|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 22, 2010 19:35:05 GMT -8
Well, it may not be included in the 30/10 plan But the idea of a Green Line extension north of LAX — at least as far as Playa Del rey, Marina Del Rey or Westchester — has deep roots. It was considered by the MTA years ago and then was dropped in favor of other lines. I'm not saying that it should be pushed ahead of Crenshaw, Westside subway or even South Bay Green, but I do think it will happen. Once Expo Rail reaches Santa Monica and the Green Line or the Crenshaw Line reaches LAX, the gap between LAX and Santa Monica will be too big to ignore for very long.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 1, 2010 7:40:46 GMT -8
***BUMP*** Reminder, LAWA (which runs LAX) will be holding two public scoping meetings for revising its LAX master plan. Significance? The route and mode of the LAX people mover is being considered, in addition to several other LAX projects. LAX has had a NIMBY problem in the past, so somebody should show up and express some support for the people mover. The first meeting is this Wednesday, November 3 at 6 PM. The second meeting will be on Saturday morning, November 6 at 9 AM. Both scoping meetings will be at the Proud Bird (on Aviation). Full information is here.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 3, 2010 13:42:58 GMT -8
Looks like the ULTra PRT system is getting closer to being operational at Heathrow: www.ultraprt.com/news/74/149/Oct-2010-Newsletter-Heathrow-Advances/And the above page has a news item stating that the system is being considered for LAX. Maybe this will be mentioned in the meetings tonight and Saturday. My guess at this point would be that it's too early to have chosen any given technical solution, and that decision would come much later. Having a smaller form factor like ULTra PRT would make it much easier to then connect additional properties later on at a reasonable cost. Versus something larger in scale like the SFO AirTrain. We should have a good idea in a few months when the Heathrow system is fully operational what the reliability and throughput of the system are. RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 3, 2010 14:28:18 GMT -8
That's more a press release than a news item, since it was reported on the Ultra PRT blog. Interestingly, Ultra PRT claims in its self-reported story that LAWA's Executive Director wrote a "glowing report" about Ultra PRT. The actual report (link below) is a pretty non-committal response to the Councilman's request for studying Ultra PRT as an option. www.ultraprt.net/cms/LosAngelesPRTcouncilMotion.pdfBTW, if it works and people will accept it, then I'm all for it. But I'd like to see specifically how it is an improvement over a traditional peoplemover.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 4, 2010 1:37:35 GMT -8
I'm generally opposed to PRT just on general principles — too tech-obsessed, not enough capacity, we don't need car-like vehicles to replicate the illusion of automobile "freedom". This particular "ultra" PRT is laser-guided, which just seems like another system to break down.
However, I must admit that airports present a different situation than the typical rail transit corridor. Any system which is picked is not likely to spread beyond the airport. The possibilities are much less limited than would be acceptable for a large-scale rail transit operation.
Still, I'd much rather see an AirTrain than a PRT at LAX. We're looking at what appears to be a very linear system. You start your journey at the LAX loop, and most passengers would head to and from either the Green Line station or the Rental Car parking lot. No opportunities for showing off the "flexibility" of a PRT, with the likelihood of passengers arriving in clumps as airliners unload 150-250 passengers at a time.
Seems like it would be much more efficient to have a larger rail car than dozens of PRT "pods"....
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 4, 2010 6:31:43 GMT -8
Still, I'd much rather see an AirTrain than a PRT at LAX. We're looking at what appears to be a very linear system. You start your journey at the LAX loop, and most passengers would head to and from either the Green Line station or the Rental Car parking lot. No opportunities for showing off the "flexibility" of a PRT, with the likelihood of passengers arriving in clumps as airliners unload 150-250 passengers at a time. Seems like it would be much more efficient to have a larger rail car than dozens of PRT "pods".... Yes, if you are only doing basically point to point travel with high capacity, the AirTrain wins hands down. Also, if you are going longer distances and need higher speed, AirTrain also wins hands down. See the JFK AirTrain video for a good example, that is many kilometers long. Bombardier linear induction motor like Vancouver SkyTrain... www.youtube.com/watch?v=om-PS0pZNlQThe real case for PRT is where you have a small footprint system, say less than 3-4 miles total distance, and multiple destinations connected on the system. The PRT system increases in utility as the number of destinations increase, while the AirTrain decreases in utility since every vehicle must stop at every destination. Even LAX to a certain extent where you are only going from the terminal to the Crenshaw station and rental car facility (same location) represents a multi-destination system because of the number of terminals. My earlier drawing had 8 stops at the terminals. Assuming a one way loop through, if you got on at the first stop, you are looking at 7 more stops before you finally head off to the real destination. Of course, this comes in handy if you are transferring to another terminal, but PRT has that case covered too. I would like to see the group at ULTraPRT do a simulation of the LAX system. I would like to see connections at: 1. every terminal 2. circling lot C 3. Century/Aviation (Crenshaw, car rental) 4. Some number of hotels along Century If you had a system of that scope, you would be getting rid of a whole lot of vehicles driving through the airport. No more A circulator buses, rental car buses, and some hotel buses, plus the Lot C buses. I see that as a tremendous plus, no only from a traffic standpoint, but also from a cleaner air standpoint. Though PRT is slower, it wouldn't have to make all the stops and saves time in that regard. If you get on at the first of 8 terminals and want to go to the rental car facility, the PRT could cut across the airport and take you right there directly. This assumes that the PRT system is double tracked for two way traffic all through LAX, and that the cross airport links are in place. Given the smaller size of the PRT guideway, I'm pretty sure that this is doable. The other big plus for the PRT is that it is much more easily expandable. You simply need to build the double track system to wherever you want to go, then shut the system down for maybe 1 day to make the final connection to the main system. Load up the new software informing the system that there is now a new destination and you are off to the races. I think it all boils down to (in order of importance) 1. Reliability 2. Throughput 3. Cost The Heathrow system will tell us a lot about all 3 of these well before any system is chosen for LAX. I guess my main point is that if you are going to finally bite the bullet and build a people mover that will be the primary entry/exit point for many passengers for years to come, build it in such a manner that provides the best service both now and that will be expandable in the future. I think that an "optimum" PRT system would be better suited to the job than an SF AirTrain for example.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Nov 4, 2010 8:16:22 GMT -8
Here's a little more info on the JFK AirTrain. The one downside is that it's not a free transfer from the subway to the AirTrain and vice versa. I believe it's $5.00 and the fare gates are at the subway stations. HOWEVER, going terminal to terminal, it's free.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 9:06:56 GMT -8
The LAWA meeting last night was dominated by locals opposing any efforts to expand the impact of the airport on their neighborhoods.
(By definition these people are "NIMBYs", but I don't necessarily want to attach that label because they seem to have some real grievances against LAWA, who seem to be fairly deaf to the concerns of the outside world.)
Anyway, the presenters didn't say anything about the transit link what we don't already know. The "Master Plan" version of the people mover will not happen, because with the Crenshaw Line, there will be no need to serve Aviation/Imperial station (the new Aviation/Century station will be much closer). This leaves two replacement options, "Concept A" and "Concept B". The first is a road link (sort of a busway) and the second is a people mover/rail link. No mention was made of PRT.
The presenter made numerous mistakes during his presentation, leaving the impression that he didn't really practice and didn't know the details of what he was talking about. For instance, he referred to Aviation/Imperial as the "terminus of the Green Line".
Mostly, the presenter just didn't seem to care. In fact, the three people at the dais seemed fairly unconcerned about the criticisms being hurled at them. At times, the presented would quietly smile with what seemed like contempt at the audience. The presentation itself seemed designed to provide as little information as possible, as if LAWA's strategy was to blunt criticism by keeping silent.
My comments came in the midst of a tide of angry speakers. I was the only speaker who came to specifically talk about the transit component. I spoke in favor of a rail transit link into the airport, be it people mover or LRT. I said trains are better than buses because they create less pollution. I also emphasized the importance of coordination with Metro, and called LAWA out for nearly letting the federal grant for Aviation/Century station expire. At the end, I put in a plug for high-speed rail, which would lessen the demand for travelers to use LAX.
After me, a couple of speakers also expressed support for the people mover (described by one commenter as "non-controversial") as well as high-speed rail. But overall, nobody in the surrounding neighborhoods seemed to care much about the people mover project one way or another. And the LAWA people didn't have any useful information at all.
I did however learn about the massive opposition to moving the "R" runway north (which, depending on the option, could require Lincoln Blvd. to be relocated). Most people said either (1) separating the runways is not necessary, or (2) move the "L" runway south, even if it means reconfiguring the terminals.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 4, 2010 9:35:09 GMT -8
MC, Thanks for the update! Not surprised about the material being presented. Kind of makes sense that we here would probably know more about the transit aspects than the speakers themselves. Mostly because it is quite early in the process, and the audience they are presenting to is probably more focused on the stuff that is more controversial, like the runway movement. With all the studies showing how bad diesel exhaust is, you would think that more people would be concerned about lowering the road traffic, though a lot of the buses service LAX are NG now. I guess in some sense having a noisy runway is more disturbing than breathing in particulate matter, though the latter is going to bite you more over time.
BTW, I grew up right next to a 4 lane road that had busy truck traffic all hours of the day and night. You get used to the background noise. When I first moved out here I had trouble sleeping cause it was so quiet.
RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 4, 2010 10:01:54 GMT -8
The good news is there were no negative comments to the people mover project......I can see that will happen with very little opposition, if any.
RE: high speed rail........even if it does happen, it just lets LAX expand flights to more international and long-haul destinations. Remember, rail NEVER reduces traffic (proven in every country/city in the world), it allows for more growth. It's an alternative to what exists. HSR may free up some flights to SF, SJ, Sacramento and Fresno. But, it allows LAX to fly more planes to more destinations. You replace one flight to SF....it'll be taken up by a new additional flight to Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 10:06:51 GMT -8
My one criticism of the neighbors: they automatically think that runway expansion is worse.
A couple LAX supporters spoke last night (and got booed). They said more pollution than necessary is coming out of large planes because they have to accelerate so fast on takeoff. If they had a longer runway, these planes would create less pollution.
I just get the impression that neighbors have been fed so many lines over the decades, that they don't believe anything that LAWA says.
RT, I think you're right that the transit aspect is a lower priority for people right now. Transit is literally an afterthought, because the design of the transit link depends on whether or not the terminals get redesigned, and where the various other airport components (employee parking, consolidated rental car facility) get located.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 4, 2010 10:38:10 GMT -8
Moving the runway north is cheaper and will not require demolishing the terminals. However, you have NIMBY opposition (some justifiably so, some just for the sake of opposing ANYTHING).
Moving the runway south is very expensive but also could potentially result in better airport. Terminal 1 is badly located and Terminal 3 is super old and outdated. Demolishing T1-3 will actually help modernize LAX quite a bit, especially if they design it properly so they have connecting secured areas... so people won't need to clear security just to change from long haul flights to Southwest. Also, since LAWA now owns the land that Park One operates on, they can actually add Terminal 0 there so we don't lose any gates after T1-3 is rebuild with smaller footprint. And there is an added upside to having all new terminals... we can design a proper train station (for the People Mover or LRT) that can serve all 3 terminals.
The downside of moving the runway south of course is that we will see massive disruption and loss of gate capacity during construction. And there is no guarantee that LAWA will get the train station right.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 10:42:28 GMT -8
I'd much rather see new terminals relocated south. The people mover could then be a straight line ending at the international terminal, rather than a long loop with too many stops.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 4, 2010 10:43:42 GMT -8
I think the Heathrow PRT system is horrendous. People around the world will point to this publicity stunt that is ridiculously expensive for the capacity it provides and say that we shouldn't invest in real transit solutions because PRT will be the wave of the future. It will be just like the Shanghai Maglev acting as a red herring for steel wheel high speed rail. The number of people served by this PRT system is minuscule compared to the masses of people who take traditional buses (or the underground, or Heathrow Express). I'm glad at least to hear it wasn't on the agenda for LAX, and I hope it remains so.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 4, 2010 11:04:58 GMT -8
The good news is there were no negative comments to the people mover project......I can see that will happen with very little opposition, if any. RE: high speed rail........even if it does happen, it just lets LAX expand flights to more international and long-haul destinations. Remember, rail NEVER reduces traffic (proven in every country/city in the world), it allows for more growth. It's an alternative to what exists. HSR may free up some flights to SF, SJ, Sacramento and Fresno. But, it allows LAX to fly more planes to more destinations. You replace one flight to SF....it'll be taken up by a new additional flight to Chicago. Your theory of induced demand certainly is true for crowded roadways and why adding lanes to traffic clogged roads just induces more demand and more traffic. However, for this to be true on the airport front, LAX would have to be at or near capacity. This has not been the case, especially since 2001. I agree with you in the long run, but I think the airlines are pretty much able to fly all the routes they want now including international flights. In other words, I don't hear the airlines complaining they can't get enough Chicago flights into LA, because they are all taken by SF flights. That just isn't true right now. I don't think HSR would displace all the SF flights (whether it displaces most is up for discussion) as HSR might actually induce demand for travel between the two cities. I know I would go up to the Bay Area more myself if HSR were around.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 4, 2010 12:06:59 GMT -8
High-speed rail, when it reaches Union Station (John Mica is just a bump in the road), would induce me to travel more often. Faster ride= more time on my weekends. However, you're not really reducing the number of flights in my case since I do my in-state travel by bus, train or carpooling. People who fly LAX-SFO would hopefully also switch to HSR. There's no telling if HSR would grab more people off of Hwy. 99 or off of Southwest, but it will certainly change the dynamics. I suspect that the airlines won't give up on the shuttle flights that easily. Airlines know how to stage a price war. Remember, too, that the airlines have been introducing larger jets, so they can now squeeze more people onto the same number of longer flights. I can't say that the larger planes have induced more ticket purchases, though Of course, the bigger planes are a large part of the reason for LAX's expansion plans. The current facilities just aren't designed for the larger planes. Also, the current runway configuration honestly isn't the safest. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the answer is for the NIMBYs. They do have valid points, and LAX should try to be a good neighbor (noise, pollution, traffic). And they have been yanked around a bit. Imagine if the MTA never actually built any rail but just kept changing their plans. I'd be angry and frustrated, too. Getting back to the peoplemover, you could make the ride shorter by having a double loop, one running against the flow of traffic, and a couple of wyes. Instead of the inner loop looping around the terminals, it would branch off from the main route at the entrance and reconnect at the exit. Half the trains would serve 1, 2, 3 (and I suppose "0") on the way in to Tom Bradley, the other half would serve 7, 6, 5, 4 first before looping over to Bradley, 3, 2, 1. [ Terminal 8 is essentially an add-on to 7 and wouldn't need a stop, and "0" might be linked to 1 in the same way. ] Sorry I don't really have an illustration for this....
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 4, 2010 13:41:10 GMT -8
By the time these people-mover/light rail projects for the airport are ready to build, we could see a decrease in air travel as the price of "jet juice" increases. We may get back to the days when only affluent, well-dressed people could afford to travel by commercial aviation.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 4, 2010 13:54:17 GMT -8
By the time these people-mover/light rail projects for the airport are ready to build, we could see a decrease in air travel as the price of "jet juice" increases. We may get back to the days when only affluent, well-dressed people could afford to travel by commercial aviation. As a person with strong ties to both Hawaii and Japan, I'd be opposed to that. Some people (and I'm not specifically referencing anyone on this message board) seem to be all too gleeful about the prospect of an airline-free future, and I am appalled at this sort of thinking. We should be working to find ways to avoid this "peak oil" apocalypse from happening, not advocating it. International travel has done a great deal of good for the United States, and it may be one of our few weapons against insular, nationalist, nativist xenophobic thinking. In any case, I think you're being way too pessmistic about LAX. I suspect that this expansion will take place, and the Crenshaw Line may have a peoplemover station when it opens... if not soon afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 4, 2010 14:27:05 GMT -8
With regard to the specific design of the People Mover layout, please remember that LAX is currently constructing a new Mid-Field Terminal... located west of Bradley where the AA hanger used to be. Also, I would give a 2-to-1 odd that T1-3 will be removed to make way for runway moving south.
Given these two developments, I think the People Mover layout needs to remain a horseshoe and the station placement will be something like this:
Century/Aviation T0 T1/T2 T3/Bradley Mid-Field T4/Bradley T5/T6 T7/T8 Century Aviation
And of course it would also be nice to have the JFK style counter-clockwise loop the just go between terminals.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 15:30:01 GMT -8
Given these two developments, I think the People Mover layout needs to remain a horseshoe As I said, I think this depends entirely on what happens with the north airfield. People are fighting the prospect of LAWA moving the north runway north. The other two options are to leave the runways in their current locations, or to move the south runway south. The last option (IMO, the most likely option) will require terminals 1-3 to be moved south, and World Way (the road loop) to be removed. If they do that, there may not be enough space for a people mover loop. There also might not be any need for a loop, given the proximity of the new north terminals to the old south ones.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 4, 2010 16:47:40 GMT -8
By the time these people-mover/light rail projects for the airport are ready to build, we could see a decrease in air travel as the price of "jet juice" increases. We may get back to the days when only affluent, well-dressed people could afford to travel by commercial aviation. As a person with strong ties to both Hawaii and Japan, I'd be opposed to that. Some people (and I'm not specifically referencing anyone on this message board) seem to be all too gleeful about the prospect of an airline-free future, and I am appalled at this sort of thinking. We should be working to find ways to avoid this "peak oil" apocalypse from happening, not advocating it. International travel has done a great deal of good for the United States, and it may be one of our few weapons against insular, nationalist, nativist xenophobic thinking. In any case, I think you're being way too pessmistic about LAX. I suspect that this expansion will take place, and the Crenshaw Line may have a peoplemover station when it opens... if not soon afterwards. I am certainly not gleeful about peak oil, but I did some research on this 4-5 years ago and while I don't see the doomsday scenario that others do, I do think it is likely we will continue to see higher oil prices over the next 10 years and then beyond. 6 or 7 years ago, an $86 a barrel oil price would seem outlandishly high, but now it is the new normal. Not sure what the normal might be in 10 years. We can be opposed to much more expensive airline flights and bigger gasoline tabs for an SUV, but if oil goes up that is the reality. If peak oil is real there is little we can do about it, except to try and switch to non-oil uses as fast as possible, which won't be easy. Every time I come back from traveling abroad, it disappoints me greatly to see the transport infrastructure here rely on almost completely on the auto (and plane). We have to drive bigger cars than anywhere else just to rub it in. In a peak oil world, we will be in a world of hurt unless things change rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 4, 2010 18:46:34 GMT -8
I'm not denying the possibility of peak oil. However, I do think that peak oil should be regarded as a BAD THING which should be avoided at all costs. It shouldn't be treated as an alternative to expanding/ improving our airports. ( And there are some environmentalists who sound ready to move to off-the-grid solar-powered hemp farms, and they're not all "out there" on the fringe, either... )
We need more AB 23-type legislation, we need higher gasoline MPG requirements, we need more Westside Subways, we need Cal HSR (which will take pressure off the LAX-SFO shuttle, although how much is obviously a matter of debate).
HSR is the missing part of America's rail transit puzzle. Just as the subway is an alternative to driving, HSR needs to be the alternative to medium-range flying. And just as people who won't switch from cars to buses will switch to light rail, people who won't switch to Amtrak likely would switch to Cal HSR if it were available.
( EDIT: I don't know how big of a change would be enough, but I certainly think we can change people's attitudes enough to fight off "Mad Max" world. Or even "no more planes" world. And obviously, Japan and Europe are way ahead of us... )
Getting back to the peoplemover, I would just add that we need that at LAX no matter what else happens at the airport.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 13, 2010 13:16:11 GMT -8
The LA Times today had a story about how the new Bradley Terminal might cause problems for the air traffic controllers with respect to an unobstructed view of the planes on the West side of the airport. The story ran a nice picture showing what the new terminal would look like, and I happened to notice that the people mover is visible in the rendering. No mention of it in the story though:
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 29, 2012 8:26:35 GMT -8
On the Metro site, February 28, 2012, James Fujita wrote: I guess I have to respectfully disagree as I think that what’s missing from Metro planning is using LAX as a rail hub–potentially terminating the Crenshaw Line at the International Terminal, running it as a subway from Aviation, down Century, underneath the parking garages to the International terminal, with one or two intermediate LAX stops and underground walkways to the terminals on either side. LAX will be the primary southern destination for the Crenshaw Line, not the Green Line. To imagine using a People Mover from the Crenshaw Line or Green Line to LAX is something of a kludge–an extra, unwanted transfer that will beg the question, “Why?” The Green Line linkage to LAX offers a more difficult problem. I’m tempted to suggest that a short line into LAX and the International Terminal terminus is my recommended approach to avoid a transfer at Aviation and Century. As I suggest these approaches, I’m thinking of all the traffic that LAX could generate and the “friction” of requiring transfers at Aviation and Century. Reflecting on approaches in Chicago and Cleveland and San Francisco with airports as termini leads me to the the conclusion that Aviation and Century transfers, in the long run will not be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2012 10:40:06 GMT -8
As I suggest these approaches, I’m thinking of all the traffic that LAX could generate and the “friction” of requiring transfers at Aviation and Century. Reflecting on approaches in Chicago and Cleveland and San Francisco with airports as termini leads me to the the conclusion that Aviation and Century transfers, in the long run will not be appreciated. Transfers in and of themselves are not the problem, its how the transfers are made. If they're easy and user friendly like at 7th Street Metro Center then the transfer is an asset. Also given that LAX is greater than just the Airport but with the hotels and freight/shippers that are part of it too, then it makes sense for connection to LAX- via the People Mover- to handle that. For this kind of regional traffic its better to have the regional lines have a run-through arrangement that connects to a shuttle that will be better geared for movement not just in and out of the airport but within the airport. Making this a terminal station would be very costly and difficult given we only have $200M in Measure R to work with and now source of new additional funding in the future to work with. $200M isn't a whole lot of money to work with especially given there's no dedicated right of way already paid for.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 29, 2012 14:14:36 GMT -8
The key for me is apparently insufficient funding for the sort of solution I'm proposing. While the Green Line, in particular is a regional utility, nonetheless, LAX generates and absorbs such major traffic. I'm pretty sure that a transfer to the Green Line or Crenshaw Line and then a transfer to a people mover will dissuade many potential passengers.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 29, 2012 14:29:42 GMT -8
LAX is going to want a peoplemover one way or another.
There are already plans to consolidate the scattered rental car facilities into one unified office, just like they have at other airports. Sorry, but plenty of tourist and business travelers are going to want a rental car. When that happens, the obvious next move would be a peoplemover from the terminals at least as far as the consolidated rental car lot, and probably to one or another of the major hotel/ conference centers in the area. Once you do that, the peoplemover to the Green/ Crenshaw lines makes sense.
LAWA has shown time and time again that they aren't interested in Metro light rail on their property AT ALL. That's a pretty giant obstacle.
Rather than waste time and resources on shoving light rail up LAWA's nose, I see nothing wrong with the same sort of transfer that other airports have. As long as the transfer is cross-platform or even if it involves an escalator, I don't see a problem.
Stick to our guns, and get nothing. Or work with LAWA, and get a decent airport transit transfer hub
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 29, 2012 14:58:07 GMT -8
That is the point ...with an eye to what's practical we can get something done. Otherwise, we'll have nothing. Can't help but dream of a single transfer and the getting off at the Southwest terminal!
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 29, 2012 17:04:24 GMT -8
LAX is going to want a peoplemover one way or another. There are already plans to consolidate the scattered rental car facilities into one unified office, just like they have at other airports. Sorry, but plenty of tourist and business travelers are going to want a rental car. When that happens, the obvious next move would be a peoplemover from the terminals at least as far as the consolidated rental car lot, and probably to one or another of the major hotel/ conference centers in the area. Once you do that, the peoplemover to the Green/ Crenshaw lines makes sense. LAWA has shown time and time again that they aren't interested in Metro light rail on their property AT ALL. That's a pretty giant obstacle. Rather than waste time and resources on shoving light rail up LAWA's nose, I see nothing wrong with the same sort of transfer that other airports have. As long as the transfer is cross-platform or even if it involves an escalator, I don't see a problem. Stick to our guns, and get nothing. Or work with LAWA, and get a decent airport transit transfer hub I tend to agree with James. Personal thought: A people mover seems like it would better serve the needs of airport travelers and workers, by allowing for local stops at most of the terminals and other destinations along Century Blvd. A short line is just as bad as a transfer in terms of time, because then only every-other train is going to your destination so you have to wait longer.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 29, 2012 20:04:04 GMT -8
LAX is going to want a peoplemover one way or another. There are already plans to consolidate the scattered rental car facilities into one unified office, just like they have at other airports. Sorry, but plenty of tourist and business travelers are going to want a rental car. What gets me is what a miserable, noisy experience it is waiting for a shuttle bus at LAX (like last Friday night, below), especially compared with the peoplemovers at most other major airports.
|
|