The Tribune Editorial Board’s recent defense of the $2.25 billion O’Hare Flyer transit project relies entirely on a sciolistic premise (“Kennedy Expressway mess demands approval for the O’Hare Flyer,” Oct. 28). In its haste to dismiss legitimate suburban resistance as mere “NIMBYism,” the editorial board employs a superficial veneer of public transit jargon while wholly misinterpreting the ground reality facing Forest Park. Using an acronym meant for minor zoning squabbles against resistance to a massive, 80 mph express train slicing through dense residential blocks is an arrogant posture that completely obscures the true nature of this unconscionable project.
More Top Picks Hisense Wc05r25a
The O’Hare Flyer is not a public transit panacea; it is a privately funded luxury corridor built to bypass local communities. For Forest Park, the consequences of this high-speed train are severe. Project developers promise a sleek, “whisper quiet” 15-minute trip between downtown and the airport. What they downplay is that a train running in both directions every 15 minutes creates a disruptive passing interval every seven and a half minutes. Relentless transit traffic and low-frequency vibrations will skirt right behind residential properties, an elementary school and local community spaces.
Furthermore, the economic case for local residents is a complete illusion. This train will not ferry the airport’s hardworking, shift-based employees, who rely heavily on affordable public mass transit lines. Instead, the O’Hare Flyer threatens to siphon attention and resources away from vital existing public systems like the CTA Blue Line and Metra, which actually serve our neighborhood’s daily commuters. Proponents tout thousands of short-term construction jobs while remaining completely silent on long-term traffic, property value, and localized economic and environmental impact studies.
To look down from an editorial desk and reduce real anxieties over trains and their persistent structural vibrations and plummeting property values to a simple case of “self-interested neighbors” is the height of elite pretense. Labeling this technology as “whisper quiet” is deliberately disingenuous, masking the profound physical disruption a high-speed corridor brings to a tight-knit community.
Forest Park is a vibrant residential space, not an industrial transit trench.
True regional planning values equitable transit and protects local neighborhoods. The O’Hare Flyer does neither, and Forest Park must refuse to be its pass-through track.
— Michael Chronopoulos, Forest Park
A lesson on what not to do
The proposed privately funded O’Hare Flyer represents exactly the kind of development-first thinking that has too often sacrificed Illinois communities for questionable economic gains. Residents in the 11 affected municipalities are witnessing a blueprint for how not to build infrastructure.
Let’s start with what developers won’t emphasize: 144 trains daily passing through established neighborhoods from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. means a train every seven and a half minutes when counting both directions. Running at 80 mph through dense residential areas including River Grove and Franklin Park won’t be “whisper-quiet,” despite marketing claims. Battery-electric motors may be quieter than diesel, but wheel-rail noise and aerodynamic noise increase dramatically with speed. And let’s not forget legally required train horns blasting 96 to 110 decibels at every grade crossing — that’s deafening, not whisper-quiet.
More troubling is the environmental toll on the Thatcher Woods Forest Preserve. No independent wildlife study exists. How do fenced rail corridors cutting through protected land align with Cook County’s conservation commitments? The Forest Preserve District hasn’t endorsed this route, yet construction would proceed regardless.
This project also raises fundamental equity questions. Who benefits? Airport travelers already have the Blue Line and Metra options. Meanwhile, minimum-wage airport workers depend on reliable, affordable transit that the O’Hare Flyer ignores entirely. The express trains would skip local stops in most communities, offering zero service to residents along the rail line while potentially hurting state and federal funding for existing systems such as the CTA and Metra that serve actual commuters.
At least one community — River Forest — has formally questioned operating details, maximum speeds, noise assessments and vibration mitigation. These aren’t unreasonable requests; they’re basic due diligence that should precede construction, not follow it. Yet critics report little commitment to independent studies or binding mitigation measures.
Finally, consider the precedent. If we allow high-speed rail through preserved natural areas and residential neighborhoods without comprehensive environmental review and genuine community consent, what stops future projects from doing the same? The “build it and they’ll come” mentality has failed cities nationwide.
We deserve transportation solutions that serve everyone — not just privileged travelers willing to pay premium fares while local communities absorb the noise, congestion and environmental damage. Alternatives like expanding Blue Line express service or strengthening Metra integration would be far more cost-effective and equitable.
Tell the O’Hare Flyer to go back to the drawing board. Our communities aren’t disposable rights-of-way.
— Grace Vitale, River Grove
Many unanswered questions
I read the editorial supporting the O’Hare Flyer with disbelief. I don’t think anyone would argue that Chicago doesn’t need better transportation to O’Hare International Airport. But how does that justify demanding approval of a $2.25 billion project with so many unanswered questions?
The Tribune Editorial Board describes the Flyer as “shovel-ready,” yet its developers have disclosed only one fundraising round, without revealing how much they raised. A second round reportedly seeks another $18 million. Major railroad agreements and regulatory approvals are still outstanding. That hardly sounds shovel-ready.
Then there are the engineering challenges. The proposal includes a 90-foot-high rail bridge over active O’Hare taxiways, new infrastructure around the airport’s terminals and a downtown station that has yet to be built. Have these plans been independently evaluated? Has anyone established that they’re even feasible?
The board also makes much of the project’s private financing. But privately financed rail projects have a history of generating public costs. Brightline in Florida has benefited from hundreds of millions in public infrastructure expenditures, and its parent companies recently filed for bankruptcy. Taxpayers have good reason to ask questions before accepting promises that a project won’t cost them anything.
As for those of us the board has labeled “NIMBYs,” we’re not opposed to better public transportation. We’re concerned about introducing 144 trains a day, traveling upward of 80 mph, through residential neighborhoods. Living near existing freight tracks doesn’t mean we signed up for high-speed passenger trains running every seven minutes. Where are the independent noise, vibration and safety studies? What protections will be provided to the people living alongside these tracks?
I also find it troubling that the board has reduced legitimate concerns from residents across multiple communities to selfish obstructionism. We’re talking about people’s homes, families, safety and quality of life. Eleven communities and a forest preserve would be affected by the proposed route, and residents in each deserve a meaningful voice in the process.
The Kennedy Expressway is a mess. We all know that. But that doesn’t make the first ambitious proposal that comes along the right solution.
Before the Tribune Editorial Board calls on government to approve the Flyer, perhaps it should investigate whether the Flyer’s developers can actually deliver what they’re promising.
— Laura Toerner, River Forest
Fare thee well, John Kass
Once upon a time, I was an avid follower of John Kass’ regular column in the Tribune. He did a nice job of emulating the snarky style of Mike Royko, although no one could be expected to match that journalistic brilliance.
Kass was at his best as an observer of humanity and as an investigative reporter of the many shenanigans going on in local government. Then something happened to him.
More Top Picks Best Prime Big Deal Days
Kass would often mention his twin boys in his columns, and it seemed to me that just about the time they went off to college is when Kass went feet first right down the rabbit hole.
His clever observations veered into far-right conspiracy theories, and he seemed to relish being a point man for the toxic cultural wars that the Republican Party has bathed itself in for many decades now.
I am quite happy to learn that his distortions will no longer be polluting the minds of his subscribers, but saddened to see the waste of such a unique talent that he had foolishly squandered.
Fare thee well, John. Who knows what might have been.
— Thomas Green, Highland Park
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].