HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2022, 3:57 AM
kittyhawk28 kittyhawk28 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
There's room for a 30-40-gate Heathrow Terminal 5-style satellite west of the MSC. This lays the groundwork for demolition of TBIT and MSC (which isn't even finished lol). It's true that LAX doesn't have the acreage of other airports, but we can get creative with land use. All parking (passengers, employees) should be consolidated and in multi-story structures (i.e. no surface parking). That includes relocating all parking structures in the CTA off-site near the ITFs, thereby further decreasing traffic in the CTA and creating millions of square feet for new check-in, concessions, etc.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Commission the best architecture and civil engineering firms in the world to come up with master plan proposals that will actually make LAX "world class."

Is there a need though? After the latest round of gate expansions are done (Concourse 0, T9, MSC South) the airport will have 180+ gates. Atlanta manages to pack over 100 million people/year in just 196 gates, LA is far off from reaching 100 million for a while.

Last edited by kittyhawk28; Dec 15, 2022 at 8:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2022, 7:03 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyhawk28 View Post
Is there a need though? After the latest round of gate expansions are done (Concourse 0, T9, MSC South) the airport will have 180+ gates. Atlanta manages to pack over 100 million people/year in just 196 gates, LA is far off from reaching 100 million for a while.
Technically none of the expansions LAX has done or planned will lead to a net increase in gates. LAWA is decommissioning the old remote gates and replacing them one for one with new gates in the CTA and at the MSC. It's all part of a deal they did with the local NIMBYs in exchange for not being CEQA/NEPA sued.

I say technically because even though by the numbers LAX already has enough gates to max out the capacity of its runways/ATC, the hassle of gathering up PAX and bussing them out to the remote gates cripples their throughput, so replacing them leads to a significant increase in capacity.

If it sounds like the NIMBYs are getting hosed by this deal, they are, but LAWA threatened to move the northernmost runway even further north to make room for a central taxiway for "safety", so in order to prevent that they had to agree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2022, 2:15 PM
kittyhawk28 kittyhawk28 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp View Post
Technically none of the expansions LAX has done or planned will lead to a net increase in gates. LAWA is decommissioning the old remote gates and replacing them one for one with new gates in the CTA and at the MSC. It's all part of a deal they did with the local NIMBYs in exchange for not being CEQA/NEPA sued.

I say technically because even though by the numbers LAX already has enough gates to max out the capacity of its runways/ATC, the hassle of gathering up PAX and bussing them out to the remote gates cripples their throughput, so replacing them leads to a significant increase in capacity.

If it sounds like the NIMBYs are getting hosed by this deal, they are, but LAWA threatened to move the northernmost runway even further north to make room for a central taxiway for "safety", so in order to prevent that they had to agree.
They would still have a net gain of gates of up to 172 total gates up from the current 146 gates, even if they demolished the remote gates.

Also can't they still renege on the deal and still move the runway further north if the FAA forces them to for safety concerns?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2022, 2:02 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyhawk28 View Post
They would still have a net gain of gates of up to 172 total gates up from the current 146 gates, even if they demolished the remote gates.

Also can't they still renege on the deal and still move the runway further north if the FAA forces them to for safety concerns?
Yeah here's the thing, I know the newspapers and Wikipedia all say LAX has 146 gates. But they are all wrong. There are, as we speak, 153 gates at LAX, the same number it has had since 2010. This is a decrease of 10 gates since 2006. This will remain true until at least 2024.

The reduction in gates was due to a CEQA lawsuit over the 2000 Master plan, and a resulting 2006 settlement agreement, which is available here. In addition to the gate reduction, the opposing parties were given virtual veto power over any new terminal construction. The only exceptions were what would become the Midfield Satellite Concourse (MSC) and the people mover, and even those could still be CEQA sued.

In 2015 LAWA had a look back into the 2006 settlement agreement. At the time they were struggling to get the LAMP project (airport people mover, etc) through a CEQA lawsuit from the same group that had sued over the 2000 Master Plan (ARSAC). In 2016 they managed to reach an agreement with ARSAC, which is why you suddenly started seeing a lot more movement on that project in 2017.

Per the terms of the MOU, available for viewing here, LAWA agreed to the following things:

-Not to relocate the northern runways further north
-Until 2024, only construct projects to replace remote gates, keeping the total number of gates at 153
-After 2024, not to build any gates outside of the of a designated Passenger Terminal Modernization Area (see exhibit D for map)
-After reaching 153 gates in the PTMA, decommission all of the remote gates
-Pay ARSAC $400,000

In return ARSAC agreed not to sue or otherwise delay any project that didn't break these boundaries. If this seems like a massive climbdown, it's because the political situation had changed since the early 2000s and the old settlement agreement was due to expire in 2020. They knew they weren't going to get nearly as good a deal this time around.

As for where the other numbers come from, it's because a lot of people don't understand the structure of all this. When LAX "replaces" a remote gate, they don't physically demolish it, it just legally can't be used. Today there are ~135 gates in the CTA/MSC, and 24 remote gates (of which only 18 can be used). T0 and T9 will add ~15 new gates and they will demolish 9 remote gates, meaning there will still physically be ~174 gates total on the airport, but still only 153 of them will be able to be used.

It's only after 2024 that LAX can truly expand. My guess is they'll extend the MSC south (not the current plan, a true extension which would involve relocating the AA maintenance hanger, probably to physically replace the remote gates). After that, it'll probably mainly be minor extensions/renovations in terms of absolute gate count. I would suspect the final number of gates will end up at a bit over 160, although technically 153 can support all of LAX's required capacity that assumes nothing ever delays a plane at the gate. Most likely finish date would be mid-late 2030s.

Oh and yes, LAWA technically can go back on the deal if the FAA forces them to, but only if that's part of a general FAA rule that all dual runways need a taxiway in-between them. Which will never happen, because that would involve rebuilding dozens of runways nationwide and raise such high holy hell it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Consider the controversy over the Metroplex projects and realize this would assuredly be worse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2022, 2:03 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,482
Urbanize LA has a good update on the LAX/Metro station. It is looking pretty, pretty, pretty good.

Construction ramps up for LAX/Metro Transit Center station


Photo courtesy of Urbanize LA.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/constr...center-station

Additionally, the article has a link to LA MTA's Twitter feed, which has more construction photos.

https://mobile.twitter.com/metrolosa...25779243491329
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2022, 8:37 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 6,639
^ Nice project. Glad to see construction is running on schedule.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2022, 7:44 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 733
Was in LAX T3. again. This central head house area looks very Star Wars/Darth Vader to me. love the diagonal framing around the exit and sky club areas

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2022, 2:26 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Urbanize LA has a good update on the LAX/Metro station. It is looking pretty, pretty, pretty good.

Construction ramps up for LAX/Metro Transit Center station


Photo courtesy of Urbanize LA.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/constr...center-station

Additionally, the article has a link to LA MTA's Twitter feed, which has more construction photos.

https://mobile.twitter.com/metrolosa...25779243491329
Excellent news!! Thanks for the update and it’s really coming along nicely. Get it done as soon as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 8:41 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,021
I had to do the traffic crawl around the horseshoe several days ago & I recall Eric garcetti implying last yr that LAX commissioners in the past didn't want to change the airport's format because they didn't want to lose revenues from parking fees...or something like that. If so.... This proj should have been started & completed yrs ago...


Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.