LAist: Comment of the Week: This is Why There's No LAX Train

Kymberleigh

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:11:02 -0800

For the record, I am not taking any position on an eastern extension of the Green Line to the Amtrak/Metrolink station in Norwalk. I am saying that the LAX extension needs to be in the Long Range Transportation Plan if it is ever to be constructed, and that absent that critical step, it does not matter what Ms. Oropeza or any other legislator proposes. Thanks, Zach, for breaking out my comment on the earlier article.

Zach Behrens

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:28:17 -0800

metroist, you may know better than me, but I believe I heard that at least one proposal for the extension woul be a distributor train from the aviation station that would hit each terminal.

metroist

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:39:35 -0800

As much as I admire Ms. Richards' efforts, there is no justification for a Green Line to LAX. Whether the line stops at the LAX bus terminal, or at the Aviation station, you'll still need to hop a shuttle to get to the terminals. Why spend half a billion dollars for no gain? Even if the line was extended east to the Amtrak station, how few net additional riders will ever take it to the airport? No one with a brain takes rail from LAX to downtown, with at least three faster bus options (42, 439, and Flyaway). Maybe if the Greenline went north from LAX, elevated on Lincoln, and mated with the Expo line east, on a express track to downtown, it would make some sense, but even that route is plagued with all sorts of obstacles, which mean a taxi or van is still much faster. All of this talk continues while city officials and neighborhood council fools do all they can to limit LAX capacity. Why should we invest in enhanced infrastructure if the politicians are chasing the growth out of town?

Elise Thompson

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:21:16 -0800

Wires? I thought they would claim some kind of post-911 security risk, like a trainload of explosives.