Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #75 on Aug 30, 2011, 11:33am »
Yes, my idea to extend the Green (Crenshaw) line to LAX is expensive. Not arguing that point at all. I think you all understand my suggestion - it's a cost no object solution and one that I think is the best. But let's leave it behind...
I have used the JFK Skytrain extensively (I travel to NY several times a year) and I think it is worth pointing out is that JFK Skytrain has 2 different terminus outside the airport that have very different service length. The connection to E-subway and Long Island railroad in Jamaica is much longer than the connection to A-subway. This is the main operational challenge so they need a second track for inter-terminal loop to reduce the complexity from operational standpoint. Running 3 trains on single track with various stage length in a closed system at the kind of frequency they have would have been too much of a challenge. Hence the inter-terminal loop was put on a separate track. And the reverse direction service was the added benefit of separate track, not the main reason for the dual track.
The LAX APM will probably have one single terminus (Aviation/Century) so that means you can run the terminal loop in the same platform/track/direction as the one going outside the airport. And the "big loop" is approximately twice as long as the terminal loop so you can dispatch the trains in some sort of even order.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #76 on Aug 30, 2011, 3:18pm »
Well, the reverse-direction loop at JFK is VERY useful if JFK is not your final destination. For example, if you're transfering from JetBlue to an international carrier, which was what I did the last time I was at JFK. On the return trip, the inside loop saves a lot of otherwise wasted time (especially on tight connections).
Hopefully, the peoplemover at LAX is designed so that it is as useful to people making transfers as it is for people headed for a hotel/ car rental/ the Green-Crenshaw Line.
LAX is more of a final destination for the airlines than a transfer hub, but we still ought to keep those transfers in mind.
Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 230 Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #77 on Feb 9, 2012, 11:43am »
With all the different talks back and forth about this project, the question everyone appears to ask the most is, “LRT or People Mover?”
What I fail to understand is how people cannot see that we obviously need BOTH.
By that I mean:
1) Green Line extension: from Century/Aviation into a central area of the airport (Lot C, as it’s been suggested, or maybe Sepulveda/Century). This serves present local commuters going to LAX, as well as those who will commute from future extensions to Santa Monica, Venice, Marina Del Rey, the South Bay, and Long Beach.
2) People Mover: build it as it has been proposed. This serves both the present and future commuters, and the nearby hotels, shops, etc. that surround the airport, as well as the employees in those areas.
If the Green Line is eventually extended north of LAX, it makes no sense for the train to completely circle the airport without a central station, even if the people mover exists. It’s just idiotic. Why avoid the airport and force commuters to have to transfer to a people mover? The only reason I can think of is to save money.
Conversely, the people mover serves its purpose as an option for commuters, and its main purpose as a shuttle for the businesses surrounding LAX, as well as the airport itself.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #78 on Feb 10, 2012, 3:05pm »
I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that both the peoplemover and the Green Line are needed at LAX.
The real question is how close can we reasonably expect the Green Line to get to the central terminal area. Part of the problem is that the central loop is something of a dead-end, with runways blocking access from the north or south. Given their previous reluctance regarding light rail in the past, I suspect that LAWA will allow light rail trains to tunnel under the runways when Hell is a fun place to vacation. I think it's safe to assume that any train that enters the central loop leaves the same way it came in.
Also, from an operating standpoint, we have to consider that not every commuter will want to head for LAX. Some will undoubtedly want to commute between the South Bay and Santa Monica or from points east (the existing Green Line to Norwalk) to the Westside.
So I think the top priority would be getting the Green Line to link up with the Crenshaw Line at Aviation, with the peoplemover handling things (airport, car rentals, hotels, etc.) from there.
Once that gets built, we can look at getting the Green Line to Lot C. Beyond that, I'd say start curving the Green Line north towards Westchester, Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey or something similar to that.
The best that we can expect for LAX is eventually a spur of the Green Line that branches off from the main line, with a terminal station in the loop. [ Or even a new commuter train line of Metrolink/ post-electrification Metrolink, totally separate from the Green Line. We can dream.... ]
I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that both the peoplemover and the Green Line are needed at LAX.
The real question is how close can we reasonably expect the Green Line to get to the central terminal area. Part of the problem is that the central loop is something of a dead-end, with runways blocking access from the north or south. Given their previous reluctance regarding light rail in the past, I suspect that LAWA will allow light rail trains to tunnel under the runways when Hell is a fun place to vacation. I think it's safe to assume that any train that enters the central loop leaves the same way it came in.
Also, from an operating standpoint, we have to consider that not every commuter will want to head for LAX. Some will undoubtedly want to commute between the South Bay and Santa Monica or from points east (the existing Green Line to Norwalk) to the Westside.
So I think the top priority would be getting the Green Line to link up with the Crenshaw Line at Aviation, with the peoplemover handling things (airport, car rentals, hotels, etc.) from there.
Once that gets built, we can look at getting the Green Line to Lot C. Beyond that, I'd say start curving the Green Line north towards Westchester, Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey or something similar to that.
The best that we can expect for LAX is eventually a spur of the Green Line that branches off from the main line, with a terminal station in the loop. [ Or even a new commuter train line of Metrolink/ post-electrification Metrolink, totally separate from the Green Line. We can dream.... ]
Good points, James.
I can't find it right now, but I remember a Metro map that was released showing the Green Line splitting, with some trains heading up the new Crenshaw tracks to Aviation and others going south to Redondo Beach.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #80 on Feb 13, 2012, 12:10pm »
The only way a Green line station at Lot C (or under the central terminal area for that matter) makes sense is if that line is eventually extended to Santa Monica or link up with the Valley line (i.e. it is not a permanent terminus).
If there is no concrete plan to extend the Green line to Santa Monica via Lincoln or Westwood via Sepulveda, the spur is not ideal. LAWA and Metro should concentrate on making Century/Aviation transfer as seamless as possible. I would rather Metro shift the funds for the extension to other use, for example, the Westchester Crenshaw line station.
But of course political meddling from my former State Senator (now deceased Jenny Oropeza) made sure Metro has to waste Measure R funds on a spur whether or not it makes sense.
But of course political meddling from my former State Senator (now deceased Jenny Oropeza) made sure Metro has to waste Measure R funds on a spur whether or not it makes sense.
Can you clarify this? I thought the plan was just to extend the Green line to Century/Aviation and leave the people mover or bus connection to another project.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #82 on Feb 13, 2012, 3:06pm »
Bzcat can clarify his own comments about Oropeza.
However, I think Century/ Aviation is pretty much a given at this point, considering that the Crenshaw Line is set to head that direction. The bigger question is whether LAWA will do what it needs to do and complete the peoplemover all the way out to Aviation. Unfortunately, LAWA and Metro have not always played well together, even though it would clearly be in both of their interests to have the two systems link.
The Lot C spur may be a case of "Mohammad going to the mountain"...
However, I do not think that the Lot C spur will be a waste of money. I think there is more than enough traffic on the Westside to justify an LAX to Santa Monica link, or something similar (LAX to Westwood to the Valley). Even if this is "in the long run."
In the short run (and even this is longer term thinking than Century/ Aviation), it is about as close as Metro is going to get to LAX central loop without giving LAWA territorial spasms.
« Last Edit: Feb 13, 2012, 3:08pm by James Fujita »
But of course political meddling from my former State Senator (now deceased Jenny Oropeza) made sure Metro has to waste Measure R funds on a spur whether or not it makes sense.
Can you clarify this? I thought the plan was just to extend the Green line to Century/Aviation and leave the people mover or bus connection to another project.
No, these are two separate projects per Measure R.
Century/Aviation to Imperial/Aviation is already included in the Crenshaw line EIR. Oropeza inserted a provision in Measure R that set aside money for a spur from Imperial/Aviation to LAX (undefined location), in addition to the Crenshaw line. That's why Metro has to do another EIR on this.
My position is that the light rail extension (in the context of LAX Spur EIR) only makes sense if there is a plan to extend the line further beyond the airport (e.g. as part of Norwalk to Santa Monica, or Norwalk to SFV line). Otherwise, the short spur is a waste of money. Just give the money to LAWA to build the Peoplemover to Century Aviation... afterall, that is why Oropeza did this... to provide political cover for LAWA to take the money (she represented LAX in the State Senate).
With all the different talks back and forth about this project, the question everyone appears to ask the most is, “LRT or People Mover?”
What I fail to understand is how people cannot see that we obviously need BOTH.
By that I mean:
1) Green Line extension: from Century/Aviation into a central area of the airport (Lot C, as it’s been suggested, or maybe Sepulveda/Century). This serves present local commuters going to LAX, as well as those who will commute from future extensions to Santa Monica, Venice, Marina Del Rey, the South Bay, and Long Beach.
2) People Mover: build it as it has been proposed. This serves both the present and future commuters, and the nearby hotels, shops, etc. that surround the airport, as well as the employees in those areas.
I agree with that, however its the timing that I have the concern about. Personally I think it's better to build a high quality APM system from the airport terminals first to Century/Aviation and then build a regular regional LRT extension to Lot C and beyond either Sepulveda or Lincoln Corridors. That way we're not stuck with a stub-end corridor that doesn't have to much purpose.
Quote:
If the Green Line is eventually extended north of LAX, it makes no sense for the train to completely circle the airport without a central station, even if the people mover exists. It’s just idiotic. Why avoid the airport and force commuters to have to transfer to a people mover? The only reason I can think of is to save money.
Conversely, the people mover serves its purpose as an option for commuters, and its main purpose as a shuttle for the businesses surrounding LAX, as well as the airport itself.
Yes and No, and the JFK Airtrain APM system shows that two branches can be utilized to work into the main terminals and serve both airport business inside and outside the airport area...Once an actual extension beyond Lot C has an idea of which direction it will go first.
I agree with that, however its the timing that I have the concern about. Personally I think it's better to build a high quality APM system from the airport terminals first to Century/Aviation and then build a regular regional LRT extension to Lot C and beyond either Sepulveda or Lincoln Corridors. That way we're not stuck with a stub-end corridor that doesn't have to much purpose.
Agreed 100%
Build the APM first.
Build the spur later as part of the Santa Monica-Norwalk line extension.
I also agree this would be the way to go. I really hope a northwest Green Line extension becomes a priority project if Measure R can be extended.
I'd have to disagree. A Measure R extension would only be 10 years and not too much can get accomplished with that limit. I'd prefer extending the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood and getting the Purple Line out of that traffic quaqmire where few can reach it at the VA to around Bundy. Also, the 405 Line should go north to the Sylmar Metrolink station and we can look into building it further south towards LAX.
A Green Line NW extension would be all below those IMHO and thus impossible for a Measure R extension. Even the 405 Line from Expo to LAX is not in the Long Term Plan for Metro right now.
I also agree this would be the way to go. I really hope a northwest Green Line extension becomes a priority project if Measure R can be extended.
With what EIR beyond that Lot C station?
This is why I'm very hesitant on pursuing this option because less money is spent on building the line and more is spent on "planning" for the line. If there's a dedicated source towards planning this line that would make more sense however so that a future funding measure (notice I'm not saying sales tax) can be used to fund this extension.
« Last Edit: Feb 29, 2012, 10:58am by JerardWright »
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #91 on Feb 29, 2012, 2:50pm »
Jerard makes a good point here, and as transit fans we do have a tendency to say "and then we'll build this and then we'll build that and then we'll build that and then we'll..." and so on, ad infinitum.
There's not much point to discussing extending the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood or even Wilshire when the core Expo to LAX line hasn't been started yet.
I personally don't have a problem with a Lot C stub, but if the funding is limited (and it always is), then Century/ Aviation would be good enough.
The main thing is the peoplemover link. If we don't get that, then Century/ Aviation is no better than Imperial/ Aviation. Lot C might allow LAWA to build a shorter peoplemover, and so the real question is which agency, LAWA or Metro pays for more track.
Either way works for me, but Metro and LAWA need to negotiate on this.
Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 230 Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #92 on Feb 29, 2012, 2:57pm »
You all make some very good points. The Westward Green Line extension may not be the priority over the other projects mentioned.
Masonite, where/when exactly was it stated that the Measure R extension would only be for another 10 years? I don't recall hearing that at all.
Because if that's the case, I doubt there would be enough money to get more than even one of the projects you mentioned built (getting Crenshaw to Hollywood, just by itself, will be somewhere in the $billions since it will require no less than eight stations, most of which in need of grade separation).
You all make some very good points. The Westward Green Line extension may not be the priority over the other projects mentioned.
Masonite, where/when exactly was it stated that the Measure R extension would only be for another 10 years? I don't recall hearing that at all.
Because if that's the case, I doubt there would be enough money to get more than even one of the projects you mentioned built (getting Crenshaw to Hollywood, just by itself, will be somewhere in the $billions since it will require no less than eight stations, most of which in need of grade separation).
I had seen this in the LA Times, but in looking back at the article it says an extension of at least 10 years, so the 10 years may not be what ultimately gets voted on.
Nevertheless, I think a Green Line Extension to the Northwest is a ways off. Hopefully, an extension of Measure R can reduce the amount going to highways and increase it for public transit and Metrolink, but even with that it is going to be hard for them to get more than one big project like Crenshaw to Hollywood. The whole regional balance thing is really going to come up again as well.
I personally don't have a problem with a Lot C stub, but if the funding is limited (and it always is), then Century/ Aviation would be good enough.
The main thing is the peoplemover link. If we don't get that, then Century/ Aviation is no better than Imperial/ Aviation. Lot C might allow LAWA to build a shorter peoplemover, and so the real question is which agency, LAWA or Metro pays for more track.
Either way works for me, but Metro and LAWA need to negotiate on this.
There won't be a Lot C + APM option. The scope of EIR is Green line spur to LAX (undefined location) OR APM to Century Aviation OR BRT. I can't foreseen any possibility that Metro will conclude the preferred mode/route is light rail + APM. If APM is the locally preferred mode, LAWA will most likely be the agency in charge of building it and they will get the $200 million Measure R funds set aside for this "corridor".
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #95 on Mar 1, 2012, 3:53pm »
I thought LAWA was already going to build a peoplemover of some sort.
LAWA's LAX web site doesn't make it entirely clear if that peoplemover was just for the loop area, or if it does extend beyond the loop, how far would it go. it could be that LAWA is waiting to see what Metro decides to do before deciding what to do themselves.
so, the LAX peoplemover may not be part of the EIR, but LAX/ LAWA and Metro are still going to have to work together and coordinate their efforts on this one. if Metro says "we're not building to Lot C" and if LAWA says "we're not building to Century/ Aviation," then we've got a problem.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #96 on Mar 1, 2012, 4:11pm »
LAWA has a preliminary plan for APM but it never advanced to EIR stage because they didn't have money. They asked Oropeza to insert the "Rail to LAX" provision in Measure R while the rest of us were drunk on the possibility that Measure R is even going to qualify for the ballot. Now They are waiting for Metro to do the study, which is paid for by Measure R (which will most likely conclude APM is the preferred mode). LAWA will probably argue strongly for APM during public comment for the EIR and once the EIR is complete, the negotiation is really for the fund that should go to them as the agency that has to implement surface transportation at LAX.
Re: Green Line to LAX Extension - DEIR Process « Reply #97 on Mar 1, 2012, 8:00pm »
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA.
Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood)
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA.
Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood)
If there's going to be a Sepulveda or Lincoln line connecting with Century/Aviation, one needs to make sure there's room both for that and the people mover. I imagine if the people mover is built first, it will use the most sensible ROW, and Metro will be left with a pretty expensive segment to build if they want to hit Lot C. If we're willing to skip another LAX area stop (lots of workers), at least Arbor Vitae to Westchester Parkway doesn't have residential development, meaning there might be less resistance to having elevated or at grade rail on that route.
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA.
Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood)
Yes, we are on the same page together now
1. Use the Measure R to partially fund the APM to Century Aviation. "Partially fund" because the $200m earmarked for "rail to LAX" will probably cover only the pre-construction costs and up to maybe 30~40% of the construction costs so LAWA will have to come up with some other money.
2. Preserve a right of way for future Green line extension to Santa Monica or UCLA.
3. Make sure APM design is modular so we can add future stop at Lot C if necessary.
LAWA's plan is to consolidate all rental car and bus connection at a new multi-modal transportation center (near Century/Aviation). The Lot C station may or may not be necessary in the long run (it will just be long term parking). If there is an extension of Green line to Santa Monica or Westwood, Sepulveda/Manchester station location makes more sense than Lot C.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6356/trolleyt.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/bdowns/avatars/phillies_logo_p.gif "[avatar]"){kind=logo}
![[avatar]](http://i32.tinypic.com/fns30h.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://chriscrash.com/images-home/crash_symbol.jpg "[avatar]")
