(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Master plan of Chicago Orchard (Douglas) Airport"

HE 9797.7C4 M423 



1 



3 5556 021 258 876 



IUHBWKWnON UBRMW 

APR m 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 



TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY 
APR 1985 



chicko ouamB 

' I/ UUCj LA ) /MSSPORTATION LIBRAE 

AIRPORT 



OCT 1984 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 




'il"y of Chicago 

IARTIN H. KENNELLY, MAYOR 



MASTER PLAN 

of 

CHICAGO ORCHARD 

^.UouglasJ 
AIRPORT 



OCT m 



Prepared for 

CITY OF CHICAGO 

Martin H. Kennelly 
Mayor 



John J. Duffy 

Chairman 

Committee on Finance 



Theron W. Merryman 

Chairman 

Committee on Aviation 



*y 



Ralph H. Burke 
Airport Consultant 

January, 19U8 



_ 






■ 






. 



. . . 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) 
AIRPORT 

REPORT ON MASTER PLAN AND STAGE DEVELOPMENT 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Letter of Transmittal - Part I. Jan. 19^8 
Part I The Master Plan 
General Exhibits 



Letter of Transmittal - Part II Mar. 19^8 
Part II - Technical and Financial Data 
Charts and Diagrams 



• 






. 



RALPH H. BURKE 

CONSULTING ENGINEER 

20 North Wacker Drive 

Chicago 6, Illinois 



Dearborn 6071 



March, 19^8 



Honorable Martin H. Kennelly 
Mayor, City of Chicago 

Dear Mayor Kennelly: 

In Part I of this report, the present and future air transport needs 
of Chicago were set forth, the preliminary steps which have led to crystalizing 
the thought on airport planning were outlined, and the conclusions of an in- 
tensive study of the problem hy the City end other planning agencies were 
stated. 

A Master Plan for the Chicago Orchard (Douglas) Airport was pre- 
sented; a plan, which, through its stages of construction, is geared to the 
present and forseeable needs of aviation, but which also is capable of ulti- 
mate expansion to meet the ever-growing demands of air commerce. 

The basic elements of the design, including the area needed for 
the airport, the runway pattern and the arrangement of terminal facilities were 
shown and the general principles of the financial structure of the project were 
outlined. 

Part I, therefore, presented a general picture of the accepted solu- 
tion of the major airport problem of Chicago. 

In Part II, there is assembled the technological data upon which 
are based the conclusions of the airport study. It contains the detailed in- 
formation in drawings, charts and tabulations from national and local studies 
which have a bearing on the subject. It includes analyses of the volume and 
character of the airport operations, estimates of capital and operating costs 
and anticipated income both from flying and non -flying sources. It also covers 
details of the financial structure required to meet capital costs with a sug- 
gested schedule of revenue bond financing to supplement the expenditures of 
public funds for the project. 

Part II, therefore, serves the purpose of adding to the general 
picture, the detailed information upon which the technical, financial and ad- 
ministrative agencies may act to bring to realization the Chicago Orchard 
(Douglas) Airport, 

Respectfully submitted, 
RHB:SA Airport Consultant 






■ 

- 
■ 

- 
I 



■ 

■ 

: ■ I • 



. 



FART I 



RALPH H. BURKE 
CONSULTING ENGINEER 
20 North Wacker Drive 
Chicago 6, Illinois 



Dearborn 6071 

January, 19^8 

Honorable Martin H. Kennelly 
Mayor, City of Chicago 

Dear Mayor Kennelly: 

Submitted herewith is a resume of Chioago*s Master Airport Plan. 
Studies conducted during the past year have resulted in the development of 
a plan which meets the full approval of the governmental agencies and the 
commercial organizations which together must finance and operate the new 
Chicago Orchard (Douglas) Airport, 

The plan envisions a "brilliant future for Chicago as the airport 
center of the world. It provides adequately for the maximum ultimate 
growth and at the same time permits a stage construction to match that 
growth. Centered around convenience to the public, it embodies revenue- 
producing features designed to make it self-supporting. 

Initial exploration of Chicago's Airport problem "by the Chicago 
Plan Commission, the Chicago Regional Planning Association and the Chicago 
Association of Commerce followed by later studies of the Economic Advisory 
Council led to the appointment of the Airport Site* Selection Board, headed 
by Mr. Merrill C. Meigs, Chairman, Chicago Aero Commission. Subsequently, 
the Douglas site was recommended and adopted. 

Technical studies advanced through a series of conferences with 
representatives of Federal, State and City agencies, the scheduled airlines 
serving Chicago, and related organizations. 

The Regional office of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, of 
which Mr. George W. Vest is Administrator and Mr. Lane Wilcox is Superin- 
tendent, Airports Branch, contributed greatly to the technical and finan- 
cial studies. Gov. Dwight Green has expressed the interest of the State 
of Illinois in the Chicago Airport project and the State Department of 
Aeronautics directed by Mr. Robert Dewey has participated in the studies. 

Experts on technical and managerial problems were assigned by 
the scheduled airlines - G. R. Kennaday, American; R. M. Lewis, Braniff; 
F. M. Moss, Capital; R. S. Maurer, Chicago and Southern; M. D. Kochman, Delta; 
C. P. Bolles, Eastern; F. R. Meisch, Northwest; C. M. Kneisel, Pan American; 
H. B. Aikin, Trans -Canada; B. C. Rathbone, Trans -World. These men organized 
Into two groups » the Chicago Terminal Building Committee of which Mr. A. 
F. Heino, United, is Chairman, and the Airline Technical Committee headed 
by Mr. E. P. Lott, also of United. During regular meetings held in Chicago 
by these committees, additional experience and knowledge was contributed to 



' 



. 






• 









' 



the airport planning "by the Air Transport Association In the person of Mr. 
John Groves, and by a representative of the Airlines National Terminal 
Service Corp., Mr. E. H. Sittner. 

Thus, through the combined efforts of all concerned, Chicago's 
Master Plan is ready for action. 

A future report on this subject will embrace the technical data, 
details of study and estimates of capital costs and financing which have 
led to the adoption of the Master Plan for the Chicago Orchard (Douglas) 
Airport. 



Respectfully submitted, 



RHB:SA Airport Consultant 



. 



: 









CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

GROWTH 

The remark is common today that "Aviation is in its infancy." 
This is, of course, true since practically its entire development has occur- 
red since the turn of the century. During the early years, the inventor 
groped into the unknown to determine principles of flying. In World ^/ar I, 
young heroes fought spectacular air duels in suicide aircraft. In the years 
that followed, air mail service began to appear, strangely reminiscent of the 
pony express of pioneer years. Thus, commercial aviation was "born. 

In World War II, the airplane "became the predominant force, 
"both for attack, supply and defense. Combat planes directly engaged the 
enemy. Bombers "broke up military installations and disrupted the sources of 
war supplies. Transports moved armies and kept the fronts supplied. In 
short, air superiority won the war. 

If "Aviation is in its infancy," it is, nevertheless, a husky 
infant. Commerce today is geared to aviation. It depends on the saving of 
time in travel, in air mail and in air cargo made possible "by commercial 
aviation. 

The growth of aviation has been more rapid than that of any 
other form of transportation. This rapid growth is expected to continue 
until the economics of air traffic "become stabilized in comparison with other 
modes of transportation; a period, probably, of 15 to 20 years. Aviation 
facilities and particularly airports must, therefore, be planned today to 
provide a flexibility for the future expansion which is sure to come. 

RESPONSIBILITY 
Adequate airport facilities are the concern first of the 
nation. A national system of airports is vital in war for the military 



- '• '• ' ' ' • 
. -. - . - 

; ■ 
'<•.•■ 

i ■ 

■ 

■ 

. . . • 



- 2 - 
strength of the nation and In peace for International and Interstate com- 
merce. 

Adequate airport facilities are also the concern of each State. 
The welfare of every community in the State is enhanced "by a well -developed 
system of airports to provide ready communication for air traffic throughout 
the State. 

Adequate airport facilities are primarily the concern of the 
community. Since aviation has "become an Integral part of industry and com- 
merce, it follows that any community which aspires to industrial greatness, 
must provide airport facilities to keep pace with the ever- increasing demands 
of aviation. 

The commercial air lines, the newer feeder line operators and 
the air cargo carriers are as well directly concerned with adequate airport 
facilities. 

The National responsibility for airports is recognized in the 
Federal Airport Act. This legislation climaxed several years of effort on 
the part of municipalities to establish a long-range program of Federal Aid 
for construction of municipal airports. It provides for an appropriation of 
500 million dollars for grants "by the Civil Aeronautics Administration during 
a seven year period starting July 1, 19^6 to municipal, state, or other local 
public agencies which sponsor and match Federal funds. Designed to promote 
a National airport plan, the Act, in general, authorizes the C.A.A. to finance 
50$ of the cost of public airports, although the Administrator is given dis- 
cretion largely dictated by limitation of available funds to reduce the per- 
centage of Federal grants on the larger airports. 

The State of Illinois has been, and is, one of the leaders 
in its encouragement of aviation. State appropriations now exist to aid 



! ■ 

■ 

■ 



- 



- 3 - 

local communities In the development of airport facilities. 

The City of Chicago, by popular vote, has authorized funds 
for the creation of airport facilities to assure the continued pre-eminence 
of the City as the transportation center of the nation. 

The commercial airlines have focused their attention on the 
needs of adequate airport facilities in Chicago and stand ready to assume 
their equitable share of this "burden of meeting the future needs of aviation. 

THE PROBLEM 

Chicago faces the immediate necessity of expanding its airport 
facilities. The growth of passenger traffic has "been phenomenal. Ten years 
ago - in 1936 - less than 100,000 passengers used the Municipal Airport. 
Last year - in l$k6 - 2,500,000 passengers were handled in Chicago. Ten years 
hence - in 1956 - the passenger traffic is conservatively estimated at 
12,000,000. Chicago must then possess the airport facilities to make this 
traffic possible. 

Studies indicate that by 1951, 2^3,000 scheduled airplane move- 
ments and 90,500 feeder plane movements will be required to handle the antici- 
pated yearly volume. In another 20 years, figures predict a total of 715,000 
movements per year. 

The plight of Chicago's present airport facilities and the 
necessity for long-range planning and immediate action followed long and 
careful study instituted in the closing years of World War II, an era in which 
aviation advanced faster than in all its previous history. It was this war- 
time acceleration of air traffic which pointed up the inadequacy of Chicago's 
Municipal Airport. 

The Postwar Economic Advisory Council of Chicago started work 
on this problem in 19^. The members studies airport history, noting that 



• ■ . ■ ■ • 

■ 

Q ■ 

•••■.- ■ ... .. 

. ■ 

J 



- k - 

the original air mail field for Chicago was located at suburban Maywood. 
Later a new airport was started on the site of the present Municipal Field 
with some runways on a quarter of a mile square area. 

This has been developed to a square mile with dual runways in 
each of four directions giving Chicago at present an air field of much more 
capacity and of greater safety than is operated by any other large city. 
The Municipal Airport is capable of 120 movements per hour, either take-offs 
or landings. This capacity is one third of that required for Chicago air 
travel needs in the future. 

CHOICE OF SITES 
With the necessity for additional airport requirements estab- 
lished, the Airport Site Selection Board was appointed to consider the avail- 
able sites. The board began with 10 sites in the Chicago area of which 5 
were eliminated in the early stages of study. Those remaining for final 
study included the present Municipal, Calumet, Lake Michigan, Clearing and 
Douglas sites. 

The possibility of enlarging Municipal airport was abandoned 
by the board when surveys showed the acquisition of the required additional 
land would be uneconomical inasmuch as residential and industrial properties 
formed the field's boundaries. 

Calumet site was dropped from consideration since the avail- 
able area was too small for the ultimate requirements of the principal pas- 
senger port and the nearby industrial area produced obscuring smoke and other 
navigational obstructions. A proposal to construct a principal Chicago air- 
port in Lake Michigan also proved too costly. The board did not, however, 
eliminate the future possibilities of the Lake Front as an airport site. 

Although the Clearing site, southwest of Chicago's business 






• 



• 



. 



• - 
■ ■ • 

■■■ ' 

■ ' 



- 5 - 
district had many advantages, the disadvantages far outweighed them. Prin- 
cipal among these was the fact that Municipal airport, located in the same 
area, would have to he abandoned "because of conflicts in air control patterns. 

The selection hoard, after carefully weighing all possibilities, 
recommended Douglas, 18 miles northwest of the loop, as the site of Chicago's 
principal airport. This is the location of the Douglas aircraft plant and 
adjacent runways which served as an aircraft proving ground during World War 
II. It consisted of a nucleus of nearly 1^00 acres of government owned 
property surrounded "by acres of additional land available at a minimum of 
disruption to established facilities. The Douglas site also is adjacent to 
the line of the proposed Northwest express highway leading into Chicago. 

The selection boards conclusion was unanimous that the Douglas 
site "is properly located, is of sufficient size, and is capable of being 
improved with runways, terminal building, and all needed accompanying facili- 
ties, so that it will serve with safety, all of the anticipated scheduled 
airline traffic, domestic and foreign, for at least 20 years." 

The board's recommendation protected the present Municipal 
airport for continued use and noted the possible future need for "some form 
of a lake front airport." 

SIZE OF SITE 

One of the pr eminent factors considered before the final site 
was selected concerned the size and the shape of the airport. This involved 
an estimate of the volume of air travel in the foreseeable future, the pro- 
babilities of development beyond that point and an examination of the limita- 
tions any plan might Impose on later developments. 

In determining these factors, the Selection Board considered, 
among others, the forecasts of airline experts, made independently of each 



■ ' ' ■ •■ . ■ 

! 






• . . 



- 6 - 

other, tliat 2^0 plane movements per peak hour must "be provided for within 
10 years. 

The next move was to negotiate with the federal government, a 
course which resulted In acquisition, without cost, of 1080.60 acres of the 
existing Douglas or Chicago Orchard Airport, as it is officially known. The 
U. S. Army £ir Forces retained 281. 2** acres upon which are located the "build- 
ings of the Douglas plant for continued military use and as a storage depot. 
This was accomplished March 21, 1946. 

The Selection Board's recommendations contained a warning to 
the City of Chicago that Immediate action was Imperative if Chicago was to 
retain its prominent position on the airways map of the world. To delay, the 
Board pointed out, would mean that Chicago would "be passed up as a major air 
terminal center and perhaps never again have the opportunity now presented. 
Chicago responded by providing for an Airport Consultant, empowered to fully 
supervise all planning, designing, construction and, in short, all engineer- 
ing required for fulfillment of Chicago's Master Airport Plan. Such a propo- 
sal, adopted in December, 19^6, "by the City Council, with the support of the 
Mayor, the Commissioner of Public Works, and others concerned with the airport 
problem, was found necessary as the only means wherein Chicago could execute 
the vast amount of work necessary to meet the time schedule and keep Chicago 
ahead in aviation. 

RUNWAY PATTERN 
At this stage, the technical planning for Chicago's principal 
airport began. With the need well-established, the planners began overlaying 
the requirements on all known airport designs. Determination of the type of 
runway pattern which would "beet adapt itself to the area chosen, was of para- 
mount Importance. Originally, this study included a plan of the typical 



:■ ' 



■ ■ ' 

■ ■ 

■ i 

■ 

! •' • ., . . : . 

'•■■■' • ' : ' . 



airport with parallel runways. Then to obtain a capacity needed for Chicago's 
future, a scheme was designed, utilizing a pattern of runways arranged tangent i- 
ally around a central terminal area. This first central terminal design en- 
visioned an assembly-line scheme wherein aircraft would he moved by mechanical 
equipment for servicing and loading purposes. Thus, on one hand, was a plan 
of the conventional airport, on the other, the design for an ultra-modern one. 

After further deliberation with representatives of all govern- 
ment and private agencies concerned with air transportation, the conventional 
plan was discarded as inadequate. The assembly line feature of the other was 
eliminated because of the great cost involved, and because it departed too 
radically from existing standard practice. The tangential plan of runways, 
which, in appearance, represent the spokes of a wheel, was retained since it 
was not only the most efficient pattern but the only one capable of providing 
the capacity required. It was determined that since Chicago's new airport must 
be projected over a period much longer than 10 years, a flexibility of design 
capable of ultimately accomodating 360 plane movements per hour would be 
necessary. 

The tangential scheme excels in service to the general public, 
safety to planes as to air pattern, runways, taxiways and on the aprons; offers 
the greatest possible expansion possibilities and the utmost in economy both 
from the standpoint of construction and operation. By locating the terminal 
building at the hub, or in the center of the converging runways, the tangential 
plan is the most efficient because all movements take place either away from 
or in the direction of the terminal, providing greater distances between air- 
craft making final approaches or initial climbs. 



.-..■■.■.' 

■ ■ ■ ' • 

:■:■ . '.-■.. ... 

' ■ • 
... 

I • t 

• ■ • ... boJta 

• ■ 

. . \ 



- 8 - 
NATIONAL STANDARDS 
During the overall study of sites and the nation's airports 
one significant fact stood out above the others: All existing airports, 
including Chicago's own Municipal, had not "been adequately planned to the 
point where required expansion of facilities was possible. This condition 
resulted from a combination of causes: 

(1) Failure, through either lack of planning or limited 
funds, to acquire sufficient acreage. Unless all land 
needed for future use is acquired initially, it is not 
possible, because of prohibitive prices, to obtain the 
property surrounding the boundaries of existing facili- 
ties. 

(2) Tendencies towards larger and faster aircraft, requiring 
longer runways for takeoff s and landings, were outmoding 
the conventional runways 

After careful exploration, the City of Chicago requested that 
the Civil Aeronautics Administration consider standardization of the length 
and strength of all airport runways in the continental United States. In a 
letter presented by the Mayor to the CAA on February 25, 19^7, the City of 
Chicago pointed out that standardization was essential to the establishment 
of the Federal Airport System for many reasons. Aircraft of every size, 
whether in international, transcontinental or feeder service, require the 
same facilities at every port they visit. No chain of airports is better 
than its weakest link. 

The uncontrolled design of aircraft leads to ever increasing 
land ins speeds and consequent necessity for longer runways. This tendency 
not only militates against safety of operation, but also places an inequitable 



- . 

I ■ ■ ■ • ' 

: 
■ ■ • ,61 

- 






■ ■ 



. 9 - 
"burden on public agencies in providing the necessary ground facilities. 

The assembly of land for airports with longer runways requires 
their location at greater distances from the "business centers which they serve 
than is practical or acceptable by the public. The uncontrolled design of 
aircraft therefore defeats the purposes of aviation. 

Finally, the standardization of runway lengths is essential to 
the financial integrity of the airport program. Investment of public funds is 
not warranted and revenue financing is not possible until the establishment of 
standards guarantees the improvement will not become obsolete before amortiza- 
tion of its costs. 

Consequently, the CM conducted hearings on the Chicago propos- 
al and on November k, 19^7 issued an order adopting a schedule of standards 
for length and strength of runways in each class of airports constructed under 
the Federal Airport Act throughout the United States. 

THE CENTRAL TERMINAL AREA 

Following adoption of the tangential runway pattern, a series 
of studies of the terminal area was launched. Five basic plans with numerous 
variations were prepared. These consisted of the circle plan, the eclipse, 
the production line, the circular finger plan, and the split finger plan. 
After extensive exploration, the first four plans were eventually discarded 
because of a combination of disadvantages, principally because of excessive 
walking distances and inefficient utilization of acreage. 

The so-called "split finger" plan combines all the desirable 
features of the ideal terminal building. It is so designed that there is no 
waste space. The central concourse is readily accessible to all airlines and 
provides an excellent waiting space where visitors may lounge with passengers 



■ . . . . 

■ 
- 

■ 
■ 



: 
I 

3 
. , 



- 10 - 

iii an area separated from the airline operation itself. It also offers spec- 
tators freedom to roam the entire area without interfering with passengers, 
"baggage, or other operations. 

The split-finger plan also offers the utmost in concourse 
design. This is so arranged that the plan will produce the maximum amount of 
non-flying revenue from the various concessions to make the airport self-sus- 
taining. Of the five plans studied, the split finger arrangement requires 
passengers and others entering the Airport to walk shorter distances than any 
of the other schemes. It also provides parking space for 65OO cars and in- 
cludes a system of 50-foot wide roadways simple to follow and with separate 
provisions for trucks, taxis and limousines. 

Following are some of the distinct features of the Terminal 
Building: 

(1) Loading Station, showing the placement of the plane pos- 
tions along the periphery or outer edge of the terminal "building. A distance 
of 150 feet is provided "between each plane loading position, allowing ample 
space for each aircraft. The plan is flexible enough to allow for future in- 
crease in distances "between planes. 

(2) Air Line Stations are located in the fingers above the 
transpoftation level, limousines, taxis and private cars will discharge and 
pick up their passengers at platforms on the same level used by the airplanes. 

(3) Post Office and Cargo Facilities are located in the term- 
inal area adjacent to the international station. This allows a central dis- 
tribution point for mail and cargo with excellent access for inter station and 
incoming trucks. 

(k) The International port is a part of the terminal design 
and in such a location that the port can be isolated from all other activities. 



. ■ - . - 

. - 
. - ' 



■ 






■- 



- 11 - 

(5) The Surface Traffic Problem. Loading platforms for rapid 
transit, buses and private cars are located on the traffic level. Escalators 
lead directly to the concourse which is one level higher. Elevators are lo- 
cated centrally to serve the upper stories of the building. Escalators also 
connect the ground level with the second floor where the air line stations 
are located. Trucks may serve either the planes directly or deposit their 
cargos on platforms opposite the" plane loading gate. 

(6) Passenger Traffic. In this plan passengers are segre- 
gated from other groups in such a manner that individual airlines are concerned 
only with the problems of their own passengers. This enables an efficient, 
smooth -working organization with the passenger being guided through the proper 
channels with the least amount of confusion. 

(7) Visitors and Spectators will be segregated at the airline 
station entrance. From this point on, visitors may either linger and become 
spectators or leave the port directly. Spectators are allowed the freedom of 
the concourse area, with its many attractions. However, two large areas, 
terraced so as to give the spectator a commanding view of the activity, are 
set aside for sightseers. The spectator, therefore, cannot interfere with 
airline activity. 

Since this plan fulfilled all of the requirements proposed by 
the airlines as well as other agencies concerned with the planning, it was 
adopted. It was accepted by the Civil Aeronautics Administration, the airlines 
and the City, as the plan best suited for the Chicago Orchard Airport. 

THE MASTER PLAN 
The Master Plan of the Chicago Orchard (Douglas) Airport es- 
tablishes a comprehensive program of development which will serve the ultimate 



■.-... 

; 

■''■'■. 
t 

■ 
■ 

■ 



- 12 - 
needs of aviation. It Is not for Immediate completion, but each Improvement 
constructed as traffic conditions warrant will "be a part of and consistent with 
the ultimate development. 

It makes provision for 10 runways arranged tangent ially around 
a central terminal. 

The total area to allow for the length of runways specified as 
standard "by the Civil Aeronautics Administration for International Airports 
and including the Federal Government reservation comprises 6882 acres. 

This assemblage of land requires the relocation of railroad 
tracks involving the building of 8 miles of double track. 

Areas totaling 3,325 acres within the airport and lying between 
the diverging runways are available for hangars, shops and other uses inci- 
dental to airport operation. 

The runways when they are constructed to ultimate length vary 
from 7,700 ft. to 8,100 ft. in paved length with end zone clearances of not 
less than 1,000 feet to the boundaries of the field. Each is equivalent to 
7,000 feet in length at sea level with corrections for altitude, temperature 
correction and gradient. 

The Central Terminal is surrounded by a double taxiway within 
which an apron of 500 feet minimum width is located. 

Ninety gate positions each of 150 foot span can ultimately be 
provided adjacent to the arms of the building. The loading positions are thus 
consistent with the rated capacity of the runways of 360 plane movements per 
peak hour. 

The central terminal building consists essentially of two levels: 
A transportation level on the same plane as the flying field; and a passenger 
level one story above the transportation level. 



■ '' '■ • ' .••• ' 

'■-■■'■ ' ' 

■ 

: ■ ' ■ ■ 

• Ft bat 

•■•.'. eld ■ • 

i 

u ■ ■ 

. - . 

. j ■ 

■ . 

- • * ' . 

■ 



- 13 - 

All surface vehicles are handled on the transportation level. 
Entrance is gained through a depressed section under the taxiways. Ramping 
up immediately to the level of the flying field all vehicles follow a roadway 
which leads into the center of the terminal "building. Here is located the hue 
terminal as well as parking areas for private cars. Roadways also radiate out 
under the arms of the "building to form a direct contact with the plane loading 
gates . 

The plan provides space for parking 6,500 cars, separate road- 
ways for trucks and roadways for delivery of passengers to the door of the In- 
dividual airlines by taxi or limousine. A separate "building adjacent to the 
access roads, parking area and flying field accomodate the post office and 
customs officer for international flights - another building is provided for 
cargo handling, catering service, heating, and other operational needs. 

At the loading positions which are located along the radial 
arms of the "building and along the fingers extending from these arms, articu- 
lated bridges form covered passageways to allow passengers to pass to and from 
the airplanes without descending to the ground level and without exposure to 
the weather. 

A detailed analysis of the walking distances required of all 
persons using or visiting the airport, traced through every condition of oper- 
ation from slack periods to peak hour operations shows an everage of 735 feet. 
As this result is a vast improvement over comparable airports or even the best 
large railroad terminals the plan meets every requirement for passenger con- 
venience. 

The entire master plan is based upon two essentials. First, 
provisions for safe and efficient operation of aircraft on an individual basis. 



i 

■ 

i ■ ■ i I • 

- ■ 

t 

. ' ■ - ■ - ■ 

■ 



- Ik - 

Second, integration of facilities for handling passengers and the general public 
which affords the maximum of service and convenience and which will stimulate 
air travel to the utmost. 

The master plan, as presented in this report, has "been developed 
by a special staff under the direction of the Airport Consultant for the City 
of Chicago, in close co-ordination with the technical committee of the airlines. 
It has the approval of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and the Department 
of Aeronautics of the State of Illinois. 

STAGE CONSTRUCTION 

An immediate need exists for the construction of the First Stage 
of the new airport. As pointed out elsewhere in this report, the anticipated 
traffic will far exceed the capacity of the? present Municipal Airport long "be- 
fore additional facilities can be provided at the Douglas site. Additional time 
for construction can and should be gained by utilizing existing runways at 
Douglas for scheduled operations. Passenger facilities will he obtained either 
by constructing temporary buildings or by obtaining from the Federal Government, 
the temporary use of parts of the existing buildings. 

Progress toward the construction of the First Stage of the new 
airport must be initiated now, however, to meet the demands of air traffic which 
are sure to come in the Immediate future. 

FIRST STAGE 
The construction of three of the new runways to a length of 
6000 feet, choosing those runways which are roughly parallel with three of the 
existing runways, will allow an operation to a theoretical capacity of 120 
plane movements per peak hour. This capacity is equivalent to that of the 
present Municipal Airport. 



■ . . rem a .-■:■•■• I 

■ 

■ 

• •• • . ' ' -' ' 

' ■ •' ' ' ' 

loallll 

■ 

■ 

I ■ . 

■ ■ : ■ ■ 

to 

- . 

• ■ " 

! 

... . . 

. • . . . : 

■ 



- 15 - 

Only a part of the Central Terminal area will be needed to pro- 
vide facilities consistent with the 1st stag© of runway construction. This 
part should comprise 30 loading gates, 3 radial arms of the station and roughly 
one -half of the central concourse. The taxiways and aprons will he proportion- 
ately constructed in part. 

The First Stage, however, must include the total land purchase, 
the diversion of the railroad and practically the complete drainage, water and 
power systems. 

As shown elsewhere in this report, the First Stage should cost 
approximately one -half of the total ultimate cost of the Airport. 

If immediate action is taken the First Stage should "be put in 
operation in 1951. 

SECOND STAGE 

The features of the second and subsequent stages can well he 
dictated by the demands of traffic existing at the time of their construction. 
Since income will increase with growing traffic, the ultimate plan can thus be 
realized as to timing and final extent on a pay-as-you-go basis. 

The Second Stage should provide at least for k5 and possibly 
60 loading positions and should accomodate a capacity of from 180 to 2^0 plane 
movements per peak hour. This can be accomplished by the completion of the 10 
runways of the final plan, but still to a length of 6000 feet instead of the 
ultimate length. The loading positions can be provided either by the extension 
of the fingers from the 3 three radial arms built under the First Stage or by 
the construction of two additional radial arms without the completion of the 
fingers. 



- • • . 



' 









• 



■ . 

M 
1 



- 16 - 
Traffic projections and the estimates of needs by the airlines 
indicate that the expansion contemplated in the Second Stage will be needed by 
1955* Its construction should therefore be planned for 1953 and 195^. 

FINANCE __ J3ok> i^SeJ? 

CAPITAL STRUCTURE 

The completed Chicago Orchard (Douglas) project is estimated 
ultimately to cost approximately $75,000,000. This figure includes land ac- 
quisition, preparation of the site and total construction, but excludes inci- 
dental private investments on leaseholds and risk capital on a concession basis. 

Through Referendum Election on June k, 19^5, the City of Chicago 
was empowered to issue $15,000,000 in general obligation bonds for the Improve- 
ment, extension and construction of airports. The principal purpose for which 
these bonds were voted was to construct a new major airport at the Douglas site. 
However, some funds have been expended for Northerly Island Airport, and more 
for rebuilding and repairs of the Municipal Airport, totaling in all, approx- 
imately $1,000,000.00. 

The Federal Government, through the Civil Aeronautics Adminis- 
tration, has signified its willingness to approve the plans as now prepared for 
the Airport. In a letter dated July 25, 19U7 the Administration of Civil 
Aeronautics, United States Department of Commerce, informed Chicago's Airport 
Consultant: "We concur in your statements that the need of the Airport (Douglas) 
is vital and lminent. I am informed that suggested capacities are consistent 
with the most authoritative estimates obtainable on the future needs of air 
travel, and the general schemes of runway patterns and terminal facilities, in 
our opinion, are adequate and consistent with the general plan. The latest 






3 

- 

" 



- 17 - 
plans indicating a pattern of ten runways, each with a clear paved length of 
7,000 feet arranged tangentially around a central terminal, seemed to be con- 
ceived as an acceptable solution of the problem. The Civil Aeronautics Admin- 
istration, therefore, will approve a final plan substanially in accordance 
with said preliminary studies, plans and estimates. 

"The preliminary estimates of cost, totaling approximately 
$75,000,000 for the completely developed project, have been reviewed in a gen- 
eral way, and seem to be consistent with the scope of the proposed improvement . M 

Discussing Federal financial assistance for the project, the 
Administrator in the same letter wrote' * -"In this connection, firm commitments 
of anticipated future appropriations cannot, as you know, be made. This much 
can be said, however, namely, that the above approval of your plan and the in- 
clusion of an initial Improvement project for the airport in our I9U7-U8 program 
make future allocations of Federal Funds, as they become available, necessary 
to the effectuation of the objectives of the Federal Airport Act. Such alloca- 
tions would, of course, have to bear their proper relation to other airport 
requirements of the State and of the Nation and be in accord with existing 
legislation and regulations.'" 

Shortly thereafter, Chicago filed an application for an Immed- 
iate allocation of Federal funds for the Douglas project. It was the first 
application filed under the National Airport Act by any City in the United 
States with the Civil Aeronautics Administration. Subsequently, the CAA tenta- 
tively allocated $2,600,000.00 from its current funds for the Douglas project. 
Under the formula established for Federal participation in Airport construction, 
the maximum amount from this source for Douglas would be approximately 
$17,000,000.00. 



■ ■*..■ 
- 

I 

i 
■ 

■■ - 

I 

I 

. 



- 18 - 

Gov, Dwight Green recently announced that the State of Illinois 
will contribute a share of the State's airport funds towards construction of 
Douglas Airport. The General Assembly appropriated $3,890,000.00 to the Depart- 
ment of Aeronautics for State aid to public agencies for the construction of 
drainage, grading, runways, taxiways, and such facilities. This sum represents 
the current appropriation, approximately one half of which, the Governor has 
informed the City of Chicago will be allocated to the Chicago project. There- 
fore, Chicago will receive approximately $2, 000,000. CO Immediately from this 
source. This action represents not alone an Immediate allocation of State Funds, 
but a moral commitment on the part of the State to continue such aid until the 
project is completed. Since it is not possible to commit future General Assem- 
blies, this is as far as the commitment could be expected to go. 

Thus, with $1^,000,000.00 in City funds, $17,000,000.00 from the 
Federal government, and approximately $lii-,000,000.00 expected State aid, brings 
the total to $1*5,000,000.00. The remaining $30,000,000.00 should take the form 
of revenue bonds issued by the City of Chicago, but payable only out of earnings 
of the airport. During the first and other intermediate stages of construction, 
the costs should be met proportionately by public funds and by proceeds from the 
sale of revenue bonds. 

Conservative estimates show that fully developed non-flying 
revenue to an ultimate total of over $U, 000, 000. 00 annually plus the flying 
revenue under contracts and guarantees from commercial users of the field will 
provide an income more than ample, not only to cover operating costs, but also 
to service and amortize the revenue bonds. 



■ 

- 

....-.■■.-. 

■ 

,ooo • ■ 

■ . • 

■ 




LAKE CALUMET SITE 



KEY MAP 

AIRPORT LOCATION STUDIES 

FOR 

CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA 



I 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

SECTION THROUGH TERMINAL BUILDING (preliminary study) 




TYPICAL AIRLINE WING 



AIRLINE WING ENTRANCE 
AND EXIT ROADWAY FOR 
ALL VEHICLES 



■•-TRANSPORTATION LEVEL 



RAPID TRANSIT 
TERMINAL 



DISTRIBUTING ROADWAY 



bill A A, iS 



) 



PART II 



- 19 - 
FORECASTS 

Preliminary to determination of the anticipated capacity to be 
required for Chicago's new principal Airport, a series of studies 
was undertaken "based on past and present trends and requirements as a 
means of forecasting future volumes. 

Chicago, ranking as the main industrial and transportation 
center of the nation, has also "become one of the most important air 
transportation centers in the world. If this position is to he main- 
tained, and if the industrial and commercial air transportation needs of 
the Chicago area are to he met, adequate terminal facilities must he com- 
pleted within the next five years. To avoid later inconveniences and 
costs associated with the redevelopment or supplanting of airports which 
shortly may "become obsolete, it is essential that careful estimates he 
made of the ultimate number of people, planes, and surface vehicles to 
be accomodated. These volumes serve as bases in the planning of airport 
sizes and designs and of operating procedures. The progress in civil 
aviation in any region is governed by numerous factors, such as popula- 
tion trends, industrial and commercial activities, incomes, rent levels, 
as well as by geographical and practical considerations* rfith the growth 
of air travel in the Chicago area, it becomes advantageous to segregate 
the various types of traffic for efficient operation. Thus, scheduled 
passenger planes will be handled primarily at the Douglas Airport. 
Cargo, sightseeing, chartered, and private planes, however, will con- 
tinue to operate chiefly at Municipal Airport. 



' ' ' 

■ - 

. ... 



- 20 - 

PRESENT AIRPORT FACILITIES AT CHICAGO . At present, the scheduled air 
carriers, private planes, and cargo planes operate chiefly from the Mun- 
icipal Airport. A small proportion has "been shifted to the Douglas Air- 
port. National guard planes are assigned to "both of these airports, 
army planes to the Douglas, and Navy planes to the Glenvlew Airport. 
The present capacity of the Municipal Airport is already overtaxed. 
There are 16 gate positions assigned to the loading and unloading of do- 
mestic scheduled aircraft. During some periods of the day there are more 
scheduled carriers loading or unloading than can be handled at these 
positions. Adequate loading facilities are lacking for cargo planes, 
and these are serviced entirely by trucks. This practice causes addi- 
tional traffic congestion. Airplane (storage) parking spaces are also 
inadequate so that planes must be shunted into spaces not considered 
desirable for this purpose. A recent count revealed that approximately 
kO scheduled airliners, 200 private aircraft and 80 military planes 
parked at Municipal Airport at one time on the average week day. 

FORECASTS . The potential volumes of traffic expected to move by air in 
and out of the Chicago area constitutes the main factors governing plans 
for future airport developments in the region. A probable future trend 
in air transportation is indicated in following charts. 

In preparing this data, statistics compiled by various organiza- 
tions and agencies were consulted. These included the Civil Aeronaut ios 
Authority, the U. S. Department of Commerce, the Illinois Department of 
Aeronautics, the Chicago Plan Commission, the Chicago Association of 
Commerce, the Chicago Municipal Airport Manager^ Office, the Port of 



■.-:-. 

■ 



- 
■ 

; 
■ 



- 21 - 
New York Authority, the Regional Plan Association, Inc., N.Y., the re- 
port of the General Airport Co., the report on air traffic by Madigan- 
Hyland, various magazine articles, etc. Liberal use has "been made of 
estimates made "by the various scheduled airlines operating at Mun- 
icipal Airport. In addition, observations were made at the Municipal 
Airport and other transportation terminals in Chicago. 

The rate of growth and ultimate extent of air passenger traffic 
in Chicago aa indicated by these forecasts (ultimately 22,^00,000 pass- 
engers movements per year) may well he realized, particularly as Chicago 
has a potential for growth greater than any comparable city of the na- 
tion. It is Imperative, therefore, that the master plan of the airport 
be capable of expansion to accomodate such traffic. 

For conservative estimates, however, of the ability of revenues 
to support the project, a modified curve of traffic growth has been 
adopted in which the rate and ultimate extent are assumed at approxi- 
mately two-thirds of the values forecast by the Pearl Bio-Metric Curve. 
The number of passenger movements per year is thus estimated at 
15,650,000. 

In the estimates, tables and charts, applying to the timing of 
stage construction, aircraft, passenger and cargo movements, capital 
and operating costs, flying and non-flying revenues and debt service, 
the more conservative figures are used throughout this report . Since 
the revenues computed on this conservative basis are ample to make the 
project self-sustaining, it is obvious that if greater traffic is 
realized the entire operation will become more profitable. 



.-•'■.' ■ 

■ 

■ • 
■"'■■' ■ 



- 22 - 
SCHEDULED AIR PASSENGER TRAFFIC AT CHICAGO , The Pearl Bio-Metric Curve 
represents past trends of scheduled air passenger movements which have 
"been plotted and projected into the future. The predictions are based 
upon a logistic curve fitted to past data. 

This curve also shows an anticipated increase over 1947 of 310 
per cent by 19?h f an ^- °£ 510 per cent by i960. Rates of increase for 
the nation and for the New York Area predicted by the Port of New York 
Authority, point to an increase over the 1947 volumes of 483 per cent by 
1954 and of 641 per cent by i960. The yearly number of scheduled air 
passenger movements in the Chicago area is expected to approach 15,650,000, 
of which 466,000 represent arrivals from and departures to foreign coun- 
tries, 314,000 passengers riding feeder planes, 2,358,000 other through 
and interchange passengers, and 12,512,000 local originating and depart- 
ing passengers. At present, the number of air passenger landings and 
take-offs at Chicago approaches 10 per oent of national volumes, 

A conservative estimate of approximately two-thirds of the 
values shown on the Pearl -Bio -Metric Curve is used as the basis of all 
other data In this report. The following charts represent further 
breakdowns of the scheduled air passenger volumes shown by the Pearl 
Bio -Metric Curve into daily and hourly volumes. The hourly arrival of 
planes and the parking requirements were obtained in a similar manner. 
Hourly breakdowns are of great Importance inasmuch as it is the peak 
hours that test the adequacy of airport facilities. 

AIR MAIL, AIR EXPRESS AND AIR FREIGHT . In addition to scheduled pas- 
senger flighrs there are prospects for heavily increasing volumes of 
mail, express, and freight to be shipped by air. Substantial volumes 
of mail and express have been sent by air during the last two decades. 






■'■■'.. . . ; ' ' 
bt -"•■ i 









• l~ 




..: at 


■ 














■ ■■ • - ' . ■ 


• - 




























- 










. 










. 








• 


' 






• ' 










• 
















' 


. 




■ 










. •. 


- . 






' 


































■ 






. ■" - . . . 
... •; -■ • ' f7 . ■; 



- 23 - 

Air freight shipments, however, are in their Infancy, but a large portion 
of freight deliveries will progressively be shifted to the air as the 
size and carrying capacity of airplanes are increased and the cost of 
operation relatively reduced in line with technical developments. 

SIGHTSEEING, CHARTERED, AMD PRIVATE FLYING . Besides air transportation 
of scheduled passengers and cargo, there will also be substantial 
volumes of non-scheduled passenger and private flying. The plane move- 
ments of these categories at the Municipal Airport in 19^6 were: 
Sightseeing, 2,316; chartered, 111; miscellaneous and private, 58,181. 
The volumes for 19^7 were as follows: Sightseeing, 1,69^; miscellaneous 
and private, 67,296, 






-...■•' 

■ 



- 2k - 
THE MASTER PLAN 
THE RUNWAY PATTERN 

The studies to determine the most desirable arrangement of runways 
included a comparison of various parallel runway designs with the 
simpler and more economical tagential pattern. 

The tangential systems cf runways, as finally adopted for the 
airport design, has a theoretical capacity greater than the "best of 
the parallel patterns, needs only 10 runways, eliminates long taxi dis- 
tances, and offers the greatest flexibility for lengthened use of run- 
ways. (The right hand runway for landing and the left hand runway for 
take-off can he used to a substantially greater length than others by 
extending the runways at their inner end). 

The tangential system also allows ample space between the run- 
ways for hangars, shops, and industrial development, thus providing 
the fullest and most economical use of the total airport area. 

STANDARDIZATION OF RUNWAYS 

In Section I of this report, under the heading, "National 
Standards,' it is pointed out that Chicago took the initiative in re- 
questing the Civil Aeronautics Administration to standardize the length 
and strength of runways within the continental United States. 

In a series of letters from the Mayor to the Administrator of 
the Civil Aeronautics Administration, it was emphasized that in a 
national system of airport as envisioned by the Federal Airport Act, each 



. . ■• • ■.■■:■_ 

: ': It '. ■ 

'-■'-■"' 

' * ■. 

. ■.-.■■ 

■ ■ 

■ ■ . ■ 

■ 
■ 

■ 



- 25 - 

airport must adhere to standards, that design of aircraft should "be 
moulded to ground facilities rather than the converse and that the major 
investments of "both public and private funds could not be Justified un- 
less the element of premature obsolescence could be eliminated and the 
integrity of the program could be assured by the establishment of 
standards. After careful consultations with all phases of the avia- 
tion industry, and following hearings conducted in Washington, the 
Civil Aeronautics Administration on November U, 19^7 adopted Chicago's 
proposal. A copy of the order follows; 



.. . .... 

■ ■ e \ 



- 26 - 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS 
WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

TECHNICAL STANDARD ORDER TSO-N6 

November k, I9U7 

SUBJECT: RUNWAY STRENGTH AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

Hi order to obtain "better correlation between the design of airports and the design 
of aircraft which are to be used in air carrier operations, the design standards con- 
tained herein have been developed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. It is the 
purpose of this Order (1) to guide employees of the Civil Aeronautics Administration 
regarding approvals and recommendations for runway design, (2) to indicate to spon- 
sors of projects for airport development under the Federal Airport Act the present 
limit of runway characteristics to which Federal Funds will be applied and (3) to 
indicate to manufacturers and operators of transport type aircraft the airport run- 
ways which will be available. It is expected that air carrier operators will secure 
such equipment and establish such procedures that will permit, in accordance with 
established Civil Air Regulations, approval of operations from runways specified 
herein. 

DIRECTIVE 

In accordance with the procedure for establishing technical aeronautical standards, 
specified in Administrative Order 56, dated August 2, 19^6, and Standard Practice 
637O, the "Runway Strength and Dimensional Standards for Air Carrier Operations," 
set forth below, are established as a Technical Standard Order. 





Runway 


Taxiway Landing Strip 


Pavement . 


Loading 


Air Carrier 


feet 


feet 


feet 


Per wheel 


in lbs. 


Service 


Length 


Width 


Width 


Width 


Single Wheel 


Dual Wheel 


Feeder 


3500 


100 


ko 


300 


15,000 


20,000 


Local 


1*200 


150 


50 


1*00 


30,000 


1*0,000 


Express 


5000 


150 


60 


500 


1*5,000 


60,000 


DeLuxe 


5900 


150 


75 


500 


60,000 


80,000 


Interntl . 


7000 


200 


75 


500 


75,000 


100,000 


Intl.Expr. 


81*00 


200 


100 


500 


100,000 


125,000 



(NOTE: These runway characteristics for the several types of air carrier service 
listed conform to the International standards proposed by the International Civil 
Aviation Organization for Classes "F" to "A" respectively except in the case of 
Landing Strip Widths). 

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS 

The air carrier service anticipated in the Immediate future and that expected ul- 
timately for each airport location will be determined by the office of Airports in 
cooperation with interested aviation organizations, and published in connection with 
the National Airport Plan. These services are generally defined as follows: 












. ' i 

'-■■•■ 









lal 

■ 

■ 

" 

■ 
■ 

■ 



' . ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ 









',-.'' 



- 27 - 
Air Carrier Service 

Feeder - Airports to serve certificated feeder line airlines. 
Local - Airports to serve smaller cities on airline trunk routes. 
Express- Airports at Important cities or Jundtion points on trunk routes. 
Deluxe - Airports serving aircraft making long non-stop domestic flights. 
International - Airports terminating long international flights. 
International Express - Airports serving the highest type of transoceanic 
flights. 

Options . *fliere it is indicated that an airport will ultimately he used for a differ- 
ent class of air carrier service than that required for the immediate future, the var- 
ious elements of design indicated in the preceding table may he "based on either the 
immediate future or the ultimate class insofar as is reasonably practicable . For ex- 
ample, an airport indicated as Feeder -Local might use a runway 150 feet by 3500 feet 
or 100 feet by ^200 feet in lieu of the combinations shown in the table. 

Runway Length . The runway lengths shown are established for sea level elevations 
and standard sea level temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. These lengths will be 
increased for airport elevation at the rate of 7 per cent of the length shown on the 
table for each 1000 feet of elevation above sea level. This corrected length shall 
be further increased at the rate of one -half of 1 per cent for each degree which the 
mean temperature of the hottest month of the year, averaged over a period of years, 
exceeds the standard temperature. 

The runway length shall also be increased to correct for runway gradient at the rate 
of 20 per cent of the length corrected for altitude and temperature for each 1 per 
cent of effective runway gradient. The effective runway gradient will be determined 
by dividing the maximum difference in runway center line elevation by the total 
length of the runway. This effective gradient shall not exceed 1 per cent nor shall 
the maximum grade of any portion of the runway exceed 1 and one -half per cent. 

Landing Strip . For the purpose of this Order, Landing Strip is defined as the graded 
area symetrically located with respect to the runway with a length of at least 200 
feet greater than the runway . 

Maximum Pavement Loading . Pavements shall be designed to carry satisfactorily the 
wheel loadings specified in the table above. The gross weight of the aircraft is 
assumed to be carried by the main landing gear. Where gross weight of aircraft with 
dual wheels will be more than double the dual wheel pavement loading in the table 
(for example, 200,000 lbs. gross weight for international airports) the excess load 
will be transmitted to the pavement by additional units. 

Options to Pavements f Runway and taxiway pavements may be eliminated where surface 
conditions permit satisfactory year-round operations without such paving. Starter 
strips, warm-up pads and loading aprons may be used in lieu of complete paving where 
considered adequate* 

Runways, taxiways and landing strips not conforming to this Order which are built 
without Federal Funds shall not affect approval or the use of Federal Funds on other 
construction on the same airport. However, Federal Funds where used for the items 
covered in this Order may be applied only to that portion of the work conforming to 
this Order. 

/s/ T. P. Wright 
Administrator of Civil Aeronautics 



I 






. 



I 






I 






- 28 - 

These Federal Standards for International Airports are incorporated 
in the Master Plan for Chicago Orchard (Douglas) Airport. Each runway will 
have a clear length equivalent to 7000 feet at sea level and at standard 
temperature. In addition, by extending the inner ends of runways, an 
operating length equivalent to 8^00 feet under standard conditions can be 
realized. Thus, one -third or more of all operations can he of the Inter- 
national Express type. 

Applying the corrections for altitude, for temperature accountabil- 
ity and for individual runway gradients as covered by Technical Standard 
Order Number 6 of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, the lengths of 
the runways in the Master Plan will range from 9300 feet to 9600 feet. 

THE CENTRAL TERMINAL AREA 

An intensive study of the functional requirements of the central 
terminal area has resulted in the adoption of the "Split -Finger 1 design 
of terminal building. 

The accepted dimensions and clearances for terminal apron, and taxi- 
ways as contained in publications both of CAA, Department of Aeronautics, 
State of Illinois, and ATA - Air Transport Association, as basic in all 
comparative designs. 

The design of the terminal building itself progressed through a 
series of comparative studies as shown in the Illustrations entitled, 
"Evolution of Terminal Design." Two distinct trends of thought were 
followed in the design evolution. One envisioned a central terminal 
based upon the principle of a "Production Line." This scheme entailed 
the movement of aircraft for servicing, loading and unloading by mechanical 



; 
. • ■■ ■ ' 

; ' ■ 
• ■. • ' ' ■ 



- 



• 



■ " ' 

■ 

. • . • ' 



- 29 - 

means very similar in principle to the methods employed in mass production 
factories. The other was based upon a stationary location for the aircraft 
for unloading, servicing and loading in the conventional manner. Each of 
the two methods was developed in successively Improved designs and compar- 
ative studies were made of their respective merits and defects. Eventually 
it was agreed that the "Production Line Method" was too radical a departure 
from present practice and too advanced for adoption at this time, even though 
future developments in aircraft design and operating procedures may warrant 
its further consideration in the future. 

The "Stationary Method" allows individual operation of the airlines to 
the extent necessary to discharge their responsibility for safety and for 
service to the public. It handicaps the passenger interchanging to another 
carrier, however, and in most designs involves walking distances too great to 
be acceptable. Six basic designs with numerous variations were studied, all 
based upon the fixed or stationary positioning of aircraft. These designs con- 
sisted of the Circle plan, the Ellipse, the Cross, The Five-loop, the Cir- 
cular-Finger, and finally, the Split-Finger plan. 

Each plan provides for the ultimate inclusion of 90 gate positions 
spaced 150 feet apart. In the Circular Plan, the total circumference was thus 
13,500 feet. This design proved extremely wasteful in land use. In addition, 
a passenger would be required to walk an average distance of I67O feet from 
surface transportation to the airplane. This distance was considered exces- 
sive. In standard practice for large railroad terminals, for example, the 
passenger walking distance averages from 1,000 feet to 1,250 feet. Under this 
plan, with its separate stations, all facilities would require duplication. 

The next scheme, or the Circular -Finger Plan, was an evolution from the 
Circular Plan, which shortened the passenger walking distance to an average of 
1410 feet, but still failed to provide a focal point for ground traffic. 



_ - 



'■■■'■ 
- 

■ 
. ■ 

■ 

■ 

■ ■ . ' 

■ ■■ 

" . . . 



- 30 - 

Likewise, it failed to integrate passenger handling for efficient operation. 

At this stage of the study, it "became apparent that a common or central 
concourse easily accessible would be required as a means of providing conven- 
iences for the public which would increase the attractiveness of air travel 
and thus produce the maximum of non-flying revenue. 

Successively, the Cross Plan and the Five-Loop Plan resulted. Although 
improvements, both of these plans possessed disadvantages in walking distances 
and in insufficient area for parking. 

Finally, the Split -Finger Plan was fully developed and subsequently 
adopted as the Master Plan. This reduced the average passenger walking dis- 
tance to 1070 feet and the grand average walking distance of all patrons of 
the airport to 735 feet. Features of the design include a central concourse 
equally accessible to surface transportation and to all airlines, excellent 
waiting rooms, where visitors may lounge with passengers, sufficient arrange- 
ments for spectators, segregated from areas devoted to airline operations 
and facilities offering the maximum self-supporting concession income. It 
provides parking space for more than 65OO cars, separate roadways for trucks 
and provisions for delivery of passengers to the door of the individual air- 
lines by taxi, limousine, or private automobile. 

WALKING DISTANCES 

In the comparative studies of central terminal "buildings, each plan was 
analyzed as to the walking distances required under every intensity of traffic 
from peak hour to minimum, and for each class of persons visiting the airport 
subdivided into groups utilizing various modes of surface transportation. 
These walking distances were weighed in accordance with the relative numbers 
of persons in each class and in each operating cycle to obtain the average 
walking distance. 






th bae . . 

■ 

■ ' 
■ 

■ ■ ■ 

■;■•■' ■ ' 



• 31 - 

CAPITAL COSTS 

There are given herein the Individual costs of all items which will he 
required in the construction of the ultimate program. The costs of each of these 
29 items are shown in full as the construction progresses from the 1st stage to 
the ultimate stage. 

STAGE CONSTRUCTION 

The following cost estimates for stage I, H and III are based on a traf- 
fic growth equalling in rate and amounts approximately two -thirds of the total 
capacity provided by the Master Plan. In addition the cost estimate is also in- 
cluded for the ultimate stage, or the full capacity of the airport. An analysis 
indicates that if the rate of growth is greater so that the ultimate capacity of 
the field is reached sooner than expected, the revenues from additional passengers 
and airline operations will more than provide for servicing of additional revenue 
bonds. 

1ST STAGE - The three former Douglas runways are used and an additional 
three runways which are 6,000 feet long (plus corrections for altitude, tempera- 
ture and gradient) are built. 30 gate positions are built. The capacity of the 
airport will be 120 plane movements per peak hour. This will be required in 1951 
and the cost will be $37,000,000. 

2ND STAGE - The three former Douglas runways are torn out and five addi- 
tional runways 7,000 feet (plus corrections) are built. The three runways which 
were constructed in Stage 1, when lengthened and added to the five new runways 
make a total of eight runways 7,000 feet long (plus corrections). In addition to 
this, two other runways are built which are of an International Express character. 
The total number of runways in use will be ten. An additional 15 gate positions 
are constructed, giving a total of U5 gate positions. This number of gate posi- 
tions will give a capacity of 180 plane movements per peak hour. This stage is 
required in 195 1 * and will cost $58,000,000. This is $21,000,000 in excess of the 
first stage. 

3RD STAGE - The 8 runways which are 7,000 feet long (plus corrections) 
are all lengthened to 8,1+00 feet (plus corrections). This gives a total of ten 
runways which are of an International Express character. An additional 15 gate 
positions are constructed to give a total of 60 gate positions. The capacity of 
the airport will be 2^0 plane movements per peak hour. This stage is required 
in 1958 and will cost $65,000,000. This is $7,000,000. in excess of Stage Two. 

ULTIMATE STAGE - Full development of the Master Plan, 90 loading posi- 
tions, capacity of the airport 36O plane movements per peak hour. Total cost 
$75,000,000 or $10,000,000 in excess of Stage III. 

A summary is given below of the sources from which capital will be ob- 
tained for the above stage construction, and the correcponding construction periods. 

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 ULTIMATE STAGE 

Total Cost $37.000,000 $58,000.000 $65,000,000 $75, 000 ,"000 

City & State 13,500,000 21,000,000 2^,000,000 28,000,000 

U.S. Govt. 8,500,000 11*-, 000, 000 15,000,000 17,000,000 

Revenue 15,000,000 23,000,000 26.000,000 30. 000. 000 

Construction 19^8-19^9-1950 1952-1953 1957 



I 

;r.\. v : t lz:.jO, s pate 

- 



. . • ■ . . 

• ■ ■ . ■ 

- '. 

> ■ ■■ . ■ 

■ 

■ ' ' 




















{ 


. 




. 


' 


. 







■ ■ 



- 38 - 



1888888! 



>OOOOOOOQOQQQQ 

8QQOOOOOQQQQO 
OOOOOOOOOOOO 



) r-i CVJ t-CO OJ ifNCO CU O H oONO < 

> novo cu \r\r-i ir\Ir\o itn itn r-i o < 

> H OOCU <HVOOMf\0\ HMt 
r CVJ r-T t^lTN r-£ f 



i o o 
i itni-i 



H WVOOVO^OO cnCU QOQ 

vo on c-cu oncu ono no cu ooooq 



88888! 

o o o o o c 



)OOOQQOQOOOO OO 

)OQOOQOOOOC 

)OOOOOOOOOC 



OHW C— CO O O O CU tT\ r-» 0O_* QOHHCUQOVOI>-000 

8oono cuirSf-^t-d-o Honno 0-* cu no on oSoooncu onco 
H on CU 00 rO-4- IfNVO H CU O ITNCA NO l>- NO -=*" on CU CU ON 



c--o onco itmt»o o 

CU ONCO <H CU lT\«H CU 
^ CU-=f O COCO 



r-i ON 

8& 



oqqooooqqooqooooooooooqoooooo o 

O O O Q O O O 5 O QO O Q O Q Q O O O O Q Q O O O Q O O Q O 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 



)HOf-coaiooaiOHtO(ogoo^r-o irsvp c^-oooo irMf\o 

> onifNCU lAHOCOOnrOHlfvO^^ ITNO ON lf\ ON CU ONCU C-CU ITsO-ON 

> <H H CU C- ON NO lfN en rS H O ITN VOVO on VO r-i CO CU CU-d- rH H O ONH 



c7{ 



>OOOQQQQQQQOOOOQOOOO OOOOOOOO 

'S929Q95993QOOOQOOOO oooooooo 
JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooooo 



o o o 

888 



! <2 S £-^-5 Q Q £y St*- 1 -^°J Q o o o mo «h cnooonocuir\o 

>irNOCUr-»if\ir\irNOonmoOOO iT\VO C— H CU ro O I s - ON CO ifNO C— H NO 
> ONCU ir\-sl- rH IT\ OO HOHoOHCOOWO ONCUiHr-».^-.=frNOVQ 



si 









si 



•d Op c 

3S C 



«1 
,wSS 

»W'-|Q g © © "H 

© 3 © ^h < pq 

a p «H O 5* CO «H ,Q «> © © 

SfeoJoo ca o ph « cg 




iH CU 00^- tT\NQ l>-CO 0\O .H CU ro^i- ITWO t^-co ono H CU OO-tf iTNND f-CO ON 
HHHHHHHHHiHCUCUCUCUCUOJCUCUCUCU 



. 






• 









■ 






• 









- 




















' 




■ 




















' 












- 33 - 

CAPITAL COSTS DISTRIBUTION 

The capital cost distribution of the estimates for 
the 30, 1*5 and 60 plane 303 it ion stages is made on the basis 
of allocating these costs to the three areas on the field: 
Landing Area, Terminal Area, and Rentable Area. The sum of 
the three areas equals the total airf ieH area. The purpose 
of the cost distribution is to properly assess the cost of 
annual maintenance and operation for each of the items of 
construction. 






■ ... . • ' 

■ 



- 3* 



o e3 

P. OJ 



•38 < 

P H © 

OH H 

*•< S -s 

P (o 

<i;l -P P 

(0 "d G 

O © © 

Sfc-O P « 



38 

P r-4 

£3. 



p -d «J 
O h» -a. 



38 J 

P H 

1 «! o ! 
-p < 

O © i 
S.O P * 



o o o o o 

88888 



188881 

> O O O O < 



88888 888J 

iR8 cy £T1?n tR tn o &co"coo 8 «nv£» t*- h aj mo c- o\c5 i 

O\0J ITS.* H U"\CO HOHOOH MChVO OWHt 



> t-r-KO 
I- -st VOsO 



H rH OJ r-4 



\£> POO 



^888 



0\OsO\0 

HHHO 



o o o o 

8888 



vo vo vo 
^t ^ J* 



J88< 

) o o < 

> OJ 0*V 

_ ..NO fOf 

-^ h men 



OOOOOVOOVD OO 



8 8 






KMfNlAOOO 



• I I I » CO 



£1 



11 

|1 
'll 

S3 



II 



..53° 

3«HO 
• 3 S 



o o o 

888 



VO H H CO OWO 



iPv O O O O O 



> O O O O < 

> QO O Q < 



h wvono lAOO 



• . O O O OO 
> O O COO\ D-O 
) C-H H 



8 8 81 



o o o o 

to • d d d 
o vo h m 



•d h 

— 1 -H , . 
I 3 <tf 






! P w 



©5^« ( 
w C <S 3 © o « 3 c o I 

I 3« ovt ©Tip 3 ^ ' 



» <d © *■ 



n 



z% 



« ri S En <C f 



«J P ! 

ill 

co co : 



?I§. 



J (30 > 
> "H O 

1 h4 P* 



3 > 



HHHHHfHiHHHHCVJOJC 









. 









■ 



■ • 



■ 



■ 


















. 









. 






- 


















■ 












' 



- 35 





ro 


m 


o 


H» 


n 


g 


■ 1 


8 


B 


rt 


Eh 


ft 


R 


g 


« 


3 


CO 




H 


ir> 


co 


-* 


o 




o 


• 


4 


^ 


H 


gj 


U 


T( 




<s 



., 888? 

hOOOt 



8 < 

< o ja 




o o o 

888 



OVOVO 



w 

I to 

a) (0 

■" _ *2 

O © 3 



> O Q O < 

> o 3 o < 

> o o o < 



:8888S 



> o 00 o o < 

588888c 



><NOr-lor>onOOOir\fc-Q ITNVO £- O O O O UA iTvO 
)OrOrOHlfNQ-*^tvjDOa\lf\ONCVJONOJ^-OJirs £-o\ 
) UA m r)HO ITWO lf\ COVO rtOOWW4HHO OsH 



Sv7 c-- § 



_ lAHH 
H ITNO ON 



I I I H rH < 



0\OO o 

• A d o «d • 

-sj- CVI c5 H 



88888888 88 
00000000 00 

qcoococo tr\co vo cj 



88888«*8- 



o VO O o o 



> o o o c 

I.88.8J 

H C-tT\roiT\r 



irv«r\ir\o O 



fnmroooo » • • » » 
IfMfMfNVO O O 



O O O O Q 

§8.8.88. 

vo\cTt>^d*tr\ 

IAOsOOMA 

cm mmvo h 



lf\ lf\ J i>-o o c 



§g< 



fail 



O (4 

H S -d ffl «H H 

IfflJitllflli 

1 fc -d n Js «H 



§• 

o 

•d Hi* o,Mr-JH 6-h j> © 43 ,ij «3 ►•§'§ 

«)H«)0(J3WO<H $wp 3 «! o o 3 






5» "g <D H id 



«i 6 S 8 4 



\m 



in a 

co co 



2 -S3, 



<D H > 

o 



a 



H CM m^- ITVVO C-CO 0\0 HCVI CO-st- IfNVO C— CO ON O iH CM PO^J- IP.VO t— CO ON 

HHHHHHHHHHWCViajWCVJWaJWOiW 



J 


S 




i M 


i s 


£ 


1 


8 


H 


rt 


! 6 


1 


> ra 


9 


j A 


a 


CO 




1 R 


8 


i o 




i 3 


1 


> ft 




o 


T» 


1 

I 


A 



36 



<+s -P 

~ a ■ «d 
O © 
-O -P I 

2 a 



d o 



> at Jt lAO\H 
} o h ir\db on 

) Vj IfN ON 






-P H 

<»■« 4» 

O CD 
T^O-P 



I88S 

» O O < 



> o o c 



h cvi t~-ao o o o 

^VO OJ ITS f-.s* -st- 

^ roc 



llfNiHOO-a-QOHiHCVlOOVOC-O 0OC0 IfMAO O ' 
•— >rHOOJ-CV|VOcoa\roO\CVJ ON CO H OJ trsH CM 
rt woiao\vo f-vo jtmcvjcjONOj-sj-orom < 

oo O^i-Tro .sT CvT <n#-Tr-l H ! 



8 8^ 



o o o 

8o o 
o o 



ono o o 

« H O O • O 

.sf CVJ OJ <H 



OJ «H 



vOVOVO 



r-l O-OJ OOU 



IfMfMfXO O 



88888888 88 

oooooooo oo 

o o oT ir\ <-T irv -*cq cToo 

j^Ort m o oo coco 

0O.tf 1TNVO OJ H OJ 

Vo"V r-T 



on ono 



> OJ o on on CO o 



VO o o o o 



88888-^8- 



H H H rrt rH 



8 8 88881 

o o o o o o < 

H £> ON CO oT< " 



ITNVO OO 

ir\o o\ 

OHM 



o o o o o 




-HrHrHMrSrrtrHr-IHrHC 






' 









; 
I 






• 






■ 






• 



■ 
































■ 









- 37 - 
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE & OPERATION COSTS 

A study was mad© of large airports throughout the 
United States to determine their representative annual 
operation and maintenance costs. Based on these studies, 
a percentage of the capital costs was derived to obtain 
the annual maintenance and operation costs. These per- 
centages are applied to the capital costs of each con- 
struction stage, i.e. the 30 t k5 and 60 plane position 
stages, to ohtain the projected annual charges, which are 
$1,171,000 for Stage I, $1,769,000 for Stage II, and 
$2,057,000 for Stage III. 



" ■ . . 

! ■ 

■.'.':• 



d £3 *h i 

\ a © «h 
I "9 9 • I 



cd 3 



is si 



43 -p 



Mho 






- 38 - 



88888888 8 888888888888881 

C— CO O IT\ t— H CO«Jt ITS uSrH iHOO fOCVl IT\1>- lACO CO UMfN C-< 



§Q Q O O < 
5 o o o < 

r ^ccr cT 0*0" c 

> cuuS £--=»•-* < 

">CU 00 <n-sJ- t 



188888? 

> O O O O O < 



IfMH m^t < 
H OOH O < 



-i.HcuQOvoc*-Qrncoir\ir\OQ 
rsvo t-vo j-pocvjcvic^oj-4-o m on 



OHOO -it 



OOH H r-i 



8OOOOQOO O QQQQOOQQQOQQOOO 
OOOQOOO O OOOOOQOOOOOOOOO 

t-00 W CO O H 00 J- CO lANlACOCO^lAMfNOOOmt-O 



8 00QQOOOOOOOOOQQOQQOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

8 0->lf\CVl ITvH Q COO CO CO r-| ir\Q-*^:<00 CMTnONOJ ONCVJ 0-OJ lf\t~0"\ 
<H .H CU C-O\V0 l^fO HHO lAVOlAfOVOH rOWCyj-HHOCNH 



88888888 8 888888 8888888? 

t-t^-*4 00HVOJt cm cocoocoovo f- ir\ h oo 5 cu .* < 



1888888? 



CU CVI 0J CVJ CU CU 



> tf\0 «H 

-h cu m 
4 noowo 



000c 

8 A 8 J 

cncTo" , c 
r-o\co v 

• 0\WHr 



;88? 

> o o c 



CU CU 

HHO 



CU CU CU 

AAA 



CU CU CU CU 



> O H O -H 




">-5f tT>\£) t>-00 ON O H CU rO-s>- ITvVO C~C0 C^OHOl CO^J- iT\VO C-CO 0\ 
HHHHHHrSrHHfHCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU 









■• -■ 



- . 









. 
























' 















' 






• 






• 



- 39 - 

Flying Revenue 

Estimated revenues from the flying operation of the airport 
as detailed In the following pages are based upon current and past 
charges In effect at Chicago Municipal Airport and to some extent In 
existence at other major airports. The total of such revenues is Im- 
portant in fixing the feasibility of revenue financing to cover part 
of capital costs. The individual estimates of charges are not neces- 
sarily recommended* A reference to the distribution of capital costs 
shows the inequity of some of the charges. Landing fees may he en- 
tirely too low while area rentals are too high. Before final adop- 
tion of individual schedules of charges a careful evaluation of 
their relation to capital costs is recommended. 



.'■• : • 

-. - • 

' ■ ' '• ' - 

I . i 

■ 



- ko - 



LANDING FEES 



The landing fees at Municipal Airport for scheduled passenger flights 
are "based on two factors. The first factor is a sliding scale according to 
the frequency of schedules. The rates are as follows: 

$200.00 per month per dally schedule for the first 3 schedules, 

$100.00 " ■ if « » " fi ne Xt » « 

& *50 00 " " n it it ti it ii it fi 

$ 25.00 " " " " " n each additional schedule. 

The second factor In the determination of landing fees is the gross 
weight of the airplane. The above rates are "basic for an airplane with a licensed 
gross weight not In excess of 25,500 pounds. If the gross weight is in excess 
of 25,500 pounds, an additional fee of $1.00 is charged for each 1,000 pounds 
weight which is in excess of the basic 25,500 pounds. The graph on the following 
page shows the projected growth of gross weight of the average scheduled airliner. 

To determine what the average fee is for the sliding scale portion, it 
is necessary to determine the number of daily schedules during the particular 
year in question, and also to distribute the flights to the various airlines 
using the airport in proportion to each particular airline's traffic volume. 

The table below shows a sample calculation for the ultimate year. 

Number of Scheduled Arrivals and Departures in Ultimate 
Year is 567,000. The average number of arrivals per day 
during this year is: 

567.000 - 775 











2 


x 365 








(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


w 


(5) 


(6) 


(7) 


(8) 


(9) 








First 3 


Next 3 


Next 3 




Additional 






Number 


Schedules 


Schedules Schedules Number 


Schedules 






Percent 


of 


at 


at 


at 


of 


at 






of Total Daily 


$200.00 


$100.00 


$ 50.00 


Additional 


$25.00 


Total 


Airline 


Traffic* Schedules 


each 


each 


each 


Schedules 


each 


Payment 






Col. 2x775 










Col.7x$25 


Col. 
U-5-6-8 


A 


27.0 


208 


$600. 


$300. 


$150. 


199 


$ ^975. 


$ 6025. 


B 


6.0 


hi 


600. 


300. 


150. 


38 


950. 


2000. 


C 


19.7 


153 


600. 


300. 


150. 


Ikk 


3600. 


*650. 


D 


6.6 


51 


600. 


300. 


150. 


k2 


1050. 


2100. 


E 


k.2 


32 


600. 


300. 


150. 


23 


575. 


1625. 


F 


16.8 


130 


600. 


300. 


150. 


121 


3025. 


U075. 


G 


3.5 


28 


600. 


300. 


150. 


19 


V75. 


1525. 


H 


10.2 


79 


600. 


300. 


150. 


70 


1750. 


2800. 


I 


6.0 


J& 


600. 


300. 


150. 


38 


950. 


2000. 


# 


100.0 


775 












$267B6o. 


Based 


on Dec. 


I9U7 Schedules 












Therefore, Average Fee per Schedule « $26,800/775 * 


$35.00 










• ■ 



1 



■ ■ 

■ 











| 










• 


' .. ■■ ' 


















.- ! •'.' 


■ 




■ • .' ' ■ 





. 









. 









*-* O ifNO lf> c 

^h oncx 




Q O O O O 

mo o »r\tr\ 



On On On OsO 



O O mo m 



o o ino o 



.tf-tf-d- -*- 



0Of-O -=»■ -d 
0OV£> ON«Jt 00 

oj oj cvi on co 



^--Sj-J-Jt ITN IfNlfN lfN IfN 



o o o o o 

1AOOOO 
•HVO ON tOO 



_ i8Bl 

O C-ONON0 



\8Z 



HH W OJ W 



*-* O IfNlTN U"N UN i?N 



OJ o 



) iTNlAlTNlfN 






UMP>V£»vS\0 



kl - 

fc8888 



OJ-sf tfWO r-COCQ OnOnOnOnO O O «H 
OOOOOOOOOOOHiHrHH 
•H Hi H H H ' 



. _ c-co On On _. . 
ooooooooonoooooooooooooooooooo 



coco oj ir\f-o 



U"N O IfN IfN lf\ 



!888^ 

i mo O < 



•ri QJ °°-£ & ^> t^-co on o h oj m^t 

lf\. tf\ ITS lf\ IfN lfN li"N ITN IfN SO O VO VO VO 
OnONONOnOnOnOnONOnOnONOnOnOw, 

r-t t~i f-i i~{ r-»]H r-< H H H ]H HHrlH 



8R88& 



\lfNO Ol 



i» 



VOONOrHOJ-^^tJ*Jt-±^*-lf\lfNtfMrN 

, mm mm mmm in mm in in in in in 



8000 
o o o 
on in on vo o 



o o < 
o o c _ 

•H tTNlTSt-ON 



o mo o m 



88881 

o mo o < 



?3^ 



mo mmo 
oo ON On On On 



OnononOnOnonOnononOn 



m£ 



\mmo < 



co co oo co 



co ro co co on oo co 



88888 

OHOJ OOjt 



On On ON On 



o^S; 



o o o o o 
mo mo m 



8 8 

33 



_ . On On On On 
coco coco co 



■it m 

COCO 



I o o o 

i o o m_ , 

-OJ OJ C-OJ 



o o o mm mo 
oj t-^oi ^r-o 

On On On on On on on On On on 



! £rFS .<2> P H w *•">•* ^ "0 fc 

n On On On On On on On 

IHHH H|«H r-\ f-\ H H H H 



mmc 



•; 









• 






■ ; 



. -• ■ 






. 






. 












. 



■ 









i£ i: K y. 



. 









- k2 - 



*-* QQOOQ QOQQO QOOQO ,,00000 2295 8a 
Jt OOQQO OOOOO OQOOQ OQOQOQ QOOQOO 
C* OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOO OOOOQ.O 



) lT\tf\ ono 



- _ fejfr ON 

\oofot-o 
j* \r\vrwr\\o 



O ONlTWJ 

j- ir\c— a 



fi VO OJ OJ CfMTv CO CO COM 



__ . ->V£> VO O 
..IHHH H r-4 OJ OJ OJ £ 
C~- O- C— C*- F- t- f>- O- t— O- f~ P~ 



8 0000 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOO oqooqo 
ir\otr\o ir\ooir\ifN moooo o ir\o o mm ooitno 011} 

S8S8S &^6V&8 8<S«6 ggg&o^ SSSddg 




K 00 c~ o -=»• J- \omvoy?iA qcovoono 
covooS-stco H-d-vocoo ■cuojoom.d- 

lf\ OJ OJ OJ CO <V> J- ^J- ^t J- ITN UMTMrMfMfN 



-si- -=»• -4 -n- 3- .a- -=»■ -st -d- j- .st -* 

tT\ tf\ US lf\ tfMT\ lf\ lf\ ITMTN t/A «> 




§.8888 88888 88888 888888 88888.8 

Hvoo\<no o c-osoSoo oSiaoSvoo in vo tr\ f- o\ o iH oj cr>^t -* ^ 



-si- OJ O-si 



, - ,VO t-C0 0\O\O\ o\«.. 
Hr-»0J0J0J forooornro ro on co m on on on on on on on comrooTon 00 



d °J °°^t *D VO C-CO ONO rH OJ CO.* IPs VO t— 00 0\0 H OJ on *s* IT. VO C— 

lf\ lT\ lf\lf\ lf\ U~\ lf\ lf\ lT\VO SO Cp VO VO SO VO VO VD VO ?- C— C— t— T"- O fc" t- 

ov o\ o\ ov o\ o\ on On on ov oS on on 5S o\ o\ on o\ on on on on on on on on on 

HHrHHrH r-» H H H H H H H H H r«| r-» H r-t H fH r-i H H r-H H «H 



*3 



ANNUAL INCOME FROM BUILDING RENTALS 

A study was made of the average unit charges to 
he made for the rental of various huilding areas. These 
unit charges are "based on the average unit charges which 
are made for different uses in existing airport ter- 
minal buildings throughout the United States. It will 
he noted in the Airline building, for example, that 
$3.00 per square foot is charged for the upper floor, 
whereas $2.00 per square foot is charged for the lower 
floor. 



♦ Bl ■..'-.■ 

t 



- kh - 
8 



8 8 



9 



no vo 



% 



e c 






a & 



TO O TOO 

o o o • 5 • 

o • o oo 5 cu 

t-t CVJ r-J jfr fi <&■ 

(x, -69- fx, 




if\ © o © o © 



5 5 5 



«• «• 



83 §3 §1 


























■ 






















' 




■ 






'- 




1 






. 


. 












■ • 









- 1*5 - 

CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

FI WIJ) AREA RENTALS 

Rentals based on prevailing Chicago Municipal Airport rentals of 6^ 
per square foot annually for actual area occupied "by "buildings. There 
is a total of approximately one "billion square feet available for 
rental at Chicago Orchard Airport. 

STAGE I 30 POSITIONS 



Number of square feet occupied by hangars and shops 2,7U5,000 

Number of square feet occupied by aprons and aircraft 

storage areas (away from terminal area). 5,1*90,000 

Total Area 8,235,000 sq. ft, 

Annual Rental $165,000 

STAGE II 45 POSITIONS 

Number of square feet occupied by hangars and shops 3,^55,000 

Number of square feet occupied by aprons and aircraft 

storage areas (away from terminal area). 6,910.000 

Total Area 10,365,000 sq. ft. 

Annual Rental $207,000 

STAGE III 60 POSITIONS 

Number of square feet occupied by hangars and shops 4, 165,000 

Number of square feet occupied by aprons and aircraft 

storage areas (away from terminal area). 8,330,000 

Total Area 12,1*95,000 sq. ft. 

Annual Reital $250,000 



' 



' 



■ . . • 






• • 



' . 



- k6 - 

FUELING REVENUES 

It is assumed that the fueling requirements of 
aircraft will increase proportionately with growth of 
passenger capacity. 

The growth of the average number of passengers per 
plane was derived from a study of the growth of size of 
airplanes at their consequently larger seating capacity. 

The average gasoline consumption was multiplied "by 
the number of scheduled aircraft movements per year to 
obtain the amount of gasoline consumed per year by 
scheduled aircraft. A unit revenue of $0.0033 per gallon 
of gasoline consumed was adopted to obtain the annual 
gasoline revenue from scheduled aircraft. 



■ 

eif) 



m 



U7 



o O < 

88^ 



00 ITSVO O -d- lf\H D— ON CVJ OOVO ONVO CVJ00 W£-Q CO IT\ !>- 1-- CO C( 
tf\C0 H IT\C0 H -=t VO CO fH fO.3- iTNVO l>- C-CO 00 ON ON ON ON ON ON C 
Hr3cVJCVJCVJCOCOCO OO-^ -*J , -*^t-*^-JtJ*^--d-^--*-d-Jt«i 



18888885 

) o o o o o o < 



!88< 

> o o < 



O O Q O O O O 
O O O O Q O Q 
O O O O O O O 



CO On ro f 



5vo-* o.* tr\c 



• h moo »n oo^ 
j rococo^* 4a_ 

HHHr-ll-4HHr-«Hr-IHi-|r-4r 



1 H H «H H H 



CO ITS ON CO (TWO O CV1 tTN O- O O On ONVQ OO ON ITN ON OOVO CO CO O O CVJ C\J 
VO t-00 OHW4 ITNVO l>- ON O O H CVJ no ro^j- .=»■ ITN iT\ lT\ ITNVO VO VO VO 
SS tTsirwovo vo vo vo vo vo vo C— t*- t— t~ O- C— C— C~-t— C— C"-J>-l>-l>-t— ^- 



n 



QOQOOOOOQOQQOOQOOOOOOOQQOOQ 

mQOQQQoo©QQOoooooooooooootT\o 

r-4VO 0\COO O l>- ON ON CO ON tTN ONVO O r| IfMA t- 0\ O H W 0OJ- ^ iT\ 
H H CM CVJ CVJ roco<nfOro(^oocooooorooooococooorocororoooro 



VO CVJ OWO CVItT\lTNrHC0-=l-OlTNOlT\0\CVI ITNCO O CVJ ^f tTN ITNVO VO [— f~ 



itnIcu n 









g W&W&Ur-^&l Vc; =• ' ''^-' V* r . " '; ; :"' ,: 


















kS 



8888 

o o o o 



^88881 

> o o o o < 



!888i 



O CM lTN< 
H C-OJ 1 
coco.* 



vo ITNOO 
_.f- ITNH 
vO t— CO ON 



t-vo .*• vo co t— «r\co cvj cu cu tr\ h coco co -si- t-~co cu 
eg co -st- on cvi m f-co o f* cu oj co co co oo3 .4 -=r itn 

COCO.*-* UMrNlfNlTNVO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO 



:888 



CUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCvlCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU 



> o o o o o < 

188888^ 



&S 



O -* tTN H C- ON CU COVO ONVO CU CO CO C- Q mint"- C-CO CO ON ON 
<0 60 H -st ^ CO H CO.* l c\KQ t- t— co CO on on on on on On on on o\ 
CU CU co (^ co co-* -*.*.*.*-*.*.*.*.*.*-*-*.*-*.*.*.* 



;88c 

) o o < 



) o o O ( 

!888^ 



cu cu cu cu 



CUCUCUCUCUCUCUCvJCVJCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU 



888 



) o o 

!88 



8888888* 

o o o o o o o < 



:88888888888 

>ooooooooooo 



irtHrt<-ir-ir-ir4r-\rtr4Ht~ir4r4H 



► o o o o o c 



o o o o o o < 



--* g>o ONinvi 

^t-O-dt tf\C-a 

> mvo vo vo vo vo vo t — c— tr— c~- C^ C — t^- t- t- C- t— c- 



.* IfN 
ITNITN, ., 

on On on On On 



MTNU 



CO ONQ H CU CO.* ITNVO C-CO ON O rH CU CO.* ITNVO t— 
LTN ITNVO VO VQ VO VO VO VQ VD VO VO f-b^Nt-N^b" 
OnONOnOnOnOnONOnONOnONOnOnOnOnONONONOnON 



M fi 



g 8 



' 






^ 



-U9 - 

NON -FLYING REVENUE 

For simplicity, all the revenue from passengers, 
visitors, and spectators is lumped together in the following 
table. The total revenue for the ultimate year has "been 
computed in detail on the large sheet entitled, "NON-FLYING 
REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR ULTIMATE YEAR." If the total non- 
flying revenue is divided "by the number of passenger movements, 
it provides us with a covenient way of estimating the year by 
year non -flying revenue. This per passenger movement income 
is multiplied by the number of passenger movements annually 
and furnishes the annual non rf lying revenue. 

All the non-flying revenue is the money that is paid 
to the airport in lieu of rent. This money is received as a 
per cent of the gross income of the various concessions rather 
than as a rental on a square foot "basis. 



'. 


















CONCESSIONS 


15.650.000 PASS 


.090.000 IfvDIV'LS 


TOTALS 


% 

PASS. 
ENGER 
USING 
FACILITY 


AMOUNT 
SPENT q 
PER 
PASS- 
ENGER 


\ 

NET 
SPECTATOR 
REVENUE 


GROSS 


NET 


RESTAURANT 


2 


1 .25 


40.000 


722 .000 


1 09.000 


COFFEE SHOP 


8 


.60 


91 .000 


1 .971 .000 


1 79.000 


SODA FOUNTAIN 


10 


.15 
.12 


38.000 


657.000 


78.000 


PER IODICALS* 
CI GARS. SOUVENIRS 


70 


136.000 


2 .21 7.000 


442 .000 


PERSONAL 
SERVICES 


10 


.50 


4.000 


763 .000 


77.000 


MISCELLANEOUS 
SALES & SERVICE 


30 


.10 


37.000 


731 .000 


147.000 


PARKING LOT 


3 


.35 


246 ,000 


885.000 


796.000 


SHOWS & 
SPECTACLES. ETC. 

HOTELS 


5 


.25 


46,000 


532 .000 


80.000 


.1 


3.50 


1 .000 


133 .000 


13 .000 


OBSERVATION 
DECK 


1 


.10 


492 .000 


5 83 .000 


524.000 


VAR IOUS 
TRANSPORTATION 


20 


1 .00 


6.000 


3 .089.000 


308,000 


TOTALS 




i 


1 .140.000 


12 .103 .000 


2 .753.000 



RESEARCH: J.L.D. - I.L. 2.19-j 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



. 



■■ - . 

... 
'. 

■ 






CHICAGO 
NON-FLY IN 



ORCHARD (DOUGLA 

G REVENUE ANALYSIS FOR 



S ) AIRPORT 

ULTIMATE YEAR 



CONCESSIONS 


PASSENGERS 

15.650.000 PASS'G NCVEIvENTS X0.90:i4.100.000 IfvDVS 


VISITORS 

8.340.000 VISITOR MOV'TS X 0.50:4, 170.000 INDIVD'LS 


SPECTATORS 

12.180.000 SPECTATOR MOVE'TS X 0.50:6.090.000 1M)IV'LS 


TOTALS 


PASS- 
ENGER 
USING 
FACILITY 


AMOUNT 
SPENT 
PER 
PASS- 
ENGER 


REVENUE 
PER 

EN6ER 


GROSS 

PASSENGER 
REVENUE 


NET 
PASSENGER 
REVENUE 


VISITORS 

USING 
FACILITY 


AMOUNT 

SPENT 

PER 

VISITOR 


REVENU 

PER 
VISITOF 


VISITOR 
REVENUE 


NET 
VIS»TOR 


SPECTA 

USING 
FACIL- 
ITIES 


AMOUNT 
SPENT 

PER 
SPECT- 


REVENUE 
TOR 


GROSS 
SPECTATOR 
REVENUE 


NET 
SPECTATOR 
REVENUE 


GROSS 


NET 


RESTAURANT 


2 


1 .25 


15 
10 


352 .000 
677.000 


53 .000 
68.000 


2 

8 


1 .25 
.60 


1 5 
10 


104.000 


1 6.000 


3.5 


1 .25 


15 


266.000 


40.000 


722 .000 


109.000 


COFFEE SHOP 


e 


.60 


200.000 


20.000 


25 


.60 


1 


914 ,000 


91 .000 


1 .971 .000 


1 79.000 


SODA FOUNTAIN 


JO 


.15 


12 


212.000 


25.000 


20 


.1 5 
.12 


12 

20 


125.000 
351 .000 


15 .000 
70.000 


35 
70 


.1 5 


12 


320.000 


38.000 


657.000 


78.000 


PER IODICALS . 
CI GARS. SOUVENIRS 


70 


.12 


20 


1.1 84 .000 


236.000 


70 


.1 6 


20 


682 .000 


136.000 


2 .217.000 


442 .000 


PERSONAL 
SERVICES 


10 


.50 


10 


705.000 


71 .000 


1 


.50 


1 


21 .000 


2.000 


2 


.30 


1 


3 7.000 


4.000 


763 .000 


77.000 


MISCELLANEOUS 
SALES & SERVICE 


30 


.10 


20 


423.000 


85.000 


30 


.10 
.30 


20 


125.000 


25 .000 


30 


.1 


20 


1 83 .000 


37.000 


731 .000 


147.000 


PARKING LOT 


3 


.35 


90 


148 000 


133.000 


37 


90 


463 .000 


41 7.000 


18 


.25 


90 


2 74 .000 


24 6 ,000 


885.000 


796.000 


SHOWS & 
SPECTACLES .ETC. 


5 


.25 


15 


176.000 


26.000 


5 


.25 


1 5 


52 .000 


8.000 


20 


.25 


15 


304.000 


46.000 


532 .000 


80.000 


HOTELS 


.. 


3.50 


10 


4 9.000 


5 .000 


.5 


3 .50 


10 


73 .000 


7.000 


.05 


3 .50 


10 


1 1 .000 


1 .000 


133 .000 


13 .000 


OBSERVAT ION 
DECK 


1 


.10 


90 


14 .000 


13.000 


5 


.10 


90 


21 ,000 


19.000 


90 


.1 


90 


548.000 


492 .000 


583 .000 


524.000 


VAR IOUS 
TRANSPORTATION 


20 


1 .00 


10 


2.820.000 


281 .000 


5 


1 .00 


10 


208.000 


21 .000 


' 


1 .OC 


10 


61 .000 


6.000 


3.089.000 


308.000 


TOTALS 








6.760.000 


998.000 








1,743 .000 


621 .000 








3 .600.000 


1 .140.000 


12 .1 03 .000 


2 .753.000 



RESEARCH: J.L.D. - I.L. 2.19-48 



- 51 - 

REVENUE FROM HON -FLYING CONCESSIONS (Can't) 



(1) 



YEAR 



1951 
1952 
1953 
1951+ 
1955 

1956 
1957 
1958 
1959 
I960 

1961 
1962 
1963 
l$6k 
1965 

1966 
1967 
1968 
1969 
1970 

1971 
1972 
1973 
197^ 
1975 
1976 
1977 



Passenger Movement. 



(2) 

NUMBER OF 
PASSENGER 
MOVEMENTS 


(3) 

CONCESSION 
REVENUE 




Col.(2)z$0.17! 


4,960,000 
5,800,000 
6,750,000 
7,8U0,000 
8,900,000 


$ 872,000 
1,020,000 
1,187,000 
1,379,000 
1,565,000 


9,850,000 
10,750,000 
11,500,000 
12,210,000 
12,900,000 


1,733,000 
1,891,000 
2,023,000 
2,148,000 
2,269,000 


13,520,000 
13,950,000 
1^,330,000 
14,600,000 

14,700,000 


2,378,000 
2,454,000 
2,52^,000 
2,568,000 
2,586,000 


15,000,000 
15,130,000 
15,280,000 
15,380,000 
15,1*20,000 


2,638,000 
2,661,000 
2,688,000 
2,705,000 
2,712,000 


15,500,000 
15,580,000 
15,600,000 
15,620,000 
15,620,000 
15,650,000 
15,650,000 


2,726,000 
2,740,000 
2,744,000 
2,747,000 
2,747,000 
2,753,000 
2,753,000 


issenger Movements 


- $0.17589 per 



• ■ . - 

■ 
■ 

■ - 

- 



31 ~ 



t-i rt r-i 

o cu3- 



«H CONO 

cvTcTor 



CU p t 

£rS c 

cO O r 



- 52 - 



> o o 



;88 

) o o 



On On ON CA 



rH rH H rH 



O COlfNCO 



o o o 
_ o o o 
o o o o 



*■ .* -* j* .* uMr\uMfNtfNirNirNir\irNtrNirNifMr\ijfMr\ 



OOOOOOOOOOOQOOQQOQOO 

oooooooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooooo »oo 



r-i r-i H H 



!888888i 

> o o o o o o < 



> O O O O < 

58888S 



CO r-VO f- tfN-tf- NO C~ CONO CO COVO CU r-i tTN.* r~-* CO 
0\C-m«-iCUCUCO«HCO.-l lf\£-CO O CU CU CO CO.* 3; 
CU-*VQCOC)NOOHrHC\iCUCUCUCOCOCOCOCOCO<n 



CU CU CU CU C\J cococococococococococococococo 



> o o o o o o < 



>-r-r-r-t>-^t^^t>-^r-i>-c^t>-r-i>-t^b-»>-r-- 



cucucucucucucucucucucucucucucucucucucucu 



> O O ( 



> O Q O < 

1888! 



> Q O Q Q O O 

> 5 o o o o o 
) o o o o o o 



O.* CO.* CU H CO J- O COO O CO ON CO CU H .* »-l tfN 

IfNCOrH C— COCO.* t— .* fc-H CO.* IfNO-CO ON ON O O 

v " COONOrH^CVJCVJ CO CO CO CO CO <T> CO CO.*.* 



COCO ONCO .* .* CO NO CO »H 00 ITNCU VO O .* l>- t*- CO CO 

cu .* no r- ir\ cu vo co co\o coohcuj-^^j- itmtn 
o rH cvj co.* itn mifNvo vo no i>-c*-t»-t--c— c-t-^r- 

cu^cu^cu^cvrc^aPcu^cvrcvTcvrcvi cu cu^cu^arorcvTcu cu cu 



8 000000000000000 
QOOQOQOOOOQOOOQ 

>oooooooooooooooo 



CO On co CO-* .* 



4\ooor- m.co cu cvj cu itn h coco co .* r-co cu 

3- ONCU lTNt--CO Q H CU CU CO CO CO CO.* .* .* ITN 
-- IfMfN ITN ITNVB VOVOVOVOVOVONOVOVONOVO 



CUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU 



* ITNVD C-OQ ONO H CU CO.* mvo r-CO ONO iH CU CO-* IfWO t— 

itn itn irS itn i?n iTN vovp NQvovpNOvpvo\pvo fc-r-t-fc-fc-t-fc~^ 

ON^O\ONONONC^ONCA^ONCACAONO\CrvC)NC)NC^CAONONC^ 

'HHHHHr-IHHrHiHr-»HHi-iHi-IHr-l«HrH 






'. • 



. 






. 









: 






cocooooo co cooooorooo.d: tr\f-4 Q ON rH uArH Oi H vo vo « 
VOVOVOVOVOVOVOVDVOVOVO COCO O ON O OJ O lTN.it VO COO 

(nMcnmncncopocommHvSoooh^t-OOO > 



o\S e«~ 



g£ e^; 



H CO 



53 - 



OQOQOOOOOOQQO 
OOOOOOOOQOOOO 
ON OJ iH CO O ON CO f- l?\ CO tf\VO t- 

on cjCgo^c^vo' cvT cT oTvo^ <-f o\ cT o" 

0-.3- tTNVO C—VO VO C— C—CO ITNVO OJ 



>OOQOOOQOOOOOQ 
>OOOOOOOQOOOOO 
>O-=f-0Jf-cOCO0JirN0Jt>-.H0l.4- 



(OOOOOOOQQQ 
(OOOOOOOOOO 
• '-CO IfNVO ONC0-=»- 



^-^J• OHt-f 



00 ONCOH rH CO IfN^ CO H -* ONVO 
ON CVI ITNCQ Q 0\r-OJ-£rH£-OJCO 
ONOJ -=t VO ONO CVJ-d-lTNt-ONO o 

r-T «-T p-T i-T #-T oT <\T o? cvT oT c\T m h 



O © 

p. a 

O J* 



el 

O O 

■p 
•d 

•H nd 

td © 

P« CQ 



© -P 

3 a 



>OOOQOOOQ 
> coo ifNO tfNO O O 



808888888! 



* 



COON t— IfNO »TN l>- f- f- C- t— t*— C — t — C^— C*— C — t— Ol 



rHHOJOOOOHr-IHHHHHHHHr-IH 



•>«—» r-i-tfr 



ooooooooooo< 

OOOOQOOOOOOC 
IfMTNtfNO O O tTN-tf VO C- O < 



18888 

> ON^t J- ITN 



VO VOVOCOCO tTMPsOO fH00C-H^*O-irN0J^±OrH 
IfNO VO OJ ON-tf -* lf-<H jd- t— VO -tf ON OJ ON CO ON CO 
oO.tf.a- CO ifNOO ONOJ ITN f-ONH roj- VO t-O O OJ 

r-TrM h h arcu*cvTcw cu mm 00 



8888888888888 

IfN IfN ITN U"N lfN ITN O O O .IfNVO J- CO 



> O O O O 



iTNITnTnUAH £- t-t-O-CTi.'^VO O-tf VQCOCQ ON 



> o o o o o < 



> o o o o < 



ill 



* ft 
•■* ^ 

% & 

© 

If 

5 9 

P«CJ 
© 5 



OHOIH -"-«• 



HfH«-)OJOJONOoOI>-VO O-lfN^t VO D- OOVO COOOVO OJ t-\ tf\.tf t-.tf CO 
HOI4-Of-H4 0M>-lfNHOJ WCO HCO H UNt^CO O (M OJ <0 CO J* -£ 

w j- ir\iAOo w j-voooo\OOHH w w c\i w mtnmoommm 
h h iH r-TrH i-Toj oToToj^oj Ol" CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 CO CO 0O OO CO COCO CO 



8QOQQOQQQOO< 
QOOQQOOOQQ< 
>o OOOOOOOOOOC 



O O O O Q Q 

80 O O Q O 
O O O O O^ 

ur\ t^ o"o on on 00" oj""^ ro o'o~cTtr\ o^ua cTo" , cTvo 00 

IfMrNVOVO-d- OJ ONlfNOJ .tf C^-sT r-JOOONONH COCO <Q 
ITNVO O-OO ON O O «H OJ CO 0O3- ITNVO l>- C— CO O <-\ OJ CO 



rHfHrHfHHHHHHHHHOJOJOJ 



& 



,81 

coo < 



88 

o o 



vO UMfN -a*-* 



=9 5>Q ri w S?-4 'O'^ ^°o onohoi co-± i/nvo i>-co o\o h oj co-^ mvo i>- 
^t ^t lAifN^irvioirNirSirNtPiiAvovovDvovovovovovovo t— c—t>~J>-r-t~-t>-i>- 
onononononononononononon onononOnonononOnOnonononononOnononon 



Hr-ir-»i-lr-»r-|rHrH(HiHr~J^ rt r4 



PEARL BIO-METRIC CURVE SHOWING PASSENGER 
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES 



PASSENGER 

MOVEMENTS 

(in Millions) 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 




1968 1972 



STATISTICAL! EJB»lm - 2/2/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



ESTIMATED YEARLY AIR PASSENGERS AT CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 
ARRIVALS PLUS DEPARTURES 

PASSENGER MOVEMENTS 

YEAR Conservative Estimate Possible Totals 

1951 4 , 960, OOO 7 , 100, 000 

1952 5,800,000 8,300,000 

1953 6,750,000 9,670,000 

1954 7,81*0,000 11,200,000 

1955 8,900,000 12,730,000 

1956 9,850,000 14,100,000 

1957 10,700,000 15,300,000 

1958 11,500,000 16,450,000 

1959 12,210,000 17,500,000 

1960 12,900,000 18,480,000 

1961 13,520,000 19,380,000 

1962 13,950,000 19,980,000 

1963 14,350,000 20,550,000 

1964 14, 600,000 20,890,000 

1965 14,700,000 21,200,000 

1966 15,100,000 21,455,000 

1967 15,130,000 21,671,000 

1968 15,280,000 21,850,000 

1969 15,380,000 21,980,000 

1970 15>20,000 22,091,000 

ULTIMATE 15,650,000 22,400,000- 

The two curves represent possible developments in air passenger move- 
ments at Chicago. They are based on a study of air traffic and follow 
a Pearl bio-metric type of forecast projected from 1932 to 19U7 and on 
thru 1970. The lower or conservative curve shows air passenger growth 
with no outside factors to assist its normal increase and with allow- 
ances made for elements which may retard its normal increase. The 
upper or longer curve allows full development of the passenger growth 
in a normal progression as technical knowledge and allied factors par- 
allel the air passenger growth. Construction based on the conserva- 
tive ourve can be increased at any point to meet the greater growth if 
required. 

RESEARCH :EJB :1ml - 2/10/48 REPORT 100 

(A) 



■ . 



. 



. 



■ 






• 









' 






- 



'. IV 



PASSENGER 

MOVEMENTS 

(in Millions ) 



PEARL BIO-METRIC CURVE SHOWING PASSENGER 
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES 

CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 







































































































































































































































































Passenger Movements 
Required 60 Gate Positions 






































pl? ^r 


























































Passenger Movements 


























Required 45 Gate Positions ▲ 




























































:.; : x 




















































































' 




Passenger Movements ^J 






















. 




Required 50 Gate Positions | 


k .! 






























































































































































































































Actual 









































































1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 



STATISTICALtEJBtim - 2/2/48 



WAR 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



< ^***W^ 



ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL ARRIVALS PLUS DEPARTURES OF AIR PASSENGERS 
AT CHICAGO. 1932-1973 

ANNUAL PASSENGER 

YEAR VOLUME 

1932 92,112 

1933 117,593 
193^ 125, 9M* 

1935 176,2^6 

1936 21*0,677 

1937 262,590 

1938 307,860 

1939 U08,893 
191*0 621,52U 

191*1 727,618 

191+2 633,656 

191*3 679,083 

191*1* 915,61*5 

191*5 1,319,115 

191*6 2,1*88,191 

191*7 3,220,000* 

191*8 3,920,000 

191*9 if, 900, 000 

1950 5,950,000 

1951 7,100,000 

1952 8,300,000 



^Potential volumes are based upon a Pearl biometric type of curve (as calculated 
by W Watters Pegon and published in Proceedings, American Society of Civil 
Engineers, Feb. 19l*l) fitted to the 1938, 191*1 and 19l*6 volumes, which were 
assumed to be fairly representative of the trend of growth. This curve in- 
dicates that the increment of growth will gradually increase until about 1951*, 
when it will begin to taper off until about I97O when the yearly number of 
air passengers arriving plus departing at Chicago will approach a satura- 
tion point of 22.1* millions. 



YEAR 


ANNUAL PASSENGER 
VOLtME 


1953 
1951* 
1955 


9,670,000 
11,200,000 
12,730,000 


1956 
1957 
1958 


11* ,100, 000 
15,300,000 
16,1*50,000 


1959 
I960 
1961 


17,500,000 
18,1*80,000 
19,380,000 


1962 
1963 
1961* 


19,980,000 
20,550,000 
20,890,000 


1965 
1966 
1967 


2J, 200,000 
21,1*55,000 
21,671,000 


1968 
1969 
1970 


21,850,000 
21,980,000 
22,091,000 


1971 
1972 
1973 


22,182,000 
22,255,000 
22,300,000 









• 



. 










■ 


' . 


. 








: 


. 


' 


■ 

; 


■ . -. 









• 



: 



I 



NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN TERMINAL AREA 

vs 

HOURS OF THE DAY FOR THE PEAK HOUR - PEAK DAY - PEAK MONTH 

ULTIMATE YEAR 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 





1 ' 1 

L E GEO: 








A 














TOTAL 








A 















PASSENGERS 


14000 - 


WORKERS 








/ \ 
















/ \ 


















/ \ 












VIS 


[TORS 








/ 
































, 




















\ 






\ 


























\ 














\ / 


y 










\ 




8000 - 










V 












\ 


























\ 




4000 ■ 








J 








, — 

t 


\ 




— , 




2000- 


t 






/ 1 

1 
1 
1 


\ 
\ 
\ 
W 


_^x 




> \ 


'"~~ 


/ 


\ 

\ \ 

\ » 
\ 

\ 






\ 




f"" 


T'~ 










1 




v i 


V N> 


1000" 


— \y — 


*t — 


__._■ j 


^■-~ 


>• 


-■-" 


"-'.<-*' 


s \ 






\. 


— "- 





























12 2 4 6 

M A.M. 



10 12 

N 



4 6 8 10 12 

P.M. M 



HOURS 



STATISTICAL:EJB:]jnl-2/5/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN TERMINAL AREA AT ONE TIME 
CON SERVATIVE PLAN 

PASSENGERS VISITORS WORKERS SPECTATORS TOTAL 



12 M 


- 1:00 A.M. 


1580 


520 


840 


455 


3395 


1:00 


- 2:00 


726 


210 


840 





1776 


2:00 


- 3:00 


1090 


329 


840 





2259 


3:00 


- 4:00 


830 


476 


840 





2146 


4:00 


- 5:00 


524 


197 


840 





1561 


5:00 


- 6:00 


183 


520 


1440 





2143 


6:00 


- 7:00 


1190 


390 


1760 





3340 


7:00 


- 8:00 


I87O 


584 


176O 





4214 


8:00 


- 9:00 


3620 


1060 


4340 


470 


9490 


9:00 


- 10:00 


2080 


628 


4340 


1420 


8465 


10:00 


- 11:00 


2240 


628 


4340 


2320 


9528 


11:00 


- 12:00 


2430 


740 


4340 


2410 


9920 


12 N 


- 1:00 PJ4. 


2880 


890 


4340 


2227 


10337 


1:00 


- 2:00 


2320 


730 


4400 


3050 


10500 


2:00 


- 3:00 


2720 


830 


4100 


4720 


12370 


3:00 


- 4:00 


3960 


1200 


4400 


6200 


15760 


4:00 


- 5:00 


2760 


87O 


I85O 


56OO 


11080 


5:00 


- 6:00 


3180 


990 


I85O 


4200 


10230 


6:00 


- 7:00 


2940 


920 


I85O 


3760 


9470 


T;00 


- 8:00 


3060 


956 


I85O 


4400 


10265 


8;00 


- 9:00 


4180 


1310 


1850 


5150 


12490 


9:00 


- 10:00 


2140 


715 


1180 


5050 


9085 


10:00 


- 11:00 


1650 


520 


1180 


256O 


5910 


11:00 


- 12:00 


1920 


595 


840 


455 


3810 



During the peak day of the conservative design, the number of people 
present la the airport during the day is shown "by hours. 



STATISTICAL REPORT 100 

(A) 
EJB/im 
2/3A8 











. 














PLANE MOVEMENTS DURING A 24 HOUR 
PEAK DAY SHOW IN HOURLY PERCENTAGES 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 



10 





Total 
Arriv 
Depar 1 


Movements 

as 

iures 


































/ 










/'Y 


\--'< 


X.l \ 


i 
i 


S' : 

— ^ ^ mm - 


1> ^ 


V .' 

1 X -' 


V 


\ 


9 





12 M 



12 



A.M.- 



4 8 

P.M 



12 



CENTRAL STANDARD TIME 
This chart shows how the airplane arrivals and departures are distributed over a twenty- 
four hour period. It was calculated on the peak hour, peak day traffic movements. It 
will be noted that the maximum plane arrivals and departures do not occur at the same 
time, causing an accumulation of planes to be parked. 



STATISTICAL :EJB :1ml - 2/3/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

PLANE MOVEMENTS DURING A 2l*-H0UR 
PEAK DAY IN HOURLY PERCENTAGES 







Total Movements 


Arrivals 


Departures 




HOUR 


ia of 2k hr. Total 


% of 21* Hr. Total % of 2k Hr. Total 


12 M 


- 1:00 A.M 


3.0$ 


1.515 


1.515 


1:00 


- 2:00 


1.21% 


0.303 


0.909 


2:00 


- 3:00 


2.12J6 


1.515 


0.606 


3:00 


- 1*:00 


1.51$ 


1.212 


0.303 


1*:00 


- 5:00 


O.909 


0.303 


0.606 


5:00 


- 6:00 


3.636 


2.728 


O.909 


6:00 


- 7:00 


2.12 


0.909 


1.212 


7:00 


- 8:00 


3.636 


0.909 


2.727 


8:00 


- 9:00 


6.66 


1.515 


5.152 


9:00 


- 10:00 


3.636 


2.121 


1.515 


10:00 


- 11:00 


l*.2l*2 


2.121 


2.121 


11:00 


- 12:00 


k.2k 


2.121 


2.121 


12 N 


- 1:00 P.M. 


5.W 


2.121 


3.333 


1:00 


- 2:00 


l*.2l*2 


2.1*2U 


1.818 


2:00 


- 3:00 


5.152 


3.333 


1.818 


3:00 


- 1*:00 


7.56 


3.030 


k.$k$ 


1*:00 


- 5:00 


k.m 


1.515 


3.333 


5:00 


- 6:00 


6.06 


3.331+ 


2.728 


6:00 


- 7:00 


5.1*51* 


2.728 


2.728 


7:00 


- 8:00 


5.76 


3.031 


2.728 


8:00 


- 9:00 


8.181 


5^56 


2.728 


9:00 


- 10:00 


3.636 


1.818 


1.818 


10:00 


- 11:00 


3.03 


1.515 


1.515 


11:00 


- 12 M 


3.636 


2.1*21* 


1.212 



CENTRAL STANDARD TIME 



STATISTICAL :EJB:im-2/3/l*8 REPORT 100 

(A) 



. 



. 



... 













■ 












. 








. 






. 










■ 


. 




. 










. 




















. .' . 



CQHSEB7ATT7E PLAN 
PLAHE MOVEMENTS DURING PEAK HOUR - PEAK DAT - PEAK MOHTH OP EACH TEAR 
CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIBPCBT 



200 



150 





















A 


TOTAL PLAHE MOVEMEHTS 
RRITALS PLUS DEPARTURES 












ARRIVALS - 




.0* 


^ 












y' 








DEPARTURES 


— "— 








---' 


.«-' 











1950 



1954 



1962 1966 

YEARS 



1970 ULTIMATE 



STATISTICAL:EJB:1jii1 - 2/3/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 
PEAK HOUR PLANE MOVEMENTS FOR PEAK MONTH - 8;0O P.M. - 9:00 P.M. 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 

YEAR ARRIVALS DEPARTURES TOTAL 

1951 64 32 96 

1952 71 35 106 

1953 77 38 115 

1954 88 43 131 

1955 96 48 144 

1956 104 51 165 

1957 110 54 164 

1958 115 57 172 

1959 121 59 180 
i960 125 61 186 



64 


32 


71 


35 


77 


38 


88 


43 


96 


48 


104 


51 


110 


54 


115 


57 


121 


59 


125 


61 


129 


64 


132 


65 


134 


66 


135 


66 


135 


67 


136 


67 


137 


67 


137 


68 


137 


68 


137 


68 



1961 129 64 193 

1962 132 65 197 

1963 134 66 200 

1964 135 66 201 

1965 135 67 202 

1966 136 67 203 

1967 137 67 204 

1968 137 68 205 

1969 137 68 205 

1970 137 68 205 

Ultimate 138 67 205 
TMs table shows the maximum number of plane movements for the 
concervative estimate. It occurs during the hours of 8:00 to 

9:00 P.M. when the total arrivals reaches 137 plane movements 
and departures total 68 movements. 



STATISTICAL REPORT 100 

00 



EJB:lm - 2/3/48 









• 



. 






















. 




































. 


























































. 


















































. 










. 










. 






















































.. 






















• 




. 




' 


■ 


- 


• ■ 






. 




•■ 




. 


s 


■ 


• 




. 








! . 









. 



NUMBER OF PLANES ACCUMULATED AT CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

-vs- 

HOURS OF THE DAY FOR THE PEAK DAY - PEAK MONTH OF ULTIMATE YEAR 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 



280 



260 




STATISTICAL :EJB:ln£L - 2/5/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF PLANE MOVEMENTS 

CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 



HOUR 


ARRIVALS 


DEPARTURES 


TOTAL 


ACCUMULATION 


5:00"^T:00 P.M 


83 


66 


"159" 


17 


6:00 


- 7:00 


68 


68 


136 


17 


7:00 


- 8:00 


75 


6k 


139 


28 


8:00 


- 9:00 


138 


67 


205 


99 


9:00 


- 10:00 


k6 


k6 


92 


99 


10:00 


- 11:00 


38 


38 


76 


99 


11:00 


- 12:00 


62 


28 


90 


133 


12 M 


- 1:00 A.M. 


38 


38 


76 


133 


1:00 


- 2:00 


7 


26 


33 


Ilk 


2:00 


- 3:00 


38 


13 


51 


139 


3:00 


- 1*:00 


30 


7 


37 


162 


fc:00 


- 5:00 


7 


15 


22 


15** 


5:00 


- 6:00 


68 


21 


89 


201 


6:00 


- 7:00 


23 


29 


52 


195 


7:00 


- 8:00 


22 


66 


88 


151 


8:00 


- 9:00 


38 


126 


161* 


63 


9:00 


- 10:00 


53 


38 


91 


78 


10:00 


- 11:00 


53 


53 


106 


78 


11:00 


- 12:00 


53 


53 


106 


78 


12 N 


- 1:00 


53 


80 


133 


51 


1:00 


- 2:00 


5* 


52 


106 


53 


2:00 


- 3:00 


83 


50 


133 


86 


3:00 


- U:00 


73 


116 


I89 


U3 


U:00 


- 5:00 


38 


81 


119 






The arrival and departure peaks occur ing at different hours results 
in an accumulation of planes requiring parking. 

EJB/im 
2/2A8 



. 





. 


• 


• 






■ 














• 




. 


• 














. 






















' 










• 










' 










J 
















- 












•. 












' 










. 




























1 


" 


. 


















' 


















. 






. 

























HOURLY RUH3SR OF CARS ENTERING AND LEAVING PARKING LOT 1 OP 
CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT DURHTG PEAK DAY OP PEAK 11CW1 ULTIMA.T ] YEAR 

CONSERVATIVE PLAN 



2,200 



2,000 



1,800 



1,600 



1,200 



1,000 













































LEA r D 


G 






i 




















Ji^TERjNG 










































/> 






















1 

/ 
/ 


1 

\ 
\ 
\ 






















'\ 


\ 
\ 
\ 






















f 1 
/ \ 

/ 


\ 


















/ 




/ 
/ 

I 






' V 


\ 
\ 
\ 










\ 


/ 
/ 
/ 












\ 
\ 
\ 








/ 1 
/ 1 


V 














L \ 


V-*X 




Ps*' 





















12 

M 



12 2 

N 
HOURS 



12 

M 



RESEARCH :JLD :1ml - 2/19/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



NUMBER OF PASSENGER CARS ENTERING, DEPARTING AND ACCUMULATING 
IN THE PARKING AREA OF THE CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 
PEAK DAY. PEAK MONTH, ULTIMATE YEAR 







CONSERVATIVE PLAN 






HOUR 


ENTERING 


LEAVING 


ACCUMULATING 


12 M 


- 1:00 A.M. 


202 


202 


81 


1:00 


- 2:00 


40 


121 





2:00 


- 3:00 


202 


31 


121 


3:00 


- 4:00 


161 


41 


241 


4:00 


- 5:00 


40 


227 


54 


5:00 


- 6:00 


687 


121 


620 


6:00 


- 7:00 


172 


161 


631 


7:00 


- 8:00 


117 


373 


275 


8:00 


- 9:00 


630 


683 


222 


9:00 


- 10:00 


494 


246 


470 


10:00 


- 11:00 


579 


423 


626 


11:00 


- 12 N 


581 


547 


660 


12 N 


- 1:00 


678 


723 


615 


1:00 


- 2:00 


956 


728 


743 


2:00 


- 3:00 


1059 


621 


1181 


3:00 


- 4:00 


1211 


1108 


1284 


4:00 


- 5:00 


779 


1518 


545 


5:00 


- 6:00 


876 


1041 


380 


6:00 


- 7:00 


795 


925 


250 


7:00 


- 8:00 


951 


803 


398 


8:00 


- 9:00 


1354 


847 


905 


9:00 


- 10:00 


919 


1041 


783 


10:00 


- 11:00 


336 


771 


343 


11:00 


- 12:00 


329 


596 


81 



13948 



13948 



EJB:im 2/20/48 



' " ■ . •• ■ ■■''..' • [■". 



• . • . 



. 


. 


■ 










. 


. 


i 




• . 




• . 














. 






: 


' 






• 


• 


. 






• 






















_ 












• . 


■ 














■ 








. 

















: 



. • 



NUMBER OF CARS PARKED AT ONE TIME AT CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT 
PEAK DAY - PEAK MONTH 



6,600 
6,000 
5,400 
4,800 
4,200 
3,600 
3,000 
2,400 
1,800 
1,200 
600 















































































































/ 


A 




/ 


















/ 9 

1 A \ 

1 ' 


"^1 


/ 


\ \ 
















f * 
t 

! ! 






\ 

\ 
\ 
















/ 

/ 

t 






\ 


V \ 










4 


• 


1 

i 








\ 1 
% 1 


A > 




I.** 


* 

-- • 


S/' 












\ 

V 




*-\ 


f 9 

9 
i 
f 








1 
1 






















i 











12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 

M N M 

HOURS 
CENTRAL STANDARD TIME 



RESEARCH :EJB :1ml - 2/20/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



NUMBER OF CARS IN THE PARKING LOT AT ONE TIME OF THE CHICAGO 
ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIRPORT FOR PEAK MY - PEAK MONTH 



TOTALS 



HOUR POSSIBLE CONSERVATIVE 

12 M - 1:00 A.M. 2010 1400 

1:00 - 2:00 1165 820 

2:00 - 3:00 1280 880 

3:00 - 4:00 1370 970 

4:00 - 5:00 11 30 78O 

5:00 - 6:00 1715 1200 

6:00 - 7:00 1920 1340 

7:00 - 8:00 1920 I3U0 

8:00 - 9:00 2360 I65O 

9:00 - 10:00 2095 IU70 

10:00 - 11:00 2785 1950 

11:00 - 12:00 3000 2100 

12 N - 1:00 3360 2360 

1:00 - 2:00 4445 3120 

2:00 - 3:00 5720 4000 

3:00 - 4:00 6445 ^510 

4:00 - 5:00 5525 3880 

5:00 - 6:00 5355 3750 

6:00 - 7:00 5155 3620 

7:00-8:00 5365 3760 

8:00 - 9:00 6195 4350 

9:00 - 10:00 4700 3300 

10:00 - 11:00 3695 2590 

11:00 - 12:00 3125 2190 



The number of cars using the parking lots and requiring facil- 
ities are shown for "both a conservative and ultimate possible 
plan. 



EJB - 2/28/48 REPORT 100 

(A) 






■_.A. ,. :- ; _ __; 


■ 


' 


, 










• 


. 




•• 








■ 


























. 


















. 



























;.'■■-, • ■ . . . , ■ ■ .•-••■ 












- • 



• 



CGNSERYATTO PLAN 

NUMBER OF PLANE MOVEMENTS 

BY YEARS EXPECTED AT 

CHICAGO ORCHARD (DOUGLAS) AIBPCBT 



2 " 



1 " 




l l l 
1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 ULTIMATE 



YEAR 
STATISTICALrEJBtlml - 2/5/48 



REPORT 100 
(A) 



ESTIMATED MINIMUM YEARLY NUMBER OF POTENTIAL AIRPLANE MOVEMENTS AT THE 
CHICAGO ORCHARD AIRPORT 







CONSERVATIVE PLAN 








ARRIVALS PLUS 


ARRIVALS PLUS 


TOTAL 








DEPARTURES OF 


DEPARTURES OF 


PLANE 


PEAK HOUR TOTAL 


YEAR FEEDER PLANES 


SCHEDULED AIRLINERS MOVEMENTS ARRIV. 


DEPART, 


TOTAL 


1951 
1952 
1953 
195^ 
1955 


63,350 
65,100 
67,200 
69,300 
72,100 


170,150 
194,600 
281,900 
251,300 
280,000 


233,500 
259,700 
289,100 
320,600 
382,100 


64 
71 
77 
88 
96 


32 
35 
38 

43 

48 


96 
106 
115 
131 
144 


1956 
1957 
1958 
1959 
I960 


7i+,200 
77,700 
80,500 
83,300 
86,000 


304,500 
322,700 
340,900 
354,900 
368,800 


378,700 
400,400 
421,400 
438,200 
454,800 


104 
110 
115 
121 
125 


51 
54 
57 
59 
61 


155 
164 
172 
180 
186 


1961 
1962 
1963 
1964 
1965 


91,000 
93,500 
96,1+00 
98,000 
99,400 


379,000 
386,500 
391,900 
392,600 
394,000 


470,900 
480,000 
488,300 
490,600 
493,400 


129 
132 
134 
135 
135 


64 
65 
66 
66 
67 


193 
197 
200 
201 
202 


1966 
1967 
1968 
1969 
1970 


100,500 
101,500 
102,1+00 
103,000 
103,500 


395,100 
395,600 
396,500 
396,700 
396,900 


495,600 
497,000 
498,900 
499,700 
500,400 


136 
137 
137 
137 
137 


67 
67 
68 
68 
6Q 


203 
204 
205 
205 
205 


ULTIMATE 


104,500 


397,500 


502,000 


138 


67 


205 


STATISTICAL 

EJB/im 

2/5A8 






REPORT 100 
(A) 





.. 



■ 






■■ ■ 














. 




. 
























! 








• 

: 


















V 



LOADING t UNLOADINl 



MOVEMENTS 



TRANSPORTATION 



MASTER PLAN 







EXISTING CONDITION 




FIRST STAGE 




SECOND STAGE 




NOTE: A- EXTENSION TO 8400 FT. 
WILL REQURE RUNWAY BRIDGE 



THIRD STAGE 




NOTE: A - EXTENSION TO 8400 FT. 

WILL REQUIRE RUNWAY BRIDGE 



ULTIMATE STAGE 




BUILDING 

TRUCK LOADWC- STA 



FIRST STAGE 
TRANSPORTATION a PLANE LEVEL 




SECOND STAGE 
TRANSPORTATION a PLANE LEVEL 




THIRD STAGE 
TRANSPORTATION & PLANE LEVEL 



APRON 




ULTIMATE STAGE 
TRANSPORTATION ft PLANE LEVEL 




FIRST STAGE 
CONCOURSE LEVEL 



2 way - Escalators 




SECOND STAGE 
CONCOURSE LEVEL 




THIRD STAGE 
CONCOURSE LEVEL 




ULTIMATE STAGE 
CONCOURSE LEVEL 



11/2/2009 
WT 182076 1 6 00