HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #981  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2022, 7:27 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
The bad: They aren't demolishing the AA hangar, which prevents two more gates from being built. The concourse will also be half the width of the rest of the MSC, and it'll make TBIT even more of an architectural Frankenstein.
One of the things about LAX is that they can never talk openly about their long term plans, less the local community flip out about noise and pollution and such.

There is nothing LAX hates more than the remote gates at the western edge of the field. They are inefficient, costly, and cause all sorts of operational issues. More or less every project they've done over the last decade has been aimed at replacing them.

This terminal extension is temporary, at least on a long enough timescale. After it's built, along with the new T1 concourse and T9, LAX will have replacements for all the remote gates. Those can then be demolished, and the AA hanger relocated in their place. After that the MSC can be extended south, which will only require the loss of three gates during construction.

I'd expect all that to happen sometime in the 2030s-2040s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #982  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2022, 8:00 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I didn't know that they already chose the architect (Woods Bagot) for the MSC South project in 2019.

The good: The design is classy and could (emphasis on could) serve as a baseline standard for future terminal architecture projects.

The bad: They aren't demolishing the AA hangar, which prevents two more gates from being built. The concourse will also be half the width of the rest of the MSC, and it'll make TBIT even more of an architectural Frankenstein.


LAWA


LAWA
The biggest complaint with LAX is this right here. Not a single terminal/building in LAX is cohesive. The entire complex is a jumble mish mash of different architecture, different exterior/interior design and very much Frankenstein. Why not just do the exact same that was already built with the midfield? is something wrong with that design? did it cost too much? because this looks very very on the cheap/easy side. the only thing i like about it is the giant window at the very end which still won't do much since the other landing strips are more active.

Now. IF this was the plan for the midfield in its entirety and the Bradley terminal to begin with. I wouldn't mind. But when you serve me arched roofs, open designs and etc..... just to give me easy glass boxes.......

NVM. I'm over it. Sadly, LAX will need to be rebuilt yet again in another 20-30 years for 20xs the current price. A friend of mine works at LAX at Delta and even he said the "new" terminals are a joke and all of the airport employees have voiced opinions for how trash and inefficient the "new" terminals are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #983  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2022, 11:13 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,922
Ironically, I like the design of these new terminals better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #984  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2022, 4:10 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,541
^ Woods Bagot > Gensler
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #985  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2022, 5:27 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Ironically, I like the design of these new terminals better.
I actually don't mind it either. I just wish LAX would stop giving us the Frankenstein affect and give us a cohesive airport. I actually feel these new designs would be beautiful at Long Beach Airport or Seattle. Works for LA but they don't seem big enough to handle passenger traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #986  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2022, 4:16 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,541
Most airports around the world are a hodgepodge, although the individual terminals themselves aren’t pastiches. The only airports with a singular design are master planned and tend to be built in cities in developing countries.

With respect to LAX, I think one contributing factor is the fact that all the terminals in the CTA abut each other, whereas other airports like DFW and JFK have stand-alone terminals. LAX needs a consolidated T1-T3 and T4-T7/8. They should commission a firm that can produce a design that’s tasteful and timeless (and perhaps even unique), and build it in phases. I suggest drawing inspiration from MCM. Something simple and modular with lots of natural light (think Stahl House).
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Jul 2, 2022 at 4:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #987  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2022, 4:35 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,541
Barcelona airport's terminal 2 is a great example of a design that stands out by virtue of its sheer minimalism. The high ceilings, high-quality materials, and natural light, and space are enough. This is a design that will still be attractive 50 years from now; all it would need is cosmetic upgrades.


https://barcellona.italiani.it/l-aer...?cn-reloaded=1
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #988  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2022, 10:36 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,558
Honestly, I don't find that attractive at all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #989  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2022, 4:10 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Most airports around the world are a hodgepodge, although the individual terminals themselves aren’t pastiches. The only airports with a singular design are master planned and tend to be built in cities in developing countries.

With respect to LAX, I think one contributing factor is the fact that all the terminals in the CTA abut each other, whereas other airports like DFW and JFK have stand-alone terminals. LAX needs a consolidated T1-T3 and T4-T7/8. They should commission a firm that can produce a design that’s tasteful and timeless (and perhaps even unique), and build it in phases. I suggest drawing inspiration from MCM. Something simple and modular with lots of natural light (think Stahl House).
Everyone forgets that 60 years ago LAX was a singularly designed, master planed airport with a common terminal design.



The design worked well when it was built, but later ran up into issues the planners in the late 1950s weren't able to anticipate. There were far too few gates, the roadway wasn't able to handle the level of passenger traffic, there wasn't enough parking, aircraft got bigger meaning some existing gates needed to be redesigned, security measures meant it became harder and harder for passengers to leave one terminal and transfer to another, etc etc.

But it's not feasible to shut down half of LAX for years on end so you can rebuild everything to modern standards. So everything has to be done piecemeal while the airport is still running. I suspect that in 50+ years all those airports in the developing world will be the same, at least the ones that weren't horrifically overbuilt to start off with for political reasons (looking at you China).

American airports also have an additional issue in that the airport operators themselves are limited by federal law to how much they can directly charge airlines for using their airport. Airports are allowed to charge up to $4.50 per passenger, enough to cover maintenance but not enough to build new terminals. New construction is typically structured through lease agreements in which an airline or group of airlines is given space on the airport to build a terminal for themselves.

This usually works out, because airlines have a financial interest in ensuring a good passenger experience. But creating large joint use terminals requires airlines work together, which they hate doing because it involves cooperating with their competitors and sacrificing branding opportunities. So in general airlines will only agree to build a shared terminal if they have no other choice, either because they don't have enough flights a day to justify a separate terminal or there isn't enough space for everyone to have their own little fiefdoms.

Last edited by Will O' Wisp; Jul 4, 2022 at 5:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #990  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2022, 10:51 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,544
I flew in/out of LAX last weekend on Delta, and the new check-in and security area is a VAST improvement over the previous setup. It's much more efficient and airy and spacious, and just a way better experience now.

That's about where my praise ends for the new renovation, though. The corridor you have to travel through to get to T2 gates is very long, and totally without amenities. Why no shops or restaurants there? Why no moving sidewalk? There's only one bathroom in that corridor, and the men's room only had 3 urinals and 3 stalls! Lines were out the doorway-- totally undersized. The T2 gates and shops were incredibly slammed and crowded, as usual. Totally overwhelming and a shitty place to spend a few hours. I waited in line for Jersey Mikes for over 30 minutes....and that was the best available option!

Does anyone know if there are plans to convert the former T2 security area into more seating and retail? I saw that area was boarded up, and I really hope that's the plan. I also walked over to the T3 area, but they only had 2 gates open, and no retail. I hope once those additional gates open that crowding will be significantly reduced in T2. Additional food options will be nice to have too, though again the corridor between 2 and 3 is long.

I parked in the new economy garage, which was pretty nice. Having to take the crowded, loud, slow bus all the way around the horseshoe to get to the garage when I got back was shitty, though. The people mover will be a HUGE improvement over the bus setup. Also, just getting rid of all the shuttle busses from the horseshoe will make the whole CTA much more peaceful and less chaotic. There are sooo many busses streaming through that area, and it's smelly, loud, and confusing. The people mover will be a game changer for last mile connections to/from the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #991  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2022, 11:29 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Barcelona airport's terminal 2 is a great example of a design that stands out by virtue of its sheer minimalism. The high ceilings, high-quality materials, and natural light, and space are enough. This is a design that will still be attractive 50 years from now; all it would need is cosmetic upgrades.


https://barcellona.italiani.it/l-aer...?cn-reloaded=1
This is what an airport should look like imo.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #992  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2022, 11:56 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,541
I propose removing all the parking garages in the CTA to an off-site location (shown below in red) right next to the ITF West and replacing them with more terminal space that includes check-in facilities, baggage drop-off, screening, concessions, and lounge space on a 3rd, 4th, or 5th level that crosses over World Way and above the main terminal check-in and security screening before escalators take you down to the post-security concourse. Those who checked in and went through security in the main terminal would be able to go up the escalators and access the extension. Hong Kong's airport has something similar to this with T2.

Because we're talking about multi-story buildings with large footprints, you'll never ever have to worry about not having enough concessions space. Airline lounges could be much, much more spacious. This frees up space within the actual concourses themselves, allowing for higher ceilings and larger holdrooms. And get this... the extensions wouldn't require any more walking than other large airports; LAX is that compact.

__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #993  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2022, 3:47 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I propose removing all the parking garages in the CTA to an off-site location (shown below in red) right next to the ITF West and replacing them with more terminal space that includes check-in facilities, baggage drop-off, screening, concessions, and lounge space on a 3rd, 4th, or 5th level that crosses over World Way and above the main terminal check-in and security screening before escalators take you down to the post-security concourse. Those who checked in and went through security in the main terminal would be able to go up the escalators and access the extension. Hong Kong's airport has something similar to this with T2.

Because we're talking about multi-story buildings with large footprints, you'll never ever have to worry about not having enough concessions space. Airline lounges could be much, much more spacious. This frees up space within the actual concourses themselves, allowing for higher ceilings and larger holdrooms. And get this... the extensions wouldn't require any more walking than other large airports; LAX is that compact.
Honestly not the worst idea I've ever heard. Extending the building over World Way though, while keeping it open to traffic the entire time, would be difficult if not impossible. Separate buildings with regular pedestrian walkways would be more the ticket.

The lounges likely wouldn't move, the airlines really like having them as close as possible to the gates for the best pax experience. Check in facilities, baggage drop off, and screening could also probably stay where they are honestly, don't take up much space in the end.

What I'd really want to relocate are the airline offices. Up above all the holdrooms are offices for gate agents (or rather their bosses), "relationship managers" etc. That's what's actually taking up all your precious ceiling height.

Move all of that to the other side of World Way. Plus a whole ton of concession space, amenities. I'm talking really premium stuff, things so nice people would want to visit even if they don't have a flight. Basically what I'm saying is, build Singapore Changi.



But then you'd have to find a way to pay for all this. Which is a problem because as I said in a previous post, you have to convince the airlines to pay for it. The airlines aren't going to see a lot of benefit for them in this plan. They don't get a cut of concessions, and they know a the nicest terminal still probably isn't going to convince you to take a flight you weren't already planning on making. All they're really interested in is keeping up with the Joneses, so that you won't walk over to the next terminal and take a flight with their competitors.

Oh, and in case you think maybe you could be smart and lease out the space to a private developer, think again. Federal law says airport land must be used for "aviation purposes". Try building what is basically a mall and the airlines will complain to the FAA that the property that be used as parking structures for airline passengers instead. Because god help us, an airport dreaming of being anything other than a collection of gates for them to use? Those are dangerous thoughts comrade...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #994  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2022, 3:53 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,541
The connection with the extension over World Way wouldn’t be the entire building but more of a “flask” perhaps double or triple the width of the people mover bridges. The other option is building the connection underground.

Regarding airline lounges, is gate proximity more valuable than offering lounges that are “decked out” (like a cruise ship) and spacious as hell? I’m talking private suites (for every party at any given time), variety of food and drink options, etc… lots of gimmicks. As I said before, LAX is so compact that these extensions that I’m proposing are where most other airports have their lounges in relation to their respective concourses.

And you would construct it as part of the same grand master plan, which includes rebuilding all the terminals. At the end of the day, people don’t choose which airline to fly with based on the terminal. What I’m proposing is decades away anyway, possible only once there are enough gates to shut down one of the current terminals.

The bottom line…

LAX needs and quite frankly deserves the best, as we have no true secondary airport. Neither Burbank nor Long Beach can provide relief. There’s Ontario, but we need CAHSR access and better Metrolink service before that can be a viable option for LA County residents.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #995  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2022, 2:17 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
The connection with the extension over World Way wouldn’t be the entire building but more of a “flask” perhaps double or triple the width of the people mover bridges. The other option is building the connection underground.

Regarding airline lounges, is gate proximity more valuable than offering lounges that are “decked out” (like a cruise ship) and spacious as hell? I’m talking private suites (for every party at any given time), variety of food and drink options, etc… lots of gimmicks. As I said before, LAX is so compact that these extensions that I’m proposing are where most other airports have their lounges in relation to their respective concourses.

And you would construct it as part of the same grand master plan, which includes rebuilding all the terminals. At the end of the day, people don’t choose which airline to fly with based on the terminal. What I’m proposing is decades away anyway, possible only once there are enough gates to shut down one of the current terminals.

The bottom line…

LAX needs and quite frankly deserves the best, as we have no true secondary airport. Neither Burbank nor Long Beach can provide relief. There’s Ontario, but we need CAHSR access and better Metrolink service before that can be a viable option for LA County residents.
Long Beach could literally double its number of daily flights overnight, without building a single new gate. But the City of Long Beach put into place some of the strictest noise abatement policies in the US back in the 1980s, pre-ANCA, and refuses to change them. Same thing with John Wayne.

Burbank's noise policies were ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court back on the 80s, so instead the City of Burbank refused to rebuild its severely outdated 1930s era terminal. Because of this Burbank is without a doubt the single most dangerous commercial airport in California, probably in the whole country. The terminals are so close to the runways that a brake/tire failure on the right side of a landing aircraft would send it careening into the parked aircraft, likely killing hundreds. Aircraft have to be pushed from their gates directly onto active runways, meaning you have ground crew running around in front of landing jets. Not to mention the whole thing will fall over with the next major earthquake.

It took the airport promising to only replace gates one for one, and the FAA determining the Burbank's number of daily flights is limited by interference from Van Nuys on the departure path, before they finally managed to get approval to build a new terminal. And even then the City is dragging its feet, because they realize that if they make the airport safer it will be possible to have slightly more flights (seriously).

Speaking of, there's no reason Van Nuys couldn't have commercial service. It's a better candidate for it than Burbank. But the City of LA doesn't want the extra noise, so they forbid commercial traffic. So as you can see, it's not that there's truly no alternative to LAX, it's just that everyone wants someone else to deal with the noise.

But that rant aside, yeah I could see the airlines at least being somewhat interested in presenting an ultra-premium experience for their customers. LAX maybe wouldn't be the best candidate for it though. The key factor here his how much time the passengers are actually going to spend in the lounge. Passengers might only spend 15-20 minutes there if they're departing from the airport, virtually none if they're arriving. It's transfers where passengers might spend hours in the lounge, waiting for their next flight. As busy as it is though, LAX has relatively little transfer traffic. It's largely a factor in the basic design, there are some pretty firm limits on how many aircraft can take-off/land per hour, especially compared to Denver or Atlanta or Dallas.

I can't tell you for certain that's what they're thinking, but based on what I know about the industry that'd be my guess. LAX isn't like Inchon or Singapore or Hong Kong, it has a ton of native traffic and doesn't need to attract transfer flights with fancy amenities to make tons of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #996  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2022, 9:03 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 660
I was in Delta's LAX T3 again and have a few more pictures of the inside of the head house that will be replicated in T5 and T6/T7. This will definitely be a high traffic area. People coming in from the people mover and being funneled into security or down to Check in, or from Arriving down 2 levels to Baggage claim.

Also coming by years end, LAXit and the northern 96th street road entrance to the loop will be demolished in preparation to construct T1's international concourse 0.

[IMG]Untitled by Hugh B, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Untitled by Hugh B, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #997  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2022, 2:01 PM
Stratosphere's Avatar
Stratosphere Stratosphere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Posts: 1,093
An electric people mover car on display at Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday 08/02/22





https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...820649#image=2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #998  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2022, 4:21 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 5,464
Are they no longer going with the blue livery?

Definitely much needed and a big step forward for improving rail connectivity to LAX and in between the terminals. The train itself looks a bit derpy especially in all white with no other stripes or decals and obscured headlights. I thought the livery in the original renders looked pretty good. Anyway, the function is more important than the form here.

I think another thing LA could really benefit from other than a Sepulveda Transit Corridor connection to LAX is a brand new line, starting at Union Station, running along the same tracks as the Regional Connecter, then using a connection between the E Line from Jefferson/USC to the K Line at Fairview Heights, for a DTLA to LAX airport express type line.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #999  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2022, 5:16 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 5,464
A nice video of the project.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1000  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2022, 5:58 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,839
^ as true of dtla, improvements to LAX have come so slowly that patience in LA is a requirement & necessity. But better late than never.

Most airports throughout the US & world have had ppl mover trains, some airports even having them for decades.

I watched this vid a few wks ago & as true of other aspects of LA, it doesn't help the image of the city. At least widespread homelessness isn't a big embarrassment to LA, so there's that. But I agree with you about the blue version of the trains vs the white ones. I think the ppl mover at the getty museum is very sleek looking, but the all white trains apparently slated for LAX are kind of iffy.

https://youtu.be/KFdGejjV3mg

I don't know whether public officials like Eric garcetti deserve either praise (for the good things) or blame (for the bad things) for what's occurring in LA. Probably 50/50.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:01 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.