost\1\ Amount Number of Runways: Number of Acres
Began Issued Began Date (Millions) (Millions) Length Gates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFW............................ Dallas-Ft. Worth, Dallas-Ft. Worth 1964 May 1974 Dec. 1968 Jan. 1974 $700 $60 3: 2 @11,388 x 66 18,076
TX. Int'l. 200; 1 @ 9,000 x
200.
RSW............................ Ft. Myers, FL..... Southwest Florida 1973-1974 Sept. 1977 April 1980 May 1983 $93 $27 1: 10,000 x 150... 12 to 14 3,431
Regional.
DEN............................ Denver, CO........ Denver Int'l...... 1977-1980 Sept. 1989 Sept. 1989 Feb. 1995 $3,000 $508 5: 12,000 x 150... 94 33,422
XNA............................ Fayettville, AR... Northwest Arkansas 1990 Aug. 1994 Aug. 1995 Nov. 1998 $110 $69 1: 8,800 x 150.... 6 2,184
Regional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Former military airfield converted to civil use are not included (Alexandria, LA; Austin, TX; Portsmouth, NH; Marquette, MI; Belleville, IL)
DFW: Airport opened during early days of NEPA. Environmental review was actually completed after the airport opened.
RSW: First airport subject to environmental review under NEPA.
DEN: Construction costs were $3B plus $915M in interest, $261 M in planning and land for total cost to Denver of $4.2B.
Sample of Schedules and Costs for New Runways
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Total Cost Federal
Locid City, State Airport Planning Decision Construction Opening \1\ Amount Runway Major Work Involved
Began Issued Began Date (Millions) (Millions) Length (other than pavement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFW................................ Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX.. Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l 1987 1992 1992 1996 $300 $190 8,500 Land Acquisition for
noise mitigtion
MEM................................ Memphis, TN........... Memphis Int'l......... 1984 1993 1993 1997 $121 $74 9,000 Relocation of
businesses &
residences
PHL................................ Philadelphia, PA...... Philadelphia Int'l.... 1990 1994 1996 1999 $220 $88 5,000 Small amount of land
fill
PHX................................ Phoenix, AZ........... Phoenix Sky Harbor 1989 1994 1994 2000 $185 $79 7,800 Land Acquisition
Int'l.
MIA................................ Miami, FL............. Miami Int'l \2\....... 1991 1998 2001 2003 $206 $101 8,600 Minor site prep
STL................................ St. Louis, MO......... Lambert-St. Louis \3\. 1987 1998 2001 2006 $1,100 $141 9,000 Significant relocation
of businesses and
residences
CLE................................ Cleveland, Ohio....... Cleveland-Hopkins 1991 2000 2001 2004 $500 $148 9,000 Significant land fill;
Int'l \4\. minor relocation
CVG................................ Cincinnati, KY........ Cincinnati/No. 1996 \5\ \5\ 2005 $233 TBD 8,000 Moderate relocation of
Kentucky \5\. houses and churches
SEA................................ Seattle, WA........... Seattle-Tacoma Int'l 1989 1997 \6\ 2006 $773 $216 8,500 Significant land fill;
\6\. minor relocation
ATL................................ Atlanta, GA........... Atlanta Hartsfield \7\ 1987 1994 \7\ 2001 2005 $1,100 $175 9,000 Significant
relocation; minor
site prep
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFW: Construction Cost includes approximately $125 million for land acquisition/mitigation. Cost does not include NAVAIDs or changes to DFW airspace as part of the Metroplex Plan Upgrade to
accommodate 2 new runways.
\1\ Not adjusted for inflation.
\2\ Runway is currently under construction.
\3\ STL: Construction to begin on temporary road system in July 01.
\4\ CLE: 7,000 of runway will open in 2002 with full 9,000 runway opening in 2004.
\5\ CVG: Land acquisition to begin in 2002, assuming favorable environmental findings. Estimate ROD will be issued October 2001. Construction to begin in 2002.
\6\ SEA: Rwy construction suspended due to endangered species isue that has held up 401/404 permits. Initial site preparation underway.
\7\ ATL: Land acquisition and site preparation underway for 6,000 runway (FONSI issued 1994). Draft EIS for 9,000 runway issued December 2000.
Senator McCain. Ms. Wheeler states in her testimony that a
new airport in Peotone can be up and running in less than 5
years. Do you agree that a new airport can be planned and built
and operational in 5 years?
Ms. Garvey. That would be a record, if that were the case.
And I think a lot will depend on what we see at the end of the
first tier. But certainly, we're willing to work with the
Department on those issues.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Walker, a case has been made
that O'Hare is falling behind other major cities that are
building new runways. For years, the City has denied that
O'Hare needed expansion. Why hasn't the City proposed new
runways until now?
Mr. Walker. Senator, as I stated in my testimony, the Delay
Task Force in 1991 recommended reconfiguration and the
addition----
Senator McCain. The task force did but the City didn't.
Mr. Walker. It did, in fact. The City was aware of the
position of the former Governor and the present Governor on
additional runways at O'Hare. It would have been
counterproductive for us to expend time and effort in preparing
something that the Governor was on record as being opposed to.
Senator McCain. Would it have been counterproductive to
propose an expansion of runways at O'Hare because the Governor
was opposed? I don't know many mayors that are reluctant to
propose things that they believe are necessary because the
Governor might object. Perhaps this mayor is much more shy and
retiring than I had anticipated. I don't quite understand that.
Mr. Walker. Not quite. And of course, I was not Aviation
Commissioner at the time, but that, in fact, has been the case.
The three Governors had made it very clear their position on
expansion at O'Hare and therefore no proposal has ever been put
together actually proposing new runways.
Senator McCain. Has the City made any calculations as to
how much it would cost to expand capacity at O'Hare? That's
going to be a very major aspect of this issue.
Mr. Walker. That's part of our ongoing analysis and by July
1 we expect to have some estimates based on the concepts that
we plan to present to Governor Ryan.
Senator McCain. How soon can we expect cost estimates of
one new runway and then again two new runways at O'Hare? I
think that's going to be a critical factor in the
decisionmaking.
Mr. Walker. I expect that we will have some rough estimates
along with the concepts that we provide to the Governor on July
1.
Senator McCain. By the first of July. Thank you, thank you
very much.
Ms. Wheeler, there are currently several airports in the
area that are underutilized and have excess capacity. It's been
argued that Gary, Indiana; Rockford Airport; Milwaukee's
General Mitchell Airport can handle the excess capacity. Has
the state looked at how to utilize this excess capacity instead
of building a new airport?
Ms. Wheeler. When we talk about existing airports and their
excess capacity, it's not on the same level as the type of
capacity needs we're going to have into the future, into the
21st Century. It's true that we believe it's important that the
airlines look to use what's out there today and see if that
can't be part of the solution.
But when we look toward the region's aviation capacity
needs into the future, 20 years out, during the study period
that we had done with forecasting all during the 1990's, it
showed a need of 30 million enplanements that was unmet by the
region's existing airports even allowing for them to grow
substantially during that time.
So, while we welcome the existing airports' part of the
solution, they can't solve our future needs.
Senator McCain. Why is it the state convinced that the
expansion of O'Hare is not the answer or part of the solution?
Ms. Wheeler. Even when we did our existing studies that
forecast into the future, even when you--we have seen no actual
numbers that show us what runways might produce and at what
cost additional runways at O'Hare but----
Senator McCain. But common sense tells us that new runways
do increase capacity.
Ms. Wheeler. Right. Nonetheless, it still doesn't reach to
the type of dimensions of what we're saying. We need to be able
to serve this region into the future. O'Hare is already a 40-
year-old airport. It's on less than 8,000 acres. It has
substantial noise difficulties. When we did our studies, we
even considered that O'Hare would have significant passenger
expansion, enplanement expansion.
But it doesn't come to the equivalency of 30 million
additional passengers. We're looking at adding a new airport
with the capacity to grow for the aviation's future demand up
to six runways, 30 million enplanements.
Senator McCain. When you say consensus that there's no one
solution to this problem, part of the solution could be the
expansion of O'Hare. Part of the solution could be a new
runway. Part of the solution could be additional utilization of
existing airports in the area.
I don't quite get the logic of just excluding a new runway
at O'Hare unless there are compelling factors, such as cost
which may dictate otherwise. And I hope--my time is expired and
I hope you will enter that into your calculations. And we would
also appreciate not only the cost that you stated of 600
million dollars for one runway and 12 gates. But the cost and
time involved to have a fully operational mature airport as
well. That cost estimate, I think, is an important one as well.
And my time is expired.
Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Garvey,
this whole thing reminds me very much a number of years ago of
when Dulles Airport, National Airport and Baltimore-Washington
were all at war with each other. And there was a lot of
politics and geography and constituency in the state, state
stuff involved.
And the theory at the time was oh, you could do one, you
could do the other. But you surely can't, you can't be nice to
everybody. And of course, as it worked out, we did all of them,
in that case creating a regional airport, authority which could
issue AAA rated bonds. And all are booming. And, you know, the
capacity is just overwhelming.
Now, you look at O'Hare. I start with the premise that you
have to do O'Hare. I don't, nevertheless, end with that premise
because if O'Hare is reconfigured, let's say Plan A of the Plan
A, Plan B; either way, with parallels sets of runways,
reconfigure. It's expensive but it has to, I believe it has to
be done because it's a huge part of capacity.
On the other hand, if you look at technology and delays and
what that extended or reconfiguration of runways, it doesn't
mean there are a great many more numbers of runways. It just
means they're laid out in a way which is more convenient for
delays and take offs and landings.
Nevertheless, the increase in capacity at O'Hare doesn't
grow that much. In other words, you're talking maybe 12, 16,
whatever it is percent. I'm looking at the next 10 years, 15
years, that's what you do all the time, doubling the air
traffic, air people flying. UPS, FedEx. FedEx is what now? The
third largest airline in the world, so to speak.
So, I mean, all of these things are going to be required.
And doesn't it therefore follow almost mathematically that,
yes, you got to do O'Hare. You got to do that. But it is not
going to be sufficient to handle all the capacity needed for
the next 10, 15, 25 years.
Ms. Garvey. I would agree, Senator. Again, I think there's
still a lot of unanswered questions. But I would agree with
both your comments and Senator McCain's.
Senator Rockefeller. But you do agree it would not be
sufficient. It has to happen.
Ms. Garvey. It is not going to be sufficient.
Senator Rockefeller. It has to happen, right?
Ms. Garvey. That's exactly right.
Senator Rockefeller. But it wouldn't be sufficient.
Ms. Garvey. That's exactly right.
Senator Rockefeller. Therefore the question is, what would
be the other place or other places to go?
Ms. Garvey. Exactly. The question becomes how then do you
provide the additional capacity.
Senator Rockefeller. Yeah.
Ms. Garvey. Whether it's a combination of a number of the
options that have been mentioned earlier, and timing I think is
important as well.
Senator Rockefeller. And speaking of timing, I want to make
it clear that Chairman McCain and myself, Senator Hutchinson
and others are on this sort of--everybody says it takes 15
years, 13 years to build. Well, we hope that by the end of the
summer it's not going to because we're going to pass a bill
which will encapsulate the whole study and environmental
process into a 5-year period. So that everything will go from,
say, the 13 years and 15 years in Seattle to 5 years
everywhere.
That will be the federal law so that things will be able to
happen more quickly. Mr. Walker, and I'm not just saying that
to you. I'm saying that generally for the record.
Mr. Walker, wouldn't you also agree with what I just
stated? I mean, I agree with you that O'Hare has to be done.
That's where you've got to--it's here. It's got to be
reconfigured. Sure, there's going to be some inconvenience.
But, you know, airports are pretty skillful at taking care of
construction and still handling.
But for the longer term, O'Hare isn't going to be able to
handle the traffic. I mean, you had five million people coming
in and out of here in 1960. You've got 72 million today. It's
going to be 150 million in 15 years.
Mr. Walker. And we certainly have the capability to serve
that need far into the future. And the question----
Senator Rockefeller. Well, tell me, why do you say that you
have that. I suggested that your capacity for landing and all
may only increase 12, 16, 18 percent, which is a big increase
but not nearly according to the needs of the future.
Mr. Walker. Certainly, with only reconfiguration that would
be true. But if we were to add additional runways and if they
were to be configured properly, the increase in capacity could
be far larger than what you estimated. It certainly won't
fulfill all the needs into the infinite future. And we will
eventually need additional----
Senator Rockefeller. So you don't preclude the need for
another option. You just say we've got to do O'Hare but you
don't preclude the need for another.
Mr. Walker. No. Except that we emphasize that we ought to
be investing where we already have infrastructure. And as I
stated earlier, we probably have 400,000 excess operational
capacity in the region right now at these airports that
testified earlier today.
And so the need for a specific airport, for instance, a
brand new airport, is dubious in the near to mid- or the long-
term future.
Senator Rockefeller. My time is up and Ms. Wheeler, I'll
have a question for you at the second round. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Senator Fitzgerald.
Senator Fitzgerald. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Walker, I noted from the newspaper article that the City had
signed a contract with Southwest Airways pertaining to
Southwest's agreement to share part of the cost in building new
terminals at Midway. And I have a copy of that contract and it
appears to say that if a third airport is built within 50 miles
of Midway, then Southwest will be able to get out of its
contract to pay for the cost of that terminal at Midway. Is
that correct? Is that your understanding?
Mr. Walker. I'm aware of that agreement, yes.
Senator Fitzgerald. Does that agreement mean that the City,
in fact, the agreement goes on to seem to require the City to
oppose a third airport until the year 2012. My question would
be, will the City, because of that agreement with Southwest,
have to oppose a third airport, other than at Gary, Illinois,
no matter what is given the City at O'Hare?
Mr. Walker. I would have to confer with our corporation
counsel to get their interpretation of that agreement.
Senator Fitzgerald. I have spoken to Southwest and that's
their interpretation and they are threatening to move if you
ever do anything that would advance the ball even a little bit
to a third airport.
And for Ms. Garvey, I wondered as Ms. Wheeler stated that
back in 1984 when FAA approved the city of Chicago's last
airport, the NASAR Plan was it? That they told the City or the
region that they had to start planning a third airport. And in
1988, August 1988, this study came out, the Chicago Airport
Capacity Study, and the FAA and the city of Chicago
participated in it.
The conclusion was that it wasn't feasible to expand either
Midway or O'Hare. And the reason for that was because they're
both in dense urban areas. As you see O'Hare Airport, which is
filled up with seven runways, it's bounded by interstate
expressways on two sides and major roadways on the other sides
and railroad beds. And the FAA, for that reason, engaged in a
study of where a third airport should be and they concluded
that it should be in the southwest, south suburb.
A couple of years later, when President Clinton took
office, Mayor Daley requested that the third airport be removed
from the NPIAS list. Why did the FAA remove the third airport
from the NPIAS list after they had just done a study saying we
need--that study says we need a third airport by the year 2000.
And here we are in 2001.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, at that point there was, I think,
great disagreement between the FAA and Illinois, at least in
1997, over the forecast and size and scope of the project. I'm
pleased to say that's behind us and, as I mentioned, we're
working on the tiered approach environmentally. And that work
is underway. So, we are on the right course and the right track
now.
Senator Fitzgerald. Do you think any politics came into
play in that decision?
Ms. Garvey. You know, in Chicago it's always interesting in
politics, I think.
Senator Fitzgerald. Mr. Walker, what percentage of the
flights at O'Hare are for corporate jets and for charters right
now? Do you know?
Mr. Walker. I don't have that number. It's relatively small
at O'Hare.
Senator Fitzgerald. Do you think when all the passenger
large planes at 300 plus people are confronted with delays, do
you think it makes sense to continue to allow corporate jets
and charter flights to operate out of the City? Couldn't that
kind of capacity be put out to Rockford Airport, even Gary or
DuPage or some of the many other facilities?
Mr. Walker. Well, the operators of those aircraft are
pretty sophisticated in their understanding of the facilities
in the region. And they generally are able to make pretty good
decisions about the likelihood of them getting in and out of
O'Hare within the timeframe that's convenient to them based on
the destination of their passengers.
So, I think they're able to make pretty good decisions on
their own without getting dictated to about where to go. And
they have decided, in some cases, to move their operations to
Midway or other regional airports.
Senator Fitzgerald. And am I----
Senator McCain. Yeah, we'll have a second round.
Senator Fitzgerald. OK, we'll have a second round. Thank
you very much.
Senator McCain. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On this
Southwest lease, it is interesting because it says according to
the lease signed between the city of Chicago and Southwest
Airlines, if a new airport opens they have a right to terminate
the lease early. A new airport within 50 miles of the Midway
Airport. They can terminate their lease at Midway 4 years early
at their own option effective December 31, 2008.
If the city of Chicago enters into a contract with any new
airport restricting operations at Midway, then they can
terminate it within 60 days, as I read this. Which raises some
interesting questions, which Senator Fitzgerald has posed about
the impact of any new airport on Southwest lease with Midway.
But I do think we have to take into consideration that even a
construction of an airport at Peotone would raise question as
to whether or not Southwest could leave its lease at Midway. As
I read it they have an option to leave early if that happens.
And I think they even discussed this with the Department of
Transportation, one of their concerns.
So, it is not as simple as it first appears. But I want to
get down to some basic questions. Ms. Garvey, I read an article
in Times and Newsweek a few months ago about airport
congestion. And there was one unnamed official from the FAA who
was quoted, who said, ``If I had one wish, if there was one
thing I could do to improve airport, airline efficiency and
reduce delay and congestion in America it would be to do
something about O'Hare''.
I was kind of stunned by that because it was a long article
about a lot of different things, air traffic control and the
like. Is that your conclusion as well that O'Hare is really the
major, one of the, at least one of the major problems facing us
in terms of national airline congestion?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I think certainly, Senator, it's one of
the major ones. If you look at the benchmarks, for example,
we've identified eight airports that we consider to be the
pacing airports. Those are the airports where when you have a
problem it really affects the system.
Certainly O'Hare is one of them. LaGuardia is another one
where it really has an affect on the whole system. And actually
if you look at the worst part of the country in terms of
congestion, where we really feel the congestion, it is the
triangle from Chicago to my home town of Boston down to
Washington and then back up to Chicago.
So, much of our effort in the last year has been to release
some of the choke points in the area. But clearly Chicago is
one of those critical airports.
Senator Durbin. You can help us. I think the Chairman has
asked for that help in trying to come up with some honest
estimates as to cost and time lines to do things, to build
runways and airports. Some of the estimates that we're dealing
with at this hearing are so wildly different. There's just a
lack of credibility.
Some people think that if you're going to estimate the cost
of a runway at O'Hare, you add in all of the attendant cost to
moving highways, traffic congestion and terminals and put it
all together and say, well, every runway is going to cost us 10
to 12 billion dollars, way beyond any of the numbers that we've
seen for runway construction itself.
And yet when they estimate the opening of an airport such
as Peotone, they estimate it can open in 5 years and there's no
mention about the infrastructure supportive of such an airport.
So I hope that the FAA can help us in trying to put some honest
figures on the table for the course of this hearing.
Ms. Garvey. Well, we'll certainly do that, Senator. And
we'll be very mindful as we're breaking it down to state just
what those costs include. And we'll give you some good
examples, I think, of what it's been in other places.
Senator Durbin. Ms. Wheeler, let me try to get the bottom
line on the state's position here. I think what we've heard
from Ms. Garvey and Mr. Walker is at least the belief that
O'Hare should be first priority and other things might be
considered, depending on your timeframe, how you look at
things.
Does the state of Illinois and the Governor, at this point,
take the position that you can't modernize O'Hare or add or
expand service to existing airports like Rockford or Gary,
except at the expense of Peotone?
Ms. Wheeler. No, absolutely not. We're participating in the
Delay Task Force. And we're pleased that the City and FAA have
convened it. We have called upon the airlines to look at the
underutilized capacity at existing airports. As I said earlier,
while we've never been supporters of the runways at O'Hare, we
have asked the City to get us information on that because we
have never seen information.
There's been a lot of concern about what sort of impact any
sort of runways at O'Hare might have on those communities that
you saw on the map that are so close to the airport. And we're
very anxious to see answers to those sorts of questions.
Senator Durbin. Well, Ms. Wheeler, if you could clarify
that. And I want to make sure it's clear on the record. I think
you just said that we have never supported new runways at
O'Hare but we've never seen a proposal.
Ms. Wheeler. That's true.
Senator Durbin. So you start with the assumption that
you're opposed to new runways at O'Hare before you see the
proposal?
Ms. Wheeler. There's been great concern because of the
impact on those who live so close to O'Hare--the noise impact.
The City has indicated they've spent, what? $400 million in
trying to soundproof homes in the vicinity of the airport.
Senator Durbin. Has this been successful in reducing noise
problems?
Ms. Wheeler. I think there's still a number of homes and
schools and facilities out there that are talking to the
Commissioner about seeking additional help.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. And there's an ongoing commitment on the part
of the City and the airlines to fund further noise mitigation.
We have an ongoing program. In addition, the improvements that
have been made in aircraft technology, the quieter airplanes,
will reduce the noise footprint in the area around the airport
and take out of the 70 decibel level of contour, something like
22,000 homes.
So, we're making progress in terms of reducing the impact
to the communities around the airport.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. Thank you. I want to say to all the
witnesses, we need cost and time estimates. Not the Congress,
but the people of Illinois and the taxpayers of America deserve
better than what they've been getting. And I'm a bit surprised
and a little unhappy that we don't have better estimates.
This is not a new issue. And we need to have much better
estimates of the cost and time involved with these options.
Otherwise, rational decisions cannot be made. And Ms. Garvey,
in your estimates, I think you also ought to include the
projected time and cost associated with an expansion of Gary or
Rockford or other airports, which are other options which are
being discussed today.
I just have one additional question. I know my colleagues
have a number of additional questions. Ms. Garvey, in her
written statement Ms. Wheeler points out that O'Hare is a
fortress hub of two powerful airlines, American and United.
Then she goes on to say according to the U.S. Department of
Transportation data, O'Hare's fares per mile is 21 percent
above the average of the 68 large and--airports in 1995. By
1999, O'Hare's fares were 34 percent higher.
We all know, it's been established with Congressional
hearings, we have one of two airlines dominate. The GAO has
done several studies to show where they dominate and airfares
are dramatically higher. It's one of the fundamental laws of
economics.
So, let's go through a scenario here. Peotone is built.
None of the major airlines, these two major airlines will go
there. What does that mean? Does that mean that we've got a
white elephant or is it in your view that airlines like Virgin
and others would locate there and provide their service? What's
your view of that?
Ms. Garvey. You know, it's interesting because we were
talking about this yesterday. In fact, we were talking about
the Dulles situation. I remember those early discussions about
Dulles and it was really a case of people saying, ``Oh, if you
build it they're not going to come.'' But, in fact, it turned
out----
Senator Durbin. They did come.
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. They did come. And I don't know
the answer to that here, quite frankly. It does feel like a
chicken and egg situation. But it certainly seems to me that as
it's worth looking at some of the market. I'm not an airline
analyst, and I don't know all the answers to that, but it would
certainly seem to me it would be worth sitting down, talking
with the airlines and saying, let's take a look at this market.
And as Ms. Wheeler has suggested, asking is there underused
capacity? Is there a way to use it? And is there really a
market for Peotone?
My guess is they're looking at those decisions. They've
done some analysis of that as well. It would be interesting to
get some help from the bond market to see what, from their
perspective, the market would say. When you have to fund these
projects, the bond markets pay very close attention to what the
market will bear.
Senator McCain. Do you have a feel on that, Ms. Wheeler?
Ms. Wheeler. Yes. First of all, the state of Illinois has
pledged that we won't begin construction on this airport until
we have airline tenants who are interested in using it. We
haven't really been in a position to forcefully seek airline
tenants because of the problems with not having the record of
decision.
And now that that's proceeding forward and the land is now
being acquired, we feel that we'll be in a better position in
another year to 2 years to be talking turkey, if you will, with
airlines.
Senator McCain. Now, if history is true, there will be
airlines who will want to be there. Denver went through this
whole situation and it was viewed that nobody would locate 40
miles out. And now they're operating at near capacity. Do you
believe the projections for the air passenger travel that
somebody's going to be there to fill the vacuum. So, I wouldn't
be too concerned about it but I think that it's an issue.
Finally, Mr. Walker, I appreciate the outstanding job you
do for the city of Chicago and your public service. But quite
often actions speak louder than words. And I'm sure you're not
responsible for it. But the deal made with Southwest is an
action that indicates that the city of Chicago is not only not
interested in the additional airport but it's taken actions
which would penalize the city of Chicago if a new airport were
built within 50 miles of the city of Chicago.
And I don't think that was a proper action on the part of
the city of Chicago. And I really don't think the citizens of
the state were well-served by that kind of agreement because
you're going to have great difficulty if Peotone is or another
airport is deemed necessary, which many of us think there's a
certain inevitability about that scenario. And I'll be glad to
hear your response to that.
Mr. Walker. Well, as you said, Senator, I was not involved
in that. We have to deal with the situation as it is now. And
the requirements are what they are. And it is certainly true
that it presents a difficulty should a third airport move
forward.
Senator McCain. I thank you, sir. Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker,
let me just ask you a technical question. With gates, it
becomes very important, it seems to me, as that evolves. What
percentage of the gates will be controlled by airlines and what
percentage will be controlled by the airport?
Mr. Walker. Approximately two thirds of the new gates will
be controlled, what we call a preferential allocation to
airlines. And a third to the airport itself so that we can make
those available to any airlines. So we'll have approximately
eight gates that the City will control and can make those
available to new entrants or other expansion of existing
carriers.
Senator Rockefeller. The reason I say that is because every
state in America has rural parts. And, you know, United is now
on junk bond basis. The settlements that are being made are
going to virtually price airlines, potentially price airlines
out of business. So we're almost, we're not exactly facing a
casual situation here.
So, that means that competition really does have to work.
If there's a delay in Chicago, as indeed I was delayed about an
hour getting in last night which was fine. I was happy to land
and happy to go to a local hotel and get a good sleep, or at
least a sleep. But on the other hand, at some point, you have
to move, right? You have to--Jane Garvey mentioned the chicken
and egg thing.
I'm not sure there's a chicken and egg thing involved here.
Again, it's the numbers. Now, Jane, you said you don't
administrate--you don't have the final numbers. But I don't
think you would disagree with what I stipulated earlier and
that is that, as I believe, that you should, we should do
O'Hare. I mean, I start with that assumption because why would
you not? That's a question I would have for you, Ms. Wheeler,
so you be thinking about that. Why would you not do that?
Now, if you look at the paddage, 5 million to 72 million,
60 to 2000. And then you go 20 years out, 25 years out. I mean,
it's almost impossible to conceive of a situation wherein there
does not have to be other options. So, the so-called chicken
and egg thing--I remember Dulles. I mean, I remember being in
Washington in the 1960's and Dulles was all out there by itself
and nobody was going. And actually I was at that point pushing
for a regional airport in West Virginia. I'm now holding back
on our current situation, as you know, because I've got to
worry about, you know, just getting in and out of this service
that we have today.
But, I mean, people were just wrong about Dulles. They were
flat out wrong. And it's now expanding and it has to keep
expanding and then it has to keep on expanding. And that's
because people want to travel. And, you know, we may have a
couple of down years in our recession and people will travel
less. But Americans are going to travel, they're going to
travel more than anybody in the history of civilization.
They're going to keep on.
So, don't you agree that there has to be, along with the
growth and the reconfiguration of O'Hare, another option and,
like Chairman McCain, to me it's a question of where that best
one is, where it's the most convenient. You know, all that kind
of thing. Don't you agree with that?
Mr. Walker. Senator, there are a couple of concerns that we
have about the premise that you laid out. One is that we're in
an era of deregulation at this point where airlines choose to
go where they believe that there's a market for their services.
And in the case of building a new airport, frequently in
the past, the existing airport or the old airport has been
closed or restrictions have been placed on the operation of
existing airports in order to try and force traffic to that new
airport. We would be concerned about those kinds of constraints
on activity at our existing airports.
Senator Rockefeller. Let me probe that. Why, if there are
so many people out there in the future who want to travel and
have to stop in Illinois and Chicago in order to get where
they're next going to go, why are there the constraints about
where the airplanes are going to have to--I mean, they're not
going to have any choice but to go to, you know, whatever's
available.
Mr. Walker. We don't believe there should be any but I'm
saying that some of the cases that you've cited, the existing
airport closed down when the new facility was opened up. And we
would be concerned that there be any attempt to limit the
operations at our existing airports in order to force traffic
to a new airport.
Senator Rockefeller. Would you believe me if I told you
that Teeterborough Airport has more landings and takeoffs than
LaGuardia Airport?
Mr. Walker. I would believe you. We've got a new airline,
Indigo, at Midway that is providing service.
Senator Rockefeller. OK. But see, that makes my point. I
mean, there's so much traffic that Teeterborough, which many
people in the country never heard of, has a lot more traffic
than LaGuardia, so at least substantially more than LaGuardia.
Ms. Wheeler, along with Senator McCain's question, why is
it not in the interest of the Governor to make sure that
Illinois can service all of the people who are going to be
coming into this great state where I and Sonny got married, so
I care about it, and want to have a solution that accommodates
all of those people? So why would there be an instinct not to
do O'Hare as well as look at other things, other possibilities
when you know that the capacity demand is going to be there for
O'Hare plus another option? And maybe in the future another two
options.
Ms. Wheeler. I think, Senator, that the key question here
is that with respect to additional aviation capacity at a new
airport, we've done 17 years of studies. We've done extensive
environmental and other studies to get to the point where we
are today with a record of decision likely to come in less than
a year.
With respect to what may be the impacts, the benefits, et
cetera, associated with the runway at O'Hare, there has been
none of that work done. There has been no plan offered. The
Governor has been very, very concerned about the impacts, even
today, of O'Hare on the communities around it. The communities
have been very vocal in their concerns about the impacts of
O'Hare on their day to day life.
We need to see information. And we've asked for that
information and the City has pledged to get us that information
by the beginning of July.
Senator Rockefeller. With the indulgence of the Chairman, I
just have to say that the Chairman has asked for information
and we're going to get information hopefully next week, but I
don't need information. If I'm looking at 5 million in 1960 and
72 million in 2000. What, I mean, common sense tells you that
people want to travel. They're going to have the money to
travel. Americans travel. We're wanderers, all right? And
you're the beneficiary of that. Why would you deny yourself any
single part of that benefit?
Ms. Wheeler. I think that's why we've been working for 17
years to try to get that additional capacity in the region.
Senator Rockefeller. OK.
Senator McCain. Senator Fitzgerald.
Senator Fitzgerald. Well, I'm just struck after listening
to all the different witnesses on this panel and the one
before. It is pretty obvious what, in part, what is going on
here is there are political battles to retain control of
aviation capacity within political jurisdictions.
Obviously, the business community and the city of Chicago,
the political leaders, the Mayor of the city of Chicago would
like to keep all the traffic in the City. Rockford community
leaders are here. They'd like traffic up in Rockford. South
suburban leaders are here. They want economic development in
the south suburbs.
What has been happening up till now is that raw political
clout has been determining where all the traffic and capacity
is going to be. But sometimes that system has been at the
expense of the traveling public and at the expense of creating
new aviation capacity that can be rationally used.
And I wonder if Ms. Garvey, doesn't this case study in
Chicago here kind of suggest that in an area like Chicago,
wouldn't we all be better off if we weren't fighting amongst
ourselves like a bunch of different Balkanized regions. Or
instead all fully together and trying to create a regional
board of some sort that would make sure that we didn't have the
waste we're seeing with two wonderful runways up in Rockford.
One 10,000 feet, the other 8,500 feet the only time used
because United and American are running free shuttle buses from
the Rockford Airport down to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
Don't you think there's a case to be made for some kind of
regional oversight in a situation like this?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I think certainly, Senator, any time you
have an issue like this and you look at it regionally, it's an
advantage, absolutely. And they're doing that in other places.
Senator Fitzgerald. What other places have done that?
Ms. Garvey. I think as Los Angeles, for example, is looking
at their expansion of their airport, they're also looking at
how it can fit with all of the regional airports. It's a little
bit easier there. They do control all of them. But in the New
England region, a number of the Governors in the New England
area have gotten together to look at aviation from a regional
perspective. So, I think you make a good point looking at
things regionally is always----
Senator Fitzgerald. Isn't there some way that Congress
could be helpful here by getting one regional body together.
And finally, just for Mr. Walker, I don't know why but somehow
the Committee gave me a copy of your testimony. I guess it was
a draft of your testimony. And it had some additions and
deletions.
And I noticed that one of the deletions or an editor's
notes on this draft that was sent to my office said that we
needed to rework this ending here because it makes the argument
why Chicago should be asking for runways, not why Congress
should. And I do have a question here. Why has Chicago never
put forward a request for runways and why are they having
Congress make the request for runways?
Mr. Walker. We certainly are not urging Congress to do
that.
Senator Fitzgerald. Do you support Congress getting
involved here? Does the city of Chicago want Congress to get
involved here?
Mr. Walker. We wish it were not necessary and we hope that
it won't be. We hope that we can get resolution within the
region----
Senator Fitzgerald. So you oppose Congress getting
involved.
Mr. Walker. We don't oppose. We hope that we can avoid it
by coming to a recommendation on how to move forward and taking
action so that Congress doesn't have to act.
Senator Fitzgerald. Do you want Congress to make proposals
in other areas or just as to expanding O'Hare? Do you want them
to look at other issues as well in Chicago aviation? Like Meigs
Field, for example.
Mr. Walker. We certainly have no desire to reopen the
discussion about Meigs Field. That's an issue that we thought
was settled.
Senator Fitzgerald. All right. You're very good. Thank you
very much.
Senator McCain. Senator Durbin, you have additional----
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Let me just say on the
suggestion by Senator Fitzgerald on the regional approach. I
think there's value to it and I want salute Representative
Hamos because I think that's what her study came up with was
trying to integrate all of the airport resources that we have
into something that makes sense.
But of course, we can't do that just at the governmental
level. You need players. And the players are the airlines. And
they have to be enticed to come to these airports and to use
them for a variety of different purposes. And as a person who
hails from downstate and spends a good part of my time with our
six airports, we spend most of that time trying to lure
airlines to our airports.
We have great airports and they just sit there because we
need to get more people to use them. And we work on that and we
should continue to. But I don't think the idea of regionalism
is a bad one. I think it's a very good one. I want to salute
Representative Hamos for her leadership with George Scully on
that issue.
I'd like to ask you this, Ms. Wheeler, one of the things
that we talked around and should get right to the point on is
who pays for these things? When we're talking about airports
and runways, who pays for them? I'll tell you what is my
understanding and please tell me what is yours and I invite the
panel.
It's my understanding that whether we're talking about
runways or airports the three major sources are passenger
facility charges, which means that O'Hare, the money that's
being collected from every passenger going through there is
building into a fund that can be used for that airport and its
expansion.
Second, the airlines. When it came to Denver, as Senator
McCain has said, initially the only airline interested in
Denver was bankrupt, Continental. And eventually United said,
``well, we'll come out there too'', when the choice was clear
that Stapleton was not going to be open any longer. And United
went and now has a big presence there. But they made a big
investment.
Let me say parenthetically, that's one of the reasons for
the Southwest lease. They're making a huge investment in
Midway. They are very conscious of the fact that another
airport might be built nearby that can either compete with
their massive investment at Midway or might be an option for
them to move to. So why would they include the issue of another
airport in their lease on Midway? For obvious commercial
reasons. This is their bottom line.
And the third source beyond PMC's and airlines, would be
the AIP funds, the Airport Improvement Program funds coming out
of Washington.
Now, as you look at this--am I missing any element here,
there might be some others, but out of those three major
elements how will Peotone be built? If there's no airline that
wants to come forward now and put the money up for Peotone, if
they don't have passenger facility charges in Peotone and I'm
sure they don't, do you believe that the state is going to fund
the construction of Peotone or that the Federal Government will
pay for it?
Ms. Wheeler. We have worked through a number of financial
models, worked with the financial industry on this. And there
are two ways that we've considered. One is the conventional way
that would be a combination of funds. Once you know you have
airline tenants, you're able to use the----
Senator Durbin. It takes an airline.
Ms. Wheeler [continuing]. General aviation revenue bonds or
the GARB Bonds, and some federal funding to go with that, a
letter of intent over 10 years.
Senator Durbin. A pretty substantial federal investment?
Ms. Wheeler. We were talking about a 600 million dollar
airport. We had done financial planning that said in the area
of 150 to 200 million dollars in federal funds spread out over
a 10-year period. And you could make that financially work.
We also said that another thing we might consider, and we
have had private sector firms come to us and ask us about this,
is taking on a private partner who would put equity in this and
do design, build, operate. That model hasn't really been done
in this country but it has been done in other places in the
world. And as I say, there've been a few large firms that have
come to us and talked about this idea with us.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask my last question of Ms. Wheeler.
The Mayor has said that by July 1st he is going to present some
general concept. I don't know how far that will go. We'll wait
and see. I think it is clear from this hearing that there is a
feeling of impatience and frustration on a national level about
the Chicagoland airline aviation situation.
What kind of assurance can you give me, in terms of
response from the Governor and the Illinois Department of
Transportation to the Mayor's proposal? How quickly will you
respond and be willing to sit down and see if we can say to
people in the Congress, we can solve our problems right here in
Illinois. We don't need the solution imposed on us by Congress.
Ms. Wheeler. We certainly are going to give that our
absolute top priority and give it a fair and hard and quick
look. We understand that now is not the time to delay.
Senator Durbin. Is September 1st an unreasonable deadline
for the state of Illinois to respond to the Mayor's proposal?
Ms. Wheeler. I think part of that will depend on to what
extent the Mayor's proposal is able to be detailed, how many
questions it leaves unanswered and so on. But we'll have to do
that first review and see where it leads us.
Senator Durbin. I understand that and that's a fair answer.
But I really urge you in speaking to the Governor that he
understand that this September 1st response and evidence of
progress is really important to a lot of people who are
watching this closely in Washington. Thank you.
Senator McCain. Any further questions or comments? I want
to thank the witnesses--oh, sure.
Senator Rockefeller. Just actually, from a different words
would like to ask the same question to both of you. And that
is, I mean, this is an awkward thing to say but, yes, O'Hare
and aviation belongs to political jurisdictions.
But it doesn't, you know, I mean, like the interstate goes
through West Virginia. We pay our 10 percent, the feds pay
their 90 percent. It is national. It is national. I mean,
that's where the people say I cannot have any noise. Well, we
have a house 3 miles off the end of an airport. And we get
noise. We like the place. We stop talking every 3 minutes for
10 seconds and then go on.
You know, aviation is taking over the world. The interstate
highway system no longer does it. People don't, just in time.
Everything is going toward crowded skies.
Therefore, would you both agree to me that it is important
that the Mayor and the Governor, by September 1st, either a
reacting to the Mayor's plan or the Mayor reacting to the
Governor's plan, that Congress has a right to start getting
really annoyed about the national requirements and the national
suffering because the Mayor and the Governor and whatever
political jurisdictions and other airports and other options
refuse to reach an agreement? Do you agree that there's a
possibility that you can get an agreement by September 1st so
we don't have to do what we will do?
Mr. Walker. I believe that, Senator.
Senator Rockefeller. Do you, Ms. Wheeler?
Ms. Wheeler. I believe that. And we certainly understand
that you're annoyed today. And----
Senator Rockefeller. I'm not annoyed today. I'm annoyed all
the time about delays, wherever they are, wherever they occur
in this country for reasons which are insufficient and which
can be solved. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Wheeler. It's a national----
Senator McCain. People of goodwill and work together and
solve the issues that oftentimes seem intractable. I believe
that that's the message I think is loud and clear in this
hearing.
So, I thank you all for coming. Thank you Mr. Walker, Ms.
Wheeler, Ms. Garvey. I especially thank you for forgoing some
other previous obligations to be here. Thank you.
Our next panel is Mr. Joe Karaganis, who's the general
counsel of the Suburban O'Hare Commission; Mr. Lester Crown,
who's the Chairman of Material Services Corporation; Mr. Ed
Paesel, who is the Executive Director of South Suburban Mayors
and Managers Association; and the Honorable Mark Schwiebert,
who is the Mayor of the city of Rock Island. If you would come
forward.
We'll continue the hearing. And Mr. Karaganis, is that the
proper pronunciation?
Mr. Karaganis. It is, Senator, thank you.
Senator McCain. And Mayor Schwiebert, I apologize for
mispronouncing your name.
Mr. Karaganis, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOE KARAGANIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, SUBURBAN O'HARE
COMMISSION
Mr. Karaganis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Suburban O'Hare Commission on the vital question of what to do
about the Chicago region's aviation capacity problem.
I've prepared a rather detailed presentation of testimony,
which I'm not going to go over in my oral remarks today.
Senator McCain. All of the written testimony will be made
part of the record.
Mr. Karaganis. Thank you. And I've also, Senator McCain,
submitted a memorandum to Mr. Chamberlain, your counsel, with
regard to some questions that he's raised in addition that I
would ask to be made part of the record.
Senator McCain. Without objection.
Mr. Karaganis. I think again, despite all of the talk about
dissention, several key facts are being agreed upon. They're
being agreed upon because people are being forced to address
them.
One fact is there's a widespread regional consensus now,
except, I might add, by the city of Chicago, but maybe they're
coming around too, that we need major new capacity in the
region. Senator Fitzgerald has talked about this. Congressman
Hyde's talked about it, Congressman Jackson, the Suburban
O'Hare Commission. We're major advocates of it.
One of the facts that I'd like this Committee to address is
the fact that O'Hare is out of capacity now by any standard
used by the FAA, by any standard used by the city of Chicago,
by any standard used by the state of Illinois. It's out of
capacity now and it has been for several years.
I'd also like you to recognize that Midway will soon be out
of capacity. Everybody talks about O'Hare in isolation. But the
fact is is that Midway currently has seven million boarding
passengers. Everybody's estimate, including the city of
Chicago, says that Midways' capacity is nine million boarding
passengers. And that will be wiped out in about 2 to 3 years
according to the state of Illinois and according to the
figures.
The question you have to ask yourself as part of this
regional solution, where is ATA going to go and where is
Southwest going to go after Midway is out of capacity? Are they
going to go to O'Hare? Are you going to add runways to Midway?
Or are you going to talk about a south suburban airport?
One of the things we've been asking for is a regional
master plan of what we're going to do for aviation in the
region. The state of Illinois has been willing to accept that
concept. Thus far, the city of Chicago has not.
Let's talk about that major new capacity. Ms. Wheeler
referred to it and I think it's very important. Everybody seems
to agree now that the capacity we need, and I would allude to
Senator Rockefeller's comments, is big capacity. Not just a
trickle, not just a few. But we need, Senator Rockefeller
talked about another 35 or 40 million boarding passengers that
have to be accommodated within the next few years.
Those figures, his comments are consistent with what the
state, what the City's internal numbers and what the Civic
Committee has talked about. Let me just give you some of these
numbers. 35 million boarding passengers is what the city of
Chicago's internal documents say the region's going to need.
New capacity for 35 million boarding passengers. The state says
30 million. The Civic Committee, which is here before you
today, says 27 million.
Bottom line, we're talking about new capacity roughly the
size of O'Hare in terms of accommodations. Now, we can all do
the arithmetic, how many passengers per, how many enplanements
per aircraft, et cetera, and look at the impact of wider gauge
aircraft and regional jets and the smaller aircraft fleet that
they embody.
The fact is, we need a lot of capacity for several hundred
thousand new flights. The central question again is where do
you put it? New south suburban airport? O'Hare? Midway? And
again, I want you to please keep in mind that Midway will be
out of capacity in 3 years. Or even Gary or Rockford.
When you talk about Gary, don't talk about Gary or Rockford
as a million enplanement airport. I heard the term here 15
million enplanement. We've got to find a place to put 30
million or 40 million new enplanements and probably have the
reserve to go beyond that.
Decision making process must be open and fair and not a
done deal. Now what's going on here, and we appreciate the
importance of this issue and we're thankful the Senate
Committee has called this meeting today. But what's going on
here is an exercise in hype, massive hype.
There are a number of central questions which Ms. Wheeler
referred to, which we've asked, which Senator Fitzgerald asked,
cost? Where are you going to put it? What's involved? And
nobody wants to put these questions on the table for public
debate and examination.
Now, I'll give you an example. The so-called Delay Task
Force that's been reinstituted is internally known in the FAA
as a Capacity Enhancement Task Force. That's the terminology.
Because as my testimony shows, using FAA graphs, delay
reduction and capacity enhancement are two sides of the same
coin.
We sought to simply observe this meeting of this Delay Task
Force, which is made up of the airlines, the FAA and the state.
We're told this is a closed door meeting. The public cannot
attend. The press cannot attend. We cannot even observe. If
we're going to have a fair process that has credibility, it's
got to be a public and open process.
And it's got to be a process that when people ask hard
questions, the kinds of questions that this Committee's been
asking, they're not accused of political pandering. They're not
accused of trying to be, to exercise some form of power.
Now the points have been made and I'm not going to go over
these points that you can do a new airport far faster than
expanding O'Hare, far less cost, far less environmental impact.
I want to come back to some of the things that the Committee
Members have mentioned this morning.
I do work primarily in other areas of environmental law,
not as it happens with airports, but I do work with airports
around the country. And the fact is Senator Rockefeller was
absolutely right and I've talked to the authorities in
Washington, in Washington, D.C. Dulles was a white elephant
until the decision was made that national was not going to
grow. If you put runways in at national, you'd be talking about
Dulles still being a white elephant.
Senator McCain. You couldn't build anymore runways.
Senator Durbin. You couldn't build anymore runways.
Mr. Karaganis. Let me suggest that engineers, given the
opportunity, can build them anywhere, Senator, but----
Senator McCain. You haven't wandered around National
Airport. There's a river on one side and----
Mr. Karaganis. And if I might add, the question of delays,
now the Committee's focusing on delays. We need to address
delays in a 0 to 5 year window. We're the first to candidly say
to you that a new airport at Peotone nor the runways at O'Hare
are not going to address the delay problems that are going to
be suffered this summer and the next five summers.
And we've got to stop dancing around this issue in Chicago.
The FAA is candidly addressing this with the New York/New
Jersey airport authority for LaGuardia and Newark. And they've
got to. And you've to got to be talking about demand
management, in some form or another, that matches the demand at
the airport with the capacity of the airport.
If you do that, you'll solve the delay problems in the
short term. You'll make them acceptable. Now, will that solve
the long term capacity needs of any other regions? No. Let me
address something that you folks have talked about. And I
happen to be a staunch states' righter when it comes to the
prerogatives of local control and local decision.
You've made the point, and I would be the first to concede,
that the Federal Government can come in and build airports. We
can have a federal system of airports but we don't have it
today. And if you're talking about stripping power out of
Governors and legislatures, it's not two states, it's not seven
states, it's not nine states. It's 50 state legislatures.
And I know the law that governs. I've worked with the court
authority in the state of New York and New Jersey. I know what
governs Newark. I know what governs LaGuardia. You're talking
about stripping New Jersey authority from the ability to
protect their citizens with respect to Newark. Or stripping New
York authorities with the ability to protect their citizens
with respect to LaGuardia.
I respectfully suggest to you that as a policy matter,
that's true of San Francisco, Boston, Logan, Seattle, Tacoma.
As a policy matter, that's a bad policy choice. Respectfully,
as a legal matter, the bodies that operate these airports are
political subdivisions of states. And I think there's a strong
constitutional problem with Congress dictating how the state
law, and it is state power that builds these airports, not
federal power; how that delegation of power is allocated
amongst political subdivision. To intrude upon that state
power, I believe that's an unconstitutional action.
Finally, let me suggest, and again, one of the things we
need to do is keep the rhetoric down, keep the heated rhetoric
down. But at the same time we cannot have our concern for
courtesy and courteous discourse overlook some very serious
problems.
Now, I've heard a lot of talk about fare policies. Senator
McCain referred to the situation of fortress hubs. We had a
study that we did just for this hearing of spoke city fares
versus Chicago-based fares out of O'Hare Airport.
Three to four to five hundred percent higher for the
Chicago-based traveler than for the Madison, Wisconsin traveler
or the Dubuque, Iowa traveler or the Grand Rapids, Michigan
traveler. Why? Because they have competing hubs that they can
switch to. They can go into Detroit. They can go into
Cleveland. They can go into Minneapolis.
We here in Chicago don't have that choice. And quite
frankly, ATA, and one of the arguments you're going to hear is
that the Civic Committee says you can't have two hubbing
airports in one City. ATA is hubbing out of Midway now, but
it's not big enough. It's not big enough to provide significant
competition.
Finally, the last thing. We had a situation in Chicago that
has----
Senator McCain. It's your second finally.
Mr. Karaganis. I'm sorry, Senator. It is a question which
the Tribune has referred to as the stench at O'Hare. And we
have a long history from our judicial scandal in Gray Lord to a
number of major political and financial scandals in this state.
And one of them is how O'Hare operates. And it operates with
this kind of political corruption in part because there's a
huge funnel of federal money.
Now, we're asking, if I may, by way of closing
recommendation, asking this Committee to consider the
following. Avoid any temptation to destroy state power over the
state's political subdivisions. Adjust federal financing
funding, and I'm asking the Committee to reexamine the premises
behind PFC's and reexamine the whole premises behind Airline
General Revenue Fund of financing of airports because it tends
to lock up the competition. It locks out the competition in
terms of gates.
Demand that the FAA take the brick off the south suburban
airport. Senator, you asked how fast it can be done, to build
an airport. My first deposition on airports was a gentleman who
was given the responsibility of rebuilding two air force bases
for the Israelis after the 1973 Sinai War. They built them in 3
years.
Demand that the state of Illinois put the details of all
their proposals on the table for public examination and debate.
Do not tolerate, and the public will not tolerate, back room
deals behind closed doors. And develop federal policies that
will break up the airline fortress hub system. Deregulation has
been positive in some areas but it's a disgrace in many others.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karaganis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe Karaganis, General Counsel,
Suburban O'Hare Commission
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to present
the views of the Suburban O'Hare Commission on the vital question of
what to do about the Chicago region's aviation capacity problem. The
Suburban O'Hare Commission (SOC) is a consortium of 14 local
governments adjacent to O'Hare Airport, representing several hundred
thousand citizens. I serve as their counsel\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A statement of my professional background is attached as
Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today makes the following points:
1. There is wide regional consensus that the Chicago region needs
construction of major new airport capacity.
2. O'Hare is now out of capacity and Midway will be out of capacity
in about three years.
3. The major new airport capacity needs to handle a passenger load
equal to another O'Hare.
4. The central question facing the region is where to put the major
new capacity--at a New South Suburban Airport, O'Hare, Midway, or even
Gary or Rockford.
5. The decision-making process must be open and fair and not a
``done deal'' behind closed doors.
6. When debated and decided openly and fairly in public, the
inevitable choice for building the major new airport capacity for the
region is the South Suburban Airport.
The new airport can be built faster than expanding O'Hare.
The new airport can be built at far less cost than
expanding O'Hare.
The new airport can be operated with far less adverse
environmental impact on surrounding residential communities than will
be the case of expanding O'Hare.
The new airport provides much more new regional capacity
than O'Hare expansion--the new airport will provide more than four
times the capacity of O'Hare expansion at less than \1/2\ the cost.
Based on the limited capacity provided by quad runways at
O'Hare, even an expanded O'Hare (i.e., with quad runways) is likely to
quickly run out of capacity. Result: A huge capital investment with
insufficient capacity to meet regional needs and a quick return to the
congestion and delay conditions of today--only at increased traffic
levels.
The new airport creates far more opportunity for bringing
in new competition and breaking the monopoly control of United and
American over high business fares in the region.
7. The so-called ``compromise'' being sponsored by the ``Civic
Committee'' and by United and American Airlines--new runways at O'Hare
and a new ``airport''--is a bad choice for the region, the O'Hare area
communities, and the South suburbs.
8. The Tribune, Chicago, the airlines and the FAA are trying to
stampede and steam roll a decision to build runways at O'Hare without
allowing rigorous public examination of the issues and the alternatives
such as a new regional airport. Anyone who asks hard questions is
ridiculed--witness the Chicago Tribune calling Senator Fitzgerald a
``political panderer'' for asking questions neither the Tribune, the
airlines, nor Chicago want to answer.
9. Delays at O'Hare are a red herring. Neither a new regional
airport nor new O'Hare runways will be available in the next five
years. The real issue on delays is what to do with delays now and in
the next five years. O'Hare needs to be given the same rigorous
analysis that is currently underway at LaGuardia to match demand with
the existing capacity at that airport. By matching demand and existing
capacity, the current delays at O'Hare (and other similarly congested
airports like LaGuardia) can be dramatically reduced. Once current
delays are addressed by matching demand with existing capacity, we can
engage in a rational debate and discussion about which alternatives
(e.g., new airport or O'Hare expansion) should be implemented. The
alternative selected should provide opportunities for long-term growth
without repeating the growth/congestion/delay cycle now afflicting
O'Hare and which will be repeated with any quad runway proposal for
O'Hare.
10. Proposals to strip and gut the Governors and Legislatures of 50
states of their ability to enforce state clean air, clean water, and
public health laws as applied to proposed expansion of existing
airports should be dead on arrival. Congressman Lipinski's proposal
(and similar proposals being attributed to Senators Harkin and
Grassley) would prevent Massachusetts from protecting the citizens of
Boston (new runway proposed at Logan Airport), prevent the state of New
York from protecting citizens around LaGuardia from new runway
proposals, prevent the State of California from protecting the natural
resources of San Francisco Bay (new runway at SFO), prevent the State
of Washington from enforcing Washington state environmental laws at
Sea-Tac, and prevent the State of New Jersey from protecting the
citizens around Newark. Indeed, Congressman Lipinski should know that
this same legislation, if passed, would strip the power of the State of
Illinois to protecting the citizens around Midway from runway expansion
at Midway. The proposal to gut state environmental and public health
laws from airport development is both bad policy and bad law. It is
likely unconstitutional.
11. Your Senate Committee has stepped into a Hornet's nest of
political corruption. Chicago wants to expand O'Hare and defeat a major
new South Suburban Airport because Chicago wants to control the massive
patronage dollars and opportunities for graft afforded by billions of
federal dollars. The entire operation of O'Hare airport is permeated
with the stench of corruption and kickbacks--what the Tribune calls
``The Stench at O'Hare''.
The airlines and the downtown business community stand idly by and
let this corruption continue because they either profit from it or are
afraid. The airlines like it because they use their relationship with a
corrupt city government to rip off hundreds of millions of dollars from
the business travelers based in Chicago.
1. We Now Have Regional Consensus That The Chicago Region Needs
Construction Of Major New Airport Capacity.
Congressmen Hyde and Jackson have said this for years. The Suburban
O'Hare Commission and the DuPage County Board has said this for years.
Governor Ryan and the State of Illinois have been saying this for
years. Now the downtown ``Civic Committee'' and the airlines are saying
that the region needs major new capacity\2\. The only person who
persists in publicly claiming that the region does not need new airport
capacity is Mayor Daley in Chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State of Illinois says the new airport capacity needed in
the region is 30 million enplanements. The Civic Committee/Chicagoland
Chamber Booz Allen Report (paid for by United Airlines) says the region
needs capacity for 27 million new enplanements. The City of Chicago's
secret internal forecast recently released by court order shows that
the City forecasts the need for new capacity for 35 million boarding
passengers. See discussion infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. O'Hare Is Now Out Of Capacity And Midway Will Be Out Of Capacity
In About Three Years.
By the FAA's and Chicago's own standards, O'Hare is currently out
of capacity\3\. Attempts to force more traffic into the existing O'Hare
airfield will lead to even more massive congestion and delay than we
currently experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For many years FAA has considered the practical capacity of an
airport to be reached when the AAAW (average annual all weather delay)
reached 4 minutes per operation, based on an assumption that peak
delays would be roughly 5 times the average and about the limit that a
transfer airport could tolerate. In recent years Chicago and the FAA
have used ten minutes AAAW as the upper bound of acceptable capacity
after which the airport transfer system begins to collapse. See
Exhibits 2, 3, 4 attached hereto. SIMMOD capacity studies conducted by
Chicago and the FAA have shown that O'Hare operations have exceeded the
outer limit of this 10 minute AAAW delay since as early as 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a little known fact that at current rates of growth, Midway
will rapidly exhaust its capacity--likely in about three years\4\.
Where will ATA and Southwest go when Midway runs out of capacity? Will
we be back here in three years saying that Midway needs new runways? At
what cost in dollars and disruption of Midway communities? Will
Congressman Lipinski's bill to gut state laws affecting airport
expansion strip protection from his own constituents at Midway? Will
ATA and Southwest go to O'Hare? Where?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This estimate of three years of remaining capacity is based
upon what appears to be an agreement that Midway's practical capacity
is about 9 million annual enplanements and that Midway is currently at
7 million annual enplanements. The three year estimate is based on
current growth rates that have been experienced at Midway in recent
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Major New Capacity Needs to Handle a Passenger Load Equal to
Another O'Hare.
We now have regional consensus that we need to build major new
regional airport capacity to handle a passenger load roughly equivalent
to another O'Hare airport. O'Hare currently handles about 34 million
boarding passengers (called ``enplane-
ments'') annually at 900,000 operations.
The State of Illinois says the new airport capacity needs to handle
30 million new boarding passengers and proposes a new South Suburban
Airport with six new runways and a large environmental buffer to handle
that massive new load.
Recently released Court documents show that Chicago has a secret
study that shows that the new airport facilities will have to handle 35
million boarding passengers and that even a massive conversion at
O'Hare into a ``quad runway'' system at a cost in excess of $10 billion
dollars will not accommodate the forecast additional traffic.
The ``Civic Committee'' relies on a study funded by United Airlines
and performed by United's own consultant which states that the new
increased passenger load will be 27 million boarding passengers--
roughly the same as the State of Illinois' projected demand. Under the
Civic Committee proposal, virtually all of the new traffic growth would
be funneled into a massively expanded O'Hare where the new traffic
would be directed to an airport complex dominated by American and
United. Bottom line: O'Hare area communities get hundreds of thousands
of additional flights--United and American get the lion's share of the
traffic growth and are able to squeeze out competition.
4. The Central Question Facing the Region Is Where To Put the Major
New Capacity--at a New South Suburban Airport, O'Hare, Midway, or even
Gary or Rockford.
Senator McCain has stated the right perspective: We all agree that
the region needs new capacity. The question is where to put it. The
suggested places are self-evident. At a defined cost and with defined
economic and environmental impacts, the new capacity can be built: (1)
at the new South Suburban site, (2) at O'Hare, or (3) at Midway. Other
alternatives that have been suggested include Gary and Rockford.
5. The Decision-Making Process Must Be Open and Fair and Not a
``Done Deal'' Behind Closed Doors.
The Tribune and the airline sponsored ``Civic Committee'' have
proposed that Governor Ryan break his campaign promise of no more
runways and make a back room deal with Mayor Daley to trade new runways
at O'Hare in return for some acceptance of some kind of airport at
Peotone. This suggested ``compromise'' is bad for the region on both
process and substance:
First, it is bad process. The entire region has a major
stake in this decision. It is simply improper for the City of Chicago
to cut a back room deal with the Governor. All proposals--the South
Suburban Airport, Expanded O'Hare, Gary, Rockford, or any other
proposals--should be examined openly and fairly in public on the basis
of their respective costs, benefits, and environmental and economic
impacts.
Second, it is bad substance. Trading an O'Hare runway for
a token airport at Peotone (what we call a Quonset hut and a windsock)
dooms Peotone and guarantees the massive expansion at O'Hare. The
airlines, Chicago's former aviation commissioner, and SOC all agree
that if you expand O'Hare you cannot make an economic justification for
Peotone. Even if built, Peotone will become a ``white elephant on the
prairie'' just as the St. Louis area's Mid-America Airport is sitting
empty while Lambert Airport is getting a new runway. At the same time
the greatly expanded O'Hare envisioned by the Tribune and the Civic
Committee will funnel hundreds of thousands of new flights over our
communities while expanding the monopoly lock that United and American
have on high priced fares charged to Chicago area business travelers.
The Governor deserves praise for holding his ground on the airline/
Chicago/Tribune/Civic Committee pressure to break the Governor's solemn
promise to our communities to ban new runways at O'Hare. And he should
reject their suggestions to make a deal behind closed doors. We agree
with his request to all parties to put their plans to address the
region's capacity needs on the table in public and allow them to be
publicly debated.
We are respectfully asking--indeed demanding as our right as
citizens in a democracy--that the details of the costs and impacts of
the O'Hare expansion proposal be fully and publicly disclosed and
compared to other alternatives such as the South Suburban Airport and
publicly debated--before any decision is made on which alternative to
pursue. We will not tolerate closed door, back room deals that shut the
public and our communities out of the decisionmaking process.
Apparently Senator Durbin and Congressman Lipinski have been shown
the details of the airlines and City of Chicago O'Hare expansion plans.
But they have not shared this information with the public. Nor have
they been willing to answer the hard questions raised by Senator
Fitzgerald, Congressman Hyde, Congressman Jackson, and residents of our
communities and south suburban communities\5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An illustrative list of the questions that the Tribune, the
airlines, Senator Durbin, and Congressman Lipinski don't want asked and
won't answer is enclosed as Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent documents released by the Illinois Appellate Court disclose
that Chicago and the O'Hare airlines have repeatedly and consistently
lied to the Congress, the Illinois Legislature, the press and the
public about the issues of air transportation demand and capacity in
the Chicago region. These documents reveal what Chicago's lead aviation
consultant (Landrum & Brown)--the company that the FAA is currently
using to advise the current O'Hare ``Delay Task Force''--called a
twenty year ``guerilla war'' which Chicago and the O'Hare airlines
waged to ``kill'' the South Suburban Airport and expand O'Hare\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The entire Evidentiary Appendix released by the Appellate Court
has been provided to the Committee in electronic format as an Adobe
Acrobat file. Summaries of individual items of evidence are attached as
Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of deceit and secrecy continues. Chicago and the FAA
have now recreated the ``Delay Task Force'' (which was internally known
as a ``capacity enhancement team) to address ``delays'' at O'Hare. Yet
Chicago's own internal documents show what we all know--that reducing
delays automatically increases capacity for more flights\7\. Invited to
participate in this capacity enhancement team were representatives of
the Fortress O'Hare airlines. When suburban communities who will be
impacted asked to attend meetings of this group, we were told that the
group would meet in secret behind closed doors and that the public and
the press were excluded. When the President of the Illinois Senate--in
whose district O'Hare is located--asked to have a representative
observe the meeting, he was turned away and told the meeting was
secret. The Congress should not tolerate continued deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Exhibits 8, 10, and 11 attached hereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. When Debated and Decided Openly and Fairly in Public, the
Inevitable Choice For Building the Major New Airport Capacity For the
Region is the South Suburban Airport.
When the open public debate occurs, it is clear that the
overwhelming and inevitable choice for building the major new capacity
is the South Suburban Airport.
The new airport can be built faster than expanding O'Hare.
The reason for the faster construction is based on the difference
between ``greenfield'' construction and trying to rebuild in and over
existing construction. In the case of the new airport vs. rebuilding
O'Hare, this difference is vastly magnified by trying to build billions
of new construction while servicing 900,000 flights each year.
The new airport can be built at far less cost. Cost
estimates released by the State of Illinois say that a six runway new
airport at Peotone would cost in the vicinity of 5 billion dollars.
Cost estimates for new runways at O'Hare are between 1-2 billion per
runway. Since Chicago already has admitted that the announced terminal
expansion plans will cost 6 billion dollars, the cost of O'Hare
expansion will be between 10-15 billion dollars\8\. That 10-15 billion
dollar estimate does not include the cost of western access (which
Chicago knows is needed to bring the passenger load into the airport to
service the new runways and terminals), a western terminal and parking
facility (needed to service western access), the cost of destroying a
large chunk of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village, and the cost of
additional mitigation by soundproofing due to increased flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The cost estimates for the South Suburban Airport include all
integrated Airside, Terminal and Landside facilities. Chicago internal
documents released by the Appellate Court repeatedly acknowledge the
need to build road and terminal facilities with terminal and access
capacity to match the runways and repeatedly acknowledge the need for
such a balanced ``integrated'' analysis of airport facility
requirements. See e.g. Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new airport can be operated with far less
environmental impact. It is clear that the new South Suburban Airport
can be built with far less environmental impact. The new airport has a
massive non-residential environmental land buffer to mitigate the noise
and air pollution created by the facility. In contrast, the
environmental ``buffer'' for O'Hare currently consists of Bensenville,
Wood Dale and a host of other DuPage County communities--a residential
``buffer'' which will receive even more adverse impact when several
hundred thousand additional flights are added to O'Hare.
O'Hare is currently--by Chicago's own admission--the largest
emission source of toxic and hazardous air pollutants in the State of
Illinois\9\. In addition, noise monitoring data shows that current
O'Hare noise extends over a far greater area than admitted by Chicago.
Adding several hundred thousand additional flights will only make it
worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new airport provides much more new regional capacity.
The State of Illinois estimates the capacity of the new airport at 1.6
million operations annually. That's 1.6 million operations above and
beyond O'Hare's current 900,000. In contrast, the ``quad runway''
proposal for O'Hare will only provide new capacity for an additional
300,000 to 400,000 flights.
Based on forecast growth, the new O'Hare runways would be out of
capacity in 5-10 years--necessitating the addition of a fifth and a
sixth (and so on) parallel runway into O'Hare communities after the
quad runway system was exhausted. In sum, the new airport provides far
more capacity at far less cost than expanding O'Hare.
The new airport creates far more opportunity for bringing
in new competition and breaking the monopoly control of United and
American over high business fares in the region. The real heart of this
controversy can be found by asking where the money is. American and
United are currently able to overcharge Chicago area business travelers
several hundred million dollars per year because of their dominance of
the regional market--primarily for business travel\10\. Chicago has
designed the proposed O'Hare expansion to funnel virtually all of the
massive new traffic growth into a specially designed airport complex to
perpetuate the dominance of American and United. Do the arithmetic. How
is the expanded O'Hare design going to allow a major new hub competitor
into the market? In contrast, the new South Suburban Airport will have
plenty of capacity to allow major new competition to enter the region.
That is why United and American and Chicago have a campaign to ``Kill
Peotone''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United and American are able to charge very high premiums for
business travel to major business destinations such as New York
LaGuardia, Washington Reagan, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco to
the Chicago based ``hub'' traveler. In contrast, these same airlines
compete with other hubs (e.g. Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland) for
travelers from ``spoke cities'' such as Madison, WI and Grand Rapids,
Michigan. Result: Chicagobased travelers getting on a United or
American flight to a major business destination often pay a huge fare
penalty as compared to a passenger from a ``spoke'' city connecting
through O'Hare to the same destination. The State of Illinois estimates
that the lack of competition for the Chicago-based traveler results in
a several hundred million dollar monopoly fare penalty to Chicago-based
travelers annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The So-Called ``Compromise'' Being Sponsored By The ``Civic
Committee'' and by United and American Airlines--New Runways At O'Hare
And A New ``Airport''--Is A Bad Choice For The Region, The O'Hare Area
Communities, and the South Suburbs.
The Civic Committee has made much of its announced position that it
``does not oppose a third airport'' and that it would favor a
``compromise'' that would build both new O'Hare runways and a new
airport. This is the same ``compromise'' plan being pushed by American
and United.
But an examination of the details of the ``compromise'' reveals a
far different picture.
The Civic Committee position is based on a report paid for
by United Airlines and prepared by United's long-time consultant, Booz-
Allen. The Booz-Allen report's central assumption is that virtually all
of the traffic growth must be funneled into a vastly expanded O'Hare--
and that O'Hare must be even further expanded in serial fashion far
into the future (i.e., a fifth and a sixth parallel runway).
Under the Civic Committee, Booz-Allen, United Airlines
``compromise'', O'Hare will get quad runways and several hundred
thousand more flights over O'Hare area communities. The third airport--
if it gets any traffic at all--will get one thirtieth the traffic level
proposed by the State of Illinois for the new airport. Further at the
levels envisioned in the Booz-Allen report, there will never be a
Peotone. The trickle of traffic projected by Booz-Allen can be fit into
a tiny airport at Gary.
With any expansion of O'Hare capacity, the economic viability of a
new airport is called into serious question. With an expanded O'Hare it
will be hard to justify building the South Suburban Airport. And even
if a new airport is built, it will stand as a ``white elephant on the
prairie''--a subject of derision much as the current Mid-America
Airport near St. Louis is ridiculed as standing empty while St. Louis
expands its Lambert Field.
8. The Tribune, Chicago, the airlines and the FAA are trying to
stampede and steam roll a decision to build runways at O'Hare without
allowing rigorous public examination of the issues.
We are currently being deluged by a massive wave of hype--funded by
the Fortress O'Hare airlines (American and United)--that claims that
the central solution is a massive increase in capacity at O'Hare. Their
hope is that this hype campaign will force the Governor of the State to
break his promise to the State and our communities that he will not
allow new runways to be constructed at O'Hare and that he would build
the South Suburban Airport. Their hope is that this rush to judgment
will be made before they are forced to answer hard questions about
their proposal.
Yet these airlines and their front organizations in the downtown
business community\11\ refuse to disclose (a) exactly what their
proposal for O'Hare expansion is, (b) how much will it cost, (c) how
much capacity will it provide, (d) how will it impact the current
monopoly fare dominance of United and American, and (e) what are the
environmental and public health impacts on surrounding communities of
their O'Hare expansion proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For example, the report used by one of the most prominent
groups advocating O'Hare expansion (the ``Civic Committee'') was paid
for by United Airlines and was authored by United's long-time
consultant, Booz-Allen. See Exhibit 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, as we sit here today, neither the Tribune, the Sun-Times,
Senator Durbin, Congressman Lipinski, nor the host of front
organizations funded by United and American have told the public
exactly what their plan for O'Hare is, what it will cost, what capacity
will it provide, how it will impact the monopoly fare problem, and what
is the environmental impact of the proposal on communities surrounding
O'Hare.
Instead of facts we get hype. And when people like Senator
Fitzgerald ask hard questions, the Tribune rolls another one of its
thundering personal attacks on anyone who asks hard questions or asks
for a public disclosure and debate--calling Senator Fitzgerald ``a
political panderer''.
The Tribune has been writing editorials day after day demanding
that an immediate decision be made to build runways at O'Hare. Senator
Durbin has said that there is a July 1 ``deadline'' for action by the
governor on new O'Hare runways.
Ignored are the following:
Public Stonewalling. The Civic Committee, the Tribune,
Senator Durbin, the City of Chicago, and the airlines refuse: (1) to
publicly disclose what their proposal is for new runways at O'Hare; or
(2) to answer even the most basic questions about the cost and impacts
of their O'Hare expansion proposal as opposed to the alternative of a
new regional airport. The Senate Committee should demand that they
disclose their plans and answer these basic questions\12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Daily Herald has asked similar questions. See Exhibit 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago, the FAA and the Airlines are meeting
behind closed doors (the so-called ``Delay Task Force'' to decide
whether to recommend new runways at O'Hare--a recommendation which will
have major adverse effects on O'Hare communities and on South Suburban
hopes for a new airport. Excluded from these meetings are the public,
the press, representatives of impacted communities, and representatives
of Senate President Philip and Congressman Hyde--two federal and state
officials who represent the communities around O'Hare. Is this any way
to make public policy decisions\13\?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Daily Southtown editorial on this subject. See Exhibit 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The so-called ``Delay Task Force'' is really a ``Capacity
Enhancement Team'' and is refusing to consider the South Suburban
Airport as an alternative to adding capacity at O'Hare. The Chicago/FAA
``Delay Task Force'' is really a ``Capacity Enhancement Team''
sponsored by the FAA. The Delay Task Force is meeting behind closed
doors with the airlines as members. The Delay Task Force has announced
that it will not consider a new airport as an alternative to adding
runways at O'Hare. This means that the alternatives that the Delay Task
Force will consider for adding capacity to the region (which is the
same as reducing delays) are going to be limited to the choice between
new O'Hare runways or new O'Hare runways.
``Delay Reduction'' is another word for ``Capacity
Enhancement.'' What most people do not realize is that ``reducing
delays'' automatically increases the capacity of the airport to handle
more flights. FAA and the City of Chicago define the capacity of the
airport as the level of traffic that can be handled at acceptable
levels of delay. Chicago defines this level as ten minutes average
annual delay per aircraft operation. If Chicago and FAA reduce the
delay level of existing traffic--say from 10 minutes per operation to 8
minutes per operation, that delay reduction automatically increases the
number of operations that can be processed with a ten-minute delay.
Delay reduction and capacity enhancement are two sides of the same
coin\14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Exhibits 4, 8, 10, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Delays at O'Hare are a Red-Herring.
Neither a new regional airport nor new O'Hare runways will be
available in the next five years. The real issue on delays is what to
do with delays now and in the next five years. O'Hare needs to be given
the same rigorous analysis that is currently underway at LaGuardia to
match demand with the existing capacity at that airport. By matching
demand and existing capacity, the current delays at O'Hare (and other
similarly congested airports like LaGuardia) can be dramatically
reduced. Once current delays are addressed by matching demand with
existing capacity, we can engage in a rational debate and discussion
about which alternatives (e.g. new airport or O'Hare expansion) should
be implemented. The alternative selected should provide opportunities
for long-term growth without repeating the growth/congestion/delay
cycle now afflicting O'Hare and which will be repeated with any quad
runway proposal for O'Hare.
10. Proposals to strip and gut the Governors and Legislatures of 50
states of their ability to enforce state clean air, clean water, and
public health laws as applied to proposed expansion of existing
airports should be dead on arrival.
Congressman Lipinski's proposal (and similar proposals being
attributed to Senators Harkin and Grassley) would prevent Massachusetts
from protecting the citizens of Boston (new runway proposed at Logan
Airport), prevent the State of New York from protecting citizens around
LaGuardia from new runway proposals, prevent the State of California
from protecting the natural resources of San Francisco Bay (new runway
at SFO), prevent the State of Washington from enforcing Washington
state environmental laws at Sea-Tac, and prevent the State of New
Jersey from protecting the citizens around Newark. Indeed, Congressman
Lipinski should know that this same legislation, if passed, would strip
the power of the State of Illinois to protect the citizens around
Midway from runway expansion at Midway. The proposal to gut state
environmental and public health laws from airport development is both
bad policy and bad law. It is likely unconstitutional as an improper
federal intrusion on the basic state power to control and limit the
delegation of state power to a state's political subdivisions.
These proposals to gut state law protections are bad policy for
another reason. These proposals are all directed to promoting expansion
of existing airports at the expense of looking at environmentally and
economically desirable (i.e., to bring in new competition) new airport
construction. Nowhere do these proposals address the current gridlock
on new airport development caused by Congress' bypassing the states and
sending federal PFC money directly to the operators of existing
airports.
11. Your Senate Committee has stepped into a Hornet's nest of
political corruption.
Chicago wants to expand O'Hare and defeat a major new South
Suburban Airport because Chicago wants to control the massive patronage
dollars and opportunities for graft afforded by billions of federal
dollars. The entire operation of O'Hare airport is permeated with the
stench of corruption and kickbacks--what the Tribune calls ``The Stench
at O'Hare''. Multi-million dollar kickbacks to Mayor Daley's friends
and associates are the order of the day.
The airlines and the downtown business community stand idly by and
let this corruption continue because they either profit from it or are
afraid. The airlines like it because they use their relationship with a
corrupt city government to rip off hundreds of millions of dollars from
the business travelers based in Chicago.
CONCLUSION
Respectfully, we make the following recommendations to this
committee:
1. Avoid any temptation to try to destroy state power over the
state's political subdivisions and the state's power to protect its
citizens through state environmental and public health laws.
2. Adjust federal financial funding to provide at least a level
playing field--and ideally actual positive incentives--to build new
environmentally sound airports.
3. Demand that the FAA take the ``brick'' off development of the
South Suburban Airport and demand fast-track processing of the South
Suburban Airport proposal.
4. Demand that the FAA and Chicago and the State of Illinois put
the details of all airport capacity proposals (be it South Suburban
Airport, expanding O'Hare, Gary, or Rockford) on the table for public
examination and debate. Do not tolerate back room deals behind closed
doors.
5. Develop federal policies that will break up the Fortress Hub
system and force new competition into our region and similarly burdened
Fortress Hub communities. The blatant geographic allocation of markets
by the major airlines--and the resultant exorbitant fares charged to
hub city business travelers--is a national disgrace.
______
Exhibit 1.--Background of Joseph V. Karaganis
Joseph V. Karaganis is a 1966 graduate of the University of Chicago
Law School. Following law school he served as a law clerk to United
States District Judge Hubert L. Will and as a Bigelow Teaching Fellow
at the University of Chicago Law School.
Entering private practice in 1968, Mr. Karaganis soon became
established as a nationally known expert in the then ``new'' field of
environmental law. His practice is a unique combination of public
governmental and private party representation. His public clients have
included:
The State of Illinois--Mr. Karaganis served three
Attorneys General of both political parties from 1969-1983 as a Special
Assistant Illinois Attorney General representing the state in major
environmental litigation--with a special emphasis on the clean-up of
Lake Michigan. As an Assistant Attorney General he helped draft the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
LaSalle County, Illinois--Mr. Karaganis served as a
Special Assistant State's Attorney representing the County in a major
hazardous waste controversy.
The Suburban O'Hare Commission--For the last fifteen
years, Mr. Karaganis has served as general counsel of an
intergovernmental agency made up of municipalities impacted by aircraft
noise and toxic air pollution from O'Hare airport.
DuPage County, Illinois--Mr. Karaganis served as a Special
Assistant State's Attorney representing the State and several school
districts seeking damage recovery for aircraft noise interference. In
that litigation, Mr. Karaganis successfully challenged Chicago's claim
that Chicago's responsibility for aircraft noise damages to schools was
limited to the funding available from federal grant funds and that the
availability and quality of soundproofing was restricted to that
allowed by federal grant regulations. The litigation established that
Chicago's liability to pay noise damages was based on state law
independent of federal funds and independent of federal grant
restrictions and that Chicago's liability was fully indemnified by the
airlines using O'Hare. Result: Approximately 20 million dollars paid to
local schools, which Chicago had claimed, were ineligible under federal
grant regulations.
Special counsel to Bensenville, Illinois--Mr. Karaganis
successfully sued Chicago for discriminating in the dispensation of
housing soundproofing funds--rewarding Chicago's political friends and
punishing those communities who opposed O'Hare expansion.
West Chicago, Illinois--Mr. Karaganis has served and
continues to serve as a Special Assistant City Counsel representing
West Chicago in a major cleanup battle with Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corporation over radioactive wastes in the City. After years of
litigation, a settlement was reached with Kerr-McGee, which will
produce one of the largest hazardous waste cleanups in the Nation.
Mr. Karaganis's most recent legal success came in December of 1998
when the Illinois Supreme Court, in the case of People ex rel Birkett
v. Chicago, rejected Chicago's claim that Chicago could hide over
50,000 pages of hitherto secret documents regarding illegal O'Hare
expansion. The Supreme Court accepted Mr. Karaganis's arguments (on
behalf of the DuPage County State's Attorney) that there was no
government ``deliberative process'' privilege that allowed a Chicago to
hide evidence of wrongdoing.
Mr. Karaganis has represented a number of citizen and environmental
organizations as well throughout his career. His representation has
included:
The Izaak Walton League--successful litigation against
Commonwealth Edison to stop open discharge of heated cooling water from
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant into Mississippi River. Suit resulted
in commitment by Edison to halt further nuclear plant construction on
Mississippi River.
The Homestake Gold Mine Lead-Deadwood South Dakota--Mr.
Karaganis successfully represented the ``Save Centennial Valley
Association''--a group of ranchers who fought a huge toxic mine
tailings dam and impoundment that threatened the Valley's groundwater.
Lock & Dam 26 and the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge--
Mr. Karaganis represented the Sierra Club and the Izaak Walton League
in a successful fight to stop lock and dam expansion on the Upper
Mississippi without first obtaining Congress's authorization.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi--Mr.
Karaganis represented Environmental Defense Fund in ultimately
unsuccessful fight to halt construction of a water project that
destroyed major wildlife resources.
Mr. Karaganis is President of Karaganis & White Ltd., a seven
lawyer Chicago law firm. While the firm's practice focuses on
environmental law, the breadth of matters involved in Mr. Karaganis's
practice in state and federal courts have required him and his firm to
develop expertise in a broad range of other substantive law areas,
including constitutional law, federal court jurisdiction,
administrative law, aviation law, and the law governing nuclear energy
production.
Mr. Karaganis's private practice--and that of his firm Karaganis &
White--involves representation of private corporations, real estate
developers, and entrepreneurs in a broad spectrum of environmental
matters ranging from Superfund (CERCLA) remediation, CERCLA cost
recovery, regulatory compliance with a host of federal and state
regulatory programs, brownfield redevelopment, and corporate
counseling.
______
Exhibit 2.--Chicago's Definition of Capacity
The practical capacity of the airfield will be defined as the
maximum level of average all-weather throughput achievable while
maintaining an acceptable level of delay.
Ten minutes per aircraft operation will be used as the maximum
level of acceptable delay for the assessment of the existing airfield's
capacity . . . This level of delay represents an upper bound for
acceptable delays at major hub airports . . .
______
Exhibit 3
DOT in its High Density Rule Study (1995) listed the Average Annual
All Weather (AAAW) delay for O'Hare as 11.8 minutes. To put that delay
figure in a capacity context, consider the following statement in the
DOT study:
Solutions to delay require capacity increases or demand reductions.
. . . [A]s a general rule of thumb, when the AAAW delay per operation
reached 6 minutes, capacity improvements should be actively pursued.
When the AAAW reached 8 minutes, implementation of capacity
improvements should be underway.
DOT High Density Rule Study, Technical Supplement #3 at D-2
emphasis added
______
Exhibit 4.--Capacity/Delay relationship
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.001
Exhibit 5.--Suburban O'Hare Commission
QUESTIONS THE TRIBUNE, THE CIVIC COMMITTEE, THE FORTRESS O'HARE
AIRLINES (AMERICAN AND UNITED), SENATOR DURBIN AND CONGRESSMAN LIPINSKI
DON'T WANT TO ANSWER
In recent weeks, the O'Hare airlines and the City of Chicago public
relations machine has unleashed a public relations deluge calling for a
``reconfiguration'' of runways at O'Hare. The downtown papers--the
Tribune and the Sun-Times--have thundered mightily with repeated
editorials stating that new runways at O'Hare are a ``done deal'' and
suggesting that Governor Ryan will break his campaign promise to ban
new O'Hare runways.
A downtown business group called the ``Civic Committee'' (allied
with United and American Airlines)--as well as Senator Durbin and
Congressman Lipinski--have all been given major coverage in their calls
for ``reconfiguration'' of O'Hare runways.
To his credit, Governor Ryan has repeatedly reaffirmed his promise
to our communities to ban new O'Hare runways. And the Governor and IDOT
Secretary Kirk Brown have repeatedly asked questions with which our
communities agree. What are the details of the so-called plans for
``reconfiguration'' at O'Hare and what will be the impact of this
reconfiguration on O'Hare area communities, the south suburbs' hopes
for a new regional airport, and on the problem of high fares due to
monopoly dominance by American and United--and a host of other
questions relating to the choice of where to put new airport capacity
in the region.
Neither the Civic Committee, the airlines, the City of Chicago, or
Senator Durbin or Congressman Lipinski is willing to publicly disclose
any of the details of the still secret plan for ``reconfiguration'' of
O'Hare runways. Apparently these drawings and plans have been disclosed
in a series of closed door meetings between the City of Chicago and the
airlines and the Civic Committee, the Tribune, the Sun-Times, Senator
Durbin, and Congressman Lipinski.
Yet none of them are willing to tell the public and the communities
impacted by the secret ``reconfiguration'' plan the details of the
secret plan. Nor are they willing to answer serious questions about
these reconfiguration plans, the impacts of these plans and
alternatives to these plans. Here are some of the questions the Civic
Committee, the airlines, the City of Chicago, or Senator Durbin or
Congressman Lipinski don't want to be asked and questions they won't
answer.
Where are the plans or drawings showing the new
``reconfiguration'' of runways that the Tribune, the Civic Committee,
the airlines, Senator Durbin and Congressman Lipinski say they want at
O'Hare? Where are the new runways located? How many new runways?
How much new capacity is needed in the region between now
and 2020?
How much new capacity will be produced by the O'Hare
``reconfiguration'' plan promoted by the Tribune and United and
American and the Civic Committee vs. the 6-runway south suburban
airport?
What is the future demand for air traffic in the region
and how will one runway at O'Hare address that future demand? How will
two runways at O'Hare satisfy that future demand? Where are the demand-
capacity studies on which the Civic Committee bases its claims?
How much of future demand will be stuffed into the
``reconfigured'' O'Hare; when will O'Hare's ``reconfigured'' capacity
be exhausted; and once exhausted where do we go from there?
What terminal and surface road access facilities are
needed for O'Hare to accommodate the growth projected by the Civic
Committee and to match the capacity provided by the new runway or
runways?
How much will it cost to add new runway and associated
terminal capacity at O'Hare vs. at a new south suburban airport?
How will new construction at either an O'Hare $10-15
billion dollar expansion or a $4-5 billion dollar new airport be
financed?
How fast can new runway capacity be built at O'Hare vs. a
new airport?
What are the environmental and public health costs of the
various alternatives--i.e., an expanded O'Hare vs. a new south suburban
airport?
What is the legal power of Congress to compel Chicago or
the State of Illinois to build new runways at O'Hare or build a new
airport at Peotone?
When will Midway be out of capacity?
Does Congressman Lipinski's proposed federal legislation
attempting to strip states of their power enforce state laws to protect
their citizens from runway expansion mean that he is willing to strip
such protection from Midway area residents when proposals are made to
expand Midway runways or build new runways at Midway?
Is there a monopoly air fare problem currently at O'Hare
whereby United and American charge Chicago area travelers--particularly
business travelers--more than would be charged if there were
significant competition in the region?
If there is such a monopoly fare problem at O'Hare, what
is the annual cost of this problem to Chicago area travelers on an
annual basis?
How much of the region's traffic growth will be captured
by United and American if the expansion of the region's air traffic
capacity takes place at O'Hare vs. if the expansion takes place at a
new regional airport?
How is the design of the new O'Hare terminal expansion
program (a/k/a World Gateway) designed to promote the entry of
significant new hub competition (e.g., Northwest, Delta, Continental,
new carrier) into the region?
What are the effects on competition and the problem of the
Fortress O'Hare monopoly fares by putting new capacity at a
``reconfigured'' O'Hare vs. a new south suburban airport?
Who is Booz-Allen and who funded the economic studies
performed by Booz- Allen on which the Civic Committee makes its claims
for new runways at O'Hare? Has not Booz-Allen been a long-time business
consultant for United Airlines? Did not United Airlines contribute
significant funds for the Booz-Allen study which is the basis of the
Civic Committee's claims?
Based on the Civic Committee's demand forecast how soon
will demand for air traffic at O'Hare exceed the capacity of a single
new runway (2005, 2010, 2015)? How soon will demand exceed the capacity
of a second O'Hare runway? Once the capacity of the second runway is
exhausted, what do we do then--build even more O'Hare runways?
Under the Civic Committee/Booz-Allen/United Airlines
proposal how much of the region's future traffic growth (in passengers
and annual operations) will go to O'Hare vs. the so-called ``point-to-
point'' airport at Peotone or Gary--with one runway at O'Hare; with two
new runways at O'Hare?
What is the cost of ``reconfiguring O'Hare'' to add one or
two parallel runways? What are the associated costs for new terminals,
associated road access, and mitigation costs for the increased noise
that would exist as compared to an O'Hare which was not expanded?
How will the costs of expanding the terminals, roadways,
and runways for O'Hare expansion be financed?
Does the Civic Committee challenge the State DOT's
estimate of the costs associated with the new south suburban airport?
If so, what is the Civic Committee's estimate of the cost of the South
Suburban Airport and provide the basis for that estimate.
How fast can new runways and associated terminal and
roadway components be constructed at O'Hare? How fast can these
elements be constructed at the new regional airport?
How many additional annual flights at O'Hare will be
needed to accommodate the forecast increase in demand to the year 2020?
How many O'Hare area homes will suffer unacceptable noise
exposure by these additional flights vs. the number of O'Hare area
homes that would experience unacceptable levels of noise if the traffic
growth was sent to a new regional airport with an adequate
environmental buffer?
Does the Civic Committee agree or disagree with the claim
that noise levels from aircraft operations that are above government
recommended levels cause a decline in residential property values as
compared to similar homes that do not experience levels of aircraft
noise in excess of government recommended levels?
What are the amounts and types of toxic air pollution
emitted by operations at O'Hare airport? Do the Civic Committee and the
Tribune and Senator Durbin agree with the figures released by Chicago's
consultant that show that at current levels of traffic, O'Hare is the
largest emitter of toxic and hazardous pollutants in the State of
Illinois--far more than any other industrial source? If not, what are
their figures?
Do the Civic Committee and the Tribune and Senator Durbin
agree or disagree with the findings of the air toxics study by a
nationally known public health consultant, Environ, showing that
downwind of O'Hare in residential communities like Des Plaines and Park
Ridge, O'Hare toxic emissions cause an increase health risk up to five
times recommended health protective levels? If they disagree, where are
their data and analyses on the transport of air toxics from O'Hare to
downwind residential communities and the resultant health risk from
O'Hare toxic emissions in those communities.
What will be the amount of air toxic emissions at O'Hare
if future demand is accommodated by an expansion of O'Hare vs. a new
South Suburban Airport with an environmental buffer? What will the
concentrations of O'Hare toxic emissions and the resultant health risk
in downwind O'Hare area communities if future demand is accommodated by
an expansion of O'Hare vs. a new South Suburban Airport with an
environmental buffer?
Do the Civic Committee and Senator Durbin agree with the
Tribune Editorial Board that there is a ``Stench at O'Hare'' and that
the management of airport contracts has been part of what that same
Tribune Editorial Board refers to as a ``culture of sleaze''? If the
Civic Committee and Senator Durbin do not agree, why not? If the Civic
Committee and Senator Durbin do agree, how can the they propose
shoveling billions more in public funds to expand United and American's
monopoly at O'Hare while giving the ``culture of sleaze'' at O'Hare
billions more with which to play?
Whether the choice be an O'Hare expansion or a new south
suburban airport, it is clear that the governmental framework for
making and implementing these multi-billion dollar decisions needs to
be cleaned up and aired out. What's the Civic Committee's and Senator
Durbin's answer? Are the Civic Committee and Senator Durbin advocating
a ``back room'' deal like the Rosemont Casino--only on a much grander
multi-billion dollar scale to carve up the pork? Are they proposing
that a ``backroom deal'' be made before giving the impacted communities
and their residents a chance to be heard at public hearings on the
alternatives?
What do the Civic Committee and Senator Durbin propose to
address the current delay crisis at O'Hare. We both know that whatever
the decision is--either new runways at O'Hare or a new airport--these
facilities will not be in place to address the delay problem faced by
O'Hare currently or the delay problem it will face this Summer or over
the next several years. What are the Civic Committee's and Senator
Durbin's proposals for addressing this immediate and near term delay
problem?
______
Exhibit 6.--A Generation of Deceit--Chicago's Deception Of The Public,
Press, Federal And State Courts, State Legislature And Congress--
Chicago's Guerilla War Continues
Chicago lied to the public and the press in a 1983
Environmental Impact Statement when it said it had abandoned plans for
new runways at O'Hare because of the adverse environmental impact the
additional flights would have on surrounding communities. While it made
this statement to the public, Chicago was secretly planning new runways
at O'Hare.
Chicago lied to the federal courts in 1986 when it said
that it had no plans for new runways. At that very time, Chicago was
planning new runways at O'Hare.
Chicago lied in 1990 to the O'Hare communities, the DuPage
County Regional Planning Commission, and the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission when it said that Chicago would be preparing a
Master Plan Update to examine all alternatives for adding capacity in
the region. That same year Chicago officials secretly met with United
Air Lines officials to discuss the new Master Plan. Chicago and United
officials agreed that a new Master Plan was needed but decided to do a
secret Master Plan with the express purpose of limiting public
participation, in particular hiding the master plan from the Suburban
O'Hare Commission.
Chicago lied to the public in 1991 when it said it was
proposing new O'Hare runways ``to reduce delays'' and not for
additional new flights. Chicago's consultants told Chicago that the
``delay reduction'' runways actually would increase capacity and add
more flights.
Chicago and the airlines lied to the Illinois General
Assembly in 1995-96 when they told the General Assembly that the
Chicago area airports had plenty of capacity and that there was no need
to add capacity at either O'Hare or at a new airport.
Chicago lied to the House Judiciary Committee in 2000 when
it told Chairman Henry Hyde and the Congress that Chicago and O'Hare
had plenty of capacity without any need for new runways or a new
airport.
Chicago lied to the Illinois House Aviation Committee in
April and May of this year when it said O'Hare had sufficient capacity
for several additional years when Chicago knows O'Hare is out of
capacity.
Chicago lied when it told the press and the public that
Chicago was not actively opposing the new South Suburban airport when
Chicago was actually working in collusion with United Airlines to
``Kill Peotone'' and to stop major new competition from entering the
region.
Chicago lied about: The demand for airport services
(Chicago has generated internal forecasts very similar to the State of
Illinois), O'Hare capacity (By Chicago's own definition of capacity,
O'Hare is out of capacity now and has been for several years), and it
continues to lie about demand and capacity for the region and O'Hare
Chicago continues to lie about the fact that its multi-
billion dollar ``World Gateway'' Terminal project is part of a larger
``Integrated Airport Plan'' that includes new quad runways. Chicago `s
own consultants have told Chicago that without new runways, O'Hare does
not need new terminals.
Chicago has clearly shared the details of its quad runway
O'Hare ``reconfiguration'' (integrated Airport Plan) with the airlines
and the Civic Committee--but neither Chicago, the airlines or the Civic
Committee are willing to give the public and the media the details of
the plan.
______
Exhibit 7.--Chicago's ``Terrible Dilemma'' And Its Top Consultant's
Admission That The Chicago Was Waging A ``Guerrilla War'' Against A New
Airport
The following is from an internal memo in which Chicago's lead
airport consultant over the past 40 years details why the city had to
argue that no new air capacity was needed in the Chicago area, knowing
it was a lie, and the resulting ``Guerrilla War'' it waged against the
new regional airport.
When IDOT conducted its ``Third Airport Study'' in the late 1980s,
it was positioned as an alternative to further development of the ORD
airfield. At the time, Mayor Washington's DOA was paralyzed by a
terrible dilemma.
On the one hand, the City recognized that additional airfield
capacity would someday be needed in the Chicago Region.
There were only three possibilities for providing that additional
capacity: new runways at ORD; new runways at MDW or a third airport.
On the other hand, the City recognized that new runways at MDW were
impractical and was unwilling to incur the political heat that would
accrue to any suggestion that new runways were being considered at
either ORD or MDW.
Thus the City was forced to argue that new capacity was not and
would not ever, in the foreseeable future, be required in the Chicago
Region.
The City did manage, by waging this argument, to stall any serious
plans for a third airport outside the city limits.
Ultimately, after Mayor Daley took office, the City recanted on the
ultimate need for new airfield capacity in the Chicago Region and
proposed a MDW replacement airport at Lake Calumet.
The effort to demonstrate feasibility of this concept lasted about
two years and succeeded again in preventing IDOT from making any
meaningful progress toward developing a new airport in a suburban
location.
Thus, the City has conducted a protracted but successful Guerrilla
war against the state forces that would usurp control of the City's
airports by launching development of a new airport in the Southwest
suburbs and creating a Regional Airports Authority responsible for the
third airport development and for operation and maintenance of ORD and
MDW.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Exhibit C 76 (italic emphasis in original, boldface emphasis
added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
So Mayor Richard M. Daley (pre-Lake Calumet) falsely claimed that
no new capacity was needed in the region. Then he flip-flopped and
admitted that new airport capacity was needed. Then Mayor Daley flip-
flopped again when Lake Calumet failed and now continues to claim that
no new airport capacity is needed. His chief consultant knew Chicago
was lying in 1993 and Chicago knows it is lying today.
Chicago is continuing its ``guerilla war'' against the economic
welfare of the region by fighting the construction of the new regional
airport capacity the region needs and by secretly planning massive new
runway expansion at O'Hare.
______
Exhibit 8.--Deceiving The Public By Claiming The New Runways Are For
Delay Reduction when Chicago Knew That New Runways Mean Additional
Flights
Chicago and the airlines have tried to argue that new runways are
needed to reduce delays and are not intended to increase the capacity
and the number of aircraft operations. Chicago even went so far as to
rename a ``capacity enhancement'' study Chicago was conducting from
1988-1991 as a ``Delay Task Force Study''.
Yet internal contract documents show that the ``Delay Task Force''
effort was really a ``Capacity Enhancement Plan'' that would increase
O'Hare's flight capacity by several hundred thousand flights per year.
See Evidentiary Appendix at p. 21 and See Exhibit 260.
In March 1993, Chicago own consultants warned Chicago officials
that claiming that new runways were only for delay reduction was not
truthful. The consultants told Chicago that the new runways were also
intended for increasing the number of flights.
Development of a new O'Hare runway(s) is certain to be
controversial. Accordingly, it is imperative that the City do
everything possible to present its case for the new runway(s) such that
the probability of a successful outcome is maximized.
During internal strategy discussions to date, the City has
recognized two possible alternative ways in which to characterize the
purpose and need for new runway development at O'Hare: delay reduction
or capacity enhancement.
[C]apacity enhancement is a more accurate characterization of what
the City really intends to seek.
The City's real intentions in building a new runway(s) at O'Hare
include both delay reduction and capacity enhancement.
The net effect of this will be that the Airport will accommodate
more annual operations than either it is accommodating today or than it
could accommodate in the future without new runways.
To the suburbanite living near the airport, providing capability to
handle more annual operations is capacity enhancement pure and simple.
Further, the City appears to be avoiding the issue by only
developing a plan to address aviation needs through the year 2005.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Exhibit C 89 (italicized emphasis in original, boldfaced
emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Exhibit 9.--Hiding the New O'Hare Master Plan From the Public
In 1990 Chicago lied to the O'Hare communities, the DuPage County
Regional Planning Commission, and the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission when it told these organizations that Chicago would be
preparing a Master Plan Update to examine all alternatives for adding
capacity in the region.
Public participation is inherent in the planning process. . . . As
part of the public participation that will occur in connection with the
master plan, the City of Chicago will report periodically to the O'Hare
Advisory Committee. Consistent with OAC's role as an advisory body, the
City of Chicago expects that the OAC will provide its views in the
master planning process. The City of Chicago will seek and welcome the
OAC's comments along with those from other public and private parties
affected by O'Hare.
______
That same year Chicago officials secretly met with United Air Lines
officials to discuss the new Master Plan. They (Chicago and United
officials) all agreed that a new Master Plan was needed but decided to
do a secret Master Plan with the express purpose of limiting public
participation--and in particular hiding the master plan from the
Suburban O'Hare Commission.
Yesterday, at their request, I met with Franke, Loney, and
Freidheim, here at EXO [United Executive Headquarters] to discuss a
potpourri of O'Hare Planning Issues. Attached is a list of projects,
developed by Kitty's staff enumerating projects that might be included
in an ODP-II.
We agreed that a Master Plan was necessary but Franke and Freidheim
are very concerned that a formal FAA sponsored Plan would require
significant public participation, (specifically SOC).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``SOC'' referred to here is the ``Suburban O'Hare
Commission.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To shorten the planning process I thought the airlines might agree
to fund the Master Plan without FAA money to limit outside
participation prior to preparing the E.I.S.
Chicago and the O'Hare Airlines then proceeded to prepare a secret
multi-million dollar Master Plan for expansion of O'Hare. They
attempted to disguise the Master Plan by giving the Master Plan a
series of aliases (``Airport Layout Plan Update''; Global Hub
Implementation Plan; and finally ``Integrated Airport Plan''.
Exhibit 10.--Relationship Between Delay Reduction and Capacity
Increases
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.002
______
Exhibit 11.--Relationship Between Delay Reduction and Capacity
Increases
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.003
______
Exhibit 12.--The Analytical Framework That Governs Airport
Decision Making
In order to understand the evidence in this case, it is useful to
further summarize the analytical framework that governs decision-making
about airport expansion. This framework is discussed extensively in the
Evidentiary Appendix in the chronological narrative, but a more concise
outline may be helpful.
1. Demand vs. capacity. Airport expansion is governed by two simple
concepts: forecast passenger and traffic demand vs. calculation of the
capacity of the airport.
2. Does existing or forecast demand exceed the capacity of the
airport? If demand exceeds capacity then expansion of the airport--or
as an alternative construction of another airport--is needed.
3. The forecast demand drives the entire analysis. Central to the
decision whether to expand an airport--and central to any disputes as
to whether facilities such as runways are needed--is the Demand
Forecast. The Demand Forecast drive the entire analysis: The Aviation
Demand Forecast serves as the foundation for planning future airside,
terminal and landside facilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus Demand Forecast is computed as both number of passengers and
number of aircraft operations and is then used to compare demand with
the capacities of the airside, the terminals and the landside.
4. Measure of airfield capacity. Airfield capacity is defined by
the number of operations that can be handled at an acceptable level of
delay.
The practical capacity of the airfield will be defined as the
maximum level of average all-weather throughput achievable while
maintaining an acceptable level of delay. . . . Ten minutes per
aircraft operation will be used as the maximum level of acceptable
delay for the assessment of the existing airfield's capacity. . . .
This level of delay represents an upper bound for acceptable delays at
major hub airports. . . .\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Plaintiffs Exhibit MP4, p. II-1 (italic emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield capacity analysis is typically done--and was done here by
Chicago--with and FAA capacity/delay computer model called SIMMOD.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While most of the reports are in evidence to prove that the
capacity analysis was performed, two of the SIMMOD reports show that
current levels of traffic delays exceed the level of delay which
Chicago has defined as the capacity at O'Hare. See Plaintiffs Exhibit
S4, Bates No. OH/DU 0097476, and Plaintiffs Exhibit S17, Bates No. OH/
DU 002855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Long-term planning. Long-term planning of airport needs is
typically done in a master planning process\4\ that ``integrates'' the
capacity and needs of the three major airport components--airside,
landside, and terminal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because Chicago has not wanted to involve the public in the
master planning process, Chicago has disguised the Master Plan process
with a series of euphemistic names such as ``Global Hub Feasibility
Study,'' ``O'Hare Beyond 2000,'' and most recently, the ``Integrated
Airport Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ursery stated that it is necessary to integrate and balance the
three components (airfield, terminal, and ground access). . . .\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C82 (italic emphasis added) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
The key to implementing the comprehensive plan will be to balance
the capacities of all three main elements: airside, terminal, and
landside in each phase and to match demand with capacity as Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport moves into the 21st century.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C114 (italic emphasis added). For evidence
of the integration of airside, landside and terminal elements, see:
Plaintiffs Exhibit C95A (``[T]he planning team should focus its
attention on integrating the airfield, terminal, and ground access
elements of the most viable plan.''); Plaintiffs Exhibit C49 (``Using
the short-list of airport component alternatives, a series of
integrated airport facility concepts will be developed.''); Plaintiffs
Exhibit C44 (``Our key technical role will be in the airside
simulation/planning, ALP preparation (integration of the landside/
terminal work with the airside)''); Plaintiffs Exhibit C70 (``L&B will
coordinate with the landside/terminal contractors to integrate terminal
and roadway concepts with each airfield concept.''); Plaintiffs Exhibit
C82 (``Mr. Ursery stated that it is necessary to integrate and balance
the three components (airfield, terminal, and ground access) '');
Plaintiffs Exhibit C209 (``The plan must not forego long-term
requirements for the sake of short-term success; therefore it must not
be developed in a vacuum. The program must view the airport as a single
integrated system.'') (Italic emphasis throughout added.) See also
Plaintiffs Exhibits C55, C56, C60, C61, C62, C70, C74, C80, C89, C90,
C133, and C138 for references to the need for an integration of the
components of the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying this framework to Chicago's current long-term planning, it
clear demand already exceeds the runway capacity at O'Hare. One does
not need the FAA's SIMMOD model to know that O'Hare's runways are
choking on too much traffic. Either new runways are needed at O'Hare or
a new airport needs to be built.
These facts are confirmed by Chicago's own demand capacity
analysis. As discussed above, Chicago's SIMMOD capacity analysis shows
that O'Hare operations already exceed the delay levels which Chicago
has defined as the capacity of the airport.
Even if one accepts the unsupported claim in Chicago's documents
that O'Hare has a capacity of 946,000 operations,\7\ Chicago's own
demand forecast says that demand at O'Hare will exceed the 946,000
operation capacity in approximately the year 2007\8\--about the same
time Chicago is completing construction of the 5 billion dollars worth
of terminal and road expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Plaintiffs Exhibits C156 and C158.
\8\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C203, Bates No. OH/KF020806. Plaintiffs
emphasize that even the 2007 figure is based on Thomas's claim that the
capacity of O'Hare is 946,000 operations if and only if certain as yet
to be achieved ATC technologies come into being. Compare the Chicago
Demand Forecast of June 1998 (C 223)(which Chicago says is the forecast
demand used to design the World Gateway Program) with Landrum & Brown's
Jeff Thomas capacity forecast of 946,000 operations. (C 155, EA at
114). According to these documents--which are optimistic--O'Hare runs
out of runway capacity by 2007.
Thus the timing of the runways in the Integrated Airport Plan as
after the year 2012 is a sham--whether one accepts the reality that
O'Hare is out of capacity now (as do the airlines) or whether one
accepts Chicago's year 2007 figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Chicago's own experts have repeatedly stated that there is
sufficient existing terminal capacity--the current capacity shortfall
is in the need for new runways and roads.
The terminal operation must balance as equally as possible with
airside capacity. At the present time the terminal appears to be
somewhat overbuilt because the utilization of the airfield is maximized
all through an average day at O'Hare and many terminal gates are
underutilized (based on either annual passenger throughput or aircraft
operations per gate as compared to other U.S. domestic hub airports).
In a balanced operational scenario, additional airfield capacity
could provide the impetus for more terminal facilities. If no
additional airside capacity is provided, there should be no need for
additional terminal facilities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C91 (italic emphasis added) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive planning effort [Master Plan Update] was recently
undertaken to provide for O'Hare's future and to attempt to bring the
capacities of the key Airport components into balance with one another.
. . . Of the three main components [Airside, Landside, Terminal] at the
Airport, only the passenger terminals have any spare capacity today and
this surplus is found primarily at one location at Terminal 2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C114 (italic emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the $2 billion ODP, begun in 1981 and just now reaching
completion, provided modern, state-of-the-art terminal facilities,
including the world-class International Terminal, it did not provide
additional runway or access roadway capacity, the two current
constraining elements of the O'Hare airport system.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Plaintiffs Exhibit C157 (italic emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this analytical framework and this evidence demonstrates
(along with the explicit evidence on the Integrated Airport Plan\12\)
is that the real current capacity constraints at O'Hare are the runways
and the roads--not terminals. Everyone--except Chicago--now agrees that
O'Hare is out of runway capacity\13\. The only two choices are either
new runways at O'Hare (Chicago's secret choice) or a new airport.
Chicago should not be allowed to segment pieces of the Integrated
Airport Plan--putting forward only the terminal and roadway segments
while hiding the need for runways (or a new airport) from the state
permitting process and public debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Evidentiary Appendix pp. 137-47.
\13\ Even the airlines--through their consultant Booz-Allen--now
agree that O'Hare is out of runway capacity. The airlines and their
consultant Booz-Allen have recently candidly admitted what Plaintiffs
and others have been saying for some time--O'Hare is out of runway
capacity now. Booz-Allen now says: ``The timing for adding new runway
capacity [at O'Hare] will have to be accelerated significantly.'' C
256a EA at 148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Exhibit 13.--Comparison of Hazardous Air Pollutants from O'Hare
International Airport with Largest Reported Sources of Recognized
Carcinogens to Air in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Facility Name TPY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... O'Hare International 346.75
Airport (HAPs per KM
Chng).
2.................................... No-Sag Foam Products 283.62
Corp. (West Chicago).
3.................................... General Foam Corp. 241.97
(Bridgeview).
4.................................... GE Co. (Ottawa)......... 219.45
5.................................... Burkhart Foam, Inc. 209.38
(Cairo).
6.................................... Senior Flexonics, Inc. 140.63
(Bartlett).
7.................................... Remline Co. (Yorkville). 129.07
8.................................... Cerro Copper Products 118.10
Co. (Sauget).
9.................................... Dow Chemical (Channahon) 106.66
10................................... Abbott Labs (North 97.40
Chicago).
11................................... Solutia, Inc. (Cahokia). 75.65
12................................... Shell Wood River 70.25
Refining (Roxana).
21................................... Borden Chemicals & 33.78
Plastic (Illiopolis).
31................................... BF Goodrich Co. (Henry). 21.19
34................................... Koppers Ind., Inc. 18.19
(Cicero).
41................................... Amoco Chemical Co. 15.14
(Shannahon).
51................................... Marathon Ashland 11.67
Petroleum L.L.C.
(Robinson).
66................................... Clark Refining & 8.43
Marketing, Inc. (Blue
Island).
70................................... PDV Midwest Refining 7.68
L.L.C. (Lemont).
84................................... Chrysler Corp. 6.80
(Belvidere).
88................................... Kerr-McGee Chemical 6.54
L.L.C. (Madison).
89................................... Chemical Processing, 6.51
Inc. (Rockford).
94................................... Acme Finishing Co., Inc. 6.11
(Elk Grove Village).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source (other than O'Hare International Airport): Environmental
Defense Scorecard Pollution Ranking Database (http:www.scorecard.org).
Emission levels are of recognized carcinogens to air, as reported by
the listed companies in their Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports,
required to be reported annually under Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
11023, and retained in the U.S. EPA TRI Database.
______
Exhibit 14.--The Civic Committee/Booz-Allen/United Airlines/Oscar
D'Angelo/Gary Chico connection
The Civic Committee's call for new runways at O'Hare is purportedly
based on an economic study of the airport needs of the region performed
by the firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton.
What most people don't realize is that Booz-Allen is a consultant
to United Airlines and that United Airlines paid for the Booz-Allen
Study. Nor do people realize the role of confidential mayoral advisor
Oscar D'Angelo and Gary Chico, United's lawyer and former Chief of
Staff to Mayor Daley, in shaping the outcome of the study.
On February 4, 1998, Gerald Greenwald CEO of United airlines wrote
Mayor Daley:
We also spearheaded the effort at the ATA to have the entire
airline industry express its views to the Governor.
We have retained Booz, Allen & Hamilton to conduct a study
reflecting the value of the entire existing Chicago airport system; the
significance of O'Hare as a ``hub'' airport; the capacity of the
existing system and the needs of the community for the foreseeable
future; and the impact that a third airport would have on the system.
(See Evidentiary Appendix at 137.)
Oscar D'Angelo is a reported confidante of Mayor Daley, and
according to the Chicago Tribune, is the beneficiary of a contract with
Landrum & Brown which pays D'Angelo large sums of money for serving as
Landrum & Brown's liaison with the Mayor. A May 28, 1998 memo from
Goldberg of Landrum & Brown to Oscar D'Angelo relates a meeting between
D'Angelo (Landrum & Brown's agent) and Gary Chico (lawyer for United)
on May 26, 1998. The memo suggested that Booz-Allen knew in 1998 that
runway capacity at O'Hare was or would soon be exhausted and that new
runways would be needed much sooner.
I am pleased that you were able to meet with Gerry Chico this
morning regarding the release of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton (BA&H)
report of Chicago Airport System demand and capacity. I understand that
you successfully convinced him that the City would best be served if
the BA&H study did not reference the need for additional runways.
Instead the Study might suggest that the region's aviation needs could
well be served through the reasonably foreseeable future by means of a
modernization program that considers the use of new technology and the
eventual reconfiguration of the Airport's forty year old runway
geometry.
Oscar D'Angelo is apparently the conduit between Landrum & Brown
and Mayor Daley on the ``quad runway'' reconfiguration plan. See EA at
pp. 130-132.
After the first Booz-Allen report--paid for by United--Booz-Allen
did a supplemental report, now asserting that runways should be built
as soon as possible. The supplemental Booz-Allen report did nothing to
change the economic analysis of the first Booz-Allen report which
claimed that virtually all growth must go to O'Hare. In summary, the
entire Booz-Allen economic rationale of the Civic Committee's proposal
is based upon a report bought and paid for by United airlines. And
Booz-Allen's views are in turn shaped by back room communications
between Gary Chicago and Oscar D'Angelo.
______
Exhibit 15.--Daily Herald: Don't Rush to OK Unseen O'Hare Plans,
May 25, 2001
OUR VIEW: THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN NO MAPS. NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES.
NO COST ESTIMATES. NO TIMETABLES FOR CONSTRUCTION.
Last week, there was talk of cutting a legislative deal on O'Hare
International Airport by the time lawmakers adjourn this week. Then
Sen. Dick Durbin declared that Gov. George Ryan and Mayor Richard M.
Daley have until July 1 to reach an agreement on runways--or else
Congress will step in and impose its will.
Whoa; let's slow down a minute.
That pressure is building to do something about Chicago's airport
capacity is no surprise. Delays at O'Hare cause flights to back up
across the country, wasting travelers' precious time and imposing a
high cost on commerce. Outside pressure of some sort probably was
necessary to break the long-standing impasse between Republican
governors, who have opposed runways and favored construction of a third
major airport, and Dale,y who opposes construction of any airport the
city doesn't control and presumably has long been in favor of new
runways at O'Hare.
We say presumably, because the city has never taken a single public
step to advance any specific plans for new runways or reconfiguration
of existing runways. That remains true to this day, although Daley now
says a newly formed delay task force will try to have a plan ready to
hit Durbin's July 1 deadline. And American Airlines, for its part, is
offering to show Gov. Ryan the runway plan it would prefer.
But keep in mind that the public has seen no maps. No environmental
impact studies. No cost estimates. No timetables for construction. No
analysis of how flight schedules might be further disrupted or delayed
during construction--particularly if the city wants a radical
reconfiguration that would result in two or more new sets of parallel
runways. No reports of what the capacity of an updated O'Hare would be.
No assessment of related noise and safety issues. The complete absence
of plans and cost-benefit analyses does not seem to deter those who
suddenly insist that we must commit to an O'Hare plan--even plans
unseen--and that we do so, in essence, right now. The absence of
construction timetables does not seem to disturb those who insist that
O'Hare runways are the short-term answer for more capacity, even though
the city aviation commission itself says it is very possible that new
runways would not be operational for at least 10 years.
Yes, it is time--past time--to get serious about increasing airport
capacity in the Chicago region. But O'Hare is not the only piece of the
puzzle. A third airport in Peotone--which possibly could provide more
capacity than O'Hare runways and perhaps do so earlier and at less
cost--must be part of any reasonable discussion. To assume and declare
that O'Hare is the only answer or the main answer before we know what
the city and airlines have in mind is more than just bad planning--it
is no planning at all.
______
Exhibit 16.--Daily Southtown, Friday, June 8, 2001
O'HARE TASK FORCE KEEPS DOOR CLOSED
For 20 years the city of Chicago has been conducting a campaign to
sabotage plans for a third airport in the south suburbs. Documents
prepared by Landrum & Brown, the city's aviation consultant, and
recently unsealed by court order include a game plan for a ``guerrilla
war'' against the third airport.
This week, the so-called ``O'Hare Delay Task Force'' held its first
meeting. Landrum & Brown is providing the data and forecasts for the
task force, which has decided to meet behind closed doors, barring
south suburban officials, the public and the press from attending.
The documents released by the recent court order showed that
Landrum and Brown advised Chicago on how to stall progress on a third
airport and protect O'Hare and Midway airports and their airlines from
possible competition at Peotone or another south suburban site. Chicago
fought for years in court to keep the documents secret, and now city
officials apparently are dedicated to keep the task force meetings
secret as well.
The decision to bar the public from a task force meeting Tuesday
was called ``improper and unseemly'' by U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-6th) of
Bensenville, who has worked for years with O'Hare's suburban neighbors
to discourage expansion of the airport. Hyde urged Federal Aviation
Administrator Jane Garvey to open the meetings--which, Hyde noted,
include representatives of United and American Airlines and 14 other
air carriers.
Joseph Karaganis, a lawyer for the anti-expansion suburbs, tried to
enter the meeting but was barred. ``If this happened in any other
community, officials would be in jail,'' Karaganis said.
The fact is, the Cook County state's attorney and Illinois attorney
general treat Chicago as if it were exempt from the Open Meetings Act.
And it was clear at the task force meeting that Chicago Aviation
Department officials have every expectation that the task force will be
allowed to carry on its business in secret.
As Hyde wrote, that is ``improper and unseemly.'' The task force
meetings should be open to the public and press.
But then, how often do people involved in a guerrilla war invite
the press and the public to attend their planning sessions?
______
Exhibit 17
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.004
Prepared Statement of the Suburban O'Hare Commission
ONE ASPECT OF THE MONOPOLY FARE PROBLEM AT O' HARE
There has been much discussion over the issue of high fares charged
by the dominant airlines at O'Hare--United Airlines and American
Airlines--to business travelers using O'Hare airport. For many years,
business travelers at O'Hare--those who usually travel in a 0-14 day
window on short term business trips--have complained about the high
prices charged by American and United for travel from O'Hare to many
major business destinations such as New York's LaGuardia, Boston Logan,
Washington National and West Coast cities.
For example, the cost: of a single economy coach round trip ticket
for flights from O'Hare to major business destinations next Tuesday
June 19, 2001 is as follows: O'Hare to Boston: $1,556.00; O'Hare to
LaGuardia (NY): $1,297.00; O'Hare to Wash. National: $1,297.00; O'Hare
to Los Angeles (LAX): $2,304.00; O'Hare to San Francisco: $2,361.00.
An examination of fares to these cities in the 0-14 day window so
critical to business travelers shows that United and American typically
keep economy coach fares at these high levels for several of these
major business destinations throughout the 14 day period. This means
that Chicago area business travelers must pay punishingly high fares
for basic business travel out of O'Hare to major business centers
within a 0-14 day window.
United and American have defended these high fares suggesting that
these high fares are not caused by a lack of competition, but simply by
the fact that travel in a short time window is necessarily high cost.
In a study cited by allies of United and American--and paid for by
United--United's long-time business consultant, Booz-Allen and Hamilton
claimed that there was not a monopoly high fare problem at O'Hare.
To test this argument, the Suburban O'Hare Commission conducted a
study of published internet fares for travel to major business centers:
(1) by Chicago-based travelers from O'Hare and (2) by travelers from
so-called ``spoke'' cities who connect through O'Hare to the same
business destinations. For example, a traveler from Springfield to
Washington National might deplane at O'Hare and then get on a plane at
O'Hare to Washington National with a Chicago-based traveler who begins
his or her trip at O'Hare. Similarly, a traveler from Madison,
Wisconsin to LaGuardia might deplane at O'Hare and also board a plane
at O'Hare to LaGuardia with a Chicago-based traveler who begins his or
her trip at O'Hare.
All other things being equal, one would expect that the traveler
from the spoke city connecting at O'Hare to a major business
destination would pay a higher fare than the Chicago-based traveler.
The spoke city traveler is using two aircraft and traveling a greater
distance than the Chicago-based traveler.
To see if Chicago-based travelers are being treated fairly by
United and American in the critical short term business travel, we
attempted to determine if travelers from spoke cities were being
charged the same very high fares charged to Chicago business travelers.
We found two surprising facts:
1. Travelers in spoke cities where there is strong competition
frequently pay a far lower fare than the Chicago-based passenger who is
traveling on the same plane.
An example can be found in the flight to Boston on June 19, 2001:
O'Hare to Boston (Chicago based traveler) 6-19: $1,556.00; Springfield
to O'Hare to Boston (same plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19:
$386.00; Peoria to O'Hare Boston (same plane as Chicago-based traveler)
6-19: $452.00; Madison, WI to O'Hare Boston (same plane as Chicago-
based traveler) 6-19: $613.00.
In this example the Chicago-based traveler paid anywhere from 200
percent to 400 percent more than the spoke city traveler--more than
$1,500 for the Chicago-based traveler and as low as $386 for the
``spoke'' city traveler even though the spoke city traveler and the
Chicago-based traveler flew on the same day and the same flight from
O'Hare to Boston.
Another example can be found in the flight to Washington National
on June 19, 2001: O'Hare to Washington National (Chicago-based
traveler) 6-19: $1,386.00 6-19; Springfield to O'Hare to Washington
National (same plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19: $558.00; Grand
Rapids, MI to O'Hare to Washington National (same plane as Chicago-
based traveler) 6-19: $799.00; Madison, WI to O'Hare to Washington
National (same plane as Chicago-based traveler 6-19: $613.00.
Again, in this example the Chicago-based traveler paid anywhere up
to 200 percent more than the spoke city traveler--more than $1,300 for
the Chicago-based traveler and as low as $613 for the ``spoke'' city
traveler even though the spoke city traveler and the Chicago-based
traveler flew on the same day and the same flight from O'Hare to
Washington National.
Another example can be found in the flight to LaGuardia (New York)
on June 19, 2001: O'Hare to LaGuardia (Chicago-based traveler) 6-19:
$1,1297.00; Peoria to O'Hare to LaGuardia (same plane as Chicago-based
traveler) 6-19: $501.00; Grand Rapids, MI to O'Hare to LaGuardia (same
plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19: $519.00; Madison, WI to O'Hare
to Washington National (same plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19:
$803.00.
Again, in this example the Chicago-based traveler paid anywhere up
more than 200 percent more than the spoke city traveler--almost $1,300
for the Chicago-based traveler and as low as $519 for the ``spoke''
city traveler even though the spoke city traveler and the Chicago-based
traveler flew on the same day and the same flight from O'Hare to
LaGuardia.
A final example is the flight to Los Angeles from O'Hare on June
19, 2001: O'Hare to Los Angeles LAX (Chicago-based traveler) 6-19:
$2304.00; Peoria to O'Hare to LaGuardia (same plane as Chicago-based
traveler) 6-19: $501.00; Toledo, Ohio to O'Hare to LaGuardia (same
plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19: $864.00; Madison, WI to O'Hare
to Washington National (same plane as Chicago-based traveler) 6-19:
$620.00.
Again, in this example the Chicago-based traveler paid anywhere up
more almost 400 percent more than the spoke city traveler--$2,300 for
the Chicago-based traveler and as low as $620 for the ``spoke'' city
traveler even though the spoke city traveler and the Chicago-based
traveler flew on the same day and the same flight from O'Hare to Los
Angeles.
These fare comparisons demonstrate that in spoke cities where
American or United has significant competition with other hub airports
and airlines (e.g., Northwest, and Continental) the fares charged to
the spoke city traveler are far lower than the Chicago-based passenger
is paying on the same flight. Since the fare comparisons were for the
same flights on the same day, United and American cannot use calendar
differences or cost differences as an excuse for the much higher fares
charged to the Chicago-based business traveler.
We also looked at the fares charged from Midway. While fares
charged by ATA to these same business destinations on the same day are
far lower than those charged by United and American at O'Hare, ATA
offers far fewer flights and seats and apparently is not able to mount
a significant enough competitive challenge to United and American's
market dominance to drive the O'Hare fare prices down to anything close
what the spoke city traveler is paying.
When these huge fare premiums charged to the Chicago-based traveler
at O'Hare are added up over tens of thousands of passengers over the
course of a year, it is easy to see why the State of Illinois has
stated that the lack of competition in the Chicago region and the
dominance by United and American is costing Chicago area travelers
several hundred million dollars per year.
2. There is more than one hubbing airport operation in the Chicago
region.
One of the central arguments made by United and American and their
business allies such as the Civic Committee is that virtually all the
growth must occur at O'Hare rather than at a new regional airport--
because, according to them, the region can only operate a single hub
airport. But our fare study of Chicago and spoke cities revealed that
the Chicago region currently has three hubbing airports--O'Hare,
Midway, and Milwaukee. Many of the spoke cities served by United and
American from O'Hare are also served by hub-and-spoke operations from
Midway (ATA) and Milwaukee (Midwest Express). Unfortunately, neither of
these airports provides sufficient capacity for these hubbing
operations to grow to sufficient size and frequency to provide
significant competitive pressure on the high fares charged to Chicago-
based business travelers at O'Hare. Indeed, based on current rates of
growth, Midway will be out of capacity in about 3 years.
CONCLUSION
United and American's own published internet fares demonstrate that
these two airlines charge Chicago-based business travelers hundreds and
thousands of dollars more than travelers from spoke cities who connect
through O'Hare and travel on the same plane out of O'Hare to the same
business destination as the Chicago based traveler. These extremely
high fares for the Chicago based business traveler out of O'Hare appear
to be based on the lack of significant competition in the Chicago
region for the hub-based Chicago traveler. Where such competition in
the spoke cities exists, the fares to the same destination on the same
day on the same flights are much lower for the spoke traveler than for
the Chicago-based traveler.
Senator McCain. Thank you, sir. Welcome, Mr. Crown. Thank
you for being here. And if you could move the microphone over.
STATEMENT OF LESTER CROWN, CHAIRMAN, MATERIAL
SERVICE CORPORATION AND CHAIR OF CIVIC
COMMITTEE'S AVIATION TASK FORCE
Mr. Crown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here as the Chair
of the Civic Committee's Aviation Task Force and joining me is
Eden Martin who is the President of Civic Committee and also
will be available to answer questions afterwards.
The Civic Committee, I think as you know, is a group of
senior executives from most of the major corporations and the
professional firms and universities here in Chicago. And it's
dedicated to improving the economic and the social vitality of
this region.
Our members have offices and plants and people living not
just in the city of Chicago, but in all of the suburbs. It is a
regional organization. And from that we have, obviously, we
have a huge stake in the economic and the aviation future of
this region.
The preeminence of Chicago as a transportation hub is
really in jeopardy, as all of you said this morning. The
operations at O'Hare have been stagnant at 900,000 operations
for the last few years. And it doesn't appear that under
existing weather conditions in Chicago, that you can, at the
existing airport, have more than 900,000 operations as time
goes on.
The predictions that you all talk about are true. All of
our predictions on airline travel really have been less than
what has occurred whether it's been the City or the state or
the federal. The result has been larger than what we have
anticipated to begin with.
And as far as the members of the Civic Committee and the
whole business community in Chicago are concerned, we are
absolutely convinced that the primary way to address the
shortage of aviation capacity is first to add one or more
runways at O'Hare.
Actually, maybe it's almost hard to say now, but the Civic
Committee has been recommending the expansion of the O'Hare
Airport for 20 years. Obviously, it's fallen on deaf ears for
quite sometime but we started this 20 years ago. That
additional runway capacity at O'Hare obviously could benefit
not just the Chicago region but West Virginia, Arizona, and
every other place throughout the country.
Half, approximately half, of all of the passengers who come
through O'Hare either originate or terminate here. But the
other half, such as you when you come through and so many
others, go beyond. And O'Hare is the connecting point to other
destinations for half of the people, over half of them that
come through O'Hare.
Now, similarly, airfreight shippers that use O'Hare use it
as an intermediate point. As we've talked about here this
morning, there's been very little progress, unfortunately, made
locally with respect to increasing runway capacity at O'Hare
because primarily because of the political situation and the
competing efforts to build a third airport at Peotone and
concerns about noise and traffic in the communities. And I'd
like to address those three issues briefly just one at a time.
A new airport at Peotone is probably a very good idea. But
what it does is it increases the capability of point to point
flights. This Committee is on record to support the suggestion
for land banking and perhaps even then the building of a new
airport at Peotone to provide the region with the flexibility
to meet the increased aviation demand in the future.
But if I can, I'd just like to emphasize as strongly as
possible that Peotone is not a substitute for enhancing
O'Hare's position as a national and international hub. And if
we have kept the flights at O'Hare or split the hub now before
you maximize the capacity of O'Hare, it just will not work as
well.
On splitting the hubs, it's been tried in many places.
Paris is the natural hub for Europe. They put in two airports
and the hubs became Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Montreal put in a
second airport and they lost out and Toronto became the hub.
New York has three airports. LaGuardia is obviously a point
to point airport. JFK, if you think about it, is a point to
point airport. For any of you that have tried to get into JFK
and go beyond, you do the same thing the rest of us do. You
take a cab to LaGuardia and go on from there. Newark is the
hub. Washington is the exception. There's no question. National
is a point to point airport. And both Dulles and Baltimore are
hubs.
However, Dulles is served by United primarily. Baltimore is
served by US Airways. And if a passenger on United comes into
Dulles, he doesn't have the opportunity to go to the
destinations of US Airways that United doesn't fly to. So a
single hub is the most effective and important type of
operation that you can have. It doesn't mean that you can't
have two hubs. It just isn't as efficient and shouldn't be done
first.
Now, second, I really want to say that communities around
O'Hare have a stake in the future of the airport. And they have
quality of life concerns that Senator Durbin talked about.
Absolutely true. And they should be addressed.
The City has spent over $300 million in soundproofing homes
and schools around O'Hare. And should there be a commitment now
to expand the runways of O'Hare, we completely agree that there
should be a commitment of additional resources to mitigate
those problems.
Also, the other problems, Senator Durbin, should be
addressed. You've got western access, eastern access and ground
facilities to handle it. All of them have to be done. But the
only way you increase the capacity of O'Hare as a hub and spoke
airport is by the addition of an additional runway or two.
We really very much appreciate the fact that this Committee
has gotten into this problem. We think it's one of the most
important things within this area on a economic basis. O'Hare
is the economic engine for this region and a Booz-Allen and
Hamilton, an independent report that we commissioned to have
done says that if another runway, one more, just one additional
runway goes into O'Hare, it will mean at least an additional
100,000 jobs for this area.
If you all remember, especially Senator Fitzgerald and
Senator Durbin----
Senator McCain. Your third point is? We're running out of
time, sir. Please go ahead.
Mr. Crown. Just we did an awful lot to entice Boeing to
come in. And they brought 500 jobs. This would be 200 Boeings
being brought to the Chicago region. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lester Crown, Chairman, Material Service
Corporation and Chair of Civic Committee's Aviation Task Force
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lester Crown. I am a member
of the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago and Chair of
its Aviation Task Force. On behalf of our members, I would like to
thank you, along with the other Committee members and Senators here
today, for allowing us the opportunity to share the business
community's viewpoint on the Chicago region's aviation future. We
appreciate your efforts to solve the shortage of aviation capacity--
which we can all agree has reached a crisis stage across the country.
Nowhere is the problem more pressing than at O'Hare Airport, which has
become a major bottleneck in the national aviation system.
The Civic Committee--a group of 68 senior executives from the
Chicago region's leading businesses, professional firms, and
universities--is dedicated to improving Chicago as a place to live,
work, and conduct business. We believe that a strong and efficient
aviation system is essential to the economic vitality and livability of
Chicago and Northern Illinois. Our members have offices and plants
throughout the city and suburbs, including in the communities around
O'Hare. We have employees who use O'Hare for business and/or personal
travel. We clearly have a huge stake in the economic and aviation
future of the region; and we are unanimous in our support for adding
runway capacity at O'Hare. In fact, we've been advocating new runways
at O'Hare for almost 20 years.
One of the Chicago region's proudest legacies is its historic
position as a major transportation center of the United States. Chicago
developed as a major industrial, commercial, and financial center, and
its businesses have grown and provided jobs for millions of people,
because of ready access to efficient surface and air transportation
networks. Chicago grew initially because of its proximity to the inland
waterway transportation network. It later became a major commercial
center in the 19th century because it was a hub for the nation's major
railways. In the 20th century, from the beginnings of commercial
aviation, Chicago has been the leading aviation center in the United
States. Midway Airport was at one time the busiest airport in the
country. It was succeeded by O'Hare Airport, which became--and for
decades remained--the busiest airport in the world.
Chicago's growth as a transportation center was good not just for
Chicago, but for the entire country. Our rail switching operations
provided essential linkages for transcontinental movements of freight,
linking suppliers and consumers throughout the country. O'Hare airport
now serves the same role in the national aviation system--as a vital
hub for the movement of both passengers and cargo. Both United and
American Airlines operate networks of connecting flights and schedules
at O'Hare; and several dozen other airlines also have significant
operations at the airport. Roughly half of the airport's passengers
originate or terminate their trips at O'Hare, benefiting Chicago and
the region. But, as many of you know from personal experience, the
other half of the passengers use O'Hare as a connecting point to
another destination. Similarly, many air freight shippers use O'Hare as
an intermediate point for their freight shipments.
Today, Chicago's pre-eminence as a transportation center is in
jeopardy. O'Hare Airport is approaching its capacity limitations. Its
operations have remained stagnant at approximately 900,000 for the past
few years, while other airports have experienced substantial increases
in the number of flights. Flight delays and cancellations at O'Hare--
due primarily to inadequate runways--have reached an all-time high,
creating a ripple effect across the country. The increasing delays and
declining service at O'Hare adversely impact not only the people of
Northern Illinois, but the citizens and businesses in Arizona, West
Virginia, and other states throughout the country. Although other major
American metropolitan centers--including Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and
Denver--have built new airports and added new runways, or are planning
to build new runways, Chicago has not built new runway facilities at
O'Hare for decades.
According to a study conducted by Booz Allen and Hamilton for the
Civic Committee, aviation demand is projected to increase substantially
in the future, with a significant portion of the projected increase in
international traffic. International traffic at O'Hare grew at a rate
of over 12 percent between 1996-99. Because of its central location and
scope of operations, O'Hare is a natural to become the primary mid-
continent international aviation hub.
In order to protect and enhance its role as a primary aviation hub,
Booz Allen concluded that Chicago should add new runways at O'Hare now.
Additional runway capacity at O'Hare would significantly reduce delays
and improve the efficiency of the national aviation system.
Unfortunately, little progress has been made with respect to increasing
runway capacity at O'Hare because of competing efforts to build a third
airport at Peotone and concerns about noise in the communities around
O'Hare. Let me address these issues one at a time.
First, a new airport at Peotone or elsewhere may be a good idea to
accommodate the projected increase in point-to-point flights and
promote economic development throughout the region. We are on record in
support of land-banking for a third airport in Peotone to provide the
region with the flexibility to meet increased aviation demand in the
future. But a new airport in Peotone is not a substitute for expanding
O'Hare's position as an international and domestic hub. Capping the
number of flights at O'Hare or splitting its hub operations with a new
airport would lead to disaster. Similar efforts failed in Paris and
Montreal.
Secondly, we recognize that the communities around O'Hare also have
a stake in the future of the airport. They have quality of life
concerns related to the airport's operations, such as noise and traffic
congestion, that must be addressed. However, we do not believe that the
solution to addressing these issues is to allow O'Hare to wither on the
vine. Once the City releases a detailed plan for the airport, it will
undergo an extensive review process, including an environmental
evaluation. Many of these quality of life concerns will be addressed
during this process. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been
spent by Chicago on soundproofing homes and schools around the airport;
and we believe that any agreement to reconfigure O'Hare should commit
additional resources to further mitigate noise and traffic concerns.
There are other issues that need to be addressed, including Western
access to the airport, but none of these should be allowed to block the
immediate improvement of O'Hare.
We appreciate the efforts of this Committee and other members of
Congress to improve O'Hare and its impact on the national aviation
system. Certainly, our preference is to have this issue resolved on the
local level, and we are encouraged by recent indications from Governor
Ryan and Mayor Daley that they will soon consider plans to expand
runway capacity at O'Hare. However, if all else fails--and our local
leaders cannot reach an agreement--then the Federal Government should
step in and resolve the issue.
There are a number of initiatives that Congress should consider in
the interim to help improve O'Hare and the national aviation system.
For example, Congress should streamline the environmental review
process for runway construction. According to the FAA, it takes them
nearly 4 years, sometimes longer, to complete an environmental review
of a runway construction project. As you know, the lengthy review
process has bogged down runway expansion projects at other airports
around the country. Congress should also empower the FAA to speed up
the technological advancement of the nation's air traffic control
system. Lastly, Congress should fund adequate capital and operational
investments in aviation to ensure a safe and efficient national
aviation system in the future.
We, the Chicago region and the nation, cannot afford to allow
O'Hare to languish in delays and unfulfilled potential. If we fail to
act, increasing numbers of travelers will avoid O'Hare; and the
airlines will schedule more flights via other metropolitan airports,
putting additional pressure on a national system approaching its
limits. We must decide now to expand runway capacity at O'Hare; and to
that end, we pledge our continued support to this Committee, Governor
Ryan, and Mayor Daley.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8897.006
Senator McCain. I thought you had three points.
Mr. Crown. That's enough, sir.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Crown.
Mr. Paesel.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD W. PAESEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH
SUBURBAN MAYORS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE KEEP
CHICAGO/ILLINOIS FLYING
COALITION
Mr. Paesel. Thank you, Senator. I am the Executive Director
of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. Today
I'm privileged to represent the Keep Chicago and Illinois
Flying Coalition, which consists of state, municipal, and
county elected officials for Cook, Will, DuPage and Kankakee
Counties, as well as business leaders from the Chicago
Southland, Will County and Kankakee County Regional Chambers of
Commerce. And we also number organized labor, citizen groups
and educators as part of our coalition. And many of them are
behind me today in the audience.
I come here today to reiterate and reinforce our 14-year
effort, we need to reemphasize that. Our 14-year effort to
expand the aviation capacity of the Chicago region. We have
stood in a bipartisan effort, with the state of Illinois, its
present and two previous Governors, in not only calling for but
actually planning the aviation facilities that would serve the
region, the state and the nation for the net 20 years and more.
Some call us obstructionists. But it is we who, with the
state, 14 years ago recognized the rapidly growing aviation
demand and the lack of regional capacity to handle it. In the
early 1990's, many forecasters foresaw the crisis conditions
that finally overtook the national aviation system; Secretary
Mineta, in 1997, warned that we were approaching gridlock.
Chicago is a major contributor to that gridlock because its
airport sponsors have refused to acknowledge these forecasts.
As late as a year ago, O'Hare's two major airlines were stating
publicly that they could accommodate demand well into the 21st
Century. As late as a month ago, the city of Chicago testified
to the state legislative aviation committee that O'Hare would
not require runway expansion.
Its adverse conditions and ripple effects, however, finally
have pushed O'Hare to center stage, nationally. Many
Congressional leaders must fly through Chicago and they know
well its serious problems. Iowa's senators are asking that our
Governor be stripped of his authority so that O'Hare can be
expanded to serve their state's 2.9 million residents.
We too believe that 2.9 million Iowans should be served
through Chicago's aviation hubs. And we said that as early as
1995 they predicted the loss of service to their cities, a
forecast which, at the time, the airlines loudly protested.
We applaud the courageous stand of Governor Ryan. His
priority is the economic well-being of 12 million Illinois
citizens. And our responsibility is to see that the 2\1/2\
million south suburbanites, who live within 45 minutes of the
proposed south suburban airport, finally are well-served as
well. Our travel time to O'Hare exceeds 2 hours, severely
restricts our use and discourages the location of business and
industry in our midst.
Fourteen years of planning, often against the
obstructionist actions of the City, the airlines and the
Federal Government, have finally resulted in a thoroughly
planned airport that could be operational within 5 years. The
Federal Government has the authority to expedite the EIS for
the south suburban airport that has been stalled for 4 years.
We urge this Committee to press forward with a solution to the
national aviation problem that is, one, environmentally
sensitive, and, two, socially just.
This can and should be achieved without abandoning the
environmental safeguards that the nation has put in place. The
south suburban airport plans are well-documented and publicly
discussed. There are no similar plans for O'Hare runways that
have been presented to the public. Because the environmental
consequences of O'Hare's expansion are expected to be severe,
documentation has been avoided and the need for expansion
itself has been denied.
Our airport plan protects the environment and enriches our
citizens. In our service are of 2\1/2\ million residents, we
have a job shortage of 450,000. This will grow to 550,000 if we
continue to pile the region's aviation rewards into the areas
surrounding O'Hare. Our communities can and must be revitalized
and the region rebalanced with no additional public funding by
building the south suburban airport. Building the south
suburban airport can solve many of the nation's aviation
problems and eliminate the region's growing economic divide in
one fell swoop. It is smart growth in all respects.
Finally, we ask that you truly listen to our concerns today
because they are the concerns of the people. They are, as well,
the concerns of local government and business leaders who
offer, with the south suburban airport, solutions to the
national and regional aviation crisis that are both short term
and long term.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paesel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward W. Paesel, Executive Director, South
Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, Representing the Keep
Chicago/Illinois Flying Coalition
My name is Edward Paesel; I am the Executive Director of the South
Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. Today, I also am privileged
to represent the Keep Chicago/Illinois Flying Coalition, consisting of
state, municipal and county elected officials from Cook, Will, DuPage
and Kankakee Counties, as well as business leaders from the Chicago
Southland, Will County and Kankakee County Regional Chambers of
Commerce. We also number organized labor, citizen groups and educators
as part of our coalition.
I come here, today, to reiterate and reinforce our 14-year effort
to expand the aviation capacity of the Chicago region. We have stood,
in a bipartisan effort, with the State of Illinois, its present and two
prior governors, in not only calling for, but planning, the aviation
facilities that would serve the region, the State and the nation for
the next 20 years, and more.
Some call us obstructionists. But it is we who--with the state--14
years ago, recognized the rapidly-growing aviation demand and the lack
of regional capacity to handle it. In the early 1990's, many
forecasters foresaw the crisis conditions that finally overtook the
national aviation system; Secretary Mineta, in 1997, warned that we
were approaching gridlock. Chicago is a major contributor to that
gridlock because its airport sponsors have refused to acknowledge these
forecasts. As late as a year ago, O'Hare's two major airlines were
stating, publicly, that they could accommodate demand well into the
21st Century. As late as a month ago, the City of Chicago testified to
a State legislative committee that O'Hare would not require runway
expansion.
Its adverse conditions and ripple effects, however, finally have
pushed O'Hare to center stage, nationally. Many Congressional leaders
must fly through Chicago and they know, well, its serious problems.
Iowa's two senators are asking that our governor be stripped of his
authority so that O'Hare can be expanded to serve their state's 2.9
million residents. We, too, believe that 2.9 million Iowans should be
served through Chicago's aviation hubs; as early as 1995, our studies
predicted the loss of service to their cities, a forecast which the
airlines loudly protested.
We applaud the courageous stand of Governor Ryan. His priority is
the economic well-being of twelve million Illinois citizens. And our
responsibility is to see that the 2.5 million South Suburbanites, who
live within 45 minutes of the proposed South Suburban Airport, finally
are well-served, as well. Our travel time to O'Hare, exceeding two
hours, severely restricts our use, and discourages the location of
business and industry in our midst.
Fourteen years of planning, often against obstructionist actions of
the City, the airlines and the Federal Government, have finally
resulted in a thoroughly-planned airport that could be operational
within five years. The Federal Government has the authority to expedite
the EIS for the South Suburban Airport that has been stalled for four
years. We urge this Committee to press forward with a solution to the
national aviation problem that is: environmentally sensitive and
socially just.
This can and should be achieved without abandoning the
environmental safeguards that the nation has put in place. The South
Suburban Airport plans are well-documented and publicly discussed.
There are no similar plans for O'Hare runways that have been presented
to the public. Because the environmental consequences of O'Hare's
expansion are expected to be severe, documentation of them has been
avoided; and the need for expansion, itself, has been denied.
Our airport plan protects the environment and enriches our
citizens. In our service area of 2.5 million residents, we have a job
shortage of 450,000. This will grow to 550,000 if we continue to pile
the region's aviation rewards into the area surrounding O'Hare. Our
communities can be revitalized and the region rebalanced, with no
additional public funding, by building the South Suburban Airport.
Building the South Suburban Airport can solve many of the nation's
aviation problems and eliminate the region's growing economic divide in
one fell swoop. It is smart growth, in all respects.
We ask that you truly listen to our concerns, today, because they
are the concerns of the people. They are, as well, the concerns of
local government and business leaders, who offer--with the South
Suburban Airport--solutions to the national and regional aviation
crises that are both short-range and long-term. Thank you for your
attention.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Paesel.
Mr. Schwiebert.
STATEMENT OF MARK SCHWIEBERT, MAYOR,
CITY OF ROCK ISLAND
Mr. Schwiebert. Chairman McCain, Chairman Rockefeller,
Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald, I want to begin by thanking you
for convening this hearing here in Chicago and coming to us to
hear some information about this very important issue.
Today, I perhaps will speak with a little different
perspective than most of the others, perhaps a little less
passion on the subject because it isn't quite so close to where
I'm from in western Illinois, but with no less interest in the
concerns that exist with regard to Chicago aviation because of
the significant impact it has on economic development and our
job base in western Illinois and eastern Iowa.
First a word about the base from which I come. I'm from the
Quad Cities region, which is located on what is sometimes
referred to whimsically as the western coast of Illinois--a
four city region of Rock Island and Moline in Illinois and
Davenport and Bettendorf in Iowa.
Quad Cities International Airport is a facility that
presently accommodates 400,000 passengers per day and as such
is the third busiest airport in the state of Illinois, after
Chicago O'Hare and Midway. We've seen a 56 percent growth in
our enplanements during the last 6 years and serve a population
base of approximately 1.2 million population in a 60-mile area.
We are also going through an 18 million dollars expansion
at our own airport, which we see as accommodating a
considerable amount of additional growth in the future. And are
presently the fifth fastest growing airport, Senator
Rockefeller, the fifth fastest growing airport in the United
states at the present time with hubs, in addition to here in
Chicago, in St. Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit, Denver, Milwaukee
and Atlanta.
As such, we have become something of a regional sub-hub
that can, in one respect perhaps, afford some opportunity for
reducing some of the congestion that may occur at the
Chicagoland airports. But we're very much concerned about the
Chicago metropolitan airport situation and are here primarily
to speak on behalf of the addition of runways at Chicago
O'Hare.
And the reason for that, as was referred to by Mr. Crown
earlier, is because a large amount, 90 percent approximately of
the people coming out of the Quad Cities International Airport
at the present time are coming through O'Hare for purposes of
catching connecting flights to other points.
Only approximately 10 percent, due to a variety of reasons,
are actually people who are coming to Chicago as the ultimate
destination. Well, that has something to do with ridiculously
high air fares presently on round trip air fares. The walkup
fare to Chicago from the Quad City is presently $800. That's
for a 165-mile flight.
And that relates to a further reason why the additional
runways at O'Hare are necessary. Not only do we need O'Hare
with its ability to serve the international as well as the
national community as opposed to the point to point service,
but we need the expansion of the runway so we can gain
additional gates from Quad Cities O'Hare for competing
airlines.
Presently our sole service to O'Hare is by United Express.
That means that United Express basically has a captive market
and can charge pretty much what they want for whatever the
airfares would be to Chicago. And they are doing so.
Senator McCain. They're charging $800?
Mr. Schwiebert. Eight hundred dollars round trip for walkup
service. Now, if you book in advance you can get somewhat
better rates. I know I was booking for a trip in October where
we would have had point to point service and it would have been
over $300. And then would have been catching another flight out
of here. But that would have been several months in advance
would have been over $300. But walkup service is $800 at the
present time.
And that's the second reason why the added gates are
important. In 1999 we had a competing airlines serving Quad
Cities and that was American Airlines. Because of the limited
number of gates, slots in and out of O'Hare at the present
time, they shifted that service to what they saw as being a
larger service base between Chicago and Omaha. And as a result,
we were left with one airline to Chicago from the Quad Cities.
The capacity we have locally could accommodate at least
another four roundtrip flights a day to Chicago we've
estimated. We presently have five roundtrip flights. Now, as I
say, speaking for downstate communities here today in somewhat
of an unofficial capacity, I would just suggest that although
our problem may be more pronounced because of the fact that we
have a busier air service, I'm sure that this condition could
also be reported for many other downstate communities, which
don't have the luxury of having as much air service as we do
presently. And as a result I think there is a major concern.
I would like to add that I think that one of the topics
that's been raised today by a number of you on this esteemed
panel that I think makes a great deal of sense is the concept
of regional planning. I'm sure there is abundant capacity for
just about any kind of air service that would be developed
here. Particularly if you consider some of the numbers that are
being mentioned here.
At the same time, I think a first priority simply has to
be, Senator Rockefeller, as you said earlier, on expanding
capacity at O'Hare. It's simply not sufficient and no other
alternative is going to meet the concerns that downstate
communities have for a global, national as well as point to
point service.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwiebert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Schwiebert, Mayor, City of Rock Island
The Quad City International Airport is critical to the economy of
Western Illinois and Eastern Iowa. It serves a 60-mile catchment area,
including Rock Island, Moline, East Moline, Davenport and Bettendorf,
and 1.2 million people.
The airport serves 400,000 passengers per year, up 56 percent in
just 6 years. We have almost completed the construction of a new $18
million terminal concourse expansion project. We have added 12 new
gates, two new baggage carousels, a frequent flier lounge, a new
restaurant and snack bar, and a new gift shop. In the next 5 years, we
will be the fifth fastest-growing airport in the country. We have
nonstop air service to six different hubs--St. Louis, Chicago O'Hare,
Minneapolis, Detroit, Denver, Milwaukee and Atlanta. For a region of
our size, this represents very good service and allows us to be a
``sub-hub'' that can help relieve congestion at major hubs like O'Hare.
As such, our facility benefits all of Western Illinois and Eastern
Iowa.
But we don't have reliable and frequent service to O'Hare's
International Hub, and this is destructive to businesses and economic
development in the area. On July 31, 1999, American Airlines terminated
service from the Quad Cities to O'Hare because American needed the
slots to establish service between O'Hare and Omaha. This leaves only
five daily flights by United Express to Chicago from the Quad Cities.
This does not satisfy our demand for service to O'Hare and leaves no
margin for error if a flight is delayed or canceled. Every day people
drive to Chicago for international connections to insure that they make
their flights and avoid air traffic or weather delays.
Greater capacity to O'Hare is critical for our area's development.
We need new runways at O'Hare to provide that capacity. Fliers in the
Quad Cities are not only looking for better ways to Chicago--we need
access to O'Hare's incredible range of air service to cities all over
the world which only O'Hare can provide.
Midwestern communities depend on service to O'Hare. And we need
these runways now, not in the 10 to 15 years that it often now takes to
complete runway projects. We need decisions to allow this to happen and
an environmental review process to facilitate construction presently to
meet current and future demand. The runways would be funded by the
Passenger Facility Charges that passengers are accustomed to paying.
Chicago and Illinois taxpayers should not have to bear the cost.
In conclusion, I urge you to support new runways at O'Hare to
foster greater economic development and progress throughout our
Midwestern region.
Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mayor.
Mr. Karaganis, you state that no one would use Peotone if
O'Hare is expanded. Is that correct?
Mr. Karaganis. Yes, I think that's a position taken by----
Senator McCain. But you also claim that expansion of O'Hare
won't accommodate the forecast of additional traffic. That
seems to me a contradiction.
Mr. Karaganis. It isn't, Senator, if I may explain.
Senator McCain. Sure.
Mr. Karaganis. The premise of my good friends over here at
the Civic Committee is that----
Senator McCain. I think we need the microphone again. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Karaganis. I'm sorry, let me----
Senator McCain. Go ahead.
Mr. Karaganis [continuing]. Is that really O'Hare ought to
be the centerpiece of regional air transportation. And if you
follow their logic, if you accept their logic, which was a
study paid for by United Airlines, but if you accept it and I'm
willing for the sake of discussion, then you must keep O'Hare
as the centerpiece for all the connecting traffic into the
region to keep the international base, et cetera.
What that basically means is when that quad runway system
is installed, which must have associated terminals and roadways
in order to keep the traffic moving, you'll run out of capacity
fairly shortly. And I think the statement was made in one of
the earlier panels that basically what you'll have is the
delays will be right back to where they are today, as these
runways get filled up.
The premise then is to add more runways. If you accept the
logic of what is being proposed here, you would then say, all
right. If we have four parallel runways, why don't we have at
O'Hare what the state is proposing at Peotone, namely a fifth
and sixth parallel runway.
You can do that. And as Congressman Hyde said, you can do
that but you've got to look at what the costs are of these
various alternatives. So, yes, the quad runway system, based on
Chicago's analysis and FAA using the synop capacity model is
that the quad runways will fall short of the regional demand
and fall short of being able to meet that capacity.
Then you have to ask yourself, how much have we invested
here, and we'll hear the same argument again, we have this huge
sum cost in O'Hare. What are the incremental costs of putting a
fifth and a sixth runway at O'Hare? And that is all legitimate
questions. I'm not trying to deny them. But the fact is that's
what the analysis will be.
So, the question right now, and this is in a document and I
must say there's some useful material in here. A City
consultant, when faced with this said----
Senator McCain. Please, summarize.
Mr. Karaganis [continuing]. If our runways will not do the
job, why are we adding runways? Why don't we just build a new
airport?
Senator McCain. I see. Just very briefly, you made some
very strong statements regarding corruption involving the city
of Chicago and O'Hare. Have you taken it to law enforcement
authorities?
Mr. Karaganis. Yes, we have, Senator. We have taken the
anti-trust problems to the United states Department of Justice,
to the state Attorney General to the U.S. Attorney and the----
Senator McCain. I'm talking about charges of corruption.
Mr. Karaganis [continuing]. And with respect to corruption,
we've taken those charges to the U.S. Attorney as well.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Crown, is there an airfare
problem at O'Hare where United American charged Chicago area
travelers, particularly business travelers, more than we would
be charged if there was more competition at the airport or in
the region?
Mr. Crown. If you expanded the operational capacity at
O'Hare and with that expanded the ground facilities, which
means more gates, some of those gates obviously could go to
competitive airlines. And the more competition you have
obviously the lower the rates will go.
Senator McCain. Mr. Paesel, do you oppose expansion of
O'Hare?
Mr. Paesel. We do oppose expansion of O'Hare at this point
because we don't know what that entails. We don't know what
that means and what's the impact on the environment. What's the
cost? And until a full plan is on the table, it's impossible to
support a plan that doesn't exist.
Senator McCain. If you accept the premise that we need to
expand capacity somewhere, what's your solution?
Mr. Paesel. Our obvious preference for a number of reasons
is to build the south suburban airport near University Park and
Peotone for several reasons beyond what's been talked about
here. Even if you were able to add ten runways at O'Hare, it
doesn't mitigate the fact that our 2\1/2\ million residents
who, larger than the metropolitan area of St. Louis and many
other major metropolitan areas, it doesn't mitigate the time
for us to reach and have the benefits of a major airport.
The second thing is there hasn't been covered here is that
the travel times to O'Hare have deteriorated so badly, the
congestion is so bad that based on Chicago Area Transportation
Study figures, the average travel time from the Loop to O'Hare
is only 6 minutes less than the average travel time from
downtown to the Peotone airport.
So, we're not talking about a modern airport that is far
outside the metropolitan area is not usable for others. It's
very usable especially for underserved area in the southern
suburbs.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mayor Schwiebert, are you
opposed to building a new airport south of Chicago?
Mr. Schwiebert. We're really not here to take a position on
that subject. I think that's really more a regional issue that
needs to be addressed giving consideration to a number of the
factors that have been looked at today. I certainly think that
any kind of regional planning approach ought to give
consideration to that possibility as well as the other
possibilities that have been talked about in terms of both
Rockford's underutilized capacity and potentially Gary.
Senator McCain. I think that we are in some agreement that
there should be, or it would be very helpful if there were a
regional authority. Does anyone disagree with that?
Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Rockefeller. I just have to second what the
Chairman just said. Mr. Karaganis, I have to say to you, I've
been in the Senate 17 years. I've never seen such a vitriolic
presentation in my entire life. More charges of conspiracy and
corruption and deceit and all kinds of things.
And the reason, I don't say that because you have the right
to write whatever you want. But it's sort of that approach,
which is the opposite of getting to solve a problem, which is a
national problem, which is in the interest of Illinois as a
whole to solve. I just make that point.
And second, I'm not asking you a question. I'm just making
a point. And second, it strikes me, as Chairman McCain has
indicated, that there is reason to think about a regional
authority. It's absolutely incredible what happened in the
bitterness, very similar bitterness with Baltimore-Washington
International, National and Dulles.
I mean, you would have thought that a world war had broken
out. It had broken out. And we were consumed by it. People--
Senators wouldn't speak to each other if they took this
position or that position or whatever.
A regional authority was created, actually BWI is not a
part of that, but they're booming nevertheless, within the
Virginia situation. And all of a sudden people who had been
competing like crazy were working together because they were on
the same regional authority.
And by the way, they were selling nothing but AAA rated
bonds and making, and they can't stop building. And we have,
you know, a better and better situation than ever before.
So, I'm not sort of asking a question, Chairman McCain. I
just sort of want to say that I think that what Lester Crown
has said and what the Mayor has said sums up my reaction to
what I've heard and what I spent a lot of time in preparing for
this hearing. And that is that you have to start, I mean, it's
just common sense. It's not a question of because it's in
Chicago or because it's under the Mayor or whatever.
Of course you have to start with doing O'Hare because it's
there. Because you can build new runways and because you can do
these things in intelligent ways which allow traffic and delays
to be accommodated.
And, oh, by the way, yes, that will be inconvenient. But
with the shorter time line that the Chairman and I are working
on to be able to do all kinds of things, not just environmental
impact studies but building of runways, as both Mr. Crown and
the Mayor have indicated, that doesn't preclude other options.
And it seems to me that that's the sort of spirit that's
needed. And that's what I'm so hoping that the Mayor and the
Governor can come together and make an arrangement which serves
not only the entire state of Illinois. I'm not in a position to
say whether it should be Peotone or some other place. I mean,
it's going to have to be another place, I think, but it's going
to have to start with O'Hare and it doesn't mean that
concurrently other things can't be done at the same time.
But I just really beg you to keep us out of it because
we're not going to stay out of it unless you solve it. We can't
afford to. The nation can't afford to. The interstate highway
system is a national system. It is a national system. The
Governors, I was one for awhile, yes, they get to place where
it goes, but, boy, it is a national system. The government pays
all the money and there's a very strong parallel between that.
So, I really advise cooperation based upon doing O'Hare and
then looking for an additional alternative, which I think is
going to be inevitable, which is going to be in the interest of
the state of Illinois and the country. Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Senator Fitzgerald.
Senator Fitzgerald. Well, I wondered if Mr. Karaganis would
want to address the cost issue that he was challenged earlier
before on it. And I have a chart here. This is the reprint from
the Daily Herald. It shows the seven existing runways at
O'Hare. And this is a possible reconfiguration, which most
people seem to be operating that they tear up several of the
runways to get four parallel runways.
Could you explain how you get to your cost estimates on
that?
Mr. Karaganis. Yes. I submitted a memorandum yesterday in
response to a question from Mr. Chamberlain, which has in the
memorandum an attachment entitled, the Analytical Frame Work
that Governs Airport Decision Making. And that frame work
contains a number of quotations from planning documents by the
city of Chicago that basically says you must integrate the
airfield terminal and ground access components.
And if you don't have adequate ground access components to
feed the airport and to take traffic off the airport, you can
add all the runways in the world and they aren't going to work.
The same thing is true with terminals. If you have all the
runways and don't have adequate terminals.
Now, there's a six billion dollar proposal out at O'Hare
right now called World Gateway/CIP. If it's not to address the
two new runways that are being proposed or the quad runway
system, then what terminals and runways are being proposed that
will have to address and to be integrated with the additional
runways.
If you look at what has been announced, and this is based
on an inverted plan. You have the four runways, the demolition
of four runways. You have construction of four new runways. You
have a six billion dollar terminal plan. And what is not
included in the cost estimates is the cost of a western
terminal because of the loadings that we're talking about for
the quad runways, you need to have western access. The
documents show that.
So, what is the cost of the western terminal? What is the
cost of the western access? Runways will not be able to handle
the additional capacity without the terminals and the roadways.
And that's what integrated airport planning and master planning
is all about. And it's done at airports around the country.
And contrary to a suggestion that was made earlier, the
state has done that at the south suburban airport. They have
integrated the terminals, the roads and the runways. And that
needs to be done. When you integrate everything out here,
you're looking at 10 to 15 billion dollars plus. And if you
don't do these key elements, you won't be able to carry the
traffic that is projected to be carried by the runways. It's
that simple.
Senator Fitzgerald. Now, Mr. Crown, I totally agree with
you that O'Hare is a great economic engine. I come from the
northwest suburbs, the Village of Inverness, about, oh, maybe
15 miles northwest of the airport. And my parents moved into
that area in 1958. And in Palatine Township, there were only
3,000 people there in 1958. I think there's about 130,000
people in Palatine Township. And it was the Northwest Tollway
being built and O'Hare Airport being built that brought all
that economic development out there.
But wouldn't you acknowledge that there are other parts of
the state of Illinois that also want the economic engine? And
don't some of the south suburban people have a valid point that
they want an economic engine and jobs in their part of the
state, too. What do you say about that?
Mr. Crown. One does not preclude the other, Senator. The
most important thing, because of the air capacity problem
throughout the country, is to maximize the capability of the
one hub and spoke airport, which we have at O'Hare. That in no
way precludes putting an airport in another location, whether
it be in Peotone or elsewhere.
As the demand is growing, the chances are that a third
airport is going to be needed. But they are not alternate
solutions. That's all I am saying. One, is the most important,
is increasing the capacity at O'Hare. If concurrently, it's a
question of a third airport, too, fine. But an airport, sir, is
not a jobs program. It solves an air capacity problem.
Senator Fitzgerald. And you have a specific committee has
been on record favoring at least a land banking for a third
airport.
Mr. Crown. We certainly have.
Senator Fitzgerald. Yes. Mayor Schwiebert, thank you for
being here and I love your facility at Moline. It's a great
airport. I've been flown in there on several occasions myself.
But I believe that while your overall traffic, your
enplanements have gone up substantially and I congratulate you
and your airport director on your leadership there.
While your overall enplanements have been going up
dramatically and you are a very fast growing airport, based on
the figures that I've seen, your actual commuter seats and
airfare and commuter seats from Moline to Chicago have been
going steadily down since 1992. In fact, you've had 263,000
seats to Chicago in 1992. It went down to 249,000 in 1996 and
then down to 175,000 last year.
And don't we need an awful lot of new capacity at a place
like O'Hare or in Chicago in order to get you more
enplanements? It's not just a matter of adding one runway at
O'Hare or two runways. Clearly, the air carriers, when they
have the opportunity to run a flight out of O'Hare, they like
to run a big jet carrying 300 or more people to another big
city as opposed to a smaller regional jet or commuter plane.
Isn't that the case?
Mr. Schwiebert. Well, in terms of the numbers that you're
referring to, Senator, I would defer to our Director of
Aviation, who's here and he would be certainly better to
comment on the specific numbers. But certainly one of the
reasons that you're seeing some decline in the number of
commuter flights, in particular, to Chicago is a reason I
mentioned earlier, that since 1999, we've had a sole provider.
It's been essentially a monopoly. And United Express has
done what monopolies frequently do when they're given the
opportunity. They've charged what the market will bear. That
has resulted in a lot of people who are coming to Chicago for
Chicago business driving or finding other ways to get up there.
I know there are some people who drive up to Princeton and
catch the passenger train to Chicago. Anything to avoid having
to pay those kinds of outrageous fares that we're seeing.
I think that with the increase in the gates that would come
with an addition of one or two runways, we would be able to
make a very strong case to American Airlines to reinstate the
service and the demand would be there.
At the present time I think we may actually be seeing some
loss of service to Chicago O'Hare as well because of the fact
that we've gotten more hubs that we can service. And that's
good because that reduces some of the congestion problem at
O'Hare, as I said before.
But I think one of the big things that's impacting on
commuters is the fact that there is a monopoly right now.
Increasing gates, increasing the capacity here would allow for
more of that commuter connection to be reinstated and those
commuter flights to be increased.
I would like to add just one other thing on this concept of
the regional initiative, which was asked about before. I think
it's critically important in any kind of a regional scheme,
from our perspective, to do two things. First of all, I think
it's very important to continue to have strong local input. I
recognize there may be a place where the Federal Government
needs to get involved, particularly with national issues such
as we're dealing with with the federal aviation issues, just as
we were in the interstate highway system many years ago.
But I think it's also critically important to continue to
have the input of those who are in the field who are going to
be most directly impacted by it in that process, and heavily
involved in that process.
Second, I think that any kind of regional scheme has to
continue to recognize that the primary airport within the
Chicago metro region has to be O'Hare for the reason that was
referred to by one of the presenters previously.
If you attempt to have two hubs, and we've seen this happen
too often in the Quad Cities where we have four metropolitan
centers that sometimes compete with each other. Instead of
having one well-done project, you can wind up with a lot of
half-baked projects.
And what we don't need in the Chicago metro region, it
would be my opinion as a downstate mayor, would be two major
hubs in this area that would be competing with each other and
creating overhead, environmental and other problems which would
result in both airports being diminished in their ability to
serve this region's needs.
Senator McCain. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Schwiebert,
thanks for being here and for speaking for a lot of downstate
communities. I know that, I extended the invitation because I
wanted this voice to be heard.
Senator Fitzgerald, my colleague, raised a legitimate point
to Mr. Crown about don't we need economic development in many
parts of the state. I certainly believe we do and I think it
includes downstate. And we shouldn't ignore the impact of an
O'Hare decision on downstate communities like your own and
others that you speak for a day, I thank you for joining us.
Mr. Karaganis, you're a good lawyer. You're a good
advocate. You work hard for your client. I think that the point
that's been made is an important one. We need to have, tone
down the rhetoric, in your own words you said keep the rhetoric
down. I really think that's important now if we're ever going
to reach a reasonable solution to what is a very important
challenge.
You just minutes ago identified the World Gateway Project
at O'Hare as a six billion dollar project. It's 3.8 billion.
You've given us estimates on the cost of runways, this chart
here. If you could bring that over here. The estimates from
your commission are so wildly far away from the cost of runways
all across the United states.
The average cost is about 530 million dollars for one
runway. And you say when it comes to O'Hare it's going to be 7
to 10 billion. Now, the way you reached that is explained. You
add things in. Oh, you need a new terminal. Oh, you need a new
access. You put in all the costs on top of it and say it isn't
just a runway. It's all the things that have to be brought in.
If we're going to use that standard, we need to use that as
well at Peotone.
Mr. Karaganis. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. If we use that standard, we need
to use it at Peotone.
Mr. Karaganis. Absolutely.
Senator Durbin. The fact is, I can walk downstairs from the
elevator here, use my CTA pass and be out at O'Hare in 45
minutes and I've done it. I can't do the same thing at this
moment to Peotone. We know that. This infrastructure doesn't
exist at Peotone. The infrastructure of highways and mass
transit, of truck loading facilities, of railyards, of hotels,
of restaurants, of rental car facilities; that is a huge
massive infrastructure which is not easily, if ever, replaced
in a greenfield setting.
I think that Peotone has a future. But let's be honest
about it. Why would we walk away from this massive investment
in infrastructure at O'Hare that has served us so well and not
modernize it? Not capitalize on what we have?
I think that we can do that and still have an opportunity
to build the south suburban airport. There's no reason why we
can't. Maybe this dates me. I can remember when you walked
through Midway Airport and ducked the buckets for all the
leaking roofs. There were no airlines there. Just a handful of
people wandering in and out. Look at it today. Look what's
going on here.
A brand new terminal and all this expansion. As Senator
Rockefeller said, we have this sensational appetite in America
to get up and go. And we're using airlines more and more. And I
say, Mr. Paesel, south suburbia, they deserve an airport and I
think they should have one. And I think there's going to be an
opportunity for them to use all of the potential passengers in
developing it, but not at the expense of O'Hare.
So, I hope that as we get into the rhetoric of what things
cost that we use really realistic and honest figures here.
Mr. Karaganis. Can I have----
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Karaganis, excuse
me.
I hope that we use the information that we can derive from
the FAA and others. And if you're going to be honest in talking
about the cost of things, talk about the cost of replacing the
O'Hare infrastructure in south suburbia. It's massive. It goes
way behind 600 million dollars to talk about something that's
going to augment or supplement what is available at O'Hare.
Please, sir, you may respond.
Mr. Karaganis. Thank you, sir. We couldn't agree with you
more that Peotone ought to be evaluated on the same grounds as
O'Hare expansion. In other words, the same criteria of what
goes into airport planning. And what we're talking about, sir,
when we put the cost estimates down, are the elements that the
FAA uses in airport master planning.
So, all those elements are necessary in order to deliver
the planes to the runways and the passengers in and out of the
airport. Now, you're absolutely right. Those costs ought to
be----
Senator Durbin. Mr. Karaganis.
Mr. Karaganis [continuing]. And those costs----
Senator Durbin. Mr. Karaganis, how long would it take you
on a CTA train to get down to Peotone now?
Mr. Karaganis. On a CTA train?
Senator Durbin. Or any train?
Mr. Karaganis. Never.
Senator Durbin. You can't. The point I'm making is this. If
you're talking about serving, excuse me, sir. If you're talking
about serving an airport, and the need to serve it, then we've
got to talk about comparable requirements. I think the day may
come and I hope it does come when such an airport is served.
But if we're going to be comparing the cost of investment at
O'Hare and the cost of building a new airport, then we have to
put it at the same level.
Mr. Karaganis. Senator, I think there's a commuter service
on Metro to University Park right now.
Mr. Paesel. Could I clarify that?
Senator Durbin. I can tell you that if you're going to
drive down the Dan Ryan, you talk about a 6-minute difference
between getting to Peotone and getting out to O'Hare. The Dan
Ryan, if I'm not mistaken, runs into a little traffic
congestion from time to time.
Mr. Paesel. It absolutely does. If I could just clarify two
things very quickly. One, there is existing commuter rail
service from downtown to University Park, which is on the north
border of the airport that exists and you can do it in 50
minutes.
Senator Durbin. Can you say that it really--well, I don't
want to get into details here, but you would have to concede
that if you're talking about a runway with millions of
passengers, you're talking about a more substantial investment,
are you not, in infrastructure to serve it.
Mr. Paesel. Obviously, there would have to be improvements
to the rail system. This airport though has two existing
expressways, a much better infrastructure than O'Hare ever had.
When it opened up and for many years.
Senator Durbin. Well, things were quite a bit different
when it was an orchard.
I would say that the--I'd just like to say this in closing,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming here and it was a good
hearing. And I appreciate bringing people together on what you
can tell is a very interesting and contentious topic.
I think the suggestions here on regionalism on the
September 1st deadline and this conversation is going to help
us move along. Thank you very much.
Senator McCain. Well, I want to thank my two colleagues
from Illinois and their dedication and efforts on this issue. I
don't believe this Committee would be here if it had not been
for their urging and their involvement.
I also want to thank Senator Rockefeller, who has played a
vital role in this whole process because he's the chairmanship
of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. And we
all look forward to working with him.
I want to thank the witnesses. Mayor Schwiebert, you are
very eloquent. Mr. Schwiebert, you were very eloquent and we
thank you. We thank all the witnesses. We think this is a very
important hearing.
And I guess, if I could sum up, it's now up to Chicago and
the people of Illinois, that they're going to come together and
resolve this issue. As Senator Rockefeller stated so
eloquently, if they do not, then I think you're going to see
intervention from various areas. And I'm not sure that's good
for the process because I think we all function on the
fundamental principle that the people who live and work here
and are involved with the community know best what the
solutions for the community are.
But our taxpayers and our citizens, West Virginia and
Arizona, all over this country, do have a stake both financial
and obviously because we are citizens that go through and use
the facilities here in Chicago if they want to get just about
anyplace in America or in some cases, the world.
So, I thank you all for your involvement, your commitment.
And we stand ready to help in any possible way that we can,
which is our proper and correct role and we hope we never have
to do anything more than that.
I thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Ronald W. Wietecha, Mayor,
City of Park Ridge, Illinois
If I had been allowed to testify before this hearing I would have
said that my name is Ron Wietecha. I'm the Mayor of the city of Park
Ridge, Illinois. According to the latest census figures, 37,775 people
live in my city. Park Ridge was incorporated as a city in 1910 long
before airplanes were invented. Many of my residents have lived in the
same homes for three and four generations, making Park Ridge a
Homestead community. We have no industry in Park Ridge. City Hall is
less than three miles from the center of O'Hare Airport. Because we are
east of the airport, we are most affected by landings, but when the
winds are right, we get our share of takeoffs as well.
Park Ridge political leaders opposed the siting of a jet-based
airport in Maine Township in the 1950's. They knew then that airports
grow and this one is too close to residential neighborhoods like Park
Ridge. They also knew that Chicago as the operator of an airport built
outside of its own city limits and the middle of no-voters; it would
not have to be responsive or accountable for growth and nuisance
issues. In 1981, Park Ridge joined Des Plaines, Niles and Bensenville
in creating the Suburban O'Hare Commission to oppose uncontrolled
expansion of the Airport. My predecessor, Marty Butler liked to say
that the airport is something to be feared because when Chicago wants
something, you can't fight City Hall alone.
O'Hare Airport has indeed become something to be feared. In spite
of Suburban resistance, it has been allowed to grow into one of the
world's busiest airports without so much as a ``by your leave'' or
``what do you think as a neighbor.'' We are the ones who have had to
compromise over the years and accept every additional flight and
decibel. When we've complained, we've been criticized for being
strident and politically motivated. The fact remains, that quality of
life for Park Ridge residents is affected by over 930,000 flights
annually. The fact also remains that O'Hare was never designed to be a
megaport with four parallel runways. It was never designed to handle
the 1.8 million flights a year that are conservatively projected for
the year 2010. O'Hare will never be a Denver International, Atlanta
Hartzfield or Dallas Fort Worth airport. There is not enough land or
airspace to handle the traffic of the future. There are not enough
roads and highways to allow passengers easy access to the terminals.
O'Hare is a great economic engine but only for some. The direct
benefits are shared by only a few including Chicago and the airlines,
but the economic profits come at a high price. They come at a price
that is being paid by the residents of my town. Some of the problems
created by an overcrowded and overstuffed airport include increased air
pollution, noise pollution, delays and the heightened potential for air
and ground disasters. I appreciate the need to expand the region's
airport capacity. I understand the need for more runways, but laying
more concrete at O'Hare is not the answer. If we need more capacity and
if we need more runways, then build them at a new airport.
Building runways at O'Hare can only mean more negative impacts to
the environment. At 930,000 flights a year we already have too much
noise pollution, air pollution and too many threats to public safety.
To add more runways, the city of Chicago has announced it must condemn
and knock down at least 600 homes in surrounding communities. To build
more runways, Chicago must make the airport footprint larger. To add
more access to the airport, homes and businesses must be taken and
destroyed. This cannot be called a balanced and fair approach to
airport expansion when there are less radical, hysterical and more
economically advantageous alternatives.
Let me address the issues of noise pollution and air pollution.
According to Chicago's own figures, each month, more than half of all
flights currently arrive on runways 22 right and 27 right, over Park
Ridge. These flights create individual incidents of noise that
frequently are at 90-plus decibels. The Federal threshold for allowable
noise is 65 decibels. Yet Park Ridge qualifies for no noise mitigation,
none. Chicago manipulates noise monitor results by averaging noise over
a 24-hour period through a computer model that is unfair and unreal.
Park Ridge gets the noise and no relief or soundproofing. Chicago
refuses to use the Federal noise guidelines because the costs of a real
noise-soundproofing program would simply be too great. So we are asked
to grin and bear it for the sake of someone else's economic windfall.
Last April, over 80 percent of Park Ridge voters indicated that they
want home soundproofing. Instead, we are told that the airport needs
more runways and more flights.
Last year, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Itasca and Niles undertook our
own air quality study. The study was done under the auspices of an
Elmhurst firm, Mostardi and Platt. The study concluded that O'Hare
Airport is the No. 1 polluter in the State of Illinois. We discovered
that the toxic substances produced by jet engines are carried across
our whole region covering more than 90 communities. We also learned
that neither the Federal EPA nor the Illinois EPA measures the toxic
emissions produced by jet fuel and jet engines when air quality tests
are done. Their tests measure only the exhaust from stationary sources,
such as onsite buildings, boilers, compressors, air conditioning
equipment and gasoline powered ground vehicles that either work on the
premises or bring passengers in and out of the airport. Although
limited in nature, these EPA results indicate that the airport is one
of the biggest polluters in the State and the largest health hazard.
When you add the carcinogenic emissions from airplane engines, O'Hare
becomes the biggest polluter in the state. However, no one is
officially acknowledging this fact or doing anything to reduce the
risks and dangers.
Recently and without much fanfare or publicity, the American Cancer
Society's Palatine Office released findings as to the number of cancer
cases reported in our area. The highest incidents of cancers for both
men and women have been reported in the O'Hare ring communities of
Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Palatine, Des Plaines, Niles and
Park Ridge. Instead of doing something to reduce the threat of cancer
from air pollution, Chicago and the airlines want to add more runways,
more flights and more toxic emissions to the air we breathe.
New airports, like Denver International, must be sited with
adequate open space around the facility to buffer people from the
environmental and health hazards associated with airport operations.
Park Ridge is a community of people who want to own a home and raise a
family. The people of Park Ridge appreciate O'Hare for what it is, a
convenience and an economic engine. But when it comes to airport
expansion and more runways they say enough. You can build new runways
and enhance capacity faster and cheaper in the South Suburbs where
economic development is needed and wanted.
Park Ridge residents will not stand for more noise pollution, more
air pollution and more threats from jets being squeezed into a 1950's
airport. I am here to remind you that Airport expansion is a people
issue not just a profit issue. Over a million people live near O'Hare
and they should not be dismissed or ignored. The people of Park Ridge
do not want airport expansion, which would serve only airline
monopolies, Chicago sweetheart deals and the convenience of strangers.
There are more cost effective and beneficial alternatives to more
runways at O'Hare. All plans for dealing with delays and regional
airport development should be put on the table and evaluated fairly and
objectively. To blindly push for expansion of O'Hare is not only
unconscionable, it's selfish and ignores the welfare of people in the
communities surrounding O'Hare.
Some congressmen, the airlines and the city of Chicago want
discussions about airport issues to take place behind closed doors
because they want to control who is at the table and what is said. They
seem to be afraid to look at all proposals for handling current and
future aviation needs. They seem to be afraid of an objective cost/
benefit analysis. They seem to be afraid to confront the people who are
legitimate stakeholders in this issue. They seem to be afraid of the
facts.
I'm here to call upon all government leaders to serve the public
good rather than to protect corporate profits. While acknowledging the
aviation needs of the region, you must also acknowledge the people
living around O'Hare. To do anything less is to betray your public
trust.