LAist: Train to LAX Getting Closer, Metro Doesn't Want It

Ross A. Lincoln

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:05:03 -0800

*yes, I just wrote "expensivest." Take that, standardized lenguages!

Ross A. Lincoln

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:56:23 -0800

The red line is 100% underground. The blue line spends a very small period under ground. So, why wasn't it considered a possibility to dig a tunnel on the way TO LAX and have an underground station? (Money aside I mean. I'm talking non financial logistics.) It seems to me that the simplest, though expensivest* solution to the FAA objections would be going to subway for Airport use. I say this knowing how unsimple this stuff is. Even so, 2025 is ridiculous.

Kymberleigh

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:29:52 -0800

I always love seeing people who say the Green Line to LAX "should have been done in the first place" as if there was some deficiency in the thought process. With even the smallest amount of research, one can discover that the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (one of the two predecessor agencies to today's Metro) originally intended the Green Line to operate to the transit center on 96th St. just east of LAX, but other agencies got in the way. Notably, the FAA claimed that the overhead power wires would pose a hazard to aircraft on approach to runways, even though those wires would be not much higher off the ground than the rail vehicles! It is a testament to LACTC's desire to have the LAX connection that, even after they acquiesced to the pressure and realigned the Green Line to El Segundo, they left in the branch foundation just west of Aviation Station in the hopes that it would still go to the airport someday. The problem with a Green Line construction authority is that -- unlike the authority that built the Gold Line to Pasadena or the one that is presently constructing the Expo Line -- the Green Line is not in line yet for [b]any[/b] funding and therefore Metro is right in saying it would place the project in competition with the rest of the projects in the region which already have designs ready to go. Much as I like Jenny Oropeza, she is putting the cart before the horse, just as the bill that was introduced (and failed) last year did. Before we create a new layer of bureaucracy over this worthwhile project, we need to make sure it is included in the Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (for which the comment period ends next week), and ranked high enough that it becomes eligible for funds. It is the LRTP that the state and federal funding authorities look at when they are deciding what gets the money.

Zach Behrens

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:16:31 -0800

It's definitely a tough decision when understanding the current fiscal crisis. However, as Metro said in a recent statement, it's time to take fumes off the road:data compiled by the California Air Resources Board estimates that more than 1,200 residents of Southern California die prematurely every year due to the effects of particulate matter and ozone pollution generated from goods movement activities and that over 80 percent of Californians who are exposed to dangerous levels of diesel emissions reside in these five Southern California counties.

Khaneric

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:05:38 -0800

Green line to LAX today... should have been done in the first place. Honestly they have been talking about the LAX upgrades and the Crenshaw line for a while and it's all not going to be done until at least 2025... As much as i really think Metro needs to focus on the future, this is one area that needs to be fixed today.