HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #461  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2013, 10:34 AM
LAX_Alex LAX_Alex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
lipstick on a pig

you can't (literally) paint over the fact that transfers between international and domestic flights require one to exit a building, drag carry-ons through possible inclement weather, wait in line, and go through security checks once again. cosmetics do not improve dysfunction.

and speaking of cosmetics, this new terminal looks like it was designed in the early nineties by the architect for the south coast plaza. blocky and white. as outdated as i predicted when it was under construction. no elegance, no grace, no sophistication.

nearly $5 billion and this is more or less what we're going to get. how disappointing.
Lol What inclement weather? This is Los Angeles we have perfect weather. LAX is better than most east coast airports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #462  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2013, 6:35 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post

nearly $5 billion and this is more or less what we're going to get. how disappointing.
You do realize that $5 billion includes things like runway relocations, taxiway development, new baggage systems, new Central Utility Plant, and a whole bunch of other things not related to TBIT, right?

Of course you do....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #463  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 12:54 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
lipstick on a pig

you can't (literally) paint over the fact that transfers between international and domestic flights require one to exit a building, drag carry-ons through possible inclement weather, wait in line, and go through security checks once again. cosmetics do not improve dysfunction.

and speaking of cosmetics, this new terminal looks like it was designed in the early nineties by the architect for the south coast plaza. blocky and white. as outdated as i predicted when it was under construction. no elegance, no grace, no sophistication.

nearly $5 billion and this is more or less what we're going to get. how disappointing.
It actually looks fantastic from the inside. Again though, it's only one building in an airport with several buildings. Still lipstick on a pig.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #464  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 2:03 AM
Stratosphere's Avatar
Stratosphere Stratosphere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Posts: 1,099
"Villaraigosa Pavilion". Worst name ever. Hard to say, hard to remember, hard to spell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #465  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:10 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
You do realize that $5 billion includes things like runway relocations, taxiway development, new baggage systems, new Central Utility Plant, and a whole bunch of other things not related to TBIT, right?

Of course you do....
yeah, runway relocations, taxiways, and baggage systems to keep the airport functioning safely. that is great and all but as far as passenger usability real and percieved, little is changed. The only tangible difference for the passenger in my view, are the consolidated rental car facility and the people-mover.

as i've said, afer $5 billion in spending, many passengers will still have to exit one building and trek to another terminal (luckily, now via people-mover), and then through TSA all over again just to transfer. forget the mediocrity of the architecture, this glaring functional deficiency could have been resolved with an alternate spending prioritization centered around linking all post-TSA areas of the airport into a single seamless corridor...mostly by linking Bradley International with the rest of the airport.

LAX will suck almost as much as it did prior to the renovation, only it will not look as outdated doing it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #466  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:44 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
How wonderful it would be to wave a magic wand and magically transform an airport built decades ago for a much smaller region in a different time prior to security needs, hubs and the reality of airline alliances into something perfect.

Don't hold your breath, edluva. LAX is what it is, and it does a damn good job considering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #467  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:49 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaguy View Post
How wonderful it would be to wave a magic wand and magically transform an airport built decades ago for a much smaller region in a different time prior to security needs, hubs and the reality of airline alliances into something perfect.

Don't hold your breath, edluva. LAX is what it is, and it does a damn good job considering.
I'm not asking for perfection, atlantaguy. I'm asking for my money's worth. It's not asking too much for a single-security-check airport when we have a $5 billion budget and 30 years of false starts for perspective.

as a matter of fact, I'm totally taking the security needs of today into account here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #468  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:55 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Then you will need access to much, much more than $5 billion. Considering what they have on their plate, you are being totally unrealistic with your expectations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #469  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:57 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Considering that 5 out of its 9 terminals are already connected at airside, I don't think a seamless airside terminal would be too much to expect from a budget of $5 billion.

I can think of so many huge capital projects that $5 billion could easily buy, including a subway extension to the westside. A building to link bradley and the remaining terminal's could have been apportioned for well less than what it costed to build the new terminal building alone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #470  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 5:08 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
That budget is for WAY more than what you mention, and you know it. You are being overly simplistic and totally unreasonable.

To secure all terminals seamlessly with the TBIT would cost a fortune, and there are more pressing needs.

Your continuous and unrelenting negativity regarding all aspects of L.A. in the over 11 years I've been here makes me realize there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Have a good night.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #471  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 5:30 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
you are making an assumption that this money is being optimally spent. and that is a value judgement. without oversimplifying things, all that would be needed for seamless transfers is a pedestrian bridge or tunnel linking bradley to the airside terminals flanking its sides, and a link between the airside parts of terminals 1-3. baggage handling (the real cost concern) already works between international and domestic transfers and should not need to be revamped

just for some perspective. the current plan already includes a midfield concourse on the same scope and scale as the one that just opened, an enormous ticketing and check-in facility to replace the parking garages which rivals the tom bradley building in size, a gargantuan pedestrian bridge with integrated tram-way and roadway tying the midfield concourse with all of the above, and an elevated fixed-guideway people mover linking all terminals to a future metro station.

given the scale of this project, you honestly don't think budgeting priorities could have been recalibrated to include a linkage between the remaining isolated terminals? matter of fact, i think that would have offered one of the greatest functional bangs for your buck in the entire project

Last edited by edluva; Jul 19, 2013 at 5:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #472  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 5:38 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaguy View Post
That budget is for WAY more than what you mention, and you know it. You are being overly simplistic and totally unreasonable.

To secure all terminals seamlessly with the TBIT would cost a fortune, and there are more pressing needs.
It wouldn't be that difficult: with the connector building between TBIT and T4, reopening the underground walkway between T4 and T5 would connect 6 terminals behind security. It's a crappy way to do it, but it's not difficult and it would work.

We don't even know what's going to happen to the northside terminals T1 through T3 yet. A lot of that will depend on what they can do with the north airfield. If they have to move 6R/24L south instead of 6L/24R north (which is what they want to do), you could see all three terminals replaced by a single 2nd international terminal with wide-body gates. This is also why the new Bradley West concourse doesn't extend as far north as it does south.

LAX would be a lot easier to modify to current airport standards than many East Coast airports, that's for sure. The relatively compact layout of its terminals and concourses (similar to ATL, only oriented for O&D traffic) would make it quite feasible over the long-run of rebuilding each terminal. That's most likely the plan anyway.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #473  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 11:59 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
I'm not asking for perfection, atlantaguy. I'm asking for my money's worth. It's not asking too much for a single-security-check airport when we have a $5 billion budget and 30 years of false starts for perspective.

as a matter of fact, I'm totally taking the security needs of today into account here.
If you are going to criticize the project, at least be honest about it. The entire LAX modernization is $5B. Estimates for construction of the Bradley West terminal are between $1.5B - $1.9B. I don't think you realize how much transportation infrastructure costs to build. Just thirty miles south, Santa Ana/John Wayne recently completed a far less ambitious terminal with 10-12 gates. This cost $550M.

I also question how much you know about the commercial aviation industry. LA World Airports is constrained by how much they can raise their fees to pay for grand terminals and world class architecture. Yes, Southern California has a large origin & destination market but if the airport authority raises its fees too much, one, the airlines would object to this, and two, many international carriers would consider skipping LAX for other cities instead. New aircraft such as the 787 and A350, which will be in production soon, make this entirely possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #474  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 3:05 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,917
edluva:
Quote:
I can think of so many huge capital projects that $5 billion could easily buy, including a subway extension to the westside. A building to link bradley and the remaining terminal's could have been apportioned for well less than what it costed to build the new terminal building alone.
You are being extremely dishonest and I think you don't have any idea what infrastructure costs. Additionally, you seem confused about what the primary function of an airport is-- it is to safely and efficiently move passengers and LAX does this extremely well with tens of millions of passnegers annually. LAX's on-time performance is far better than SFO, O'Hare and most of the east coast airports. The primary function of an airport is not to provide full-employment for architects.

Regarding cost, the new Bradley West terminal cost between $1.5B - $1.9B. The new central utility plant is expected to cost more than $400M (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_222354...ce=rss_emailed). Relocating the north runway--a very important safety improvement-- is expected to cost more than $650M. Right there, this is half of the cost of the LAX modernization. Remember also, that LAX and LA MTA are also making plans to bring the Crenshaw line close to the airport.

In addition to the new Bradley West terminal, Terminal 1 (http://www.dailybreeze.com/portal/bu...kg&_loopback=1), Terminal 5 (http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1946), and Terminal 6 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...minal-20120328) are all getting significant rennovations and upgrades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #475  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2013, 4:59 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
given the scale of this project, you honestly don't think budgeting priorities could have been recalibrated to include a linkage between the remaining isolated terminals? matter of fact, i think that would have offered one of the greatest functional bangs for your buck in the entire project
So you think the best benefit in all the money spent for the CITIZENS of Los Angeles at LAX would have been to create connections between terminals so people can just connect at LAX without ever setting foot in L.A.?

So basically we want to increase connecting traffic at LAX? And that is the biggest bang for our buck?

Seriously?

Aside from your intellectual dishonesty about the cost as pointed out by others, your desire to make LAX a better connecting airport would serve little benefit to the citizens here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #476  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2013, 1:23 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
So you think the best benefit in all the money spent for the CITIZENS of Los Angeles at LAX would have been to create connections between terminals so people can just connect at LAX without ever setting foot in L.A.?

So basically we want to increase connecting traffic at LAX? And that is the biggest bang for our buck?

Seriously?

Aside from your intellectual dishonesty about the cost as pointed out by others, your desire to make LAX a better connecting airport would serve little benefit to the citizens here.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, Ragnar, are you pulling things out of your arse? Did you not read what Rail Claimore just vouched for about costs not being as prohibitive as atlantaguy makes them out to be?

Transfers between connecting flights will always occur regardless of whether it is a pain in the ass (status quo) or convenient (seamless transfers). In either case, noone is going to be setting foot in LA. Is that concept difficult for you to understand?

speaking of intellectual dishonesty, i find it amusing you didn't address Rail Claimore when he basically said the exact same thing I did about the feasibility of connecting the terminals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #477  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2013, 4:48 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
speaking of intellectual dishonesty, i find it amusing you didn't address Rail Claimore when he basically said the exact same thing I did about the feasibility of connecting the terminals.
You are being dishonest, yet again.

Rail made some suggestions/corrections to my post, which are honestly welcomed by me. I respect him & his opinions, as he has always been more level headed and analytical than I happen to be. He grounds me, even though we've never met.

You on the other hand seem to thrive on being the absolute contrarian, and are beyond totally negative with any and all matters related to L.A.

It doesn't seem to matter what the subject matter is, it's always the same tired crap. You are the ultimate NIMBY/BANANA, whether you realize it or not with this beyond compulsive negativity.

Perhaps it's time for you to relocate?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #478  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2013, 6:32 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaguy View Post
You are being dishonest, yet again.

Rail made some suggestions/corrections to my post, which are honestly welcomed by me. I respect him & his opinions, as he has always been more level headed and analytical than I happen to be. He grounds me, even though we've never met.

You on the other hand seem to thrive on being the absolute contrarian, and are beyond totally negative with any and all matters related to L.A.

It doesn't seem to matter what the subject matter is, it's always the same tired crap. You are the ultimate NIMBY/BANANA, whether you realize it or not with this beyond compulsive negativity.

Perhaps it's time for you to relocate?
that's great, getting all personal and all, but you still haven't addressed the issue both Rail and I brought up - that contrary to your assertion, it would not be cost prohibitive to link the terminals of LAX

funny thing that after swearing off any further commenting on your last post, the only comment you've made after breaking that vow was an off-topic personal attack. yeah, keep talking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #479  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2013, 7:13 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
that's great, getting all personal and all, but you still haven't addressed the issue both Rail and I brought up - that contrary to your assertion, it would not be cost prohibitive to link the terminals of LAX

funny thing that after swearing off any further commenting on your last post, the only comment you've made after breaking that vow was an off-topic personal attack. yeah, keep talking
He didn't address it because I explained how it could be done in a cost-effective way using mostly existing infrastructure, thus negating the whole argument. Connecting all the terminals post-security is not a priority for LAX nor should it be: that doesn't mean it can't be done as more and more of the airport gets remodeled or rebuilt.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the overall layout of LAX (I'm talking the whole airport, airfield, passenger, and cargo facilities) that the current terminal complex outside of TBIT is not going to be in its current form for the long term. Buildings can only be remodeled so many times. I'd expect a new terminal complex on the western side of the airport and a rebuilding/reconfiguration of the terminal layout on the existing eastern side with the gates that are now in the piers being replaced by multiple midfield concourses, much like a 21st century version of ATL, only with terminal space/infrastructure/curbside lengths appropriate for LA's O&D traffic levels. But that, or any variation of it, is long term because it's something all new airports are built with: LAX doesn't need to rebuild itself all at once, nor should it.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #480  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2013, 10:27 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail Claimore View Post
He didn't address it because I explained how it could be done in a cost-effective way using mostly existing infrastructure, thus negating the whole argument. Connecting all the terminals post-security is not a priority for LAX nor should it be: that doesn't mean it can't be done as more and more of the airport gets remodeled or rebuilt.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the overall layout of LAX (I'm talking the whole airport, airfield, passenger, and cargo facilities) that the current terminal complex outside of TBIT is not going to be in its current form for the long term. Buildings can only be remodeled so many times. I'd expect a new terminal complex on the western side of the airport and a rebuilding/reconfiguration of the terminal layout on the existing eastern side with the gates that are now in the piers being replaced by multiple midfield concourses, much like a 21st century version of ATL, only with terminal space/infrastructure/curbside lengths appropriate for LA's O&D traffic levels. But that, or any variation of it, is long term because it's something all new airports are built with: LAX doesn't need to rebuild itself all at once, nor should it.
Bingo!

And edluva, stating facts is hardly a personal attack. Your post history speaks for itself - loud and clear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.