|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2012 10:51:28 GMT -8
I also agree this would be the way to go. I really hope a northwest Green Line extension becomes a priority project if Measure R can be extended. With what EIR beyond that Lot C station? This is why I'm very hesitant on pursuing this option because less money is spent on building the line and more is spent on "planning" for the line. If there's a dedicated source towards planning this line that would make more sense however so that a future funding measure (notice I'm not saying sales tax) can be used to fund this extension.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 29, 2012 14:50:08 GMT -8
Jerard makes a good point here, and as transit fans we do have a tendency to say "and then we'll build this and then we'll build that and then we'll build that and then we'll..." and so on, ad infinitum.
There's not much point to discussing extending the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood or even Wilshire when the core Expo to LAX line hasn't been started yet.
I personally don't have a problem with a Lot C stub, but if the funding is limited (and it always is), then Century/ Aviation would be good enough.
The main thing is the peoplemover link. If we don't get that, then Century/ Aviation is no better than Imperial/ Aviation. Lot C might allow LAWA to build a shorter peoplemover, and so the real question is which agency, LAWA or Metro pays for more track.
Either way works for me, but Metro and LAWA need to negotiate on this.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 29, 2012 14:57:08 GMT -8
You all make some very good points. The Westward Green Line extension may not be the priority over the other projects mentioned.
Masonite, where/when exactly was it stated that the Measure R extension would only be for another 10 years? I don't recall hearing that at all.
Because if that's the case, I doubt there would be enough money to get more than even one of the projects you mentioned built (getting Crenshaw to Hollywood, just by itself, will be somewhere in the $billions since it will require no less than eight stations, most of which in need of grade separation).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 29, 2012 15:45:07 GMT -8
You all make some very good points. The Westward Green Line extension may not be the priority over the other projects mentioned. Masonite, where/when exactly was it stated that the Measure R extension would only be for another 10 years? I don't recall hearing that at all. Because if that's the case, I doubt there would be enough money to get more than even one of the projects you mentioned built (getting Crenshaw to Hollywood, just by itself, will be somewhere in the $billions since it will require no less than eight stations, most of which in need of grade separation). I had seen this in the LA Times, but in looking back at the article it says an extension of at least 10 years, so the 10 years may not be what ultimately gets voted on. Nevertheless, I think a Green Line Extension to the Northwest is a ways off. Hopefully, an extension of Measure R can reduce the amount going to highways and increase it for public transit and Metrolink, but even with that it is going to be hard for them to get more than one big project like Crenshaw to Hollywood. The whole regional balance thing is really going to come up again as well.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 1, 2012 6:43:53 GMT -8
I personally don't have a problem with a Lot C stub, but if the funding is limited (and it always is), then Century/ Aviation would be good enough. The main thing is the peoplemover link. If we don't get that, then Century/ Aviation is no better than Imperial/ Aviation. Lot C might allow LAWA to build a shorter peoplemover, and so the real question is which agency, LAWA or Metro pays for more track. Either way works for me, but Metro and LAWA need to negotiate on this. There won't be a Lot C + APM option. The scope of EIR is Green line spur to LAX (undefined location) OR APM to Century Aviation OR BRT. I can't foreseen any possibility that Metro will conclude the preferred mode/route is light rail + APM. If APM is the locally preferred mode, LAWA will most likely be the agency in charge of building it and they will get the $200 million Measure R funds set aside for this "corridor".
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 1, 2012 15:53:07 GMT -8
I thought LAWA was already going to build a peoplemover of some sort.
LAWA's LAX web site doesn't make it entirely clear if that peoplemover was just for the loop area, or if it does extend beyond the loop, how far would it go. it could be that LAWA is waiting to see what Metro decides to do before deciding what to do themselves.
so, the LAX peoplemover may not be part of the EIR, but LAX/ LAWA and Metro are still going to have to work together and coordinate their efforts on this one. if Metro says "we're not building to Lot C" and if LAWA says "we're not building to Century/ Aviation," then we've got a problem.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 1, 2012 16:11:24 GMT -8
LAWA has a preliminary plan for APM but it never advanced to EIR stage because they didn't have money. They asked Oropeza to insert the "Rail to LAX" provision in Measure R while the rest of us were drunk on the possibility that Measure R is even going to qualify for the ballot. Now They are waiting for Metro to do the study, which is paid for by Measure R (which will most likely conclude APM is the preferred mode). LAWA will probably argue strongly for APM during public comment for the EIR and once the EIR is complete, the negotiation is really for the fund that should go to them as the agency that has to implement surface transportation at LAX.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 1, 2012 20:00:58 GMT -8
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA.
Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood)
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 2, 2012 1:21:43 GMT -8
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA. Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood) If there's going to be a Sepulveda or Lincoln line connecting with Century/Aviation, one needs to make sure there's room both for that and the people mover. I imagine if the people mover is built first, it will use the most sensible ROW, and Metro will be left with a pretty expensive segment to build if they want to hit Lot C. If we're willing to skip another LAX area stop (lots of workers), at least Arbor Vitae to Westchester Parkway doesn't have residential development, meaning there might be less resistance to having elevated or at grade rail on that route.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 2, 2012 6:32:17 GMT -8
That sounds reasonable, which probably means there's some bureaucratic red tape preventing Metro from handing over either the funds, the project, the EIR, construction or a completed peoplemover over to LAWA. Because it does seem like LAX should have some control over a peoplemover which will be on LAX property, serve LAX passengers and probably use different equipment (designed for luggage, for example) than the typical Metro equipment. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for a peoplemover to link the loop with Century/ Aviation, even if Metro eventually extends the Green Line north (in a direction other than towards Crenshaw, Wilshire and Hollywood) Yes, we are on the same page together now ;D 1. Use the Measure R to partially fund the APM to Century Aviation. "Partially fund" because the $200m earmarked for "rail to LAX" will probably cover only the pre-construction costs and up to maybe 30~40% of the construction costs so LAWA will have to come up with some other money. 2. Preserve a right of way for future Green line extension to Santa Monica or UCLA. 3. Make sure APM design is modular so we can add future stop at Lot C if necessary. LAWA's plan is to consolidate all rental car and bus connection at a new multi-modal transportation center (near Century/Aviation). The Lot C station may or may not be necessary in the long run (it will just be long term parking). If there is an extension of Green line to Santa Monica or Westwood, Sepulveda/Manchester station location makes more sense than Lot C.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 2, 2012 19:24:25 GMT -8
The LAX to Crenshaw/Green Line connection may be an application for which Personal Rapid Transit could make sense:
1. Travelers are time-sensitive. 2. Bypassing lots of linear stops would save a lot of time. 3. Hotels might finance a portion of the cost if they can (a) get a stop and (b) eliminate their shuttle cost.
London Heathrow Airport has implemented a small PRT system. While other options may be superior for the LAX-Century Boulevard Corridor, inclusion of PRT as part of the Alternatives Analysis would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 5, 2012 12:43:13 GMT -8
The presentation from the recent Green Line to LAX Extension meetings is now available online. Extensive details regarding alignment options and costs are included. The presentation mentions four broad options: - Direct LRT Branch: Construct an LRT branch from Century/Aviation to the Central Terminal Area.
- Circulator: Construct a people-mover from Century/Aviation to the Century/Aviation.
- Intermediate LRT & Circulator: Construct an LRT branch from Century/Aviation and a people-mover from the Central Terminal Area and connect the two at some mid-point.
- Modified LRT Trunk: Reroute the proposed Crenshaw Corridor from Aviation Blvd. through a new route through (i.e. under) the Central Terminal Area.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 5, 2012 14:28:20 GMT -8
Here is the gist of the decision: I found it interesting that apparently the simulations of the circulator showed that the optimum number of in-airport station was 3. If you have more than 3 stations, then the "total travel time" increases. Thats riding time plus walking time. So, building too many airport stations not only costs more, but slows down the overall journey. It is a bit confusing, cause they also show a trade-off between light rail options, one where the Green Line only goes directly to the terminal, and the other where the Green Line goes through, but only has one stop: If I'm reading this right, the people mover (circulator) has a cost of between $1,060 and $1,270 million, while the light rail option (direct branch) costs $540 - $1,160 million. The 3 station circulator has a shorter walk to the terminals on average (600 feet versus 820 feet) than the light rail option. Both would serve about 5,000 people per day. The "Through LAX" light rail has some constructability issues too. The travel time for the direct light rail branch is about 1 minute faster than the people mover, 30 versus 31.2 minutes. There is almost no discussion (except page 13) of off-airport people mover stops and what added utility that provides, or about consolidating the rental car facility at the Century/Aviation area. I guess we will have to wait for the environmental documents for greater details. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 5, 2012 16:18:28 GMT -8
BRT sounds an awful lot like what we have now, with cars, taxis, shuttles and buses playing dodgeball in the central terminal loop. I can't imagine anybody "improving" the service without seriously separating the airport shuttle/ peoplemover from the chaos of LAX road traffic. No grade crossings for LAX rail.
and I don't think LAWA would ever allow trains to follow the path shown in the "through LAX" option. Too much potential interference with the runways during construction. Since Metro will need LAWA's help, that option is a vote for negotiating with a brick wall.
I can totally see three stations working. Post-merger United controls 6-8 (huge airline, huge number of passengers), so a station there. International gets a station. 1-2 share a station (although I've seen the traffic, and it would be Terminal 1's station mostly). 3,4,5 walk to the closest station or LAWA installs moving sidewalks.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 6, 2012 10:35:32 GMT -8
Base on the preliminary report, I think the stage 2 screening is going to quickly eliminate the Century Blvd alignment for either APM or LRT (requires 2nd station at Century/Aviation), the 4 airport station option (travel time), APM+ LRT spur intermediate connection (pointless), and the through routing option (difficult/new junction required south of Imperial Blvd).
My personal preference is for APM to connect at Century/Avation parallel to LRT (so no new station required, just new platform) - route via 98th st - one intermediate stop (long term parking/access to hotels) - 2 airport stations (T1/T2/T6/T7 and T3/TBIT/T4/T5). This option will allow all trains to connect to APM and offer quickest time with fewest complication to Crenshaw line construction (just need to redesign Century/Aviation to accept APM platform).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 6, 2012 16:07:48 GMT -8
I mostly agree with bzcat, except I think we need 3 stations in the loop rather than just 2. we need to find the right balance of time and convenience, and the 3-station option would reduce the walking distance without adding that much to the travel time.
we have to remember that we're dealing with airline passengers with luggage, and arriving passengers are going to be tired.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 6, 2012 16:54:40 GMT -8
I mostly agree with bzcat, except I think we need 3 stations in the loop rather than just 2. we need to find the right balance of time and convenience, and the 3-station option would reduce the walking distance without adding that much to the travel time. we have to remember that we're dealing with airline passengers with luggage, and arriving passengers are going to be tired. My sentiments exactly. RT
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 6, 2012 17:51:58 GMT -8
To clarify those times listed above, those are average travel times from Norwalk, Expo and the South Bay to the airport terminals.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 7, 2012 12:10:09 GMT -8
BRT sounds an awful lot like what we have now, with cars, taxis, shuttles and buses playing dodgeball in the central terminal loop. I can't imagine anybody "improving" the service without seriously separating the airport shuttle/ peoplemover from the chaos of LAX road traffic. No grade crossings for LAX rail. BRT isn't that awful if they had dedicated lanes such as the first 2 right lanes in the airport loop of the Lower level for such that purpose to enable LAX shuttles and Flyaway buses to utilize this dedicated facility. But they're not so the BRT is a piece of dung. Based on this I'm still leaning to have the APM system serving the airport with a simpler transfer station at Century/Aviation or a direct link via LRT to the LAX Theme Building with an internal people mover system. If I'm reading this right, the people mover (circulator) has a cost of between $1,060 and $1,270 million, while the light rail option (direct branch) costs $540 - $1,160 million. The 3 station circulator has a shorter walk to the terminals on average (600 feet versus 820 feet) than the light rail option. Both would serve about 5,000 people per day. The "Through LAX" light rail has some constructability issues too. The travel time for the direct light rail branch is about 1 minute faster than the people mover, 30 versus 31.2 minutes... RT Fine, except APM has a cost between $625M- $1250M so its comparable to LRT slightly more due to vehicles and maybe a new storage facility
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 7, 2012 12:52:29 GMT -8
LAX layout options: 2 stations dual track (no loop): T1/T2/T6/T7 + T3/TBIT/T4/T5 - probably cheapest option, fastest transit time, longer walk (although can easily be mitigated by moving sidewalk)
3 stations dual track (no loop): T1/T7 + T2/T5/T6 + T3/TBIT/T4 - longer transit time, shortest walk
3 stations single track loop: T1/T2 + T3/TBIT/T4 + T5/T6/T7 - probably most expensive, longest transit time, likely station placement leaves T5 the odd man out (unequal distance to APM station vs. other terminals)
T1 - Southwest, US Air T2 - Hawaiian, international airlines T3 - Virgin America TBIT - International airlines T4 - AA, Qantas T5 - Delta T6 - Alaska, United T7 - United T8 - T7 annex
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 9, 2012 14:54:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 9, 2012 20:12:20 GMT -8
7% of LA county residents and 11% of LA city residents take transit to work. Near the top of American cities. Nice.
RT
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 20, 2012 4:07:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 20, 2012 14:57:15 GMT -8
I was going to point out to bzcat that Alaska doesn't fly out of Terminal 6, but then I see that they just ( as in today) switched to Terminal 6. Anyhoo, I do think that there needs to be 3 APM stations inside the loop, in addition to the rental car (very important to eliminate redundant rental shuttles) and Green/ Crenshaw stations. The usual arguments about walking distances ("oh, it's not that far") don't apply to "cranky airline passenger with luggage" situations. And if you're worried about Terminal 5 being "out of the loop," don't be. Somehow, they managed to squeeze more terminals into the south side of the airport than the north end. As in, Terminal 1 and 7 are aligned directly opposite each other, but 2 is between where 5 and 6 would be. So, I would include 5 with the 3-INT-4 station. Let the three United terminals (and Alaska) have a station (6-7-8) and let "commuter" terminal 1 share with terminal 2. 5 still gets a slightly longer walk, but 4-5 are close together.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 22, 2013 5:18:31 GMT -8
In the long run, I think that a people mover will be best for the connection to LAX, with a large transfer station at Century and Aviation. The main reason for this is interconnectivity with the main activity centers across the greater Los Angeles region. This is obvious, but any other connection will make one or more of these long term connections substantially more difficult to create. - The green line can be extended to Norwalk, giving direct transfers from Metrolink riders coming from Riverside and Orange Counties. The Santa Ana Branch line is already in the works to provide connections to gateway cities.
- The Crenshaw line can be extended northwards, giving connections to the Expo, Purple, and Red lines and direct access to Hollywood. Eastern SF valley transfers from the Red line.
- A Sepulveda line will give access to Westwood, the western SF valley, the Orange line, and the Ventura Metrolink line.
- A future Lincoln line will give direct access to Marina del Rey, Venice, and Santa Monica.
- Southern extensions of the Green/Crenshaw line will give access to the South Bay.
- A harbor subdivision Metrolink connection will give direct access to Downtown, the rest of the Metrolink network, and other destinations from Union Station. Bonus points for (i) through routing the San Bernardino line to LAX, and (ii) through routing select California High Speed Rail trains to a future Century/Aviation rail station. Possible direct connections south to Long Beach.
This would set up Century/Aviation as a major transfer point giving interconnectivity to all regions in the greater Los Angeles area. We need additional transit nodes outside of Downtown LA, and this location provides an opportunity to create a cost effective major transit hub, where each project has tremendous independent utility and can be built over time. The area around Century and Aviation is well placed to have substantial mixed use development around a future station becoming a major commercial and office node.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 22, 2013 13:54:47 GMT -8
^ I agree with most of this comment, except for the fact that I think the Palmdale Metrolink line should be the route that continues on to LAX. Residents in the Antelope Valley are the furthest away from a major airport, and running through the Palmdale line would also continue establishing a roughly north-south commute.
Also, it might be pretty difficult to extend Metrolink service to Long Beach via the Harbor Subdivision, especially since there is no existing ROW that crosses the LA River. To me, it seems much easier to have Metrolink share the Santa Ana Branch ROW through Cudahy until after the Green Line, and then continue on south to just outside Long Beach Airport, north of Signal Hill. That area of Long Beach really needs revitalization, too.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 22, 2013 14:05:41 GMT -8
^ I agree with most of this comment, except for the fact that I think the Palmdale Metrolink line should be the route that continues on to LAX. Residents in the Apple Valley are the furthest away from a major airport, and running through the Palmdale line would also continue establishing a roughly north-south commute. Speaking of Palmdale and airports - is there a reason why the Antelope Valley Line doesn't have a stop for Palmdale Airport? Could one be added in the future (a la the way Burbank is getting its second Metrolink stop)?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 22, 2013 15:36:12 GMT -8
^ I agree with most of this comment, except for the fact that I think the Palmdale Metrolink line should be the route that continues on to LAX. Residents in the Apple Valley are the furthest away from a major airport, and running through the Palmdale line would also continue establishing a roughly north-south commute. Speaking of Palmdale and airports - is there a reason why the Antelope Valley Line doesn't have a stop for Palmdale Airport? Could one be added in the future (a la the way Burbank is getting its second Metrolink stop)? I know the station is 3 miles away from the airport. Not sure if one can be made to get any closer. Right now there is no need as Palmdale has no public flights.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 22, 2013 16:12:40 GMT -8
I just realized I said Apple Valley. I meant Antelope Valley. Lol
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 23, 2013 11:06:16 GMT -8
^ I agree with most of this comment, except for the fact that I think the Palmdale Metrolink line should be the route that continues on to LAX. Residents in the Apple Valley are the furthest away from a major airport, and running through the Palmdale line would also continue establishing a roughly north-south commute. Speaking of Palmdale and airports - is there a reason why the Antelope Valley Line doesn't have a stop for Palmdale Airport? Could one be added in the future (a la the way Burbank is getting its second Metrolink stop)? Considering that there are no current scheduled passenger service at Palmdale airport, the need for a Metrolink station would be somewhere between zero and nada ;D
|
|