|
Post by bzcat on Mar 1, 2012 6:57:59 GMT -8
Can we do something to consolidate the 2 separate LAX project thread? There is one each in the Green line and Crenshaw line area.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 1, 2012 8:58:52 GMT -8
Can we do something to consolidate the 2 separate LAX project thread? There is one each in the Green line and Crenshaw line area. Our board has the same problem that Metro has.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 1, 2012 16:17:32 GMT -8
I have to agree with Darrell. LAX's shuttle bus system is an example of laissez-faire economics gone mad. they improved the system a little bit by having hotels share shuttle buses. but that still leaves the parking lot shuttles, the car rental shuttles and the long-distance shuttles. and if you're waiting for one shuttle, all the other shuttles of the same type will assume that you're waiting for them (or will hope that you're willing to switch).
a big solution would be to install the peoplemover and consolidate the rental cars.
as for the duplicate threads.... before the Crenshaw Line, the Green Line would have been the only way to get to the airport (unless by some miracle, Metrolink decided to upgrade the Harbor Sub). our threads reflect Metro's attitude toward LAX
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 2, 2012 19:23:19 GMT -8
Can we do something to consolidate the 2 separate LAX project thread? There is one each in the Green line and Crenshaw line area. Our board has the same problem that Metro has. Perhaps to make life simple, we can consolidate the discussion about connections to LAX on the Green Line board, since that is where the bulk of the messages have been. On a separate note, 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 matthewb on Mar 3, 2012 4:30:25 GMT -8
Our board has the same problem that Metro has. Perhaps to make life simple, we can consolidate the discussion about connections to LAX on the Green Line board, since that is where the bulk of the messages have been. On a separate note, 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. Heathrow's PRT is a huge waste of money, in my mind. It's hugely inefficient to have a single car per small group of passengers. (Isn't that one of the main points of mass transit?) It's purely a publicity stunt, and has extremely low ridership estimates. Let's not get sidetracked by a gadgetbahn.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 4, 2012 19:11:22 GMT -8
as far as the "time-sensitive" thing goes, people going to the airport for flights are always told to arrive early.
this is just thinking off the top of my head, but if it is still a problem, it might be possible for trains to run something like: LAX terminal loop stations -> hotels/ Lot C -> rental cars -> LAX Transit Center (connection to Green Line) -> LAX terminal loop stations. (or something like that). In other words, trains bypass the other stations on the way back from the transit center in a one-way loop. It would inconvenience the rental/ hotel people a little, but that would allow Green Line passengers a faster ride to the airport.
I do think that the airport loop needs a reverse loop (1->7 or 7->1), in which case those tracks might extend to the hotel area.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 12, 2013 11:55:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 12, 2013 14:49:58 GMT -8
LAtimes has a story today about the failure to connect to the airport/people mover solutions. Most interesting to me are the people mover graphics which pretty much make the whole thing seem even less attractive, what a logistical mess the PM options are. I don't see this as news since this information has been out for a very long time (LA times stirring the pot again?). I think that the people mover is the best option, but either way — it is LAWA that has been behind in the game, not Metro. Without LAWAs cooperation, it will be hard to build any of these options, and they only recently started cooperating. LAWA is finally waking up.
|
|
bzzzt
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by bzzzt on Aug 12, 2013 22:56:59 GMT -8
If there is a people mover, would it be on a 3rd level, above the roadway on the departures and ticketing level? I'm thinking the currently sunny 2nd level roadway and sidewalks would become more like a tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 13, 2013 6:03:23 GMT -8
If there is a people mover, would it be on a 3rd level, above the roadway on the departures and ticketing level? I'm thinking the currently sunny 2nd level roadway and sidewalks would become more like a tunnel. Frankfurt has a peoplemover and it definitely doesn't make the levels below like a tunnel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJzB4unquvw
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2013 8:14:43 GMT -8
If there is a people mover, would it be on a 3rd level, above the roadway on the departures and ticketing level? I'm thinking the currently sunny 2nd level roadway and sidewalks would become more like a tunnel. The airport train loop could be located on the 2nd level ("Departures" level), on the "inside" of the automobile loop. The only issue with this, they would need to build the train supports rising from the middle of the street on the lower "Arrivals" level. So they'd have to think about traffic impacts. As others have suggested, another option is to run the people mover straight down the middle of the airport, with stops in the airport's center and at TBIT. This would require more walking, but would probably be a lot cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2013 8:14:58 GMT -8
Personally, I prefer a people mover over LRT to the terminals. The big advantage of the people mover is that it can run at very high frequency at peak airline hours, decoupled from the LRT system.
There are two options if you bring LRT to the terminals. If you force everybody to ride through LAX, then you add several minutes of ride time for non-LAX riders. And if you split the line into two separate services (through service and LAX stub service), then you increase wait times for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2013 8:23:48 GMT -8
The Frankfurt People Mover looks very similar to San Francisco's AirTrain. These trains are much shorter and lighter than LRVs, giving them a lot more flexibility in where they can go.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 13, 2013 8:34:18 GMT -8
If LRT were to tunnel under, would the loop connect to the stub at the Greenline/Aviation stop?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 13, 2013 10:25:08 GMT -8
If LRT were to tunnel under, would the loop connect to the stub at the Greenline/Aviation stop? Isn't the stub going to be used for the Green Line extension to the new Century/Aviation station so that trains originating from Norwalk station can get to Century for the LAX connection (and every other train will continue to Redondo Beach)? My understanding is that all LAX transfers/shuttle buses will be re-routed to the new Century station from the existing Aviation station as Century will be 1 mile closer to LAX than Aviation. So Aviation will just become a "middle of nowhere" station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2013 12:54:28 GMT -8
^ Yes, Metro's current plan is to build a new transfer station at Century/Aviation. Under this plan, a people mover would meet the Green Line North branch (LAX-Norwalk) and the Crenshaw Line (MidCity-Redondo Beach) at Century/Aviation.
Now having said that, LAWA (the airport authority) is, after much delay, finally looking at its options for a connection to Metro's LRT system. It is "considering" several options, one of which involves light rail directly into the airport.
My guess is that the LRT option will not be pursued, because it would require approval, design and construction by Metro. Not to mention, the other drawbacks I mentioned in a previous post.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 13, 2013 13:06:28 GMT -8
If a people mover ends up being the preferred method to link Metro and the airport, which is likely, then does that pretty much take care of the 'Green Line LAX extension project', since that Y stub will be built out in the Crenshaw line? Or is there more work that needs to be done? If there isn't, can those funds be redirected to other Measure R projects?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 13, 2013 15:12:11 GMT -8
If a people mover ends up being the preferred method to link Metro and the airport, which is likely, then does that pretty much take care of the 'Green Line LAX extension project', since that Y stub will be built out in the Crenshaw line? Or is there more work that needs to be done? If there isn't, can those funds be redirected to other Measure R projects? Not really. Not only should should it veer west with a station at "Lot C", but it should then turn North onto Lincoln Blvd and run all the way to Santa Monica. Also, the 405 Corridor line might down the line use this route as well to get to LAX, anyway. So you might as well build it ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 13, 2013 16:01:20 GMT -8
Not really. Not only should should it veer west with a station at "Lot C", but it should then turn North onto Lincoln Blvd and run all the way to Santa Monica. Also, the 405 Corridor line might down the line use this route as well to get to LAX, anyway. So you might as well build it ASAP. Well, nothing up to Lincoln Boulevard is included in the Measure-R funded green line extension EIR, though, I believe -- just the route that takes care of the airport connection. The Lincoln green line is part of the long term plan, and can't use Measure R funds. It may well factor into the Sepulveda Line, though. I guess my question is -- is there still a good chance of there being a Lot C station at all? (realistically, regardless of whether there should be one or not.) It feels like they're leaning strongly toward a people mover that would also stop in that location, making a metro station there slightly redundant (it'd be quicker coming from the north, but you'd have 2 LAX stations hooked up to the people mover -- 1 serving green/sepulveda, one serving green/crenshaw).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 16, 2014 11:22:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 16, 2014 13:01:15 GMT -8
Which alternative would be most beneficial to a future Lincoln green line extension? The through ITF connection?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 16, 2014 15:45:33 GMT -8
Which alternative would be most beneficial to a future Lincoln green line extension? The through ITF connection? Lincoln has no ROW for rail, so even though I have heard people talk about a light rail line going up here, it seems completely implausible.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 16, 2014 17:59:32 GMT -8
Which alternative would be most beneficial to a future Lincoln green line extension? The through ITF connection? Even though per the LRTP a Lincoln Corridor is mentioned, A 405 Sepulveda Pass corridor is also on the table to continue to LAX in some form, the current 'ITF Bulge' or any corridor past the Century/Aviation facility - is underground makes it costly to configure a future connection with any such corridor to continue north through the Westside. The only practical and cost-effective means of connecting LAX is at Century/Aviation or Aviation/96th an Intermodal hub with the APM continuing through because this also protects future design of an extension via Sepulveda or via Lincoln or via some other north-south corridor.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2014 10:49:43 GMT -8
Which alternative would be most beneficial to a future Lincoln green line extension? The through ITF connection? None of the remaining options will be beneficial if you want the future Lincoln or Sepulveda line to stop under the central terminal area. Alternative B that detours the line to ITF is probably the best set up for future northwest extension... but this will probably involve redoing the Crenshaw EIR, which is not likely. Personally, I like Alternative 1A... it leaves the possibility of future lines (which can use Westchester Parkway) to connect with Sepulveda or Lincoln, and will not require any amendment to Crenshaw EIR.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 17, 2014 12:39:39 GMT -8
Gotcha. Well, that frees up a lot of money for other projects if they end up just sending the green line trains to century/aviation, right?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 17, 2014 14:41:29 GMT -8
Gotcha. Well, that frees up a lot of money for other projects if they end up just sending the green line trains to century/aviation, right? Not really. There wasn't much money allocated to an LAX connection and it is likely that Metro will have to spend some on this anyway. I doubt LAWA will fund the People Mover in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2014 17:10:43 GMT -8
Measure R has $200 million allocated to this project. That money cannot be moved so if APM is chosen as the mode and LAWA is determined to be the lead agency for construction, Metro will most likely reach an agreement with LAWA to partially fund it.
Alternatively, LAWA and Metro can form a joint authority to construct the APM, and turn it over to LAWA to operate it. There are may ways to do this but the bottom line is some Measure R money will be used on this project.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 5, 2014 17:09:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 6, 2014 7:04:54 GMT -8
As one of the commenters on Curbed stated: "Everyone involved should be fired". The sooner anyone and everyone who has any clout with these Bozos can shoot down this absurd idea the better. How is it that anytime connecting rail to the airport gets debated, the answer is always to not do it right? The system has to be circular, it has to move people around the terminals too instead of just to/from the Crenshaw line.
RT
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 6, 2014 10:27:20 GMT -8
That plan is a big bowl of fail from LAWA.
A people mover that doesn't complete the loop? Hello? Anyone home? Part of the point of people mover is so people can move from one terminal to another!!!!!
This plan displays an unbelievable level of incompetence from LAWA. Mayor Garcetti better be ready to fire a bunch of people.
|
|