Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Automated People Mover Train At LAX?  
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6632 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

How come when LAX was designed, it was designed without an automated people mover train? While LAX is mostly an O&D airport rather than a hub, it is the third busiest airport in the US. LAX is the busiest airport in the U.S. not to have it. Has it ever been considered? It took a while for JFK to add one, but now it has proven to be successful. Could LAX follow?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7213 times:

I know what you are talking about. When LAX was designed in the 1950s, it was supposedly one of the most advanced airports around. It is obviously not anymore. But, future planes certainly call for a people mover:

(that gray line thing around the terminal area is the people mover)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b154/Kaitak744/lax.jpg


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7183 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Could LAX follow?

Since I don't even live in California anymore, and I've never flown to/through JFK for comparison, I'm hardly qualified to answer on several levels. But that's not going to stop me  Smile

I don't think LAX needs one-- for the most part airlines are confined to "their own" terminal or in a few cases adjacent terminals (DL 5-6, UA 6-7-8...neither of these is a particularly bad walk); the majority of connections, therefore, are within one terminal with a number of TBIT->Terminal connections (although, IIRC, most of the airlines who have a presence outside of TBIT run at least some international departures/arrivals out of their own terminal).

Plus there's already the interterminal bus which has never seemed terribly well utililized to me.

Could it be a cool addition? Probably. Are there more important things the money could be spent on? Almost certainly

Lincoln
(Next visit to LAX: T6 on Thanksgiving day.)



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7172 times:

A new $550 million project has just been approved for LAX. Maybe its coming, altought most of it is destined for the international terminal.

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 2):
I don't think LAX needs one

No, you are quite wrong on that. LAX really needs one. Even the alliances (Star, oneworld, skyteam) are all over the place. There are plenty of connections at LAX.

The picture shown above is the most recent rendition. It shows doubling the gate capacity of TBIT and adding a new terminal.


User currently offlineFlyingNanook From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 830 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7122 times:

I don't see the need for one at LAX. All the terminals are pretty close together, for its size. I've only connected through LAX twice, and the furthest distance was from Terminal 3 to Terminal 6 or 7. It only took me 10 minutes from gate to check-in line to walk it and that's pretty much the longest distance anybody will have to walk at LAX. To contrast, if you're connecting from the end of Concourse D to the end of Concourse A at SEA (which I've done), you'll have to walk farther than that and the train doesn't connect them either.


Semper ubi sub ubi.
User currently offlineCch362 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7053 times:

Quoting FlyingNanook (Reply 5):
the furthest distance was from Terminal 3 to Terminal 6 or 7.

Truthfully, the furthest distance is from T1-T7/8, because to take the "short cut" you have to go through an obstacle course featuring 2 parking structures and a busy service road in the middle. Added, there are no ramps nor signage leading you the way, so it's a real drag even if all you have is a rollaway.

When I fly home to LAX in early evenings, I usually encounter a lot of passengers transferring from T-7 to international flights in T-2 and Bradley. I presume the reverse is true during the late morning hours.


User currently offlinePER744 From Australia, joined Mar 2003, 405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

I've connected through almost all combinations of terminals at LAX and never had too much of a problem with walking. That said, a SFO style APM couldn't hurt. Yes there are inter-terminal buses, but I know I'd be much more inclined to use an APM than a bus, and everyone knows the loop road in front of terminals could do with less diesel exhaust! I still remember my horror when I stepped out of the terminal at LAX the very first time and had to almost chew the air.

Also, as per SFO, a link to rental car/long term parking lots would also reduce the amount of buses, further reducing the diesel fumes.


User currently offlineSkyvanMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6923 times:

I don't think LAX needs one. It is not too hard to walk from any temrinal to any other terminal and some terminals are even connected airside (6 and 7 for example). LAX would only need a people mover if TBIT was in a different locaiton (say where 1 or 8 are) but since international flights are out of TBIT and that is why people usually have to change airlines it really is not needed, plus if you are flying United you can get to LAX from tons of places in the U.S. and then connect to an international flight on United without a terinal change (besides possible 6-7).


The 3 best planes of all time: Shorts Skyvan, 330 and 360
User currently offlineRsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6811 times:

LAX is a Garbage Dump.....I pissed in the same exact urinals in TERM 3 in the 70's.


Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlineSRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
How come when LAX was designed

Unfortunately, LAX was really never "designed." There has never really been a "unitary vision" for LAX. Terminals are upgraded at airlines' whims (with the exception of TBIT) and the airport is pretty much stuck with the circular terminal layout.

Due to several airline movements in the last 5 years, many alliances are now spread out across the airport. DL/AF used to share 5, but now are 5-2, and NW is 2. KL is also 2. CO is in 6. So SkyTeam resides in 2, 5, and TBIT. Fortunately for SkyTeam there are almost no LAX connections between DL-AF-NW-KL.

* Alliance has 6-7-8 (UA), which are all connected airside and streetside, 2 (AC, NZ, and China), 1 (US Air) and TBIT. There are a fair amount of *Alliance connections, and they are probably the most hurt by the lack of a people mover.

OneWorld has the best set-up with American (4) and TBIT right next to each other and easily walkable.

Some of the current redevelopment proposals envision larger terminals that could house several airlines currently in different terminals. This would likely be the best system from a connecting passengers' perspective.

The real problem with the current bus system is that there are 4 different LAX busses circling the airport (A (inter-terminal), B, C, G (and the odd E)). It is a nightmare for non-English speakers. So many times I have arrived at the remote parking lot (Lot B or C) with a bunch of confused foreing travellers who were simply trying to get from Terminal 7 to TBIT but got on the wrong bus.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6708 times:

Codeshares and international connections have made LAX one of the most difficult airports to connect at.

Commuter-wise, United Express, American Eagle, and Horizon are the major players. That would be fine if it were a matter of connections to those airlines, but SAN-FRA for example might involve SAN-LAX on United Express, arriving at T8, and then having to make your way to LH in the TBIT. Not really a short walk, nor a really well-marked walk. The buses are there, but as stated, they're not well marked, and the chaos of ever moving/ever pulling over/ever merging traffic tests the patience of the most seasoned drivers!!

One of the logistics problems at LAX involves the frequent evacuation of terminals for a myriad of reasons. If the terminals were connected by a train (located beyond security), all of the terminals would need to be evacuated. At least this is the reasoning that has been stated.

Bottom line - people complain (and rightfully so), but nothing will ever be done. The $$$$ isn't there, people aren't willing to pay an extra $5 per ticket to pay for it, the logistics prohibit it, and knowing SoCal, NIMBY's would claim that a MAGLEV train pollutes the environment, creates noise, will violate the agreement to limit passenger numbers, and damages the health of children living nearby..."won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"



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 offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 10):
Unfortunately, LAX was really never "designed." There has never really been a "unitary vision" for LAX.

The pre-1984 LAX did have a "unitary vision" similar to JFK's "Terminal City," both of which were designed back when connecting flights were less common and passenger volumes were far lower. All of the terminals and airsides were of mostly uniform appearance and primarily designed to serve O&D passengers. The 1984 and later renovations produced an irregular mismatched set of terminals and the various mergers, liquidations and alliances have left the airlines spread out all over the place.

All of the master plans, except "no change" include a people mover and most expect it to also be connected to the light rail station. Unfortunately, any major improvement other than the runway and taxiway reconfiguration have been put on hold indefinitely.


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...
Why No Pics Of DL 777 At TLV Yet? posted Tue May 2 2006 06:42:35 by Jumbojet
DFW's Automated People Mover posted Wed Jul 30 2003 22:03:53 by Ssides
Why No Airbridge For EL AL At Waw? posted Wed Aug 28 2002 02:57:43 by Airplanetire
Why No SAS At Lax? posted Thu Feb 8 2001 19:35:42 by Travelin man
Why No American A300's At Lax? posted Sat Feb 12 2000 22:12:05 by Matt D
Why No SQ, CX & TG Service At IAD? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:59:37 by Mk777
Why No AZ At IAD? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 03:45:28 by Mk777
Why No WN At LGB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:02:18 by 28L28L
Why No Engines At The Front? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 04:23:17 by GAIsweetGAI
Why No Props At ORD? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 08:16:38 by FlyingNanook
DFW's Automated People Mover posted Wed Jul 30 2003 22:03:53 by Ssides
Why No Airbridge For EL AL At Waw? posted Wed Aug 28 2002 02:57:43 by Airplanetire
Why No SAS At Lax? posted Thu Feb 8 2001 19:35:42 by Travelin man
Why No American A300's At Lax? posted Sat Feb 12 2000 22:12:05 by Matt D
Why No WN Nonstop LAX-PDX/SEA? posted Tue Mar 13 2012 22:29:52 by QANTAS747-438