For more than three decades, Los Angeles officials have pursued a rail connection to the city’s largest airport. Starting next year, a new train line will come close—but will pull up short of it.
Eventually, that gap will be closed by a people mover at LAX, set to break ground this week. It will link up with Metro’s under-construction Crenshaw/LAX light rail line—which, in spite of its name—won’t actually go to the airport.
Once on the people mover, riders will be able to bypass long lines of taxis and bus shuttles aboard sleek, automated shuttle pods.
But the Crenshaw/LAX train, which will run for 8.5 miles through South Los Angeles, from the Expo Line’s Crenshaw Station to the South Bay, will finish three years before the people mover opens. Passengers on the new Metro line will initially have to end their rail journeys more than one mile from the nearest terminal.
That’s bound to be a familiar feeling for anyone who’s used the Green Line to access the airport. For 24 years, the rail route has brought riders to within two miles of LAX before cutting south for Redondo Beach and forcing airport-bound passengers to travel the rest of the way via bus shuttle.
In 1980 and again in 1990, 2008, and 2016, Los Angeles County voters approved sales tax increases to fund a wide range of transportation initiatives, including many ambitious rail projects. Each time, transit planners promised that train service to LAX, in one form or another, would be a key part of the spending plan.
But time and again, budget limitations and shifting priorities delayed delivery of those promises.
In the 1980s, plans for what’s now the Green Line, called for a northern extension of the 20-mile rail route that would access LAX en route to the San Fernando Valley (later, local officials even envisioned a rail connection from the airport all the way to Palmdale).
The Green Line’s cost soon swelled far beyond initial estimates, due in part to disagreements over what type of train cars to buy for the line. Former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley envisioned a fully automated line with driverless cars, and transportation officials spent more than $60 million developing the technology before punting on the idea.
In an attempt to “buy American,” the county’s transportation commission also broke off a contract with a Japanese manufacturer to provide train cars for the route. Eventually, the commission settled on a less cost-efficient contract with the same company.
But costs weren’t the only thing that eventually derailed a Green Line extension to the airport. Federal Aviation Administration officials warned that the train’s elevated track and electronics could interfere with operations at the airport and suggested that a train should be built underground instead.
Short on funds and concerned about safety, transit planners eventually shifted focus to other projects, as LAX officials unveiled early plans for the people mover system.
Two decades later, Metro’s Board of Directors faced similar challenges when evaluating construction plans for the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Early in the planning process for the train line, local officials had latched onto the idea that the train would connect to the LAX people mover at Aviation Boulevard.
Still, at the urging of County Supervisor Don Knabe and others, Metro continued to study options to connect the rail line directly to the airport even after the project had broken ground.
Agency decision makers ultimately decided against a direct connection as challenges to the project’s viability mounted.
Metro staff estimated that a stop at LAX itself, which would have to be constructed below ground, would add $2 billion or more to the project’s total cost. Then-CEO Art Leahy also pointed out that getting the Transportation Security Administration to sign off on a tunneling project below the airport could be challenging in a post-9/11 security climate.
Beyond cost, linking trains to the people mover (which will be built by LAX operator Los Angeles World Airports, not Metro) does offer some advantages over a direct airport connection.
For one thing, the future station linking the Crenshaw/LAX Line to the airport’s shuttle system, can be shared by future train lines—like a planned rail route through the Sepulveda Pass.
The people mover will also stop at multiple terminals, allowing baggage-laden passengers to easily reach their gates without walking long distances through the airport. Building a subway with multiple airport stops would be a challenge—as well as an inconvenience for riders traveling elsewhere.
The people mover connection will likely feel familiar to travelers used to traveling in and out of New York City. A shuttle system at JFK links passengers to the city’s subway network, and plans are now in the works for a similar setup at LaGuardia Airport.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the people mover would stop at each LAX terminal. It will make three stops within the terminal area.
Comments
It’s frankly embarrassing we couldn’t get our major airport connected to the subway system sooner, and in a better fashion.
By disqusted on 03.13.19 3:22pm
Because of the way LAX and our subway system is designed, the people mover is the best option. A direct connection to LAX would be much less convenient for most people because LAX wouldn’t be an end of the line/terminus. However, I would have preferred a people mover that would have more of a horseshoe design so that it stopped at more terminals and closer to them. Have 5 stops instead of three. 2 on both the North and South side terminals and 1 at the international terminal.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:31pm
They are too busy with their bloated expensive arbitrary 28 projects by 2028 scheme to be concerned with pesky details.
By LastFirst on 03.13.19 3:53pm
you should stop spamming this website with chemtrails nonsense, smh
By JohnnyBlades on 03.14.19 10:45am
LAX is building the People Mover, not Metro. Though I agree it should have happened 10 years ago. But big projects like this are not easy to build in the USA.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:33pm
:smh:
By lax01 on 03.13.19 4:13pm
I guess it would work if you live somewhat close to subway stations nearby otherwise no way I’d lug my suitcase for blocks and blocks only to get onto a subway and finally a people mover. I’ve done that in NYC and frankly it sucks. I’ll spend more and use uber thank you very much
By LAoneWay on 03.13.19 5:39pm
What makes you think Uber will still be around in three years?
By firstweirdguy on 03.13.19 8:45pm
True, but you can take Uber to a Metro station closer to LAX. Let’s say the future Crenshaw/Expo station if convenient. That way you’ll only have to make the one connection to the People Mover. I would much rather drop a friend off at that station instead of driving all the way to LAX.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:36pm
Metro doesn’t connect the line directly to LAX then scratches its head trying to figure out why people aren’t taking it to the airport. At least the people mover will have a drop off spot for Uber/Lyft so when everyone still takes a ride share car to the airport they won’t have to wait in a line of cars to get into the airport.
Metro’s new slogan should be "Metro, keeping people in their cars" or "Metro, making driving more appealing".
By LADude on 03.13.19 6:09pm
You can take Uber to a Metro station closer to LAX. Let’s say the future Crenshaw/Expo station if convenient. That way you’ll only have to make the one connection to the People Mover. I would much rather drop off a friend at the Crenshaw/Expo station instead of driving all the way to the LAX transportation hub.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:41pm
People mover connections to airports aren’t unusual. JFK in New York has one, New York/Newark has one, as does Oakland and Phoenix. At San Francisco, BART will take you to one of the terminals, but you need the people mover to get to any one of the other ones. Lots of airports in rail-served cities are only reachable by bus—Boston, San Diego, Houston, Dallas Love Field.
By Parlorpink on 03.13.19 7:12pm
miami has a people mover arrangement as well. not just at the airport, but also in downtown, arts & entertainment district, and brickell.
it’s much more flexible than a regular metro line, can make sharp 90 turns, etc.
plus the system’s free of charge.
By Ｇｈｅｔｔｏ Ｕｒｃｈｉｎ on 03.14.19 8:31am
Boston’s Silverline, though, has a large portion of it in bus-only tunnels that connect right to the subway. Which is a really nice, cheap, efficient solution. IIRC you can also get the blue line right at the airport, but that only goes north of the city, so it isn’t super useful for a lot of people.
By Greyvagabond on 03.14.19 10:14am
Very true, and for our airport, because of it’s design and location, the people mover is the best option.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:42pm
I’m down with the people mover.
By not banksy on 03.13.19 8:54pm
Yeah, people mover systems are fine, I’ve used them in numerous airports. If it saves a grip of money, then good. Also, the new car rental facilities will be off the people mover as well, so it’s probably the best solution overall. I use the Flyaway now, and it will be able to drop off at the people mover terminal, as will ride sharing services.
By JSpence on 03.13.19 9:20pm
It took me a while to warm up to the people mover idea, but ultimately it seems like the only solution that will work.
Does anyone know how they are going to avoid having the same gridlock congestion at the satellite station? Is it just bigger or something?
By CaliSon on 03.14.19 10:15am
I believe it’s basically going to be like a big parking lot with different kinds of parking areas depending on the type of vehicle. It’s meant for vehicles to drop off and pickup people. Hopefully, there will be some kind of terminal where people can hang out too. One of the reasons there is so much traffic at the LAX turnaround is that vehicles go around and around waiting to pick up people. I usually have to go around LAX 3-4 times.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:54pm
Isn’t it cheaper to sell the valuable land near the beach, relocate the airport to El Monte or even father away, and use Metrolink trains for connections?
When I visited Playa del Rey, the airport noise was unbearable.
By Ivan III on 03.13.19 11:16pm
No.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 3:57pm
miami has the same arrangement with tri-rail/metro and it works a treat.
people movers function much better in airports versus traditional rail.
By Ｇｈｅｔｔｏ Ｕｒｃｈｉｎ on 03.14.19 8:29am
I don’t think this is a terrible solution.
The loop around LAX is pretty tight but still quite a walk from end to end. If the line had run underground to a central station (no room for a vast station at ground level, obviously) people would still need to get from the station to their terminal.
This seems a logical solution and seems common to many airports.
By surfnspy on 03.14.19 2:32pm
Agreed, however, I would have preferred a people mover that would have more of a horseshoe design so that it stopped at more terminals and closer to them. Have 5 stops instead of three. 2 on both the North and South side terminals and 1 at the international terminal.
By mrxman on 03.14.19 4:12pm
The People Mover within the confines of the airport is the proper solution. Existing Kinkisharyo trains like the type seen on EXPO cannot make the tight turns necessary within LAX. Anyone care to guess what the turn radius is on an EXPO-train? It’s huge, and that’s a lot of real estate to have to buy up as well.
By Cleavon Little on 03.14.19 2:33pm