 |
Allow me to begin with this: you are the suburbs of Chicago, and we are
Chicago. Like any host-parasite
relationship, you owe far more to us than we to you. There is a reason
that the little spillover areas from the city weren't named ultra-urban
centers, or “ultraurbs.” You are sub-urban, essentially below. You are
allowed to exist because the city allows it, and you benefit greatly from
your connection to it. Simply speaking, you are forced to deal with certain
things the city desires that you don't, if only because you have no other
option. Case in point: The O'Hare expansion.
In January of 2004, United Airlines and American Airlines decided to cut peak-hour flights at O'Hare by five percent. Together, the two airlines account for 88% of all operations at O'Hare. It gets worse. The FAA has issued not-so-subtle warnings that the delays at O'Hare cease, or major changes will need to be made in the routing of both international and domestic flights. Clearly, a change needs to be made.
In 2003, Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley announced
a plan to revamp O'Hare by reconfiguring the current runway system,
adding an additional runway and an additional terminal, and providing
easier access to the airport from the west. Currently, O'Hare
has 7 runways, with all but one intersecting. It is this intersecting
design that causes a great deal of the delays, especially those due to
inclement weather. The new design would be of parallel runways, and would
reduce inclement weather delays by 95%, and overall delays by 79%.
What's even more impressive about the plan is the economic structure. First and foremost, the entire plan will be funded without any taxpayer support. Secondly, O'Hare already generates 450,000 jobs and $38 billion in economic activity for the state of Illinois. This plan would generate 195,000 jobs and an additional $18 billion annually.
Opponents have suggested that rather than expand O'Hare, the state would be better benefited by the creation of a third airport, in Peotone, IL. If someone can remind me of all the things to come out of Peotone that have benefited the human cause, I'll drop the argument immediately. Until then, I'll kindly remind you that Peotone means as much to Chicago as Des Moines. Opponents have also suggested that it's unfair for the city to take away land from the suburbs in order to improve on the airport. Is it unfair? Perhaps. More importantly, is it legal? Absolutely. Allow me to say that without Chicago, Illinois is Idaho. It may as well not exist. Furthermore, the city doesn't need the suburbs, but you need the city. Lastly, opponents suggest that not only would the plan fail to reduce delays, but also would be unsafe. Is it this possible? Anything is possible, but it's highly unlikely that the FAA would approve a plan with such results.
O'Hare hasn't added a runway since 1971, which seems absurd. How was it even possible for the nation's busiest airline to not expand their central system while the business of air travel expanded so greatly? However they did it, they can do it no longer. When O'Hare is delayed, the entire nation is delayed. Do you know what's not going to solve the problems of an entire nation? Peotone.
battery: see the other side : read the negative |
