Talk:G Line (Los Angeles Metro)

|- |North Hollywood |{{LACMTA-Red}} Line
Metro Bus: 152, 154, 156, 166, 183, 353, 363 |-

|- |North Hollywood |LACMTA Red Line
Metro Bus: 152, 154, 156, 166, 183, 353, 363 |-

Untitled

I looked at this for about an hour and could not figure out what the original version showed. This seems like a good solution given that all of the LACMTA "colored" templates were deleted. Schmiteye 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/November_2005#Various_formatting_templates Schmiteye 17:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Orange Line Transitway"

I don't believe that the title of this article should be the "Orange Line Transitway." Not only have I never seen the Orange Line referred to as a "transitway," when entered on the search engine Google, this Wikipedia page comes up as the top hit. "LACMTA Orange Line" was a much more appropriate title. The Orange Line is handled very similar to the light and heavy rail operations in Los Angeles, much unlike the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway which this article and the general LACMTA article seem to lump into the same group as the Orange Line.

"Brad Sherman gets funding for Orange Line extension?"

This needs a citation. Hadn't heard anything about construction starting as early as 2007, on a extension to Chatsworth.

"Conversion" section

Who are the nameless "opponents" cited in the "Conversion" section? Why do they think that light rail won't have the same collision problems that the BRT vehicles have? The collisions have universally been the fault of auto drivers ignoring red lights, and the problem is endemic on the Blue Line as well. --Jfruh 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it's the drivers fault. Most of the collisions are caused by dumb motorists breaking laws. Craking down on traffic violations will solve the problem. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Spam me!}

Yes, but the Blue Line is under less scrutiny becauue it has railroad crossing gates, which the Orange Line currently lacks. If a motorist goes up against a 55-mile-per-hour three-car Blue Line train, they're dead. A motorist that goes up against the much lighter Orange Line bus will push the bus around and injure the bus riders (as has been the case in all the Orange Line accidents). The LACMTA Blue Line article says that accidents significantly decreased after quadrant railroad crossings gates were installed. Doing the same for the Orange Line would at least cut down on the accidents. Converting it to light-rail would at least better protect the passnegers against accidents.

Eh. I guess Metrolink has proven that a car can kick butt on a train, but overall a light-rail trian has more might over a car than a bus. I compare this to the rear-pushing to the front-leading Metrolink train cars. Critics keep calling for the Metrolink to have the engines at front to prevent another accident like the Glendale train crash. Now the critics are calling for the MTA to convert the Orange Line into an LRT to avoid accidents like these ones that have been springing up. Like I said, motorists will think twice before trying to challenge a light-rail. They'll get crushed in the process and the won't drag anybody else down, either. - Hbdragon88 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The key issues to justify conversion are capacity and operating expense. Orange Line traffic has already reached the point where light rail would - in theory - cost marginally less to operate. Whether this is true, and how traffic growth would affect the difference in operating cost between modes, remains to be worked out.Ldemery 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the grammar, spelling, and poorly worded phrasing. NorthofDC 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Curitiba? No mention?

• It's a shame that the article on the Orange Line doesn't mention the transportation system where it is modelled on: the Curitiba Transit system. Why not add a reference to it? --Mecanismo | Talk 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Collisions

What is the purpose of listing the narrative of each of the collisions to date? It seems superfluous to me, as a mere summary would suffice. LorenzoB 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The line, especially upon opening, was claimed to be unsafe, and a lot of people still voice doubts about the safety of the 60-foot artics. The list of accidents allows the reader to determine for himself how safe the line actually is as well as the cause of the accidents (which so far has always been driver fault/red light running). I think it makes sense to keep the stuff. —lensovet–talk – 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia isn't a news agency designed to report on every collision possible. We should summarize all the accidents, perhaps listing the ones that caused the MTA to speak, such as teh accident that caused them to issue an order to run buses at 10mph at intersections. hbdragon88 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

POV analysis problems and Ridership data

I have deleted the outdated and flawed comparisons with light rail and replaced it with straight ridership stats. Ridership has grown 30% on the Orange LIne since 2006 and so the analysis is invalid on that point alone. The comparison used initial year stats for the Orange Line to compare to mostly more established light rail systems. Mass transit ridership always increases in the first few years of a line, so the comparison is invalidated by that too. Finally, the earlier established lines are presumably in more densely populated areas as those areas tend to get light rail first, even more skewing the data.

Also there was reference to the nickname "Orange Lie" which was just one guy in a blog calling it that. It is hardly proof of common use of the term. I have removed the reference. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Planned Move

Shortly, I plan to move the following pages, as follows:

  Metro Blue Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Green Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Green Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Red Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Red Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Purple Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Gold Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Gold Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Orange Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Silver Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Expo Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Expo Phase 1 (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Phase 1 (Los Angeles Metro)
  Expo Phase 2 (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Phase 2 (Los Angeles Metro)
  Crenshaw Corridor (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Crenshaw Corridor (Los Angeles Metro)
  Regional Connector (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Regional Connector (Los Angeles Metro)

The purpose of this change is to replace a less-well-known, technical name ("LACMTA") with a very descriptive and very familar name "Los Angeles Metro". This will allow people who are unfamiliar with the acronym "LACMTA" to find information about the system in the Los Angeles area.

(BTW, "Los Angeles" in this case refers to "Los Angeles County", since the City of Los Angeles does not have any system called "Metro".)

Jcovarru (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to structure of Metro Rail/Busway articles

Hi all! I'm planning on changing how Wikipedia covers the history and future of the various Metro lines, moving some material out of the articles for individual lines and to articles specifically about history and expansion. I've put a longish description of my plans and rationale here, if you're interested! --Jfruh (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Prematurely created redirects now causing a problem -- please fix

Someone created redirects for the new Metro letter names before they were officially announced -- and, apparently, before they were officially settled -- which has caused an inaccuracy. F Line (Los Angeles Metro) now redirects to this article, but ultimately they did not assign the F Line name to any line (apparently some board members were concerned about "F" denoting a failing grade or a swear word). G Line (Los Angeles Metro) is what should be redirecting here, but it's pointing to the Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro) article instead. See the Metro announcement for more details.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about how redirect pages work to wade in and fix this. Can someone who does please hop on this? --Jfruh (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. G Line now redirects to Orange Line, J Line now redirects to Silver Line, and L Line now redirects to Gold Line. F Line page has been proposed for deletion. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Although, now there's a big message box on this page saying it's been nominated for deletion. Not sure if there's any way around that. --Jfruh (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops. That's a weird quirk. Moved the AFD box to the proper page. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Again, thanks. --Jfruh (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"F Line (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect F Line (Los Angeles Metro). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)