Chicago: Any consequences of closing Meigs?

Neil, has either of the airports received FAA grant money in the past?


Neil Gould wrote:
Hi all,

Two airports in our area are under "attack" by groups that would
rather not have air traffic in their new developments built beside
the existing airport or the airport taking up space in the downtown
lakefront area. While I can see many reasons why this is short-term
thinking that would not serve the best interests of the region, I
realize that as a GA pilot, I am biased. A similar situation existed
in Chicago at the time Meigs was closed that might shed some light on
the reality of our situation.

Where did the GA planes relocate, and has this had any impact on the
owners' access to or use of their planes?

Has there been any impact on the business travel to Chicago?

Is all of the traffic handled adequately by O'Hare and Midway?

Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?


Neil

Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?

That's going to be tough to answer, Neil. While you can certainly
quantify the federal fines Chicago has absorbed due to Daley's
Midnight Raid, and you can add up the lost income from fuel sales and
landing fees, it's going to be nearly impossible to accurately gauge
the financial cost of NOT having an airport there, as opposed to the
possible income from having a new park in its place.

It's like trying to quantify marketing efforts in business, by asking
"How many extra suites did we rent because of 'x' radio commercial?"
The answer will be subjective and opinionated hearsay.

If you surveyed folks in downtown Chicago, you might get all sorts of
folks saying "We came to the Chicago lakefront today because it's so
nice not to hear those noisy jets every five minutes" -- but you WON'T
hear from the folks who used to come to the lakefront specifically
because they liked to watch the planes. They're simply not there to
ask.

And you certainly won't get any answers from the folks who aren't
visiting Chicago because there is no long any easy airport access.

As a data point of one, however, I know for certain that we have *not*
spent thousands of dollars in Chicago since Meigs closed, specifically
because there is no longer any easy access to downtown.

You have to ask if closing Meigs ADDED anyone who, conversely, spent
those thousands, or more? I've heard they have concerts out on that
peninsula now -- can anyone verify that?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Hi all,

Two airports in our area are under "attack" by groups that would rather
not have air traffic in their new developments built beside the existing
airport or the airport taking up space in the downtown lakefront area.
While I can see many reasons why this is short-term thinking that would
not serve the best interests of the region, I realize that as a GA pilot,
I am biased. A similar situation existed in Chicago at the time Meigs was
closed that might shed some light on the reality of our situation.

Where did the GA planes relocate, and has this had any impact on the
owners' access to or use of their planes?

Has there been any impact on the business travel to Chicago?

Is all of the traffic handled adequately by O'Hare and Midway?

Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?


Neil

I live in a condo that overlooks the former Meigs field (broke my
heart when they closed it).

The city has installed a perimeter bike path around the field so I
rode around it last fall. The field is mostly grass and weeds, with a
few small trees. There is a concert stage, but it's a temporary
setup. In the case of Meigs, I would make the following comments.

1. Noise - aircraft noise was no worse than the cigarette boats
cruising down the lakefront at 50mph, or the Motorcycles on Lake Shore
Drive. And aircraft noise is quickly gone and is primarily noticeable
on takeoff. Music from downtown festivals in Grant Park is far more
intrusive, and sometimes runs for hours on end.
2. Local aircraft - Meigs wasn't a good place to tie down on a long
term basis. Tiedown charges were around $300 per month, and the
proximity to the lake created messes from seagulls. I kept the Arrow
at Midway, which was much less expensive (at least initially). I
don't know where the other aircraft went - I assume Midway, Palwaukee,
DuPage, Lansing, Gary, -- lots of reliever airports. No t-hangars
were available, nor were there any repair facilities that I know of.
It was a very limited airport. No ILS despite frequent fog from the
lake.
3. Alternate use - none, really. A couple of rock concerts used the
field because it was a place they could make all the noise they wanted
without generating complaints (ironic, to me) and it was empty space.
4. I'd guess most of the jet traffic went to Midway, which has become
noticeably busier, but the demise of ATA has helped Midway keep up.

My final conclusion is that it was an underdeveloped airport that
should (and could) have been enhanced to make it something special,
but the opposite path was taken.

Chicago, despite being a good place to live and work, is not a city of
vision, but few cities are.

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Hi all,

Two airports in our area are under "attack" by groups that would rather
not have air traffic in their new developments built beside the existing
airport or the airport taking up space in the downtown lakefront area.
While I can see many reasons why this is short-term thinking that would
not serve the best interests of the region, I realize that as a GA pilot,
I am biased. A similar situation existed in Chicago at the time Meigs was
closed that might shed some light on the reality of our situation.

Where did the GA planes relocate, and has this had any impact on the
owners' access to or use of their planes?

Has there been any impact on the business travel to Chicago?

Is all of the traffic handled adequately by O'Hare and Midway?

Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?


Neil

Where do you live?

When I was in California, the Division of Aeronautics conducted (at the
prodding of CA Pilots' Assn.) economic surveys of GA airports to
determine economic benefits. At that time (1980s) the average benefit
was around $100K per based airplane! Some airports (Palm Springs, for
instance) were much higher, while some very small airports were less.

The opponents (mostly developers and eco-Nazis) did not like to hear
this news, so they lobbied against further studies.

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil, has either of the airports received FAA grant money in the
past?

I'm sure that both airports receive FAA grant money. As the
destruction of Meigs has shown, that makes little difference to the
outcome. I'm just wondering if there have been any other
repercussions from that action.

Neil

While it might not have stopped Chicago, some cities and more particularly
the politicians in the cities might be a little less apt to go head to head
with the federal government.

If you are looking for ways to save an airport don't **** away any possible
allies, especially those with checkbooks and guns.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil, has either of the airports received FAA grant money in the past?

I'm sure that both airports receive FAA grant money. As the destruction of
Meigs has shown, that makes little difference to the outcome. I'm just
wondering if there have been any other repercussions from that action.

Neil

Recently, Paul kgyy posted:

I live in a condo that overlooks the former Meigs field (broke my
heart when they closed it).

The city has installed a perimeter bike path around the field so I
rode around it last fall. The field is mostly grass and weeds, with a
few small trees. There is a concert stage, but it's a temporary
setup. In the case of Meigs, I would make the following comments.

1. Noise - aircraft noise was no worse than the cigarette boats
cruising down the lakefront at 50mph, or the Motorcycles on Lake Shore
Drive. And aircraft noise is quickly gone and is primarily noticeable
on takeoff. Music from downtown festivals in Grant Park is far more
intrusive, and sometimes runs for hours on end.
2. Local aircraft - Meigs wasn't a good place to tie down on a long
term basis. Tiedown charges were around $300 per month, and the
proximity to the lake created messes from seagulls. I kept the Arrow
at Midway, which was much less expensive (at least initially). I
don't know where the other aircraft went - I assume Midway, Palwaukee,
DuPage, Lansing, Gary, -- lots of reliever airports. No t-hangars
were available, nor were there any repair facilities that I know of.
It was a very limited airport. No ILS despite frequent fog from the
lake.
3. Alternate use - none, really. A couple of rock concerts used the
field because it was a place they could make all the noise they wanted
without generating complaints (ironic, to me) and it was empty space.
4. I'd guess most of the jet traffic went to Midway, which has become
noticeably busier, but the demise of ATA has helped Midway keep up.

My final conclusion is that it was an underdeveloped airport that
should (and could) have been enhanced to make it something special,
but the opposite path was taken.

Chicago, despite being a good place to live and work, is not a city of
vision, but few cities are.

Thanks for your response, Paul. From the above, it would seem that the GA
population didn't suffer much. I had presumed that Meigs would have been
more similar to one of our airports (Burke Lakefront in Cleveland, OH).
However, Burke does have an ILS, and quite a few GA planes & helicopters
are based there year-round. I would say that, today, the airport is
under-utilized and may seem vulnerable because of that. However, its loss
would be felt by the GA community since the remaining options can't easily
absorb the resident aircraft.

Neil

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?

That's going to be tough to answer, Neil. While you can certainly
quantify the federal fines Chicago has absorbed due to Daley's
Midnight Raid, and you can add up the lost income from fuel sales and
landing fees, it's going to be nearly impossible to accurately gauge
the financial cost of NOT having an airport there, as opposed to the
possible income from having a new park in its place.

I know that it's a difficult matter to evaluate, which is why I tried to
focus on some specific issues.

You have to ask if closing Meigs ADDED anyone who, conversely, spent
those thousands, or more? I've heard they have concerts out on that
peninsula now -- can anyone verify that?

That's a good question. OTOH, I don't know how many "thousands of
thousands" would be required before it became an issue worthy of note.

Neil

Recently, Orval Fairbairn posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
[...]
Is there any record of positive or negative economic impact?


Where do you live?

Cleveland, OH.

When I was in California, the Division of Aeronautics conducted (at
the prodding of CA Pilots' Assn.) economic surveys of GA airports to
determine economic benefits. At that time (1980s) the average benefit
was around $100K per based airplane! Some airports (Palm Springs, for
instance) were much higher, while some very small airports were less.

That's very interesting. I'd like to know the basis for those figures. Do
you know whether this study is available anywhere?

The opponents (mostly developers and eco-Nazis) did not like to hear
this news, so they lobbied against further studies.

Not surprisingly...

Neil