|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 17, 2017 21:49:16 GMT -8
Anyway, let's change the topic back before another senate bill is introduced suggesting Disneyland extend its monorail to Angel Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 19, 2017 23:48:44 GMT -8
I've seen talk here, and on the Olympics discussion, about extending the People Mover east to Praire / Arbor Vitae. However, the idea of sending the Crenshaw line south on Praire is better. Besides the airport, there are few major destinations west of the 405 in this area, since the offices in El Segundo are not doing well. Meanwhile, the communities between Praire and Inglewood have some of the highest population density outside of central LA. A light rail line down Praire, switching over to Hawthorne Blvd at the Green Line, would probably have significantly higher ridership than the current branch to LAX and El Segundo, especially once the Crenshaw line reaches the Purple Line and Hollywood. Since the demand on the Crenshaw and northern extension will be higher than the southern end, it would be reasonable to have two southern branches with trains every 10 minutes, combining for 5 minute service along Crenshaw and north to Hollywood. 2050 Fantasy Transit Map
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 18, 2018 23:57:16 GMT -8
The details of the proposed P3 for the LAX people mover are available here. The proposal will go before the City Council and LAWA Board for approval, and construction could start this year. These details also might give hints on how Metro's proposed P3s will be structured: lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=478&meta_id=32885The project's capital cost is estimated to be $1.95 billion, but the proposed P3 contract is $4.5 billion over 30 years. It is a design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) contract. The private contractor, LINXS, is actually a group of several companies, split up between design, construction and operation teams. I think there are like 10 total companies listed on their website: www.lalinxs.com/team.htmlDuring the 5 years of construction, LAX will pay LINXS $1 billion, while LINXS will pay for the $950 million (or more) additional construction costs. For the next 25 years, LINXS will operate the people mover, and LAX will pay LINXS a fee per year to cover the current operation, maintenance and past construction/financing costs. The first year will be a $97 million payment (will increase in later years based on a schedule and with inflation).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 19, 2018 8:03:23 GMT -8
Awesome that a P3 increases costs 250%! Always glad to see big graft in operation! What’s a cool 3 billion between friends?
And the private sector was supposed to save money! Hah!
Gross.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 19, 2018 9:35:23 GMT -8
Awesome that a P3 increases costs 250%! Always glad to see big graft in operation! What’s a cool 3 billion between friends? And the private sector was supposed to save money! Hah! Gross. You need to factor in the operating and maintenance costs. Look at the Regional Connector EIR, which listed operating and maintenance costs for the 1.9 mile subway in 2008 dollars on page 5 of this link (probably the closest comparison we have for the 2.25 mile people mover): media.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/Final_EIR/appendix_h_final_alternatives_analysis_report_part_11_of_14.pdfHeavy rail cost $116.11 million per year in 2008 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $2.9 billion in operating and maintenance costs. Light rail cost $264.20 million per year in 2008 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $6.6 billion in operating and maintenance costs. The people mover probably can cost a bit less to operate since it is automated and you do not need to pay drivers, and maybe what workers that are used are not employed by LAX and are cheaper. The contract is also built to deduct from payments for poor operations—for example, they deduct $2500 if a broken moving pedestrian walkway is not repaired within 5 hours and deduct $750,000 + $125,000 per hour if the train is shutdown for over 6 hours. If you factor in the operating and maintenance costs, it isn’t so clear that there is big graft going on. They are paying $4.5 billion for the $2 billion construction and 25 years of operations and maintenance. The developer/operator will need to keep construction within the estimated budget and keep operations & maintenance below $100 million/year if they want to walk away with a windfall.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 12, 2018 6:23:18 GMT -8
Fully approved by the city council groundbreaking this year
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 12, 2018 14:09:28 GMT -8
Construction timeline for the entire LAX Landside Access Modernization Program is 5 years... seems aggressive.
Includes:
Tear down of several parking garages in CTA for APM station terminal core buildings - contract for design-build of these buildings was approved in January 2018 Connections from APM stations at CTA to existing terminals - contract for design-build of these buildings was approved in January 2018 APM system - contract approved yesterday 6 APM stations - contract approved yesterday Intermodal transit center west (at the current bus center) - contract pending Intermodal transit center east (at the 96th street station) - contract pending Consolidated rental car facility - contract pending
And separately, Metro is supposed to construct the 96th street station after Crenshaw line opens for revenue service... sometime between 2021 and 2023.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 17, 2018 9:43:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 17, 2018 15:18:23 GMT -8
Just skimmed the whole thing. Seems like a direct connection the 96th street station would've been very convenient for out-of-town event riders, but perhaps the chosen alternative is more convenient for local riders.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 18, 2018 13:01:42 GMT -8
Just skimmed the whole thing. Seems like a direct connection the 96th street station would've been very convenient for out-of-town event riders, but perhaps the chosen alternative is more convenient for local riders. Here are some advantages (from Inglewood's perspective) of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) over a direct connection to LAX's APM:
- The LPA is fully inside Inglewood (no need to negotiate with other cities, who wouldn't actually benefit from it, for the right to cross).
- The LPA would not need to cross any freeways, which would require negotiating with Caltrans and other state agencies.
- The LPA would be shorter than a connection at 96th Street, and thus (maybe) cheaper to build.
- The LPA would begin farther north and thus provide a better connection to the central city.
- The LPA serves Inglewood's historic core, which the city is hoping to revitalize.
But you are correct: it would be cool to be able to head directly to the stadium from the airport!
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 18, 2018 13:38:12 GMT -8
Just skimmed the whole thing. Seems like a direct connection the 96th street station would've been very convenient for out-of-town event riders, but perhaps the chosen alternative is more convenient for local riders. Here are some advantages (from Inglewood's perspective) of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) over a direct connection to LAX's APM:
- The LPA is fully inside Inglewood (no need to negotiate with other cities, who wouldn't actually benefit from it, for the right to cross).
- The LPA would not need to cross any freeways, which would require negotiating with Caltrans and other state agencies.
- The LPA would be shorter than a connection at 96th Street, and thus (maybe) cheaper to build.
- The LPA would begin farther north and thus provide a better connection to the central city.
- The LPA serves Inglewood's historic core, which the city is hoping to revitalize.
But you are correct: it would be cool to be able to head directly to the stadium from the airport!
Perhaps it will head to the airport via a future extension one day. It doesn't seem like anything would rule that out.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 12, 2018 16:05:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 7, 2019 8:59:20 GMT -8
Here are some APM updates. The old news, from March, is that construction of the APM had begun. The new news is that pile construction has begun. In preparation for this, lanes have been closed at LAX, and to avoid traffic jams, all rideshare vehicles and taxis have been banned from the airport. (Riders must transfer to a shuttle bus to get to their terminals.)
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 9, 2021 9:45:08 GMT -8
The FAA has updated their policy so that airport-funded transit systems (funded with airplane ticket fees) can provide non-airport service, not just the airport. It used to be that if it is funded with airplane ticket fees, it can only provide airport service. The new policy allows funding for transit systems that serve areas outside the airport, just that airplane ticket fees should fund just the airport service, and they need to use other funds to fund the non-airport service. This technically means the LAX People Mover could be extended instead of Inglewood running their own people mover, but I don't know if LAX is interested in working with Inglewood (and vice versa).
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 13, 2021 10:39:32 GMT -8
So looks like the Inglewood doesn’t think it can handle its people mover by itself. Metro will likely enter into an agreement to jointly manage the construction, financing and development of the project.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 13, 2021 12:03:08 GMT -8
Heard anything about whether they'll consider combining it with the LAX people mover now that the restriction is removed that it can only serve airport destinations?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 13, 2021 13:10:02 GMT -8
Heard anything about whether they'll consider combining it with the LAX people mover now that the restriction is removed that it can only serve airport destinations? It seems unlikely even though the rules now allow you to do it. The Airport can't pay for it with airline ticket fees, so they'd only be interested if someone else pays for it, but Inglewood seems to be more interested in its Prairie Avenue alignment (and doesn't even have full funding secured for that yet). The only hope for a connection is that it will be built with the same people mover technology as the Airport people mover, preserving a future connection in the future, but everything seems to indicate that the foot is heavily on the scales for BYD to get the Inglewood people mover project, which would preserve a future connection to the Sepulveda monorail (if the Sepulveda monorail wins).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 13, 2021 19:22:48 GMT -8
Although extending the LAX people mover to the stadium makes sense in many ways, I think that it would challenging in other ways.
What makes sense is connecting the stadium to what will be a major transit hub with the Sepulveda, C, and K lines all meeting and/or ending there. FWIW, I think that the K will eventually route south to the beach cities and the C will terminate at 96th. It just makes too much sense and the beach cities that currently don't want to connect to Crenshaw will come around when they realize that they can't get to and from LAX as easily and that their residents and businesses actually want to do so.
What doesn't make sense or could be an issue is that the people mover will currently terminate at the CONRAC structure, which is a bit like ending at 1/4 mile long brick wall. They'd have to move the terminal station to allow it to go over or around the structure. Another obstacle will be the uneven demand. The people mover between the CONRAC facility and the terminals will be consistently busy for about 18 hours each day. The bit between CONRAC and the stadium will be very lightly used outside of events. So it may be busy 10-20 hours per week. I think that the only way to balance the operation will be to treat them as two different lines. Maybe you even transfer. So if that's the case maybe you can end at the CONRAC with a separate station/transfer, but by then what's the point? Probably just better to go straight to the K line than have to transfer to get there.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Mar 19, 2021 8:16:05 GMT -8
The Inglewood people mover should be light rail in my humble opinion. Main reason is easy operation and cost savings. A ton of light rail cars in Metro fleet to use when needed. No need to build a maintenance facility. Could run between the Green line and Crenshaw line.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Mar 29, 2021 5:00:33 GMT -8
The Inglewood people mover should be light rail in my humble opinion. Main reason is easy operation and cost savings. A ton of light rail cars in Metro fleet to use when needed. No need to build a maintenance facility. Could run between the Green line and Crenshaw line. This should be directly intergrated with the Airport people mover. A straight shot directly to the entertainment district. Stops Airport terminals, Car Rental Facility, 96th St Metro, Clippers, SoFi, and then Downtown Inglewood Metro station. Costly I’m sure but it would make a massive difference. A second option I think would be (if they can rush it along) to build out so whatever Sepulveda line goes directly into LAX continues on past 96th to a a station between SoFi and Clippers. Or reroute the green line off the highway up to in between SoFi and Clippers and then back down onto freeway. But some street running NON grade separated half ass thing will be ... like many of Metro projects inadequate for LA and an area like this
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 26, 2021 15:14:50 GMT -8
Here was a recent presentation on the status of the LAX People Mover. It says the target operations date is second half of 2023, which I think is a delay. The most recent target for opening the Crenshaw Line APM station is July 2024.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 27, 2021 10:30:53 GMT -8
APM construction makes Metro's Crenshaw line construction managmenet look like amatuer hour. I didn't realize this before but the APM is using rubber tires like the Paris Metro Line 1. I guess this particular model is mainly designed to use as Airport APM with Taipei's Brown Line being the only major non-airport user. Shanghai Metro also uses this train but it is on a very short line with only 5 stations (very similar to LAX APM in length). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_APM
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on May 27, 2021 11:28:33 GMT -8
What is the reason that rubber tires are used versus steel wheels on rail for the people mover.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 28, 2021 10:21:29 GMT -8
I don't know why LAWA choose this model but it is one of the most popular airport APM in the world. Rubber tires make less noise than steel but noise level doesn't seem like it would be an issue at or around an airport.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 30, 2021 5:34:24 GMT -8
They need to come up with a way to connect this with the Inglewood people mover. It makes too much sense.
Although I think in the long run they should be building the infrastructure so the SEPULVEDA line ends at a stop between SoFi and Clippers.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 22, 2021 7:55:22 GMT -8
Yesterday 06/21/2021 a ground breaking event was held for the Crenshaw line Airport People Mover terminal in Westchester CA. TV showed a excavtor begin to take down a block wall of a former Hertz building.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 2, 2022 11:41:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 3, 2022 9:01:21 GMT -8
On 08/02/2022 a press event was held in Westchester to show off a people Mover car. Car looked OK mayor of L A was happy.
|
|
|
Post by sellout on Nov 9, 2022 17:29:15 GMT -8
Saw this car being trucked in over by Manchester and Airport First time poster, by the way!! Attachments:
|
|