|
Post by Philip on Aug 27, 2011 7:35:58 GMT -8
I like the idea of the people mover, but I see the the case for a light-rail station in the heart of LAX as well (wherever that may be - Century/Sepulveda? Century/96th? Lot C?).
Since the plan is for the Green Line to eventually be extended north via Lincoln Blvd. to Santa Monica, it would only make sense to have the Green Line go through LAX instead of around it. That way, you serve more riders and avoid the inevitable complaints of 'There's one more train that just skirts LAX.'
Also, if the train does not go to LAX towards Santa Monica, where do you route it to do so? I suppose you could run it elevated along the Westchester Parkway, since it gets really wide and would serve the neighboring communities. Then, run it north on Lincoln from there. But what would the local reaction to that be?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 27, 2011 10:06:31 GMT -8
;D I am thinking 'right now the Metro Green Line is one mile away from lax, i strongly feel that the green line train should stop right at Century Blvd. then the passengers and go down stairs and get on the shuttle or the future people mover. But I hear that they want to have the LAX stop further north of Century Blvd. ---So we will be back at square one--- one mile north of Lax, from one mile South to one mile north! Sincerely the Roadtrainer No. The current Green Line Aviation/LAX station is 2.5 miles away from LAX. The new Century station on the Crenshaw Line will be 1 mile away from the airport. The square problem gets smaller...but still not complete. We're getting there though!
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Aug 27, 2011 12:36:08 GMT -8
How does a difference of 1.5 miles mean anything other than a huge expenditure of funds?
Unless you're eliminating a transfer, there is no point.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 27, 2011 15:20:50 GMT -8
How does a difference of 1.5 miles mean anything other than a huge expenditure of funds? Unless you're eliminating a transfer, there is no point. So, how does somebody coming from Culver City, Jefferson Heights, Leimart Park, USC, or South LA get to LAX today? It's called the Crenshaw Line buddy. The "huge expenditure of funds" is for the CRENSHAW LINE....it's a way to connect the western part of Los Angeles to LAX. We're not spending $1.7 billion on a "1.5 mile gap". We're building a brand new line with $1.7 billion and at the same time building a station that is much closer to LAX. The future Blue Line --> Green Line for LAX connection for those coming from downtown (but not using Flyaway) will be obsolete when the Crenshaw Line opens. Most likely people will be taking the Expo Line --> Crenshaw Line as that will cut down a good 15 - 20 minutes. So there'a a benefit already. elray, think about the whole network. I know you are critical of anything and everything Metro does. It's sad to just live in constant negativity. Yes, we all want a great system, but there are financial limiations and political will we do have to deal with. As for this "huge expenditure of funds" you know this is primarily for the Crenshaw Line, we're not building a 1.5 mile link to "get closer but not get there". That's not the point of Crenshaw. The Airport connection is FINALLY being discussed and Measure R includes $200 million to close that gap to LAX. And, if you attended the meetings (which I'm assuming you just complain on this board and not provide feedback to Metro) you would know that people would rather have the People Mover concept a la JFK Airtrain system.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 27, 2011 15:38:33 GMT -8
Most likely people will be taking the Expo Line --> Crenshaw Line as that will cut down a good 15 - 20 minutes. Are you sure on those numbers? Right now, to get from downtown to LAX via Blue, Green, and Shuttle takes anywhere from 40-60 minutes, depending on transfer times. Riding the Expo-Crenshaw way might close that gap to maybe 40-50 minutes, but that's not saying much (I'm also estimating here, so I could be way off, but I sincerely don't think so). And no matter how fast it is, it still involves transferring between 2 trains and THEN a people mover. Not the most convenient ride for the average commuter. What Crenshaw will do is provide easy access to/from the airport to and for neighboring communities that are in desperate need of rail transit. And the people mover will serve airport passengers/employees in addition to the retail/hotel locations nearby. I understand the purpose of the Crenshaw Line and I support it entirely, but until it reaches Hollywood, or even Wilshire for that matter, it's still just a bandage over a gaping wound, which is our poor connectivity to LAX. It's why I still support a separate 'LAX' station for the Green Line in the heart of LAX away from Crenshaw. This will provide easy connectivity for people riding the Green Line (and possibly the 405 line when it eventually gets down there). Meanwhile, the Crenshaw Line/People mover will serve the communities it passes through as well, in addition to all the commercial areas (hotels, etc.) near the airport.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 27, 2011 16:25:09 GMT -8
Okay....what's better? Let's think about this reasonably.
1) Current Green Line extension into LAX (most likely Lot C) with a continuation to Santa Monica via Lincoln boulevard
2) People mover situation via brand new Century station on the Crenshaw Line
3) Direct LAUS-LAX train connection (i.e. Picadilly Line in London)
Now, I chose # 2. Why? Because I envision Century station to be your new "Union Station" of the South Bay. I believe, in all reasonableness, you can connect to multiple destinations around the LA region with just a simple People Mover transfer to Century. Imagine, getting on the People Mover to Century station, then you have the following options
- Green Line - trains to Norwalk and Torrance (future extension of the southern Green Line portion with $500 million of Measure R funds) and possibly Long Beach one day? - Crenshaw Line - trains to Wilshire boulevard, West Hollywood and Hollywood on the northern end (southern end would go to Torrance to duplicate Green Line) - Lincoln Line (possibly?) - trains to Santa Monica, Venice, Playa del Rey
Century station has significant POTENTIAL. A line to LAUS would still be problematic as most people tend to gravitate to points of Hollywood and west when they come to LA. Though I love downtown LA, I know the Crenshaw-Expo (or Wilshire Purple Line) will be my way of choice with no direct connection).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 29, 2011 10:03:02 GMT -8
The problem with having a light rail stop directly at LAX is that because the terminals are so spread out, anyone getting off at an LAX stop would still need to transfer to the A bus to get to their terminal of choice, either that or have a nice long walk. Anyone not going to LAX has to put up with the extra time to divert to LAX. If the light rail also stops at say a parking lot, then the delay is even longer. I have a few problem with this. First, LAX terminals are not spread out. In fact, LAX terminals are super close together by large airport standards. You can walk from T1 (Southwest) to T6 (United) in 6 minutes by cutting across the ground level crosswalk. A central LRT station under Encounter/LAX theme building will allow easy and seamless connection to T1, T2, T5, T6, T7 under 3 minutes walk. The walk to T3, TBIT, and T4 will be a little longer, about 8 minutes. Second, the LAX station under the center parking area will almost certainly be a terminus, not a thru-station for a long long time. So there won't be anyone putting up with "extra time to divert to LAX". In the long run, a central station under LAX parking area also sets up the line to go north to Venice and Santa Monica. At that point, the station will become a thru-station on a line but it still won't be a diversion. Here are the APM station we'll need realistically: - Aviation/Century (connect to bus and rental car as well as the other LRT line, Hilton/Westin) - Lot C/Northside of Century (long term parking/Radison/Sheraton) - T1/T2/T3 - TBIT/T4 - T5/T6/T7 I think 5 stations is the minimum required. If there are more money, I think T1 could use its own station and T7/T8 could use its own station. maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200920330746408617074.0004aba8e273364256259&msa=0&ll=33.946279,-118.388886&spn=0.022642,0.045447
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 29, 2011 11:26:28 GMT -8
Here are the JFK, SFO and LAX airports on a relatively similar scale. The JFK shot shows the people mover terminals, but the SFO shot doesn't: JFK has 6 stops in the terminal area, SFO has I believe 7 in a geographically smaller footprint. The center of the theme building to the new TBIT concourse is over 2,400 feet. This is why I think that light rail would "come up short". I looked at the total length. It looks to be about a minimum of 4 miles total if you do nothing but go from the Century/Aviation station, down Century (or 98th), and loop around the terminals, then go back. The SFO system is 6 miles long with 9 stations, and the JFK system is 8 miles long with 10 stations. It would be pretty easy for the LAX system to take a short hop up to 96th and hit Lot C without adding much to the cost. I had a previous picture somewhere that showed a separate loop for Lot C, that might be too much cost wise. If you had 5 terminal stations, and say a Lot C station and the terminus at Century/Aviation then you are looking at about 4 total miles and 7 stations. I think this would be a minimal system that connects: Crenshaw Line, consolidated rental facility, Lot C, and 5 airport stations. SFO at 6 miles and 9 stations cost $430 million back in 2004. If MTA kicks in $200 million, then a $600 million system seems doable. RT
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 29, 2011 13:40:55 GMT -8
The BART station "come up short" because it didn't reach the center of the airport. It goes only to one terminal. If LAX had a LRT station in the middle, it will not "come up short". It will be exactly where you want the train station to be. I don't see where you get the 2400 ft distance from... T2 to T6 is about 650 ft so the central train station to T1/T2/T5/T6/T7 will not be very long. Only TBIT, T4, and T3 will have a longer walk. As for APM, I'm actually on the same page as you... The LAX APM can and should make a stop at Lot C because that is the long term parking lot and that is not going to change when the bus center moves to Aviation. The APM can operate counter clockwise with every other train going back to terminal loop instead of Aviation/Century. This way, we only need one track and save money. The JFK APM is more expansive because it's dual track with the terminal loop going in clockwise direction and the subway/rental car connection going counter clockwise.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 29, 2011 13:55:33 GMT -8
bringing the Green Line down the middle of Century Boulevard and into the middle of the LAX terminal loop would eat whatever savings you get from eliminating either the clockwise or the counterclockwise APM loop.
also, I think people exiting Bradley wouldn't be interested in walking as far as the Theme Building to get to the light rail station; the international flights are typically the longest and most tiring.
and it would be redundant to have both light rail and the APM serve the terminal loop.
it would be more practical to have the APM loop in both directions around the terminals; and serve the parking lot on the way to the Grand Central LAX light rail station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 29, 2011 14:16:19 GMT -8
bringing the Green Line down the middle of Century Boulevard and into the middle of the LAX terminal loop would eat whatever savings you get from eliminating either the clockwise or the counterclockwise APM loop. What if the light rail is eventually extended to Santa Monica? I don't want people to fixate on "LRT or APM". We should advocate for best case scenario (granted money is an issue but I will leave the compromise to other people ;D ) You can put a moving walkway connecting TBIT to central terminal station under the theme building. The walk is not that long in any case... shorter than the distance from LHR T2 to the tube station. You are talking about 700 or 800 ft or roughly 350 meters from TBIT curbside. I have walked much longer to reach train stations in other airports (e.g. CDG T2, LHR etc). I disagree that LRT and APM are redundant. LAX desperately needs APM regardless of whether there is LRT station or not. In the long run, I think having train station directly at LAX is a much more valuable proposition if you think we will have either the Lincoln or 405/Sepulveda LRT. I will agree that numbers may not pencil out until those other lines are proposed, but then we are back to the same old problem with Metro's mentality of building one rail line at a time, rather than thinking about the network and future expansion ahead of time. If we don't leave ourselves with the option of LAX station, we may face this issue again 15 years from now. And for the record, I not opposed to APM terminal loop going in both direction like JFK.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 29, 2011 14:48:24 GMT -8
bringing the Green Line down the middle of Century Boulevard and into the middle of the LAX terminal loop would eat whatever savings you get from eliminating either the clockwise or the counterclockwise APM loop. What if the light rail is eventually extended to Santa Monica? I don't want people to fixate on "LRT or APM". We should advocate for best case scenario (granted money is an issue but I will leave the compromise to other people ;D ) money is ALWAYS an issue. often it is THE issue. I can draw lines on a map, too. but bringing that map to reality is trickier. and compromise is absolutely key to this issue. for example, LAWA may still have territorial issues with Metro. who has the right to operate trains within the loop? LAWA has also been concerned about overhead wires, while a peoplemover can be third-rail. hotels and others may object to a light rail line out in front on Century, but not if the rail line is in the back, on 96th or 98th streets, not facing the front. finally, even if the train extends north to Santa Monica, Marina Del Rey, etc. the extension is not going to head straight north from the Theme Building. LAWA and the airlines would never allow it. at best, it would extend from the proposed long-term parking lot station. the "Theme Building" LAX loop branch of the Green Line/ Crenshaw Line would still be redundant.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 29, 2011 15:29:44 GMT -8
I don't see where you get the 2400 ft distance from... T2 to T6 is about 650 ft so the central train station to T1/T2/T5/T6/T7 will not be very long. Only TBIT, T4, and T3 will have a longer walk. bz, I measured from the center of the theme building to the center point of the new TBIT concourse, see below. I thought that one of the main reasons why they didn't run the Green Line into LAX originally was that: 1) There were FAA issues with getting above ground trains any closer than they currently get to the property, and 2) the cost to go underground into the airport, like to the theme building like you suggest, was insanely expensive... A counter clockwise APM track like you suggested is a viable solution. People arriving at Century/Aviation or Lot C and departing would get to the terminals pretty quickly with a CCW system. Also, those going from the terminals to Century/Aviation go direct too. Only those going from the terminals to Lot C have a longer ride. But the short nature of the whole system probably makes that a don't care. Having every other APM circulate in the terminals is also a good idea, and keeps the cost down.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 29, 2011 16:26:56 GMT -8
I like the counter clockwise one way system. It is easy to use and cheaper and the distances are small enough where it can be used.
Even if the airport agrees to pay for part of the people mover, are they going to pick up all the maintenance and operating costs. I assume they are not going to charge a separate fee for the People Mover, but somebody is going to have to pay for this thing on a day to day basis. This is why I am guessing that LAWA will push for a direct connection. Pure guess on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 29, 2011 18:26:03 GMT -8
I was always under the impression that LAWA was more interested in the peoplemover than they were in the Green Line.
They included a peoplemover in a lot of their previous expansion plans, and unfortunately when an expansion plan got shelved, the peoplemover got shelved as well.
The peoplemover would also be more under the control of LAWA than Metro Rail would be. There was also a question of security (I don't believe it personally, BUT the question was raised) of a light rail line coming in from outside which wouldn't be under the control of LAWA/ FAA/ TSA. That was in addition to the whole "overhead wire interference" issue. Real or not, it was still an issue raised.
If anybody paid besides Metro and LAX, it would probably be the airlines, passed on to the passengers as ticket fees. Typically passengers don't pay for peoplemover rides, so that only seems fair...
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 30, 2011 11:33:47 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 30, 2011 15:18:25 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 9, 2012 11:43:09 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 10, 2012 15:05:55 GMT -8
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.... ]
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 10, 2012 18:17:55 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 13, 2012 12:10:43 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 13, 2012 14:30:40 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 13, 2012 15:06:17 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 28, 2012 14:51:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 28, 2012 14:56:17 GMT -8
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).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 28, 2012 16:30:54 GMT -8
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 28, 2012 18:54:21 GMT -8
^ I agree. Build APM first, and try and to include the Green Line extension to Lot C as part of a phased effort to Santa Monica.
Hopefully a "Measure R2" would include such an extension to Santa Monica; that way a LAX "stub" would be fully utilized as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 29, 2012 6:34:13 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 29, 2012 8:54:42 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 29, 2012 9:27:09 GMT -8
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.
|
|