German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseLAX: Eight times the terminals, Eight times the grief.
Contributed by aaron on November 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
So, per Dan’s suggestion in the earlier post, I bring you - the LAX-specific post! Use to discuss any bright ideas for making getting to LAX slightly less painful.
Personally, I’d like to see teleportation devices put in the Theme Building. I mean, it looks like a spaceship anyhow. 
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
The best airport ever built…for the 707 and DC-8!
Speaking of LAX (on the MetroRiderLA blog) has anyone seen a picture of “the new 21-passenger buses” which will be replacing the trusty MCI Intercity coaches on the FlyAway routes?
While these may have “comfortable reclining seats” and “offer free WiFi internet service and airline style snack trays on the seat backs”, I am afraid that these new CNG “buses” will low-bid van-conversions that IMHO are unsteady and do not have the luggage capacity that the MCI’s did.
I suggest we start a new blog for the FlyAway.
LA of Anaheim: Since it runs every 30 minutes, I’d have to periodically delete the post and resubmit it, in order to inject some realism into things, and I don’t think Fred would much care for that
I was at LAX yesterday and like much of So. Cal. it seems a disorganized sprawl.
I was paying attention to traffic flow outside the airport, leading into it.
Putting aside driving to the airport, including cabs, there are shuttles after shuttles after shuttles. The signage isn’t particularly helpful if you want to use public transit. Not to mention, if you are walking towards the various shuttle stops, trying to find which one takes you to the Green Line and/or the Public Transit Hub, I was approached by multiple cabs and the Super Shuttle wanting to pick me up. Public Transit signage is given the regard as one small, tiny, hard-to-find option of many to get to the airport, as opposed to one of the primary methods of getting to the airport.
It was so much easier at SEA/TAC where the bus stop was actually in the airport itself.
Anything that could bring order to this madness would be a good thing in my book, and an AirTrain like circulator could bring order. But seeing just how many people and make money of the dysfunction I can see why the pressure would be to do nothing.
In many ways, the transportation problem within LAX parallels the transportation problem for all of Southern California.
Maybe there is a fundamental fear of order in So Cal and it is reflected in our sprawl and our major airport. “I just want to stay isolated in my metal box and not have to interact with anyone, and I fear that rail will bring order to chaos and I cannot live in my own little bubble anymore.” Being of German descent I have no such fear of order.
The silly BRU who say, “what if the next hot neighborhood in 30 years isn’t connected to the system, you can’t move the rail,” neglect that having access to rail and being part of the order is what makes a neighborhood hot. (I never saw a transit stop that was no longer useful once built — that’s really a call to keep expanding the system, but I digress).
This will take some research on my part, but I am wondering if Kimberley’s suggestion of an Authority to extend the Green Line closer to the airport can be the same one that builds an Air Train, or if because of turf, they have to be kept separate.
Side note: I am sick of turf wars. If a turf war is what makes the Rapid 761 be less user-friendly because it stops at Wilshire and if the Green Line didn’t go to the Airport because someone else was protecting his political domain, how can we knock those heads together. “I don’t care what your turf and perks are, where are doing this for the greater, common good of everyone.”
In any event, Berlin Tegel airport had an interesting model. I went to the terminal got my boarding pass, went through security and I was right at my gate. They eliminated the long travel within the airport. It’s sort of odd to have the ticketing/check-in, right next to the security, right next to the gate, but there you have it. It wouldn’t work for LAX, but I love that German order.
Just a reminder that Berlin-Tegel (TXL) was built during the division of Berlin and was designed for mostly “internal” flights between West Germany and West Berlin. While there were the occasional flights to Paris, London and New York. Rest assured that when Schoenfeld (SXF) is converted to the new BBI (and TXL is closed), you will see the kind of security there that we have at LAX.
One thing you gotta love about LAX is the ratio between TSA checkpoints (Metal Detector plus X-Ray Machine) and gates. With 10 to 15 gates per terminal (excepting TBIT), it sure is nice to have 3 to 5 TSA checkpoints per terminal. Compare that to Atlanta or Denver where they have at most 10 checkpoints for hundreds of gates.
Also, LAX rarely has any runway delays, even when one was closed to upgrade it for the A380!
Yeah, I haven’t used LAX a ton yet, but I’m not totally clear on the source of the extensive griefing about it. It’s hard to get to, but everything in LA is hard to get to ;p. Is La Guardia easy to get to? Is Logan easy to get to?
…
Yeah, that’s what I thought. ;p
The airport’s obviously not the newest in the country, but it runs itself fairly well, and is subject to the west coast air travel phenomenon (a crush of departing flights in the morning to beat the time change, and trickles of arrivals throughout the day, into the evening) yet LAX is usually not a source of delays despite our fog problems.
And honestly I’ve found signage there to be pretty good - two months after living LA when I visited before moving here, a friend texted me asking where the flyaway was, and the signage and signage announcements were clear enough that I remembered and was able to give her pretty clear directions from 3,500 miles away.
I flew back to Boston over the dreaded Labor Day weekend a week or so after that stupid “liquids” security brouhaha, and while the terminals aren’t large enough to handle the morning crowds, LA’s weather is mild along the coast and it’s not like sitting outside during a New England blizzard. The lines were long but moved the fastest I’ve ever seen lines at an airport move. CNN likes to set up camp outside one of the northern terminals to film the crowds, but they don’t tell you that the people sitting outside will be going through security only a handful of minutes after getting inside.
Having said that, I’ve only used the northern terminals, AirTran (3) and Southwest (1). I’ll be flying Delta in a few weeks, and that may change things.
LAX is long due for an upgrade, but it’s not the worst airport I’ve used by many longshots.
LAX is actually a very pleasant experience compared to other airports. It’s not extremely large like a London Heathrow, Chicago O’Hare or Hong Kong where you have multiple walkways to your gates. Delays are not so common compared to other large airports. The only problem is everytime I leave LAX for home I have to ask multiple LAX workers for the G Shuttle. There’s no easy signage for that. Flyaway doesn’t have that problem.
Is Logan easy to get to?
Relative and i haven’t been there since June but when I was there it was a 5 min shuttle to the rental, and get this; 1 intersection light and nothing slower than 65mph from there to Brockton. Think LAX to Pomona.
Rob: You’re right, I hadn’t thought of that. Logan’s easy to get to/from via the Western suburbs because of Mass Pike access, but for Boston and South Shore residents (for whom the Pike isn’t a logical choice), it’s awful. North Shore it’s not great but you can probably take the back roads through Eastie and Maverick Square.
A cab to Northeastern (Upper Fenway) from Logan took 30-40 minutes and about $40 last time I did it (at 1AM, no less!). But I suppose if you can bypass Boston entirely (the general purpose of the Pike access routes), then it’s not that bad.
My name is spelled Kymberleigh, please.
To answer your question: I would suspect that a people mover (AirTrain) would have to be built by LAWA directly, even if LAWA funds were used by a Green Line construction authority to build the branch extension to the transit center on 96th.
Considering the age and volume of flight traffic at LAX, I don’t consider it that bad myself.
There are some definite issues. While the separate terminal design has it’s benefits if LAX is an endpoint in your trip, it’s bad if you ever have to transfer between terminals, especially if there is no in security bus transfer (and all terminal transfers except between 6-8 has to be by bus and/or outside of security). Also, your access to concessions once you are in security depends on the particular terminal you are in (although except for early morning/late night, it’s pretty good in most terminals that I’ve been to).
Also, the condition of the terminals varies, 1-3 is generally speaking in worse shape than 4-8 (although I don’t know Tom Bradley really at all).
Some of the benefits of the design is that you never have too far to walk to your gate (unlike a lot of airports with centralized security and sprawling gates). Also, the airlines have more control over waits in their terminals, so that one really really busy airlines won’t create long lines for people flying other airlines.
One of the biggest problems is how heavy traffic has gotten on the airport loop. Quite often I will use the Departures level for arrivals when the traffic on the lower level gets really really bad. If you know your way around the airport it can help a bit. It also doesn’t help that a lot of the time you have to check your luggage, and then take it to a separate security drop point (although not always).
Overall, considering, IMHO, it’s not too bad, but there’s definitely room for significant improvements.
Oops. My bad. Sorry.
A people mover is a way to begin to get people who don’t take any form of transit to take some form of transit, even if it is only to a parking lot. Every little bit ultimately helps.
Of course, everyone who rode the Disneyland Monorail and then see it as the prototype for all public transit may have been slightly misled.
Isn’t anyone in the least bit concerned about the tens of millions in lost revenue that either directly or indirectly flows to Metro transit should the parking concession at LAX suffer a reduction in revenue?
Not in the least.
An AirTrain or extended Green Line will not reduce parking revenues in the slightest.
There will always be an abundance of people still driving to and parking at the airport.
Hey Rob, is this you admitting that transit would attract riders in LA? Or is it trolling? Pick one ;p.
A) Should an airport authority which pays no property taxes on its own land actually be in the parking business (the long-term parking business, not the short-term meet’n;greet stuff in the structures by the terminals)? Seems like WallyPark and Parking Spot et al, who don’t have any tax advantages, should be doing long-term parking, not LAWA.
B) There will always be a segment of the population that will not or cannot use transit. But that doesn’t mean those of us who would like to should be dissuaded from or penalized for doing so.
Allowing the Green Line to effectively connect w/ LAX will not take “cars off the road”. Does London, New York, Chicago, et al have “less” cars because of efficient transportation? No! A Green Line extension to the airport will allow for GROWTH. Yes, cities need to grow and so does Los Angeles. We continue this anti-growth sentiment in Los Angeles due to no transit alternatives present. Fixing the LAX problem will allow more passengers to fly in/out of LAX.
As for parking revenue, LAWA could overtake the extra lots and make them retail centers and/or add terminals, or expand the car rental area w/o building new garages. This is more efficient, we shouldn’t think of transit hurting parking revenue, it allows for ALTERNATIVES!!!
Hey, aaron I marked your comment as a troll. It isn’t funny, it isn’t accurate and it is about the person and not the subject. Sticking your tongue out and winking doesn’t make it any less hurtful. Makes me think you aren’t reading what I write but rather what you imagine some irrational hater of transit might write. Of course fixed rail transit to LAX would attract ridership, this is exactly why there isn’t fixed rail service to LAX. It’s what I’ve been saying here all along. Rail transit costs money. Parking generates more income than premium Class A office space with no associated costs. No contest.
Tom Bradley is pretty nice (with restaurants, etc.) before you go through security.
After security though, not much other than a hot dog stand and a magazine store…:-(
Seems to me that the restaurants are there more for the convenience of those awaiting the arrival of friends and relatives.
Which, given the delays that often happen with international air travel, may not be such a bad idea.
I could also see it being useful who are stuck at the airport for a number of hours, especially if they are transferring between terminals and need to exit security anyways.
Bradley is the only terminal that has eateries outside of security in any number. (Okay, yes there’s a Starbucks in baggabe claim at T2, IIRC).
Makes sense since you usually have to check-in for international flights six-hours in advance. And some poor bastards actually connect at LAX!
This isn’t really “transit” related, strictly speaking.
But man, it would be nice to have more chairs after security so you can put your shoes back on easily.
Or better still, admit that most of that hassle at security doesn’t really make us safer.
—
In terms of transit, I hear wonderful things about the flyaway. But it makes no sense for many of us to get to union station to get it. Can’t there be a few more locations?
There are two more locations, Van Nuys and Westwood (and the Van Nuys one has been around for a long time). The Union Station service probably comes up the most frequently due to the fact that a lot of transit lines go to Union Station, and it has the most consistent service (since it runs on the carpool lanes down the 110 and the 105, nearly it’s whole run).
Van Nuys and Westwood both run down the 405, and deal with the traffic on that freeway. Also, they are quite as convenient on transit, for Van Nuys it is only the 169 and 237 for Metro, and two Santa Clarita lines (a few more lines for a bit more walking), and the Westwood location is near Wilshire & Westwood Blvd, so it has a number of lines that run to a location near it, but still not as many as Westwood.
Outside of those, I don’t see LAWA expanding it a whole lot, considering that it is a LA City service, and I don’t see them expanding it much if at all to areas other than within LA City.