Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > America - USA > Los Angeles
Reload this Page >

LAX Landside Access Modernization Program

LAX Landside Access Modernization Program

Reply

Old Jan 9, 15, 5:40 pm
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,505
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post

As for private vehicles, LAWA is going out of its way to accomondate private vehicles so you can still drive in and be stuck in traffic. Although the idea is that you can drop off at ITF and not have to drive in the circle of hell so if everything is constructed as envisioned, I'm not sure why anyone would want to drive in the circle voluntarily.
If you know the secondary roads and shortcuts, it's not bad. And I'd rather be picked up/dropped off curbside rather than schlepping onto a people-mover, then hop on a moving walkway to get to the terminal.

So hopefully this ITF gets built, so everyone else will use and open up traffic
IceTrojan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 15, 6:32 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Programs: UA: 2P; AA; WN
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by radiowell View Post
I suppose it's better than nothing. I have shown my disgust for LAX O/D travel, and I appreciate them trying anything and any little thing could help.

Having said that, I am not convinced that it will be a dramatic improvement, unless they have a direct train line from the airport proper/terminal to downtown (say). Otherwise, it will probably something like an EWR AirTrain redux, or worse (at least, you can make one transfer to Manhattan at EWR or JFK). If you have luggage, why would you want to make 2 or more transfers?

Or they can just charging the private cars entering/exiting the airport (for those not using the ITF), or something, if they are REALLY serious about the congestion.
Current thinking among city planners is that it's generally not worth the money to build main line rail transit all the way to the airport. Although we air travellers have a bias in that we think transportation to/from the airport is very important, current thinking is that this is really a minor issue that can be handled with a light rail spur. Yes, it is a bit inconvenient for air travellers but by far the transit system should be designed for people going about their daily business -- going to work, shopping, etc. That's by far the larger number of users.

That's why just about all rail transit to airports nowadays is not on the main line, but a spur, with the notable exception of BART to SFO.
suranyi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 15, 9:34 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, California
Programs: IHG Spire Elite, Marriott Platinum Elite, Hilton Diamond, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by Moderator2 View Post
It could happen... even the bullet train is getting built. Not sure what is more messed up, El Lay or Sacramento.
The bullet train is a much bigger boondoggle than this. It won't ever connect Los Angeles and San Francisco IF it ever really gets built (and most likely will end up being the San Joaquin train to nowhere). It's just a pick-pocketing politicians dream come true (and some crumbs for the union bosses)...

How many decades have they been talking about just connecting the slow moving Green Line to LAX? Welcome to Los Angeles...

Simplicity works best in L.A...building on former rail lines...like the vast majority of the light rail lines...
CalItalian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 15, 12:46 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat, DL, UA, IHG Plat
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by CalItalian View Post
The bullet train is a much bigger boondoggle than this. It won't ever connect Los Angeles and San Francisco IF it ever really gets built (and most likely will end up being the San Joaquin train to nowhere). It's just a pick-pocketing politicians dream come true (and some crumbs for the union bosses)...

How many decades have they been talking about just connecting the slow moving Green Line to LAX? Welcome to Los Angeles...

Simplicity works best in L.A...building on former rail lines...like the vast majority of the light rail lines...
The bullet train is already being build and it will connect to LA and SF because both regional rail network are being electrified.

Green line is a lot of things but it is definitely now slow moving It has its own right of way and is one of the fastest metro line in the US.
bzcat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 15, 2:32 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,505
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Green line is a lot of things but it is definitely now slow moving It has its own right of way and is one of the fastest metro line in the US.
It's because it connects Nowhere to Nowhere... with nobody in between
IceTrojan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 15, 12:42 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat, DL, UA, IHG Plat
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by LAXative View Post
It's because it connects Nowhere to Nowhere... with nobody in between
Which is also not true

Green line averages 42,000 boardings on a weekday so it's definitely not "nobody"

Green line connects to several extremely heavily used N-S bus lines on Hawthrone Blvd (40 & 740), Crenshaw Blvd (210 & 710), Vermont Ave (204 & 754), and Long Beach Blvd (60 & 760). Not to mention the Blue line and Silver line, which combined has over 100,000 average weekday boardings.

So yea... nowhere to nowhere with nobody...
bzcat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 15, 12:59 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Long Beach, CA
Programs: AA PLT, Hilton Diamond, IHG PlatAmb, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Gold
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Which is also not true

Green line averages 42,000 boardings on a weekday so it's definitely not "nobody"

Green line connects to several extremely heavily used N-S bus lines on Hawthrone Blvd (40 & 740), Crenshaw Blvd (210 & 710), Vermont Ave (204 & 754), and Long Beach Blvd (60 & 760). Not to mention the Blue line and Silver line, which combined has over 100,000 average weekday boardings.

So yea... nowhere to nowhere with nobody...
As you point out, a large number of users, probably invisible to most people on FT.

The problem is that "everyone" thinks it's "nobody" because "everyone" drives. LA is a huge place with a huge population and a large amount of that population doesn't have the means to own a vehicle. So, they take public transportation - primarily in the form of buses. Something that "everyone" wouldn't dare think of doing.

So much snobbery involved in public transportation planning.
OskiBear is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 15, 4:11 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,505
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Which is also not true

Green line averages 42,000 boardings on a weekday so it's definitely not "nobody"

Green line connects to several extremely heavily used N-S bus lines on Hawthrone Blvd (40 & 740), Crenshaw Blvd (210 & 710), Vermont Ave (204 & 754), and Long Beach Blvd (60 & 760). Not to mention the Blue line and Silver line, which combined has over 100,000 average weekday boardings.

So yea... nowhere to nowhere with nobody...
And just imagine if the Green Line had actually connected the populated parts of the South Bay, LAX, and the Norwalk Metrolink station.

The fact is that, the way the Green Line is set up now could have just as easily been accomplished by a bus line. Eliminate Green Line service, and it would have little effect on the system.

So, is the Green Line actually raising ridership... or are the riders using the Green Line just because it just happens to be there?

(And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of public transportation and even voted for the high speed rail measure. Even with that feather in my hat, I still feel the Green Line was a complete waste... maybe not complete, more like a 95% waste).
IceTrojan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 15, 5:04 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat, DL, UA, IHG Plat
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by LAXative View Post
And just imagine if the Green Line had actually connected the populated parts of the South Bay, LAX, and the Norwalk Metrolink station.

The fact is that, the way the Green Line is set up now could have just as easily been accomplished by a bus line. Eliminate Green Line service, and it would have little effect on the system.

So, is the Green Line actually raising ridership... or are the riders using the Green Line just because it just happens to be there?

(And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of public transportation and even voted for the high speed rail measure. Even with that feather in my hat, I still feel the Green Line was a complete waste... maybe not complete, more like a 95% waste).
Population density in the green line service area is pretty high. It just so happens the area is ahem... very brown... so people just think there is "nothing" there. Connecting it to the "more populated" parts of South Bay would still leave the Eastern portion of the Green line in more populated area, by far. Connecting to Metrolink station in Norwalk would have been nice and should still be a goal but the connection to Blue line is much more important. Rail line is not necessary about the terminals, it is about the places it serves along the way. Green line is a relatively speaking, a very high performing rail line given that it is almost entirely in the middle of a freeway... but nonetheless, it plays an important role in the grid providing a fast east-west cross town ride in the south LA county.

And of course people are using the Green line because it is there... what kind of question is that? If you are saying people will change their commute method if there is no Green line, for sure... if there is no 405 freeway, people will change how they commute too.

I'm not sure how you can replace the Green line with a bus line... assuming average 100 boarding per bus, you'll need 420 extra bus a day to provide the same capacity. If you eliminate the Green line, basically you will add 42,000 cars to the 105 and 91 freeway... see how that works out

Last edited by bzcat; Jan 15, 15 at 5:16 pm
bzcat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 15, 10:54 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: IAD
Programs: UA GS; AA EP; Le Club Platinum; PC Platinum; SPG Gold
Posts: 435
Will the taxis and cars be banned from the ring road? I can see having to go the the intermodal stop to pick up a cab, but it seems like dropoff could still happen at the terminals.
Yuengling is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 16, 10:16 pm
  #26  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 10,731
The Daily Breeze:
Here’s your chance to weigh in on the $5 billion LAX modernization plan



<snip>

The modernization program includes four major components: two off-site intermodal transfer facilities to the east and west of the airport for trains, buses and vehicles, a consolidated rental car facility, and a 2.25-mile elevated automated people mover.

The people mover will connect the three facilities with another three stations at the airport, whisking passengers to terminals in a matter of minutes and dramatically reducing the almost constant traffic jams that “severely compromise” LAX and surrounding streets, airport officials said.

Capable of moving as many as 5,800 airline passengers an hour, nine free automated trains up to 185 feet long will run every two to three minutes 24 hours a day, all but eliminating the 1.1 million annual rental car shuttle trips on the loop road connecting terminals.

The people mover is designed to greatly reduce the 6,000 vehicles that enter LAX at peak periods. Because transit connections are so poor at LAX, almost two-thirds of departing air passengers currently rely on private vehicles and taxis to reach the terminals.

<snip>
TWA884 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 16, 10:03 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,785
LAX access is going to get worse before it gets better

There's an article in the LA Times about the mess at LAX this holiday season. The short summary is that while there are a lot of plans to try to relieve things, it's going to get worse before it gets better, because loads will continue to increase and construction will disrupt things.

I flew out a couple days before the "official" start of the holiday season, on a Sunday night redeye, and getting into the airport was already a mess. I took the flyaway bus, which is usually pretty good about avoiding congestion - they don't have any stops between union station and the airport so they can take any route they want.

Apparently the first traffic light entering the airport had gone out earlier in the day and it caused backups all the way to the 105. Traffic was backed up for about a mile on the 105 at the Sepulveda north exit (google was suggesting to take the south exit and do a U turn), so it took about 40 minutes to get from 1 mile before the Sepulveda ramp to Terminal 1. If I hadn't gotten off the bus and walked across the top of the U I probably would have missed my flight. I could have walked from the 105 faster than the bus.

Later in the week was worse, with rain cancelling and delaying a lot of flights (and no doubt making traffic worse) and a couple incidents with unattended packages.

Some of the fixes that they're planning will help inside the U, like having all buses and transit drop off at Lot C and have a train, but access to there is still limited by the Sepulveda tunnel and traffic on Century. The layout of surface streets makes it difficult to get to the transit center without either going through the tunnel or spending at least a short time on Century. It seems like some sort of transit hub south of the tunnel (or east of the 405) with a dedicated train to the airport could make a big difference in the traffic load trying to get off at Sepulveda, which is probably going to continue to get worse, even with all the changes.

Last edited by chrisl137; Dec 30, 16 at 7:17 pm
chrisl137 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 16, 11:46 am
  #28  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 10,731
Originally Posted by chrisl137 View Post
There's an article in the LA Times about the mess at LAX this holiday season. The short summary is that while there are a lot of plans to try to relieve things, it's going to get worse before it gets better, because loads will continue to increase and construction will disrupt things.
You linked a wrong article.

I tried finding it online, but couldn't.

Here's one from the Daily Breeze:
LAMP modernization project lights way to complete overhaul of LAX

LAX is on a “new trajectory” because of a $5 billion construction project that will revolutionize road and rail access and serve as the “cornerstone” of a world-class transportation hub, Los Angeles officials told about 900 business leaders Thursday.

<snip>

LAMP will include an elevated 2.25-mile automated people mover with a capacity of 6,000 passengers per hour and six stations where people are expected to wait no more than three minutes for a train.

The people mover will connect LAX terminals with a Crenshaw Line light rail station at 96th Street and Aviation Boulevard and two intermodal transportation facilities with parking lots where airline passengers can disembark trains and buses and check in to their flights.

Next door to one of them will be a consolidated car rental facility.

<snip>

TWA884 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 16, 11:57 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SAN
Programs: SPG Gold, HH Gold, MR Gold
Posts: 1,043
I believe this is the LA times article that chrisl137 was attempting to link to.
Hawaiian717 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 16, 4:29 pm
  #30  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 10,731
Originally Posted by Hawaiian717 View Post
I believe this is the LA times article that chrisl137 was attempting to link to.
Thanks. I saw it in the print edition a couple of hours after I posted the link to the Daily Breeze article.

Here's an excerpt:
Los Angeles World Airports expects to cut traffic congestion in and around the airport with a new Metro light-rail connection, an automated people mover in the terminal area and two transportation centers east of the airport, though these upgrades are years away.

Plans call for the construction of new roads and the improvement of local streets to serve the transportation centers and a consolidated car rental facility to be built in Manchester Square. Sepulveda, Aviation and West Century boulevards, 98th Street and West Arbor Vitae are some of the major thoroughfares to be upgraded.

Airport officials believe they can remove 40% of the terminal-area traffic by requiring buses, shuttles and courtesy vans to drop off and pick up passengers at the transportation centers that will be linked to the people mover.
TWA884 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread