Ground breaking today for new people mover at LAX-
https://la.curbed.com/2019/3/14/1826480 ... nstruction

This (and the Crenshaw Line) can’t open soon enough and hopefully bring an end to the abysmal task of getting into/out of LAX via World Way. Thrilled that a 1/2 mile Uber ride, or 15 min walk to my closest metro stop will soon get me to LAX relatively quickly and traffic free.

Still cannot believe that even after the people mover and the Crenshaw line opens, there will still not be a one or 2 seat for that matter, rail connection to downtown LA. I know LA is not nearly as downtown centric as most other American cities, but still, 3 trains from the airport to downtown of the USAs #2 city.

The main cost driver in the North American passenger rail market is that every end-customer wants and ultimately gets a bespoke solution, rather than an existing product. In China (and Europe), standard products are used (vehicles, signalling systems, infrastructure designs etc.).

Also, comparing freight rail infrastructure to people mover infrastructure is like comparing a dirt strip in Podunk OK to LHR rwy 3...freight rail infrastructure is built at grade, and the economies of scale of builidng 100 miles of flat track on the ground vs. 2.5 miles or above-grade track are obvious. Also, when you build a rail connection into an existing, very well used airport, you can't optimize the construction as you would be able to in terra nullis.

This is much needed. Just did a TBIT remote gate arrival and what after connecting in NRT, CGK, SIN over the previous few days, it all unraveled arriving home in LAX.

The China comparison is Apples and Oranges.

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

With no pedestrians, no hazards, no foreign traffic of any description, you can do away with all the complicated sensors.

In fact, forget the self driving cars; self-driving golf buggies would do it.

Here's one already in production.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhQWVfNVAAAGJWE.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolong

I'll admit I don't know whether this specific model is electric, but it's got to be a possibility

yep the price seems outrageous. A customer from work was telling me his friend bought a property few years ago for 1.5m and that he cashed out for 7m+.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

With no pedestrians, no hazards, no foreign traffic of any description, you can do away with all the complicated sensors.

In fact, forget the self driving cars; self-driving golf buggies would do it.

You just described a people mover
In mass transit a high capacity vehicle is a lot more efficient than individual "pods".

As for the cost, China is hardly the only place that builds modern and efficient public transit systems but I agree that comparing the costs is apples and oranges. Just the labor costs alone are a huge difference.

c933103 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

You will still need to build the bridge or acquire grade-separated right of ways otherwise and depot which account for most of the cost.

Can you pretend for one moment that I don't live in LA, and please explain what you have just written.

Bridge? Where?
Grade separated? Why?
Depot? With gold plated fittings in the bathrooms?

A train depot needs lots of land

A minibus depot could be a multi storey car park (with a vehicle lift between floors?) - much more compact.

I feel I'm missing something - please help me out here.

I like how the picture shows only 7 people in it and states it can carry up to 50. This is LAX we’re talking about, we all know it will be packed with +80 all day every day....

Keep this thread on topic or it will be locked. This thread is about a people mover at LAX. Not China, or political policies, etc. Please stick to the topic, and if you'd like to discuss something else, the Non Aviation Forum is available for your use.

✈️ atcsundevil

The infrastructure doesn't cost $5.5b (the contract value is $4.9b, btw)

This is a 30-year DBFOM contract. The contractor is responsible for designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining the entire system for 30 years.

The actual construction cost was cited earlier as "nearly $2b", but the contract signed for $4.9b also covers design, financing, operations and maintenance.

Think of it like buying a house. The house is for sale for $500,000. But when you actually look at the amortization of your mortgage over 30 years, you'll be paying a lot more than just the purchase price. Let's say the house also needs a renovation, so you'll need to add in the cost of construction and design. And, of course, the long term operation and maintenance of the house over 30 years. That's what this DBFOM contract is looking at - the total cost for all of that stuff - not just the $500k purchase price of the house.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

c933103 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

You will still need to build the bridge or acquire grade-separated right of ways otherwise and depot which account for most of the cost.

Can you pretend for one moment that I don't live in LA, and please explain what you have just written.

Bridge? Where?
Grade separated? Why?
Depot? With gold plated fittings in the bathrooms?

A train depot needs lots of land

A minibus depot could be a multi storey car park (with a vehicle lift between floors?) - much more compact.

I feel I'm missing something - please help me out here.

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops? With the private automobile traffic still allowed? The whole point of the people mover system is to remove automobiles that are now choking access to LAX. So no more rental car shuttles - take the people mover to the consolidated rental car terminal. Encourage people and make it easy to get to LAX by public transportation - fewer automobiles. Such a project requires grade separation - i.e. bridges, elevated structures, totally unhindered access for optimal speed and no obstacles.

spinotter wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

You should have been lobbying when the APM was being designed. It sounds reasonable to me. The following web page says that such a system might be only 50-75% as costly as a tracked system. I wonder if there are issues of thoughput. The web page says up to 5000 pph - is that enough?

https://www.2getthere.eu/automated-people-movers/

Beechtobus wrote:

This (and the Crenshaw Line) can’t open soon enough and hopefully bring an end to the abysmal task of getting into/out of LAX via World Way. Thrilled that a 1/2 mile Uber ride, or 15 min walk to my closest metro stop will soon get me to LAX relatively quickly and traffic free.

Still cannot believe that even after the people mover and the Crenshaw line opens, there will still not be a one or 2 seat for that matter, rail connection to downtown LA. I know LA is not nearly as downtown centric as most other American cities, but still, 3 trains from the airport to downtown of the USAs #2 city.

I concur. I do not understand why the green line doesn't get there. Then have it hook North, connecting two heavy rail into Union station. While I'm daydreaming, I'll want the boring company to do a new road lower loby to all the terminals (no lobby), nove a runway north, build T0 and UA's new terminal.

Oh, and a new airport for San Diego and rail to ONT from downtown. I'm not greedy.

This is a drop in the bucket. I extremely dislike 75 minute loips on OneWorld way.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Beechtobus wrote:

This (and the Crenshaw Line) can’t open soon enough and hopefully bring an end to the abysmal task of getting into/out of LAX via World Way. Thrilled that a 1/2 mile Uber ride, or 15 min walk to my closest metro stop will soon get me to LAX relatively quickly and traffic free.

Still cannot believe that even after the people mover and the Crenshaw line opens, there will still not be a one or 2 seat for that matter, rail connection to downtown LA. I know LA is not nearly as downtown centric as most other American cities, but still, 3 trains from the airport to downtown of the USAs #2 city.

I concur. I do not understand why the green line doesn't get there. Then have it hook North, connecting two heavy rail into Union station. While I'm daydreaming, I'll want the boring company to do a new road lower loby to all the terminals (no lobby), nove a runway north, build T0 and UA's new terminal.

Oh, and a new airport for San Diego and rail to ONT from downtown. I'm not greedy.

This is a drop in the bucket. I extremely dislike 75 minute loips on OneWorld way.

Lightsaber

IIRC, the train was never given direct access to the airport because of objections from the taxi companies.

WALmsp wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Beechtobus wrote:

This (and the Crenshaw Line) can’t open soon enough and hopefully bring an end to the abysmal task of getting into/out of LAX via World Way. Thrilled that a 1/2 mile Uber ride, or 15 min walk to my closest metro stop will soon get me to LAX relatively quickly and traffic free.

Still cannot believe that even after the people mover and the Crenshaw line opens, there will still not be a one or 2 seat for that matter, rail connection to downtown LA. I know LA is not nearly as downtown centric as most other American cities, but still, 3 trains from the airport to downtown of the USAs #2 city.

I concur. I do not understand why the green line doesn't get there. Then have it hook North, connecting two heavy rail into Union station. While I'm daydreaming, I'll want the boring company to do a new road lower loby to all the terminals (no lobby), nove a runway north, build T0 and UA's new terminal.

Oh, and a new airport for San Diego and rail to ONT from downtown. I'm not greedy.

This is a drop in the bucket. I extremely dislike 75 minute loips on OneWorld way.

Lightsaber

IIRC, the train was never given direct access to the airport because of objections from the taxi companies.

Just one more reason why I conscientiously refuse to take a taxi under any circumstance.

The EWR and JFK monorail systems I can't even imagine a time before them, they move so many people daily. LAX needs this. I have walked before to make a plane because of the grid lock.

Since the terminal layout can not be changed LAX has to find the best way to accommodate all the traffic, the train connection will help a little but not much. A lot of $ for little private auto traffic relief.

Too bad LAX was not laid out like ATLANTA with the parallel concourses and a Subway between concourses as well as a mass transit station in the terminal which does not require a change of trains to get downtown. DCA is similar in that regard.

Once the consolidated transportation and car rental center is complete it will bring a lot of relief, since there will not be any more car rental and hotel buses on the terminal roads.

LA has come up with a reasonable, not ideal, solution to the terminal traffic nightmare.

FF630 wrote:

Since the terminal layout can not be changed LAX has to find the best way to accommodate all the traffic, the train connection will help a little but not much. A lot of $ for little private auto traffic relief.

Too bad LAX was not laid out like ATLANTA with the parallel concourses and a Subway between concourses as well as a mass transit station in the terminal which does not require a change of trains to get downtown. DCA is similar in that regard.

With LAX being the number one O&D airport in the world, I much rather prefer the current layout with short distance between curb to gate than something like ATL.

blockski wrote:

The infrastructure doesn't cost $5.5b (the contract value is $4.9b, btw)

This is a 30-year DBFOM contract. The contractor is responsible for designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining the entire system for 30 years.

The actual construction cost was cited earlier as "nearly $2b", but the contract signed for $4.9b also covers design, financing, operations and maintenance.

Think of it like buying a house. The house is for sale for $500,000. But when you actually look at the amortization of your mortgage over 30 years, you'll be paying a lot more than just the purchase price. Let's say the house also needs a renovation, so you'll need to add in the cost of construction and design. And, of course, the long term operation and maintenance of the house over 30 years. That's what this DBFOM contract is looking at - the total cost for all of that stuff - not just the $500k purchase price of the house.

Well the O is of course a much bigger driver of the contract value than the “renovation” example ... costs a hell of a lot to operate an APM, I’d guess at the very least $25m/year. But well said. At least someone out there understands how these things work.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:


These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles.

Exactly - it's not that different to an electric articulated bus.
The advantage over a train is it can have multiple stops at the airport (given how spread out the terminals are) and is effectively at street level rather than multiple stories underground like a train would likely be.

For LAX I think it's a decent solution, although would be better it connected to an express rail solution (although given the lack of rail in LA I guess it will do)

For the new Beijing Daxing PKX which has a central concourse then multiple fingers a single train station is ideal.

PW100 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:
These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles

Yes, that's all good. I didn't know how to refer to the track system that is guiding the "train" hence I simply described it in terms of railroad tracks (or lack thereof). My bad.

The overall point is still that there are off-the shelf solutions that do not require guidance tracks (whatever they are called) and that these would surely be a cheaper solution. The costs would certainly be easier to understand and audit.

I'm probably thinking more like a refinement of the Cambridge Guided Busway.
Sixteen miles of (non-elevated) busway for a cost of £181million - whatever that is in $.
The buses themselves are standard road-going vehicles, able to leave the guided busway and travel on standard highway with a live sentient driver at the controls. In fact, I believe that is exactly what they do for some sections of the route.
I'm not suggesting these (double-decker) vehicles are appropriate for LAX, but the concept is.

The guidance system in this case is positively prehistoric technology; simple guidance wheels making physical contact with the kerb on each side. That was 10 years ago - LAX can probably improve on that today.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge ... ded_Busway

B747forever wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Since the terminal layout can not be changed LAX has to find the best way to accommodate all the traffic, the train connection will help a little but not much. A lot of $ for little private auto traffic relief.

Too bad LAX was not laid out like ATLANTA with the parallel concourses and a Subway between concourses as well as a mass transit station in the terminal which does not require a change of trains to get downtown. DCA is similar in that regard.

With LAX being the number one O&D airport in the world, I much rather prefer the current layout with short distance between curb to gate than something like ATL.

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way? APM plus Crenshaw plus Red Line to downtown LA? Pitiful. Whether they chose tracked or rubber-tire or separate autonomous vehicles for the APM under construction, it deposits you very far from where anyone wants to go.

PW100 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:


These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles.

Rubber tire?

Blech.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

PW100 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:
These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles

Yes, that's all good. I didn't know how to refer to the track system that is guiding the "train" hence I simply described it in terms of railroad tracks (or lack thereof). My bad.

The overall point is still that there are off-the shelf solutions that do not require guidance tracks (whatever they are called) and that these would surely be a cheaper solution. The costs would certainly be easier to understand and audit.

I'm probably thinking more like a refinement of the Cambridge Guided Busway.
Sixteen miles of (non-elevated) busway for a cost of £181million - whatever that is in $.
The buses themselves are standard road-going vehicles, able to leave the guided busway and travel on standard highway with a live sentient driver at the controls. In fact, I believe that is exactly what they do for some sections of the route.
I'm not suggesting these (double-decker) vehicles are appropriate for LAX, but the concept is.

The guidance system in this case is positively prehistoric technology; simple guidance wheels making physical contact with the kerb on each side. That was 10 years ago - LAX can probably improve on that today.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge ... ded_Busway

How are those buses in Cambridge powered? What is your issue with tracks? Do you conceive that a multitude of autonomous vehicles are more productive than a train of vehicles every 1.5 minutes, as on the RER A in Paris (1.2 million passengers per work day). What is your real issue? What is the matter with tracks? You want petroleum burning vehicles or what?

spinotter wrote:

B747forever wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Since the terminal layout can not be changed LAX has to find the best way to accommodate all the traffic, the train connection will help a little but not much. A lot of $ for little private auto traffic relief.

Too bad LAX was not laid out like ATLANTA with the parallel concourses and a Subway between concourses as well as a mass transit station in the terminal which does not require a change of trains to get downtown. DCA is similar in that regard.

With LAX being the number one O&D airport in the world, I much rather prefer the current layout with short distance between curb to gate than something like ATL.

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way? APM plus Crenshaw plus Red Line to downtown LA? Pitiful. Whether they chose tracked or rubber-tire or separate autonomous vehicles for the APM under construction, it deposits you very far from where anyone wants to go.

Of course it must not depend on automobile traffic, I would much rather prefer a rail connection to the airport. I was talking about the terminal layout, which guarantees short curb to gate distance. AMS with one large terminal and several concourses has quite long walks to some of the gates.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

PW100 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:
These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles

Yes, that's all good. I didn't know how to refer to the track system that is guiding the "train" hence I simply described it in terms of railroad tracks (or lack thereof). My bad.

The overall point is still that there are off-the shelf solutions that do not require guidance tracks (whatever they are called) and that these would surely be a cheaper solution. The costs would certainly be easier to understand and audit.

I'm probably thinking more like a refinement of the Cambridge Guided Busway.
Sixteen miles of (non-elevated) busway for a cost of £181million - whatever that is in $.
The buses themselves are standard road-going vehicles, able to leave the guided busway and travel on standard highway with a live sentient driver at the controls. In fact, I believe that is exactly what they do for some sections of the route.
I'm not suggesting these (double-decker) vehicles are appropriate for LAX, but the concept is.

The guidance system in this case is positively prehistoric technology; simple guidance wheels making physical contact with the kerb on each side. That was 10 years ago - LAX can probably improve on that today.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge ... ded_Busway

There are something similar in the city of Xiamen, China, but they doesn't have enough capacity, so from what I heard they're planning to upgrade the entire system to tram after it build more of its metro system to offload the traffic to

c933103 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

PW100 wrote:

Look carefully: this does not use rail road tracks:
These are rubber-tired-linked-vehicles on your concrete structure.
The centre structure (rail), is probably electric power supply to the vehicles

Yes, that's all good. I didn't know how to refer to the track system that is guiding the "train" hence I simply described it in terms of railroad tracks (or lack thereof). My bad.

The overall point is still that there are off-the shelf solutions that do not require guidance tracks (whatever they are called) and that these would surely be a cheaper solution. The costs would certainly be easier to understand and audit.

I'm probably thinking more like a refinement of the Cambridge Guided Busway.
Sixteen miles of (non-elevated) busway for a cost of £181million - whatever that is in $.
The buses themselves are standard road-going vehicles, able to leave the guided busway and travel on standard highway with a live sentient driver at the controls. In fact, I believe that is exactly what they do for some sections of the route.
I'm not suggesting these (double-decker) vehicles are appropriate for LAX, but the concept is.

The guidance system in this case is positively prehistoric technology; simple guidance wheels making physical contact with the kerb on each side. That was 10 years ago - LAX can probably improve on that today.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge ... ded_Busway

There are something similar in the city of Xiamen, China, but they doesn't have enough capacity, so from what I heard they're planning to upgrade the entire system to tram after it build more of its metro system to offload the traffic to

It is much better to build an adequate system to begin with. The cities in France which have built non-traditional mass transit systems (Nancy, Caen, Clermont-Ferrand, Ile-de-France T5 and T6) have all experienced multiple problems and Caen's system is shut down while rebuilding for a traditional steel-wheeled tramway. Busways too may sometimes be inadequate. Has anyone looked at the documents which decide on a tracked non-traditional system for the APM at LAX?

The LAX system will be a traditional APM. The vendor, Bombardier, is part of the PPP team. They will use their Innovia platform, the same APMs in use at PHX and DFW, among many others.

It’s a proprietary standard, but all APM systems are. Perfectly proven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_APM

spinotter wrote:

How are those buses in Cambridge powered? What is your issue with tracks? Do you conceive that a multitude of autonomous vehicles are more productive than a train of vehicles every 1.5 minutes, as on the RER A in Paris (1.2 million passengers per work day). What is your real issue? What is the matter with tracks? You want petroleum burning vehicles or what?

Chill out! I suspect we are on the same wavelength in reality.

The buses on the Cambridge system are diesel (I imagine) - and no, I am most definitely not proposing the same for LAX (go back to the electric golf buggy/minibus from earlier to see my preferred option)
My issue with tracks is that it provides a convenient screen for everyone to ramp up the program costs.
By sticking with technology that is familiar to us all but refined to reflect we are here in 2019, we can expose these ridiculous costs for what they are.

Yes, a multitude of autonomous vehicles could be just as productive as a train of vehicles. The air gaps between the "train" shown in the artist impression make them no more aerodynamically efficient than individual buses. The motors powering them will be no different.
You could even arrange it that the individual buses link-up in close convoy if they are all loaded and ready to depart within seconds of each other.

The efficiency of a train harks back to having one power source (e.g. a steam locomotive) and one driver (plus any associated crew).
We have moved on to a situation where electric vehicles (and trains) feature distributed power units (motors) on each axle, or indeed each individual wheel.
And the lack of drivers or crew makes individual units no less efficient than a train of units.

A train can in many circumstances prove marginally more efficient, but not necessarily more effective. With smaller units, the operating frequency will be measured in seconds; and if you miss one, the next will be already be lined up on the platform with it's doors open for you to board. For some people even 1½ minutes is an eternity.

And for all the hours when the service runs at near full capacity, there will also be hours when the train is carrying around 40 tonnes of bodywork etc, occupied by just three passengers.

During those off-peak hours, running smaller units will be more efficient.

The artitst's impression is already half way there; the train of four units is actually two twin-units coupled together. Each part of which may well operate autonomously.

Please don't see me as the enemy.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

How are those buses in Cambridge powered? What is your issue with tracks? Do you conceive that a multitude of autonomous vehicles are more productive than a train of vehicles every 1.5 minutes, as on the RER A in Paris (1.2 million passengers per work day). What is your real issue? What is the matter with tracks? You want petroleum burning vehicles or what?

Chill out! I suspect we are on the same wavelength in reality.

The buses on the Cambridge system are diesel (I imagine) - and no, I am most definitely not proposing the same for LAX (go back to the electric golf buggy/minibus from earlier to see my preferred option)
My issue with tracks is that it provides a convenient screen for everyone to ramp up the program costs.
By sticking with technology that is familiar to us all but refined to reflect we are here in 2019, we can expose these ridiculous costs for what they are.

Yes, a multitude of autonomous vehicles could be just as productive as a train of vehicles. The air gaps between the "train" shown in the artist impression make them no more aerodynamically efficient than individual buses. The motors powering them will be no different.
You could even arrange it that the individual buses link-up in close convoy if they are all loaded and ready to depart within seconds of each other.

The efficiency of a train harks back to having one power source (e.g. a steam locomotive) and one driver (plus any associated crew).
We have moved on to a situation where electric vehicles (and trains) feature distributed power units (motors) on each axle, or indeed each individual wheel.
And the lack of drivers or crew makes individual units no less efficient than a train of units.

A train can in many circumstances prove marginally more efficient, but not necessarily more effective. With smaller units, the operating frequency will be measured in seconds; and if you miss one, the next will be already be lined up on the platform with it's doors open for you to board. For some people even 1½ minutes is an eternity.

And for all the hours when the service runs at near full capacity, there will also be hours when the train is carrying around 40 tonnes of bodywork etc, occupied by just three passengers.

During those off-peak hours, running smaller units will be more efficient.

The artitst's impression is already half way there; the train of four units is actually two twin-units coupled together. Each part of which may well operate autonomously.

Please don't see me as the enemy.

You are describing a PRT system that usually cost less than other mass transit system but they also have less capacity. Even when those APM have a headway of over a minute, the capacity they can offer are still more than those PRT because of the amount of passengers it can carry within each unit.

blockski wrote:

The LAX system will be a traditional APM. The vendor, Bombardier, is part of the PPP team. They will use their Innovia platform, the same APMs in use at PHX and DFW, among many others.

It’s a proprietary standard, but all APM systems are. Perfectly proven. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_APM

Well said. It's the best realistic solution that LAX could pull off. I think it's also probably for the better that LAX is doing a people mover solution to meet rail rather than trying to contort the rail line to the airport, as BART did with SFO.

Also, while it will not be great that there won't be a direct train from the airport to downtown, Metro is planning to extend the Crenshaw Line to meet up with the Purple Line extension in Hollywood, which will probably be good for a lot of LA visitors (both business and tourists). It's still in the planning and funding study stages, but a north/south line through Mid City and Hollywood could have a huge impact beyond getting people to LAX.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

spinotter wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost, together with 400 self-driving electric cars, all pre-programmed to drive around a simple circuit.

Are you proposing that the minibus system would use the current highway infrastructure into, around, and out of the LAX terminal loops?

No.
The detail is in my original post; "How much would 2.5 miles of elevated 2-lane roadway cost...."
New highway, exclusively for use by these driverless electric minbuses.
Basically, exactly the same concrete structure as proposed for the light rail sevice, but without railroad tracks.

It ends up costing more, because the pods need passing and loading zones. If you try to run the horseshoe above current traffic then it is actually more expensive due to the mind numbing amount of utilities in that pathway for columns and the impacts to existing road traffic.

The system is a compromise, like everything. I am of the opinion that they need a more robust solution, including remote baggage check-in at the transfer points. It might scale to 80MPAX at the airport, but I don’t think it will be able to support much more than that without overloading the horseshoe again. They really need to tear down parts of the parking garages so there can be an “express” loop and a “local” loop on the upper deck, or just eliminate cars in the horseshoe altogether.

JHwk wrote:

The system is a compromise, like everything. I am of the opinion that they need a more robust solution, including remote baggage check-in at the transfer points. It might scale to 80MPAX at the airport, but I don’t think it will be able to support much more than that without overloading the horseshoe again. They really need to tear down parts of the parking garages so there can be an “express” loop and a “local” loop on the upper deck, or just eliminate cars in the horseshoe altogether.

I agree – I still think they should have nuked LAX and started from scratch when they had the chance. There's no way anyone can look at that clogged loop with tens of thousands of cars parked in the middle and say that there isn't a better way to do it. I understand the apprehension about getting rid of curb space, but I think there's a good reason why airports have gravitated toward a linear configuration in recent years (MUC, ATL, DEN, what LHR will eventually become). But it's a little late to do that now that they've already poured a few billion into making those tiny old terminals feel nice.

WALmsp wrote:

[IIRC, the train was never given direct access to the airport because of objections from the taxi companies.

Ultimately it was due cost and technical(design/construction) challenges.

While taxi lobby certainly was against rail, there simply was not the money to build it, nor was there a relatively easy and viable way to bring it into the airport without extremely extensive underground boring.
Even the FAA came out against the proposals Metro looked at as it could have dangerous effects on critical protection areas required for ILS operations at the airport.

spinotter wrote:

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way?

You cant compare Amsterdam to Los Angeles. The car is king in LA and where public transit utilized largely by the more economically challenged portion of society.
Actually even with all the building, and expansion of rail and bus networks ridership is declining to the lowest level in a decade ( https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html )

Today(2018) 87.1% of passengers arrived at the airport in automobiles (includes Uber/Lyft). Mere 6.4% utilized public bus, taxi, or other shared services. (remaining percentage were largely hotel, car rental courtesy shuttles).

LAXintl wrote:

spinotter wrote:

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way?

You cant compare Amsterdam to Los Angeles. The car is king in LA and where public transit utilized largely by the more economically challenged portion of society.
Actually even with all the building, and expansion of rail and bus networks ridership is declining to the lowest level in a decade ( https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html )

Today(2018) 87.1% of passengers arrived at the airport in automobiles (includes Uber/Lyft). Mere 6.4% utilized public bus, taxi, or other shared services. (remaining percentage were largely hotel, car rental courtesy shuttles).

The thing is that you can change that paradigm. Build a denser city and the transportation and infrastructure to support it, and a city can transform pretty quickly.

Los Angeles will never be as dense as Amsterdam or any other dense European city – the entire region is 450 square miles! That's not a fair comparison. But the LA region could definitely become more like its neighbor to the north. The Bay Area is still very auto-dependent, and we need to build more transit and housing up here too, but it's dense enough and already has good enough transportation that it's realistic for a decent amount of people to commute using it and/or also use it for the occasional trip (shopping in the city on the weekend, getting to the airport) even if people still own and occasionally use cars.

The entire state is in a housing shortage, and a lot of that is due to existing legislation at the state level. However, I think LA is doing a pretty good job already of changing its land use and building rail transit to support a denser city.

Also, with regards to declining transit ridership, a lot of that is due to the rise of rideshare companies, though it's very well documented that Uber and Lyft fares are heavily subsidized by their venture capital backing. Now that those same angel investors are looking for the exit door, Uber and Lyft are being forced into going public. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Uber and Lyft stay in business long term as publicly traded companies without substantially increasing fares or fully replacing their workforce with automation, and that so far hasn't panned out.

LAXintl wrote:

WALmsp wrote:

[IIRC, the train was never given direct access to the airport because of objections from the taxi companies.

Ultimately it was due cost and technical(design/construction) challenges.

While taxi lobby certainly was against rail, there simply was not the money to build it, nor was there a relatively easy and viable way to bring it into the airport without extremely extensive underground boring.
Even the FAA came out against the proposals Metro looked at as it could have dangerous effects on critical protection areas required for ILS operations at the airport.

spinotter wrote:

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way?

You cant compare Amsterdam to Los Angeles. The car is king in LA and where public transit utilized largely by the more economically challenged portion of society.
Actually even with all the building, and expansion of rail and bus networks ridership is declining to the lowest level in a decade ( https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html )

Today(2018) 87.1% of passengers arrived at the airport in automobiles (includes Uber/Lyft). Mere 6.4% utilized public bus, taxi, or other shared services. (remaining percentage were largely hotel, car rental courtesy shuttles).

Interesting stats on passenger arrival modes...I wondered about that, thanks. I'm at LAX monthly and always ask my Uber drivers what they know about it. A few mentioned that taxis and Uber/Lyft will not be allowed at terminals but only at the new transit station on Aviation Blvd at Arbor Vitae St. Meaning passenger cars only at terminals in horseshoe. Is that true? Either way, getting those slow lumbering giants (hotel/rental car buses) outta there will be huge.

Seems like such a huge expense for what will be utilized by a small percentage of LAX passengers.

intotheair wrote:

But the LA region could definitely become more like its neighbor to the north. The Bay Area is still very auto-dependent, and we need to build more transit and housing up here too, but it's dense enough and already has good enough transportation that it's realistic for a decent amount of people to commute using it

But as already mentioned, the major difference there is that Greater L.A. is nowhere remotely near as downtown-focused (or centralized at all) as SFO and most other major metros of its ilk.

That's going to toss in quite a bit of complexity into such transit to a degree that other metros may not have to face; particularly taking into effect the cost to implement such, in a city that's already so far behind.

LA already has the nations largest bus transit system, yet its largely irrelevant for the bulk of the population as the county is larger than some states. Add in adjacent counties like OC, Ventura, etc which make up greater L.A basin and there is zero chance public transit will be something viable for anything more than a sliver of the population.

I also agree, seems to be a hugely expensive project that will serve only a small portion of LAX passengers. Far majority will still come and go as they do today in their own cars.

LAX772LR wrote:

intotheair wrote:

But the LA region could definitely become more like its neighbor to the north. The Bay Area is still very auto-dependent, and we need to build more transit and housing up here too, but it's dense enough and already has good enough transportation that it's realistic for a decent amount of people to commute using it

But as already mentioned, the major difference there is that Greater L.A. is nowhere remotely near as downtown-focused (or centralized at all) as SFO and most other major metros of its ilk.

That's going to toss in quite a bit of complexity into such transit to a degree that other metros may not have to face; particularly taking into effect the cost to implement such, in a city that's already so far behind.

Oh yes. But LA is already doing the right thing by identifying the corridors that are best for greater density and building rail infrastructure through them. Also, it's amazing how much high density development is either currently under construction or proposed/planned for DTLA. It won't be the central hub that San Francisco is to the Bay Area, but again, LA is moving in the right direction. There isn't much room left to keep building outward into low density development unless if Palmdale/Tejon Ranch is your kind of place. If that's the case, then I hope your insurer covers fire damage.

The momentum to build more density and transportation in LA should be applauded when you look at how hostile the rest of the state is at doing anything to address California's housing shortage and transportation issues.

intotheair wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

spinotter wrote:

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way?

You cant compare Amsterdam to Los Angeles. The car is king in LA and where public transit utilized largely by the more economically challenged portion of society.
Actually even with all the building, and expansion of rail and bus networks ridership is declining to the lowest level in a decade ( https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html )

Today(2018) 87.1% of passengers arrived at the airport in automobiles (includes Uber/Lyft). Mere 6.4% utilized public bus, taxi, or other shared services. (remaining percentage were largely hotel, car rental courtesy shuttles).

The thing is that you can change that paradigm. Build a denser city and the transportation and infrastructure to support it, and a city can transform pretty quickly.

Los Angeles will never be as dense as Amsterdam or any other dense European city – the entire region is 450 square miles! That's not a fair comparison. But the LA region could definitely become more like its neighbor to the north. The Bay Area is still very auto-dependent, and we need to build more transit and housing up here too, but it's dense enough and already has good enough transportation that it's realistic for a decent amount of people to commute using it and/or also use it for the occasional trip (shopping in the city on the weekend, getting to the airport) even if people still own and occasionally use cars.

The entire state is in a housing shortage, and a lot of that is due to existing legislation at the state level. However, I think LA is doing a pretty good job already of changing its land use and building rail transit to support a denser city.

Also, with regards to declining transit ridership, a lot of that is due to the rise of rideshare companies, though it's very well documented that Uber and Lyft fares are heavily subsidized by their venture capital backing. Now that those same angel investors are looking for the exit door, Uber and Lyft are being forced into going public. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Uber and Lyft stay in business long term as publicly traded companies without substantially increasing fares or fully replacing their workforce with automation, and that so far hasn't panned out.

Except that people don’t want public transportion and aren’t going to use it unless they have to. The very liberal LA Times did a story a year or two ago critical of the tens of billions the region was spending on expanding the system, and sharing statistics that showed that nearly 90% of Southland residents said they would not use the system if they had access to a car (the Opinion Page editors did not share this view).

Nationally, except NYC, Americans reject public transportion, with usage declining since the Great Recession. Denver committed to building one of the most compressive public transportion systems in the country, and yet it’s been a total bust, with ridership levels less than a fifth of the initial most conservative estimates ... despite the region’s population growing faster than anticipated. Places like Minneapolis and Las Vegas have seen similar results.

Americans don’t want public transportion and that’s not going to change in our lifetimes. I’ll never understand a.net’s obsession with it...

I think LAWA is well aware that any APM and the Intermodal Transit Facility will only be able to serve a small portion of potential travelers and transport modal shift is not something that will occur in LA basin in the short term.

To this end, as part of all the ongoing airport modernization projects, LAWA is also increasing its vehicle parking capacity 57% by 2022.

The LAX people mover will be of great benefit for me, and passengers like me who arrives at LAX and waits for the rental car bus. Hopefully our bus that blocks the road at many terminals will also benefit the rest of people traveling to and from LAX.

intotheair wrote:

The momentum to build more density and transportation in LA should be applauded when you look at how hostile the rest of the state is at doing anything to address California's housing shortage and transportation issues.

I actually believes that LA will be the city that will embrace automated cars in a way that will revolutionize mass transit. The congestion will be greatly reduced.

janders wrote:

Seems like such a huge expense for what will be utilized by a small percentage of LAX passengers.

While I understand your point, I think it is not a (fully) correct way to look a these things, and judge such investment.
Since all hotel, car rental vans and taxis will no longer be using the horse shoe roads, regular LAX passenger are set also to benefit from this investment. So it is understandable that they will also share in the cost of this infrastructure. While they may not be using it, they will profit from the investment results.

PW100 wrote:

janders wrote:

Seems like such a huge expense for what will be utilized by a small percentage of LAX passengers.

While I understand your point, I think it is not a (fully) correct way to look a these things, and judge such investment.
Since all hotel, car rental vans and taxis will no longer be using the horse shoe roads, regular LAX passenger are set also to benefit from this investment. So it is understandable that they will also share in the cost of this infrastructure. While they may not be using it, they will profit from the investment results.

I agree with your reasoning that this will benefit all passengers, even regular cars when all the shuttle bus disappear.

spinotter wrote:

B747forever wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Since the terminal layout can not be changed LAX has to find the best way to accommodate all the traffic, the train connection will help a little but not much. A lot of $ for little private auto traffic relief.

Too bad LAX was not laid out like ATLANTA with the parallel concourses and a Subway between concourses as well as a mass transit station in the terminal which does not require a change of trains to get downtown. DCA is similar in that regard.

With LAX being the number one O&D airport in the world, I much rather prefer the current layout with short distance between curb to gate than something like ATL.

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way? APM plus Crenshaw plus Red Line to downtown LA? Pitiful. Whether they chose tracked or rubber-tire or separate autonomous vehicles for the APM under construction, it deposits you very far from where anyone wants to go.

Because the passengers come from a 200 mile radius around LAX how are they all going to get on the train?

32andBelow wrote:

spinotter wrote:

B747forever wrote:

With LAX being the number one O&D airport in the world, I much rather prefer the current layout with short distance between curb to gate than something like ATL.

But O&D does not have to depend upon private automobile traffic. Look at Schiphol, What percentage of passengers arrive by rail as opposed to all other forms of transit? So why couldn't LAX be the same way? APM plus Crenshaw plus Red Line to downtown LA? Pitiful. Whether they chose tracked or rubber-tire or separate autonomous vehicles for the APM under construction, it deposits you very far from where anyone wants to go.

Because the passengers come from a 200 mile radius around LAX how are they all going to get on the train?

The APM is not just for people connecting from the Metro. It leaves from the new designated rideshare drop off station and the consolidated rental car facility. Basically, anyone connecting from the metro, ride share passengers, and car renters will have no option but to ride the APM.