|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 2, 2013 2:41:02 GMT -8
Redoing the EIR is impossible, I think, at this point. I don't see the huge advantage of this change, other than it is closer to the airport. Maybe I'm blind to the obvious. I read somewhere that the LAX people mover could break cost records for people movers. Erict I agree with you, this is how I see it, to spend $600M or more to provide the "illusion" of being closer to the Airport is pennywise and very pound foolish. When all that is needed is instead of building a visible ped bridge to connect the APM station to Century/Aviation, it should be a pedway tunnel in which the interior has the appearance of being inside the airport terminal to take care of this rider psychology. In addition this gives the ultimate benefit that we're not precluding connections and design of a certain rail line that is coming from Westwood and Sepulveda Pass that needs to connect with the airport. Having a station at 96th/Lot C will be necessary but not with this current design and not at the expense of future connectivity.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 2, 2013 13:19:42 GMT -8
Redoing the EIR is impossible, I think, at this point. I don't see the huge advantage of this change, other than it is closer to the airport. Maybe I'm blind to the obvious. I read somewhere that the LAX people mover could break cost records for people movers. Erict I agree with you, this is how I see it, to spend $600M or more to provide the "illusion" of being closer to the Airport is pennywise and very pound foolish. When all that is needed is instead of building a visible ped bridge to connect the APM station to Century/Aviation, it should be a pedway tunnel in which the interior has the appearance of being inside the airport terminal to take care of this rider psychology. In addition this gives the ultimate benefit that we're not precluding connections and design of a certain rail line that is coming from Westwood and Sepulveda Pass that needs to connect with the airport. Having a station at 96th/Lot C will be necessary but not with this current design and not at the expense of future connectivity. I definitely agree that anything that forces the EIR to be redone is just not gonna happen, and a 2nd station on the future northward lincoln/sepulveda extensions at the Lot C/Intermodal transportation facility would probably address most of these issues. But the one thing that I had a question about, that I'm not sure I'm understanding right, is this -- I've read some conflicting, or at least confusing things about the intermodal transportation facility. At least one source (I forget where) had mentioned that the idea behind it was to wrap all ticketing/baggage/security for every terminal into that one building, and make all the existing terminals post-security, meaning that the people mover serving them would be post-security too. (just like the Dallas airport, if you're familiar with it). If this is the case (which I'm not even certain it is), there would be more of a benefit to the station being at the intermodal transportation center than it just being closer, because it would take you directly to ticketing without another transfer, accomplishing the 'station right at the airport' goal without mucking around with tunneling under LAX. I guess my question is, is that the idea behind the new facility in Lot C? Or is that totally off-base?
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Nov 2, 2013 14:25:53 GMT -8
Erict I agree with you, this is how I see it, to spend $600M or more to provide the "illusion" of being closer to the Airport is pennywise and very pound foolish. When all that is needed is instead of building a visible ped bridge to connect the APM station to Century/Aviation, it should be a pedway tunnel in which the interior has the appearance of being inside the airport terminal to take care of this rider psychology. In addition this gives the ultimate benefit that we're not precluding connections and design of a certain rail line that is coming from Westwood and Sepulveda Pass that needs to connect with the airport. Having a station at 96th/Lot C will be necessary but not with this current design and not at the expense of future connectivity. I definitely agree that anything that forces the EIR to be redone is just not gonna happen, and a 2nd station on the future northward lincoln/sepulveda extensions at the Lot C/Intermodal transportation facility would probably address most of these issues. But the one thing that I had a question about, that I'm not sure I'm understanding right, is this -- I've read some conflicting, or at least confusing things about the intermodal transportation facility. At least one source (I forget where) had mentioned that the idea behind it was to wrap all ticketing/baggage/security for every terminal into that one building, and make all the existing terminals post-security, meaning that the people mover serving them would be post-security too. (just like the Dallas airport, if you're familiar with it). If this is the case (which I'm not even certain it is), there would be more of a benefit to the station being at the intermodal transportation center than it just being closer, because it would take you directly to ticketing without another transfer, accomplishing the 'station right at the airport' goal without mucking around with tunneling under LAX. I guess my question is, is that the idea behind the new facility in Lot C? Or is that totally off-base? The idea for the intermodal transportation facility is to consolidate all of the shuttles and taxis that currently hog up the road through the airport. It would provide a central area for drop off and pick up. The people mover would connect the terminals with this facility and the Consolidated Rent A Car Facility to improve operations. At one point there was talk about moving the security check points off site to improve security of the terminal but I believe that idea has gone away.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 2, 2013 15:17:25 GMT -8
I definitely agree that anything that forces the EIR to be redone is just not gonna happen, and a 2nd station on the future northward lincoln/sepulveda extensions at the Lot C/Intermodal transportation facility would probably address most of these issues. But the one thing that I had a question about, that I'm not sure I'm understanding right, is this -- I've read some conflicting, or at least confusing things about the intermodal transportation facility. At least one source (I forget where) had mentioned that the idea behind it was to wrap all ticketing/baggage/security for every terminal into that one building, and make all the existing terminals post-security, meaning that the people mover serving them would be post-security too. (just like the Dallas airport, if you're familiar with it). If this is the case (which I'm not even certain it is), there would be more of a benefit to the station being at the intermodal transportation center than it just being closer, because it would take you directly to ticketing without another transfer, accomplishing the 'station right at the airport' goal without mucking around with tunneling under LAX. I guess my question is, is that the idea behind the new facility in Lot C? Or is that totally off-base? The idea for the intermodal transportation facility is to consolidate all of the shuttles and taxis that currently hog up the road through the airport. It would provide a central area for drop off and pick up. The people mover would connect the terminals with this facility and the Consolidated Rent A Car Facility to improve operations. At one point there was talk about moving the security check points off site to improve security of the terminal but I believe that idea has gone away. Ah, gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. In that case then, I definitely think the current plan is still the best.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 3, 2013 11:54:07 GMT -8
The idea for the intermodal transportation facility is to consolidate all of the shuttles and taxis that currently hog up the road through the airport. It would provide a central area for drop off and pick up. The people mover would connect the terminals with this facility and the Consolidated Rent A Car Facility to improve operations. At one point there was talk about moving the security check points off site to improve security of the terminal but I believe that idea has gone away. Taxis and shuttles do not hog up the road in LAX. 90% of the drivers are single passenger automobiles. Taxis are mostly idle in the taxi pick up areas. It's easy to blame traffic on the "others" as we're not taxi drivers or shuttle drivers, but they're the ones who transport the most people in an efficient manner. Whereas, us, the single passenger drivers who enter LAX tend to drive around a few circles during the pick-up or swerve over to parking garages after dropping people off. Ideally, we should move all single passenger drop-offs and pick-ups to the central terminal, thereby more people will take public transportation to LAX via tax, LAX Flyaway and shuttles.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 4, 2013 9:02:40 GMT -8
I definitely agree that anything that forces the EIR to be redone is just not gonna happen, and a 2nd station on the future northward lincoln/sepulveda extensions at the Lot C/Intermodal transportation facility would probably address most of these issues. But the one thing that I had a question about, that I'm not sure I'm understanding right, is this -- I've read some conflicting, or at least confusing things about the intermodal transportation facility. At least one source (I forget where) had mentioned that the idea behind it was to wrap all ticketing/baggage/security for every terminal into that one building, and make all the existing terminals post-security, meaning that the people mover serving them would be post-security too. (just like the Dallas airport, if you're familiar with it). If this is the case (which I'm not even certain it is), there would be more of a benefit to the station being at the intermodal transportation center than it just being closer, because it would take you directly to ticketing without another transfer, accomplishing the 'station right at the airport' goal without mucking around with tunneling under LAX. I guess my question is, is that the idea behind the new facility in Lot C? Or is that totally off-base? The idea for the intermodal transportation facility is to consolidate all of the shuttles and taxis that currently hog up the road through the airport. It would provide a central area for drop off and pick up. The people mover would connect the terminals with this facility and the Consolidated Rent A Car Facility to improve operations. At one point there was talk about moving the security check points off site to improve security of the terminal but I believe that idea has gone away. However the Manchester Square parking facility which is close to the Century/Aviation station -per the SPAS for LAX- will have this same remote security/check in point so again I feel we're spending good money to do the same thing at a different spot, which can be accomplished with an underground passageway with airport motifs between the APM/Check point at Manchester Square and the Century station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 4, 2013 11:10:20 GMT -8
The direct-to-terminal rail station will have to wait until we are ready to extend the Green line to either Santa Monica via Lincoln, or link up with the 405/Sepulveda line.
In the meanwhile, the peoplemover to Aviation/Century plan is the best. LAX needs a peoplemover anyway to solve the massive traffic congestion problem it has so it's not like this will be a wasted effort. Taking out all those rental car and hotel shuttles is going to improve traffic condition not just inside LAX but also in Westchester, which is choking under the constant barrage of these shuttle buses.
|
|
outthere15
New Member
Take back the rails
Posts: 33
|
Post by outthere15 on Dec 27, 2013 8:03:22 GMT -8
The Metro website says that "Utility relocation work is underway with heavy construction set to begin spring 2014". Has anyone seen any construction activity around the relocations?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 2, 2014 12:26:09 GMT -8
Maybe on the ROW in Inglewood? Certainly nothing has happened anywhere in Westchester.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Jan 21, 2014 14:28:06 GMT -8
So this the start of the Cresnshaw construction thread? yeah I guess this is the start! as of this morning, ground has been broken ont he crenshaw line! thesource.metro.net/2014/01/21/and-so-it-begins-ground-is-broken-for-8-5-mile-crenshawlax-line/you can see the expo/crenshaw station into the background. if I would have been paying more. attention I could have seen when they were getting this set up when I passed through on the expo line yesterday. from what I see on the source, they are starting by demolishing structures.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 21, 2014 17:43:08 GMT -8
Here we go... 2019 opening date so we have about 5 years of "construction watch" starting from now. It would be great if someone can document the per-construction street scape and ROW like Expo so we can compare the before/after.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 21, 2014 18:34:57 GMT -8
so can we say that we have five rail lines under simultaneous construction now? Or are the Downtown connector and the purple line not yet under construction in the colloquial sense of the term.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 21, 2014 20:59:21 GMT -8
so can we say that we have five rail lines under simultaneous construction now? Or are the Downtown connector and the purple line not yet under construction in the colloquial sense of the term. A contractor for either project has yet to be chosen, so calling them "under construction" would be premature.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 21, 2014 21:22:34 GMT -8
so can we say that we have five rail lines under simultaneous construction now? Or are the Downtown connector and the purple line not yet under construction in the colloquial sense of the term. A contractor for either project has yet to be chosen, so calling them "under construction" would be premature. I agree. Utility relocation is not under construction in my book.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jan 22, 2014 11:28:56 GMT -8
So this the start of the Cresnshaw construction thread? yeah I guess this is the start! as of this morning, ground has been broken ont he crenshaw line! thesource.metro.net/2014/01/21/and-so-it-begins-ground-is-broken-for-8-5-mile-crenshawlax-line/you can see the expo/crenshaw station into the background. if I would have been paying more. attention I could have seen when they were getting this set up when I passed through on the expo line yesterday. from what I see on the source, they are starting by demolishing structures. I was not long ago in the area (perhaps a week and a half ago) when I walked south on Crenshaw Blvd from the Expo Line station to Leimert Park Village to visit the book shop and noticed the following: - The Earlz Grill and Yum Yum Donuts were vacated and fenced-in (location of the groundbreaking)
- The famous Earlz Grill moved in across from the Crenshaw Baldwin Hills Plaza Mall. It is good they remain in close proximity to the light rail line
- There were huge steel grates covering up what remains of utility relocation activity immediately at Crenshaw/Expo down maybe a few blocks south
- This area has already attracted some development: the Ralph's and Rite Aid at Crenshaw/Rodeo has been razed and fenced in and they are pouring the foundation of a new urban style shopping plaza called District Square, renderings here. It looks a lot like the West Hollywood Gateway Plaza IMHO
- The Crenshaw Baldwin Hills Plaza Mall renovation has been completed and it looks a lot like the Westfield Culver City (formerly Fox Hills Mall), out in front a small plaza area containing an MLK bust is taped off for removal
I'm curious how they will shoehorn Leimert Park's subway station into Leimert Park Village, the park is quite small. It will be a nice treat to get off at this station, it's an adorable village area not unlike Brentwood Village or Los Feliz Village with restaurants, a theatre, a bookshop, art galleries, the mentioned park, and soon the subway station. Leimert Park Village is adorable now and will have potential to be a stronger neighborhood center. Last year I rode a bike from Crenshaw/Wilshire to Crenshaw Green Line Station I will do the same in pictures to get some pre-construction shots, including the massive 50 year old trees in the Crenshaw Blvd right of way where the train will be. I'm in favor of Crenshaw Boulevard getting a MyFigueroa type reconfiguration with space for bike lanes or a cycle track (!) and bus lanes, the street is nearly 200 feet wide in many places!
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jan 23, 2014 10:46:16 GMT -8
For Liemert Park the best spot to put an entrance/plaza would be the El Pollo Loco across the street south of the park itself. I wouldn't take out the whole Crenshaw-Liemert-Vernon triangle though.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 24, 2014 15:09:06 GMT -8
Hmm? The Leimert Pk. Bl. traffic lanes after Vernon Av. that pour onto Crenshaw Bl. seem to create a de facto Kiss N Ride if a station portal were placed in the spot currently occupied by the building between Chris Burgers and the veterinarian's office.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jan 24, 2014 16:10:05 GMT -8
Maybe on the ROW in Inglewood? Certainly nothing has happened anywhere in Westchester. There has been a substantial amount of disruptive activity in January - DWP power crews - at Manchester & Florence, and Manchester & Osage (which Google calls "Portal"). Like most public works crews, they didn't seem to accomplish much, but they did put up a giant steel power pole, and there is a very large wooden pole that has been sitting on Osage for months. Whether that work has anything to do with Metro, is unclear. Last week, there were several crews surveying the ROW along Florence between La Cienega and Manchester on both sides of Hindry, accompanied by at least four post-hole digger trucks. Didn't see any evidence, again, of any work being done; the dome-tent guy is still happily sleeping in, undisturbed.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 31, 2014 11:35:10 GMT -8
www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/01/30/are-people-really-going-to-take-the-train-to-laxThe tone of this article aside, a Metro spokesperson says they're considering express service on crenshaw to LAX. How would that even work? The whole line was engineered for 2 tracks, not 4, right? Wouldn't they at least have to redesign the stations to install bypass tracks? Or is this one of those -- "We're considering it... yep, we considered it, impossible."
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 31, 2014 11:50:35 GMT -8
www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/01/30/are-people-really-going-to-take-the-train-to-laxThe tone of this article aside, a Metro spokesperson says they're considering express service on crenshaw to LAX. How would that even work? The whole line was engineered for 2 tracks, not 4, right? Wouldn't they at least have to redesign the stations to install bypass tracks? Or is this one of those -- "We're considering it... yep, we considered it, impossible." I saw that too and had the same reaction. One good thing about the Crenshaw Line is that it will be pretty fast already. I suppose we did have express service on the Gold Line for a short period of time before it was abandoned. Expo would be a better candidate for express service, but of course it doesn't really seem possible.
|
|
|
Post by chuckchuck on Jan 31, 2014 12:06:44 GMT -8
www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/01/30/are-people-really-going-to-take-the-train-to-laxThe tone of this article aside, a Metro spokesperson says they're considering express service on crenshaw to LAX. How would that even work? The whole line was engineered for 2 tracks, not 4, right? Wouldn't they at least have to redesign the stations to install bypass tracks? Or is this one of those -- "We're considering it... yep, we considered it, impossible." I saw that too and had the same reaction. One good thing about the Crenshaw Line is that it will be pretty fast already. I suppose we did have express service on the Gold Line for a short period of time before it was abandoned. Expo would be a better candidate for express service, but of course it doesn't really seem possible. Express Expo service would be amazing. Downtown Santa Monica / Downtown Culver / Expo-Crenshaw / USC-Expo Park / 7th Street. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 31, 2014 17:34:13 GMT -8
www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/01/30/are-people-really-going-to-take-the-train-to-laxThe tone of this article aside, a Metro spokesperson says they're considering express service on crenshaw to LAX. How would that even work? The whole line was engineered for 2 tracks, not 4, right? Wouldn't they at least have to redesign the stations to install bypass tracks? Or is this one of those -- "We're considering it... yep, we considered it, impossible." I saw that too and had the same reaction. One good thing about the Crenshaw Line is that it will be pretty fast already. I suppose we did have express service on the Gold Line for a short period of time before it was abandoned. Expo would be a better candidate for express service, but of course it doesn't really seem possible. How did the express service on the gold line work? Do you think express service might ever be in the cards for a future line, like maybe the santa ana line or sepulveda line? LA's geographically huge enough, and those lines will cover large enough distances, that they'd certainly be useful. The expense, of course, would be large, and there's never enough money...
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 31, 2014 17:49:17 GMT -8
IMHO the LAWeekly is not a good source of information or debate, they are sensationalist writing for college students.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jan 31, 2014 18:27:40 GMT -8
At this point, I don't see the point in express services. At around a mile between each station in our system, you wouldn't gain too much from the added cost to add more tracks. It only really works for systems like in Japan and NYC, where there are stops so close that the local train has the speed of a local city bus. The Pasadena Gold Line or the Private ROW sections of the Blue Line could easily defeat an NYC subway local train. Actually, even the street running Washington section of the Blue Line could defeat it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 11, 2014 7:11:34 GMT -8
Whoever wrote that article didn't even look at her/his own map. The map clearly shows that the entire route of the Crenshaw/LAX Line is red, pink or blue.
LA Weekly is a rag with an agenda. It gets people to grab a paper by using sensationalist headlines and scare tactics. It is the left's version of the Drudge Report.
The author states, referring to the people of South LA: "(Those areas do have a high concentration of airport workers, but that's another story.)" Why is that a different story? I imagine many of these workers will take the train, just as many airport workers currently take the Green Line.
This article fundamentally misreads the purpose of the line. This line wasn't designed to get people from Malibu and Beverly Hills to the airport: it was designed to connect BOTH the airport AND the people of Southwest LA to the growing light rail transit system.
It's the same old BS, the idea that only if the wealthy have good service are we doing things right. Meanwhile, folks in the hood, who are only a few miles away, are left to drive and pay for parking.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 11, 2014 9:42:22 GMT -8
LA Weekly is a Metro detractor, they support their claims with gut reaction rather than evidence and journalistic integrity, that said, it's been clear for a long time that even if Metro published documents saying that the Crenshaw Line will go from Expo Line to Redondo Beach Station and there's a planned extension to Torrance and a studied extension to Hollywood LA Weekly cannot be trusted to put together that there will be a Metro rail line going from Hollywood to Torrance via LAX. Why? Because Metro has published documents that this is the long term goal and all an interested party would need do is only sift through some publicly available documents on the Metro website. LA Weekly (or its editors) isn't interested in a new Los Angeles unified by rapid transit and walkability, in my opinion its hardly this free entertainment magazine's place and when I pick up a copy of this rag at the dentist's office I have greater expectations for its concert date listings and strip club ads listed in the back pages than for its hatchet based attempts at journalism.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 14, 2014 11:04:23 GMT -8
Snapped a photo of pre-construction Florence & La Cienega intersection this morning. I saw a worker putting up some fencing along the ROW a few yards west of the intersection so looks like they are about to start some work at this location. Utility relocation perhaps? You can see in the photo that there are lots of electric and cable wires in the way...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 14, 2014 11:23:33 GMT -8
Regarding the Westchester stop -
I noticed on a map recently that Manchester Ave. will be grade separated with a bridge.
So...why is the station being built at Hindry when Manchester Ave. (the original and more logical location in the first place) will have a bridge that could support it?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 14, 2014 12:47:10 GMT -8
I think it could have been done if they tried hard but they claimed that the right-of-way was too curvy for an aerial station there. I think it could fit though. They probably went with the at-grade station because of lower cost.
MRT really negatively impacted this project with too many underground sections. Leimert Park Station could have easily been built at-grade instead of underground and some of the underground sections could have been aerial.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 14, 2014 13:06:58 GMT -8
Is there any way at this late stage that the station could be moved? Maybe a supplemental EIR?
|
|