In short, the desire to expand the Green Line to all 3 locations (Westside, South Bay and Norwalk) is greatest at LAX, and would enhance its operations (both the Green Line and LA World Airports). Furthermore, it was determined after years of looking at this topic that a LAX expansion would be the most likely way to get the other extensions as well.
The shuttles you describe are inefficient and with poor service, so the connection really isn't there...and if you take a good look at the future Crenshaw project, the Green Line/LAX connection both connects the current Green Line to the Westside and the Mid-City.
Sadly, the Norwalk extension remains a project with considerable local resistance and apathy and is steeped in political obstacles that could best be solved with a cooperative project between the MTA, OCTA and RTA that recognizes that a Norwalk extension would benefit all three counties. Right now, the "hole" at Norwalk needs more attention that only a LAX/Green Line connection can resolve.
I would love for the green line to extend to the norwalk metrolink station. when you say local resistance. Just curious how would it affect them wouldnt this extension be built underground? so they wouldnt want digging underneath their homes? wouldnt the extension run underneath imperial highway? thanks
Last Edit: Sept 12, 2007 11:30:14 GMT -8 by hooligan
Post by kenalpern on Sept 12, 2007 14:14:28 GMT -8
Something like that...but since this is very, very low on the totem pole of Metro planning, and since other major projects like redoing or expanding the 710 and 5 freeways rank much higher in that region, this project gets short shrift.
It's probably considered a pipe-dream by most politicians.
I was in St. Louis on Sunday, and rode their Metrolink Light Rail. It stops at one airport terminal and ends at the other. I noticed several people with roll-on luggage, and even a flight officer using the rail service. The line also serves Busch Stadium, where the Cardinals were playing the Cubs (big rivalry in these parts), and I was glad I wasn't wearing my LA Dodgers cap. Many fans park near the casino on the Illinois side and cross the river on Metrolink to avoid traffic jams and high parking fees. Makes LA look rather backward.
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 17, 2007 22:49:21 GMT -8
That's one of the advantages of having a Baseball stadium on flat land... on having most of the city built on flat land. I never realized how challenging our topography is compared to any other place except San Francisco. Our way of travel has been built around steep hills and canyons. We have so many pockets where transit just doesn't go.
Hi everyone, the gap between the Norwalk station terminus and the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station needs to be closed by extending the Green Line to the Metrolink station! We need to ensure that all Metro lines connect with Metrolink stations to encourage additional ridership. I am sure that the inconvenience of taking a bus from the Metrolink station to the Green Line Metro station is turning off a lot of potential riders. I don't know if this proposal is on the table, however, MTA should seriously consider making this happen. With the new technology that is available, especially with tunneling, this should be a no-brainer!
There are plans for this in the Long Range plan by the MTA, yet there is no funding for it. It is crazy that the green line does not end there, but fixing it will be very expensive and is not very high on the funding list.
Furthermore, when once this was explored, opposition was paramount and, although a subway under Imperial Highway was agreed to, local support remains scattered and few. Local political leaders in the Southeast Cities COG just don't prioritize this project.
Should the Green Line connect to the airport, however, we might see a resurgence of interest in pursuing this vital connection.
I just sent this out to a bunch of Westside and South Bay transportation supporters:
Please link to www.OurLAX.org, and then click on the orange bar labelled LAX Specific Plan Amendment Study , then click on Notice of Preparation , then click on NOP and Initial Study.
Yes the download is large, but it's a very important document. There are many critical issues, such as the proposed changes to the North LAX Airfield, LAX-adjacent Manchester Square and the northern central airline terminals, that are addressed. There is also the issue of how to route a proposed extension of the Green Line to LAX (specifically, LAX Parking Lot C at Lincoln/Sepulveda) that can be visualized on page 23-26. More details of this routing, which is very preliminary and was the result of months of meetings and studies of the Green Line Interagency Task Force, will be forthcoming.
In short, it routes the Green Line north from Aviation/Imperial to Century/Aviation, proceeds west on Century to Airport, proceeds north on Airport to 96th Street, and finally proceeds west to Lot C at Lincoln/Sepulveda. This Green Line would work in tandem with a LAX People Mover and connect to a Consolidated Rental Car Facility and a transportation center at Century/Aviation.
I encourage you all to attend one of the meetings below and/or weigh in privately on this and any other issues surrounding LAX and/or LAX-adjacent rail, reconstruction or operational issues.
Ken Alpern Co-Chair, Friends of the Green Line Co-Chair, CD11 Empowerment Congress Transportation Committee
-----Original Message----- From: MARTINEZ-SIDHOM, BRENDA <BSIDHOM@lawa.org> To: LAX Master Plan Stakeholder Liaison <email@example.com> Sent: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 2:49 pm Subject: Availability of Notice of Preparation of A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles World Airports
Meeting Dates: Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 6:00 to 9:00 PM (Presentation at 6:15 PM and 7:30 PM)
Saturday, May 10, 2008, 9:00 AM to Non (Presentation at 9:15 AM and 10:30 AM)
Meeting Location: The Proud Bird Restaurant 11022 Aviation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90045
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 23, 2008 21:11:34 GMT -8
Hmmmm. It seems they still want to build one leg of the people mover down to a proposed transportation center adjacent to the existing Aviation Green Line station. How would such a leg be purposeful if the Green Line, Crenshaw Line, and Harbor Subdivision service all will stop at Century/Aviation?
A vital question, Justin, because on first glance it appears there's a redundancy of the Green Line and People Mover. If LAX-related traffic from the South Bay, southeast L.A. county, and Riverside/Orange Counties want to drop off or park at Aviation/Imperial (and they'd use the People Mover, not the Green Line to the People Mover ideally, right?), should all that traffic be forced to go up to Century/Aviation when Aviation/Imperial is freeway-adjacent?
It's as unworkable an idea as to force all LAX-related traffic from the north to go past LAX, go to Aviation/Imperial, and then circle back via a rail line (People Mover or Green Line) should there be no transportation center at Century/Aviation.
Furthermore, two transportation centers at Aviation/Imperial and Century/Aviation, in addition to best accessing the LAX-related traffic from the south and north, allows for operational redundancy should either engineering or security issues temporarily shut one center down.
Post by James Fujita on Mar 24, 2008 9:56:14 GMT -8
heh. it's a good thing that Ken e-mailed me about the new LAX proposals yesterday, because today the Web site seems to be down.
still, these are exciting proposals for any rail transit fan. first of all, the Green Line extension has not been forgotten and it looks like they've found a way to get the light rail line pretty darn close to the airport. if I'm reading these maps right, one of the new station stops would be in front of the LAX Hilton, which holds the distinction of attracting a lot of anime, sci-fi and comic book mini-conventions ^_^ (and other crowded events, I'm sure)
secondly, there's that vitally-important people mover system. LAX has always had inadequate ground transportation and a people mover would be a vast improvement. I do agree that that segment between Century and Imperial will be hard to sell, because at a glance it does look redundant. but, I think Ken has a point about the need for redundancy.
I had a discussion with Ken about the technology to be used on this people mover. traditionally, a lot of airport people mover systems tend to use their own technology. there are valid reasons for this- the smaller size allows for tighter curves and sometimes with the limited space available at airports, it is handy to have a small vehicle that can squeeze into the terminal. however, that might not necessarily be the case at LAX. it looks like LAX might want a more long-distance operation, perhaps more like JFK's AirTrain. if that's the case, then standard LRV technology could be used. of course, LAX probably wouldn't want to use the same trains as they use on the Green Line; maybe a custom configuration designed more for airline passengers and their luggage. but as Ken pointed out, using LRV would allow for cheaper maintenance.
Here is a link to an article in the Argonaut about the Green Line expansion to the airport and competition between the Crenshaw and Green Line. Then there is the whole issue of the line going directly to the terminals or a people mover system like the various Air Trains out there. Please, please, please, having the Crenshaw and Green Line extension share the same tracks which could eventually be used by a Sepulveda and even Lincoln LRT. Personally, I'm fine with an Air Train approach, provided it's actually built.
Considering how both the Green and Crenshaw Lines will share the stations at Century/Aviation and Aviation/Imperial, and the trackage between them, this Green vs. Crenshaw thing that Metro officials keep raising has GOT to be about the silliest argument I could ever imagine.
Frankly, this'll be funded in ways that could never occur if it were a Metro project alone...so when this gets done, and we've saved a lot of $$$ on the Crenshaw project by doing this first, key leg first, we'll be able to offer a big "You're Welcome" not only to those supporting the Crenshaw Line but to the rest of the county that will now see a vital connection occurring in our growing rail network.
While I don't know if I can entirely agree (or disagree) with Jenny Oropeza's tactics, her statements overall do suggest that she is absolutely for this sales tax, but there is a concern (which I share to some degree) that too much of the sales tax will go to one project only, and the exclusion of the others.
I'll be happy to say that I voted against the previous county initiative that halted county funding of subway projects, but I'll also be happy to go on the record to say that this project should go no further than Century City in the immediate future unless we have other projects that are moving forward (both freeway, road, bus and rail).
State Senator Oropeza made it pretty clear she wants to support this bill, and an emphasis on getting the Green Line to LAX will probably get more than a few Westside and South Bay voters on board. The final vote was in, by the way, and both she and State Sen. Cedillo did vote for it in the end.
Perhaps a lot of this is political posturing, but at least the rail portion of this sales tax should be spent first on the three projects at hand:
1) Expo (of course) 2) Foothill Gold 3) Green Line to LAX, which to a large degree is the first part of the Crenshaw project
Is some of this all political posturing after the perceived slight to the Gold Line Construction Authority and the prevented Green Line Construction Authority? Probably--but I am hoping that it will actually enhance the "cred" of those in the South Bay, Westside and SGV who have previously derided Metro but who might now promote the sales tax initiative in its current form.
To some, this will fall on deaf ears. To others, they'll just say, "Riiiiiiiiiight..." in the same way people once referred to the Expo Line, and as they often still do with respect to the Foothill Gold Line, the Downtown Light Rail Connector, the Crenshaw Corridor Project, the Wilshire Subway Project and even the Green Line to LAX.
I maintain, however, that this is as much of an issue about taxpayer rights as it is about transportation. While it is my belief that the Green Line to the South Bay should go NO FARTHER than the South Bay Galleria any time soon (no money, lots of questions and tons of different opinions without consensus), it has always been the consensus that this line to the South Bay should at least make it to the South Bay transit hub adjacent to the Galleria.
Just as LAX needs to be connected from the southern Green Line, there are multiple ways it could be connected to the northern Expo Line...thereby necessitating the Green Line connection in the short-term over the more nebulous Expo Line connection. Both the Green Line connection to LAX Parking Lot C and to the South Bay Galleria Mall/transit hub are each about $2-300 million; combined they are less than half the Expo Line.
South Bay and Westside voters/taxpayers who voted for Prop. R deserve to have the quick, easy "no-brainer" Green Line connections to LAX and the Galleria in less than 20 years. They deserve it as much as Westsiders who'll get the Expo and Wilshire Lines, and San Gabriel Valley voters who want the Foothill Gold Line extended to at least Azusa/Irwindale to mitigate 210 freeway traffic.
It's just that simple; I sincerely hope that South Bay planners don't overreach, but filling the "Green Line Gaps" to LAX and the Galleria are the best way to improve mass transit while also reassuring taxpayers/voters that their taxes won't benefit them directly.
Ken Alpern Co-Chair, Friends of the Green Line www.fogl.us
MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer Posted: 05/28/2009 06:33:50 PM PDT
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board approved $5 million on Thursday to continue studying a South Bay rail extension but cited concerns about the source of the funding.
South Bay leaders are lobbying the MTA in support of the Harbor Subdivision, an old freight rail corridor that could someday link Torrance to the county's passenger rail grid.
While the MTA board approved funding for further environmental studies of the corridor, the MTA's legal staff advised members that the money could not come from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax voters approved last fall.
The board voted to defer that issue to another meeting next month.
"Obviously every time you move forward, even if it's a baby step, it's a good thing," said John Parsons, board chairman of the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. "I see this as staying in play and moving forward."
If built, the South Bay rail line would extend southeast from the existing Green Line station in north Redondo Beach. It would include a stop at the South Bay Galleria and at Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance. It could also extend farther, and some officials hope it could eventually go to San Pedro or Long Beach.
However, under the schedule approved with Measure R, the line would not be completed until 2033-35.
The MTA has begun a very preliminary study of the rail corridor, which it bought in the early 1990s. That analysis is designed to gauge local support for the line and firm up the route. It is expected to conclude in November.
But in the initial budget for 2009-2010, the MTA staff did not include any funding for additional environmental studies beyond November.
Led by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, about 20 local elected officials attended Thursday's MTA meeting to lobby for the Harbor Subdivision.
At the meeting, the MTA board approved its $3.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year. Many officials from the San Gabriel Valley also attended to press for $10 million for the Gold Line Foothill Extension, which is proposed to run from Pasadena to Asuza. South Bay leaders are still learning how to exercise their clout on a regional basis.
"It was a valuable lesson for us," said Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay COG. "Everybody else is there making a lot of noise and we're going to have to do the same."
It should actually go south to Torrance where they're going to be building a new transit center right on the right of way, because the mall is unwilling to sell land. The transit center will be on Crenshaw Blvd, north of Torrance Blvd. and they hope the have that built in the next 5 years or so. I'd actually like to see it get to at least Wilson Park here in Torrance because it is a major destination and activity center for the community.
Based on time, available funds and consensus, I still believe that a focused and expeditious extension of the Green Line to the South Bay Galleria is the only major construction project that should be done in the South Bay...unless you consider the Green Line to LAX as well.
There will be gazillions of different opinions as to whether LRT, DMU and/or Metrolink should proceed along the Harbor Subdivision ROW. Whether the Galleria or Del Amo Shopping Malls are willing to cooperate immediately, there is just no money to get something bigger than a short-term hop to the Galleria.
Frankly, I've no idea (and neither does anyone reading this, bluntly and frankly) whether the South Bay reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally wants a Green Line or other rail extension beyond the Galleria to San Pedro via the ROW, down Hawthorne Blvd. to PCH, or a combination of both.
Some folks want nothing, some folks are in favor of one but not the other, and others want both or even other options. Hence my strong (very strong) desire to see the Green Line go to the South Bay Galleria, but no farther this decade.
Just as I favor the Green Line go to LAX Parking Lot C adjacent to Lincoln/Sepulveda, but no farther this decade--too many disagreements on whether to bring a line up either or both or neither boulevards.
There's plenty of opportunities to discuss, plan and debate--but when we have an imperative to spend some money now, we should grab the easiest, cheapest and least-controversial projects possible. No one questions whether Expo should go to the Sears building in S.M., no one questions the need for a Downtown Connector, and no one questions the desire of the SGV to have a Gold Line to at least a maintenance yard at Azusa/Irwindale.
It's time we grabbed the lowest hanging fruit and run with them while we have a partner in Washington.
It'd have to use the subdivision until it got to Wilmington where it ends, unless diverted to Del Amo Mall (unlikely due to planned transit center), the city of Torrance wants to keep Hawthorne for cars and they have projects to make the median prettier, last thing they want is to tear those up for a train.
Anyway I say it'd really need to go to Torrance's new transit center because both Redondo Beach and Torrance went out together to get funds for new transit centers specifically aimed at interfacing with the Green Line. So it'd be really odd to not have it work out that way eventually, for Torrance it'd be a big improvement in overall transit service as Gardena and the MTA have expressed willingness to interface with the new transit center in Torrance once it's built.
But yeah, I know the funds aren't there so until then... *shrug*
I think that your ideas are consistent with where the politicians and residents of the South Bay are moving, ieko, but if we can get the Green Line ASAP (within the next decade) to the Galleria, won't that encourage and expedite discussions and decisions towards getting it to the Torrance transit center?
Watch what the Eastside LRT does to galvanize the Eastside towards "what's next"? Same with the Expo Line when it makes it to Culver City, and both lines with respect to the Downtown Connector. Already the SFV and SGV are moving expeditiously and impatiently toward the extensions of the Orange and Gold Lines.
There are plenty of folks who talk about South Bay as just wishful thinking that'll neeeeeever happen during their lifetimes (so why bother talking, planning and spending?). If the lines gets to the Galleria, then and only then will the idea of taking it to the next logical step to Torrance become something that folks will take seriously.
Finding the Rail Line Bucks to Get LA to LAX in 2010 Moving LA By Ken Alpern
Yep, there’s a lot of bad news with respect to our City’s budgetary and operational nightmares—and this website is often where you’ll hear it first—but it’s only fair (and accurate) to talk about the good news when it occurs. This good news is that our Mayor, love him or hate him, is serious about getting a rail connection to LAX.
Deputy Mayor Diego Alvarez has left Mayor Villaraigosa's office to become regional transportation coordinator for Los Angeles World Airports, and Mr. Alvarez will be assigned to getting a rail line to LAX as well as getting the Foothill Gold Line to connect to Ontario Airport (both LAX and Ontario Airports are owned and operated by LA World Airports and the City of Los Angeles)--so clearly, the Mayor has this in mind as well.
And so does a host of City, county, state and federal electeds from the Westside and the San Gabriel Valley. Bill Rosendahl, Ted Lieu, Jenny Oropeza, Don Knabe, Jane Harman, Maxine Waters, David Dreier, Adam Schiff, Mike Antonovich and the good folks of South Bay, Eastside, San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino officials are also in that camp.
In fact, much of the animosity of the South Bay and San Gabriel Valley made for strange bedfellows when the previous battle lines over Measure R funding and federal funding of rail and freeway projects were drawn up before Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas stepped in and raised the bar to include all portions of the county.
Creating and/or enhancing commercial hubs or corridors on Wilshire Blvd., the San Gabriel Valley, Downtown and the LAX region need not be mutually exclusive, and creating multiple hubs takes the overdevelopment heat away from residents in any one given area.
But they need funding. They need EIR’s, and just as Metro funded EIR’s for the Crenshaw Corridor Project, Wilshire Subway, Harbor Subdivision Rail Corridor, Downtown Connector and Eastside Light Rail Extension, the need to find some $5 million to fund the EIR to link the Green Line to LAX is in order at a time when all immediate Measure R funds are tied up in the myriad of road, rail and freeway projects now under way throughout the County.
Manchester Square (at Century/Aviation, just to the east of LAX) might just be one of those future hot spots of commercial real estate and an economic sparkplug to the entire region, where the future Green Line and Crenshaw Line and LAX People Mover trains will all converge to provide one of the most job-creating transit-oriented developments in the nation. $5 million would be a small price to pay to ensure that LAX is a billion dollar income creator for the region like our ports are.
Green Line and Automated LAX People Mover would trains whisk hotel and job-bound commuters along the Century Blvd. Corridor to enhance economic development that rivals current and future venues of the Wilshire Blvd. Corridor and Downtown Los Angeles. Similarly, the Downtown Light Rail Connector, Downtown Streetcar Trolley Network and Wilshire Subway (with an accompanying Busway) are all ways to establish a vibrant City and County of Los Angeles for the 21st Century.
The Green Line to LAX is included in the planned projects funded by Measure R, but it’s in the timeline behind Expo, Crenshaw, Wilshire, Downtown Connector and Foothill Gold Line projects. It’s a relatively small project, but one that is a great addition to the Crenshaw Corridor Project, as that project now revs up, to ensure that Westside inclusion in an airport/rail network, with accompanying Century Corridor hotels and businesses creates the most jobs for the region.
Furthermore—and perhaps most critical about the timing of the Green Line to LAX project—is that it ensures that a comprehensive plan to link the Green Line to Century/Aviation and on to LAX Parking Lot C at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Sepulveda is included with all the other rail links at Century/Aviation (i.e., the Crenshaw Corridor and LAX People Mover lines).
If we build only the Crenshaw Corridor now, then the Green Line and LAX People Mover will have to work around any preexisting plan at Century/Aviation in the years to come. Imagine building your home from scratch…one room at a time instead of building all the bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, etc. in the usual comprehensive manner.
Enter the Green Line Interagency Task Force, to whom I will be forever grateful to Bill Rosendahl and the CD11 office for establishing shortly after Councilmember Rosendahl was elected. Among the list of maps/plans the task force (comprised of representatives and planners from LAWA, Metro, the FAA and LADOT) explored is the one below:
<<Alternative J Map--Green Line Interagency Task Force>>
What the final LAX reconstruction looks like after the economic downturn resolves is anyone’s guess, but the above map is as good a rough guess as any. Note how the map includes all three rail lines—three, count ‘em, three, to ensure that Westside, Downtown, and South Bay/Southeast L.A. County access to/from LAX is ensured via the key convergence at Century/Aviation.
With the passage of the Crenshaw Light Rail Line EIR in 2009, however, the time to revisit a plan for the LAX Automated People Mover, Green Line to Sepulveda/Lincoln and other on-hold features of LAX Reconfiguration is needed in 2010, and the time to fund any needed EIR’s is now…unless, of course, you want those LAX-connecting rail lines to be built by 2020, as Measure R anticipates, and not by 2015 or so.
How do we fund the $5 million or so to get that EIR under way now?
Well, it’s not shovel ready but federal funds (including as yet unspent stimulus money) can and should be considered. I don’t like pork barrel projects, but put this in front of the American taxpayer (who’s seeing airport/rail connections being built all over the world), and I suspect it’ll make some sense.
Other federal sources include airport and transportation-related federal, state and local departments. With the Crenshaw Corridor Project funding the FAA-mandated trench along the incoming flight paths east of the runways, the Green Line Extension to LAX Parking Lot C is rather small and virtually entirely on airport property, so the FAA can and should be considered as a source for funding (depending on the legality of the request, and under what circumstances it’s proposed).
This old Transit Coalition map illustrates the airport-related nexus to present to the FAA for consideration of federal assistance on this project:
<<Transit Coalition/Friends of the Green Line LAX/Green Line Map>>
Airport parking, taxi and even airlines fees can also be considered—yes, air flight costs are up, but $1-5 user fees per ride to specifically create the LAX People Mover and study the Green Line to LAX makes a lot of sense to commuters so long as the funding is transparent and closely supervised. The City Council and Mayor should take advantage of the fact that the City owns and operates LAX and can vote on such user fees.
Furthermore, Citywide parking fees and developer fees (like say, from Playa Vista) would do well to be appropriated to such worthy causes as airport/rail connections that truly have the ability to reduce car traffic to LAX.
This is $5 million (or less), not $5 billion, we’re talking about here. The future funding of the Green Line to LAX is included in Measure R funds, but we need to ask ourselves whether we’re too tied up in other rail projects to build the full airport connection NOW that the Crenshaw Corridor Project just won’t do. It’s within our grasp.
If Rosendahl, Villaraigosa and our other City leaders are willing to assign and empower Diego Alvarez to fund and plan this major project, then they will have a more pleasant, and uplifting endeavor to focus their attention on between budget cuts and union battles…and it’ll give the rest of a bit of hope for our City that the 21st Century will bring happier times for residents, commuters and the economy in the years ahead.