LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Option 2 looks to be the best and what's the black line that has SoFi, a people mover or planned LTR route?

That's the 1.6 mile, $1.8 billion people mover, known as the Inglewood Transit Connector.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by homebucket

That's the 1.6 mile, $1.8 billion people mover, known as the Inglewood Transit Connector.

The entire Crenshaw/K line cost $2 billion. It's 8.5 miles long and included several miles of elevated and underground construction. I get that these people movers must be entirely grade separated, but still, these costs are incomprehensible.

[hughfb3]

Moved to LAX thread

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by homebucket

That's the 1.6 mile, $1.8 billion people mover, known as the Inglewood Transit Connector.

Yeesh, at that cost they should just make an LTR subway like the regional connector which is around the same price & length.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The entire Crenshaw/K line cost $2 billion. It's 8.5 miles long and included several miles of elevated and underground construction. I get that these people movers must be entirely grade separated, but still, these costs are incomprehensible.

It's gonna be extra just being in LA due to increased salary and costs for doing stuff in an urban area (especially now).

[Quixote]

I think option 1 makes the most sense because A (Blue) Line riders (and future West Santa Ana Branch line riders, and more riders when the C Line is extended to the Norwalk Metrolink station) would be able to connect to the E (Expo) Line more easily.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

We're seeing a corollary here between the loosely parallel Wilshire/Expo pair and the loosely parallel Crenshaw/Sepulveda pair. In each case, the cheaper light rail option that made at least partial use of existing ROW's was built first.

If we were to rewind to the 1980s and the whole methane/sink hole Henry Waxman thing hadn't happened, and we had gotten the original heavy rail plan completed by 1995 or 2000, we'd be in a much different situation, since the heavy rail spines would have been built first.

It just seems like they're lobbing non-transformative light rail lines here and there (San Fernando Valley, K extension to Torrance) to make it look like they're trying when these projects have no hope of making a significant impact.

100%

If LA had a critical mass of heavy rail route mileage (say 50 miles), we'd be seeing more heavy rail projects being built and proposed because it makes sense to extend an existing line or create a branch of an existing line that already has a solid ridership base.

We'll still see the D (Purple) Line extended to Santa Monica eventually as well as a heavy rail extension along Whittier. The real question is if we can extend the B Line down Vermont as one single line. As of now, Metro isn't exploring an elevated option south of Gage — a great way to sabotage the HRT option altogether. It's absolutely essential that this be one continuous line from the SFV to the South Bay.

[hughfb3]

Moved to LAX thread

[Quixote]

^ Wow, I never noticed that. At the very least it looks to be another pick-up/drop-off area, in which case one should wonder why they couldn’t have replaced the parking garages with one massive terminal core that would’ve allowed the TBIT core to be replaced while also serving Terminals 3 and 4.

[Quixote]

All the parking garages in the CTA need to go. We need more terminal space for passengers to spread out. Replace the off-site surface lots with garages and get people in the habit of taking the people mover.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Probably a combination of higher operating costs and too much wear and tear on the track switch mechanisms.

It just occurred to me that the new wye doesn't have any flying crossovers, and that there was no practical way to build them without rising WAY over the Century Freeway and eliminating the existing Aviation/LAX station:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/l...!1e3?entry=ttu

This means that one direction of each possible route will have two at-grade conflict points:
-existing Green line, westbound
-existing Green line to Crenshaw northbound
-new Southbound Crenshaw to Green line eastbound

So even with 15-minute headways, there is a good chance that a train on a two-conflict route will be delayed.

It's kind of amazing, for all of the money spent to build The Century Freeway, Green Line, and Crenshaw Line, that the future capacity of the whole light rail enterprise is severely restricted by this situation.

[Busy Bee]

Thought the same. It's maddening.

[TWAK]

Looking at google maps...that parking lot for the people mover looks freaking massive and why is the LAX station for the K line taking longer than the other stations?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Looking at google maps...that parking lot for the people mover looks freaking massive and why is the LAX station for the K line taking longer than the other stations?

I don't see it on Google Maps, but the people mover is going to connect with a consolidated rental car facility, which will be in a huge parking structure:


There's also going to be a people mover storage and maintenance facility:


And yeah, you'd think that the K Line LAX station would be ready in time for when the people mover starts operating.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't see it on Google Maps, but the people mover is going to connect with a consolidated rental car facility, which will be in a huge parking structure:

This graphic assumes that Option 2 will become the operating plan.

Also, I just noticed that the stub track for this operation is now visible from outer space:


The more I think about this situation with the wye, the more it gets me upset. There is now no easy or obvious way to substantially improve the situation.

It's bizarre that a fully grade-separated people mover is being built between Inglewood and the stadiums, but the light rail trunk line itself has many grade separations.

Yes, the whole redevelopment of the race track came along after the line was designed and partly u/c, but if there was ever a reason to halt construction, it was for this.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Quixote

We'll still see the D (Purple) Line extended to Santa Monica eventually as well as a heavy rail extension along Whittier. The real question is if we can extend the B Line down Vermont as one single line. As of now, Metro isn't exploring an elevated option south of Gage — a great way to sabotage the HRT option altogether. It's absolutely essential that this be one continuous line from the SFV to the South Bay.

Why are you more confident in a heavy rail extension along Whittier than along Vermont? Vermont makes so much more sense to me with dramatically higher density.

Not questioning you since I don't have any knowledge of the long term plans here, just curious.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't see it on Google Maps, but the people mover is going to connect with a consolidated rental car facility, which will be in a huge parking structure:


There's also going to be a people mover storage and maintenance facility:


And yeah, you'd think that the K Line LAX station would be ready in time for when the people mover starts operating.

Ahh, that ginormous building is a rental car facility.
Here's a screen shot of it and you can see where the LAX station will be:

closer:

[homebucket]

Is there not going to be a walkway connecting the people mover to T1?

[hughfb3]

Moved to LAX thread

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

There is one connecting station 2 with T1.5 and 1, the main T1 walkway is constructed up to the loop roadway, but will hang out until T1’s concourse 0 is complete in about 5 years before going across the loop and connecting to the buildings.

The above diagram is not drawn to scale and it incorrectly represents where the station 2 bridges connect. It makes it seem like they are both right around the old T2, but this is inaccurate

Gotcha. I was wondering why there were 2 for T2 but none for T1 in that diagram. But yes, I can see on the satellite images that the Center CTA station will have 2 pedestrian walkways, one on the West side of the platform connecting to T2, and one on the East side of the platform connecting to T1.

[homebucket]

Here is the expansion plan hughfb3 is referring to. There is also a plan in place to add an additional infill people mover station at T9.



https://la.urbanize.city/post/lax-ex...s-step-forward