Metrolink to LAX

[Dan Wentzel]

I often say that while L.A. is not "New York", it is in fact a lot more like London, but which is a big huge sprawl, but is well served by dozens of commuter/heavy/light rail lines and a comprehensive bus service.

London has several "Union Stations" (Paddington, Victoria, King's Cross, Liverpool St., etc.).

I once read an idea about having a rail station on the westside at LAX, where the Green, Crenshaw, and potentially Sepulveda and Lincoln lines all meet along with Metrolink.

The question I have is -- are there right-of-way tracks that Metrolink might be able to use to go from Union Station to LAX? Since we are discussing expanding Metrolink to Ontario Airport, I am wondering why not LAX? (Of course, it would be helpful if the Green Line went to Santa Fe Springs / Norwalk and an extension went from LAX up/over Sepulveda Pass up to Metrolink in the Valley.) Maybe it wouldn't be necessary.

I am curious if such a right of way exists for exploration.

[James Fujita]

whenever the subject of Metrolink to LAX comes up, the right-of-way that always comes up is the "Harbor Subdivision," which used to be the Santa Fe's main route to San Pedro until the Alameda Corridor was built.

the Harbor Sub isn't perfect. for one thing, the middle half- from Inglewood to the Green Line- is destined to become part of the Crenshaw light rail line. so, if you want Metrolink service of any kind on the Harbor Sub, you would need to make provisions to allow for the two services to share tracks, or possibly build an extra set of tracks. maybe use equipment other than Metrolink's double-decker cars that would be more compatible with the MTA's light rail vehicles.

but, it'll get you as close as you can reasonably expect to get to the airport (Century and Aviation boulevards) without building new underground or elevated tracks to the central terminal area.

[jejozwik]

this idea makes so much sense. it could provide a service comparable to hong kongs airport express. and also make way for a city check in style boarding experience

for those that dont know what i speak of, i direct you to wikipedia


basically you go to the equivalent of union station with all your baggage and buy your boarding pass at the station. you can drop off your luggage and roam the city until your flight.

at that time you just hop on the train and walk right into your terminal. your bags are already waiting at the airport and have already gone threw the screening processes.

[nicksantangelo]

Actually, the Flyaway to LAX checks in your baggage at either Union Station or Van Nuys. I have used the Flyaway many times, though I never checked baggage. The baggage check is only valid for travel in the continental US. If you are at all close to a rail station, I highly recommend it.

[jejozwik]

oh well, i only use lax for international. ontairo airport is the best for domestic! flew out 2 days before christmas. me and the wife were two of 3 people in line from ticket counter down through security.

[bluelineshawn]

I hadn't realized that the flyaway had started issuing boarding passes and checking baggage. That is a great service, especially if traveling around holiday periods. Living southeast of LAX means that the flyaway does me no good, but hopefully the people that can use it take advantage.

[nicksantangelo]

bluelineshawn said:

I hadn't realized that the flyaway had started issuing boarding passes and checking baggage. That is a great service, especially if traveling around holiday periods. Living southeast of LAX means that the flyaway does me no good, but hopefully the people that can use it take advantage.

It really is great for me cause I live near the Gold Line and, since the Flyaway starts up as early as 4am, I can just walk to my station, catch the train to Union to the Flyaway. Once on the bus, it takes about 20 minutes to get there as the bus uses the 110 and 105 bus lanes.
It was $3 each way last time I took it, but I think it went up a little. No big deal. Either way it sure beats driving.

[Dan Wentzel]

Mar 6, 2008 14:28:23 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

whenever the subject of Metrolink to LAX comes up, the right-of-way that always comes up is the "Harbor Subdivision," which used to be the Santa Fe's main route to San Pedro until the Alameda Corridor was built.

the Harbor Sub isn't perfect. for one thing, the middle half- from Inglewood to the Green Line- is destined to become part of the Crenshaw light rail line. so, if you want Metrolink service of any kind on the Harbor Sub, you would need to make provisions to allow for the two services to share tracks, or possibly build an extra set of tracks. maybe use equipment other than Metrolink's double-decker cars that would be more compatible with the MTA's light rail vehicles.

I'm curious. Did Metrolink planners (whoever they are) study this option and did the Metrolink decision makers (whoever they are) decide one way or the other?

I'm pretty clear about how Metro decisions are made and funded (or not funded). I'm not so clear about Metrolink.

Is it possible to have both the Crenshaw and Metrolink Lines run on the same tracks or are they incompatible?

[Transit Coalition]

May 29, 2008 11:16:04 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

Mar 6, 2008 14:28:23 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

whenever the subject of Metrolink to LAX comes up, the right-of-way that always comes up is the "Harbor Subdivision," which used to be the Santa Fe's main route to San Pedro until the Alameda Corridor was built.

the Harbor Sub isn't perfect. for one thing, the middle half- from Inglewood to the Green Line- is destined to become part of the Crenshaw light rail line. so, if you want Metrolink service of any kind on the Harbor Sub, you would need to make provisions to allow for the two services to share tracks, or possibly build an extra set of tracks. maybe use equipment other than Metrolink's double-decker cars that would be more compatible with the MTA's light rail vehicles.

I'm curious. Did Metrolink planners (whoever they are) study this option and did the Metrolink decision makers (whoever they are) decide one way or the other?

I'm pretty clear about how Metro decisions are made and funded (or not funded). I'm not so clear about Metrolink.

Is it possible to have both the Crenshaw and Metrolink Lines run on the same tracks or are they incompatible?

Based upon The Missing Link presentation on The Harbor Subdivision made by The Transit Coalition to the Mayor, right after he was elected, a planning request was passed by the Metro Board in June 2006 to study this possible corridor. The contract to do the Scoping was approved by the Metro Board in April 2008, so we should hear more later this year.

Legally, the Harbor Subdivision must be kept open for heavy rail / freight traffic. So, if the Crenshaw (Rose) Line is adopted, there will be light rail and heavy rail on the same corridor. TTC has a position that Metrolink should be extended from downtown LA Union Station via the Harbor Subdivision to LAX, Torrance and San Pedro. The big "if" is getting political support from the South Bay communities. A 30 minute ride from San Pedro via LAX to LA Union is possible. The upgrades would cost between $500 million and $1 billion depending upon the numbers of sidings, signaling system and grade separations that have to be made. It could be done within 3 to 5 years from date of funding, but incremental service could start much sooner, depending upon political will.

[Dan Wentzel]

Good to know! Thanks, Bart.

[James Fujita]

May 29, 2008 13:01:40 GMT -8 Transit Coalition said:

Based upon The Missing Link presentation on The Harbor Subdivision made by The Transit Coalition to the Mayor, right after he was elected, a planning request was passed by the Metro Board in June 2006 to study this possible corridor. The contract to do the Scoping was approved by the Metro Board in April 2008, so we should hear more later this year.

Legally, the Harbor Subdivision must be kept open for heavy rail / freight traffic. So, if the Crenshaw (Rose) Line is adopted, there will be light rail and heavy rail on the same corridor. TTC has a position that Metrolink should be extended from downtown LA Union Station via the Harbor Subdivision to LAX, Torrance and San Pedro. The big "if" is getting political support from the South Bay communities. A 30 minute ride from San Pedro via LAX to LA Union is possible.

it's frustrating, but that big IF never seems to get any smaller.

for all of the talk in the Daily Breeze of wanting to get the Green Line extended to LAX or of building coalitions to get better transit in the South Bay, Torrance (which would really, really benefit from a South Bay Metrolink line) never seems to get beyond the "talk" phase.

for example, there's a big city council election coming up, and so I decided to look at the "SmartVoter" guide online and the candidate statements in the Breeze (this is purely academic... I don't live in Torrance)... well, most of the candidates do a good job of at least acknowledging that traffic is a problem, but a lot of them diverge into small-town NIMBY answers: "overdevelopment is to blame, the answer is no new condos, and maybe synchronized traffic signals."

there are exceptions: if anybody on this board lives in Torrance, you might be interested in Charles Deemer, who told the Daily Breeze:

"as councilman I'll work to get the Metro Green Line extended above ground to a Torrance Transit terminal to be built on Madrona Avenue just south of Carson Street. Continuing that line to San Pedro would connect Torrance with the rest of Los Angeles County. This would improve business at the Del Amo mall and eliminate the freight trains rumbling through Old Torrance."

[bluelineshawn]

Crenshaw light rail cannot operate on the same tracks at the same time as Metrolink and/or freight trains. IIRC the plan in the (Booz Allen?) study was to have the freight trains run at night after the end of service. They could run Metrolink and light rail trains in the same corridor, just not on the same tracks. They also couldn't have any crossovers or junctions. The FRA doesn't allow heavy and light rail to run on the same track at the same time.

[Dan Wentzel]

So does the Crenshaw line effectively then preclude Metrolink service to LAX for all practical purposes?

[Transit Coalition]

May 29, 2008 18:14:13 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

So does the Crenshaw line effectively then preclude Metrolink service to LAX for all practical purposes?

Sorry I didn't make this clear enough. In discussions that have been held, the Harbor Subdivision would retain its single track. Any light rail project: Crenshaw (Rose) Line or Green Line would require two more tracks. If necessary, Metro would have to buy property for the three track capacity. Nothing is precluded. It's all about political will and proper funding.

[kenalpern]

Bart has said it very well--they would both have to occur, with a widened right of way to accommodate the increased rail traffic and to allow both forms of rail traffic.

[James Fujita]

May 29, 2008 17:39:11 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

They could run Metrolink and light rail trains in the same corridor, just not on the same tracks. They also couldn't have any crossovers or junctions. The FRA doesn't allow heavy and light rail to run on the same track at the same time.

I'm probably banging my head against a brick wall here, but the FRA seriously needs to update its regulations. I mean, this is the same FRA that decided that TGV-style trains weren't heavy enough to operate on American rails — thereby causing Acela to be a brick on rails. (the same regulations could be a problem if California moves forward with high speed rail). American DMU operations also suffer from the FRA's "heavy=safe" mentality.

I'm all for regulations when they provide some necessary safeguards. and all things considered, having a three-track or even a four-track segment of the Harbor Sub would actually be pretty nifty. but it still seems like there ought to be a way to at least allow light rail and commuter trains to cross tracks.

part of my problem is I've just got back from Tokyo, where I saw Tozai subway trains run on the same tracks as JR Chuo and Sobu trains in Mitaka — it's a common practice over there.

of course, it's an imperfect analogy because our existing Metrolink equipment has to conform to FRA standards, and Metrolink and Metro Rail trains are highly incompatible. but the point is, there's no magic reason why they have to be incompatible.

[bluelineshawn]

Should the HSR ever be built hopefully the FRA will allow lighter vehicles. I haven't heard, but they obviously noticed how problematic Acela was because of the weight. Maybe some sort of compromise would be in order.

[James Fujita]

Jun 15, 2008 9:26:36 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Should the HSR ever be built hopefully the FRA will allow lighter vehicles. I haven't heard, but they obviously noticed how problematic Acela was because of the weight. Maybe some sort of compromise would be in order.

I would certainly hope that they would allow lighter vehicles, even if the HSR doesn't get built, because the current rules are very archaic; we've all seen how car manufacturers have increased safety without increasing the weight of their vehicles!

seriously, HSR has very strong potential to completely redo the way we think about commuter rail and perhaps even the Metro in Los Angeles. I'm thinking at the very least there's potential for HSR lines to LAX and Palmdale airports, maybe to Ontario airport as well. assuming that HSR uses existing ROWs and uses Union Station as their hub in Southern California, there'll be pressure on Metrolink to electrify their equipment (perhaps using a rail vehicle that is somewhat larger than what MTA currently operates, but smaller than the double-decked Metrolink trains, and probably not on all lines, but perhaps on some)

of course, this is all speculative; we still need voters to approve a statewide bond measure for the HSR and more than likely a local tax measure for commuter rail.