ua900 wrote:

One question for those in the know, the future APM seems to be landside. If so, why? Wouldn't it have been faster and cheaper to simply equip these endless tunnels from T-6 to TBIT with moving walkways? I mean the escalators at T-4 are still just one way, anyone else needs to wait for an elevator or use stairs. Little fixes like that could make the whole experience better. No more need for those dumb golf cart derivatives with their arbitrary availability.

The purpose of the APM isn’t to make movement within the terminal area easier, it’s to improve ground acccess to the terminals.

Rental cars will be moved out to a consolidated rental car center connected to the APM, thereby eliminating the need for car rental shuttles on the terminal roadways. The APM will have access to additional parking, thereby providing more options to avoid the congested area. It will also connect to the new light rail line currently under construction, offering a true connection to LA's expanding transit network.

I’d like to see Uber/lyft and taxis be routed to the APM for free and be charged to access the inner ring.

nine4nine wrote:

I fly from LAX quite frequently. I dont find it poor at all. I actually think it’s quite efficient. You don’t get long take off lines like you do at JFK, BOS, EWR and many other airports due to the placement of terminals adjacent the north/south complexes. I do think that the new air train connecting all the terminals will be a huge and much needed add that should have been done long ago.

Same here. As an O&D traveler out of LAX, the airport terminal design is great. The only people complaining are those who have to transfer terminals, and even that is not too bad if you have ample connecting time. I had to transfer twice through LAX recently and it was still fine.

The traffic situation is the worst part, and I cannot even begin to imagine the TSA situation in the TBT when mid-field opens. Even the Premium line is slow (I've learned to check-in at TBT and then walk over to T4 and slip through their TSA pre-check, walk back over to TBT. I mark certain people in line at the TBT before I leave and yep, they are still in line as I head to the lounge 5-10 mins later.

ericm2031 wrote:

I think getting the people mover built and consolidated rental car facility will make a huge impact on traffic in the loop as the rental car shuttles make up a large amount of the traffic and are merging in and out of traffic at all 9 terminals.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm skeptical the APM will have noticeable impact on traffic congestion. The vast majority of vehicles entering World Way are not shuttle buses. They are personal vehicles. The L.A. region continues to grow and it's not far fetched that each shuttle bus removed from World Way will have a 1:1 replacement with another personal vehicle by 2030.

I believe World Way has two problems that remain unfixed:
1.) Not enough curb space for drop-off and pick-ups
2.) No physical segregation of stopped vehicles versus through-traffic.

Maybe in the distant future, the walk-ways to the APM station can facilitate pick-up and drop-off zones within the WW loop that parallel the East Way/West Way connectors. That would allow drop-off traffic to turn out of the loop and help keep the loop flowing.

ikramerica wrote:

As for infield congestion, there is now a body of proof that shows that Uber and Lyft create congestion. People who would otherwise take public transportation are now using rideshare out of convenience. At the airport, it’s likelythis manifests as people not taking super shuttle as much or parking at off airport sites and using their shuttles, instead clogging up the roadways with cars. LAX tried to mitigate this by sending ride share to departure level, but that has only made departure level more crowded and now people have to get to the airport earlier in order to not miss flights.

Does this body-of-proof consist of actual studies or are we just talking an anecdotal observation?

I'm of the opinion that Uber and Lyft are just substituting one personal vehicle (friend, family) for another (ride share driver). To this day, Uber and Lyft still appeal to a demographic niche that wouldn't necessarily take Super Shuttle or use remote parking. The fact that ride share companies brand their vehicles with an Uber sticker or Lyft light makes the situation prone to confirmation bias. You would think nothing of a minivan with a stick-figure family sticker, but a sedan with an Uber sticker just reinforces what you already believed.

tcaeyx wrote:

LAX could've gone the way of having multiple satellite concourses on the west side of the property as in this picture: https://imgur.com/a/CaCYV, but obviously this never panned out.

I believe this will have to happen at some point in the 2030s-2040s.

Uber and Lyft are killing SuperShuttle and their ilk, so for each blue bus you used to see, now you have 4-8 additional cars.

There aren't enough lanes in the horseshoe for it to work efficiently. The only thing that will have an impact is congestion charges for the loop, and a free alternative with the intermodal transit center (and metro station). My only concern convenience from the APM station to each terminal for both Departures and Arrivals. It will be a long walk, and if it isn't central to the terminal design, you are going to end up with low utilization.

CTA traffic volumes have increase 20% since 2013 with hourly vehicle volume peaking about 7,000. However pax volume has increased faster (27%) so there has been increased use of shared or public transportation.

As of mid 2017, TNC (Uber/Lyft) accounts for 15,000 vehicles to CTA daily; 5.4 million annually. The biggest change in modes of transportation with TNC ops at LAX which began in 2015 are taxis, which saw over 40% reduction in number of LAX origin trips. TNCs have also led to decline in parking revenue and are also impacting airport car-rental revenues.

LAXintl - so with the decline in parking revenue any chance a few bays of the parking garages can come down on either side of the horseshoe?

CTA lots need every space they have and are often full for hours at a time during summer months.

The cheaper remote lots are seeing lower occupancy, and near 2,000 spots have already been taken out of inventory in the last 6-months, though about half will be back once some construction projects wrap up.

United tried that "send people to SFO" thing. Didn't work. UA went from #1 to #3 at LAX.

UA has now reversed course.

With AA, DL, UA each able to do 250 or more flights daily, things will change. Somewhat. But anyone trying to compete with direct flights from LAX by sending people to any other airport will lose. Badly

First you have to realize that LAX is not very big in terms of acreage. Yet the amount of capacity, flights, and passengers handled is impressive. Especially with very few delays.

I was born and raised in LA. LAX is my home airport. Apart from the access (only road), it's honestly not that bad. Sure, the terminals are a bit small, but they've been recently renovated, and unless you're flying during the holidays, they do the job fine. But then again, any airport is a zoo during the holidays.

With the proposed Terminal 0 and Terminal 9, LAX will have a lot of nice gate space to use. The APM will help alleviate some of the roadside traffic, but remember, LA is used to traffic and no significant rail links. It'll never be eliminated--that's almost impossible, but if it can be managed, great.

I currently live in New York City. Manhattan to be exact. Yeah, LGA, EWR, and JFK can be reached by rail. The airports suck. If you think LAX's terminals are cramped, wait until you use LGA. EWR is expensive by rail and the trains are unreliable. EWR and JFK require you go through Penn Station, which is a nightmare. Airtrain is $5. For that stupid train. LAX's APM will be free from what it seems. LAX is a dream compared to the NYC airports.

For as much as people like to complain, LAX is a very well run and decently nice airport to use. I've been using it most of my life, from the days of the old TBIT and unremodeled terminals to the new vision we have for 2018. Short of building a completely new airport in the middle of the desert (which is a whole different set of issues), LAX is doing the best it can.

I doubt the APM will actually reduce congestion. Banning buses might actually help things, and the APM enables that. But new cars will expand to fill the void. Like other roads, the only way to consistently reduce congestion is to tax it with a toll.

What he APM does do, however, is provide an option. Passengers will be able to get dropped off at either of the Intermodal facilities. They’ll be able to come via transit, too.

Once they have a viable alternative available, then LAWA can twist the knobs on other traffic management techniques, including price. Jacking up prices for parking inside the CTA could really reduce demand there, while also pushing more traffic to the APM system. Price the new remote parking attractively and watch the traffic flip.

brian415 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

I mean, when you compare it to SFO or the new york catastrophe then yes, it is better. But I disagree that it is a good airport. TBIT is nice on its own, but the rest of the terminals are cramped and still fairly dumpy.

SFO is a world class facility that beats LAX by a mile! The runways have similar problems at both, since lateral separation is 700 to 750-ish feet.

The only problem with SFO is flow control. If that problem were solved (via floating runways or technology), carriers would flock to SFO and LAX would lose out. SFO is not hemmed in the way LAX is.

SFO has done a nice job with its terminals — International, T2 and T3. T1 will also be nice when it’s completed and the T2-T3 airside connector will be an appreciated addition.

I don’t mind connecting at LAX as long as it’s with the same airline... and I actually don’t mind connecting domestic to international (and vice versa) as long as I have plenty of time — I kind if like that walk outside.

There’s also something with the vibe of landing after an international long haul at LAX... kind of a vibe... vs SFO. I know, airports are airports... not sure what it is.

A few questions:

1. Which airline/s are going into MSC?
2. What kind of progress is DL making on T2/3? On schedule? It was a mess a couple of months ago and seems like it will be for another three years... and by the time they’re done they’ll be busting at the seams!
3. Are there any plans for the iconic theme building?

If you're relying on Airways for aviation journalism, can't help you.

brian415 wrote:

LAX's poor terminal layout means that they will always be playing catch-up with international gateway brethren.

https://airwaysmag.com/airports/one-year-groundbreaking-midfield-satellite-concourse-taking-shape-west-tom-bradley-international-terminal/

Does this actually fit in with the airport's long-term master plan? Or is it simply a stopgap measure to thwart carrier defection to other gateways?

LAXintl wrote:

CTA traffic volumes have increase 20% since 2013 with hourly vehicle volume peaking about 7,000. However pax volume has increased faster (27%) so there has been increased use of shared or public transportation.

As of mid 2017, TNC (Uber/Lyft) accounts for 15,000 vehicles to CTA daily; 5.4 million annually. The biggest change in modes of transportation with TNC ops at LAX which began in 2015 are taxis, which saw over 40% reduction in number of LAX origin trips. TNCs have also led to decline in parking revenue and are also impacting airport car-rental revenues.

Has O&D traffic increased 27%?

Taxis operate differently at LAX than ride share. They don’t have the traffic clogging impact due to being regulated and controlled. Ride share is like everyone having a “friend” drop them off and pick them up except the friend is always available and willing to even pick you up just to take you to your hotel because you don’t want to share a shuttle bus and would rather pay a few bucks to avoid that. But all that selfish convenience leads to traffic for the whole.

The decline in remote parking use is also a good indicator of a switch to ride share use by those drivers. Rather than go through the hassle of parking remotely and taking a shuttle, they pay LESS (depending on trip duration) to take an Uber to and from the airport. LAX was barely designed for normal traffic but can’t handle the Uber/lyft traffic.

Having an Uber/lyft dropoff at the remote rental car facility would solve a lot of this. It wouldn’t even add to the time for customers as long as the trains run every two minties.

DfwRevolution wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

As for infield congestion, there is now a body of proof that shows that Uber and Lyft create congestion. People who would otherwise take public transportation are now using rideshare out of convenience. At the airport, it’s likelythis manifests as people not taking super shuttle as much or parking at off airport sites and using their shuttles, instead clogging up the roadways with cars. LAX tried to mitigate this by sending ride share to departure level, but that has only made departure level more crowded and now people have to get to the airport earlier in order to not miss flights.

Does this body-of-proof consist of actual studies or are we just talking an anecdotal observation?

I'm of the opinion that Uber and Lyft are just substituting one personal vehicle (friend, family) for another (ride share driver). To this day, Uber and Lyft still appeal to a demographic niche that wouldn't necessarily take Super Shuttle or use remote parking. The fact that ride share companies brand their vehicles with an Uber sticker or Lyft light makes the situation prone to confirmation bias. You would think nothing of a minivan with a stick-figure family sticker, but a sedan with an Uber sticker just reinforces what you already believed.

You're right - rideshares intrinsically aren't creating congestion at LAX. The problem is that LAX has mandated that pickups be done on the departure level as a means of satisfying the antiquated-yet-politically-relevant taxis. The notion that anyone is taking a rideshare to LAX versus public transportation out of convenience is utter ludicrous. The issue of congestion on World Way has to do with overall LA-area reliance on cars coupled with a dramatic increase in airport passenger throughput and the introduction of rideshare pickups on the departure level.

ikramerica wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

CTA traffic volumes have increase 20% since 2013 with hourly vehicle volume peaking about 7,000. However pax volume has increased faster (27%) so there has been increased use of shared or public transportation.

As of mid 2017, TNC (Uber/Lyft) accounts for 15,000 vehicles to CTA daily; 5.4 million annually. The biggest change in modes of transportation with TNC ops at LAX which began in 2015 are taxis, which saw over 40% reduction in number of LAX origin trips. TNCs have also led to decline in parking revenue and are also impacting airport car-rental revenues.

Has O&D traffic increased 27%?

Taxis operate differently at LAX than ride share. They don’t have the traffic clogging impact due to being regulated and controlled. Ride share is like everyone having a “friend” drop them off and pick them up except the friend is always available and willing to even pick you up just to take you to your hotel because you don’t want to share a shuttle bus and would rather pay a few bucks to avoid that. But all that selfish convenience leads to traffic for the whole.

The decline in remote parking use is also a good indicator of a switch to ride share use by those drivers. Rather than go through the hassle of parking remotely and taking a shuttle, they pay LESS (depending on trip duration) to take an Uber to and from the airport. LAX was barely designed for normal traffic but can’t handle the Uber/lyft traffic.

Having an Uber/lyft dropoff at the remote rental car facility would solve a lot of this. It wouldn’t even add to the time for customers as long as the trains run every two minties.

You continue to speak ill of ridesharing as if it is the plague, but honestly you're neglecting to acknowledge two massive things impacting the level of congestion on World Way in the last few years. The first of all is the incredible increase in passenger throughput with zero increase or change in O&D facilities. No road expansions. No traffic channeling changes. Nothing. Nada. The second is the agreement that all rideshare pickups are done on the departure level of World Way. Ever notice how infinitely easier is to just be dropped off at LAX by anyone - a friend, Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. - on the arrivals level? Why? Because taxis and shuttles are granted exclusive rights to the arrivals level. I always request my rideshare use the arrivals level because the departures is a simmering or boiling hot mess.

The whole reason behind dedicated arrivals and departures levels is that the two functions are separated and allow for a greater throughput; LAX has violated that very basic tenent by requiring all rideshare pickups be done on the departures level. It's a mess of LAWA's own making.

"LAX wasn't built for connections" and "only about 25% traffic is connecting".
Yeah, but that means that the absolute number of connections is probably above 20 million, which is a big number. That's a huge inconvenience for a lot of people. And heaven help you if you want to travel between terminals - it's getting better but still poor relative to many other airports.

A bit off topic but does anyone know why the satellite terminals on the West side of the airport exist? They feel very strange. They are incredibly inefficient in keeping space, they are tiny, and actually rarely used.

ikramerica wrote:

As for infield congestion, there is now a body of proof that shows that Uber and Lyft create congestion. People who would otherwise take public transportation are now using rideshare out of convenience. At the airport, it’s likelythis manifests as people not taking super shuttle as much or parking at off airport sites and using their shuttles, instead clogging up the roadways with cars. LAX tried to mitigate this by sending ride share to departure level, but that has only made departure level more crowded and now people have to get to the airport earlier in order to not miss flights.

Does this body-of-proof consist of actual studies or are we just talking an anecdotal observation?

questions wrote:

3. Are there any plans for the iconic theme building?

Its available for lease if you have a restaurant look for a home.

JRL3289 wrote:

The whole reason behind dedicated arrivals and departures levels is that the two functions are separated and allow for a greater throughput; LAX has violated that very basic tenent by requiring all rideshare pickups be done on the departures level. It's a mess of LAWA's own making.

I don't have time to post oodles of stats and traffic studies, but segregating traffic between lower and upper levels has reduced CTA traffic counts.

For instance by placing hotel shuttles only on arrivals levels and private parking shuttles on upper level several thousand trips per day have been eliminated as shuttles dont need to drop off upstairs, then circle around and enter CTA to pick up again on lower level. They now simply do their loop on the single level and leave the CTA.

For TNCs, the same concept works as they can drop off a client in T-1 for example, and immediately pick up a ride in T-2. Both Uber and Lyft are working with LAWA to more timely match customers to vehicles about to arrive in the CTA to reduce need for them to leave and go off airport to only return again.

Also so one understands this new arrangement also benefits companies like the hotel and parking shuttles as they each must pay LAWA a fee for each time they circle the CTA. These commercial vehicles are transponder equipped and LAWA charges them for each loop they make, so companies are happy not to have to double trips both on upper and lower levels are previously done.

Lets not ignore the other things LAWA has acomplished - the upper roadway loop was widened and received an entire additional lane, plus other smaller changes such as additional lanes of roadway leading up to T-1 from 96th street, and additional lane off the upper level onto Sepulveda south, while intra CTA roadways such as the center-way have been reconfigured for higher traffic volume.

Chemist wrote:

"LAX wasn't built for connections" and "only about 25% traffic is connecting".
Yeah, but that means that the absolute number of connections is probably above 20 million, which is a big number. That's a huge inconvenience for a lot of people. And heaven help you if you want to travel between terminals - it's getting better but still poor relative to many other airports.

Under 10% of traffic actually connects between terminals. Vast majority of connections are under same roof to things like regional partners or markets like Hawaii.

This was the concept of the airport when it was designed, so airlines can remain in their own satellites, and craft terminals for their own needs.

speedbird52 wrote:

A bit off topic but does anyone know why the satellite terminals on the West side of the airport exist? They feel very strange. They are incredibly inefficient in keeping space, they are tiny, and actually rarely used.

The remotes? They are used daily for several dozen flights. Mostly busing ops from TBIT.

JRL3289 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

As for infield congestion, there is now a body of proof that shows that Uber and Lyft create congestion. People who would otherwise take public transportation are now using rideshare out of convenience. At the airport, it’s likelythis manifests as people not taking super shuttle as much or parking at off airport sites and using their shuttles, instead clogging up the roadways with cars. LAX tried to mitigate this by sending ride share to departure level, but that has only made departure level more crowded and now people have to get to the airport earlier in order to not miss flights.

Does this body-of-proof consist of actual studies or are we just talking an anecdotal observation?

I'm of the opinion that Uber and Lyft are just substituting one personal vehicle (friend, family) for another (ride share driver). To this day, Uber and Lyft still appeal to a demographic niche that wouldn't necessarily take Super Shuttle or use remote parking. The fact that ride share companies brand their vehicles with an Uber sticker or Lyft light makes the situation prone to confirmation bias. You would think nothing of a minivan with a stick-figure family sticker, but a sedan with an Uber sticker just reinforces what you already believed.

You're right - rideshares intrinsically aren't creating congestion at LAX. The problem is that LAX has mandated that pickups be done on the departure level as a means of satisfying the antiquated-yet-politically-relevant taxis. The notion that anyone is taking a rideshare to LAX versus public transportation out of convenience is utter ludicrous. The issue of congestion on World Way has to do with overall LA-area reliance on cars coupled with a dramatic increase in airport passenger throughput and the introduction of rideshare pickups on the departure level.

ikramerica wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

CTA traffic volumes have increase 20% since 2013 with hourly vehicle volume peaking about 7,000. However pax volume has increased faster (27%) so there has been increased use of shared or public transportation.

As of mid 2017, TNC (Uber/Lyft) accounts for 15,000 vehicles to CTA daily; 5.4 million annually. The biggest change in modes of transportation with TNC ops at LAX which began in 2015 are taxis, which saw over 40% reduction in number of LAX origin trips. TNCs have also led to decline in parking revenue and are also impacting airport car-rental revenues.

Has O&D traffic increased 27%?

Taxis operate differently at LAX than ride share. They don’t have the traffic clogging impact due to being regulated and controlled. Ride share is like everyone having a “friend” drop them off and pick them up except the friend is always available and willing to even pick you up just to take you to your hotel because you don’t want to share a shuttle bus and would rather pay a few bucks to avoid that. But all that selfish convenience leads to traffic for the whole.

The decline in remote parking use is also a good indicator of a switch to ride share use by those drivers. Rather than go through the hassle of parking remotely and taking a shuttle, they pay LESS (depending on trip duration) to take an Uber to and from the airport. LAX was barely designed for normal traffic but can’t handle the Uber/lyft traffic.

Having an Uber/lyft dropoff at the remote rental car facility would solve a lot of this. It wouldn’t even add to the time for customers as long as the trains run every two minties.

You continue to speak ill of ridesharing as if it is the plague, but honestly you're neglecting to acknowledge two massive things impacting the level of congestion on World Way in the last few years. The first of all is the incredible increase in passenger throughput with zero increase or change in O&D facilities. No road expansions. No traffic channeling changes. Nothing. Nada. The second is the agreement that all rideshare pickups are done on the departure level of World Way. Ever notice how infinitely easier is to just be dropped off at LAX by anyone - a friend, Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. - on the arrivals level? Why? Because taxis and shuttles are granted exclusive rights to the arrivals level. I always request my rideshare use the arrivals level because the departures is a simmering or boiling hot mess.

The whole reason behind dedicated arrivals and departures levels is that the two functions are separated and allow for a greater throughput; LAX has violated that very basic tenent by requiring all rideshare pickups be done on the departures level. It's a mess of LAWA's own making.

The problem is that you aren’t up on the news I guess. Large studies have been done that are finding that rideshares do create congestion and do alter the habits of people who find them more convenient than public transit.

Early 2016 studies indicated they might reduce traffic, but now more current studies conducted after the services have grown and matured show the opposite. They create trips that wouldn’t have been taken or would have instead involved public transit.

But even if you want to ignore the data, look at it this way:

Before riseshare you got to the airport these ways:
1. Drive and park in infield
2. Drive and park in remote lots
3. Take taxi
4. Take limo
5. Take supershuttle or equivalent
6. Have someone drive you
7. Take flyaway/public transit

After rideshare
8. Take rideshare

Now rideshare will not create any new passengers. What it does do is supplant some of 1-7. For some of 1-7, it’s a one to one wash. But 2,5 and 7 it adds congestion and for 4 it puts more cars in the loop rather than in the short term parking.

There is no possible way that rideshares do anything but increase congestion at LAX.

ikramerica wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Does this body-of-proof consist of actual studies or are we just talking an anecdotal observation?

I'm of the opinion that Uber and Lyft are just substituting one personal vehicle (friend, family) for another (ride share driver). To this day, Uber and Lyft still appeal to a demographic niche that wouldn't necessarily take Super Shuttle or use remote parking. The fact that ride share companies brand their vehicles with an Uber sticker or Lyft light makes the situation prone to confirmation bias. You would think nothing of a minivan with a stick-figure family sticker, but a sedan with an Uber sticker just reinforces what you already believed.

You're right - rideshares intrinsically aren't creating congestion at LAX. The problem is that LAX has mandated that pickups be done on the departure level as a means of satisfying the antiquated-yet-politically-relevant taxis. The notion that anyone is taking a rideshare to LAX versus public transportation out of convenience is utter ludicrous. The issue of congestion on World Way has to do with overall LA-area reliance on cars coupled with a dramatic increase in airport passenger throughput and the introduction of rideshare pickups on the departure level.

ikramerica wrote:

Has O&D traffic increased 27%?

Taxis operate differently at LAX than ride share. They don’t have the traffic clogging impact due to being regulated and controlled. Ride share is like everyone having a “friend” drop them off and pick them up except the friend is always available and willing to even pick you up just to take you to your hotel because you don’t want to share a shuttle bus and would rather pay a few bucks to avoid that. But all that selfish convenience leads to traffic for the whole.

The decline in remote parking use is also a good indicator of a switch to ride share use by those drivers. Rather than go through the hassle of parking remotely and taking a shuttle, they pay LESS (depending on trip duration) to take an Uber to and from the airport. LAX was barely designed for normal traffic but can’t handle the Uber/lyft traffic.

Having an Uber/lyft dropoff at the remote rental car facility would solve a lot of this. It wouldn’t even add to the time for customers as long as the trains run every two minties.

You continue to speak ill of ridesharing as if it is the plague, but honestly you're neglecting to acknowledge two massive things impacting the level of congestion on World Way in the last few years. The first of all is the incredible increase in passenger throughput with zero increase or change in O&D facilities. No road expansions. No traffic channeling changes. Nothing. Nada. The second is the agreement that all rideshare pickups are done on the departure level of World Way. Ever notice how infinitely easier is to just be dropped off at LAX by anyone - a friend, Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. - on the arrivals level? Why? Because taxis and shuttles are granted exclusive rights to the arrivals level. I always request my rideshare use the arrivals level because the departures is a simmering or boiling hot mess.

The whole reason behind dedicated arrivals and departures levels is that the two functions are separated and allow for a greater throughput; LAX has violated that very basic tenent by requiring all rideshare pickups be done on the departures level. It's a mess of LAWA's own making.

The problem is that you aren’t up on the news I guess. Large studies have been done that are finding that rideshares do create congestion and do alter the habits of people who find them more convenient than public transit.

Early 2016 studies indicated they might reduce traffic, but now more current studies conducted after the services have grown and matured show the opposite. They create trips that wouldn’t have been taken or would have instead involved public transit.

But even if you want to ignore the data, look at it this way:

Before riseshare you got to the airport these ways:
1. Drive and park in infield
2. Drive and park in remote lots
3. Take taxi
4. Take limo
5. Take supershuttle or equivalent
6. Have someone drive you
7. Take flyaway/public transit

After rideshare
8. Take rideshare

Now rideshare will not create any new passengers. What it does do is supplant some of 1-7. For some of 1-7, it’s a one to one wash. But 2,5 and 7 it adds congestion and for 4 it puts more cars in the loop rather than in the short term parking.

There is no possible way that rideshares do anything but increase congestion at LAX.

How is any of that specific to LAX though? The availability of public transit at LAX (really meaning Flyaway since everything else is off-premises) has not changed since rideshares were legally allowed to pick up passengers at the airport, so I'm not sure we could argue that people who would otherwise be taking public transit have switched modes to less efficient ridesharing and are thus contributing to the congestion issue. Between 2015 and 2017, overall passenger numbers at LAX were up nearly 13%. The fact is that congestion was bound to increase within the loop regardless of the mode that was used to get there, just by virtue of LAX consolidating its position as the preferred airport for the region. My point is that it's disingenuous to look at increased congestion on World Way and attribute it wholly to ridesharing; the fact is the whole airport is overwhelmed just as many of the LA freeways are day in and day out as a result of the region's choice to prioritize personal vehicular traffic movements.

Thought I’ll share these images of the concourse and people mover.






https://twitter.com/flyLAXairport/status/968975935092400128

And renderings of the completed project (phase 1 at least):





https://urbanize.la/post/renderings-galore-lax-automated-people-mover

Renderings Galore for the LAX Automated People Mover

The 2.25-mile people mover is expected to open in 2023.






EK413

As many have stated, the World Way loop is majorly problematic. I live at the beach in Playa del Rey and avoid the Lincoln Boulevard/Sepulveda juncture because, during peak travel periods, traffic is backed up all the way out of the airport to the In and Out just before the juncture.

I grew up in NYC, and long heard my dad complaining about congestion at JFK. That was nothing compared to LAX on a peak travel day, if only based on traffic gridlock.

It will also connect to the new light rail line currently under construction, offering a true connection to LA's expanding transit network.

Ah yes, the old take-a-train-to-take-a-train solution so popular at US airports. Meanwhile, the rest of the world brings rail in-terminal and provides a one-seat ride to their respective cities.
Still an improvement over the current situation, but also a missed opportunity to do it right. A one-seat ride would significantly alter the modal split, and might just solve many of those traffic problems.

r2rho wrote:

It will also connect to the new light rail line currently under construction, offering a true connection to LA's expanding transit network.

Ah yes, the old take-a-train-to-take-a-train solution so popular at US airports. Meanwhile, the rest of the world brings rail in-terminal and provides a one-seat ride to their respective cities.
Still an improvement over the current situation, but also a missed opportunity to do it right. A one-seat ride would significantly alter the modal split, and might just solve many of those traffic problems.

There really isn't one practical location for a train to stop for most US airports focused on O&D. It works in Atlanta and a handful of other cities but it isn't practical in general. It is also insanely expensive. Specific to LAX, taking the train to the LAX station is going to require multiple seats for most people.

Even getting the APM to work at LAX is an expensive proposition, and it will likely only work well for TBIT given the walking distances for other terminals.

I just hope the APM isn't as slow as SFO's AirTrain.

I was looking at a map of TBIT earlier, and after hearing so many complaints about the size of the headhouse, security, etc.: are they planning to build it out some? Even if it costs a gate or two?

LOWS wrote:

I was looking at a map of TBIT earlier, and after hearing so many complaints about the size of the headhouse, security, etc.: are they planning to build it out some? Even if it costs a gate or two?

I've never seen TBIT security 100% open with the space they have. A precheck line and adequate staffing would do a lot right there.

LupineChemist wrote:

LOWS wrote:

I was looking at a map of TBIT earlier, and after hearing so many complaints about the size of the headhouse, security, etc.: are they planning to build it out some? Even if it costs a gate or two?

I've never seen TBIT security 100% open with the space they have. A precheck line and adequate staffing would do a lot right there.

It’s not designed for 100% open. You must account for equipment failure so staffing for only 80% open means that if equipment fails or needs service it doesn’t impact flow.

JRL3289 wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

You're right - rideshares intrinsically aren't creating congestion at LAX. The problem is that LAX has mandated that pickups be done on the departure level as a means of satisfying the antiquated-yet-politically-relevant taxis. The notion that anyone is taking a rideshare to LAX versus public transportation out of convenience is utter ludicrous. The issue of congestion on World Way has to do with overall LA-area reliance on cars coupled with a dramatic increase in airport passenger throughput and the introduction of rideshare pickups on the departure level.

You continue to speak ill of ridesharing as if it is the plague, but honestly you're neglecting to acknowledge two massive things impacting the level of congestion on World Way in the last few years. The first of all is the incredible increase in passenger throughput with zero increase or change in O&D facilities. No road expansions. No traffic channeling changes. Nothing. Nada. The second is the agreement that all rideshare pickups are done on the departure level of World Way. Ever notice how infinitely easier is to just be dropped off at LAX by anyone - a friend, Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. - on the arrivals level? Why? Because taxis and shuttles are granted exclusive rights to the arrivals level. I always request my rideshare use the arrivals level because the departures is a simmering or boiling hot mess.

The whole reason behind dedicated arrivals and departures levels is that the two functions are separated and allow for a greater throughput; LAX has violated that very basic tenent by requiring all rideshare pickups be done on the departures level. It's a mess of LAWA's own making.

The problem is that you aren’t up on the news I guess. Large studies have been done that are finding that rideshares do create congestion and do alter the habits of people who find them more convenient than public transit.

Early 2016 studies indicated they might reduce traffic, but now more current studies conducted after the services have grown and matured show the opposite. They create trips that wouldn’t have been taken or would have instead involved public transit.

But even if you want to ignore the data, look at it this way:

Before riseshare you got to the airport these ways:
1. Drive and park in infield
2. Drive and park in remote lots
3. Take taxi
4. Take limo
5. Take supershuttle or equivalent
6. Have someone drive you
7. Take flyaway/public transit

After rideshare
8. Take rideshare

Now rideshare will not create any new passengers. What it does do is supplant some of 1-7. For some of 1-7, it’s a one to one wash. But 2,5 and 7 it adds congestion and for 4 it puts more cars in the loop rather than in the short term parking.

There is no possible way that rideshares do anything but increase congestion at LAX.

How is any of that specific to LAX though? The availability of public transit at LAX (really meaning Flyaway since everything else is off-premises) has not changed since rideshares were legally allowed to pick up passengers at the airport, so I'm not sure we could argue that people who would otherwise be taking public transit have switched modes to less efficient ridesharing and are thus contributing to the congestion issue. Between 2015 and 2017, overall passenger numbers at LAX were up nearly 13%. The fact is that congestion was bound to increase within the loop regardless of the mode that was used to get there, just by virtue of LAX consolidating its position as the preferred airport for the region. My point is that it's disingenuous to look at increased congestion on World Way and attribute it wholly to ridesharing; the fact is the whole airport is overwhelmed just as many of the LA freeways are day in and day out as a result of the region's choice to prioritize personal vehicular traffic movements.

It’s not specific to LAX. But we are discussing LAX.

It’s a problem anywhere where congestion is an issue and expansion isn’t possible. It’s clogging up mid town Manhattan and central San Francisco as well, Boston too.

Does anyone have a comparison of O&D numbers in 2017 vs 2000 (pre 911)? I know LAX as a whole is has more total pax now than then (after years of lower numbers in between) but I don’t know how O&D compares.

LOWS wrote:

I was looking at a map of TBIT earlier, and after hearing so many complaints about the size of the headhouse, security, etc.: are they planning to build it out some? Even if it costs a gate or two?

Won't this help with congestion? From the rendering of TBIT, it looks like the entire front of it will be extended out.

https://archpaper.com/2018/01/lax-peopl ... terminals/

LAXLHR wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

I fly from LAX quite frequently. I dont find it poor at all. I actually think it’s quite efficient. You don’t get long take off lines like you do at JFK, BOS, EWR and many other airports due to the placement of terminals adjacent the north/south complexes. I do think that the new air train connecting all the terminals will be a huge and much needed add that should have been done long ago.

Same here. As an O&D traveler out of LAX, the airport terminal design is great. The only people complaining are those who have to transfer terminals, and even that is not too bad if you have ample connecting time. I had to transfer twice through LAX recently and it was still fine.

The traffic situation is the worst part, and I cannot even begin to imagine the TSA situation in the TBT when mid-field opens. Even the Premium line is slow (I've learned to check-in at TBT and then walk over to T4 and slip through their TSA pre-check, walk back over to TBT. I mark certain people in line at the TBT before I leave and yep, they are still in line as I head to the lounge 5-10 mins later.

I connect at LAX several times a year, usually WN(T1) to TBIT or UA (T7) or the reverse. Those are about the longest distances. Since I am usually transferring to or from long haul, I enjoy the walk. The weather is almost always nice and rarely takes much more than 10-12 minutes. I've had much more unpleasant connections staying in the same terminal at ORD, EWR, and IAH. Just avoid ground level and walk on departure level. The extra trip through TSA is the only real bother. A big bother if you are going to TBIT, but I have also discovered pre-check at T4. Coming from T1 it requires about an additional 2 minutes of walking, and in the evening (when I usually depart TBIT) the T4 line is not bad at all. In a few years T1-TBIT will all be connected airside. Already true for T8-TBIT. I think the complaints about LAX connections are way overstated. Even T1-T7 is an easy walk across the center parking lots.

atlflyer wrote:

LOWS wrote:

I was looking at a map of TBIT earlier, and after hearing so many complaints about the size of the headhouse, security, etc.: are they planning to build it out some? Even if it costs a gate or two?

Won't this help with congestion? From the rendering of TBIT, it looks like the entire front of it will be extended out.

https://archpaper.com/2018/01/lax-peopl ... terminals/

Take a look at the second picture in that article. The piece added in the front is the connection to the APM. The arrival and departure levels don't seem to change much, but a lot of traffic will be eliminated by the people now using the 3rd level to and from the APM. They need some space for the vertical transport to and from the APM. They are already adding some counters to the check-in area. I think they need even more.

I only wish they had pre-check on more international airlines to speed the TSA process. Does anyone know if that's an issue with non-US airlines or some other problem?

I had a look through various documents talking about sterile and secured - but it left me still wondering if the new concourse will allow international to international transit without going through immigration? I don't know numbers, but between East Asia/Central & South America, and Oceania/Europe/Central America there must be a reasonable number of international only connecting pax.

My experience is that LAX immigration is always hugely congested, sometimes almost to the point of being right out of space, and resulting in 45-120 minute waits (which then screw with onwards connections, domestic or international). Several times I've been on international/international connections, including once with NZ's transit card (where they were boarding the plane by the time I got back to it), and I imagine taking those people out of the queues would help congestion somewhat. They could just do security screening instead as happens in other countries. What it would require is the new concourse not to be available for domestic flights and for it to be impossible to walk back past security from.

axio wrote:

I had a look through various documents talking about sterile and secured - but it left me still wondering if the new concourse will allow international to international transit without going through immigration? I don't know numbers, but between East Asia/Central & South America, and Oceania/Europe/Central America there must be a reasonable number of international only connecting pax.

My experience is that LAX immigration is always hugely congested, sometimes almost to the point of being right out of space, and resulting in 45-120 minute waits (which then screw with onwards connections, domestic or international). Several times I've been on international/international connections, including once with NZ's transit card (where they were boarding the plane by the time I got back to it), and I imagine taking those people out of the queues would help congestion somewhat. They could just do security screening instead as happens in other countries. What it would require is the new concourse not to be available for domestic flights and for it to be impossible to walk back past security from.

AFAIK, there is no international-international transit in the United States. Everyone must clear Customs and Immigration before continuing their travels, whether it is LA as their destination, another US city or an international connection.

AAlaxfan wrote:

axio wrote:

I had a look through various documents talking about sterile and secured - but it left me still wondering if the new concourse will allow international to international transit without going through immigration? I don't know numbers, but between East Asia/Central & South America, and Oceania/Europe/Central America there must be a reasonable number of international only connecting pax.

My experience is that LAX immigration is always hugely congested, sometimes almost to the point of being right out of space, and resulting in 45-120 minute waits (which then screw with onwards connections, domestic or international). Several times I've been on international/international connections, including once with NZ's transit card (where they were boarding the plane by the time I got back to it), and I imagine taking those people out of the queues would help congestion somewhat. They could just do security screening instead as happens in other countries. What it would require is the new concourse not to be available for domestic flights and for it to be impossible to walk back past security from.

AFAIK, there is no international-international transit in the United States. Everyone must clear Customs and Immigration before continuing their travels, whether it is LA as their destination, another US city or an international connection.

To change it would take, as they say, an act of Congress. As I recall, there is no provision in the law for international to international transit without a visa/"travel authorization" or without clearing US Customs.

LOWS wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

AFAIK, there is no international-international transit in the United States. Everyone must clear Customs and Immigration before continuing their travels, whether it is LA as their destination, another US city or an international connection.

To change it would take, as they say, an act of Congress. As I recall, there is no provision in the law for international to international transit without a visa/"travel authorization" or without clearing US Customs.

Interesting. It does seem like something a major entity like LAX would be able to effect change on through elected officials if it wanted to (perhaps it'd rather not push for more traffic?).

As more and more countries are added for pre-clearance, INTL to INTL connections are possible.

axio wrote:

LOWS wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

AFAIK, there is no international-international transit in the United States. Everyone must clear Customs and Immigration before continuing their travels, whether it is LA as their destination, another US city or an international connection.

To change it would take, as they say, an act of Congress. As I recall, there is no provision in the law for international to international transit without a visa/"travel authorization" or without clearing US Customs.

Interesting. It does seem like something a major entity like LAX would be able to effect change on through elected officials if it wanted to (perhaps it'd rather not push for more traffic?).

No, this is not something an airport could easily lobby to change. Nor would the few airports that would be candidates for visa-free transit have enough sway to outweigh the US's existing visa policies.

Furthermore, even the few airports that might benefit from it aren't physically set up to enable visa-free transit, and doing so would require costly re-designs of existing facilities. Therefore, the airports that might stand to benefit from increased transit traffic aren't necessarily going to lobby for a change that would require them to spend a lot of money to realize the benefits.

If anything, current US policy is moving in the complete opposite direction. Remember, you're talking about the same country that is interested in expanding pre-clearance to foreign airports in order to prevent unwanted individuals from even boarding a plane, yet alone from transiting in the US.

There really isn't one practical location for a train to stop for most US airports focused on O&D.

How about the planned APM stops at LAX as a practical location? Couldn't just a metro train stop there instead?

It is also insanely expensive.

What specific differences are there to make it "insanely expensive" in the US, but perfectly doable in [insert most major EU & Asia airports here]. There seems to be a US-specific problematic here.

Specific to LAX, taking the train to the LAX station is going to require multiple seats for most people.

Are you implying that since people have to take multiple seats already, they won't mind taking another one? Actually the opposite is the case - ridership falls with every additional change of train. Two changes are typically the maximum people will endure. Airport pax get even more sensitive if they carry luggage. With an APM you make every trip to LAX a minimum 2-seat ride, if you're lucky. That's not a way to convince people to not use their cars and ease LAX congestion.

r2rho wrote:

There really isn't one practical location for a train to stop for most US airports focused on O&D.

How about the planned APM stops at LAX as a practical location? Couldn't just a metro train stop there instead?

It's a matter of use-case.

The APM is primarily intended to move passengers offsite to the rental car facilities and hotel shuttles. The APM will run at high-frequency with trains departing every 2 minutes. If you instead ran the Metro through the airport, the train frequencies are going to be constrained by the rail line. Metro trains typically run at 5-10 minute intervals.

You're apparently hung-up on the mass transit connection. It's a secondary benefit. If not for the consolidated rental car facility and (projected) shuttle bus traffic elimination, they would never justify the APM construction on mass transit connectivity alone. L.A. is a massive region that is not well-served by mass transit or inter-city rail. Personal vehicle is by far the dominant mode of transportation.

r2rho wrote:

Are you implying that since people have to take multiple seats already, they won't mind taking another one? Actually the opposite is the case - ridership falls with every additional change of train. Two changes are typically the maximum people will endure. Airport pax get even more sensitive if they carry luggage. With an APM you make every trip to LAX a minimum 2-seat ride, if you're lucky. That's not a way to convince people to not use their cars and ease LAX congestion.

The vast majority of APM passengers aren't going to take a 2-seat ride. They will take a 1-seat ride to their rental car or hotel shuttle.

Per the APM project documents only 12 percent of projected users are estimated to connect to MTA bus or rail service, and of those far majority will be employees as experienced today with the MTA Green line connection.

APM is first and foremost about connecting to the consolidated rental car facility and other shuttles and as a secondary meet and great point for private vehicles.

Besides much higher cost another reason for not connecting metro directly to the airport is safety. Look at places like ATL and ORD where homeless flock to the airport and hang out in terminals. Both unsightly and increasing petty crime at the airport.
APMs are considered private property so law enforcement can better control access.

r2rho wrote:

[
What specific differences are there to make it "insanely expensive" in the US, but perfectly doable in [insert most major EU & Asia airports here]. There seems to be a US-specific problematic here.

For starters, entire terminals would need to be physically redesigned. Today nothing stops you from walking out of any terminal departure area. To allow for Intl-Intl you would need installation immigration controls (and the staff and money).
Also since bulk of terminals deal with domestic flights (as TBIT does also) how do you mix domestic passenger with international transits?

You're apparently hung-up on the mass transit connection. It's a secondary benefit. If not for the consolidated rental car facility and (projected) shuttle bus traffic elimination, they would never justify the APM construction on mass transit connectivity alone. L.A. is a massive region that is not well-served by mass transit or inter-city rail. Personal vehicle is by far the dominant mode of transportation.

Per the APM project documents only 12 percent of projected users are estimated to connect to MTA bus or rail service [...]
The APM is primarily intended to move passengers offsite to the rental car facilities and hotel shuttles.

You're right that I'm hung up on the mass transit connection, but only because I know LA and the dominance of the personal vehicle there, and I would see a mass transit connection to LAX as a first step to change things a little bit. Many more steps would be needed after that, but you gotta start somewhere. The 12% projection for MTA passengers only further underscores that a minimum 2-seat ride is an unattractive proposition, and won't make many people shift to mass transit.

entire terminals would need to be physically redesigned. Today nothing stops you from walking out of any terminal departure area. To allow for Intl-Intl you would need installation immigration controls (and the staff and money).

I think you are misquoting here, I never suggested Intl-Intl connections. Regardless, some terminals could very well use a physical redesign anyway. And there are smart ways to separate flows and use a same terminal for both domestic and intl flights depending on demand, like for example the flexible use gates at FRA pier A or AMS pier D.

I connected at LAX from my international long range flight to us domestic (AA) the other day and it was smooth and fast. First plenty of immigration "machines" for fast border inspection and afterwards some nice "private" TSA site without lines and finally not too much walking distance to my gate. I cannot complain. BTW: I have made similar good experiences at Atlanta.

r2rho wrote:

You're apparently hung-up on the mass transit connection. It's a secondary benefit. If not for the consolidated rental car facility and (projected) shuttle bus traffic elimination, they would never justify the APM construction on mass transit connectivity alone. L.A. is a massive region that is not well-served by mass transit or inter-city rail. Personal vehicle is by far the dominant mode of transportation.

Per the APM project documents only 12 percent of projected users are estimated to connect to MTA bus or rail service [...]
The APM is primarily intended to move passengers offsite to the rental car facilities and hotel shuttles.

You're right that I'm hung up on the mass transit connection, but only because I know LA and the dominance of the personal vehicle there, and I would see a mass transit connection to LAX as a first step to change things a little bit. Many more steps would be needed after that, but you gotta start somewhere. The 12% projection for MTA passengers only further underscores that a minimum 2-seat ride is an unattractive proposition, and won't make many people shift to mass transit.

The nature of LAX's layout still means a 2-seat ride in all likelihood - or a pretty long walk. It's 1/3 of a mile as the crow flies from the Theme Building to the TBIT curbside. And LAX needs the people mover anyway for all of the reasons stated (CONRAC, remote parking, elimination of shuttles, etc).

The other issue is the transit planning itself. Re-routing the Crenshaw Line currently under construction to have an underground station somewhere in the Central Terminal Area would not only be quite expensive, it is also a really big detour for the Crenshaw line - it would have to head to the NW under the airport and then make a hard right turn to follow the corridor to the NE.

The long-term opportunity is LA Metro's Sepulveda Pass project extension from Westwood to LAX - but that's still 25-30 years away.

You won't see significant Metro to APM transfer at LAX until the Crenshaw line makes it far north enough to connect with Wilshire (purple) line and Hollywood (red) line.

The current issue with LA's metro rail system is the lack of N-S line connecting the existing (and very well used) E-W rail lines. We have 4 E-W lines in the LA basin: Hollywood (red), Wilshire (purple), Expo (light blue), and Imperial (green) lines; but only 1 N-S line in the basin: Long Beach (blue) that is too far east for connection to LAX.

Crenshaw line will be the first N-S line that connects to mid city and Expo line which will help. But the potential for the APM to metro connection won't be realized until Crenshaw is connect to Wilshire and Hollywood line, and a second N-S line (Sepulveda) makes its way to LAX.