Duncan Black succinctly highlights the problems with the Los Angeles MTA's current thinking on how to link LAX (the airport) to the Metro public transit system. He's of course correct: it doesn't make any sense to build two separate train systems, one for LAX and one for the metropolitan region, instead of one, integrated system.
But let's turn to the practicalities of building one, integrated transit system that ties LAX to the Metro. The first problem is that LAX isn't actually one place. As this map of LAX shows, it's at least 9 places: Terminals 1 through 8 plus the Tom Bradley International Terminal. OK, Terminals 5, 6, 7, and 8 are linked, so maybe LAX isn't as many as 9 separate places, but it's much more than one stop.
The second, related problem is that many passengers at LAX don't actually want to leave LAX. They simply want to transfer from one terminal to another, preferably without re-clearing security as they often must today. (Though due to current regulations most passengers arriving in the U.S. on international flights must re-clear security before connecting to another flight, even an international flight.) Terminal-to-terminal transportation is typically the role a local airport shuttle bus or train -- a "monorail," for example -- serves. These connecting passengers require higher frequency service over longer hours than the Metro might want to run over an entire hypothetical line serving LAX.
The third problem is that governments aren't always smart in how they fund public projects. Airport transit tends to get funded from passenger ticket taxes (PFCs for example) and fuel excise taxes (mostly paid by general aviation). The FAA administers those funds. The Metro and other mass transit projects receive their funding through other, separate sources, mostly from another part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each bucket of money has different rules associated with it.
Now that I've described the three basic problems that confront the MTA, I'll describe the best solution in two simple words: single track. Here's how it would work.
The MTA would extend the Crenshaw Line to LAX in the form of a single Metro track that runs in a loop around LAX. Passenger platforms would be constructed at each stop along that one track: one airside (inside security), one landside. (The Tom Bradley Terminal might not get an airside platform, but see below.) That loop would converge into the standard dual track Metro system at the first traditional Metro stop outside LAX, and there would also be a single track that closes the loop within LAX. Terminals 5 and 6 would probably share one pair of platforms, and Terminals 7 and 8 would probably share another pair. (It may be possible for other terminals to share stations.)
OK, that's the track, and those are the platforms and stations. Now how do the trains run? First of all, all trains are Metro trains. There is no separate LAX-only equipment. With the exception of some extra luggage racks across the entire line, train equipment, power systems, signaling, automation, maintenance -- everything is the same. That saves a lot of money both in initial acquisition and in ongoing operational costs, and it also provides tremendous flexibility in equipment dispatching across the entire system.
Then there are two types of trains: airside and landside. The airside trains operate on the closed LAX loop on that single track. The airside trains are inspected, especially before coming into service on airside runs, to make sure nobody left a gun aboard (for example). When they stop, only the airside doors open, and passengers get on and off. (At the Tom Bradley Terminal only egress would be permitted from the airside trains. So there probably would be separate doors and a separate platform, but it would only serve exiting passengers. No passengers would be permitted to board an airside train from the Tom Bradley Terminal.)
The landside trains would typically operate in conventional Metro fashion, running the full line. At each stop within LAX (on the same track), only the landside doors would open for the landside platforms. Passengers could both enter and exit, including to/from the landside platform at the Tom Bradley Terminal.
The plan so far only leaves one gap: landside Terminal 1 to landside Terminal 8 (or vice versa, depending on whether the trains run clockwise or counterclockwise over the single track). There are a couple ways to close that gap. My favorite solution would be to modify the plan slightly, taking those airside trains and partitioning them. For example, if they are 6 car trains, partition them between car 3 and car 4. Make the first 3 cars landside and the last 5 cars airside. (I'm assuming the heaviest flow between terminals is airside rather than landside in this example, but any partition point is fine.) Doors on the left open airside, and doors on the right open landside (or vice versa, as applicable). Thus the trains that travel over the closed LAX loop serve both airside and landside passengers within LAX, and the "long distance" Metro trains open only their landside doors and only stop at each LAX station in one direction along the loop. Every train uses the same track (except for the track segment that closes the LAX loop), all train equipment is the same (albeit securely partitioned and with luggage racks) -- the whole system is integrated, cohesive, and just plain (or plane) super.
About that funding. Will that be a problem? In a word, no. There's nothing in the FAA's grant rules that forbids this sort of approach. Indeed, the FAA would likely warmly receive this sort of funding application. Airport-related funds can be directed to the whole LAX portion of the project including the single track that closes the loop and including the required number of trains for operating the LAX loop. The MTA then gets their LAX Metro stations and track basically free and only needs to pay for incremental costs, and there won't be many of those. If a hypothetical LAX-only monorail project is cheaper -- probably not -- then the FAA might want to see those numbers and only fund to that level. Maybe the MTA isn't used to working with its funding sources this way -- and with new funding sources like the FAA -- but I don't see any particular impediment. Nothing in the FAA's rules says you can't have the same train equipment and track at your airport as your Metro has. Fortunately also the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can intervene to help the MTA navigate the funding process across DoT agencies.
What about Metro ticketing? No problem. These are Metro stations, remember. You can have any fare system you want. For the airside loop there'd be no fares. For the landside loop everybody could "pay" a fare, but if you remain within the LAX loop the fare might be free or at least trivial. Pick up a recyclable fare card when you enter and drop it off when you exit.
Even more important than the funding advantages -- yes, advantages, including especially for taxpayers -- is the fact that the passenger experience with one, integrated system will be far better than two separate systems. Passengers won't have to cope with moving luggage any more than they have to. Every passenger would benefit.
Duncan Black is absolutely correct. Please, MTA, make it one integrated system: same track, same trains.
But let's turn to the practicalities of building one, integrated transit system that ties LAX to the Metro. The first problem is that LAX isn't actually one place. As this map of LAX shows, it's at least 9 places: Terminals 1 through 8 plus the Tom Bradley International Terminal. OK, Terminals 5, 6, 7, and 8 are linked, so maybe LAX isn't as many as 9 separate places, but it's much more than one stop.
The second, related problem is that many passengers at LAX don't actually want to leave LAX. They simply want to transfer from one terminal to another, preferably without re-clearing security as they often must today. (Though due to current regulations most passengers arriving in the U.S. on international flights must re-clear security before connecting to another flight, even an international flight.) Terminal-to-terminal transportation is typically the role a local airport shuttle bus or train -- a "monorail," for example -- serves. These connecting passengers require higher frequency service over longer hours than the Metro might want to run over an entire hypothetical line serving LAX.
The third problem is that governments aren't always smart in how they fund public projects. Airport transit tends to get funded from passenger ticket taxes (PFCs for example) and fuel excise taxes (mostly paid by general aviation). The FAA administers those funds. The Metro and other mass transit projects receive their funding through other, separate sources, mostly from another part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each bucket of money has different rules associated with it.
Now that I've described the three basic problems that confront the MTA, I'll describe the best solution in two simple words: single track. Here's how it would work.
The MTA would extend the Crenshaw Line to LAX in the form of a single Metro track that runs in a loop around LAX. Passenger platforms would be constructed at each stop along that one track: one airside (inside security), one landside. (The Tom Bradley Terminal might not get an airside platform, but see below.) That loop would converge into the standard dual track Metro system at the first traditional Metro stop outside LAX, and there would also be a single track that closes the loop within LAX. Terminals 5 and 6 would probably share one pair of platforms, and Terminals 7 and 8 would probably share another pair. (It may be possible for other terminals to share stations.)
OK, that's the track, and those are the platforms and stations. Now how do the trains run? First of all, all trains are Metro trains. There is no separate LAX-only equipment. With the exception of some extra luggage racks across the entire line, train equipment, power systems, signaling, automation, maintenance -- everything is the same. That saves a lot of money both in initial acquisition and in ongoing operational costs, and it also provides tremendous flexibility in equipment dispatching across the entire system.
Then there are two types of trains: airside and landside. The airside trains operate on the closed LAX loop on that single track. The airside trains are inspected, especially before coming into service on airside runs, to make sure nobody left a gun aboard (for example). When they stop, only the airside doors open, and passengers get on and off. (At the Tom Bradley Terminal only egress would be permitted from the airside trains. So there probably would be separate doors and a separate platform, but it would only serve exiting passengers. No passengers would be permitted to board an airside train from the Tom Bradley Terminal.)
The landside trains would typically operate in conventional Metro fashion, running the full line. At each stop within LAX (on the same track), only the landside doors would open for the landside platforms. Passengers could both enter and exit, including to/from the landside platform at the Tom Bradley Terminal.
The plan so far only leaves one gap: landside Terminal 1 to landside Terminal 8 (or vice versa, depending on whether the trains run clockwise or counterclockwise over the single track). There are a couple ways to close that gap. My favorite solution would be to modify the plan slightly, taking those airside trains and partitioning them. For example, if they are 6 car trains, partition them between car 3 and car 4. Make the first 3 cars landside and the last 5 cars airside. (I'm assuming the heaviest flow between terminals is airside rather than landside in this example, but any partition point is fine.) Doors on the left open airside, and doors on the right open landside (or vice versa, as applicable). Thus the trains that travel over the closed LAX loop serve both airside and landside passengers within LAX, and the "long distance" Metro trains open only their landside doors and only stop at each LAX station in one direction along the loop. Every train uses the same track (except for the track segment that closes the LAX loop), all train equipment is the same (albeit securely partitioned and with luggage racks) -- the whole system is integrated, cohesive, and just plain (or plane) super.
About that funding. Will that be a problem? In a word, no. There's nothing in the FAA's grant rules that forbids this sort of approach. Indeed, the FAA would likely warmly receive this sort of funding application. Airport-related funds can be directed to the whole LAX portion of the project including the single track that closes the loop and including the required number of trains for operating the LAX loop. The MTA then gets their LAX Metro stations and track basically free and only needs to pay for incremental costs, and there won't be many of those. If a hypothetical LAX-only monorail project is cheaper -- probably not -- then the FAA might want to see those numbers and only fund to that level. Maybe the MTA isn't used to working with its funding sources this way -- and with new funding sources like the FAA -- but I don't see any particular impediment. Nothing in the FAA's rules says you can't have the same train equipment and track at your airport as your Metro has. Fortunately also the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can intervene to help the MTA navigate the funding process across DoT agencies.
What about Metro ticketing? No problem. These are Metro stations, remember. You can have any fare system you want. For the airside loop there'd be no fares. For the landside loop everybody could "pay" a fare, but if you remain within the LAX loop the fare might be free or at least trivial. Pick up a recyclable fare card when you enter and drop it off when you exit.
Even more important than the funding advantages -- yes, advantages, including especially for taxpayers -- is the fact that the passenger experience with one, integrated system will be far better than two separate systems. Passengers won't have to cope with moving luggage any more than they have to. Every passenger would benefit.
Duncan Black is absolutely correct. Please, MTA, make it one integrated system: same track, same trains.
