# STILL No Rail to L.A. Airport



## WhoozOn1st (Apr 17, 2011)

Sure, from Union Station you can take the Red Line to the Blue Line to the Green Line, then an infrequent rubber-tired shuttle into the terminal. Not exactly a walk in the park for passengers with luggage. The Flyaway buses are nice, but they're point-to-point, so that potential passengers not already connecting at those points have to do the light rail or city bus song and dance anyway - often initally in the wrong direction - to use them.

Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles

"At least 20 airports across the nation have rail access, according to the American Public Transportation Assn., including those in Chicago and New York. LAX is the nation's third-busiest airport and the sixth-busiest in the world, and travelers have long wondered why L.A. has no airport rail link.

"'It doesn't make sense,' said Thomas Sanchez, a transportation researcher with the Brookings Institution. 'It's a big investment. It yields lots of benefits just in terms of moving people. If you're taking people to a concentrated employment hub as well as a transportation hub, it's the most logical thing to use.'"


----------



## leemell (Apr 17, 2011)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Sure, from Union Station you can take the Red Line to the Blue Line to the Green Line, then an infrequent rubber-tired shuttle into the terminal. Not exactly a walk in the park for passengers with luggage. The Flyaway buses are nice, but they're point-to-point, so that potential passengers not already connecting at those points have to do the light rail or city bus song and dance anyway - often initally in the wrong direction - to use them.
> 
> Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles
> 
> ...


This has been one of my pet peeves and I see the reasoning as a smoke screen. As a retired engineer, I just don't buy the concerns. My personal belief is that the shuttle and cab companies are pressuring the pols on this and have been successful for 30 years.


----------



## Alice (Apr 17, 2011)

leemell said:


> This has been one of my pet peeves and I see the reasoning as a smoke screen. As a retired engineer, I just don't buy the concerns. My personal belief is that the shuttle and cab companies are pressuring the pols on this and have been successful for 30 years.


Add to your list, airports that want to maintain parking revenue (one source of resistance to BART connections at SF and Oakland going way back, when I still lived there over 25 years ago)


----------



## AlanB (Apr 17, 2011)

Funny how the light rail line going to Portland Oregon's airport doesn't cause any problems with the planes or ground control systems as it runs right by a taxiway IIRC. And I haven't noticed any issues with Seattle's new light rail and that airport, much less the SEPTA commuter trains that run on catenary and have been visiting Philly's airport now for many years.

And planes at BWI have been landing on a runway that starts only a few hundred feet from the NEC and it's overhead power lines.

Finally Salt Lake City's LRT line to the airport is scheduled to open in 2013 IIRC.


----------



## stntylr (Apr 17, 2011)

Both Dallas and Fort Worth have plans for a rail line to DFW airport.

They have already started construction on the light rail line from Dallas to DFW. Fort Worth is still working on finding funding for it's Tarrant Express.


----------



## Spokker (Apr 17, 2011)

A rail connection to LAX would be most useful to riders coming from South LA, and they are not a big flying demographic.

The Crenshaw line may make a rail connection to the airport more useful for those on the Westside, but I'm not sure they want to ride through Inglewood. It would be safe, but we would have a hard time convincing them of that fact.

I think the FlyAway Shuttle is the best choice right now. Rail at airports is really overrated. They built BART to SFO and it was a pretty mediocre project.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 17, 2011)

In this vein...the CSX Peninsula Subdivision (the one that the Regional uses going down to NPN) runs right by the Richmond airport, but there's no stop and no talk to add one. Though twice-daily (or even thrice-daily) trains wouldn't be ideal for running this, it bugs me to have the links so close (literally a long people mover away from the terminal) and yet unlinked.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 17, 2011)

Spokker said:


> Rail at airports is really overrated. They built BART to SFO and it was a pretty mediocre project.


That's probably one of the least busy connections. Seattle's new connection seems to be doing quite well, SEPTA moves a considerable amount, as do the rail connections at Newark & JFK and O'Hare & Midway. Heck, even Cleveland's heavy rail moves a considerable amount of traffic at the airport there and DC's Metro moves quite a few people to/from Reagan National.

Rail when properly marketed, not overpriced (excepting EWR & JFK), generally does quite well at moving people to/from the airports.


----------



## Eric S (Apr 18, 2011)

And quite often the biggest users of airport rail transit links are airport employees rather than airline travelers.


----------



## jis (Apr 18, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Rail when properly marketed, not overpriced (excepting EWR & JFK), generally does quite well at moving people to/from the airports.


Yeah. Much to the chagrine of the rail advocacy community, rail, even when overpriced, seems to be doing very well at both EWR and JFK.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Apr 18, 2011)

Meanwhile, back east, the Dulles Airport rail link slowly moves forward amid political wrangling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/federal-va-officials-object-to-underground-metro-station-at-dulles-airport/2011/04/13/AF6SK7kD_story.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 18, 2011)

Spokker said:


> Rail at airports is really overrated. They built BART to SFO and it was a pretty mediocre project.


I'm not sure what the perceived problem is. I found the BART link to/from SFO to be very welcome for my travels.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Apr 18, 2011)

To be fair, I can think of plenty of airports that arent connected by rail and are pretty busy.

Toronto-Pearson

LaGuardia

Miami

Atlanta

Houston


----------



## jis (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> To be fair, I can think of plenty of _airports that arent connected by rail_ and are pretty busy.
> 
> ....
> 
> Miami


As a matter of fact that claim is somewhat shaky....

They have had the Miami Airport Tri-Rail Station which is currently being upgraded to become the Miami Central Station. Or are you just alluding to the fact that temporarily during construction Tri-Rail terminates at Hialeah Market?

Of course in general, an airport being busy has precious little to do with whether it has rail connection or not.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> To be fair, I can think of plenty of airports that arent connected by rail and are pretty busy.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


You seem to be mistaken there, there's a MARTA station out front.


----------



## guest (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> To be fair, I can think of plenty of airports that arent connected by rail and are pretty busy.
> 
> Toronto-Pearson
> 
> ...


Atlanta's airport has been connected to rail for years.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Apr 18, 2011)

jis said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I can think of plenty of _airports that arent connected by rail_ and are pretty busy.
> ...


oops, I forget lol. My mistake.



Ryan said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I can think of plenty of airports that arent connected by rail and are pretty busy.
> ...


There is?

What ever happened to plan to connect LAX to Green Line anyway?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn Ryu said:
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Apr 18, 2011)

Airport-rail intermodal connections in the United States:


Cleveland Hopkins (CLE): *In Terminal*: Rapid [heavy rail] - opened 1968
Washington National (DCA): *Walkway*: Metro [heavy rail] - opened 1977
Chicago O'Hare (ORD): *In Terminal*: CTA L [heavy rail] - opened 1984
Philadelphia (PHL): *Walkways*: SEPTA [regional/commuter rail] - opened 1985
Atlanta (ATL): *In Terminal*: MARTA [heavy rail] - opened 1988
Los Angeles Bob Hope (BUR): *Short Walk/Shuttle Bus*: Metrolink/Amtrak [commuter rail/intercity rail] - opened 1992
South Bend (SBN): *In Terminal*: South Shore Line [commuter rail] - opened 1992
Chicago Midway (MDW): *Walkway*: CTA L [heavy rail] - opened 1993
St. Louis Lambert (STL): *In Terminal*: MetroLink [light rail] - opened 1994
Baltimore (BWI): *In Terminal*: Light Rail [light rail] - opened 1997
Portland (PDX): *In Terminal*: MAX [light rail] - opened 2001
Newark (EWR): *Peoplemover*: NJT/Amtrak [commuter rail/intercity rail] - opened 2001
San Francisco (SFO): *In Terminal*: BART [heavy rail] - opened 2003
New York Kennedy (JFK): *Peoplemover*: Subway/LIRR [heavy rail/commuter rail] - opened 2003
Minneapolis (MSP): *In Terminal*: Hiawatha Line [light rail] - opened 2004
Seattle (SEA): *Walkway*: Link [light rail] - opened 2009
Providence (PVD): *Walkway*: MBTA [commuter rail] - opened 2010
Miami (MIA): *Peoplemover*: Metro/TriRail/Amtrak [heavy rail/commuter rail/intercity rail] - UNDER CONSTRUCTION to open 2011/2012

Phoenix (PHX): *Peoplemover*: Metro [light rail] - UNDER CONSTRUCTION to open 2013

Some airports require a shuttle bus. Based on the reaction to LAX's use of a shuttle to connect to rail, it doesn't seem necessary to list those here. But a few examples are BWI (to Amtrak/MARC), BOS (to Blue Line), and OAK (to BART).


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> There is?


Yes. In fact, the Airport MARTA station was constructed as a part of the new Atlanta Airport terminal, which opened in September 1980. However, the MARTA South Line did not actually reach the airport until 1988, which is when rail service began.


----------



## trainman74 (Apr 18, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Los Angeles Bob Hope (BUR): *Short Walk/Shuttle Bus*: Metrolink/Amtrak [commuter rail/intercity rail] - opened 1992


Scheduled to change to *Walkway* by the end of 2012, with construction of a new rental car facility/train station.

Incidentally, this is the first time I've seen this airport called "Los Angeles Bob Hope," as opposed to "Burbank Bob Hope" -- it's not a part of the Los Angeles World Airports system, which has given itself a de facto monopoly on "Los Angeles" airports (in addition to LAX, they have what they call "LA/Ontario International Airport" and "LA/Palmdale Regional Airport"). BUR is run by a separate airport authority under the aegis of the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena -- but, yes, it's a heck of a lot closer to the city of Los Angeles than ONT and PMD.


----------



## leemell (Apr 18, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn Ryu said:
> ...


They claimed that the they ran out of money at the time. I just don't believe it.


----------



## leemell (Apr 18, 2011)

trainman74 said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > Los Angeles Bob Hope (BUR): *Short Walk/Shuttle Bus*: Metrolink/Amtrak [commuter rail/intercity rail] - opened 1992
> ...


Yes. it is part of the Regional Intermodal Transportation Center at Bob Hope Airport construction due to start this year. The bid opening is May 11th.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Apr 18, 2011)

This is ridiculous. Burbank has Metrolink serving it but LAX, the far bigger, important airport doesnt have any?

Geez louise.


----------



## GG-1 (Apr 18, 2011)

Aloha

I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.


----------



## Gray (Apr 19, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > There is?
> ...


While Atlanta's MARTA doesn't go much of anywhere, it definitely does go to the airport. It's useful if you're going to a downtown hotel near the main line, but otherwise...not so useful.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Apr 19, 2011)

GG-1 said:


> I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.


Right here the whole time, and no need to bother bro-in-law:

Rail To Airport Still Has Hurdles


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 21, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > There is?
> ...


Not only that but it has to be one of the more convenient systems. Station is literally just a few steps from baggage claim. No need for long walks, shuttles, going outside in bad weather or walkways. Elevator and escalators up to train platform. All trains go through downtown. Half then continue north and half northeast alternating every few minutes except off hours when all trains go through downtown to northeast and connect to north trains at the station where they diverge.

I even remember when using MARTA that when flights were very late due to bad weather, they would hold the last trains (scheduled to depart at 1AM) for 5 to 10 minutes to help late passengers.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 21, 2011)

WhoozOn1st said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > I forget which line(Green?) was to go to LAX. But the airport blocked the access of that line. I received this information from a brother in law. It is also at least 5 years old, so today's non-access may be completely different . There is a switch and short stub built south (I think) of the airport property.
> ...


Just read it. Seems that there are people that don't want it to happen and are simply looking for reasons to say no. A classic found in the article:



> Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the FAA, said running the rail line above ground by the south runway protection zone would raise some of the same issues that challenged the Green Line from extending into the airport in the 1990s. Those issues include whether the overhead catenary wires would interfere with runway operations and whether the rail electronics would cause problems for air traffic control.


Maybe the guy should go north about 400 miles and look at SFO. BART comes in above ground and terminates right at the International Terminal. The clearance is simple: There is a clear zone for the flight path. Stay out of it. End of story. Interference with ATC? Come on, get real. What electronics would be interfering? The big amps are in the power system. BART is 1000 volts. The LA overhead is 1500 volts.


----------



## leemell (Apr 21, 2011)

George Harris said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > GG-1 said:
> ...


Exactly what I would have said, but more eloquently.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 23, 2011)

I've actually used both MARTA and BART to get to/from the airport in the same day (twice). For both BART and MARTA, they're great systems if you're going to a point that is in the immediate path of the lines, if not it can be a bit of a pain. But the thing that I think the airport authorities and local authorities are overlooking is that the rail lines will primarily assist folks who work at the airport, and visitors coming in to the city. There is a high percentage of fly in traffic that comes to my hotel that uses MARTA to get to us. With conventions on heavy arrival days we'll actually send a few associates down into MARTA to direct our guests on how to get to the hotel just because of sheer volume of arrivals. For any city that has a major convention center that is accessible by rail, making your airport also easily accessible by rail is critical if you want to land the big conventions (no pun intended).


----------



## George Harris (Apr 23, 2011)

Can't speak about the electronics side, but for the clearance side, there is no need to take anybody's word for anything. Go to the source. The source is FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design. In there it is very specific about clear zones and approach paths around runways. All you need is in there.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 23, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Can't speak about the electronics side, but for the clearance side, there is no need to take anybody's word for anything. Go to the source. The source is FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design. In there it is very specific about clear zones and approach paths around runways. All you need is in there.


One thing constant with FAA obstruction regulation is the inconsistency. The AC's describe zones within which notification of the FAA is required. Within those areas you submit your plans to the governing FAA office for review. Then you sit for the requisite 90 days, call to see what the hold-up is, then finally get the FAA's determination. Depending on who reviewed your plans and the mood they were in at the time, you may be OK, you may have to install one of several types (and costs) of obstruction lighting, or you may have to relocate or lower the facility (which may or may not be possible). Submit five different projects to the FAA, and you'll get five different responses. The AC's are pretty clear. The FAA's application of the AC's can be a bit cloudier.

For new or modification of facilities, the applicable AC is 70/7460-2K. In my prior life, I knew that one almost by heart.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 30, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> For new or modification of facilities, the applicable AC is 70/7460-2K. In my prior life, I knew that one almost by heart.


Thanks much for the reference.


----------

