|
Post by matthewb on Jan 23, 2013 12:10:04 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. Antelope Valley already has an easy connection to Burbank Airport, and has much lower ridership (and a bit lower frequency) than San Bernardino, which is why I suggested the latter routing. These are pretty minor points, though, compared with most of the other connections. In fact, it would potentially work out to through route at least some trains from both lines. There should be demand for reasonably high frequency service between LAUS and LAX, say at least every 30 minutes if not 15.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 12, 2013 1:53:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 12, 2013 11:49:25 GMT -8
There is no final Green Line LAX EIR, yet. We are in DEIR process, having only gone thru the alternative elimination process. The graph in the Curbed story is from the LAX North Airfield Improvement EIR - a completely different and unrelated project. The peoplemover drawing in the LAX EIR is for illustration purpose only. There is no EIR study on the peoplemover other than the one Metro is doing. www.lawa.org/LAXSPAS/Reports.aspx
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 12, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -8
Hmm I like it. Under this scenario, what street do you guys think its better for the Green Line to turn on? Century or 96th?
|
|
|
Post by mbbernstein on Feb 12, 2013 14:54:11 GMT -8
Hmm I like it. Under this scenario, what street do you guys think its better for the Green Line to turn on? Century or 96th? I guess I have two questions here: 1) Why is this being referred to as a Green line project when in fact any people mover will connect to the Crenshaw line? 2) Is it me, or does the design appear to simply be an inefficient out and back as opposed to a loop that would be far more efficient and useful? If so, that's just a huge opportunity missed.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 13, 2013 9:37:26 GMT -8
I guess I have two questions here: 1) Why is this being referred to as a Green line project when in fact any people mover will connect to the Crenshaw line? 2) Is it me, or does the design appear to simply be an inefficient out and back as opposed to a loop that would be far more efficient and useful? If so, that's just a huge opportunity missed. 1) Some of the Green line trains will go to Century/Aviation according to the operations plan. The Crenshaw line didn't exist when the project was originally proposed and the two projects are supposed to be developed in parallel. It would cause legal problems with the planning if one project looked like it depended on the completion of another. 2) I'm sure this isn't the final design that will get built, but I'm just hoping that *something* gets built. If it's the design shown above, I'm fine with it. I guess something like SFO wouldn't be bad with a loop and a tail, but what's drawn above would get the job done.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 13, 2013 9:52:41 GMT -8
I guess I have two questions here: 1) Why is this being referred to as a Green line project when in fact any people mover will connect to the Crenshaw line? 2) Is it me, or does the design appear to simply be an inefficient out and back as opposed to a loop that would be far more efficient and useful? If so, that's just a huge opportunity missed. 1) Some of the Green line trains will go to Century/Aviation according to the operations plan. The Crenshaw line didn't exist when the project was originally proposed and the two projects are supposed to be developed in parallel. It would cause legal problems with the planning if one project looked like it depended on the completion of another. 2) I'm sure this isn't the final design that will get built, but I'm just hoping that *something* gets built. If it's the design shown above, I'm fine with it. I guess something like SFO wouldn't be bad with a loop and a tail, but what's drawn above would get the job done. They would be crazy not to have a loop around the terminals. I think the drawing is incorrect. The benefit of having a loop would be that: 1. You could run two services. A service that just loops around the terminals, and a second service that does the entire system (i.e. from the rental facility around the terminal loop and back to the rental facility). 2. You would only need a single track around the terminal loop, but still need a double track from the terminal loop to the rental car facility. All trains running through the terminal loop would run counter clockwise on the single track. Without the terminal loop, you would have to double track the entire terminal area, cause you would have trains running in both directions. Unless they got really stupid and single tracked the whole thing. RT
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 13, 2013 12:58:04 GMT -8
I'm going to write this one more time: the drawing is just a guess from LAWA what the airport peoplemover may look like. LAWA doesn't know because Metro is still working on the EIR.
The drawing posted is from the airfield improvement EIR, which did not study or make any assumptions about the peoplemover routes - because they didn't study it.
|
|
|
Post by mbbernstein on Feb 13, 2013 13:33:59 GMT -8
I'm going to write this one more time: the drawing is just a guess from LAWA what the airport peoplemover may look like. LAWA doesn't know because Metro is still working on the EIR. The drawing posted is from the airfield improvement EIR, which did not study or make any assumptions about the peoplemover routes - because they didn't study it. So Metro has the responsibility for completing the EIR even though LAWA will be funding the people mover? I guess that's the nub of my confusion - I had been under the impression that this was a LAWA show, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 13, 2013 14:29:16 GMT -8
So Metro has the responsibility for completing the EIR even though LAWA will be funding the people mover? I guess that's the nub of my confusion - I had been under the impression that this was a LAWA show, pure and simple. The Green Line LAX Extension is a Metro project funded by Measure R. I believe Measure R allocated $300 million to be exact. The Peoplemover is an option of this project, as is a light rail spur, or a main line light rail serving the terminals. All those options will be studied in the EIR, which should be available in DEIR form about 12 months from now. LAWA is an interested party and as submitted their comments during the alternative elimination process just like any other interested party. Their preference is obviously a peoplemover to be operated by the airport, as opposed to light rail operated by Metro.
|
|
|
Post by mbbernstein on Feb 13, 2013 14:37:06 GMT -8
So Metro has the responsibility for completing the EIR even though LAWA will be funding the people mover? I guess that's the nub of my confusion - I had been under the impression that this was a LAWA show, pure and simple. The Green Line LAX Extension is a Metro project funded by Measure R. I believe Measure R allocated $300 million to be exact. The Peoplemover is an option of this project, as is a light rail spur, or a main line light rail serving the terminals. All those options will be studied in the EIR, which should be available in DEIR form about 12 months from now. LAWA is an interested party and as submitted their comments during the alternative elimination process just like any other interested party. Their preference is obviously a peoplemover to be operated by the airport, as opposed to light rail operated by Metro. Aaahh. OK - thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 13, 2013 21:33:57 GMT -8
So Metro has the responsibility for completing the EIR even though LAWA will be funding the people mover? I guess that's the nub of my confusion - I had been under the impression that this was a LAWA show, pure and simple. The Green Line LAX Extension is a Metro project funded by Measure R. I believe Measure R allocated $300 million to be exact. The Peoplemover is an option of this project, as is a light rail spur, or a main line light rail serving the terminals. All those options will be studied in the EIR, which should be available in DEIR form about 12 months from now. LAWA is an interested party and as submitted their comments during the alternative elimination process just like any other interested party. Their preference is obviously a peoplemover to be operated by the airport, as opposed to light rail operated by Metro. So basically let the taxpayer foot the bill for the high capital cost to build darn thing, THEN take over operations. This green line extension should be a spur to Lincoln/Sepulveda, Manchester/Sepulveda, or La Tijera/Sepulveda that would connect to a future Lincoln Blvd line or Sepulveda pass line with LAWA building their own Peoplemover to Aviation/Century. Metro paying for the exponentially high capital cost then just handing it over to LAWA is BS. But, a people mover is badly needed though, so I will go with the program.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 14, 2013 6:55:18 GMT -8
I still prefer a people mover for the reasons I stated on the previous page - Century/Aviation can be a major node in the transportation network with a large number of lines converging there. Under the airport is too expensive and simply won't happen for a large number of lines, and an orphaned stub of a light rail line will require people to transfer somewhere anyway (maybe even twice if they just end up building a shortened people mover connecting to a shorter and cheaper light rail stub).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 14, 2013 11:21:27 GMT -8
So basically let the taxpayer foot the bill for the high capital cost to build darn thing, THEN take over operations. This green line extension should be a spur to Lincoln/Sepulveda, Manchester/Sepulveda, or La Tijera/Sepulveda that would connect to a future Lincoln Blvd line or Sepulveda pass line with LAWA building their own Peoplemover to Aviation/Century. Metro paying for the exponentially high capital cost then just handing it over to LAWA is BS. But, a people mover is badly needed though, so I will go with the program. If the Peoplemover option is chosen, Metro will probably demand LAWA make financial contribution to the project. And LAWA has said that it is open to that, which is why it is the most likely outcome. No point worrying about who operates what until the EIR is actually done.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Aug 22, 2022 7:40:15 GMT -8
When the K line opens with the Aviation/Century station, the C line will end at Aviation/Century as well. Hasn't anybody ever thought to end it at Inglewood instead so it can serve a connection with the people mover to Sofi, Forum and the new Clippers stadium? It would make a much more direct connection possible than a bus shuttle that's offered now.
|
|