Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LAX - A Rational View  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Living in LA for a few years, and using LAX exclusively, I've come to see a few things, and don't believe the powers that be really get it here.

Not to claim I am rational, but I would like to start a rational discussion concerning LAX.

As a pax and a spotter, I do not find LAX overly crowded. Even on holidays, take-off delays are not very common. Lines for departure on the taxiways are nothing like IAH, EWR, JFK, etc. During non-holiday travel, watching the runways I see planes taxi directly from gate to take-off roll without stopping at some times of day. Even at the busiest times of day, the runways are well used but not overbooked. There is room for more capacity at LAX, and no plan I've seen proposes adding another runway, so they must agree.

Conversion for A380 is not even necessary AFAIK. While the south runways have a bridge that is not designed for them, the North Runways are long enough and strong enough to support it, and there are no bridges between that runway and any terminal. For the number of 380 flights a day, using one runway instead of two is not a big enough deal to worry about the expense at this point. At a later date when 380s are far more common (20 years?) the south runways can be strengthened. (From what I understand, it entails retrofitting the bridge over Sepulveda.)

Feeder roads to the airport, both surface and freeway, are not crowded because of LAX. They are crowded despite it. On the 405, most traffic is passing the airport. The 105 is never congested on the LAX spur. It is only so on the 405 merge for people who are not going to LAX. Sepulveda is crowded at rush hour as a through road, bypassing the airport, and sucking up Lincoln into one road. And it's never that bad. The road system can handle more traffic, at least as much as any other roads in LA can.

But all the plans seem to involve a major overhaul of the roads and terminals and parking, with satellite terminals and underground trains and such, but without adding gates.

I find this irrational. Space is poorly used at LAX, as are the roads in the loop badly designed. But the answer isn't what has been proposed.

IMHO, a better solution would be to:

-Tear down T3. It is the terminal in the worst shape, the worst used. Replace with International Terminal A.
-tear down old garages between T3,TIB,T4 and remove roads, and replace with International arrivals and departures center, new short term parking and waiting structure, fed with a new road (3rd deck) that serves ONLY T2-T4. Connect all four terminals inside security (not for international arrivals, obviously)
-tear down the old tower eatery and replace with modern parking structure, nostalgia be damned. retaining a space hog like that in such a space crunch is a criminal waste of resources
-rename T2 to T3 and tie it together with TIB and ITA terminals. All tenants remain.
-rename T1 to T2. Renovate, connect to new T1 inside Security. HP/US stay, WN move, and add some airlines from old T3 (AS, Horizon).
-build new T1 in Lot C. sink below ground 96thst/skyway for jets to pass over to T1.
-T1 will not be designed for 747/A380/777 traffic.
-Move to T1: WN, Frontier, Alaska, Horizon, and an AAEagle checkin center (with bus connection to existing satellite terminal). This would take out those 3 hour lines at old T1/WN during the holidays, and de-cripple HP/US at T2 (old T1).
-provide new T1 and T2(old T3) with own vehicle "loop"
-restructure existing poorly used loops and bypasses to provide three vehicle "loops" A) T1 + T2, B) International Terminals including T2 and T4, and C) T5-T8.
-replace Lot C elsewhere further from airport.
-connect T5 and T6 inside security (reopen tunnel or new solution) to create integrated T5-T8 block. Possibly create expanded security screening between T5 and T6.
-build skylink if necessary (I don't think it is, honestly, since it won't go to parking or rental cars)
-minor renovations to T5-T8 as needed.

Order of events would be:
1. build new T1, international arrivals/deptures structure, tear down old tower and replace with garage, and phase 1 of roads first.
2. Renovate T2(old T1) as soon as WN vacates. US/HP would not suffer under this situation if it were done 1/2 at a time, and could continue to fly widebodies. Finish most road work and open 3 "loops."
3. Move old T3 airlines out to new T1, T2 (as necessary), demolish old T3 immediately, build new International A.
4. Move 1/2 operations from TIB (plus T4 QF flights) to ITA, renovate TIB 1/2 at a time and fix roads and connections to International Arrivals and Departures check-in/customs building.
5. Tie up odds and ends and any minor updates to other terminals, and open final loop improvements.
6. Build skylink/strengthen south runways if necessary.

A better airport with more gates (international and domestic), with a more sane vehicle path and easier connections. And my estimate is it costs far less than a lot of what is currently proposed.

Any changes, other proposals?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Excellent points!!

You are correct that in terms of airplane movements, LAX is not overly crowded. Since the airport is not really a hub in the sense of DEN, DFW, EWR, and so on, flights are spread out quite nicely.

The problem, as you put it, is land usage. I am more of the idea that Terminals 1, 2, & 3 need to go. You are MOST definitely correct that 4-8 need to be connected behind security. New terminals need to be constructed to the west of the International terminal.

I also agree that airport traffic is not the cause of congestion on the 405 - it's the idiot engineers' decision that one of the busiest stretches of freeway in the world should have the carpool lane end right then and there.

Other points I missed?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11117 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Move to T1: WN, Frontier, Alaska, Horizon, and an AAEagle checkin center (with bus connection to existing satellite terminal).

Seems pretty logical and rational to me, with just one question: why would you need to move American Eagle's ticket counters? They are already in T4, with the rest of AA's operation, and serve just fine. Why move them (and the T4-Eagle satellite bus, for that matter)?


User currently offlineUALAX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3507 times:

Interesting ideas, I like the International Arrivals Building and replacing T-3. Not sure if the surrounding communities would support a new T-1 over Lot C though. I agree that what LAX really needs is a better utilization of its existing space. I kinda liked the Alternative D plan to tear up the parking in the middle and replace it with a new terminal. It would allow more space for check-in, concessions, etc. This idea of course would mean that people who want to park their cars would have to park off-site and take the train in which is not that convenient. Villaraigosa seems very interested in modernizing the terminals so hopefully something will come about.

UALAX


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3497 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
the runways are well used but not overbooked.

Wanna bet? LAX uses flow control nearly 24/7 to insure against capacity problems.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
and no plan I've seen proposes adding another runway

That is completely untrue. The original LAX master plan, released not long before 9/11 included 2 proposals to build a new, ~7000 foot runway. One placed it in the North Complex, and the other, better plan placed it in the South Complex where the existing Imperial Terminal is given that the area is destined to be demolished anyway to be replaced by a new cargo facility enabling LAX to handle 4.2 million metric tons of cargo per year

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
There is room for more capacity at LAX

No, there isn't, particularly when LAX returns to Pre-9/11 traffic levels (it was more than 10 million passengers lower last year). LAX's highest year was nearly 70 million passengers with capacity for 40 million. The pre-9/11 master plan would make that capacity 90 million

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
While the south runways have a bridge that is not designed for them

The Sepulveda tunnel is the easy part about the A380 thing

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Conversion for A380 is not even necessary AFAIK

Want to bet? LAX is the number one airport in the country for runway incursions because of the size of the taxiways. Adding a plane that cannot fit on them at all taxiing to gates not designed for it will make that even worse.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Space is poorly used at LAX

LAX is probably the most efficient airport at using its space. LAX is tiny in terms of major airports yet it fits in 4 usable runways and gate space into its footprint.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
as are the roads in the loop badly designed.

They are not badly designed at all. LAX started with only the lower level roadway loop. When that filled up, they added the upper level. Because of the O&D nature of the airport and the way the terminals are designed (which facilitates those ultra-short taxi times for most flights) the road way loop is the most efficient way of dealing with things. Also, they have 2 cut overs so you the longest drive is only to T4 (and that does not have to be a problem, because you can park at T3 if you want).

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Tear down T3. It is the terminal in the worst shape, the worst used.

It needs a redesign, but not to be torn down. Your "international terminal A" plan would be a complete misuse of space, as there is no need for another FIS at the airport, only more space in the ones at T4 and T2, which can be accomidated for at those terminals as is. The claim areas should be expanded, especially considering all the unused rental car space there and a cosmetic facelift would help.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
tear down old garages between T3,TIB,T4 and remove roads

That would cripple the area

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-rename T2 to T3 and tie it together with TIB and ITA terminals. All tenants remain.

Again, that terminal A thing is a bad idea and unneeded and tieing together of those terminals with a road would be impossible

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-build new T1 in Lot C. sink below ground 96thst/skyway for jets to pass over to T1.

And give up much needed parking and revenue for the airport? Or perhaps you want to run into major issues, such as jet blasting of windows at the Raddison, FOD on Sepulveda Blvd. or one of the other sundry issues involved in putting a terminal that close?

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-Move to T1: WN, Frontier, Alaska, Horizon, and an AAEagle checkin center

Eagle should be with AA, as they are owned by AMR and are AA's express carrier. Those other airlines should stay where they are

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-provide new T1 and T2(old T3) with own vehicle "loop"

There is no way to connect these 3 loops to the outside world, so that is pointless

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-replace Lot C elsewhere further from airport.

Where? Oh wait, that's right, there isn't anywhere to put it.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-restructure existing poorly used loops and bypasses to provide three vehicle "loops" A) T1 + T2, B) International Terminals including T2 and T4, and C) T5-T8.

Again, you cannot do this 3 loop plan with the location of LAX, unless you plan on landfilling the State and Federally protected Pacific Ocean. Second, the loops are used very well. In fact too well. LAX needs more public transportation access, including the Green Line Extension and use of the existing BNSF right of way 3 blocks from the airport to connect Metrolink to the airport, along with additional public transport infrastructure to be built

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
Since the airport is not really a hub in the sense of DEN, DFW, EWR, and so on, flights are spread out quite nicely.

Except that LAX has more passenger traffic than all of those airports on fewer runways that the 2 closest in size (DEN and DFW) and on only 1 more runway than EWR, which does about half the traffic of LAX

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
I also agree that airport traffic is not the cause of congestion on the 405 - it's the idiot engineers' decision that one of the busiest stretches of freeway in the world should have the carpool lane end right then and there.

Actually, the carpool extension is almost complete. Airport Traffic is one of many causes of congestion on the 405. The main problem is lack of public transport infrastructure in that transportation corridor.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineNeednewairport From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3461 times:

It makes me laugh that people blame the airport for 405 congestion. yes, it does contribute but face it, the 405 is a joke, it needs more lanes and/or less people. it was probably that way the day they opened it.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3435 times:

Thanks for the good comments from most:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 2):
Seems pretty logical and rational to me, with just one question: why would you need to move American Eagle's ticket counters? They are already in T4, with the rest of AA's operation, and serve just fine. Why move them (and the T4-Eagle satellite bus, for that matter)?

It was a second option for convenience of commuters. Because AAEagle uses buses to get to their terminal anyway, having a second check-in location for it doesn't hurt and could relieve congestion getting to T4, especially for parking shuttles and such.

Also, T2 is pretty big and functions pretty well, and I don't see the reason to rip it down. T1 can be renovated and if combined with the new T1 behind security, some of the screening can be offloaded to the new T1 building.

As an LA taxpayer and flier, I don't want to see money spent where it isn't needed. Ripping down T2 would be nice, but not needed. T3 is useless.

Quoting UALAX (Reply 3):
I kinda liked the Alternative D plan to tear up the parking in the middle and replace it with a new terminal. It would allow more space for check-in, concessions, etc. This idea of course would mean that people who want to park their cars would have to park off-site and take the train in which is not that convenient.

it's a cool idea with no relation to reality of LAX, at least in my 6 years of use. with all the private companies and shuttles, there is not a big parking problem. every terminal has a great deal of concessions, enough so that many aren't that full.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):

One of the most knee jerk, argumentative posts I've ever read. Every point I make is not only stupid, but wrong, because I made it, and then your points are flawless.

You don't understand what I am saying about the "loops" because you don't want to take time to envision it. It's easier to say "no" than to take a breath. I'm not talking about it the way you are. But the way it is now DOES NOT WORK no matter how you claim it does. It is dangerous, it is crowded, it is confusing, it is time consuming. To load all 9 terminals on 1 road with a couple sneak across situations is a nightmare at peak times. But if you were to rework the ramps (including a 3rd level feeder over part of it) to break the routes into three zones, you wouldn't need to take up more space.

Just because something was built doesn't make it the only answer. And frankly, so many freeway and roadway interchanges in LA are so poorly designed under loads, that I have little doubt that the LAX solution was one of the worst options. There is little precedent in LA to indicate it was well thought out.

Which leads to the freeway. First, the carpool lane will not ease traffic. It has yet to do so in LA in any location. In a decentralized economy, carpool lanes have not proved productive. They fill with families, taxis, limos, and contractors, none of which are "carpooling". And despite what some people want to believe, the 405 is NOT congested due to LAX. It just isn't. It is congested due to being too narrow, due to poor interchanges (101, 10, 105, etc.). It clogs at the ten because they funnel all interchange traffic into 1 lane. It clogs at the 101 for the same reasons. None of these people are going to the airport. Nor are the airport exits on the 405 and 105 EVER crowded. More traffic goes to the Bridge than the airport.

As for the A380, there is a major issue of taxiway space, yes, but there is also no way expansion of runways and taxiways at LAX will get by the nimbys. And frankly, completely destroying an airport to better accommodate this plane is not in the priority of the common LA taxpayer. Our entire infrastructure is crumbling, and in the grand scheme of things, accommodating the A380 better does nothing to solve the day to day problems of the traveling public in LA.

The new Mayor is not in favor of increasing runways at LAX either. He just today talked of expansion of Ontario and Palmdale.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3403 times:

LAX is fine for now. I notice that terminal 3 almost never has more then 3 planes parked although it has more then 10 gates, whats up with that? Terminal 1 is very busy, most gates are usually taken, and they should do something about that terminal. If you notice on the news, when ever they report about LAX they always go to T1(WN,HP,US) cause they know they will find many people there. The only expansion they could make as far as new runways is to make another one on the north side, although that would mean that they have to make another Lincoln Blv and move it further north. In the future we could see runway 24L,C,R.

User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3403 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Wanna bet? LAX uses flow control nearly 24/7 to insure against capacity problems.

We must be talking about a different LAX. The one the Westside of Los Angeles very rarely operates underflow control.

The regions good weather allows for VFR ops majority of the time which allow for a high arrival rate of near 90 flights per hour. When low ceilings or other poor weather kick in requiring IFR ops arrival rates drop to about 60 flights per hour. It is extremely rare that hourly demand exceeds arrival capacity during VFR operations.

LA's worst case scenarios traffic acceptance wise is easterly IFR operation using the 06/07 runways which for most years occurs less then an average of 10 days.

Los Angeles considering it is one of the smallest major airports land size wise does and excellent job moving the millions of passengers. Certainly there are peaks during the day as a result of over scheduling, however traffic flows are rarely require ATC flow control programs outside of weather events.

If you want to see an airport that frequently operates under flow control programs I would refer you to San Francisco. The Bay area weather coupled with the airports runway configuration regularly have negative ripple ATC effects across the state.


Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Want to bet? LAX is the number one airport in the country for runway incursions because of the size of the taxiways. Adding a plane that cannot fit on them at all taxiing to gates not designed for it will make that even worse.

Indeed there continues to be significant runways incursions problems at LAX, particularly on the South side of the 25L/R runways. There have been several runway exit, taxiway redesigns over the years to help mitigate the problem. The FAA, NASA, Air Transport Association along with United have finished a detailed study involving different simulations. There likely will be some further lighting, and taxiways design along with potential for changing the standard process of departing aircraft using inboard runways, while arrivals use outboards. Its has been suggested in modeling and some actual testing that runways incursions would likely be further reduced by making more use of the inboard runways for landing, and outboards for departures., this could eliminate on of the largest problems of planes landing on 25L, failing to hold short of 25R for departing aircraft.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Feeder roads to the airport, both surface and freeway, are not crowded because of LAX. They are crowded despite it. On the 405, most traffic is passing the airport. The 105 is never congested on the LAX spur. It is only so on the 405 merge for people who are not going to LAX. Sepulveda is crowded at rush hour as a through road, bypassing the airport, and sucking up Lincoln into one road. And it's never that bad. The road system can handle more traffic, at least as much as any other roads in LA can.

Yes, I understand. LAX can not expand. I took a look at photos of LAX - true business, crowded LAX. You can see surface and freeway.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aaron 747


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Hendrik
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Kesternich



I like it when LAX is very crowded. Crazy airport! lol. LAX will always be beautiful to me.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Serge Bailleul - AirTeamImages




Airliners.net of the Future
User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 593 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

why not build a mega terminal in the Middle for all the terminals, put some parking on the roof and all long term parking to remote locations. Something similar to what DEN offers. where Passengers can be dropped off for check in on both sides of the terminal and same thing for arriving passengers on different levels.


ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

"Yes, I understand. LAX can not expand. I took a look at photos of LAX - true business, crowded LAX. You can see surface and freeway."

LAX does have room to expand, at the North side, all there is is grass and a boulevard.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
Which leads to the freeway. First, the carpool lane will not ease traffic. It has yet to do so in LA in any location. In a decentralized economy, carpool lanes have not proved productive. They fill with families, taxis, limos, and contractors, none of which are "carpooling". And despite what some people want to believe, the 405 is NOT congested due to LAX. It just isn't. It is congested due to being too narrow, due to poor interchanges (101, 10, 105, etc.). It clogs at the ten because they funnel all interchange traffic into 1 lane. It clogs at the 101 for the same reasons. None of these people are going to the airport. Nor are the airport exits on the 405 and 105 EVER crowded. More traffic goes to the Bridge than the airport.

Ikramerica, A very informative post. You put in a lot of effort and I appreciate that.
Completion of carpool lanes may not ease traffic substantially, but will help. I take 405 from Santa Monica to Redondo Beach almost everyday, and traffic seems to have slowed due to construction activity. I also take 105 from Cerritos to 405 North for Santa Monica everyday, and it too has slowed substantially in the last few years. It takes me about 90-115 minutes to complete this during rush hour. Some of the traffic is clearly headed for LAX and thus adds to congestion on 105.

I prefer to fly out of Long Beach, Orange County, and Ontario whenever I can. I hope they add more capacity to Long Beach, and Ontario, which will help in reducing the traffic overall towards LAX.


User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
-Tear down T3. It is the terminal in the worst shape, the worst used

Tear half if not most of the airport down. The only decent areas at LAX are Tom Bradley building (prior to security/post security the termanil resembles a dark hole), American Airlines Termanil, and United Airlines International Concourse. The rest the L.A. county should be very ashamed of.

Termanil 1, is nothing short of a Greyhound station.

Termanil 2, home to notable airlines: Virgin Atlantic, KLM, Air China, Air New Zealand, Air Canada, and Hawaiian; Is a very, very sad first impression for many on their arrival to Los Angeles.

Termanil 3, well we need not say more, it is showing a lot more than its age.


Aloha,

Kahala777


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 13):

Termanil 1, is nothing short of a Greyhound station.

Termanil 2, home to notable airlines: Virgin Atlantic, KLM, Air China, Air New Zealand, Air Canada, and Hawaiian; Is a very, very sad first impression for many on their arrival to Los Angeles.

Well, the greyhound station sure beats termINAL 2!! Welcome back lhr001.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
Because AAEagle uses buses to get to their terminal anyway, having a second check-in location for it doesn't hurt and could relieve congestion getting to T4, especially for parking shuttles and such.

Except that EVERY SINGLE Eagle ticket is sold through American Airlines and most people wont know they are flying Eagle, they will just see "American". That means they wont know to go to this fantasy "terminal 1" you envision. Add to that, United Express has FAR more flights at LAX than Eagle and would likely come before Eagle in getting a second check-in area

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And frankly, so many freeway and roadway interchanges in LA are so poorly designed under loads

Actually, the Greater Los Angeles freeway system is a model for the world in freeway engineering. The only reason life does not completely stand still is because of how well engineered the system is. The problem is, and always will be, lack of alternative public transport for such a spread out area

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
One of the most knee jerk, argumentative posts I've ever read. Every point I make is not only stupid, but wrong, because I made it, and then your points are flawless.

My post was neither knee jerk nor argumentative. I am a Los Angeles native and have spent my whole life in the area. I have also read all plans relating to the expansion of LAX (which you obviously have not). Your points were not wrong because you made them, they were wrong simply because they would not work, in any way.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
It has yet to do so in LA in any location.

I think those riding on the 134, 10, 118, 405 and 210 would all like to have a word with you about that. The lanes are there to reward people for being more environmentally responsible and to allow those commuting by bus to make their destinations on time.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
It clogs at the 101 for the same reasons

There are 2 lanes on the 101 leading to the 405, BOTH of which lead to the more heavily used Southbound freeway and one of which allows access to the North. There are 3 lanes leading to the 101, including 2 to the Northbound on the Northbound 405

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
He just today talked of expansion of Ontario and Palmdale.

PMD has already shown to be a complete waste of time and money and ONT will continue to grow in the manner it has for the past 70 years

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
The new Mayor is not in favor of increasing runways at LAX either.

Of course he isn't. He wants votes

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 7):
I notice that terminal 3 almost never has more then 3 planes parked although it has more then 10 gates, whats up with that?

At peak times, T3 can be completely full

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And frankly, completely destroying an airport to better accommodate this plane is not in the priority of the common LA taxpayer.

Every master plan (including those that add a runway), involves better spacing of the taxiways

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8):
The one the Westside of Los Angeles very rarely operates underflow control.

Hmm, strange, since people in ATC say different

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8):
The regions good weather allows for VFR ops majority of the time which allow for a high arrival rate of near 90 flights per hour.

Yes they do, but marine layer is frequent and flow control is often in effect

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
LAX does have room to expand, at the North side, all there is is grass and a boulevard.

Lincoln Blvd. is a vital artery and part of CA 1, Pacific Coast Highway, there is no way they can be closed for that

Quoting BigB (Reply 10):
why not build a mega terminal in the Middle for all the terminals

Because LAX does not need such a thing, and it would be less convinient for travelers, most of which are O&D. You only need big terminals like that when you have lots of connecting traffic

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 14):
Well, the greyhound station sure beats termINAL 2!!

Have you ever seen the Los Angeles Greyhound station? Anything beats that



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePyxisnautica From Kiribati, joined May 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

I couldn’t agree more, and yet I’ll do you one better: level it all (or most of it anyway) and start all over.

At some point in every airports life, especially those built up over time - one seeminly “great” (stop gap) idea after another, there simply comes a point where spending an additional $3-7B every decade or so remodeling this and that terminal but not really changing much of anything in particular is simply no longer cost effective. LAX IMO has reached that point. Better to spend $7-12B now than $20-30B over the next couple decades rebuilding the same set of tired mistakes from the last time. Or, even worse, the same money on a smaller regional airport barely 20 miles (Longbeach!) away.

As the photos in post 9 handily show at least half of the mid terminal area is barely utilized - a thousand feet of beach scrub, a few dozen overflow stands which never seem to be used, utility plant, a couple thousand feet of apron with the odd Qantas jumbo parked here and there, and then three rows of maint. hangers, all of it begging to be razed and filled in with a modern terminal complex built form the start to meet the regions ever growing needs.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12416 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First Ikramerica, Nice post to start. I hope I can disagree on points and still keep it rational.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Even on holidays, take-off delays are not very common.

Oh... I've sat at the gate waiting for the runway. Every plan for the airport expansion has the runway separation corrected (recall, LAX operates the 4 runways like they were 3 due to the lack of taxiways). LAX direly needs a runway improvement. As to keeping four or going to five runways... I've changed my mind and have gone to 4 wide spaced runways. In my opinion it seems that the fogged in capacity will be the true capacity limit.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Conversion for A380 is not even necessary AFAIK. While the south runways have a bridge that is not designed for them,

I thought the south runway got a bridge strenthening? Please correct if I'm wrong. It would be nice if there were gates really built for the A380. Heck, I'd like to see double gates for the WN 737's! (I hate waiting to get off a plane. Ok, not a big deal, just a pet peeve.)

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Wanna bet? LAX uses flow control nearly 24/7 to insure against capacity problems.

Yep, it needs more capacity.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Feeder roads to the airport, both surface and freeway, are not crowded because of LAX.

??? The 405 south opens up right after LAX!

Quoting Pyxisnautica (Reply 16):
I couldn’t agree more, and yet I’ll do you one better: level it all (or most of it anyway) and start all over.

 rotfl 

The reality is Los Angeles needs about double the current airport capacity within a decade. Since most of the money/industry/people are near LAX, expand it. Rather than level it, build one of the pre 9/11 plans with the HUGE west terminal. God its bad how long it takes to get through security. The Bradly terminal is at best 1/3rd of the size it needs to be. Let's face it, international travel will be the faster growth driver over the next decade. And there just need to be more free gates for expansion.

LAX needs a huge expansion. I would keep the existing southern terminals (of course, rebuilt to a better standard). However, every rational plan I've seen has the current north terminals so truncated (to allow for a 2nd taxiway to feed the north runways) that it seems that one integrated new building would be the best plan.

If I were to add one thing, it also needs subway. I would LOVE to see the proposed Wilshire line to LAX (build like the NYC Lexington line with an "express" and "local" train on parallel tracks). Also, build the Green line to the airport, the proposed large bus terminal, and the proposed Exposition corridor light rail to LAX. Tokyo, Frankfurt, and a few other cities have shown that an airport built/retrofitted to be a full transit center is the most effective plan.

But alas, I dream. Its too much to even have the 105 freeway properly connect to LAX.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
It would be nice if there were gates really built for the A380.

Well, they have gates that can fit it, just no double deck

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
Its too much to even have the 105 freeway properly connect to LAX.

It connects ok, the 405 could use that bypass road that is in the older plans. This would clear up some of the traffic in the area around the airport.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

I think the LAX master plan has the right idea on the airfield side but not the terminal side. I think that that LAX needs to switch to a terminal layout similar to ATL and IAD. The planned ground transportation center could be the new central processor with check-in baggage claim, customs, and security. The people mover system could have two airside routes (domestic concourses to central processor, and international arrivals to customs) and one landside route (rental car facility to central processor to ITC). Upon completion of the central processor and people mover linkages all the existing terminals would exist entirely within security and no road traffic would be allowed west of Sepulveda.

A departing passenger could check-in at the central processor, clear security, hop on the people mover and get off at T8, T1 (with airside moving walkway connections to T6, and T7), T2 (with airside moving walkway connections to T5), T3 (with airside moving walkway connections to T4), Bradley Terminal, or the new West Side Concourse. The stations for T1, T2, and T3 could actually be located closer to T4-T7 in order to line up with future developments.

After the opening of the central processor and the west side concouse a process of creating concourses out of existing terminals would occur while maintaining operations at as many gates as possible. T8 could be extended north to become Concourse A, T1 could be extended south (with removal of T6 and T7) to become Concourse B, T2 extended south (with removal of T5) creating Concourse C, T3 extended south (with removal of T4) creating Concourse D, Bradley Terminal double sided creating Concourse E, and the West Side Concourse named Concourse F.

The airfield improvements in the master plan could stay the same by extending T1 - T3 southward after the opening of the people mover and then cutting of the north sides of these terminals and the Bradley Terminal to make way for the north airfield improvements such as the center taxiway.

[Edited 2005-06-11 10:28:01]

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12416 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
It connects ok,

??? I hope you don't mind me disagreeing. I've been in 20 minute back ups trying to get off the 105 into LAX.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 19):
I think the LAX master plan has the right idea on the airfield side but not the terminal side. I think that LAX needs to switch to a terminal layout similar to ATL and IAD.

Have you seen any of the pre 9/11 plans for LAX?

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/losangeles/

I alternate between favoring plan A and C.  Smile The current master plan is a botched "D" stealing plan "C"'s runway idea.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5845 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8):
The one the Westside of Los Angeles very rarely operates underflow control.

Hmm, strange, since people in ATC say different

Except during east operations, which happens pretty rarely, there is more than enough capacity slot-wise to require a flow program. The highest peak at LAX is usually about mid-day, with about 50 planes planned. This is at an 80 rate day, which is a good percentage of the time. Only when the weather drops to near cat I mins does capacity suffer, and that usually happens at non-peak times.

Now, if you want to talk about a capacity problem, go look at ORD.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 14):
Well, the greyhound station sure beats termINAL 2!!

Huh???

Termanil 2, offers Wolfgang Puck, DFS, Numerous Gift and News Stands. In addition Termanil 2, is the most brilliant of the three less desired termanils.

All in all for Los Angeles, being such a "cosmopolitan" city, the airport has so much left to be desired. One of the things to take into consideration is the fact that Delta Airlines and United Airlines are both sitting on a large numbers of gates that are often unused. Part of this adds to each airlines competitive advantage, and part of it is just a waste of money for the two airlines.

If Termanil 2 and 3 remains, they could in all actuality be combined and made into the "Sky Team" gates. It would afford Northwest, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Copa, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, Air France, KLM, Korean, and Aero Mexico connection traffic without having to leave either termanil. Overflow international traffic could be bused to and from the remote stands.

If Termanil 6, 7 and 8 remains, they could be deemed "Star Alliance" gates. This would afford a central location for connecting traffic at LAX for ANA, Varig, United, Lufthansa, Swiss, Air Canada, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Asiana, Air China, and Air New Zealand. United Express CRJ routes could easily use the additional parking area by the United Express propeller stands. Overflow could be bused to and from the remote stands.

American Airlines operation at Los Angeles is just fine. It is a great example, of efficiency and ease of use. The only key factors that the American Airlines Termanil are missing are parking space for LAN, British Airways, Japan Airlines,and Mexicana. One thing to remember is that the American Airlines Termanil is located in a great location because it has key access to the Tom Bradley Termanil.

In any case everything now is still on the drawing board. This discussion as to the fate of LAX, has been talked about for years, if and when LAX ever enters the 21st century, is yet to be seen!


Aloha,

Kahala777


User currently offlinePyxisnautica From Kiribati, joined May 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 17):
Rather than level it, build one of the pre 9/11 plans with the HUGE west terminal.



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 20):
I alternate between favoring plan A and C.

C looks like a winner to me, although I can't see any reason to keep mixing the poorly designed "old" with the "new", thats how LAX (and dozens of other major airports - JFK for example) got backed into the corner it finds itself today. If you're going to build a modern terminal complex to the west it makes little sense to me to keep any of the old terminal buildings once the new terminals are up and running. If the airport still needs new capacity further parallel rows of new terminals will be needed out to the east as well, and the old terminals will simply be in the way.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 22):
ermanil 2, offers Wolfgang Puck, DFS, Numerous Gift and News Stands. In addition Termanil 2, is the most brilliant of the three less desired termanils.

WOOW!! T2 has news stands!! T1 is an all domestic terminal and it is pretty nice and as good as or better than T2. T2 has a lot of international traffic with prestigious airlines. For their uses, T2 is definitely inferior to T1.

And you should probably learn how to spell terminal.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
25 EnviroTO : Plan A and C seem fine west of Bradley Terminal but why keep the old terminals and roadways?
26 Post contains images N751PR : I seriously agree with you on that. Living out here in PMD, I have to take a 2 hour trip to LAX if I want to fly or planespot. If it's the former, th
27 Sllevin : The trouble is less that LAX could be expanded and more that it's a pain in the behind to get to! The target should be to push more service to the alt
28 LAXDESI : I would benefit a lot if services from Long Beach were increased, as I live just 10 minutes away. I understand that the airport is restricted to 17 f
29 Commavia : I agree. AA showed the city how it should be done -- how to remodel an old, crappy, run-down terminal and turn it into the most beautiful terminal in
30 UA747400 : The UA terminal is a piece of crap, pardon my french, but it is outdated, horrible lines and it now pales in comparison with ONT in terms of renovatio
31 N1120A : Other airlines do. There is simply not the demand, space or connecting opportunities at the other airports as there are at LAX It is actually 41 non-
32 Efohdee : LAX is not to blame for 405 traffic. The 405 would be jammed if LAX wasn't even there. I lived in the LAX area for more than 20yrs and the surface roa
33 Commavia : Yes. The TWA terminal where they used to perform overhauls is now AA's. AA does use it for maintenance, and parking, and also rents out the space (an
34 Post contains images Kahala777 : And what about the Autobahn? And what about the Autostrada? Yeah, you obviously dont get to Los Angeles that often! Inferior? Ha Ha.. Termanil 1, is
35 Kahala777 : * Q * A * N * T * A * S * Q- Queensland A- And N- Northern T- Territories A- Air S- Service * Q * A * N * T * A * S * Aloha, Kahala777
36 JpetekYXMD80 : I am assuming that you are referring to Southwest Airlines clientel, for which no terminal would change. As for the 'inferior' part, i said 'inferior
37 JpetekYXMD80 : Yeah, mr. termanil....you shouldn't be one to talk, should you? What happened to NYC?
38 AS739X : N1120A, working at SFO and sending planes to LAX. LAX rarely has a flow control in effect. When they do its ver minimal. SFO has some of the worst flo
39 Post contains images Kahala777 : Hmmm... This one is taking a trip to the Moderators. Flaming a Topic are we? ... Another one to the Moderators. Forget the above, your age speaks vol
40 JpetekYXMD80 : Because i said hell? Get a life. That was the end of a post that did apply to the topic, doubt you read that part. Oh really, how so? Oh, have i forg
41 N1120A : Most of the day, however, that freeway is a cake walk compared to others. Also, it is well connected, even if it does see a backup Actually, I have n
42 Commavia : They are using it for something, as they still pay for it. You may be right -- but, IIRC, AA leases out the ramp around their maintenance hanger to o
43 Post contains links and images Efohdee : What about the (ex?) Continental hangars? They were much busier and cleaned up during the pre-Lorenzo days. Drive down World Way West and it looks lik
44 N1120A : I have seen planes in there, but not AA CO still uses them. One of the main functions is for interior fitting
45 Post contains images Lightsaber : True. The South Bay is home to 25% of the people who fly out of LAX. While LGB is an ok alternative for some, why not drive to the airport that's in
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Radisson Or 4Points At LAX - Which Has Better View posted Thu Mar 25 2004 23:51:33 by Chris78cpr
MAS Daily KUL-TPE-LAX From JAN2007 posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:24:10 by Jimyvr
QF176 19NOV LAX-BNE posted Sat Nov 18 2006 02:10:20 by ETA Unknown
NK: New FLL-LAS/LAX/MYR/GDT/PLS Service posted Fri Nov 17 2006 22:37:48 by MAH4546
LAX: Name The Airline Photographer 1998 posted Fri Nov 17 2006 14:39:27 by SJC-Alien
REQ Spotting Info LAX/LAS Please posted Wed Nov 15 2006 09:21:17 by Acelanzarote
NZ2 LAX-LHR Cancelled Today posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:07:57 by SunriseValley
LAX-ACA On America West Dropped After 1/7/07 posted Tue Nov 14 2006 23:37:47 by FATFlyer
The View From The Top...there Is No Better Place posted Sun Nov 12 2006 23:44:43 by BHXDTW
Why Doesn't NZ Re-enter The SYD-LAX Market? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 05:06:12 by ZKNBX