LOS ANGELES | LAX Modernization Plan

[caligrad]

aww no love for the skybridge Quixote? I thought it would have been a good idea instead of pushing everybody under ground, but with the cost overruns likely to happen, that alone would have been the nail in the coffin.

Yeah i like the wave design but like you said, they are overly complicating it. The upper deck walkway isn't needed, they are making an open air design feel claustrophobic. If anything, I would take away the upper walkways, widen the terminal just a smidge,

I'm also not feeling that flat roof panel between each "Wave" element because that basically means we are getting a long rectangular box with cut outs for a skylight/wave element.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Jaycruz

I know LAX is behind in the times with the moving walkways and i think some terminals should have them in some cases but I never understood the obsession.

i2.listal.com


fryingmineinbutter.files.wordpress.com

And I agree with you. I rarely use moving walkways in airports. And often, they're too crowded anyway. I walk faster than the moving walkway moves.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

i2.listal.com


fryingmineinbutter.files.wordpress.com

And I agree with you. I rarely use moving walkways in airports. And often, they're too crowded anyway. I walk faster than the moving walkway moves.

No one uses those things

Also, as a frequent traveler, i have to say that LAX and similar airports (Logan in Boston for example) are much much better and easier to use than the newer airports that are huge for no reason, ie Denver, Dallas, Miami, etc. I love the fact that the baggage claims at LAX are a a short walk from the terminals, instead of a train ride and 2 miles away like in Miami or Dallas

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Good stuff. Thanks. What happened to the planned people mover between the two concourses?

That was dropped a while ago. The distance between the two concourses was too short to make people mover necessary or practical. And the people mover will only be able to provide either sterile (pre-custom clearance) or secure (domestic/post-custom clearance) transportation but not both. So you will spend a lot of money on a people mover and results in a significant portion of travelers not being able to use it.

Looks like the underground connector will feature both sterile and secure passages, and there is a secure bus station to provide transfers to other terminals. So this is the most sensible design.

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by joshuanickel

Here is a presentation that was given on June 18th to the Board of Airport Commissioners regarding the overall project:

http://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer....&meta_id=21167

and here is a presentation regarding design that was given at the Board of Airport Commissioners on July 16th:

http://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer....&meta_id=21901

Awesome, thanks for your input.

[Speculator]

Really wish they would have just stuck to the theme building style. But, alas, the Wave concept is much better than expected. They seems to have eliminated the larger protruding sections that the jetways are attached too. Any idea why? Those like on the Theme building and many new terminals including LHR's seemed to be in vogue.

[Quixote]

The more I look at it, the more I hope they fix the roof design. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will happen. The flat parts are what hold the passenger boarding bridges together. They also create clerestory windows in the shape of a wave, which of course is in keeping with the overall scheme. Then there's the cost differential. I don't know what their plans are moving forward and if further changes are possible without significantly driving up the cost.

Here's an example of a 'wavy' roof canopy with a seamless contour and skylights (Madrid Barajas). This is one of the few airport terminals in the world that have a truly unique architectural aesthetic. As much as I love Heathrow's Terminal 5, there's something about it that feels standard.


https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/35...arajas%202.jpg

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

No one uses those things

Also, as a frequent traveler, i have to say that LAX and similar airports (Logan in Boston for example) are much much better and easier to use than the newer airports that are huge for no reason, ie Denver, Dallas, Miami, etc. I love the fact that the baggage claims at LAX are a a short walk from the terminals, instead of a train ride and 2 miles away like in Miami or Dallas

My point exactly. LAX was designed, ironically, to get people in and out quickly (before the car/taxis came and made that literally impossible), but its always been geared towards making sure the flow of people and goods are always moving in and out quickly, even its next improvements are geared towards getting people in and out quicker.

People are saying "we need people movers!"

why? they're slow as hell and a waste of money, most people just walk anyway and our terminals aren't that long and massive to need people movers.

people say " we need bigger terminals"

Why?? It takes FOREVER to get out of Denver, I hate ATL, its massive footprint isn't needed and other newer airports thought about the convenience of the planes but not the people. reason why it takes forever to get out of the worlds newest mega airports.

LAX is heading in the right direction.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by caligrad

people say " we need bigger terminals"

Why?? It takes FOREVER to get out of Denver, I hate ATL, its massive footprint isn't needed and other newer airports thought about the convenience of the planes but not the people. reason why it takes forever to get out of the worlds newest mega airports.

Yeah, I hate ATL. Because of this, way too extremely overcrowded. Too many people who flying out. They already have Delta, Southwest, and Spirit Airlines, as well as ULCC Frontier Airlines. ATL is not right choice for me.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by caligrad

people say " we need bigger terminals"

Why?? It takes FOREVER to get out of Denver, I hate ATL, its massive footprint isn't needed and other newer airports thought about the convenience of the planes but not the people. reason why it takes forever to get out of the worlds newest mega airports.

Right now LAX needs more terminals, not necessarily bigger ones. Passenger space per capita is noticeably lower here compared to the other major airports around the country. While a very compact airport property, there's still quite a bit of room to construct new terminals; you're talking about approximately 30 new gates between the fully-built MSC and Terminal 0. Once that happens, LAX can begin a traditional style modernization program of rebuilding each terminal (e.g. JFK).

There are other explorable options:

1) Building a large satellite where the Remote West Gates facility is.

2) Move all parking off-site (as was the plan back in 2004) and replace the parking structures with retail and concessions. You'd essentially be extending the terminals to the people mover stations, which would create more room for new gates where the curbside check-in facilities are.

There's a way to fix everything, even supposed "lost causes" like LAX, if you use some creativity and imagination.

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The more I look at it, the more I hope they fix the roof design. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will happen. The flat parts are what hold the passenger boarding bridges together. They also create clerestory windows in the shape of a wave, which of course is in keeping with the overall scheme. Then there's the cost differential. I don't know what their plans are moving forward and if further changes are possible without significantly driving up the cost.

Here's an example of a 'wavy' roof canopy with a seamless contour and skylights (Madrid Barajas). This is one of the few airport terminals in the world that have a truly unique architectural aesthetic. As much as I love Heathrow's Terminal 5, there's something about it that feels standard.


https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/35...arajas%202.jpg

Barajas T4 is spectacular. It fees larger than any terminal that I've been in.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Right now LAX needs more terminals, not necessarily bigger ones. Passenger space per capita is noticeably lower here compared to the other major airports around the country. While a very compact airport property, there's still quite a bit of room to construct new terminals; you're talking about approximately 30 new gates between the fully-built MSC and Terminal 0. Once that happens, LAX can begin a traditional style modernization program of rebuilding each terminal (e.g. JFK).

There are other explorable options:

1) Building a large satellite where the Remote West Gates facility is.

2) Move all parking off-site (as was the plan back in 2004) and replace the parking structures with retail and concessions. You'd essentially be extending the terminals to the people mover stations, which would create more room for new gates where the curbside check-in facilities are.

There's a way to fix everything, even supposed "lost causes" like LAX, if you use some creativity and imagination.

That's what I've been harping about for the longest. everything in the center loop, besides the air control tower and theme building, needs to be torn down and a new central check-in/retail/concessions and people mover stations consolidated into one big central terminal needs to be done. Leave it to the US to figure out ways to make everything overly expensive but I think A giant open air/canopy design will suffice.

Yeah I'm all for adding some terminals like how TBIT is expanding with satellites, I just hate the idea of making our current and future terminals to big (Long), The easiness of getting off a plane and at street level quickly is a rarity in most airports these days. Picked up a friend from LAX on Thursday, he was off the plane and at the street loop in less than 20 mins, the baggage claim is what took so long.

[bzcat]

Delta signs agreement with LAWA to move to Terminal 2/3: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...at-lax-420660/

However, this will be a ways down the road as T3 needs to be completely rebuild (which will follow the Mid Field Concourse gates and the TBIT North build out).

Also note that the article has an illustration of the CTA check-in hall where the parking garages are located today. This is still evidently the long term vision:

1. No parking in CTA.
2. All check-in counters are co-located in check-in hall (TBIT style), which are connected to the APM stations.
3. The check-in area in the current terminals will be re-purposed for more air-side facilities (e.g. bigger lounges, more dining/retail space)

Not sure if LAWA will go with the linear Terminal 1-3 design as illustrated in the article. I think that is just one of the options.

[Quixote]

^ That's gotta be close to 10 years away from now. They need to complete the entire MSC program (North phase only has 11 gates) to compensate for the 23-gate loss.

And yes, I'm utterly confused about what the long-term plan is.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ That's gotta be close to 10 years away from now. They need to complete the entire MSC program (North phase only has 11 gates) to compensate for the 23-gate loss.

And yes, I'm utterly confused about what the long-term plan is.

LAX has a cap on number of gates so there will not be any net addition or reduction of gates during all the construction and moves.

As far as I can tell:

1. MSC North: add 11 gates
2. VX, NK and other T3 tenants move to MSC North
3. Construction of TBIT North satellite, TBIT-T3 connector, T3, and T2-3 connector: Net addition of 2 or 3 gates
4. Delta moves to T3 with preference use of some T2 gates, LAX withdraw remote gates: reduction of 5 or 6 gates
5. AA moves to T5 giving up AA Eagle remote terminal: reduction of 8 gates
6. MSC South: add x number of gates
7. AS moves to MSC South? Don't see where else they can move...
8. T5 "moves" to between T4 and T7, T6 demolish completely: reduction of x number of gates.
9. At some point, CTA check-in hall will be build and most of the existing terminals get renovated into just concourses.

By 2030??? LAX should look like this: two terminals (CTA and TBIT) each with several concourses. CTA will have 3 concourses north, 3 concourses south, and TBIT will have 2 parallel concourses west.

CTA terminal Concourse 1 (Southwest)
CTA terminal Concourse 2 (Delta and others)
CTA terminal Concourse 3 (Delta)
TBIT Main Concourse (American, various int'l airlines)
TBIT MSC (Virgin America, Jet Blue, Spirit, Alaska and others)
CTA terminal Concourse 4 (American)
CTA terminal Concourse 5 (American)
CTA terminal Concourse 6 no longer exists
CTA terminal Concourse 7/8 (United)

Or if CTA terminal doesn't happen, LAX will just have 3 North side terminals, 3 south side terminals and TBIT.

[losangelesnative]

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/new...-angeles-rout/

Hainan Airlines Launches Changsha-Los Angeles Route

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by bzcat

LAX has a cap on number of gates so there will not be any net addition or reduction of gates during all the construction and moves.

As far as I can tell:

1. MSC North: add 11 gates
2. VX, NK and other T3 tenants move to MSC North
3. Construction of TBIT North satellite, TBIT-T3 connector, T3, and T2-3 connector: Net addition of 2 or 3 gates
4. Delta moves to T3 with preference use of some T2 gates, LAX withdraw remote gates: reduction of 5 or 6 gates
5. AA moves to T5 giving up AA Eagle remote terminal: reduction of 8 gates
6. MSC South: add x number of gates
7. AS moves to MSC South? Don't see where else they can move...
8. T5 "moves" to between T4 and T7, T6 demolish completely: reduction of x number of gates.
9. At some point, CTA check-in hall will be build and most of the existing terminals get renovated into just concourses.

By 2030??? LAX should look like this: two terminals (CTA and TBIT) each with several concourses. CTA will have 3 concourses north, 3 concourses south, and TBIT will have 2 parallel concourses west.

CTA terminal Concourse 1 (Southwest)
CTA terminal Concourse 2 (Delta and others)
CTA terminal Concourse 3 (Delta)
TBIT Main Concourse (American, various int'l airlines)
TBIT MSC (Virgin America, Jet Blue, Spirit, Alaska and others)
CTA terminal Concourse 4 (American)
CTA terminal Concourse 5 (American)
CTA terminal Concourse 6 no longer exists
CTA terminal Concourse 7/8 (United)

Or if CTA terminal doesn't happen, LAX will just have 3 North side terminals, 3 south side terminals and TBIT.

What is MSC does this mean? Why the airport terminal is changes? I don't see a proposal terminal map for 2030 master plan. What about old terminal 6? Is going to be demolish? I can see Skyteam alliance partners will be in terminal 2 or 3. Star Alliance will stay at TBIT. Oneworld Alliance will stay at TBIT, as well as ULCC carriers will moved to TBIT.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by N830MH

What is MSC does this mean? Why the airport terminal is changes? I don't see a proposal terminal map for 2030 master plan. What about old terminal 6? Is going to be demolish? I can see Skyteam alliance partners will be in terminal 2 or 3. Star Alliance will stay at TBIT. Oneworld Alliance will stay at TBIT, as well as ULCC carriers will moved to TBIT.

MSC = Midfield satellite concourse

Terminal will obviously change once CTA check-in hall is finished and the existing terminals become just concourses. But that's a long ways off. CTA check-in hall won't even start design phase until the APM is up and running and LAWA can tear down the garages.

Terminal 6 is probably going to be demolished eventually because LAWA wants to move T5 to create more taxi room on the south side.

[losangelesnative]

LAX terminal 2 reboot revealed http://la.curbed.com/archives/2016/0...model.php#more

[Quixote]

^ Tremendous improvement. It should extend the terminal's shelf life another 10 years. After that, they'll probably tear it down and build a brand new terminal.