Peter Liab OON@ BiU.O LE TIN {i 
increasing population densities in the areas west and southwest of 
the City would suggest that transportation cost savings could only be 
maximized by locating the new airport there. Thus, while the lake 
site would be central (about 10 miles) to the Loop, it is likely in time 
be remote from a great majority of its passengers. 
“Well,” lake airport proponents might say, “where else can you 
get free ‘land’ for an airport site?” The Open Lands Project figures 
that a lake site isn’t a real estate bargain at all. Indeed, construction 
of an island and access roadways would cost over $400 million, while 
two of the other sites could be bought for, respectively, $210 million 
and $237 million. The higher initial cost of a lake site would entail 
over $14 million more in annual interest payments than would the 
two less costly sites. 
If proponents of a lake airport find so little support in cost com- 
parisons, they are apt to be downright defensive about the airports 
likely environmental effects. The quality of the lake water itself would 
likely be harmed by the run-off from runways as well as the accumu- 
lated “fall out” from jet exhausts. (Construction of a sewage treatment 
plant to treat the airport’s own sewage would surely increase the $400 
million initial cost figure.) 
Air quality would suffer from jet exhaust fumes and noise. Jet 
fumes are unavoidable, but the noise hazard could only be reduced 
by building the airport out in deeper water. This, of course, increases 
costs because of the need for more filling material and a longer access 
road. Finally, the character of the lake and the lakeshore themselves 
must be considered. If A can build an island in the lake for an airport 
what’s to prevent B (or even A) from building another island for 
a motel? 
Despite all these unresolved problems, a betting man would currently 
favor a lake airport. This reflects the belief that you can’t fight the 
Civic Center. 
At the same time, a lake airport is not yet inevitable and those 
who oppose can best oppose by: (1) conceiving an attractive 
alternative that would (2) recognize the City’s interest in con- 
trolling the site. 
One alternative—technically feasible and imaginative enough to 
attract wide public interest—was the proposal offered last spring by 
then State Senator Paul Simon. He proposed a 25-mile chain of 
islands stretching from 79th Street to Burns Ditch, Indiana. The lake 
side of the islands would have constituted a recreation zone for bath- 
ing, hiking, sight-seeing, and boating. The inner side would have been 
equally appropriate for sight-seeing and would also have formed, with 
the current lake shore, a zone for pleasure boating, industrial and 
transportation use. While Senator Simon himself did not include an 
airport in his proposal, others did note that an airport could easily 
have been included. 
. The lake airport concept is both a threat and a challenge to those of us 
who won’t put a price on the lake. Let’s respond to this challenge by 
asking ourselves, “Can’t we conceive some other alternative that we 
can actively support?” —2201 E. 70th Pl., Chicago 60649 
