German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMetro Green Line: The little engine that… almost could.
In order to keep some basic order here, I’m suggesting that we relocate the discussion from below regarding the feasability and desireability of a Green Line extension, which appears to be the hot topic of the month, and to do so, I’m basically re-posting my last comment from below to kick-start things.
I see things big picture here. LAX is a disaster. It’s a mess. We all know it. To summarize a bit below.
Westchester residents who can’t keep their traps shut regarding airport noise: Hello? You moved next to an airport? Do you have a brain? LAX has been there for a long time, they no longer have an excuse, it’s not like LAX opened last week, or even 20 years ago. If LAX drives down property values, so be it, it has to be somewhere, unless we want to go Kyoto and build an artificial island in Santa Monica Bay. And you thought a Green Line extension would be expensive, I can’t wait to see the cost estimate on the new Los Angeles-Marina del Rey Island Airport.
The airport has crumbling facilities: It’s sort of like trying to crazy-glue your spear as the Roman Army is crashing down upon you. Which terminal do you close to renovate and, thus, creating air traffic congestion nightmares? Which airline(s) do you risk alienating? Burbank, John Wayne, Ontario, and LA/Palmdale would all be happy to have them.
And finally, the one we’re trying to solve, traffic and access: Traffic is a nightmare, and it pours not only onto the 405 and 105, but also onto Sepulveda, Lincoln, and Century.
So, yes, I think it’s time for the City to forgo some of the revenue in order to modernize the airport before we suddenly learn that all of our final destination passenger travel goes through outlying airports, making travel to LA less desirable and feasible. The City is not a for-profit entity, per se - the profit that the City seeks is an improved and stable quality of life for residents through courting businesses and other revenue streams. The LA World Airports balance sheet may take a hit if parking revenues drop (let’s be honest here, they probably won’t - even if some of the people who drive decide to take transit instead, comprehensive LAX rehabilitation will mean that they will be replaced by people from elsewhere in LA who would’ve driven to Burbank, Ontario, or John Wayne), but the LA area will be aided through encouraging passenger air traffic to route through LAX again.
This could also be a carrot with which to get the Westchester residents to shut up - improving transit could reduce the amount of traffic spillover onto Westchester community streets, and in turn give LA greater leeway to reconfigure and modernize the North airfield before we have a tragic disaster.
But this is all a part of a comprehensive rehabilitation, the transit element is just one part. Everyone here seems to be thinking small, when the LAX issue is really a massive issue.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
I agree wholeheartedly. Now we need to figure out a way to get the taxis, shuttle companies, and airport hotels to shut up too.
It’s a totally ridiculous fear. JFK and Newark have people movers and no shortage of business for taxis.
So, yes, I think it’s time for the City to forgo some of the revenue…
I mean this in the friendly way but are you crazy? Did you read what you wrote? The City of Los angeles give up a free revenue stream at this time in order to justify spending hundreds of millions on a project that has no supporters and would do nothing except reduce congestion and save users time and money? Which Los angeles are you talking about?
Rob, do you read newspapers? Have you ever taken an Econ class, or perhaps Poli Sci?
San Francisco: Provides free MUNI service on especially hazy and polluted days in order to discourage unneeded single-occupancy commuting.
NYC: Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer instruct MTA not to raise fares due to pending MTA surplus and providing incentive to transit riders from the suburbs.
Cities regularly forgo revenue streams in order to accomplish another goal. People take sick days too, forgoing revenue streams because of larger problems.
Did you read my post, by the way? I said that the green line extension was in the context of an extensive airport overhaul. It’s not my favorite project by any means, and to me at least, doesn’t make sense to do without the context of major airport upgrades. But if we don’t do those upgrades, we’re going to be hurting in 5, 10 years - we already got the preview of that when we had to beg for the new Airbus to land here rather than just NYC and SF.
would do nothing except reduce congestion and save users time and money?
And in a destination city like LA, that’s a primary purpose for doing a project, any day of the year.
Does anyone know why there is such resistance or apathy in the MTA towards a Sepulveda Pass line? Even the MTA’s discussion about the possible Santa Monica alignment included the idea of getting people to/from the Valley to/from the Westside. While I’m the biggest supporter of the “Pink Line” that I know, a Sepulveda Pass line seems like a nobrainer, as an extension of the Green Line from LAX up to UCLA, the valley up to Metrolink.
I remember when the “dream map” for the MTA was published in the L.A. Times a few months ago, Sepulveda Pass transit was a “busway”. Who the hell in the BRU convinced them of that one?
Even the 761 limps over the hill and dumps people off at Wilshire. If you want to go East on Santa Monica or onto Olympic or Pico, you have to catch another bus to even get to the bus you want when the 761 could easily go to Pico Blvd. and reduce by one the number of transfer needed. (I’m told a stupid “turf battle” between the MTA and the BBB is why riders are incredibly inconvenienced and discouraged, not any sensible reasons of policy or planning.)
It’s almost as if the MTA doesn’t want an alternative to snaking through the Sepulveda Pass. It there someone making money up there with a machine that collects exhaust fumes from congestion?
One way to sell the Green Line to the Airport is to make it part of a larger project over the Pass.
I’m just wondering why it hasn’t occurred to the MTA to think bigger about the Pass. Is it a relucatance to admit that not everyone needs to travel to/from downtown? Someone must have an idea.
Even now, a people mover could be built from the Aviation Station or the bus terminal for the airport. Many people think that the Green Line going to the Airport means a rail ride right to the gate.
Aaron, the City is investing tens of millions in the Palmdale Airport. They have to make LAX perform poorly. They are not going to spend anything to make LAX work better. They don’t have the money and they have a conflict of interest.
It’s a bit of a stretch to believe that politicians and officials would make LAX perform poorly, aggravating the business community and their constituents for the sole purpose of expanding the Palmdale Airport.
————
There is no greater example of how NIMBYs are ruining L.A. than the Green Line — whether it’s poltical turf war, fear of transportation competition or a few fools in Norwalk.
One of the reasons the Pink Line must have sounded a little attractive to the MTA at the forums were people saying, “build here, build here”, instead of “not here, not here”.
Between Cheviot Hills, Norwalk, Hancock Park and obstructionists at the airport, I’m ready to see a project, any rail project, rammed down the throat of NIMBYs just for the fun of it. A few homeowners who want to pretend it is still 1977 shouldn’t be able to thwart the desperately needed transit improvements for the entire region.
What I don’t understand political is why extending the Green Line to the airport, or building a people mover from a nearby station isn’t considered the top priority of the MTA power brokers. It would forever end the comment, “it doesn’t go anywhere.” It would lead to the airport!
Chapter 2:
You are on the mezzanine level.
There is an elevator marked interest rates.
There are two buttons marked up and down. The down button is broken.
PRESS INTEREST RATE UP BUTTON.
While waiting for the rates to rise a large Austrian in lederhosen rushes forward, grabs the doors and jams the mechanism. Safe from the rising rates but unfortunately destroying your only hope of a safe exit. To the north is a deep tranche.
JUMP.
You have fallen into a tranche. Far above was the relative safety of the mezzanine. The walls are covered with some form of negative amortization. You cannot climb out.
CALL FOR HELP.
The large Austrian cannot hear you. He has gone on to the Senate.
CALL CONGRESS.
Calling Congress got you into this mess are you sure?
…
Rob, you really misunderstand City Hall. There is no “they,” this is a very fractious city. Westchester reps would probably like to see LAX sink into the ocean, but they aso have the LAX-vicinity business to keep happy. But the rest of LA knows that they benefit more from a successful LAX than they do from a successful PMD.
Also, LA gains when businesses around LAX prosper. LA doesn’t gain when businesses around ONT or PMD prosper. That’s a really simple equation. They want PMD to act as a reliever, and to try and pull in people north of the city. It’ll do that. But it can’t ever compete on the same level with LAX, no regional airport here can.
And on top of that, LA/Palmdale doesn’t compete for more than half of the LA air travelers anyhow - PMD will never be a draw for tourists or business travelers. Ever. It’s just too far. It’s a great idea for a reliever, which I wholly support, but the only meaningful competition to LAX is Burbank and possibly LA/Ontario, but again, LA/Ontario isn’t going to take the tourist or business traveler load. It’s like Islip. Only locals can find Islip on a map, let alone know how to pronounce it!
Most other large cities (which you seem to forget that LA is) can support multiple large airports without one putting the others out of business, and that’s the way it needs to be here. But just because the Tri-State region wants to divert traffic to Newark Liberty or La Guardia doesn’t mean that they’re going to let JFK sink into the cold, deep waters of the Atlantic.
LAWA/LA City have worked on various proposals at different points to revamp a lot of the airport (especially terminals 1-3, which I believe have had the least amount of improvements done to them over the years). I’ve seen various discussions of a demolish and rebuild a super terminal, re-design terminals, people movers, etc, but they keep adding in components that are easily objectionable, like when they put out a proposal of having a central check-in near the 405 under the guise of improving security, when it seemed to me it would make things worse security wise.
There are a lot of projects they could have easily started with little to no objections, but they always seem to want to do these massive projects with major problems, or just do nothing at all. When you compare terminals 1-3 to 4-7, there’s a considerable difference in quality, which isn’t surprising considering the idea of replacing terminals 1-3 outright comes up every once and a while, so why should they (airlines and LAWA) invest much in improving those terminals.
Traffic in the North/South corridors through Westchester have gotten so bad these days, I don’t believe congestion improvements at LAX will make all that big a difference, although I’m not sure what will. I commute (thankfully) east/west through the area not on Century, which still has good traffic, but I see incredible backups every morning and evening these days (especially on Sepulveda and Lincoln (not to mention the 405), a lot of it just passing through the area.
Here’s the reality. Every other World-Class, American Metropolis has rail to the airport. LA is the lone holdout, and that should be ended as quickly as possible.
Last summer there was talk of congestion pricing to LAX, but congestion pricing won’t work unless you provide a transportation alternative during rush hours…
Rather than tell me i don’t understand city hall why don’t you tell me how much land the City of Los Angeles owns adjacent to the Palmdale airport.
18,000 acres. Now tell us why.
Oh and lots of major US metro airports don’t have rail service. Even Boston.
If anything, LAX is quieter today than it was at the start of the jet age. Ever heard a Boeing 707 or a DC-8 (with the original engines) or a Vickers VC-10 take off?
Dan:
The map in the L.A. Times was their own concoction.
Metro has no official mode for a potential alignment through the Sepulveda Pass.
Having said that, I’d like to hear feedback on an idea which was broached to me by Bill Rosendahl’s transportation deputy at a meeting Monday afternoon:
What about a separate construction authority, using LAWA funds, to get the Green Line branch to LAX built, and then worry about going further north once that is proven to work?
That’s a wonderful idea.
Really? They didn’t make much of a point of that, did they?
The article could have been a useful attempt to educate people on how MTA makes decisions (e.g. Long Range Transportation Plan), instead of the usually whining about lots of ideas, but too little money.
rob, here is a list of a few cities SMALLER than la, with some form of “rail” transit to their airports: portland, san jose, st. louis, BOSTON(silver line on the T - do some reasearch next time), montreal, philadelphia, milwaukee, barcelona, minneapolis, san francisco…
here is a list of cities, on la’s scale or bigger that have rail options to their airports: new york, london, tokyo, paris, chicago, shanghai, berlin, moscow, mexico city…
i know you said only in america, but i added the foreigners to give you some perspective on the fact that other world class cities have taken care of this non-issue.
Rob, mark this day, because it’s the only time in my life I’m going to say these three words in this particular order.
Cochon, Rob was right.
As to one thing, and ONLY one thing - the Silver Line is a miserable uncomfortable overcrowded bus that makes our Orange Line look like flying first class. Silver Line was supposed to be integrated into the Green Line (and probably will be someday) but it’s an underground busway from South Station through Courthouse and World Trade Center, and then goes through the Boston Harbor tunnels to the Airport in regular traffic. Having said that, the tunnel traffic is never as bad as the 405. But it’s not even a new artic, they just run low-floor trolleybusses, it’s a horribly uncomfortable, miserable and overcrowded ride because, unlike here, the vast majority of Logan customers don’t drive to the airport.
If you gave me the choice between Boston’s setup and LA’s FlyAway, I’d pick the FlyAway any day.
And by the way, NYC has no rail to La Guardia, a constant problem for the people who have to cram onto the Q33 and M60. Even thinking about my miserable M60 trips is making me sore, about as sore as the Silver Line made me. The N,R will eventually be extended north out of Astoria, but NYC MTA has bigger fish to fry for the time being.
Kymberleigh: I think that the LAWA idea is an excellent one. The Sepulveda Corridor problem is a separate problem, and giving an agency with positive cash flow that kind of responsibility would be more appropriate. LAWA is a creature of the City, not County (internally it’s just the Department of Airports), and the City has a whole lot more incentive to do this; would there be legal problems when MTA is primarily a County beast?
got it, rob is right about boston. it’s all good.
he’s wrong about the other half of his statement though. even minneapolis, which is 2/3 the size of boston(boston having 1/6 the population of the city of l.a.) has lrt to it’s airport and there are lots more little cities like that. chicago is 2 for 2 and new york is 2 for 3(don’t use la guardia anyway). l.a. is the 2nd largest city in the u.s. and it’s 0 for…
the thing that really sucks right now is that yes, the cost of such projects is high. the thing that people don’t seem to want to admit is that the cost of widening and building new freeways is just as high. the money for alot of these sorts of projects would be available IF WE WEREN’T HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON IRAQ. rob could get his 16 lane freeways and we could get our subways. sorry to get off topic, but it’s kinda not.
got it, rob is right about boston. it’s all good.
How about the APOLOGY for the snarky “(silver line on the T - do some reasearch next time)”? It’s not going to be all good until people here understand the difference twixt disagreeing with ideas and attacking individuals with nasty comments about competence. Notice the bigger bias. You got corrected on the facts. What do you think the response would have been if I had made a similar mistake and stepped out of character to add the snarky bit as well?
And for the record I don’t want 16 lane freeways. Never said anything like that. As a matter of fact when you come right down to it this is exactly the same problem. Attacking me for something you think is a insult to my competence and getting the facts wrong in the process.
I should point out that San Jose isn’t really “rail to the airport”. VTA runs a shuttle bus line from the airport to one of the rail stations (about the same distance as AirBART between Coliseum Station and Oakland International Airport), but it’s still not a direct rail connection.
Maybe if you apologized once in a while when you do the same thing, Rob, people would be inclined to give you the same courtesy.
He does not need to apologize. He said Boston had “rail” transit to its airport, which it does. (Comment #17)Those quotes are important. That means the MBTA has either actual rail transit, or something claimed as the equivalent, which might not actually be rail. The Silver Line is part of their rail system, and listed on rail system maps, same way our Orange Line is here. Whether you like that or not, it’s a fact. And the Boston Silver Line probably has more justification to be listed as part of the rail system than our Orange, since the Silver Line is mainly underground.
Logan Airport also has a stop on the Blue Line, requiring a transfer to a shuttle bus, just like our Green Line, though I believe the stop is somewhat closer to the terminal than ours is.
Anyway, the point remains that we are the largest city in the USA with no direct rail airport access since New York finished the AirTrain and San Francisco extended BART to SFO.
Most people are half-right.
The Silver Line is not considered a part of the Boston rail system, though it is on the map.
As Scott correctly stated there is a Blue Line airport station that is adjacent to the airport and requires a shuttle.
Boston is the nucleus of a cluster of cities/municipalities that collectively make up a metropolitan area that is much larger than the simple population of Boston would indicate. (Think San Francisco).
The I-405 corridor on the LRTP maps are typically a busway as part of the HOV project.
Damien is “half-right”.
Yes, there is HOV in Metro’s LRTP.
No, that does not automatically equate into busways.
Do some research next time
LMAO! An apology would at least salvage some credibility.
The rest of the arguments that we need to extend the green line because Tokyo, Atlanta, NYC, etc. have rail to their airports are also ridiculous. There are good reasons for building the extension, but that’s not one of them. The near term reality is that very few travelers will use the green line extension to LAX until we get a better rail infrastructure to support such a trip. Might as well build the infrastructure that we desperately need rather than an extension to the airport just cuz’ Minneapolis has one.
As for using LAWA funds for a Green Line extension…wasn’t there an FAA rule about using airport money for general transportation improvements? (That’s why JFK is served by the Airtrain, rather than an actual subway extension….)
(Anyone here remember the old JFK express? You still needed a shuttle bus to get to it from the terminals, and, as it turned out, it wasn’t all that much faster than the normal subway train…which it frequently got stuck behind).
People are also making a lot of noise about having the rail station on the airport vs. having to use a shuttle bus.
Well, in some cases a shuttle bus might be preferable to a long walk.
Chicago comes to mind, a long walk from anywhere but the United terminal at ORD. MDW’s rail station requires a 15-minute walk through a parking structure….
Washington Reagan’s connection to WMATA is pretty civilized, if you’re using Terminal B or C (The station is right between the two terminals, and is an easy walk from both of them). Terminal A, where the cheapies (such as ATA) fly, requires a longer walk or a shuttle bus ride….
Atlanta is kind of sneaky; there’s a station in the main terminal, but there are *several* concourses, requiring a shuttle train ride (past security).
SFO is a mess. The local politico’s insisted that BART serve the new international terminal. Never mind that BART was actually more likely to be used by domestic travelers (e.g. someone visiting from LA, etc.) These travelers have to take a shuttle train (”Airtrain?”) to get to/from BART. It would have made a lot more sense (and cost less money) to have BART stop at the existing Caltrain in Millbrae, then run the “Airtrain” from there to all the terminals.
Airport topography varies all over the place, and must be taken into account when planning rail access.
That’s a good idea. But, then it would be a good idea to have Cal Train to all the way into downtown SF, which it’s supposed to do in 20 years when the Transbay Terminal is finished.
Airtrain for LAX makes a lot more sense to me now that trying to get the Green Line all the way to the gates.
In fact, an Airtrain could theoretically be built now going to the LAX Aviation Green Line Station, the public transit hub, and all the terminals already, couldn’t it? That could be built and be of use now.
I was never epecting the Green Line to actually go all the way deep into the airport.
Dan: You know, I took Caltrain the last time I was in SF, and I didn’t much mind it, only because both N-Judah and T-Third run to the Caltrain depot now. But I can’t begin to imagine how awful it was before those two ran out there.
I think I’d oppose running Caltrain further into SF - only because there’s nowhere to put it, and running it underground would be an enormous cost compared to other things SF desperately needs, like a Geary line on MUNI. Having said that, the terminal needs to be expanded, it’s very cramped.
Unlesss the green line is run into the airport (expensive and politically/physically difficult), I think what we’ll see is an AirTrain from Aviation to the terminals, and I am perfectly fine with that. If we get the political will behind a green line extension, that’s great, but an AirTrain would solve the problem.
I think the City is right on this one. For SF’s and the whole Bay Area’s economic needs, Cal Train needs a one seat ride from downtown to Silicon Valley and to San Jose. For years they’ve known this and they need to do it.
Yes it costs a lot of money, but it is considered a long-term investment.
And, yes, it was that horrific before MUNI went to the Cal Train depot. Imagine getting to the Depot and then having to board a 40 foot bus to get downtown. Needless to say, it didn’t encourage anyone to give up their car.
Sometimes you just need to do the big projects.
The BRU would argue and does argue that if the MTA abandons all rail, many more smaller “bus needs” can be met and help “countless” more people (i.e. their membership). (They are also delusional and naive if they actually think that money otherwise spent on rail would be instead be equally spent on more 40 foot buses as instead of being redirected to merely more road building in a futile attempt to preserve the quality of the single-occupancy motoring lifestyle in all parts of the city.)
The question I have then as relates to the Green Line and to the idea of a LAWA Authority are: Is there will to build an LAX Air Train now? Does that idea have to be put on hold for an extension of the Green Line? Would the Air Train need two different routes or one long route?
JFK has an Airtrain going to the A-Train and one going to the E-Train and Jamaica LIRR Station. I’ve taken both routes. There is also one that looops within the terminals for terminal to terminal transfer.
Then there are the trams/trains within the Airport. I take the monorail within SEA/TAC twice a year.
The Wiki Wiki Shuttle in Honolulu still cracks me up, but it useful.
It’s odd that the monorail within the Las Vegas airport is so much more functional and useable than the one outside the Airport.
In any event, is an LAX Air Train buildable today, who would need to be lobbied to construct it? Would the Green Line need to run closer to LAX first? Would it need to built jointly with the MTA? Does this topic of an LAX Air Train need another thread to discuss it or does it distract from the Green Line thread? All things I am pondering.
Speaking of Thanksgiving, I’m very grateful to see the light rail project being constructed at SEA-TAC. May I ride it and the Purple Line from Santa Monica to downtown through Century City in my lifetime.
having ridden the airtrain monorail to/from both jfk and newark, i do have to say, it is a lovely option. you’ve got both grade separation and it’s cheaper and easier to build than a subway. only thing is though, in san diego, when they were trying to build the trolley through little italy, the original plans called for it to be elevated, but all the nimbys shot it down, saying it was going to block their view to the bay(and look at the neighborhood now, with all the tall buildings), so it was built in this half-assed kinda way. i would imagine that this kind of nimbyism would be a threat to a monorail.
being as airports are the main source of entry for tourists into a city, some kind of practical public transportation to/from the airport to downtown could reduce the number of rental cars clogging roads, which means more room for locals(a possible selling point). and we all know that downtown l.a. is going to become a top destination in the future, so why not?
either flying or amtraking to san diego, i never rent a car cuz public trans to downtown is so convenient. i can visit my granny in national city and aunt in la mesa only using the trolley.
Unless the green line is run into the airport (expensive and politically/physically difficult), I think what we’ll see is an AirTrain from Aviation to the terminals, and I am perfectly fine with that. If we get the political will behind a green line extension, that’s great, but an AirTrain would solve the problem.
An airport circulator wouldn’t solve problems because no one would use it except for LAX employees and a few tourists. And many tourists won’t even ride it if there is an additional charge like there is on the JFK AirTrain or a defacto surcharge like the EWR and SFO AirTrains.
being as airports are the main source of entry for tourists into a city, some kind of practical public transportation to/from the airport to downtown could reduce the number of rental cars clogging roads, which means more room for locals(a possible selling point). and we all know that downtown l.a. is going to become a top destination in the future, so why not?
Because taking an airport circulator to the green line and then transferring to the blue and then maybe red line depending on where you’re headed downtown is NOT a practical public transportation route. You can do it, but it’s far from ideal. The FlyAway isn’t all that great, but it does have a place for luggage and comfortable seats. It can get stuck in traffic, but it’ll beat the train any day.
An airport circulator wouldn’t solve problems because no one would use it except for LAX employees and a few tourists.
Are you kidding? I’d use it every time I take the bus to the Airport Public Transit terminal.
But, the AirTrain would not be a permanent “solution”. Obviously the Green Line needs to be extended in some manner.
But, if a circulator could be built sooner than the Green Line extension, is it worth pushing for now instead of waiting for the Green Line to get closer?
It shouldn’t be either/or.
AirTrain JFK is free as an airport circulator (a separate clockwise route that hits the terminals in reverse); and is also free to access remote parking and car rental lots (Howard Beach bound), plus hotel shuttles at Federal Circle (both Howard Beach and Jamaica bound trains). The AirTrain works better in NYC because it connects to multiple lines, A at Howard Beach; and E/J/Z lines at Jamaica plus numerout LIRR routes at the busiest LIRR junction outside of Manhattan (where locals “change (trains) at Jamaica”. Our Green/Blue/Red solution is tiring enough already and having a train shuttle doesn’t fix that. It would be more beneficial to the people of Norwalk who have a single line ride to LAX. We need DMU service on the subdivision. In fact, that LAX DMU service should go from Chatsworth on the Ventura County Metrolink Line to Union Station then taking the subdivision to LAX and connect to our AirTrain service, this would allow for only one transfer and also hit another major airport: Burbank.
I forget to mention that you have to pay a fare for AirTrain JFK upon leaving the station at Howard Beach and Jamaica, since these two connects to public transportation. You also have to pay to get in too. We should have something similar where there are no fare gates at Burbank and LAX, which would allow for free transfers between the two airports.
Tony and Dan - I meant the portion of the airport circulator that would connect to the green line. Maybe circulator is not the right word, but neither is AirTrain, unless that ends up the name decided upon.
The JFK AirTrain is $5.00 each way. I think that the Newark one is similar. IIRC the SFO AirTrain is free, but there is a surcharge to use the BART station. I’m too lazy to look it up, but it’s maybe $2 or $3 more to use the airport station than the previous station on the route.
I kinda agree with Tony’s comments about the Harbor Subdivision Metrolink route. It would work well IF they can get the freight trains to run more at night. For now the route is still relatively busy with just the one track. Too busy maybe to even add a reliable hourly metrolink service.
Since a rail trip at LAX and to the green line can happen entirely on LAX property, resistance to it would be a minimal issue.
If they did have a rail solution, it could stop at lot C/bus transit center, lot B, a centralized car rental facility, and some kind of passenger/hotel pickup/drop off facility, as well as the Green Line. That would be used quite heavily (easily taking a large amount of traffic off the airport loop, especially the large buses), especially if it was free to all but the green line (like the AirTrain). I live locally and would probably use it instead of having to go through the airport loop, plus it would make it feasible to charge for entering the airport loop.
Bringing in Metrolink service would also be useful. How heavily is that line used for cargo? I don’t see it used often at all myself (and pretty regularly travel along that cargo line on my way to the green line, I’m not even sure when the last time I saw a train go by on that route).
I should probably add that I mean at least resistance from a visual perspective should be minimal.
I know that I am completely in favor of such a system, but I don’t know how most other people feel in this area about it from other perspectives, although considering the vehicles it would remove from the roads, I would think it would be somewhat in favor.
So there is a cargo line to LAX? From where does it go? Is it something that can be adapted easily to people travel?
I wonder if that could be a more direct route from downtown to the airport. When the Green Line does go to the airport, I really hope the create tracks that allow for a one seat ride downtown, instead of forcing people to transfer at the middle of nowhere at the Blue/Green intersection.
Since he mentioned Metrolink I presume that he is referring to the Harbor Subdivision line. The line is owned by the MTA, but is currently only used for freight trains. You can see it from several spots near the green line western stations.
I live near the southern end of the line and it’s used pretty frequently down this way. If it’s used as often near LAX commuter trains would be difficult, but not impossible. I’d like to see if there is some way that it could happen. You could then have an airport train that went to both the green line and the commuter train. Now THAT would be very useful.
There’s a picture of the tracks here:
http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/maps/TC-47-2006-11-02.jpg
It runs along Aviation near LAX, and the other endpoint is near Union Station (joins a bunch of other tracks in that area). You can follow it pretty easily on Google Maps.
It would likely make for a quick trip from Union Station to LAX.
Boston’s Logan Airport is directly accesible from the Blue Line. I’ve done it lots of times.
Apologies? Retractions? How about getting it right the first time?
And as was noted earlier, Boston “prpoer” is about 25% of the population of the Greater Boston Area.
Raphael: Are we talking about the same Boston? They run a bus shuttle between the station and the terminal, it’s about 10-15 minutes, it’s a contract company instead of the MBTA. I had a lot of wheelchair grief with them, they usually had broken wheelchair lifts.
Note that the MBTA site itself references the Massport Shuttle.
*scratches his head in confusion*
I referred to the Harbor Subdivision line *plus* portions of the Ventura County Metrolink Line towards Chatsworth. What I envisioned is a continous line going from Chatsworth to LAX, which includes Burbank in one of the stops; all using DMUs. No need to dig tunnels.
BTW, there is limited 900-series Metrolink service to Burbank Airport.
I’ve seen people transfer from that line to the Orange County or 91 Lines around 5:20pm weekdays (after figuring out why there are people running for the 5:25pm 91 Line train so they don’t have to wait for the 5:40pm OC Line train).
Actually the endpoint is near the Harbor hence the name.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Aviation Blvd near LAX was an endpoint, just that an endpoint was near Union Station, and it runs along that street (which is the section of track we had primarily been discussing). It does indeed continue further south (although I don’t know the specific endpoint on that end myself).
From the recent interview
There are no plans at this time for a Green Line or any line rail extension from the Westside to the Valley. This is such a no-brainer to me. It’s not just Valley residents this would benefit (although that would be reason enough), but anyone who has been on the Pass during rush hour knows there is also heavy traffic in the other direction too.
A real lack of imagination here even to admit it’s a good idea.
Even the excuse with the 761 and turf wars is weak.
The MTA does not or does not want to take this corridor seriously for whatever reason.
I think the Harbor Subdivision line could be used like the Heathrow Express line in London. Pay a premium for a quick, direct connection from LAX to Union Station. From there riders will have access to the Red, Gold, Purple lines and Metrolink.
Pam O’Connor had to answer the question the way she did, because legally Metro (including its directors) cannot say there are plans for anything that isn’t in the current Long Range Transportation Plan.
Carpool lanes on the 405 are in the LRTP. A rail line down the center of the 405 is not.
You have to understand some of these things in order to make sense of what is being said, Dan.
I fully understand why she said what she said. I just don’t like it.
What the gentleman asked was:
She did not answer his question about why there was not a plan for a rail from the Valley to the Westside. Merely saying there are no plans does not answer his question.
“There hasn’t been enough support expressed for it at this time.” “Other projects are more pressing.” “There are lots of worthwile ideas an not enough money.” “I don’t know why. If it matters to you, perhaps lobby your elected officials or join a transit advocacy organization to see if a study on this corridor can be made.”
I understand full well that Pam O’Connor is limited in what she can and cannot publicly say when she is acting in her role as Chair, and the importance of the Long Range Transportation Plan to the process. Most people who will read this interview do not and may experience frustration from it. The MTA could explain the decision making process a little better. Saying “we are obligated to study…” is not the same thing as saying, this is how decisions are made about priorities.
I just think her answer could have been better to this question. I think the question, “Why something isn’t in the planning stage” is fair and deserves a fair answer, even if the answer is that there isn’t enough time and money to build a whole system at once.
Is she precluded in her role at the MTA from saying, “There are no plans, but many people think it’s a good idea”?
Or, “If anyone wants to advocate for a particular transit project not in the current plans, here are some suggestions on how to get involved…”
Something to acknowledge the frustration of people trying to travel to/from the Valley to/from the Westside by transit would have been welcome, IMO. Telling them we have options that will connect them to other parts of the region isn’t really helpful. If I need to travel from Tarzana to Century City and I’m reassuringly told there are options to take me to Commerce instead, that doesn’t help me get to Century City.
But, I appreciate the delicacies of her position.
Dan, thanks for including in your response that you appreciate the tightrope Metro officials have to walk.
To answer this question:
In a word, yes, because it could show a bias prior to the release of the Long Range Transportation Plan update which might (or might not) include whatever she was commenting on.
Remember, there is always someone who will seize upon an innocent statement and create a legal battle over it. In this example, if Pam had said what you thought she should have said, and the 405 corridor did not have a rail line in the LRTP update, then she would then be open to criticism that “you said some people thought it was a good idea so you should have made sure it was in the LRTP” … then, if they could get some foundation (like the ones that have funded the BRU all these years) to back a lawsuit challenging the LRTP, it is conceivable that the region’s entire transportation plan could get hung up while said suit dragged its way through the courts.
With politics, it is often (sadly) more about what you avoid saying than what you actually do say.
I agree. It’s a fine art and not easy and am not saying I could walk that tightrope any better.
It seems to me that Pam O’Connor, or any MTA Chair, should come up with some stock language that when someone has an idea or a request for a certain transit alignment that hasn’t been constructed or planned or pre-planned yet, that he/she can say to the questioner that doesn’t dash their “dream alignment”, encourages them to channel their energy into something constructive, without committing the MTA to anything at all.
Q: “Why don’t we have an alignment going from ________ to ________? I think it would be very popular.”
MTA Chair: “Everyone can see what MTA current plans are in its Long Range Transportation Plan. If someone has an idea for something else they specifically would like to see, then I invite them to get involved and attend an MTA Service Sector meeting or join one of the many transit advocacy organization.”
Or whatever language.
Telling someone there are no plans to get you to Point B where you want to go, but we can get you to Point C several miles away, without explaining the process of how Transportation Planning decisions are made, makes it sound like you weren’t listend to.
Believe me, I’m not saying I would have done any better with on-the-spot questions. But I think by now the MTA would have worked out some stock, non-committal, “I feel your pain”, “I admire your enthusiasm”, turn-it-back-on-the-questioner language by now.
Politicians do that for every other issue, so why not this one?
For those in the know about how transit planning works in Los Angeles County, would it be more effective to have one Authority that extends each end of the Green Line one stop (LAX, South Bay Galleria, Metrolink), or would each need to be handled separately?