Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LAX To Have Taxiway Between The North Runways  
User currently offlinedtwlax From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 807 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8886 times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...20130206,0,1182044.story?track=rss

The article also talks about terminal additions and a transportation center, though that may happen closer to 2025 as mentioned.
There is also talk about a people mover around the terminals. If it goes through that is one hell of an improvement over taking the shuttle for terminal changes. Also hope they plan for building that after security, guess they have to since there is no space for a people mover outside the terminals (before security).

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25779 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8821 times:

Still has to be approved by the full City Council, and likely face a few nice lawsuits along the way.

Also does not help that LA County top administrator came out only yesterday to fault LAWA for failing achieve their 2006 legal commitment to push traffic away from LAX towards other regional airports, and if they had done so these proposed projects might not even be required.

Long way from a done deal in otherwords.

[Edited 2013-02-05 22:14:16]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8513 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

Agreed.

And when the legal challenges come, it's going to be difficult for LAX to demonstrate why both the north and south complex require accommodations for A380s when there is no conceivable way that there would be enough VLA traffic to ever require that even 50 years into the future.

Considering many major airports operate with only 2 runways in use at any time, LAX has the luxury of 4, and the vast majority of flights at LAX are 757 and smaller, so if safety is a concern re: VLAs passing in the night, operations can and SHOULD be altered to move 200ft wingspan and larger to the south complex and call it a day.

The current proposal is a massive waste of money for a theoretical problem that need not exist in the first place. Runway incursions happen at all airports, even those with massive taxiways, because pilots are human and sometimes they don't listen. This won't change with a center taxiway.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8136 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
And when the legal challenges come, it's going to be difficult for LAX to demonstrate why both the north and south complex require accommodations for A380s when there is no conceivable way that there would be enough VLA traffic to ever require that even 50 years into the future.

It is not just about accommodating A380's on the north side.

There is a safety issue that has nothing to do with A380's. The taxiways/runways (I forget which) are too close to the terminals.

This is not a "theoretical" problem.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5618 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

This has been planned since work started on the 25s centerfield taxiway.. it brings with it good news and bad news for spotters and photogs.

The Good...

24R - 6L will be shifted a few hundred feet north - displacing Lincoln Blvd and making spotting from the northside..esp. from the bridge a huge attraction as 'the Hill' is for the southside.

The Bad...

In-and-Out Burger just most has to go (as Lincoln Blvd is also shifred northwards... it and it's little park does reside on LAWA property technically, I believe.

From some blue prints I've seen, it's gone but the Westchester Parkway did remain.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7337 times:

Quoting BN747 (Reply 4):
In-and-Out Burger just most has to go

No In-N-Out at LAX to spot  Wow! ? This certainly can't be allowed to happen....

[Edited 2013-02-06 09:46:38]

User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6689 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

Also does not help that LA County top administrator came out only yesterday to fault LAWA for failing achieve their 2006 legal commitment to push traffic away from LAX towards other regional airports, and if they had done so these proposed projects might not even be required.

Given the whole mess that ONT has become under LAWA, there is a strong argument for this. With Inland Empire politicians putting the pressure on LAWA over ONT, you could see some strange bedfellows on this one as those guys and the LA County top Administrator could be on the same side, even though the motivations are different.


User currently offlineHighflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6413 times:

I love the argument of the NIMBYS that the A380 isn't selling well so there will never be a need to improve the northern runways. These people have taken a deliberately myopic vision of LAXs future ten, twenty or thirty years from now. There is a magnificent international terminal with Sydney Opera House like scallop shells nearing completion and the reality is a vast majority of passengers destined to the Los Angeles metro area are not going to fly in to ONT or LGB or any other satellite airport. One only hopes the political will can cut through the lawsuits...fast.

Is there any firm plan on the eventual length of 24L-6R? From the graphic depictions it looks as if it will extend east about 2,000 feet, so 12,285 feet should be correct?


User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6213 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
so if safety is a concern re: VLAs passing in the night, operations can and SHOULD be altered to move 200ft wingspan and larger to the south complex and call it a day.

I disagree. The room to grow is to the North.
It might make the neighborhood I'm typing this from noisier, but there's less 'stuff' in the way on this side of the airport.
I'd sure hate to see that In-n-Out go away though.

For the record- when in LA I stay at my Grandparent's place on 85th St. They moved here in 1962.




StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 6):
With Inland Empire politicians putting the pressure on LAWA over ONT, you could see some strange bedfellows on this one as those guys and the LA County top Administrator could be on the same side, even though the motivations are different.

Its a shame the OC voters rejected El Toro as a major new international airport. An airport in that area would have been a top facility.


User currently offlineontime From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

Quoting rbgso (Reply 5):
No In-N-Out at LAX to spot ? This certainly can't be allowed to happen....

The plans linked on the following LAWA website seem to show Lincoln Blvd at "below grade" at approximately the location of the In-N-Out and the parking garage next door. Any chance the In-N-Out survives? Or is it too tall to be in the runway path, regardless of where Lincoln Blvd winds up?

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedImages/S...Recommended20Alt20130110_72dpi.jpg

[Edited 2013-02-06 13:18:37]

User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4681 times:

Quoting Reply 10):
The plans linked on the following LAWA website seem to show Lincoln Blvd at "below grade" at approximately the location of the In-N-Out and the parking garage next door.

You're mixing up the new with the old runways.
In-N-Out would end up right under the flight path of the new runway.



StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offlineflaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

So what will happen to Lincoln Blvd? Will it disappear between Sepulveda and where it runs West and parallel to the North runways or will it become an underground Lincoln Blvd kind of like how Sepulveda runs under the South runways? Can Lincoln Blvd survive this renovation?


every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6873 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 3):
The taxiways/runways (I forget which) are too close to the terminals.

It seems runway 24L isn't going to move north-- will the south parallel taxiway move closer to the runway? If not, how will anything end up farther from the terminal?


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Quoting Reply 10):
The plans linked on the following LAWA website seem to show Lincoln Blvd at "below grade" at approximately the location of the In-N-Out and the parking garage next door. Any chance the In-N-Out survives? Or is it too tall to be in the runway path, regardless of where Lincoln Blvd winds up?

If you read the SPAS final report (laxspas.org), pages 2-10 to 2-12 lists all businesses affected. In-n-Out is not listed. There will be one less Burger King and Denny's in the area, but we can all relax about In-n-Out. I'm not sure if the park across the street goes.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

How will this new taxiway effect traffic at the airport? Is building it similar to the disruptiveness as re-paving a runway, etc?


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinealphazulu From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 266 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3706 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Yes, It's good to hear the In-N-Out is on private property and will not be affected by the improvement made to the 24 complex. As for the park just across the street to the south, I see no reason to get rid of it. The approach lights will have to be moved, probably right to the edge of the street (W 92 St.) by the In-N-Out. But again, I see no reason to get rid of the park.

The benefit to this move will be the heavies flying right over the In-N-Out some 200ft above. Just imagine sitting out on the patio having a burger and a screaming 380 right on top of you! I'm looking forward to it!

In the shot below the AC will now be flying directly over the red / white topped tables, that is if the improvements are approved. I sure hope so!




User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This move is overdue. Yes, there will be a legal fight, but this is a fight that must be done.

Transportation is the cornerstone a city builds wealth and LAX *needs* an expansion. The added flights, thanks to the taxiway, would be great!    Do people really not realize that not expanding is cutting future jobs?!?

The only way to push traffic to other airports is better automate the search engines to also compare ONT, LGB, SNA, and BUR.

Quoting aklrno (Reply 14):
but we can all relax about In-n-Out.

   Yea! Even though I never made it there. (I used to work just south of LAX and would walk during lunch to view the aircraft.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemurchmo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

Nah, right now the flight path is perfect. Super close and low and you barely have to look up to watch the planes, walk across the street and be right underneath. If the path moves Right above you will hurt your neck looking straight up while eating your burger.  


to strive to seek to find and not to yield
User currently offlinebaileyncreme From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2412 times:

Would this affect the customer base of Inn N' Out?

Not everybody is airplane crazy as we are.

I'm not too sure many soccer moms with 3 kidlets would feel very
safe with a Qantas 380 zooming close over their heads while
ordering meals for their little mini-me's...

I myself would be in heaven though.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting baileyncreme (Reply 19):
I'm not too sure many soccer moms with 3 kidlets would feel very
safe with a Qantas 380 zooming close over their heads while
ordering meals for their little mini-me's...

I myself would be in heaven though.

Agree on both points.

I hope the place stays open. They'll probably go more drive through.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

In-n-Out may not be safe after all. The list of properties to be bought for the LAX project just lists those that are needed for actual construction.

Reading the more detailed description, the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for 24R falls right on top of In-n-Out, the Parking Spot, and the office building just north of them. The LAX plan points out that the new displaced threshold will help, but takes no responsibility for the FAA's possible ruling on what can be in the RPZ. If, upon consideration by the FAA), the RPZ must be cleared, the FAA will make that a condition of its approval for the new runway location.

I'm not feeling good about this. The whole thing reminds me of the parking garage at the approach to RWY 27 at SAN that the ALPA used to complain about.


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting StudeDave (Reply 8):
For the record- when in LA I stay at my Grandparent's place on 85th St. They moved here in 1962.

Wow, that's awesome. It was a different place in 1962! What is the name of the development, "Tranquil Sea Breeze Acres"?


User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 22):
What is the name of the development, "Tranquil Sea Breeze Acres"?

I have no idea- I was born 8-10 years later.
But 'Kentwood' rings a bell.




StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
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...
Will The A380 Be Able To Have Cargo In The Belly posted Tue Nov 23 2004 10:50:42 by Aviationfreak
First To Have PTV In The Y? posted Mon Apr 1 2002 11:55:28 by FlyboyOz
Which Airline Was The First To Have Tristars @ LAX posted Thu Feb 4 2010 18:48:12 by 747400sp
Taxiway Between LAX Runways 25? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 00:16:32 by Timz
NW 757 DTW-LAX Divert To ALO Smoke In The Cockpit posted Tue Jun 2 2009 08:42:26 by Iowaman
LAX- All North Runways Closed Mid-6am Tonight posted Sun May 24 2009 21:16:10 by HeyWhaTheHay
Allegiant Flies To The North Pole From ABE posted Tue Dec 16 2008 08:23:34 by FATFlyer
UA To The North Pole (They Went In A 777) posted Sun Dec 14 2008 14:28:30 by Boston92
CO To The North Pole posted Sun Dec 14 2008 06:15:01 by CLE757
'The Independent' Decides To Have A Go At BA... posted Sat Apr 26 2008 05:22:50 by IH8BY