The Metro Board of Directors on Thursday are scheduled to consider moving a key Measure R project — a connection to LAX — into the draft environmental study phase.
Metro staff earlier this year finished the project’s Alternatives Analysis and held public workshops this spring to explain the project alternatives being considered. Staff are proposing that the four alternatives on the following slides in the draft study based on the analysis and consultation with Los Angeles World Airports.
A trio of other notes:
•Metro staff have proposed renaming the project the “Airport Metro Connector” instead of the current “Green Line to LAX.” The reason: the project, as the slides show, could take different forms and could serve passengers from both the Metro Green Line and the Crenshaw/LAX Line.
•Measure R sets aside $200 million in sales tax revenues for the project, meaning that extra funding would need to be secured to build some of the alternatives below. Under the Measure R funding plan, the project would be completed in 2028 but it could be done earlier if funds are identified to accelerate the construction of Measure R transit projects and if funding from other sources can be identified and committed.
•Los Angeles World Airports is studying a pair of transportation projects — both involving people movers — in its Master Plan, and is re-examining them and some other projects in a study to update the Master Plan. It should be noted that the airport’s and Metro’s environmental studies are coordinating with one another and efforts could be combined in the future.
Here are the four alternatives that Metro staff are recommending to move forward:
A Power Point presentation on the Alternatives Analysis findings is posted after the jump and a pdf copy can be downloaded. Here is the Metro staff report to the Board and here is an earlier Source post on the community workshops held in March.
Metro Connector to LAX Alt Analysis
It was idotic to built a LRT(Greenline ) to no where This line should go direct to the airport
NY JFK one have to take a shuttle now a airtain$5 to connect to subway.Chicago 2 airports have direct services .LA and NY have no direct service
And as the “Express Lanes” are about to prove, that “Busway” will eventually be opened up to solo drivers willing to pay a fee.
DUH. Finally.
What we really need, outside of direct trains and buses to the airports, is more 24-hour service so I don’t have to be so dependent on my car just as I have been in L.A. for the past 17 years! Not to mention how much it will cut down on drunk-driving is party-goers know they don’t have to rely on their cars to get home at 2 or 3 AM!
I just finished a much more in detail explanation/exploration of the options that are being recommended for the Draft Environmental Study (linked below).
My preference would be the trunk option, but it won’t work without another airport circulator, in which case the LRT Branch and the APM could each be the second choice, depending on your perspective.
http://steven-white.com/2012/04/23/making-the-lax-transit-connection/
Let’s not make the same mistake as the Blue Line.
Future extensions and future plans for the LAX surroundings are the key here. The circulator plan for LAX is only based upon the existing LAX terminal setup.
LAWA has their own set of plans to modernize LAX which involves combining Terminals 1-3 as one “North Terminal,” TBIT extensions to TBIT West and Satellite Concourse, and Terminals 4-7 as one big “South Terminal.”
Building a circulator setup without considering the future layout plans of LAX is a big waste of taxes; we’re just going to build it only to knock it down to replace it again. You want it done right, don’t just look at LAX as it is structured today, but build it with future LAWA plans in mind.
Y Fukuzawa: That’s an absolutely correct point! The route going around the terminals as they are now (whether as a LRT or APM) is totally locked in to what the airport configuration is now.
This is another reason I would prefer a single airport transit stop, underground on a through-line trunk. I do think its important that this stop is actually AT THE AIRPORT (and not on Aviation Blvd), even if it doesn’t reach every individual terminal. Once at the airport, intra-airport transit can be planned with regards to future airport plans and routed as such. The APM could even be extended if needed in the future.
(What is the Blue Line mistake you’re mentioning?)
I agree; there’s no need for a circulator; it’s over kill. Once a circulator is built, it is locked into that without any room for LAX expansion plans. We DON’T want to build something using millions of dollars in taxes, only to be in use for five years, then knocked down to spend millions of dollars more to rebuild it in accordance to LAX plans. If that’s the case, it’s better to leave “door stop to the terminal” service with cars, taxis, and buses. OTOH, rail to LAX should be a trunk with one or two stops which allows flexibility for any future LAX plans.