|
Post by andert on May 6, 2014 11:23:05 GMT -8
One thing that confuses me is that if auto access to the terminals gets completely rerouted to the new transportation center, what becomes of the current upper and lower loop roads? If those are just going to sit abandoned, well, that's more than enough space to add a full loop APM, even while leaving space for things like emergency vehicle access, etc. I'm sure in the interim, during construction, access to LAX via car would necessarily be even more convoluted, but you don't get an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 6, 2014 14:48:12 GMT -8
WOW! A no build would certainly be better than these two suggestions, what a steaming bowl of feces the LAWA just put forth.
Every single one of them should be fired. And 2.5 billion? double the 405 carpool lane? More than the Crenshaw line? 4x the cost of San francisco's people mover?
And it's what, a half mile long? It's got to be the most expensive rail project ever on a $/distance basis, and possibly more useless than the Disneyland monorail.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 6, 2014 16:50:01 GMT -8
WOW! A no build would certainly be better than these two suggestions, what a steaming bowl of feces the LAWA just put forth. Every single one of them should be fired. And 2.5 billion? double the 405 carpool lane? More than the Crenshaw line? 4x the cost of San francisco's people mover? And it's what, a half mile long? It's got to be the most expensive rail project ever on a $/distance basis, and possibly more useless than the Disneyland monorail. The ridiculous price tag is easy to explain - Measure R has $200 million set aside for this train. Metro is doing its own study and my guess is Metro will conclude people mover is the best mode (it is) and the price tag will be something more reasonable, like $650 million. But if people mover is the preferred mode, it is likely that Metro will let LAWA build it, or form a joint construction authority to build it. So there is going to be a "meeting of minds" on the price tag later... so there is no point for LAWA to low-ball (or even reasonably guess) the construction costs now because the higher their initial demand, sets the stage for the blackmail negotiation to the Measure R money, plus additional contributions from Metro and/or other sources. What is totally moronic is the half-baked spine and scissor route... it fails the most basic original reason for people mover before Metro rail was even involved: to move people between terminals and reduce vehicular traffic in the loop. LAWA management has been really tone deaf on the changing political winds in this city about public transit in the last few years. You can't get elected to city wide elections now if you are against expanding transit so I'm curious what the reaction from the City and County political establishment on this laughable plan by LAWA.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 7, 2014 7:32:56 GMT -8
(New curbed.la story, with even more details, here.)I have been railing (pun intended) about these idiotic plans on curbed.la today, having rarely seen something so incompetent and manifestly biased put forth for the public to consider. To avoid double-typing, I will repost my recent rant here: Aargh!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 7, 2014 9:26:37 GMT -8
Spur idea makes hardly any sense, especially at this late point. Just build this darn people mover around the currently in-construction Crenshaw Line, not the other way around.
Also, more stops is better. Everyone hates walking in an airport while racing against the time.
|
|
|
Post by simonla on May 7, 2014 13:17:52 GMT -8
LAWA has dropped the one route that would have connected directly to the Century/Aviation station. If it is to connect at all, it appears a massive pedestrian walkway will need to cross Aviation boulevard. It's like LAWA and Metro are operating in two separate cities.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on May 7, 2014 14:04:40 GMT -8
I use LAX on a weekly basis for work. I park my car at the C Lot and when I take the bus at the terminal to the parking lot there are always (always!) confused travelers who just want to go to another terminal. At the bus stop where they wait there's a C bus to the parking lot or city busses, a G bus (to the Green line), an E bus (to the employee parking) and finally an A bus that loops around to the terminals. If you take into consideration the multiple rental car busses, the multiple hotel shuttle busses, the 4 different Fly Away busses and whatever tourist busses that go around and around you can be sure that especially out-of-towners get confused. A single loop People Mover and a People Mover connection to the Crenshaw line would make it a lot more organized especially if you remove all the rental and hotel shuttles to different stations on the way to the MTA LTR: close the upper loop and build your People Movers there. Keep one lane open for emergency vehicles and ban the rest of the traffic to the downstairs loop.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 8, 2014 11:41:26 GMT -8
LAWA has dropped the one route that would have connected directly to the Century/Aviation station. If it is to connect at all, it appears a massive pedestrian walkway will need to cross Aviation boulevard. It's like LAWA and Metro are operating in two separate cities. LAWA has a very auto-focused mindset on LAX. They are working to build ANOTHER lane within LAX, how crazy is that? Honestly, it doesn't take that long to circle LAX, there's no need for 6 ring lanes, and 0 transit. This is where Eric Garcetti needs to step in and get LAWA to work with Metro instead of demanding Metro, which has studied the Crenshaw Line for 8 years, to suddently halt construction and build a 1/2 mile oval sphere closer to LAX. LAWA can easily connect to the new Century station by extending the unbuilt people mover the 1/2 mile. LAWA is placing unnecessary blame on Metro. Also, LAWA is throwing out reasonable alternatives just because "extended construction delays". We shouldn't halt meaningful progress on the fact a road will be closed a little longer than a side road. This is why the Las Vegas Monorail is a disaster, they put it behind the Strip to avoid service interruptions in construction, and now you half-a**ed Monorail in Vegas. Don't let LAWA do the same without connecting to Century station on the Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 8, 2014 12:36:31 GMT -8
I use LAX on a weekly basis for work. I park my car at the C Lot and when I take the bus at the terminal to the parking lot there are always (always!) confused travelers who just want to go to another terminal. BEGIN RANT >< END OF RANT.LAX needs a people mover done right. A simple loop to the terminals, and a straight shot to parking, rental and Metro. No meandering necessary. The Peoplemover/Metro connection is easy: put them at separate vertical levels, and connect with an elevator.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 9, 2014 9:29:21 GMT -8
I use LAX on a weekly basis for work. I park my car at the C Lot and when I take the bus at the terminal to the parking lot there are always (always!) confused travelers who just want to go to another terminal. BEGIN RANT >< END OF RANT.LAX needs a people mover done right. A simple loop to the terminals, and a straight shot to parking, rental and Metro. No meandering necessary. The Peoplemover/Metro connection is easy: put them at separate vertical levels, and connect with an elevator. Amen to that, and the more I see this develop the more cynical I get to why they are shoving this ITF down our throats when there is plenty of land on Manchester Square where they can do this remote check in right next to the Century/Aviation station and save the taxpayers money and provide a functional connection to the airport. I think if this continues in forcing Metro to front over $600-800M to a half-baked spur that will limit our future transit capacity on new lines and extensions such as Sepulveda Pass.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 9, 2014 9:33:20 GMT -8
Also, LAWA is throwing out reasonable alternatives just because "extended construction delays". We shouldn't halt meaningful progress on the fact a road will be closed a little longer than a side road. This is why the Las Vegas Monorail is a disaster, they put it behind the Strip to avoid service interruptions in construction, and now you half-a**ed Monorail in Vegas. Don't let LAWA do the same without connecting to Century station on the Crenshaw Line. Also my other cynicism is going from the weakest arguments on LAWA's "construction delays" most of them are self imposed by LAWA because there is a slide showing all the new roads and lanes they are constructing within the same area all of which can be mitigation during construction of the APM. In fact with the right coordination, these delays don't exist in fact, with smart construction planning, this will save time AND money.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 16, 2014 21:42:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Jun 17, 2014 1:06:31 GMT -8
LAWA is insane but now Metro is endorsing their insanity...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 17, 2014 8:02:37 GMT -8
What in the crap?!?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 17, 2014 8:29:10 GMT -8
From Metro Staff's report (emphasis added in red):
So this is all to allow LAWA to get 96th Street and 98th Street to cross Aviation? I don't see how that justifies mucking up the Crenshaw Line! In fact, I don't see how the issue of extending streets is even related to where to put the "People Mover" and the Crenshaw Line!!!
The "People Mover" should be configured to connect at Century/Aviation. Heading eastbound, it should turn south along Bellanca, then turn east just north of Century, to go directly to the ConRAC. The transfer at Century/Aviation station would be very simple.
I just cannot fathom the idiocy of this!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 17, 2014 11:44:02 GMT -8
I hope they get the shit sued out of them for the brazen stupidity of every plan coming out of LAWA and their Metro brethren relating to LAX.
The staggering level of incompetence is horrifying.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 18, 2014 12:43:49 GMT -8
They added the Farmdale Station even at a much later stage during the Expo Line construction -- not that I've ever endorsed it or I'm endorsing this one but it's not too late to add stations to the Crenshaw Line from historical precedence.
They should build whatever is fast, convenient, yet reasonably economical.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 18, 2014 17:30:52 GMT -8
They added the Farmdale Station even at a much later stage during the Expo Line construction -- not that I've ever endorsed it or I'm endorsing this one but it's not too late to add stations to the Crenshaw Line from historical precedence. They should build whatever is fast, convenient, yet reasonably economical. Exactly, mind you 96th Street isn't ideal but I'll take this compared to other alternatives that are slower and costs more money, money that could be better utilized to expanding the network to fill larger and looming gaps such as North-South corridors down Sepulveda and Lincoln. In a bit of irony, 96th/Aviation site was the original location for the original Aviation/Century station for Crenshaw Corridor before it moved south closer to Century Blvd which still works out because the Cargo and Hotel Workers can use Century station and travelers and Airport workers can use 96th Street.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 20, 2014 11:25:32 GMT -8
96th st also makes more sense if you assume there will be a future Sepulveda line and future Lincoln line.
Century Aviation doesn't have the room for extra station real estate for another line. 96th st is pretty wide open for an expanded LAX station/terminal for future expansion.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 22, 2014 14:57:02 GMT -8
A story in todays LA Times discusses the new terminal that is planned with 11 gates. This is a new terminal West of the current Bradley terminal. According to the story, they plan on having a people mover station. This implies that the two station straight in/out or the 3-5 stop loop that didn't even make it to the Bradley terminal have been apparently scrapped. Maybe they finally came to their senses? www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-concourse-approved-20140721-story.html"Plans for the northern wing include 11 gates, taxiways, aircraft aprons, service roads, utilities and a people-mover station. A construction contract is scheduled to be awarded in January 2015." RT
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 22, 2014 18:30:06 GMT -8
A story in todays LA Times discusses the new terminal that is planned with 11 gates. This is a new terminal West of the current Bradley terminal. According to the story, they plan on having a people mover station. This implies that the two station straight in/out or the 3-5 stop loop that didn't even make it to the Bradley terminal have been apparently scrapped. Maybe they finally came to their senses? www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-concourse-approved-20140721-story.html"Plans for the northern wing include 11 gates, taxiways, aircraft aprons, service roads, utilities and a people-mover station. A construction contract is scheduled to be awarded in January 2015." RT My understanding is that there would be a seperate people mover that went between Tom Bradley and this remote terminal. Originally it was to be on a bridge but now is being talked about for underground. The people mover from the terminals to the rental cars and metro would be a seperate line. This might of changed. This has been in planning for years. Here is what it looked like when the bridge was still included:
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jul 22, 2014 21:12:02 GMT -8
I would assume that the people mover to the new terminal would be on the gate side of the TSA security check point while the people mover between the Crenshaw Line/rental cars/etc. would be outside of the security check points.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 25, 2014 15:41:39 GMT -8
Since I go to LAX only once every few years or so, I don't really have a dog in this fight. From out where I live, if you don't mind the extra expense a Prime Time or Super Shuttle usually works best. Theoretically, I could take Metro, but schlepping baggage at five different transfer points is an unappealing thought. Last time, I took a shuttle van to LAX, and coming home rode the Flyaway bus to Union Station. There, I went to the Gold Line platform, and had to let the first two trains go by, because there wasn't room for me and my baggage. I finally found room in the third train and stood most of the way to East Pasadena, where my wife picked me up for the last few miles home. I can imagine trying to squeeze onto a typical Blue Line train during rush hour!
Looking at the whole discussion from this vantage point, it seems that the powers that be at LAWA haven't a clue about how to make ground connections any easier. These officials probably take a taxi or even have a chauffeur-driven limo to get them to just the right place. Meanwhile, Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, Portland and a number of other cities in the US have railway service to THEIR airports, but LA just can't get its act together.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Jul 26, 2014 12:57:50 GMT -8
In San Francisco's SFO airport there's of course the BART station but they also have a two track people mover. One is a circle line that connects al the terminals and the other one connects the terminals with the off campus car rentals and longterm parking lots. Figure LAWA having their act together like that! With the current plans there's a people mover that will get you into the airport at 2 different stations; from there you still have to find your way to the terminals. If you're arriving at one terminal and you need to go to another one for a connecting flight you still have to use the loop line busses. Isn't there anybody at LAWA who could come up with a plan that is as perfect as the SFO layout? Guess not...
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 26, 2014 22:13:59 GMT -8
So lax wants their stupid pm design because taking a less billions dollar route would result in the occasional road closure. Apparently the terrifying century crunch is going completely smoothly much to the bafflement of the car worshipping lawa officials who think a temporaty road closure is the end of the world.
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Dec 5, 2014 15:14:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 6, 2014 0:51:54 GMT -8
No build still seems the best option.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Dec 6, 2014 18:31:46 GMT -8
No build still seems the best option. That seems to be LAWA's plan: design it so badly that doing nothing is the best option. It's bad to the point where I'm not sure Hanlon's Razor applies.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 6, 2014 20:34:39 GMT -8
"...promised to be finished with the people mover by 2024...."
Hmm? I think they're hoping for some environmental issue to come up between now and 2024 so that they can use it to cancel the project and not look like the bad guys.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 8, 2014 9:24:53 GMT -8
"...promised to be finished with the people mover by 2024...." Hmm? I think they're hoping for some environmental issue to come up between now and 2024 so that they can use it to cancel the project and not look like the bad guys. It is very early in the process. They haven't even done the environmental report yet and that won't be done for several years. Overall, I think it is good for the airport to have a consolidated check in facility as well as a consolidated rental car area that can be reached by the APM. I think people would be disappointed regardless here as airport lines are generally not all they are cracked up to be. Putting the Green or Crenshaw Line into the airport would have been nice, but insanely expensive and not all that realistic. Even then people would still have to walk a fair bit, because it is not like each terminal would have its own stop.
|
|