|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 9, 2009 15:45:19 GMT -8
From today's Daily Breeze newspaper. www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_12789255LA council orders LAX to study Green Line extension By Art Marroquin Staff Writer Posted: 07/08/2009 07:15:42 PM PDT The Metro Green Line might finally wind its way down to the terminals at Los Angeles International Airport, thanks to the recent purchase of an adjacent 20-acre parking lot that's ripe for use. The Los Angeles City Council's Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee on Wednesday directed airport officials to spend the next six months studying whether it's possible to bring the light rail line directly to LAX by building a stop on the site of the Park 'N Ride at Park One lot, located just east of Terminal One. The Board of Airport Commissioners agreed last month to buy the parking lot for $126.5 million. The full City Council is expected to sign off on the expenditure by Friday. "It's a no-brainer that every major airport has a rail line going into it," said Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes LAX. The Green Line's estimated $200 million, two-mile extension would likely be funded by Measure R. Los Angeles County voters approved the half-cent county sales tax measure, which went into effect last week and is expected to generate $40 billion for local transportation projects over the next 30 years. As part of their research, airport officials will dust off and update a report completed more than a decade ago, examining whether to bring the Green Line to LAX. "We really want this to be the premier study to say yes, this is feasible and here's how it's going to happen," said Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who chairs the council committee that oversees LAX. "If we don't make it accessible, people won't use it," Hahn said. "It's time to right that wrong for the public." The Green Line, running 20 miles from Norwalk to Redondo Beach, opened in 1995 at a cost of $700 million. For now, the Green Line's stop at Aviation Boulevard drops passengers two miles away from LAX, forcing travelers to board a bus to complete a trip to the airport. The rail line's missing link should connect "deep into the heart of the airport," Councilman Tom LaBonge said. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's current plan calls for extending the Green Line to nearby Manchester Square, allowing travelers to board a proposed people mover to gain access to airport terminals. The MTA had initially called for extending the Green Line to LAX by 2015, but officials announced last year that the project won't likely be completed until 2018 at the earliest. But MTA officials on Wednesday said they would welcome input from airport and city officials who want to use the airport-adjacent parking lot as a new Green Line stop. "We're working with the airport in creating a better link to the terminals, but this is a new proposal to us," said Roderick Diaz of the MTA's South Bay planning department. "We'd have to examine various possibilities to bring the line to the terminals," Diaz said. "But this is an interesting alternative to pursue." Airport Commission President Alan Rothenberg said the Park One property will continue to operate as a parking lot as officials study all potential uses, including a new consolidated car rental office. "You have a privately owned piece of property within the footprint of LAX and it's a shame we didn't acquire it the last time it was on the market," Rothenberg said. "It's clear that it should be part of LAX." art.marroquin@dailybreeze.com |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 9, 2009 16:02:48 GMT -8
It should of always gone right to the terminals. The other idea sounded like they had a map on a dart board and they chose the location the dart landed on.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 9, 2009 19:47:38 GMT -8
It should be like Chicago does it.. I couldn't believe how easy it was to access the train the first time I flew into O'Hare!
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 9, 2009 21:14:06 GMT -8
Believe it or not, this is not really that new an idea, and accessing Terminal One doesn't help those accessing the other terminals too much; still, if it could be connected to a People Mover, then it would be nice. How it fits in with the Crenshaw Project I don't know, however...
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 10, 2009 6:20:49 GMT -8
It should of always gone right to the terminals. The other idea sounded like they had a map on a dart board and they chose the location the dart landed on. The Green Line is NOT going to the terminals. It is going to what is known as the Rent-A-Car (RAC) Lot, which is near the lot that LAX purchased. The concept here is that the Green Line is Regional Urban Rail that ultimately will continue to Marina del Rey and Santa Monica. At the RAC Lot, those going to LAX can transfer to an automated people mover that will serve the terminals, the various LAX parking lots, the Rent-A-Car users, the Hotel users, employee lots and all inter-airport travel. A good example would be the Air Train at JFK. In a complicated situation like LAX, you don't make Regional Urban Rail a stub end system, when it can serve LAX from multiple directions. If you need to understand better, think Freeway, Local Street, Parking Structure, Elevator. The Freeway doesn't end right outside your office door in the High Rise. And that is why you have two different rail systems at the Airport to serve different markets with a variety of needs. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 10, 2009 14:53:39 GMT -8
The old plan was to build a transfer station on Aviation connecting the Green Line, the Crenshaw Line and the People Mover. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
So does this new plan (station closer to LAX) supplement the old plan or replace it? And if it replaces the old plan, what will happen to the Crenshaw Line? Will it meander westward to the LAX station? Would it have no direct connection to the People Mover?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 10, 2009 16:07:14 GMT -8
Heck of a good question, metrocenter, but Bart is EXACTLY right. The Green Line is supposed to go BY LAX with a People Mover or some other transfer for operational reasons.
There is, I suppose, the option of creating a Green Line that has a Century/Aviation station (with potential transfers to the Crenshaw Line and Harbor Subdivision Line), and that actually goes to every LAX terminal...but while that's great for LAX commuters and workers from the south and east it forces an extra terminal for those from Downtown, the Valley and the Westside.
Bart and I have been dealing with this for years, and I recommend you all realize that the Green Line is regional, and the People Mover is for airport operations only. Furthermore, the transfer point offers a good remote check-in and/or security barrier.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 12, 2009 6:29:09 GMT -8
I realize that they are not considering having the Green Line go *into* LAX.
My question was whether or not this station at Park One supplements the Century/Aviation station or replaces it. As a new question, how would that station connect to the existing line: via Century and Aviation, or via some other route (e.g., Sepulveda, 96th Street, etc.)? And third, how does the Crenshaw Line fit in?
I realize not all the answers are available yet, since this deal just happened. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 12, 2009 21:28:11 GMT -8
Actually, metrocenter, you are right on the money, and your idea is one (Bart and I have observed this in the Metro Green Line Interagency Task Force) that 's already being explored and favored by planners.
Imagine the Green Line going to Century/Aviation, turning west, having a station perhaps at the Rental Car Facility or Park One (as far as I'm concerned, the exact location is a moot point so long as the line provides some benefit to the Century Blvd. Corridor and connects to LAX). Imagine the line then moving north somehow to Parking Lot C at Sepulveda and Lincoln (southeast corner).
This opens up a whole host of possibilities, not the least of which is having the two lines (Green and Crenshaw) intersecting for transfers at Century/Aviation. The Harbor Subdivision will also go to Century/Aviation.
Now, will the Crenshaw Line proceed east from Century/Aviation along Century to roughly Prairie/Hawthorne, then turn northwards to the Crenshaw Blvd corridor, or will it stay on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Century/Aviation to Crenshaw Blvd.?
Either way, we've now got the potential to enhance both the Century and Crenshaw Corridors as well as provide an easier ability for the Harbor Subdivision ROW to be used solely for Metrolink and/or Metrolink-compatible DMU's (the latter of which I'm NOT in favor of, but I understand they have a potential to supplement our light rail and Metrolink fleets for commuter service).
The possibilities all need to be explored, but a comprehensive Green/Crenshaw/Harbor Subdivision ROW plan probably needs to be created as a single project, rather than a single portion of that project precluding and adversely affecting the planning, design and construction of the other two projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 13, 2009 12:08:29 GMT -8
An integrated system approach, rather than bits and pieces constructed without coordination? We can only hope. This is one case where having an iron-fisted dictator might work better than our present hodge-podge of political entities, interested parties and a public which for too many years was quite happy chugging around in their own automobiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 13, 2009 13:21:04 GMT -8
My understanding is that the Green Line never integrated with LAX because during the mid 90's when the Green Line was being constructed LAX was planning to soon undergo a modernization and expansion. The desire was to construct and integrate the two projects simultaneously.
The plan called for among other things, the construction of a new terminal on the western end of LAX in which the Green Line would physically enter the new building. This terminal would also have a people mover that would then connect to the other terminals. This was my personal favorite but residents of nearby El Segundo and Westchester bitterly opposed the expansion of LAX and flight incresases. There were lawsuits. Things dragged on. Different mayors came into office with new less extensive plans and new studies to be conducted. I beleive there have been three or four different plans for the modernization and integration of LAX since the Green Line was completed (I'm sure others who post here know exactly.) but as you know only minor improvements to LAX have actually managed to occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 13, 2009 13:42:05 GMT -8
There are a lot of reasons, but ultimately it was a tug-of-war between the LAWA and the FAA on one side, and Metro on the other. Lots of blame to go around. The current political leadership is more into cooperation (especially because if Metro pays for a Green Line that goes closer to LAX, the smaller and cheaper People Mover is easier for LAWA to pay for).
Either way, the political trend appears to be moving towards cooperation...even if a few officials from LAWA still don't get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2009 6:42:57 GMT -8
I will answer my own question: the proposed station at Park One would probably serve the Green Line and the People Mover only.
The Century/Aviation station would still be the primary transfer point connecting the Green Line, the People Mover, the Crenshaw-Redondo Line, and the Harbor Sub Line. This way, everybody is exactly one transfer away from their terminal. Plus, it removes the need for any modifications at Imperial/Aviation, since all transfers can be done at the nearby Century/Aviation station.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 23, 2009 10:08:25 GMT -8
I will answer my own question: the proposed station at Park One would probably serve the Green Line and the People Mover only. The Century/Aviation station would still be the primary transfer point connecting the Green Line, the People Mover, the Crenshaw-Redondo Line, and the Harbor Sub Line. This way, everybody is exactly one transfer away from their terminal. Plus, it removes the need for any modifications at Imperial/Aviation, since all transfers can be done at the nearby Century/Aviation station. Excuse my ignorance on the Green Line, but my question is if a Century/Aviation station is added to the Green Line will this be incorporated into the existing line or will they have to create a stub line at Imperial/Aviation so half the trains go to the South Bay and half go to Century/Aviation? I assume and hope it is the former, but wanted to make sure. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2009 13:02:33 GMT -8
I think we would have:
* Westbound Green Line from Norwalk passes through Imperial/Aviation, Century/Aviation, the "Park One" station, and then northwest along Lincoln.
* Southbound Crenshaw Line from Expo passes along the Harbor Subdivision through Century/Aviation, then on to Mariposa, El Segundo, etc. to Redondo Beach.
* Westbound LAX train starts at Century/Aviation, then has stations at the Rental Car Facility and the "Park One" station. Then it makes a loop through the terminals before returning.
The Crenshaw Line may or may not stop at Imperial/Aviation, depending on cost and benefit. It won't need to in terms of rail transfers. However, many buses transfer at Imperial/Aviation. (I wonder if there would be room at Century/Aviation for a bus terminal.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 23, 2009 13:59:54 GMT -8
How does the Harbor Subdivision line play into this?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 23, 2009 17:01:53 GMT -8
That is indeed a good question, because both light rail and Metrolink/DMU trains might utilize that ROW.
I envision an "X" around Century/Aviation and Aviation/Imperial. A South Bay Green Line stub line might occur at first because most Green Line trains will access LAX should that be built first before the Crenshaw Line. Ultimately, the Crenshaw Line when finished will connect Expo (or maybe even the Purple Line) to the South Bay.
Both the Green and Crenshaw Lines will likely utilize the same lines/rails between Century/Aviation and Aviation/Imperial.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 18, 2009 5:11:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2009 22:06:01 GMT -8
 From today's L.A. Times Letters to the Editor: A rail-line solution is coming Re "Another Metro line that ends a mile short of the airport!" Cartoon, Dec. 17 Though I enjoy Ted Rall's cartoons, he got it wrong when he criticized the Expo Line's lack of proximity to Los Angeles International Airport. The Expo Line goes nowhere near LAX because it parallels the 10 Freeway corridor. However, the Green Line and the planned Crenshaw Line will both go to the Aviation Station, where a future LAX People Mover train will connect to Century Boulevard and other airport-related destinations as well as the individual LAX terminals. This indirect LAX connection at Aviation was chosen to avoid the need for all Metro lines passing by LAX to stop at all of the airport's terminals -- not every commuter wants to go to LAX -- and because legal and security issues make it difficult (if not impossible) to have trains connect directly to each individual LAX terminal. Ken Alpern Los Angeles The writer is co-chairman of the Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2009 22:11:12 GMT -8
In particular, I was alarmed that a cartoon showing a family schlepping their luggage from a train with the sign "Expo Line" was right in the middle of the L.A. Times by a cartoonist who usually knows what he's writing/cartooning about. The ignorance of the general public as to what these lines are, where they go, and why they don't go into the airport at LAX, is something we must all be aware of with both understanding and the need to make sure the Crenshaw Line isn't perceived as another near-miss to LAX. The time to start exploring a combined (or separate, if need be, although I'd rather they be in unison) Major Investment Study for a LAX People Mover and a Green Line to Parking Lot C needs to be done sooner, not later. The Crenshaw Line is on its way to being a reality, and the years to follow its completion needs these two vital projects to be constructed as well. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a full Green/Crenshaw/LAX People Mover rail network to serve commuters going to and by LAX to be built by 2020, if not earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Feb 20, 2010 19:57:33 GMT -8
At least they are being considered all together. Even the Harbor Subdivision Line is being considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 13:10:26 GMT -8
By the way: it looks like for now, the oft-dreamed-of Harbor Subdivision Line (DMU or Metrolink) is dead. Metro is planning to use that route for the Crenshaw Line. And Metro has ruled out use of Harbor Sub east of Crenshaw as not cost-effective.
Sorry to be negative, but in my assessment, this line is just not likely in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 13:12:00 GMT -8
I think we would have: * Westbound Green Line from Norwalk passes through Imperial/Aviation, Century/Aviation, the "Park One" station, and then northwest along Lincoln. * Southbound Crenshaw Line from Expo passes along the Harbor Subdivision through Century/Aviation, then on to Mariposa, El Segundo, etc. to Redondo Beach. * Westbound LAX train starts at Century/Aviation, then has stations at the Rental Car Facility and the "Park One" station. Then it makes a loop through the terminals before returning. The Crenshaw Line may or may not stop at Imperial/Aviation, depending on cost and benefit. It won't need to in terms of rail transfers. However, many buses transfer at Imperial/Aviation. (I wonder if there would be room at Century/Aviation for a bus terminal.) Now that Metro has adopted my plan (ha ha), I have been searching (in vain) for current information on plans for the LAX people mover. Unfortunately, LAWA doesn't have hardly anything current on their website. - Does anybody know of a concrete timeline for this people mover?
- Is the Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) now going to be located at Aviation/Century, instead of Aviation/Imperial?
- If the ITC is now located at Aviation/Century:
- Is LAWA still planning to build the eastern segment of the people mover, which heads south along Aviation and ends at Aviation/Imperial?
- What is the status of the Ground Transportation Center (GTC)? This was originally planned for the "Manchester Square" site (northwest of Aviation/Century). But if the ITC is moving up to that area, will they also locate the GTC there as well?
- Will LAWA or Metro be using the old "Nudes Nudes Nudes" site for the ITC?
Metro's documentation (specifically, it's DEIR for the Crenshaw Corridor) brings up a lot of these questions. The DEIR only talks about a people mover connection at Aviation/Century, and doesn't mention any connection at Aviation/Imperial. Also, the DEIR refers to Aviation/Century (not Aviation/Imperial) as the Intermodal Transportation Center. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 26, 2010 13:32:35 GMT -8
By the way: it looks like for now, the oft-dreamed-of Harbor Subdivision Line (DMU or Metrolink) is dead. Metro is planning to use that route for the Crenshaw Line. And Metro has ruled out use of Harbor Sub east of Crenshaw as not cost-effective. Sorry to be negative, but in my assessment, this line is just not likely in the near future. Joel C., where is your reference for this? As far as I know, the Harbor Subdivision is still in the works: www.metro.net/projects/south-bay/reports-harbor-subdivision/Of course, so far there is only funding for the South Bay extension through Measure R, and because of that it's the only segment that could be built for now, but don't we all know that? www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/images/study_map.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 14:11:00 GMT -8
By the way: it looks like for now, the oft-dreamed-of Harbor Subdivision Line (DMU or Metrolink) is dead. Metro is planning to use that route for the Crenshaw Line. And Metro has ruled out use of Harbor Sub east of Crenshaw as not cost-effective. Sorry to be negative, but in my assessment, this line is just not likely in the near future. Joel C., where is your reference for this? As far as I know, the Harbor Subdivision is still in the works: www.metro.net/projects/south-bay/reports-harbor-subdivision/The Harbor Sub study (summary here) concludes that the "Regional Alternative" (commuter rail from LAUS to Vermont/I-110) is a Priority II project with high value, but not as high as the South Bay Extension. Metro used this conclusion to recommend proceeding with the DEIR for the South Bay LRT Extension. Metro's Planning and Programming Committee (action item here) recommended: Priorities II and III, respectively, could be considered when additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects (such as the California High Speed Train and the Caltrans "Run Through Tracks") are put in place. While anything can happen, I would guess this won't be built in the next 10 years. Of course, so far there is only funding for the South Bay extension through Measure R, and because of that it's the only segment that could be built for now, but don't we all know that? I'm bringing it up here because this thread is about the LAX-Green Line interface, and how this interface will be constructed will depend on whether or not the Harbor Sub Line is built. I think (my assessment) that it is highly unlikely that that the Harbor Sub Line will be built in the next 10 years or so, prior to completion of the Crenshaw Corridor and people mover. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 26, 2010 14:35:04 GMT -8
The Harbor Sub study (summary here) concludes that the "Regional Alternative" (LAUS to Vermont/I-110) is a Priority II project with high value, but not as high as the South Bay Extension. Metro used this conclusion to recommend proceeding with the South Bay Extension DEIR. Metro's Planning and Programming Committee (action item here) recommended: Priorities II and III, respectively, could be considered when additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects (such as the California High Speed Train and the Caltrans "Run Through Tracks") are put in place. While anything can happen, I would guess (no reference, ha ha) this won't be built in the next 10 years. Of course, so far there is only funding for the South Bay extension through Measure R, and because of that it's the only segment that could be built for now, but don't we all know that? I'm bringing it up here because this thread is about the LAX-Green Line interface, and how this interface will be constructed will depend on whether or not the Harbor Sub Line is built. I think (my assessment) that it is highly unlikely that that the Harbor Sub Line will be built in the next 10 years or so, prior to completion of the Crenshaw Corridor and people mover. Well, yes, according to federal and state guidelines, no project can enter the environmental phase (DEIR/S) before funding is allocated. That's the reason why the Harbor Subdivision study stopped at the end of the alternatives-analysis phase, not because Metro declined to go further with the project due to low cost-effectiveness etc. On the contrary the South Bay segment of the Harbor Subdivision could enter DEIR/S without violating the law because it's funded by Measure R. I think eventually we will see double-track LRT using new tracks and single-track Metrolink using relocated freight tracks on the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way. Also note that studying the Harbor Subdivision as a whole was a great new way of building new lines for Metro, as opposed to their traditional way of studying only the line segment they are building (in this case the South Bay Green Line extension). For example when they start the study for the 405 line in the future, they should also study lines along Santa Monica Blvd, Culver Blvd, and Venice Blvd. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 26, 2010 15:57:24 GMT -8
By the way: it looks like for now, the oft-dreamed-of Harbor Subdivision Line (DMU or Metrolink) is dead. Metro is planning to use that route for the Crenshaw Line. Sorry to be negative, but in my assessment, this line is just not likely in the near future. Yes and No that the line is not likely in the near future and that is based upon funding. Per the above correct assement that Gokhan has made thus far on this. There is another component and how that relates to the Crenshaw/LAX corridor remember the high costs for of the underground section at the south runway is due to needing to purchase land to widen the right of way to accomodate both light rail AND one and or two tracks of freight compliant rail. Notice the Red and Green boxes showing the extra right of way Metro would need to purchase to maintain the width in that area. if you'd like the larger version of this image feel free and send me a Private message.  In other words Metrolink/Commuter rail is not out of the question in the long run, however if thise project were a Busway it would have been. Our advocacy to tie these components together is a key reason why it won't be out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 20:28:30 GMT -8
Thanks for that info, I was able to look at that close up in the engineering drawings. It's very good to know they will be widening the ROW, despite the high price. I suppose they have to, to keep the freight traffic running, but yes, it will ensure the ROW will be available for commuter rail in the future. |
|
