|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 23, 2011 10:41:18 GMT -8
At tomorrow's Metro Board meeting, the Board will vote on awarding a contract for coordinating the environmental process for the Green Line to LAX Extension project. This project is distinct from the Crenshaw Corridor and the Green Line South Bay Extension. The purpose of the LAX Extension project is to create an "east-west connection from Aviation and Century Boulevards to the LAX Central Terminal Area (CTA)". The project may be implemented as LRT, BRT, APM (automated people mover) or some other technology. LA World Airports will be an active participant in this project. The agenda item is here.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 23, 2011 11:07:58 GMT -8
Ok, Now I get it. The "Green Line to LAX Extension" which gets $200 million in measure R funds doesn't actually extend the Green Line to LAX. The Crenshaw Line will build the segment from the current Green Line Aviation station to a new station/facility at Aviation/Century. This study is actually what will "likely" end up as the long awaited LAX people mover. A 2 mile East-West line that will serve the station mentioned and the airport.
So LAWA is already doing a project level EIR, which will mesh with the MTA studies. Then the MTA will kick in $200 million measure R funds with LAWA footing the rest of the bill for the APM.
RT
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 23, 2011 11:16:42 GMT -8
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.... I thought this was supposed to be Aviation Station to Aviation/Century then 'figure out what to do for east-west to LAX terminals' sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 23, 2011 11:39:34 GMT -8
I think LA is looking to make the new Century/Aviation station like New York's Jamaica station. If you don't know, Jamaica station is where the LIRR and NYMTA subway lines come together and drop passengers off to connect to a people mover to JFK Airport. Looks like LA is heading that route, instead of doing a direct BART-SFO or London Underground-Heathrow conenction.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 23, 2011 12:05:24 GMT -8
Still, it would be nice if Green line actually pulls up to the central terminal area like London.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 23, 2011 12:14:21 GMT -8
I'm fine with whatever option most inexpensively stops the disproportionate complaining about transit service to LAX.
Yes, rail transit to the airport would be nice, but airport trips represent such a small fraction of all trips, and I'd rather see limited resources dedicated to other corridors.
For reference: How many FlyAway lines could you operate for the next three decades for $200 million? Or how much further west could you build the Purple Line with that money? Probably to Bundy at least, if you ditched the VA station.
Granted, this is all wrapped up in the politics of Measure R and the projects it's legally required to pay for. Consider this me just griping about the griping.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 23, 2011 13:55:53 GMT -8
This study is actually what will "likely" end up as the long awaited LAX people mover. A 2 mile East-West line that will serve the station mentioned and the airport. I really hope this is not the case, but I have a sinking feeling that it is. The intent (from what Metro has to say in the LRTP) is that the line should continue from LAX north on Lincoln Blvd. to connect to the future Expo and Purple line stations. That’s why the Green Line isn’t going to the terminals at LAX; because LAX isn’t the intended terminus of the line. Could this have changed?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 23, 2011 14:10:37 GMT -8
In the 2009 LRTP, the Recommended Plan includes "Metro Green Line LRT Extension to LAX (Aviation Century to Lot C)". This explicitly defines the project as going to LAX, and does not imply going any further than that. The LRTP assumes a cost of $330 million (in YOE dollars), but says that depends on how much LAWA would contribute to the project. Measure R commits $200 million (in 2008 dollars) to the project. The LRTP's Tier 2 project list includes "Metro Green Line LRT Extension from LAX to Expo Santa Monica Station". This project has no funding and is a lower priority for Metro.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 23, 2011 14:51:36 GMT -8
I think Philip's point (and I agree) is that if the Green line is extended to Central Terminal Area (CTA) or Lot C as it may be, it sets up the line to continue on Lincoln to Santa Monica. Think of the CTA (or Lot C) station as the first station on the (eventual) Lincoln Blvd light rail line. It's all about momentum on getting more miles of light rail build as soon as possible...
If the $200 million end up going to a People Mover type train that only connects CTA to Century/Aviation station, then that puts the Lincoln extension further off the time table.
But I also agree that Metro deems this leg of Green line extension a low priority. Hence the problem... If you take a long term view to our train network, there is probably very little doubt that a CTA station for the eventual Santa Monica-Norwalk Green line makes sense (it is on the way, will probably have high boarding potential, and will connect with existing light rail grid). But since Metro's rail planning is piecemeal, line by line, segment by segment, this sort of "big picture" thinking is almost completely absent in the planning process.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 23, 2011 15:55:20 GMT -8
It appears that the Green Line is going to go through a few permutations before its final form (not unlike the way the present Eastside Gold and Expo Lines are now, before being unified by the Regional Connector).
When the Crenshaw Line opens, Green Line trains will be split between trains that go to 1) the South Bay and 2) Aviation/Century (or possibly further up north to the Expo Line at Expo/Crenshaw? Or has this been ruled out?)
When the true “Green Line to LAX” extension opens to Lot C or near the CTA, the Green Line will have three possible western routes (South Bay, Aviation/Century, and Lot C).
How should this proceed? Should service to Aviation/Century stop once the Lot C extension is built, or should they both continue? Or should Metro hold off on Lot C since the service will be redundant with Aviation/Century? Or should Metro shelve the Lot C extension until it can get its act together on a full-blown Lincoln Line?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 23, 2011 15:57:30 GMT -8
What LAX really needs is several projects, not just one.
First of all, a peoplemover. Get most of the terminals linked together, and include the consolidated car rental center. I would include at least one of the hotels. And, of course, connect LAX with the Green Line/ Crenshaw Line at some sort of Jamaica/ LAX regional transportation center at Aviation.
Secondly, light rail lines. The Green Line and the Crenshaw Line AND possible extensions north towards Santa Monica. EDIT: In answer to Philip, yes wait on Lot C until a full-blown Lincoln Line is ready.
And, if there's still physical room and money left after that, something along the lines of an LAX Express semi-high speed commuter rail link to downtown. I'd also beef up the FlyAway buses while I'm at it.
You don't combine the light rail and the peoplemover together because you don't want South Bay to Westside light rail commuters to have to deal with people circulating around the airport area. EDIT: Also because the peoplemover trains should be designed for people with rolling luggage.
You do, however, want to coordinate efforts as much as possible so that LAX and Metro are working together, the left hand knows yadda yadda, and maybe even have the future light rail line to the Westside borrow some of the ROW of the people mover.
And the situation here is different from Heathrow or Narita. Those airports are outside the central city, LAX is smack dab in the middle of it, or at least in the middle of the South Bay, with communities on all sides of it.
So, as much as I would also like a Narita Express-ish train directly to Tom Bradley, the geographic constraints at LAX means that possibility has to wait.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 23, 2011 17:13:00 GMT -8
It appears that the Green Line is going to go through a few permutations before its final form (not unlike the way the present Eastside Gold and Expo Lines are now, before being unified by the Regional Connector). When the Crenshaw Line opens, Green Line trains will be split between trains that go to 1) the South Bay and 2) Aviation/Century (or possibly further up north to the Expo Line at Expo/Crenshaw? Or has this been ruled out?) When the true “Green Line to LAX” extension opens to Lot C or near the CTA, the Green Line will have three possible western routes (South Bay, Aviation/Century, and Lot C). How should this proceed? Should service to Aviation/Century stop once the Lot C extension is built, or should they both continue? Or should Metro hold off on Lot C since the service will be redundant with Aviation/Century? Or should Metro shelve the Lot C extension until it can get its act together on a full-blown Lincoln Line? Don't get too far ahead of ourselves ;D I think when Crenshaw line is completed, the initial service pattern will most likely be this: Norwalk-Mid City (Expo) [at half the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Mid City (Expo)-Torrance (assuming south bay extension also completed) [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Norwalk-Torrance [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] This way, both lines will have roughly the same service interval and the Norwalk-Redondo portion will continue to see the same amount the trains. ~~~ If Green line is extended to Lot C or beyond to Santa Monica, the service pattern could be simplified as this: Santa Monica (or Lot C)-Norwalk Mid City (Expo)-Torrance This is a LONG ways away from happening so it is all just a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 23, 2011 18:23:07 GMT -8
..The current plan is to conform to a grid like everything else.
So...
Norwalk-LAX [Green Line] Torrance-Crenshaw [Crenshaw Line]
There is no good reason to run more combinations than that as it would make service worse and expensive by needing more resources and reducing headways.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 23, 2011 19:06:40 GMT -8
I think when Crenshaw line is completed, the initial service pattern will most likely be this: Norwalk-Mid City (Expo) [at half the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Mid City (Expo)-Torrance (assuming south bay extension also completed) [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Norwalk-Torrance [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] This way, both lines will have roughly the same service interval and the Norwalk-Redondo portion will continue to see the same amount the trains. This is an interesting plan, but it's not Metro's plan. Metro plans to run all Crenshaw trains south to Redondo. Trains from Redondo Norwalk will split, with half going to Redondo, and half going to Century/Aviation. The operating plan is in this document, on page 2-49. Here's a diagram: This is a LONG ways away from happening so it is all just a pipe dream. Whether or not we have a Green Line to Westchester and beyond will depend largely on what mode and alignment is selected in this project. So it is important to discuss it now.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 23, 2011 20:09:14 GMT -8
Makes sense to me (although there's a typo, there's no need for trains to go from Redondo TO REDONDO). Although avoiding transfers would be nice, there is the issue that too many trains going too many directions would still inconvenience people who would have to wait for the right train. Getting back to the issue at hand, I really do think we need to separate the issue of the peoplemover from the issue of the possibility of a Green Line to Westchester (or to Venice or Marina Del Rey, even). I envision the two modes as serving a completely different kind of traveler, with the biggest, most obvious difference being luggage. While people can and do use the Green Line (with the shuttle) to reach their flights at LAX, the trains aren't specifically designed for baggage the way that airport peoplemovers are. There's also the strong likelihood of the short-hop, sideways elevator use. Terminal to terminal. Terminal to car rental lot. Terminal to transit center. When the Green Line gets extended northwards (and I deliberately avoid using "IF"), I see no reason why a separate peoplemover system would be a barrier, even if the two systems used different equipment or different tech. Here are your peoplemover tracks, and over here, however many feet safety regulations require — judging from the Gold Line at Union Station, it's not much — are your Green Line tracks.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 23, 2011 21:02:45 GMT -8
Wait, wasn't there a plan to have the people-mover run on Century, while the Green Line jumps on 98th street? But since Metro's rail planning is piecemeal, line by line, segment by segment, this sort of "big picture" thinking is almost completely absent in the planning process. This sort of rational is such a mistake, and would leave us with STUPID errors like the Vermont/Wilshire HRT station... further complicating our transit system.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 24, 2011 7:29:45 GMT -8
The reason to choose a peoplemover is to avoid diverting the Crenshaw and Green Lines two miles west into the airport. The vast majority of passengers on both lines will not be going to LAX, and so diverting these lines to the airport would be very bad for both lines.
The current plan - of having the Crenshaw and Green Lines "cross" at Century/Aviation, connecting to a peoplemover - makes a lot of sense.
By adding a peoplemover at Century/Aviation, LAX-bound passengers can easily transfer at that station and go directly to their terminal. A peoplemover can be designed specifically to get people to the terminals, in a way the Green Line cannot: it can make tighter turns and make frequent stops at each of the terminals.
Also, the current plan makes it much more feasible to extend the Green Line north into Westchester and beyond. Building a northern extension of the Green Line from the LAX terminals would be much more difficult.
No system is transfer-free. Especially in city as spread out as Los Angeles. So it's all about priorities. I think the peoplemover plan makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 24, 2011 7:36:56 GMT -8
FYI, there is plenty of information about the Peoplemover/Green Line Extension to LAX plans in this other thread, in the Crenshaw Line forum. Maybe these two threads should be combined. On that thread, I reported on the alternatives that LAWA is studying, for the transit link between Metro and LAX. By law, LAWA must consider the "No Build" option. In addition, LAWA will study three build options: - "Original APM2", people mover routed along south side of Century Blvd.
- "Dedicated Transit Route", some sort of transitway routed along 98th Street*.
- "Modified APM2", people mover routed along 98th Street.
*The "Dedicated Transit Route" would be either a bus lane or a fixed bus guideway, so far as I can tell from the document. The LAWA people I spoke to had almost no information about the transit component. They were more concerned about the angry homeowners who were fighting airport expansion. Hopefully Metro will get some meetings together soon, and they'll bring some useful information to those meetings.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 24, 2011 11:13:14 GMT -8
I think when Crenshaw line is completed, the initial service pattern will most likely be this: Norwalk-Mid City (Expo) [at half the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Mid City (Expo)-Torrance (assuming south bay extension also completed) [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] Norwalk-Torrance [at half of the current Norwalk-Redondo frequency] This way, both lines will have roughly the same service interval and the Norwalk-Redondo portion will continue to see the same amount the trains. This is an interesting plan, but it's not Metro's plan. Metro plans to run all Crenshaw trains south to Redondo. Trains from Redondo Norwalk will split, with half going to Redondo, and half going to Century/Aviation. The operating plan is in this document, on page 2-49. Here's a diagram: This is a LONG ways away from happening so it is all just a pipe dream. Whether or not we have a Green Line to Westchester and beyond will depend largely on what mode and alignment is selected in this project. So it is important to discuss it now. That's the plan I described! Except I have the Norwalk-LAX train continue to Expo.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 24, 2011 11:40:45 GMT -8
Is that the most recent map? I'm pretty sure I've seen ones where they split like I described. Also this was something that <I forget his name -- but the guy who does Metro Rail operation scheduling> had said that the plan he wished to do and what made the most sense was to have trains go from Norwalk-LAX and Crenshaw-Torrance.
Besides the other issues I talked about earlier, if the Green Line were to continue down the Harbor Subdivision as it does not it'd be doubling back making service confusing. We also have a real possibility of having two Crenshaw Stations on the same line if that occurs.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 24, 2011 12:29:42 GMT -8
Is that the most recent map? I'm pretty sure I've seen ones where they split like I described. Also this was something that <I forget his name -- but the guy who does Metro Rail operation scheduling> had said that the plan he wished to do and what made the most sense was to have trains go from Norwalk-LAX and Crenshaw-Torrance. Depends what you mean by "most recent map". My map is based on the text in the Crenshaw DEIR, page 2-49. That's the latest "official" plan, in the sense of having Metro Board approval. However you could be right that Metro staff has changed their plans. Whatever the new plan is, it would need to get into the Crenshaw FEIR. Hopefully that document will be out in the next month or so. Besides the other issues I talked about earlier, if the Green Line were to continue down the Harbor Subdivision as it does not it'd be doubling back making service confusing. We also have a real possibility of having two Crenshaw Stations on the same line if that occurs. That would be weird. They'd have to call the new station either "Torrance RTC" or "Torrance Blvd" to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 24, 2011 13:34:08 GMT -8
The trouble with having the peoplemover on the south side of Century is that there is nothing on that side of the street except for the cargo/ air freight terminals. It would also miss the car rental facility, which would be a major destination.
It would be better to have the peoplemover north of Century. That shouldn't interfere with extending the Green Line north in the future.
Torrance Transit is planning a bus center where the Harbor Sub crosses Crenshaw Boulevard, so logically, if the Green Line extended into Torrance, a logical name would be something like Torrance Transit Center or Torrance RTC or something similar (it's not at Torrance Boulevard, so that won't work).
It would definitely be a park-and-ride station as it's not close to Old Torrance or Del Amo, but it would get a lot of traffic.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 24, 2011 16:33:43 GMT -8
There must be multiple service plans being considered. It is also possible that one is already selected.
As the Crenshaw Line will continue down to the Redondo Beach Station, there is almost zero need to continue running the Line there. It is too much service south of the Aviation Station. Only reason to keep is going to RB is to respect the current passenger market. But, ridership is low there. All Green Line trains should be run to the new Century/LAX Station. Let Crenshaw serve Mariposa to RB.
Then, the Green Line can be more easily extended either into the airport or to Santa Monica. My only question is, can a Green Line to the airport also continue to Santa Monica? And, I think some here would like to see one of those choices be up to Sepulveda and the SFV.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 24, 2011 17:02:29 GMT -8
Then, the Green Line can be more easily extended either into the airport or to Santa Monica. My only question is, can a Green Line to the airport also continue to Santa Monica? And, I think some here would like to see one of those choices be up to Sepulveda and the SFV. Of course it can continue to Santa Monica! All it takes is more $$$$ ;D The one example we talked about up thread is to have the line go from Century/Aviation to LAX Lot C on 96th Street and then via Lincoln Blvd to Santa Monica where it will share the terminal plaza with Expo at 4th/Colorado (i.e. replicate the Rapid 3 bus route). This line (Norwalk-Santa Monica) will have pretty good ridership as evident by the number of Green line to Rapid 3 transfers at Century/Imperial now. The Sepulveda line connecting to SFV is also an option but I don't think there is a need to link it with the existing Green line. The line will already be really long (assuming it starts on Van Nuys Blvd) and most of the riders will probably want to get off at LAX as opposed to continue towards Norwalk.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 24, 2011 17:45:05 GMT -8
There must be multiple service plans being considered. It is also possible that one is already selected. As the Crenshaw Line will continue down to the Redondo Beach Station, there is almost zero need to continue running the Line there. It is too much service south of the Aviation Station. Only reason to keep is going to RB is to respect the current passenger market. But, ridership is low there. All Green Line trains should be run to the new Century/LAX Station. Let Crenshaw serve Mariposa to RB. If you're talking about the existing El Segundo stations, you're correct that the ridership is low there. But an extension to the South Bay Galleria and beyond the mall into Torrance is also planned. That would boost ridership considerably. EDT: BTW, if I'm trying to get from Van Nuys to Norwalk, theoretically I can already do that on Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 24, 2011 20:06:36 GMT -8
The Sepulveda line connecting to SFV is also an option but I don't think there is a need to link it with the existing Green line. The line will already be really long (assuming it starts on Van Nuys Blvd) and most of the riders will probably want to get off at LAX as opposed to continue towards Norwalk. Or, the Sepulveda Line could link with the Crenshaw Line... effectively creating a complete North-South corridor alternative to the 405 freeway. This makes more sense, IMO, because LAX (not yet) and Long Beach don't have Metrolink service, unlike Norwalk. This is another reason why LRT, and not BRT, should be the choice of technology for the Van Nuys Corridor. While the line would be VERY long, it might be able to make the Sylmar-Westwood/UCLA-LAX-South Bay-Long Beach commute in a reasonable time. Of course, the entire line would almost CERTAINLY have to be grade-separated.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 24, 2011 20:39:29 GMT -8
There must be multiple service plans being considered. It is also possible that one is already selected. As the Crenshaw Line will continue down to the Redondo Beach Station, there is almost zero need to continue running the Line there. It is too much service south of the Aviation Station. Only reason to keep is going to RB is to respect the current passenger market. But, ridership is low there. All Green Line trains should be run to the new Century/LAX Station. Let Crenshaw serve Mariposa to RB. If you're talking about the existing El Segundo stations, you're correct that the ridership is low there. But an extension to the South Bay Galleria and beyond the mall into Torrance is also planned. That would boost ridership considerably. But, do you think that yet-to-be-seen ridership needs two lines to serve it? Can't Crenshaw serve it by itself?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 25, 2011 1:06:13 GMT -8
As I understand it, as things currently stand under Measure R, the Green Line extension to Redondo Beach/ Torrance is MUCH further along in its planning than any possible extension beyond LAX to Westchester/ Marina Del Rey.
So yes, you could theoretically split the lines as Crenshaw-LAX-South Bay and Norwalk-LAX.
But South Bay to Norwalk transfers would be difficult because the wye is west of the existing Aviation Station. Having some Green Line trains continue south to Torrance would eliminate that problem.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 25, 2011 2:24:43 GMT -8
There must be multiple service plans being considered. It is also possible that one is already selected. As the Crenshaw Line will continue down to the Redondo Beach Station, there is almost zero need to continue running the Line there. It is too much service south of the Aviation Station. Only reason to keep is going to RB is to respect the current passenger market. But, ridership is low there. All Green Line trains should be run to the new Century/LAX Station. Let Crenshaw serve Mariposa to RB. If you're talking about the existing El Segundo stations, you're correct that the ridership is low there. But an extension to the South Bay Galleria and beyond the mall into Torrance is also planned. That would boost ridership considerably. EDT: BTW, if I'm trying to get from Van Nuys to Norwalk, theoretically I can already do that on Metrolink. It's a pity that El Segundo has such low ridership given the employment centers there. That's a very good point about Metrolink. We should be pushing for increased frequencies on Metrolink as a kind of express service. We should also plug the gap between the green line and Norwalk / Santa Fe Springs, especially if a high speed rail stop is located there. That would make a lot more sense as a next step after the green line reaches LAX. Imagine all the IE and OC riders who could take Metrolink and transfer to the green line to get to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 25, 2011 8:06:02 GMT -8
The Sepulveda line connecting to SFV is also an option but I don't think there is a need to link it with the existing Green line. The line will already be really long (assuming it starts on Van Nuys Blvd) and most of the riders will probably want to get off at LAX as opposed to continue towards Norwalk. Or, the Sepulveda Line could link with the Crenshaw Line... effectively creating a complete North-South corridor alternative to the 405 freeway. This makes more sense, IMO, because LAX (not yet) and Long Beach don't have Metrolink service, unlike Norwalk. This is another reason why LRT, and not BRT, should be the choice of technology for the Van Nuys Corridor. While the line would be VERY long, it might be able to make the Sylmar-Westwood/UCLA-LAX-South Bay-Long Beach commute in a reasonable time. Of course, the entire line would almost CERTAINLY have to be grade-separated. If the Expo Line is not grade separated on Vermont, Western, Crensahaw, Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... in West LA, which is congested with no available comparison in the Valley........it's not going to happen.
|
|