|
Post by bzcat on Feb 1, 2012 15:24:53 GMT -8
Transit Coalition meets with LAWA staff once or twice per month to work on FlyAway issues. Keep up the good work. It seems your input have started to pay dividend as their proposals about connecting FlyAway to existing rail/BRT lines are something we've discussed here. You should pitch them my idea about re-routing the Irvine bus to stop in Anaheim and/or Fullerton Transit Center I like the Orange line proposal. Very good idea. The surface running speed on Woodley is not that much different from the 405 during rush hour. So it will start at Wilshire/Western and take Wilshire to La Cienega to Expo? And presumably continue on La Cienega to Century Blvd? Will it make any intermediate stops besides Expo line? The Wilshire portion and La Cienega portion north of 10 freeway will be very slow slog. South of Expo, it should be fine. I think it will be a challenge to keep the running time within reason during peak traffic hour.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Feb 1, 2012 16:27:35 GMT -8
They really should look at having some service go out to the Norwalk either at the metro station or Metrolink station. my preference would be the metro station. its quite a busy hub I know the green line exists but for people in a rush especially and you elminiate a transfer. and it would be useful for folks in the gateway cities.
you can then expand it out to the Fullerton transit center.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 6, 2012 18:25:58 GMT -8
I just travelled to Dallas, Texas and I thought I would try out the public transit option between DFW and downtown Dallas, where my hotel was. Guess what.........it sucks.
It took me 3.5 hours from DFW to downtown Dallas Union Station via shuttle (i.e. think Green Line G Shuttle) and DFW.
From DFW, you have to take TWO shuttles to connect to the nearest Trinity Railway Express station and one of those shuttles only runs once an hour. The train runs half hour in peak and hourly off-peak. Then it takes 30 minutes into Dallas (not a bad ride) and connect to DART to final destination. The TRE and DART was not bad..........but TWO shuttles to get to the station from DFW was horrible. And one of those shuttles runs ONCE PER HOUR. Oh yeah..........no train service on Sundays.
So, is LAX-downtown LA really that bad? Could it be better? Yes. But compared to some other cities.....we do have transit connections to the airport.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 7, 2012 1:21:56 GMT -8
The other question is whether Downtown-LAX is really the correct measure. With such a spread out population, our transit connection needs to balance out passengers coming from different parts of the city, and FlyAway kind of does that. I think a people mover that connects (cross platform, ideally) to an extended Crenshaw line with connections to the Expo, Purple, and Red lines (in Hollywood) would be an OK balance. If the Green line were extended to Santa Fe Springs, it would provide a potentially competitive ride to the airport for OC, San Diego County, and Riverside. It would be a hassle compared with a one seat ride to a monocentric city center, like Frankfurt, but would be possible for many people. It would be competitive in many cases, especially if transit took out the uncertainty about traffic and the expensive parking costs.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 7, 2012 15:48:46 GMT -8
even with connections to the Green Line and the Crenshaw Line, I would think that the downtown-to-LAX FlyAway bus would still make sense.
First of all, it will be a while before the much-needed peoplemover links with any light rail line. I think we have to look at many different kinds of travellers to Los Angeles, the local, the tourist and the business traveler. The local traveler is the one most likely to need light rail to criss-cross Los Angeles' sprawl.
However, downtown is not dead, empty space and it is getting better. It is still the most logical destination for business travel, and a reasonable destination for tourists (tourists who aren't headed for Santa Monica or Anaheim). If I were to make changes to the FlyAway, it would be to make more options available, so that a convention traveler might have easy access to the LACC. Union Station is important for transfers, but it is not close to most business hotels.
The FlyAway bus also needs better promotion and more frequent service.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 11, 2012 5:36:47 GMT -8
Irvine Line - The problem is no one in Irvine knows where the Metrolink station is... Irvine, one of the stations that had to hire valets to stack park because the lot got so full? Irvine, one of the few suburban stations with double-peak traffic (there are as many people getting out in the morning as there are boarding)? Granted, it's a beet field station without the beets, but Irvine is not a slab stop in the sticks. Maybe there just isn't demand for this service.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 11, 2012 5:48:27 GMT -8
First of all, it will be a while before the much-needed peoplemover links with any light rail line. Another good reason: FlyAway is one of the few cases in which a bus can deliver a superior service. Think about this. An urban rail line will be more oriented around the combinations of local stations than the ridership boost solely from LAX. Does the airport really warrant more attention or resources disproportionate to its productivity? However, the FlyAway at least tailors resources (money, buses, routes) to the people who are planning to fly. The buses actually get you to the terminal door without transfers. They are cheaper than vans or taxis. The buses have secure storage for luggage. This is a service that has tangible benefits a train won't be able to replicate.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 24, 2012 11:37:31 GMT -8
Irvine Line - The problem is no one in Irvine knows where the Metrolink station is... Irvine, one of the stations that had to hire valets to stack park because the lot got so full? Irvine, one of the few suburban stations with double-peak traffic (there are as many people getting out in the morning as there are boarding)? Granted, it's a beet field station without the beets, but Irvine is not a slab stop in the sticks. Maybe there just isn't demand for this service. My point was that Irvine Metrolink station is a poor location for FlyAway terminus. I know the Irvine Metrolink station has relatively high usage (I used to use it when I worked on Technology Dr... right behind the station). But high Metrolink boarding is meaningless in terms of FlyAway. The average residents of Irvine (and surrounding area) really have no idea where this station is because it is located out of way on a dead end street. When they have to take a flight out of LAX, they don't think of driving to the train station... most of them don't commute by train. The Irvine FlyAway needs to terminate at a highly visible area in Irvine that can offer curb side drop off that people are used to driving to and visit. Like the Spectrum shopping center.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 24, 2012 15:26:05 GMT -8
Another problem for Irvine Metrolink is it's no Los Angeles Union Station. Union Station has lots of easy-to-understand Metro Rail service beyond just Metrolink. Irvine doesn't have that.
What Irvine does have is John Wayne. John Wayne has its limitations, but I would much rather see more people using John Wayne than adding to LAX congestion. (Not just street congestion, but the air, gate and runway traffic is ridiculous as well.)
I would have to agree with using Irvine Spectrum. We've been looking at this from the point of view of somebody living in Irvine, but what about the business traveler coming to Irvine to sell 10 million widgets to Taco Bell? Irvine Spectrum makes more sense in that case as well.
|
|
|
Post by dankegel on Mar 26, 2012 20:35:23 GMT -8
Fun fact: Google Transit says the fastest way from the west end of the purple line to LAX is... the Westwood flyaway!
|
|
|
Post by dankegel on Mar 26, 2012 20:48:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 27, 2012 13:43:06 GMT -8
That report, although it is a little old (and a bit closer to the post-9/11 airline downturn) does sound reasonable.
I'm a little surprised at the number of LAX-area passengers. Are those airline employees living close to their place of business, business people attending conventions or are people lying to the survey? If it's the "business meeting" one, that could be a vote for a peoplemover that serves Century Boulevard hotels (or gets close to them).
Anaheim is not a surprise, although Disneyland does (and should) provide its own shuttle. The high Santa Monica numbers suggest that the Westwood shuttle ought to do better than it does, or else be reworked somehow. And the high Hollywood/ Hollywood adjacent numbers point to the need for getting the Crenshaw Line further north. At the same time, there's a lot of Long Beach/ South Bay traffic as well, so that could be addressed in the future.
The advantage of the Union Station shuttle is that Union Station is a hub. You can make tons of transfers there (although people living north or south of the airport are going to want a more direct route home).
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 27, 2012 14:03:02 GMT -8
Hollywood/Highland needs its own Flyaway. I have met many people waiting for Flyaways at LAX and half go to Union Station or to Westwood. Which one is more convenient? Who knows. Hollywood is a HUGE destination; it needs a Flyaway. So does Santa Monica (not a substitute for the Rapid/Local 3).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 27, 2012 17:50:46 GMT -8
well, if you're a tourist headed for Hollywood/ Highland, the Union Station bus might make more sense. The route would be easier to understand (subway map). I'm not sure if it would be any faster.
However, you're correct in that Hollywood ought to have a Flyaway bus.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 1, 2012 4:42:25 GMT -8
The one problem with a Hollywood Flyaway is that it involves a lot of slow surface streets.
FlyAway is a freeway service. It works for the 405 routes and downtown L.A., but Hollywood's freeway is only the 101. The bus could go up and around via the Valley, or over and back via downtown L.A. LAWA likely bids the buses from Coach USA by the mile, so these options would be too expensive.
The most direct route would either be La Brea to Inglewood or Fairfax and then La Cienega directly to LAX. The buses would make good time through Baldwin Hills, but would be very slow between Hollywood and the 10 Freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 1, 2012 11:14:29 GMT -8
The one problem with a Hollywood Flyaway is that it involves a lot of slow surface streets. FlyAway is a freeway service. It works for the 405 routes and downtown L.A., but Hollywood's freeway is only the 101. The bus could go up and around via the Valley, or over and back via downtown L.A. LAWA likely bids the buses from Coach USA by the mile, so these options would be too expensive. The most direct route would either be La Brea to Inglewood or Fairfax and then La Cienega directly to LAX. The buses would make good time through Baldwin Hills, but would be very slow between Hollywood and the 10 Freeway. A Hollywood FlyAway would travel at the exact same pace as a taxi cab or a rental car. Speed isn't to the issue in a direct point-to-point service. A parking area inside the Hollywood / Highland facility and catching several key Hollywood Hotels would make this work along with an Expo Line Stop. In my work with LAWA, the airport thinks that this stop would cut patronage drastically from One Gateway Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 2, 2012 11:51:57 GMT -8
So basically, if the FlyAway bus serve Hollywood directly, it will kneecap the Downtown FlyAway bus; and probably make both routes bleed red ink.
What about a SGV FlyAway bus that starts at Diamond Bar (Industry Metrolink station?) with a stop at Punte Hills Mall transit center (major Foothill Transit hub)? [Colima Road to Punte Hills Mall to 60 freeway to 605 freeway to 105 freeway to LAX]. I think that has some potentials and it will be able to use HOV lanes most of the way.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Apr 2, 2012 13:57:49 GMT -8
So basically, if the FlyAway bus serve Hollywood directly, it will kneecap the Downtown FlyAway bus; and probably make both routes bleed red ink. Not necessarily. I think LAWA could actually increase the use of the Union Station FlyAway if they simply made a couple stops at some of the major downtown hotels along the way. While it would add to the travel time it would presumably appeal to visitors who would rather not schlep all the way to Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 21, 2012 9:07:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 21, 2012 9:57:45 GMT -8
Interesting choice of La Brea instead of La Cinenga...
BTW, the Irvine Flyaway is getting axed due to poor ridership and bankruptcy of the contractor operating it for LAWA.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 21, 2012 11:24:55 GMT -8
Interesting choice of La Brea instead of La Cinenga... BTW, the Irvine Flyaway is getting axed due to poor ridership and bankruptcy of the contractor operating it for LAWA. I think La Brea was chosen over La Cienega due to 1) less congestion on La Brea than La Cienega and 2) lack of abuse of the parking structure by people parking there for Flyaway instead of Metro rail
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 26, 2012 9:38:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 28, 2013 11:28:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 4, 2013 16:44:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by skater on Dec 4, 2013 19:49:18 GMT -8
if you ask me if the bus goes to union station then for hollywood because there is the red line!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 6, 2015 15:04:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Oct 8, 2015 19:49:16 GMT -8
Yep - they discontinued Expo service months ago. I suspect it had something to do with the fact that nobody was riding from there; La Brea Station is so damn close to the airport that anyone who wasn't on the train would just drive anyway.
|
|