LOS ANGELES | LAX Modernization Plan

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I'm not sure how long you've been flying, but I flew frequently across the Pacific to Japan and South Korea in the 1980's and early 1990's before Russian Air Space was opened up. LAX had just done a major expansion in the early 80's with the current Bradley Terminal and T2, plus separating arrival and departure roadways for cars. No one back then foresaw the types of planes we'd have that could fly to East Asia nonstop from the Eastern US and the increase in transpacific traffic from those hubs making daily flights to Tokyo and Seoul viable from airports like ORD and ATL. Everyone and everything in those days was routed through LAX if you didn't want to stop in ANC or fork over obscene amounts of money to fly on limited one-stops from back East.

On your point about SFO, from a passenger perspective, it's only marginally better than LAX because it has more terminal space per passenger. But it suffers from the same problems for connecting passengers as LAX does if you're flying any airline but United: you have to re-clear security.

I haven't taken an international flight since 1981, when I lived on the east coast. Since then, all the flying I've done has been domestic. Since the security hysteria took over and the airlines began deciding they were in the business of treating their passengers like they were cargo, I haven't flown much at all if I could avoid it (when I go to San Francisco, most of the time I drive).

SFO does still make people re-clear security, but they have dealt with the more difficult problem with their internal trains and their connection directly to BART (part of the reason SFO is better is that the Bay Area actually has a mass transit system, unlike L. A.). SFO is also cleaner, brighter, and has better amenities. The only part of SFO I don't like is that damned, long United concourse and even with that, they made getting to the end of it easier by installing moving walks, technology that was introduced in the late '50s at the old Love Field airport in Dallas. LAX simply hasn't kept up or even attempted to.

[Rail Claimore]

The most immediate thing LAX ought to do to the terminal area that hasn't been done yet is to redo the cab/shuttle waiting areas. A 4-foot wide island between arrival traffic and thru traffic is ridiculous.

[Quixote]

I think jg6544 is talking about LAX being a logistical nightmare, and he's right about that. The traffic in, out, and especially through the CTA is very "second world" for a major international airport serving as the gateway to the Pacific Rim. I don't know if LAWA completely abandoned this idea, but the original LAX Master Plan (circa 2004-2005) called for shutting down the entire CTA and re-routing all traffic to a centralized drop-off/pick-up zone. From there, departing passengers would then take people movers into the CTA and disperse to their terminals. I think that would alleviate the legendary traffic problem.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I think jg6544 is talking about LAX being a logistical nightmare, and he's right about that. The traffic in, out, and especially through the CTA is very "second world" for a major international airport serving as the gateway to the Pacific Rim. I don't know if LAWA completely abandoned this idea, but the original LAX Master Plan (circa 2004-2005) called for shutting down the entire CTA and re-routing all traffic to a centralized drop-off/pick-up zone. From there, departing passengers would then take people movers into the CTA and disperse to their terminals. I think that would alleviate the legendary traffic problem.

The traffic problem in the CTA is disproportionately on the south side of the airport because all three big US carriers, AA, DL, and UA operate from there. If only one of those three would agree to rebuild and move into T2 and/or T3, that issue would be much-alleviated.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

The traffic problem in the CTA is disproportionately on the south side of the airport because all three big US carriers, AA, DL, and UA operate from there. If only one of those three would agree to rebuild and move into T2 and/or T3, that issue would be much-alleviated.

So, you fly in on, say, Delta and have to change planes to, say, United to continue your trip. How do you get from terminal to terminal? You walk or take a cab. Moving the terminals across the whole damned airport from each other only makes that problem worse.

The first complaint I remember reading about JFK, then called Idlewild, was that it was too damned difficult getting from one terminal to another, so this is not rocket science. They should have dealt with this problem back when they rebuilt LAX in the '80s, but they didn't. Even more surprising, they should have dealt with it before building this snazzy new international terminal (what % of passengers who use LAX fly international, anyway?), but they didn't. The idea of a central structure connected to the terminals by some kind of shuttle is interesting, but if you build it in the middle of the airport, where do people park? And if you increase the capacity of the airport without doing something about getting people from all over L. A. to and from the airport, you've just made getting to and from the airport worse than it already is.

I go back to the point I made in my earlier post, L. A. should have begun planning for a new approach thirty years ago.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by jg6544

So, you fly in on, say, Delta and have to change planes to, say, United to continue your trip. How do you get from terminal to terminal? You walk or take a cab. Moving the terminals across the whole damned airport from each other only makes that problem worse.

The first complaint I remember reading about JFK, then called Idlewild, was that it was too damned difficult getting from one terminal to another, so this is not rocket science. They should have dealt with this problem back when they rebuilt LAX in the '80s, but they didn't. Even more surprising, they should have dealt with it before building this snazzy new international terminal (what % of passengers who use LAX fly international, anyway?), but they didn't. The idea of a central structure connected to the terminals by some kind of shuttle is interesting, but if you build it in the middle of the airport, where do people park? And if you increase the capacity of the airport without doing something about getting people from all over L. A. to and from the airport, you've just made getting to and from the airport worse than it already is.

I go back to the point I made in my earlier post, L. A. should have begun planning for a new approach thirty years ago.

If LAWA or whatever authority was in charge back then, could have foreseen what I mentioned in my previous post, they probably would have built LAX to look like IAH today, an airport oriented for both a large amount of O&D traffic and connecting traffic. LAX is the third busiest international gateway into the US behind JFK and MIA, with about 16 million int'l ppa, most of which are O&D. And a disproportionate amount of international traffic at LAX is high-yield flights to Asia and Australia. TBIT was horribly outdated compared to the new terminal at SFO. Complaints from Transpax carriers are what spurred the powers that be into action on TBIT. International passengers will get better treatment first for these reasons.

[atlantaguy]

^That would be ideal, Westsidelife! But, where is the money for something of that scope?

There also needs to be a rail connection, but from what I gather that's already in the works...

Basically, the footprint is there to make some very logical improvements. I think it comes down to a question of funding and overriding the NIMBY's that actually believe they can make LAX simply cease to exist.

[Quixote]

http://www.lawa.org/laxspas/LAX_Solutions.aspx

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

http://www.lawa.org/laxspas/LAX_Solutions.aspx

The green parts should have been the FIRST things they started on and completed. I'd use the remote parking lots (Lord knows, they're cheaper) if it weren't for having to load myself and my luggage onto some damned lumbering shuttle bus and then spend the next half hour or so wandering aimlessly around the airport until the wretched thing finally fetched up at my terminal. It has to be RAIL-based and the trains, trams, or whatever have to run almost like elevators, never more than a couple of minutes before the next one comes along, all day, seven days a week.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i r4eally dont find LAX that hard to navigate nor traffic clogged. ive used the airport over 100 times and i really dont get the bad wrap. now aesthetically speaking, its a dump as well as having shitty transit connections, but those are being worked on. I hate O'hare, JFK and Newark with a passion however.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

i r4eally dont find LAX that hard to navigate nor traffic clogged. ive used the airport over 100 times and i really dont get the bad wrap. now aesthetically speaking, its a dump as well as having shitty transit connections, but those are being worked on. I hate O'hare, JFK and Newark with a passion however.

I think you and I are in the same boat. I've flown out of LAX >50 or so times now so I know what to expect. So, I don't find it to be as bad as JFK. With that said, I completely understand how it's a nightmare for anyone who's just traveling through. It's crowded. It's outdated. It's a dump. It's been neglected. It's inefficient. No tram. No rail. No amenities. And the few changes that have been made over the last few years or are in the works will still place LAX at the bottom of world airports.

[Quixote]

Theoretically, you could move all the T1 flights (and some or all of the T3 flights) to the new T0. Then when the new Midfield Satellite Concourse (15-25 gates, I would imagine) is done, you could transfer all the international flights out of T2 there. Then you could construct a consolidated terminal in place of T1-3, thereby relieving some of the congestion in the southern terminals.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Theoretically, you could move all the T1 flights (and some or all of the T3 flights) to the new T0. Then when the new Midfield Satellite Concourse (15-25 gates, I would imagine) is done, you could transfer all the international flights out of T2 there. Then you could construct a consolidated terminal in place of T1-3, thereby relieving some of the congestion in the southern terminals.

My own choice would be to install some kind of tram service that connects all of the terminals - it should be on a dedicated track and trains should arrive at intervals of no less than two minutes. Then, I would install moving walks within all of the terminals and in the interconnected ones (e.g. 6, 7, and 8). Then I would worry about shifting airlines to "balance" the north and south sides of the airport. Finally, the airport authority should move heaven and earth to persuade, induce, bludgeon the airlines into moving more traffic to other airports - Burbank, Long Beach, Ontario, John Wayne to cut down on congestion. If you live in Pasadena, say, it shouldn't take you longer to get to the airport than your flight is likely to take.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Finally, the airport authority should move heaven and earth to persuade, induce, bludgeon the airlines into moving more traffic to other airports - Burbank, Long Beach, Ontario, John Wayne to cut down on congestion. If you live in Pasadena, say, it shouldn't take you longer to get to the airport than your flight is likely to take.

Interestingly I live in Glendale, and I actually would LOVE to fly out of Burbank more often. It's about 10 minutes away, and clearing security usually takes 5 minutes.

Unfortunately the prices are usually not competitive.

For instance, looking up on Travelocity, next week to SFO (a frequent destination for me):
Bubank: $503 roundtrip
LAX: $177 roundtrip

to Las Vegas
Burbank: $377
LAX: $101

The prices are ridiculous from some of the smaller airports, so that makes everyone want to go to LAX.

And for everyone complaining about LAX, it's still a remarkably efficient airport in terms of ontime departures and limited airplane taxiing time (very few queues to take off). It puts SFO (and most other large airports) to shame from that perspective.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Interestingly I live in Glendale, and I actually would LOVE to fly out of Burbank more often. It's about 10 minutes away, and clearing security usually takes 5 minutes.

Unfortunately the prices are usually not competitive.

For instance, looking up on Travelocity, next week to SFO (a frequent destination for me):
Bubank: $503 roundtrip
LAX: $177 roundtrip

to Las Vegas
Burbank: $377
LAX: $101

The prices are ridiculous from some of the smaller airports, so that makes everyone want to go to LAX.

And for everyone complaining about LAX, it's still a remarkably efficient airport in terms of ontime departures and limited airplane taxiing time (very few queues to take off). It puts SFO (and most other large airports) to shame from that perspective.

Agreed: prices are not usually competitive in any of those other airports: the only other SoCal airport that's competitive with LAX tends to be SAN, but it's only convenient for those in southern OC and the southern stretches of the IE.

And I definitely agree about on-time departures. That's the beauty of having larger planes in fewer gates. The Bradley West project is only the beginning of a new LAX. Within a couple decades, if not sooner, most of the airport will be as nice and efficient as that.

[llamaorama]

So will the people mover be landside or airside?

I've never been to LAX, can you go between terminals without a second trip through security?

[LDVArch]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Theoretically, you could move all the T1 flights (and some or all of the T3 flights) to the new T0. Then when the new Midfield Satellite Concourse (15-25 gates, I would imagine) is done, you could transfer all the international flights out of T2 there. Then you could construct a consolidated terminal in place of T1-3, thereby relieving some of the congestion in the southern terminals.

That is a "terrible" idea. But, please, don't stop talking. Your theories, however wrong, are amusing.

The actual plan is to build the northern section of the MSC first. That will provide 11 gates in a mixed domestic and international configuration. The current study puts the start of construction in the fourth quarter of 2014.

In the meantime, the project is advancing: Work continues on the site prep (e.g., demolition of buildings and new taxiline T), the Draft EIR, and project definition booklet.

The 11 gates would be used to house airline ops displaced by the runway relocation project and other terminal projects on the north side. Any remaining gates would be used to fill requests for new service.

There is no work being done at the moment on Terminal 0. It exists only on paper, the LAX Amended Specific Plan.

LAWA is likely to build the southern portion of the MSC (+18 gates) and associated facilities (i.e., the Central Terminal Processor and people mover) before it ever turns its attention to building Terminal 0.

[Quixote]

The worst part about JFK, in my experience, is having to wait on the tarmac for 45 minutes before finally taking off. That's been the case every single time I've flown out of there. What gives? The facilities, however, are pretty decent (minus the Delta terminal) and there's even a functioning people mover.

[Quixote]

^ That's a terrible analogy. Stop talking.

[Rail Claimore]

The new mayor is apparently the one who's against runway relocation at LAX. It will be interesting to see what happens.