THAT WOULD BUY A LOT OF CLASS SIX⁽*⁾ TRACK. Chicago's air carriers demonstrate the proper public-choice attitude.

"We are fundamentally opposed to any additional funding for the [O'Hare Modernization Program]," Sandra Widerborg, chairwoman of a committee representing the airlines, said in a recent letter to Chicago Aviation Commissioner Nuria Fernandez and Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the modernization program.

The airlines rejected the idea of selling more bonds to cover the escalating costs because doing so would have put them on the hook for higher landing fees, rents and other charges the city would need to retire the debt.

Still in the early stages of construction, the O'Hare expansion is $400 million over budget, according to Andolino.

But there is at least $700 million in additional expenses, ranging from an airfield taxiway to interest payments, for which the city has not yet identified funding, according to a Tribune analysis.

In addition, the airlines have not agreed to terms for financing the second phase of the runway expansion plan, which is when most of the benefits to increase flights and reduce O'Hare delays would occur.

After being rebuffed by the airlines, the city's new application to the FAA is an attempt to cover some of the $400 million shortfall. FAA approval is required to spend ticket-tax revenue.

On Tuesday Andolino declined to spell out how or when the balance of the $400 million shortfall--$130 million--would be filled, assuming FAA approval of the rest of the money.

"The airlines said `no' for new money right now, and that's OK with us," Andolino said. "We have a problem to solve and we are solving it in a way that bypasses the need for new [revenue bonds]. The airlines still support the modernization program."

City documents submitted to the FAA show that the first phase of the project has grown to $3.28 billion from the $2.88 billion budget the airlines approved in 2003.

As long as somebody else pays for it.

At the other end of the Alton Route, Chris Lawrence discovers that St. Louis spent the equivalent of Amtrak's annual Federal appropriation (which does not provide for any capital upgrades) on runways that are going unused.

As major cities across the USA struggle to expand their airports to accommodate growing air traffic, St. Louis has massive excess airport capacity. And MidAmerica is only part of its problem. In April, Lambert-St. Louis International, the city's main airport, opened a new runway at a cost of $1.1 billion. The largest public works project in city history, the runway displaced 6,000 residents of suburban Bridgeton from their homes. John Krekeler, one of 16 Lambert airport commissioners, estimates that only 5% of flights at Lambert use the new runway.

"The runway is a white elephant and is not needed now," Krekeler says. "A ridiculous amount of money was spent for a 9,000-foot patch of concrete. It's asinine that it cost $1.1 billion, while it cost $315 million at MidAmerica for a passenger terminal and a runway."

Whether the excess airport capacity in greater St. Louis, the USA's 18th-largest metro area, is a matter of bad luck or bad planning is a matter of dispute. Likewise, local officials differ on whether the city can ever grow into its airports by attracting additional passenger and cargo service.

In part, the runways are going unused because American, after buying out Trans World, opted to move as much of the Trans World traffic through ... you guessed it ... Chicago, where American would be quite happy to benefit by additional capacity (or a relief hub at Peotone or Rockford or Milwaukee) that somebody else paid for. One wonders whether there would be as much growth in air travel if passengers had to pay a fare that reflected the long-run incremental cost of runways and betterments to the air traffic control system.

And people call the Amtrak subsidy a waste? Compared to what?

^(*)"Class Six track" is a Federal Railroad Administration designation for track structure and signalling capable of handling passenger and freight trains at 110 mph. In the Midwest, that would be sufficient. (Heck, steam locomotives on jointed rail protected by semaphores is sufficient.) For bullet trains and other hero projects, you'd be building to Class Eight or Nine, an extravagance in my view. (Do the algebra: an increase in average train speed from 60 to 100 buys a greater saving in travel time than boosting that average from 100 to 180.)