Get O'Hare's long-delayed Terminal 2 project ready for takeoff

The planned new Terminal 2 at O’Hare Airport is one of Chicago’s largest and most important infrastructure projects — one that is vital to the city’s future.

Announced six years ago, the project’s takeoff has remained delayed as United and American Airlines beef with the city over the 2.2 million-square-foot global terminal’s cost. With its unique design by Chicago architect Jeanne Gang, it’s expected to be at least $3 billion more than the original $8.5 billion price tag.

The project is too big to fail. The financial issues stalling Terminal 2 must be resolved.

United and American Airlines, the two major carriers that would benefit from the terminal and pay for a big chunk of it with higher gate fees, have a good point about the $12 billion cost, a potential overrun that is ridiculous even by Chicago standards.

And it’s easy to see how the increased cost — in the heavily competitive airline industry — could put the project at a disadvantage.

“The difficult part is O’Hare’s a two-hub airline,” transportation expert Joe Schwieterman, a DePaul University professor, told WTTW last year. “United and American funnel a lot of people through here that aren’t originating in Chicago, and they argue that [with] the rising costs, it just is more cost effective to route (passengers) to other hubs.”

An attractive destination for travelers

The two airlines remain behind the project. But the trick is to keep them there, by working hard now to search for the compromises or cash (or both) that will keep the project alive.

And here’s where steady hands are needed. The design, led by Gang and her firm, Studio Gang, is aimed at not only improving things for passengers and planes, but to also make the terminal an attractive destination for travelers.

The designs feature a skylit roof, an abundance of wood surfaces, and even trees growing inside. Given the stresses of air travel, landing in (or leaving from) a comfortable, picturesque terminal takes a bit of the edge off — and improves perceptions of both O’Hare and the city.

New York City’s LaGuardia Airport, for instance, was among the worst in the nation, a veritable bus station in terms of attractiveness, comfort and convenience.

But after an $8 billion redo of 1.3 million square feet of terminal space, announced in 2016 and completed six years later, the new LaGuardia is rated among the country’s best airports.

NY Port Authority

“You’ve had two miracles in Queens,” Rick Cotton, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, told Airline Weekly in 2023. “One was the Mets World Series win (in 1969) and the other was the rebuilding of LaGuardia in record time and while the airport was operating throughout the construction.”

Chicago deserves such a win as well.

More economic benefit and prestige

But it’ll take some work to make that happen for O’Hare Terminal 2.

The city must bring down costs without turning the planned design into an overly scaled-down, hair-shirt version of what has been designed.

And given O’Hare’s national importance, is more money from Washington a possibility? Getting enough from D.C. to cover the entire $4 billion gap is as unwarranted as it is unlikely, but perhaps there’s a figure that could make the airlines comfortable about kicking in more.

For most of the year, city and state officials have been preoccupied — overly occupied, really — with proposals to build new Chicago sports stadiums.

But whatever benefit a new ballpark or football venue could bring to Chicago, O’Hare delivers far more, and is poised to do even more.

The big airport puts 50,000 people to work and contributes $40 billion to the local economy yearly, according to Chicago Department of Aviation officials.

And when it works well, the airport adds to the city’s status and prestige. And O’Hare, as we pointed out last year, has gone longer than most other airports without a major rebuild.

It’s time to get the Terminal 2 project off the ground.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.