|
Post by bzcat on Dec 19, 2014 14:33:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 19, 2014 21:33:18 GMT -8
Umm... $4 billion? It just seems exorbitant. It's going to cost that much to tunnel under South Pasadena to complete I-710 to Pasadena.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 21, 2014 18:03:01 GMT -8
Umm... $4 billion? It just seems exorbitant. It's going to cost that much to tunnel under South Pasadena to complete I-710 to Pasadena. $4B is for the whole airport project including the rental car facility and the ITF. It is not just the APM.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Dec 22, 2014 6:41:09 GMT -8
I just flew out of LAX last night and the loop traffic was backed up over a mile onto the 105. I can't even imagine how much further over-capacity things will get in the next 10 years before this is built. It's insane they're not trying to expedite it.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 22, 2014 16:58:45 GMT -8
I'm still disappointed that they stopped short of putting in a circulator around the terminals versus the 3 central stations. Maybe the amount of required terminal to terminal connections didn't justify the expense of the additional track and stations?
I guess if the moving sidewalks get you right to the terminal entrances, it might even be faster than looping through the whole circle.
RT
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 22, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -8
I'm still disappointed that they stopped short of putting in a circulator around the terminals versus the 3 central stations. Maybe the amount of required terminal to terminal connections didn't justify the expense of the additional track and stations? I guess if the moving sidewalks get you right to the terminal entrances, it might even be faster than looping through the whole circle. RT The time savings were not there if you are are the back side of the loop. This version puts both sides on an equal basis and the moving sideways to the consolidated terminal entries feature a favorable time. So, there were lots of details presented at the Metro Board meeting, with lots of questions asked. With all the compromises, everyone agreed that this was the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 23, 2014 11:26:04 GMT -8
Also worth pointing out that part of the $4 billion is going towards the new consolidated check-in facility where the T3-T4 parking garage is current located. So the concept of north vs. south terminals will be kind of obsolete anyway. Most airlines will have check-in facilities right at where you get off the APM. Moving the check-in facility to the consolidate check-in will enable airlines that operate their own terminals (e.g. AA, Delta) to reconfigure their terminals to enlarge security screening areas and/or create more amenities and retail space.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 24, 2014 8:03:37 GMT -8
After looking at this for a while, this seems to be the best retrofit, the CONRAC alone will make a huge difference and so would the ITF. Bart makes a good point that the 3 stops to serve 7 terminals is more efficient than 7 stops to serve 7 terminals and it will cost less to build
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 31, 2015 14:18:27 GMT -8
gatewaytola.org(I think that is the LAX area business improvement district website) has a rendering of the 96th street station. The red parking garage is directly south of the station. CONRAC - Consolidated rental car center is the left of the drawing, and the three car train leaving towards the top of the drawing is the APM heading towards the WITF - West Intermodal Transportation Facilities (for long term parking/drop off center located on 98th street where the current city bus center is located). The Crenshaw line train can be seen leaving the ETIF - East Intermodal Transportation Facilities (new bus/train transit center) to the right of the drawing. Here is the complete view of CONRAC and East ITF
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 31, 2015 15:07:41 GMT -8
Perhaps they can rename the West Intermodal Transportation Facility the West Transportation Facility so LAX can have its own WTF.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 19, 2015 8:10:44 GMT -8
handoutThe handout shows that in order to accommodate the airport train the tracks and platforms have been redesigned. Unfortunately they will be required to purchase additional ROW to fit everything. They estimate that the only options are to build the tracks the old way, open Crenshaw on time and then replace the tracks a couple of years later. Or buy the land, build the tracks and station according to the new requirements but delay the opening of the Crenshaw line by 2 years. I say build it as is. Everything so far indicates that they can't rely on lawa to keep a schedule with metro as a priority. They'll just get screwed again.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 19, 2015 12:52:53 GMT -8
handoutThe handout shows that in order to accommodate the airport train the tracks and platforms have been redesigned. Unfortunately they will be required to purchase additional ROW to fit everything. They estimate that the only options are to build the tracks the old way, open Crenshaw on time and then replace the tracks a couple of years later. Or buy the land, build the tracks and station according to the new requirements but delay the opening of the Crenshaw line by 2 years. I say build it as is. Everything so far indicates that they can't rely on lawa to keep a schedule with metro as a priority. They'll just get screwed again. True, but on the other hand, the Crenshaw Line is already behind schedule and I could easily see this falling a year behind schedule when they actually start the tougher portions of the Line. This is just another example that the Crenshaw Line was rushed to the front if the line and and should have been built about 5-10 years later.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 20, 2015 1:20:59 GMT -8
gatewaytola.org(I think that is the LAX area business improvement district website) has a rendering of the 96th street station. ... Here is the complete view of CONRAC and East ITF The amount of wasted land around the facility is ridiculous. There are two planned metro stations and a people mover going directly to LAX within walking distance. This should be wrapped with airport hotels, offices, etc. No giant fields of underwatered lawn and anemic trees. The roundabout should have safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings so that the land on the southwest and southeast side can have good pedestrian access to the stations. Also, the blocks are massive, and should be broken up by small streets and/or pedestrian walkways with good connectivity to the street grid (mainly Aviation and Century). This is an area that can easily support a 15 story buildout with hotels, airport related businesses, spillover from silicon beach, restaurants and cafes to support all the guests and workers, etc. One of the two stations can become a major hub for metro with the Crenshaw line, the Green line, a future Sepulveda line with access to the Valley via UCLA, and a possible long range Lincoln line (and perhaps even more remotely a direct connection to DTLA via the Harbor subdivision). Of course, these things can be built out and evolve over time, but these renderings show that there currently isn't a vision for this area's potential as a major urban hub with some of the best connectivity in all of Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 20, 2015 5:59:31 GMT -8
The amount of wasted land around the facility is ridiculous. There are two planned metro stations and a people mover going directly to LAX within walking distance. This should be wrapped with airport hotels, offices, etc. No giant fields of underwatered lawn and anemic trees. The roundabout should have safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings so that the land on the southwest and southeast side can have good pedestrian access to the stations. Also, the blocks are massive, and should be broken up by small streets and/or pedestrian walkways with good connectivity to the street grid (mainly Aviation and Century). This is an area that can easily support a 15 story buildout with hotels, airport related businesses, spillover from silicon beach, restaurants and cafes to support all the guests and workers, etc. One of the two stations can become a major hub for metro with the Crenshaw line, the Green line, a future Sepulveda line with access to the Valley via UCLA, and a possible long range Lincoln line (and perhaps even more remotely a direct connection to DTLA via the Harbor subdivision). Of course, these things can be built out and evolve over time, but these renderings show that there currently isn't a vision for this area's potential as a major urban hub with some of the best connectivity in all of Los Angeles. Are you really expecting vision from the folks at LAWA?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 20, 2015 6:12:02 GMT -8
No, not really expecting vision from LAWA, sigh. Still, if a people mover is to be paid for, I would expect they'd want to maximize the gains from their investment in Manchester Square. We as transit advocates want to maximize Metro's investment in train lines and stations, and Metro should want to maximize density around stations to increase ridership and farebox recovery. Both LAWA, Metro, and advocates should all want the same thing here.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 20, 2015 8:39:43 GMT -8
No, not really expecting vision from LAWA, sigh. Still, if a people mover is to be paid for, I would expect they'd want to maximize the gains from their investment in Manchester Square. We as transit advocates want to maximize Metro's investment in train lines and stations, and Metro should want to maximize density around stations to increase ridership and farebox recovery. Both LAWA, Metro, and advocates should all want the same thing here. Not a whole lot of demand for office or hotel space in this corridor as this has been the worst area for office space in LA for about a quarter century now with very low rates and high vacancy. No way could you get a payback on the huge cost of new construction here. Also, the local community which has constantly sued LAWA to prevent airport improvements would likely sue again to stop the whole thing. Finally, this is in the flight path I believe. You can't dump a high rise in the way of landing planes.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 20, 2015 12:58:39 GMT -8
gatewaytola.org(I think that is the LAX area business improvement district website) has a rendering of the 96th street station. ... Here is the complete view of CONRAC and East ITF The amount of wasted land around the facility is ridiculous. There are two planned metro stations and a people mover going directly to LAX within walking distance. This should be wrapped with airport hotels, offices, etc. No giant fields of underwatered lawn and anemic trees. The roundabout should have safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings so that the land on the southwest and southeast side can have good pedestrian access to the stations. Also, the blocks are massive, and should be broken up by small streets and/or pedestrian walkways with good connectivity to the street grid (mainly Aviation and Century). This is an area that can easily support a 15 story buildout with hotels, airport related businesses, spillover from silicon beach, restaurants and cafes to support all the guests and workers, etc. One of the two stations can become a major hub for metro with the Crenshaw line, the Green line, a future Sepulveda line with access to the Valley via UCLA, and a possible long range Lincoln line (and perhaps even more remotely a direct connection to DTLA via the Harbor subdivision). Of course, these things can be built out and evolve over time, but these renderings show that there currently isn't a vision for this area's potential as a major urban hub with some of the best connectivity in all of Los Angeles. Take a chill pill The green buildings are "development opportunities". They will all likely be filled with hotels eventually. But don't expect any crazy density around the airport... there are height restrictions (for obvious reason) and demand for office space is really low compare to say West LA.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 20, 2015 13:12:33 GMT -8
handoutThe handout shows that in order to accommodate the airport train the tracks and platforms have been redesigned. Unfortunately they will be required to purchase additional ROW to fit everything. They estimate that the only options are to build the tracks the old way, open Crenshaw on time and then replace the tracks a couple of years later. Or buy the land, build the tracks and station according to the new requirements but delay the opening of the Crenshaw line by 2 years. I say build it as is. Everything so far indicates that they can't rely on lawa to keep a schedule with metro as a priority. They'll just get screwed again. Part of the reason for the projected delay and need for additional ROW acquisition is that Metro is planning to build a 3-platform terminal station, rather than regular single or two platform station. It would be relatively simple to add a center platform here but that's not what Metro is planning. At least they are thinking ahead this time... the extra platform will come in handy when the 405/Sepulveda and/or Lincoln line get here.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 21, 2015 9:19:59 GMT -8
Has that been officially confirmed? Will it have a WYE junction to allow 405/Sepulveda and/or Lincoln trains to enter?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 21, 2015 10:00:00 GMT -8
Nothing is official yet. The 3 platform station at 96th street is planned because Metro is planning to terminate the L Line (the future Green Line alignment) here.
There is no junction but because the elevated station will be next to the Crenshaw maintenance yard, it means there is plenty of room here to have a junction leading in/out of the 3 platform station... if they design it correctly to accommodate such a future line.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 21, 2015 10:27:58 GMT -8
Nothing is official yet. The 3 platform station at 96th street is planned because Metro is planning to terminate the L Line (the future Green Line alignment) here. There is no junction but because the elevated station will be next to the Crenshaw maintenance yard, it means there is plenty of room here to have a junction leading in/out of the 3 platform station... if they design it correctly to accommodate such a future line. The 96th street station is not elevated. It is on ground level, part of the reason for the possible delay due to increased ROW needs and the gas line relocation. See the handout: Airport Metro Connector - Crenshaw/LAX Accommodations Once you get off the train, you will go to the upper level to the APM station to the airport which will be perpendicular to the Crenshaw/Green Line platforms. The elevated station is at Century. Right after you leave the 96th Street station, you will start to go up the embankment to the Century/Aviation Station.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 23, 2015 20:40:53 GMT -8
I'm not particularly well-versed in rail operations, but I don't understand why they're going with a 2-track, 3-platform Spanish Solution here. I would expect 4-track, 2-platform (where you don't even have to install the outer tracks yet) would provide more flexibility and let them turn trains on the inner tracks while the outer ones are used for through traffic. That might not be needed now, but it's important to plan for the future. The 405 line (if not the Lincoln line) is a question of when, not if.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 1, 2015 15:17:15 GMT -8
LAWA wants you to play a game (literally) and provide feedback to help design the Inter-modal Transit Centers beatlaxtraffic.com/
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Jul 1, 2015 15:41:17 GMT -8
After looking at this for a while, this seems to be the best retrofit, the CONRAC alone will make a huge difference and so would the ITF. Bart makes a good point that the 3 stops to serve 7 terminals is more efficient than 7 stops to serve 7 terminals and it will cost less to build They need to go back to the drawing board on this and make the shortest connecting distance to the south side of LAX; AA, DL and UA account for over 50% of departures and are at T4, T5 and T7/8.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 17, 2017 13:40:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 7, 2017 18:53:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 8, 2017 23:42:09 GMT -8
Wait...what? So the people mover will not just be moving people to/from the "Crenshaw Line," but also to/from the Forum by way of Arbor Vitae Street? Perhaps a station on La Brea Av. for access to Market St.? I'd love to see a rendering of this!
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Sept 10, 2017 7:29:24 GMT -8
PFC's not valid. But just put a surcharge on all the ticket prices and hotel rooms in Inglelwood to fund the project, but set an expiration date.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 10, 2017 13:37:59 GMT -8
Interesting idea, but only if its privately funded and has no impact on airport operations (that are partially publicly funded). Otherwise, its a handout to billionaires for businesses (Rams, Chargers, and Clippers) that most Angelenos don't even care about
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 11, 2017 9:18:31 GMT -8
Ah rail bias at work! Hotel shuttles or even a metro or Inglewood bus service should be totally sufficient at meetings demand for this connection
|
|