|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 19, 2010 18:59:12 GMT -8
Los Angeles World Airports is finally ready to get back to studying some of the more controversial projects for LAX, including the People Mover. (Since this will connect with the Crenshaw Corridor, I created the thread here.) As part of the scoping process, two public scoping meetings will be held at the Proud Bird Restaurant located at 11022 Aviation Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045 on: - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
- Saturday, November 6, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
All details are available online here.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 19, 2010 20:07:16 GMT -8
Finally. Until the Green Line reaches Century/Sepulveda, we need this badly.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 19, 2010 20:54:32 GMT -8
Assuming, of course, that the Green Line reaches Century/ Sepulveda.
I'm not entirely certain that the Green Line needs to reach Century/ Sepulveda. It might be more useful for trains from the South Bay to link up with trains from Crenshaw.
If the Green Line reached north on a route towards Westchester, Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey, Venice, etc., curving back around to Century/ Sepulveda would be somewhat out of the way. Century/ Sepulveda is a stub line.
Getting the Green Line into the LAX terminal loop, while a worthy goal, was never as important as getting a decent connection at LAX, which the people mover would provide.
The people in charge at LAWA have often been skittish about getting light rail near the airport, and the peoplemover would seem to be a reasonable compromise, as it would fit in with LAWA's current expansion plans.
In the future (not within 30/10's reach), we might yet see a rail line reach the entrance to the LAX terminal loop, but I don't know if that would necessarily be part of the Green Line. If there was room on the Harbor Sub for a high-speed rail link, perhaps...
=
I might add that the peoplemover itself is not controversial. It's moving the runways, adding gates, consolidating the rental lots, etc. (also badly needed projects) which have generated complaints (NIMBY perhaps, but still complaints).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 19, 2010 22:08:11 GMT -8
Having rode (ridden?) an airport people mover as recently as today (in San Francisco), I will say that for me, a people mover into the airport is just as good as, if not better than, a Metro Rail line entering the airport. A people mover is the proper scale for an airport, and can be designed to stop at all terminals. A metro line like the Green Line is more suited for long distance travel, not frequent stops.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 8:16:24 GMT -8
The revised Notice Of Preparation (NOP) is located here. This describes not just the people mover but all of the "yellow light" projects that LAWA wants to build at LAX. The NOP is a prerequisite to completing a DEIR. The original Master Plan included two Automated People Mover routes: - APM1: connect the terminals to the proposed "Intermodal Transportation Center" (ITC) at Aviation/Imperial.
- APM2: connect the terminals to Aviation/Century (Manchester Square) and serve the new Rental Car Facility and Ground Transportation Center (airport parking).
So the first thing to notice is, APM1 is no longer being considered by LAWA. The People Mover connection to Aviation/Imperial is unnecessary, because Metro is going to build a station at Aviation/Century, which is closer to the terminals than Aviation/Imperial. So what is left is the route connecting the terminals to Aviation/Century, which includes the Metro Rail station and whatever is going to be built at Manchester Square. By law, LAWA must consider the "No Build" option. In addition, LAWA will study three build options: - "Original APM2", people mover routed along south side of Century Blvd.
- "Dedicated Transit Route", some sort of transitway routed along 98th Street*.
- "Modified APM2", people mover routed along 98th Street.
*The "Dedicated Transit Route" would be either a bus lane or a fixed bus guideway, so far as I can tell from the document.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2010 8:54:18 GMT -8
From page 32, Ground Transportation Concept B: The A concept doesn't show the red line of the people mover circulating around the terminals. Hopefully we don't get into a situation where the people mover gets you close to terminal 1, then requires a transfer to a bus or some such nonsense. That would be another in a series of "lets get another step closer to the airport, without actually going to the airport"... Here is the A Concept:
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 9:44:04 GMT -8
I've noticed several mistakes in the document. I wonder if this was just someone being sloppy, or if it indicates that it is yet to be determined.
The original plan for the LAX renovation was to eliminate the roads and parking in the middle of the terminal area, and relocate the terminals closer to each other. In this plan, the people mover would not loop, but rather would go right down the middle of the terminal area, with each station serving two terminals -- one to its north and one to the south.
Now this terminal redesign is in jeopardy (due to NIMBY opposition), so the APM may have to loop. Whatever they decide on the terminals will determine how the APM gets routed through the terminal area.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2010 9:45:03 GMT -8
Ok, Having used the power of reading I see that the A concept is the dedicated surface road option, hence the red line shows only the entry to the terminal area and exit from the terminal area. The B concept is the one with the actual people mover, here is the description:
Modify APM2 to provide a direct connection between the CTA, Lot C, the potential Transportation Facility south of Lot C, and the potential ConRAC at Manchester Square. APM2, which was originally planned to follow Century Boulevard, would instead be constructed along 98th Street. The alignment of APM2 would be modified within the CTA to follow the existing roadway system. The western terminus would be located within Manchester Square, east of the intersection of 98th Street and Aviation Boulevard, across Aviation Boulevard from Metro's proposed future Crenshaw/Green Line station and regional bus center, thereby providing unimpeded access to the CTA for employees and passengers using the public transportation system.
I think they mean the Eastern terminus would be in Manchester Square. The blue building is the ConRAC (consolidated rental car facility), with a surface lot taking up much of Manchester Square to hold the rental cars. Right across from the Century/Aviation Metro station. So far so good. The "Transportation Facility" looks to be another drop off point for buses, and has a people mover station. This station would service Lot C also, which would be for public and employee parking. Presumably, the CTA would have several people mover stations, though that doesn't show up in the picture.
Initial thoughts are that they have the rental car interface from the CTA to the ConRAC facility covered very well. Terminal(s) go directly to the ConRAC, and back the same way. This basically gets rid of all the rental car buses in the CTA. Everyone takes the APM. The station serving Lot C seems pretty minimalist to me. Lot C is a big lot, and the buses go around that lot and pick passengers up if I recall from the last time I parked there. I would think that a loop around Lot C would have been better, especially if it is also picking up people from the two green lots identified as "Employee Parking".
The loop around Lot C could operate as a separate service from the line to the ConRAC facility. People at the airport are either going to rental car facility, or to the parking lot, but not both. Operating each as a separate service along shared tracks, except for the Lot C loop itself, would get people where they are going as fast as possible, and not making them stop at a bunch of Lot C stations if they are going to the ConRAC. The incremental cost to add that loop would have to be minimal, sine it is already an empty lot. It would also allow you to probably completely eliminate the Lot C and employee parking lot buses. With that single station they currently propose, I have trouble seeing everyone slog to the "Transportation Facility" station to get to the CTA. I wonder what the savings would be if they completely eliminated the bus service and went with the people mover loop through the lots? Looping out through Lot C and the employee parking area seems like a no brainer to me.
What I don't see is any connections to hotels along Century. Off the top of my head, not sure if this is something that would be in the scope of what LAWA would be trying to accomplish. That might require a coordinated effort with the local businesses.
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2010 10:11:59 GMT -8
Here is the SF system for comparison: Note the Red Line service that only circulates in the terminal area. This is a great idea, and if the LAX system did this it could replace the buses that serve "airline connections". I am assuming that the guideway for the people mover will follow the roadway around, which was stated in the NOP, so using it instead of buses should be possible. Also notice that while BART goes directly into the airport, you still need to transfer to the Airtrain to get to most of the other terminal areas. Others on different forums have stated that running BART directly into the airport was a costly exercise that didn't provide much benefit that couldn't be achieved with an off airport location (i.e. Millbrae, which would also serve Caltrain) connected via people mover. Which is exactly what the Crenshaw Line and the APM will provide at LAX. Not sure why the SFO Blue Line was never extended out to the long term parking area. Anybody know why? Airtrain cost $430 million back in 2003. RT
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 20, 2010 10:27:24 GMT -8
So, I'm wondering, how will the Measure R Green Line to LAX project work into all of this?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 10:44:39 GMT -8
So, I'm wondering, how will the Measure R Green Line to LAX project work into all of this? Currently, LAWA assumes there will be one connection to Metro Rail: at Century/Aviation. It isn't proposing any other connection. And if Metro is going to built anything "to LAX", it has to fit into LAWA's plans. This might be something to bring up at the November 3 meeting.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 10:47:17 GMT -8
Ok, Having used the power of reading I see that the A concept is the dedicated surface road option, hence the red line shows only the entry to the terminal area and exit from the terminal area. Ha ha, I read it ten times and didn't put two-and-two together. "Concept A" is the "Dedicated Transit Route", i.e., the busway.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 12:13:28 GMT -8
The LRTP defines the extension as "Metro Green Line LRT Extension to LAX (Aviation/Century Bl to Lot C)". It projects an opening date of 2028. From Metro's Green Line To LAX project website: The Green Line LAX Extension will complete the rail connection linking the Metro Green Line Aviation Station and Los Angeles International Airport. Plans call for it to utilize either a people mover system that would link to the existing Metro Green Line station at Aviation or link to one of a number of proposed Metro Green Line extension alignments. The project is an adjunct to the companion Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor project. Not really clear if the LRT extension will be replaced by the APM, or will the extension still go to Lot C, or to the transportation center on 96th Street.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 20, 2010 12:38:46 GMT -8
So, I'm wondering, how will the Measure R Green Line to LAX project work into all of this? Measure R Green Line to LAX will get the Green line from Century/Imperial to Century/Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 12:47:01 GMT -8
So, I'm wondering, how will the Measure R Green Line to LAX project work into all of this? Measure R Green Line to LAX will get the Green line from Century/Imperial to Century/Aviation. There is no such intersection "Century/Imperial". As I said above, Metro's LRTP says the "Green Line to LAX" project will connect "Aviation/Century Bl to Lot C".
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 20, 2010 13:48:31 GMT -8
With the people mover connection to Aviation/Century, I'm inclined to think that the real value of the "Green Line LAX Extension" would be more as a jumping off point for future extensions, and less as a direct connection to the airport...
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 20, 2010 13:54:52 GMT -8
Well, obviously Ground Transportation Concept B is far superior to plan A.
I hope the "A" and "B" don't indicate LAWA's order of preference, because who needs another busway?
Obviously LAWA and MTA need to coordinate their efforts. It looks like LAWA wants the connection to be at Aviation, which is where the Crenshaw Line would go (and also, I assume, the Green Line).
The Green Line LAX extension, as MetroCenter noted, would be to Parking Lot C, which is the parking lot directly above the "Transportation Facility" shown in orange on LAWA's map. Surely there can be a connection between peoplemover and light rail there.
That middle station is probably about as close as LAWA plans to get to the hotels. Unfortunate, but it's better than nothing, and getting to the front entrance of these hotels that face out onto Century might be easier said than done.
Parking Lot C is about as close to the terminal loop as the Green Line needs to get, and probably as close as LAWA would allow. Edit: As Tobias said, Lot C would also allow the Green Line to continue north of the airport.
And this way, the peoplemover cars can be designed specifically for people with rolling luggage, while the Green/Crenshaw lines are designed more for a general commuter audience; i.e. people who work at the airport.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 14:12:04 GMT -8
For travelers, connecting by bus is vastly inferior to connecting by rail. Buses tend to be far jerkier and bouncier than trains. For transit novices, people with suitcases, and families with little kids, this makes for a challenging and frustrating connection. On the other hand, connecting by train (especially a modern, automated train) is typically a very smooth ride.
Only connecting by taxi or shuttle van (with seats) is easier than connecting by train.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 20, 2010 14:44:04 GMT -8
How will the Green Line get to Lot C? Via Century, 98th street, or 96th street?
BTW, in the scale model of LAX's modernization masterplan (the model with the blue wavy architecture), it looks as if there are light-rail cars using the people mover system. This sounds strange because APM and LRT are different technologies.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 16:36:26 GMT -8
How will the Green Line get to Lot C? Via Century, 98th street, or 96th street? These things are determined during the environmental study, which for this project is years away. Nothing has been done on this project, except to declare it is a long-term (30 year) priority, with an initial projected cost and completion date. BTW, in the scale model of LAX's modernization masterplan (the model with the blue wavy architecture), it looks as if there are light-rail cars using the people mover system. This sounds strange because APM and LRT are different technologies. Those images are just conceptual renderings. They were made several years ago, and aren't terribly useful for anything other than to show trains serving LAX. The new environmental process (which has not yet begun) will determine what mode to use for the connection (people mover train, bus, heavy rail, or slingshot). The vehicles for this project have not yet been specified, much less purchased.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2010 17:59:35 GMT -8
Here are a couple changes that I took a stab at: 1. I completed the terminal circle, which the NOP drawing didn't seem to have for some reason. 2. I also added a Bradley International station. As much traffic as flows through there, it would be shortsighted not to have a stop there, especially given the expansion. 3. I also added another loop for the Lot C and employee parking areas. Tried to minimize route length, and also minimize walking distance from cars to the stations. 4. The APM station scale is about 50' wide by 200' long, based on SFO AirTrain rough station size. Getting this at least close gives you a better idea how the stations fit in the terminal area, and how close they would be to each other. I may add some more stuff later based on input from you guys. I see three services: 1. The Terminal Circulator (as it says) 2. The Rental Car Facility (terminals and rental car facility) 3. Long Term & Employee Parking (terminals and parking) Here is a link to a larger drawing: i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac27/RubberToe420/MyAPMDesignLarge-2.jpgWhile checking out the SFO AirTrain system specification, I was surprised to see that their system uses rubber tires, unlike the JFK AirTrain. The JFK AirTrain uses basically the same vehicles as the Vancouvers Skytrain system, which is a very long system compared to a people mover. The JFK system is sized to run 2 car trains, while Vancouvers SkyTrain is more of a rapid transit line and runs up to 6 car trains.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 20, 2010 18:28:23 GMT -8
For travelers, connecting by bus is vastly inferior to connecting by rail. Buses tend to be far jerkier and bouncier than trains. For transit novices, people with suitcases, and families with little kids, this makes for a challenging and frustrating connection. On the other hand, connecting by train (especially a modern, automated train) is typically a very smooth ride. Only connecting by taxi or shuttle van (with seats) is easier than connecting by train. Also, a people mover should have a flat floor entrance (flat and even with the platform). Transit novices at the airport will be able to roll their luggage onto the people mover with little or no trouble. Even a low-floor bus wouldn't be able to duplicate that level of convenience. I've used people movers and airport shuttle buses, and I know without a doubt which is easier to use when rolling a suitcase.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 20, 2010 19:25:56 GMT -8
From page 32, Ground Transportation Concept B: Here is the A Concept: Did you guys noticed the "Redesigned Entry Roadway"? It appears to me that Lot C could be going bye bye at some point... because shifting the roadway provides just enough room for a new terminal.... right where Lot C is now. If that goes, so does a good (?) connection to the terminals. The APM would have to do. But, there appears risk that neither the APM or an LRT connection to LAX may happen.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 21, 2010 2:04:16 GMT -8
Sorry Trackman, but I think you've got the parking lots mixed up.
In the map above, Lot C is the big yellow blob to the north of the orange area marked transportation facility, north of the LAX hotels. All of that is to the east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
They do plan a "Concourse 0" to the right of the existing Terminal 1, but that would be on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard. The redesigned entryway is designed to allow the new gates to be positioned just west of Sepulveda.
I do not think that they would consider a new terminal to the east of Sepulveda, as such a terminal would be seriously separated from the other terminals and awkward to reach.
The people mover or the Green Line would not be affected by the new terminal, if the current plans are correct.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 21, 2010 11:11:09 GMT -8
Measure R Green Line to LAX will get the Green line from Century/Imperial to Century/Aviation. There is no such intersection "Century/Imperial". As I said above, Metro's LRTP says the "Green Line to LAX" project will connect "Aviation/Century Bl to Lot C". I mean Aviation/Imperial. ;D The LAX Green line extension will take the line from the current Aviation station to where Century/Aviation station is proposed.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 21, 2010 11:32:45 GMT -8
I have to say that I'm curious how the Green Line stub at the current Aviation station is going to get to Lot C? I'll bet the document that discusses this is old, and came out before the people mover and Crenshaw Line became firmer ideas.
Wouldn't it make more sense to build the stub track up to the new Crenshaw line station at Century/Aviation and then have the Green Line terminate there? That way, both the Crenshaw Line and the Green Line can both run directly to that station.
This assumes that the Green Line stations South of the current Aviation station would then become part of the Crenshaw Line. If you wanted to, you could even have all the Crenshaw Line trains stop at the current Aviation station before proceeding South. That way, both the new Century/Aviation station and the current Aviation station would be served by both lines, and both could act as a transfer station. Assuming that the Century/Aviation station will be one busy station, it might make sense to also have the current Aviation station available as a transfer station. The track will be there to connect the two, might as well use it for some interoperability, eh?
Has someone already figured this out in some other thread already?
RT
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 21, 2010 19:01:05 GMT -8
There is no need to extend the Green Line to Lot C because you would still have to transfer to the APM to get to all but 1-2 terminals.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 21, 2010 20:58:50 GMT -8
Lot C terminal assumes Green Line extension independent of existence of Crenshaw and vice versa. If Crenshaw is going forward, there will be no reason to extend the Green Line beyond Century/Aviation so in effect, the money allocated to the LAX spur will be used to construct the Crenshaw line between Century/Aviation and Aviation/Imperial.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 22, 2010 12:47:38 GMT -8
One way to look at the Green Line extension is that from the Century Freeway (Aviation Station) to Century/Aviation is a relatively short stub, with little or no NIMBY resistance along the largely industrial route (any NIMBY efforts would be from Westchester, Inglewood and El Segundo, and aimed at the airport itself, which is planning major moves and the possibility of expansion — not at the rail line, which has strong support in the area).
By comparison, the Crenshaw Line is a much more complicated affair, connecting the longer distance between Expo Rail and LAX. From both a construction perspective and from a potential NIMBY perspective, there's more obstacles to overcome.
If your objective is reaching LAX, I know which project I'd rather get started first ;D
Regarding Lot C.... as long as the peoplemover gets built, there's no immediate need for the Green Line to extend to Lot C. However, we also need to take into consideration extensions north beyond Lot C. The Lot C stub can still wait until after the Green Line and Crenshaw gets built, but I think it will need to get built eventually, as part of a larger project to connect Santa Monica/ Venice to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2010 16:58:16 GMT -8
Sure, in our fantasy map where Green Line continues to Santa Monica, the Lot C spur will be the first part of that line. But we are not there yet
|
|