California - LAX Expansion

Does anyone here know the plans for the proposed LAX expansion? I have heard that it may take on more of a layout similar to ATL- Expanding out towards or past the current AA, TW, FX, and CO hangers and offices behind the Bradley Int'l Terminal

I can't imagine how bad congestion would be during any expansion- but I suppose it has to be done anyway. I wonder if they have any plans to expand the Light Rail line the extra 2 miles or so directly into the airport. That would be one way to get Los Angelenos to use Public Transit...

I like the new layout, though some of it will take some getting used to.

Kevin

------------------

The rumors I've heard pretty much agree with what you posted: expansion westward and light rail into LAX. 'Bout time, IMHO.

This site might be interesting: http://www.lax2015.org/

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kev LAX:
... I wonder if they have any plans to expand the Light Rail line the extra 2 miles or so directly into the airport. That would be one way to get Los Angelenos to use Public Transit...

</font>

they would need to do more than just add 2 miles. there is no way i am leaving my car in norwalk and riding through lakewood and compton!

the better solution would be to connect lax with ont, long beach, burbank and sna via dedicated rail. this way the 5 airports could operate as one. the same could be done with most metro areas that have multiple airports.

Nan358-

That was a great resource- I would recommend anyone who is curious about the future of LAX to take a look at it.

Creating a western entrance to the airport and forcing everyone to use it instead of the eastern one is counter-intuitive because of the added distance from the 405 and 105 freeways. I'm sure they know better than I.

THX1138 (love the handle)- I hear you on leaving the car in certain places; it will simply give people some options... particularly in 15 years based on the traffic congestion predicted by then.

Kevin

kev,

i will continue to happily fly out of ONT with no problem. i just refuse to do LAX

I really like the idea of taking Light Rail into LAX (if I have to go in the first place, that is). I say this after my first two trips to London and not having to have anyone pick me up from LHR. I think the key would be to have designated 'Park and Ride' stations with secured parking and express trains to LAX on a specific schedule. I don't mind riding from Norwalk if my car's in a secure lot that I take a bus to and from, and the train goes directly to LAX with no stops. It would be even better from Fullerton, but you can't have everything. http://www.flyertalk.com/airports/ftairports_forum/smile.gif I'd be willing to pay in the neighborhood of $20 (Round Trip and in addition to the parking fee) for such a ticket, knowing that I don't have to drive, worry about traffic, or even stay awake for the trip.

I agree 100% with the Light Rail. I would love to miss the 105 traffic on a Thursday or Friday afternoon. I have used the rail in Chicago to the airport during the heaviest traffic and had no problem on the "express" trains... I get to rest with my luggage....

About 4 months ago, as a test, I took the G bus to the Greenline to the Blueline to the Redline to the Universal City Station. It took 90 minutes. The Greenline and the Redline were fine, but the Blue Line felt very unsafe. Thankfully, there were two Sherriff Deputies on board. For the approx. $2 bucks, I still think that driving is my better option. I was really disappointed.

What I don't like about the Blue Line isn't the passengers but the delays when it runs on the street a few stops before 7th/Metro.

I noticed the poor neighborhoods we passed through, but I didn't think the passengers were any different or "dangerous".

No lite-rail will be built to LAX. The taxi drivers won't allow it. That's what killed the project before and it will kill it again. As for the LAX expansion, ask me in 2015. By then we'll have narrowed the completion date down to sometime in 2025. I wish I were joking. http://www.flyertalk.com/airports/ftairports_forum/frown.gif

Thats such a shame- thanks for insight stimpy.

The fact that the city/airport would cave on something that would benefit the masses- people who are trying to get to the airport on mass transit AND individuals driving there in their own cars is a real shame.

Considering that if stimpy is correct and expansion wouldn't even be completed before 2025, imagine how bad the conngestion will be. Hopefully there will be more alternatives by then.

Kevin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by stimpy:
No lite-rail will be built to LAX. The taxi drivers won't allow it. That's what killed the project before and it will kill it again</font>

How is it that the taxi drivers have the political clout to kill any city government effort to extend the light rail to LAX? Do the taxi drivers actually have enough political savvy to have organized some sort of powerful lobby? Are they making big campaign contributions to the mayor or some city politician? Are the taxi drivers rallying some sort of vocal citizen outcry? As someone who doesn't live in LA but passes through often (and who has used the light rail on occasion), I'm very curious...

Maybe when SFO opens its BART station next year, and it hopefuly becomes a huge success, LA will follow suit.

[This message has been edited by anthonyanthony (edited 08-04-2001).]

I live in Hollywood within walking distance of one of the Red Line stations, and I've taken the Red/Blue/Green Lines many times to and from LAX (mainly because I'm a cheapskate).

The worst part of the trip, in my opinion, is the bloody "G" shuttle bus you have to take between the Aviation Green Line station and LAX. The buses seem to be few and far between, and they're filled almost entirely with loud, VERY foul-mouthed airline employees. And since the buses are usually so full, everybody sits on the luggage racks, making it very difficult to find a place to put your luggage. It's even worse going from LAX to the Green Line station. Heaven help you if you're getting on the bus at Terminal 7, the last stop before the Green Line. Sometimes, the buses are so full, the driver won't even stop, and you'll be stuck waiting for the next bus!

I definitely would not recommend the MTA for tourists. It's fine for those of us who live in LA, but for someone from out of town, PASS!

I've taken the G bus and Metro Rail (and with my wife and three kids). I didn't hear any foul language. Passengers were OK, but not a big deal. Better than driving IMHO.

Maybe when SFO opens its BART station next year, and it hopefuly becomes a huge success, LA will follow suit.
Hehe--it's always fun running across old threads like this.

So, now SFO BART has opened and been deemed mostly a failure. From what I understand, most people (well, most folks in the City and the Peninsula/South Bay--BART probably works OK for East Bayers) take CalTrain to Millbrae and *then* transfer to BART--it's way more direct (through South San Francisco instead of way out to Daly City), track speeds are higher, and fares *may* be cheaper (I don't recall off the top of my head).

The bad news is: L.A. might look at the SFO BART expansion and see that it was wasted money and not want to try the same thing. But there might be a positive side effect if L.A. can be convinced of it: the main reason BART doesn't work is because it takes a circuitous route and is slow--sound like the Red Line-Blue Line-Green Line transfer effect? No one's going to take light rail to LAX unless they already live along the Green Line (so there's no transfers) or can park at Norwalk safely.

People only take public transportation when it's convenient. Buses are generally not convenient (or comfortable) and are slower than driving, which is why buses don't work. Light rail that goes way out of the way (and doesn't hit a very high speed) and requires two or three transfers is a lot slower than driving (even in traffic), and that won't attract a lot of ridership.

The best solution is to institute a direct rail connection to a high-volume hub--like Union Station. One solution might be to build flyover tracks at Imperial/Wilmington so that a train on the Green Line can switch to the Blue Line and head downtown (assuming their signal systems are compatible), reaching Union Station via the future Blue Line extension. This would allow an express downtown-LAX service (perhaps stopping at some key points like 7th Street/Metro Center and others--maybe Harbor Freeway so people from the express buses can transfer).

But the perfect solution is one that's been bantered around a bit: converting BNSF's currently-unused Harbor Subdivision to Metrolink service. The right-of-way already exists, and plans are (if I'm not mistaken) to connect that directly to LAX. Assuming signal systems and tracks are rebuilt to certain standards, an express service at 79mph or even 90mph (again, perhaps making just a couple of stops at key points) would be a very attractive service. It also expands options for interconnecting between LAX, BUR and ONT (which really needs to offer at least a shuttle bus, if not a direct people mover--hopefully, if the Gold Line does get extended out to ONT, it will also offer an interconnection with the San Bernardino line and perhaps even the Riverside Line. I know I would definitely consider flying into ONT if the airfare were cheaper and rail service were easily accessed.).

Even with the Harbor Sub Metrolink service, I'd still vote for extending the Green Line to LAX (or rerouting it through LAX, maybe underground, and then onward to Redondo or wherever it gets extended to)--the more combinations of routings and interconnections between different lines, the better.

I don't pretend to know much about L.A. commuters' and residents' habits, but based on what I would do, this makes the most sense to me. Already, I plan on using the LAX/LAUPT FlyAway Shuttle next time I fly into LAX. (Usually I fly into BUR because of the rail connection there, but if I fly into LAX, I usually take the Van Nuys FlyAway and have someone pick me up there. With the LAUPT FlyAway service, I can fly into LAX and still take Metrolink so my family can pick me up without driving all the way to Van Nuys.)

...the perfect solution is one that's been bantered around a bit: converting BNSF's currently-unused Harbor Subdivision to Metrolink service.

....unfortunately for this theory, the BNSF Harbor Subdivision *IS* used. There's two switching jobs a day on third trick (call it graveyard shift) so as to avoid major problems with blocking traffic on the numerous grade level crossings departing from yards at each end of the sub. BNSF would be loath to give this business up. Further...

Assuming signal systems and tracks are rebuilt to certain standards, an express service at 79mph or even 90mph would be a very attractive service.

...Is assuming rather a lot. The track there is still mostly 80-90lb segmented rail laided in the 1930s & 40s...and the best of it rated for 30 MPH max operation (FRA class 2). It would have to be completely replaced, sidings built, all 30+ grade crossings eliminated or upgraded to 4-way gated affairs, and stations built. Assuming the city could force BNSF renegotiate their trackage rights agreement...

While the city has just commissioned a study (its second) to consider the possibilities...at best it's 20-30 years of planning and fundraising out.

I've noticed a lot of apparent changes and development to the west of Tom Bradley lately.

....unfortunately for this theory, the BNSF Harbor Subdivision *IS* used. There's two switching jobs a day on third trick (call it graveyard shift) so as to avoid major problems with blocking traffic on the numerous grade level crossings departing from yards at each end of the sub. BNSF would be loath to give this business up. Further...
Right--I forgot it was used. I did know that it was, but I was under the impression that it was very light use, especially since MP 8-MP 14 is closed.



...Is assuming rather a lot. The track there is still mostly 80-90lb segmented rail laided in the 1930s & 40s...and the best of it rated for 30 MPH max operation (FRA class 2). It would have to be completely replaced, sidings built, all 30+ grade crossings eliminated or upgraded to 4-way gated affairs, and stations built.
As a complete non-expert just completely ballparking numbers, I figure roughly (ROUGHLY!) $2 million per mile for two tracks of CTC (assuming the ROW is wide enough for two; it would be more if they need to buy land and less if they do single-track with sidings), so the capital cost of laying the new track is in the neighborhood of $50 million. Stations seem to cost between $10 and $15 million each (I don't quite understand why it's so much for a parking lot and some poured concrete), so, assuming say, 10 stations, that's $100-150 million, and 30 quad-gated crossings at $1 million each is another $30 million. Ballpark $10 million for new equipment for twice-an-hour service--if it's even needed (F59PHI locos can't be more than $2 million each, and I would estimate less than $500k for each of the Bombardier coaches), and the whole project would come in the area of $250 million.

Is that doable? (SCRRA's annual budget is $135 million; LACMTA's budget is $3 billion.) Would it be worth it? How much does Cal DOT and L.A. plan on spending on freeway upgrades in the next 30 years? How many cars could be taken off the roads by this service? Would that reduce the need for (and cost of) the freeway upgrades?

I know even less about the cost for building it as a light rail line, but that would presumably be substantially less (although the slower service might not be as attractive to riders, and that would mean that the BNSF could no longer use it--light rail not being compatible with FRA requirements)--then again, the Gold Line was an expensive project (one report I read said the cost was $295 million; another mentioned $859 million!--if anything, that proves that Los Angeles has a precedent for spending big bucks on rail projects, so if this can be done at $250 million or less, there is a potential for it getting built).

I know you're probably right about it being 20-30 years out. Unfortunately, governments move at glacial paces--it would be nice if the same team responsible for planning the rebuilding of the UP trestle in Sacramento would work on Harbor Line service.

Oh well, we can dream big...

(And feel free to correct my numbers!)

jackal:

While your numbers are not orders of magnitude low, I do think you've come in under the real market figure...

First, my Google Earth perusal seems to suggest there might be clearance issues with double tracking the route, especially in the area near the Airport, where the line is elevated.

Trains reports the figure of $1 million a mile for adding additional main line to prepared right-of-way on BNSF's Transcon in Kansas...which does not include grading, switches, or signaling. I'd guess that given the need to maintain service to industry along the route, that upgrading switching & providing sidings will easily add another million a mile. Signaling for highspeed operation will also require more than CTC...ATS is required for service over 59 MPH in urban service. Then there's the question of dealing with the elevated right of way near the airport... What's the cost of adding approaches to LAX or an elevated station and transfers to the terminals?

Your price on F59PHI's is roughly 10 years out of date...they are now closing on 3 million each. Bombardier coaches are roughly $1.2 million each, and while a simple platform and parking lot may cost $10 and $15 million each....that doesn't include the land cost....or the fact that Metrolink has a nasty habit of doing "signature" stations that can cost 3-4X that figure. (See Chatsworth, Burbank, or Riverside stations)

I'd be suprised if the project could be brought in for less than $800 million in current dollars....and would not be shocked to hear that a plan went well over a billion. Moreover, given this project would not get started for at least a decade or two....the price of land and construction costs are bound to go up.

Would it be worth it? Maybe.

But I'd still rather see *real* high-speed rail from Union Station to ONT & PMD, and a considerable amount of LAX's traffic diverted to these two airports with room to expand. LAX is still burdened with their consent decree which requires them not to add any additional aircraft gates... And I don't see that changing.

The F59PHIs are $3 million apiece!? Bigger, more powerful, more-axled SD70MACs (though capable of only going 70mph) are (or were 5 years ago) $2 million apiece. I would never have guessed the F59s were half again as expensive. And $1.2 million for the coaches? That's not as shocking to me, but still...

Well, I'll quit being a transit planner, then, and leave this to the experts. I see I'm way out of my league...

(Still, having to wait 20-30 years and $1 billion for service to start just doesn't feel very good. Maybe the guys who planned and rebuilt the UP trestle outside of Sacramento should be brought in on the project--maybe they could have it done next year...)

My colleagues and I were briefed on LAX modernization this week for work. The improvements to TBIT continue to go forward. That's part of the green-lighted projects from the 2005 compromise.

LAX officials are working on a revised modernization proposal that should be released in the next month or so. The caveat is always the community. The local neighbors have successfully held up any substantive modernization for the past 15 years. It appears that the tide may be shifting with the recent reports deriding LAX and the likelihood that LA may lose out on the Olympic bid in part because of the crappy airport.

I anticipate that the compromise will include adding more gates to the backside of TBIT to accomodate two A380s and potentially a new midfield terminal. I'm not holding my breath for anything given the track record, though.

The F59PHIs are $3 million apiece!? Bigger, more powerful, more-axled SD70MACs (though capable of only going 70mph) are (or were 5 years ago) $2 million apiece. I would never have guessed the F59s were half again as expensive. And $1.2 million for the coaches? That's not as shocking to me, but still...

Well, I'll quit being a transit planner, then, and leave this to the experts. I see I'm way out of my league...

(Still, having to wait 20-30 years and $1 billion for service to start just doesn't feel very good. Maybe the guys who planned and rebuilt the UP trestle outside of Sacramento should be brought in on the project--maybe they could have it done next year...)

I thought EMD is no longer making the F59 and that is why everyone is buying locos from Wabtec now.

I thought EMD is no longer making the F59 and that is why everyone is buying locos from Wabtec now.

Huh?
EMD's website (http://www.emdiesels.com/lms/en/locomotive/passenger/)still has a F59PHI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHI) prominent on their Passenger Locomotive page discussing their various market segments. However EMD tends to like building big orders of standard units.

Wabtec has been much more successful in bidding smaller locomotive orders customized to individual transit agency needs, which is why they are getting a fair bit of buisiness for their MPX series locomotives.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPI_MPXpress)which incidentally use several different EMD prime movers at their core tailored to specific specs.