LAX Overhaul Plans Will Be Scaled Back

0

LAX Overhaul Plans Will Be Scaled Back

By HOWARD FINE

Staff Reporter

The proposed $9 billion overhaul of Los Angeles International Airport is being scaled back, with plans for a 1.5-mile underground baggage tunnel to be reduced or eliminated due to its $1 billion price tag, according to several sources who have seen parts of the plan.

In addition, the plan would re-route airport traffic away from the already congested San Diego Freeway. Airport-only roads would be built to take cars from the Century Freeway up to a massive parking and curbside pickup/dropoff complex east of the airport terminal area, sources say.

The changes are included in a long-awaited environmental impact report that is set to be released on Wednesday, almost one year after L.A. Mayor James Hahn’s original proposal was introduced.

The EIR is expected to detail parts of the plan that until now had been largely conceptual. These include the remote parking complex, a people-mover to link the parking area to the central terminal, a consolidated rental car facility, realigning airfield runways and the demolition of three terminals and replacement of those structures with one “mega-terminal” with fewer gates.

Once the EIR is released, the public will have at least 45 days to comment; then the plan goes back to airport and city staff for revisions. (Given the complexity, there is a push to allow more time for comments, possibly up to 120 days.)

The final document could go before the city Airport Commission in the fall and possibly arrive at the City Council early next year.

Officials with the mayor’s press office and Los Angeles World Airports said they would not comment on any aspect of the EIR or the plan until Wednesday.

Manchester Square fears

Nonetheless, several community leaders and city officials who have seen portions of the EIR say that with the exception of the baggage tunnel the plan remains essentially the same, but with a lot more detail.

“Most of the major parties have remained on the sidelines, waiting for these details to come out,” said David Voss, president of the Westchester/LAX/Marina del Rey Chamber of Commerce. “Once they are released, I would expect people to start choosing up sides.”

Opposition is likely to focus on the remote parking complex 1.5 miles east of the terminals, in what is now a quarter-square-mile residential area known as Manchester Square.

Over the last two decades, airport officials have quietly bought about 40 percent of the homes in the area. But that still leaves hundreds of residences. While many may sell willingly, some undoubtedly will resist, possibly forcing airport officials to resort to eminent domain tactics.

More broadly, nearby residents and businesses fear the traffic and noise disruption that the huge parking complex could bring to their community. That’s why airport planners have sought to route traffic away from neighborhood streets by proposing new roads, mostly on airport property.

This involves routing drivers to the sparsely used western terminus of the Century (105) Freeway and then on new roads that would parallel Aviation and La Cienega boulevards to the western edge of Manchester Square.

Another sticking point is likely to be the proposal to tear down Terminals 1, 2 and 3 on the north side of the central horseshoe and replace them with a single long terminal with fewer gates.

“The airlines are really spooked about this proposal, both from a cost and a customer service standpoint,” said David Kissinger, airport deputy for L.A. City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski.

Many of the financially struggling airlines now serving LAX including United and American may not be able to absorb the costs of paying off the bonds that would be needed to build a terminal.

“At LAX, it costs about $5 for an airline to put one passenger on a plane,” Kissinger said. “At New York’s JFK Airport, that cost is about $20 per passenger. What the airlines fear is that if this proposal goes forward, their cost would head up toward that level.”

Airport Commission President Ted Stein has told the Business Journal in the past that the airport modernization project would be phased in over a 15-year period and that all steps would be taken to avoid putting an undue financial burden on the airlines.

Baggage plan dropped

While the EIR will outline some financial alternatives, the main thrust of the documents is gauging the impact of the plan on surrounding areas.

“The EIR is, at its heart, a land-use document. Issues of funding will be handled later on in the process,” said David Herbst, senior vice president with the Los Angeles office of the MWW Group, a public relations and issue advocacy firm.

Nonetheless, cost appears to be the major reason for scaling back the $1 billion baggage tunnel. According to sources that have been briefed on portions of the plan, the presence of numerous utility lines near the surface means the tunnel would have to be dug very deep underground, at tremendous cost.

“Just how the baggage will be transported from the remote parking area to the terminals whether with passengers on shuttles or through some other above-ground means has not been made clear to us yet,” Voss said

Another area that community leaders hope will be made clearer is the route for the people mover. In the original plan, there were two routes: one an express route from Manchester Square to the central terminal area and the other a “milk train” route that would stop at several of the nearby hotels and the rental car lots.

The express route is apparently unchanged, but the other route may be changed to have fewer stops.

“Each additional stop is a security risk, where someone with a backpack bomb can enter,” one source said. “The feeling is that limiting the number of stops would reduce this risk and the cost associated with security officers.”

If the number of stops is reduced, it could set off a squabble among the airport-area hotels, which want the people mover to stop right at their doors.

No posts to display