Talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail/Archive 1

Archive 1

First message

For the ease of editors templates have been created.

Typing in the usual template format LACMTA- along with the name of the rail line will spur the name of the line with the specific color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs) 04:40, April 30, 2005‎ (UTC)

Metro Rail, rather

Just wanted to alert everyone that the true name of this service is Metro Rail, not MetroRail or Metrorail. This is made abundantly clear on the Metro home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramartin (talk • contribs) 20:56, June 22, 2005‎ (UTC)

Quite right. I've corrected it this time. Next time you see an error, be bold and fix it yourself! Thanks for pointing this one out. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alas, insufficient privileges. But one day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramartin (talk • contribs) 11:11, June 23, 2005‎ (UTC)

More Templates!

Typing {{LACMTA Station}} adds this nifty guide.

{{LACMTA Station}}

Just fill in where applicable. Happy editing! Pacific Coast Highway 15:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) (11:45AM Brooklyn, NY time)

Cool. I wish I could display all that better on my PalmPilot - It'd be a great guide. Thanks! Cheers, -Willmcw 19:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought..

I'm having problems with it. In the meantime, just use edit, copy the technical jargon that makes the chart, and replace where applicable.

{| border=1 align="center" |- align="center" |width="35%"|Next station (Insert Direction):<br>'''[[Insert Station Name (LACMTA Station)|Insert Station Name]]''' |width="20%"|[[Los Angeles County MetroRail|Los Angeles Metro Rail]]:<br>{{LACMTA-Insert Line Name}} line station |width="35%"|Next station (Insert Opposite Direction):<br>'''[[Insert Station Name (LACMTA Station)|Insert Station Name]]''' |} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs) 13:56, June 24, 2005‎‎ (UTC)

I fixed the template

• I fixed the template! See Template talk:LACMTA Station for details. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
  • Looks like I have to create a second template called Template:LACMTA Transfer Station to deal with 7th St/Metro Center and other transfer stations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
    • At the risk of getting flamed, I ask a humble question. Are articles describing individual stations really that necessary? They could probably be folded into the articles on each line.Fried Brice 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions?

I have a question about some of the station pages.

• The full name of Pico is Pico-Chick Hearn, but that seems rather obscure; even the signs on the station itself only say "Pico" (this could be because it was probably named Chick Hearn after his passing, and that was only three years ago).
• Likewise, 7th St/Metro Center full title is 7th St/Metro Center/Julian Dixon, but again, I just refer to it as 7th St/Metro Center
• On Imperial/Wilmington, the Metro Blue Line site says that the name is Imperial/Wilmington/Rosa Parks, but i"ve seen it written with a dash (Imperial/Wilmington-Rosa Parks

There a couple of questions I'm trying to get at. The first is whether the person name should be included in all articles - Chick Hearn, Rosa Parks, Julian Dixon, Kenneth Hahan, etc. The second is if they should be included as a dash or as a slash. It seems kind of stupid, but I want to know before I go on a naming rampage. - Hbdragon88 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Purple, Aqua, Expo

Is the future "Purple Line" mentioned on this page (under Expansion/Official/Red:) the same as the LACMTA_Expo_Line? -70.145.102.253 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It refers to the Wilshire portion of the existing Red line. Possible extension to Santa Monica, but under study (zero funding). --Pelladon 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a very nice system map, http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6264/finalmap122506vz0.jpg, based on the new system map available on the MTA website (www.metro.net) and the expo and gold lines' project maps. I created the map superimposed over a street map, so it is geographically accurate. Can it be incorporated into this article? Fried Brice 08:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice?

If they would make a elevated monorails that goes straight down the middle of 405, 10, 110, etc.? I think it would be well worth sacrificing one lane... if that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2007 (UTC)

Silver & Yellow Line sites gone.

In the "Citizens' advocacy" subsection of the "Expansion proposals" section, it appears the off-site links to the Yellow Line and Silver Line no longer point to active websites. Can the links be deleted immediately, or is there some sort of process that needs to be done first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alikaalex (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

No process, though see if you can find these organizations at some other URL and put that URL there instead. otherwise, just get rid of them. —lensovet–talk – 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Metro Rail expansions

The user User:Metro Webmaster removed the maps of the Metro Rail system, and I reverted these edits. However, I agree that the future rail extensions map should not be on this site. We're misleading people into thinking there is an officially-adopted proposal to extend the Purple Line westward, when this is not true. A new map should be made, with the officially-recognized routes of the Metro Expo Line (Phase I) and Gold Line (Eastside Extension) included, but with the hypothetical Purple Line extension removed. If someone can't do this soon, we should just take down the image we have now. --SameerKhan 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one responded to this comment or made a new (accurate) map of Metro Rail's officially announced plans for extension. As of yet, there is no officially-adopted Purple Line alignment planned west of Western Avenue, and we should not just be filling in this gap with stations we would like to see. Until the official report (currently underway I believe) collecting and studying different alternatives for a westward expansion of the Purple Line is released, we should not make any claims as to which way (and via what medium) such an extension would go. Trust me; I'd love to see a subway down Wilshire, but this is not a fantasy site. --SameerKhan 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

google integrates public transit into gmaps. can we add something about this to the wiki page here?

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2007/10/google-transit-graduates-from-labs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.174.66 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward-level politics

I've heard the LA subway is notorious for not going to the right places because it was built with ward-level politics in mind. Anybody hear this/have sources?--Loodog (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, the original plan for the Metro construction that was put forth to voters when the original 1980 0.5% sales tax increase was voted upon had the backbone of the system being a rapid transit subway line straight down Wilshire, which would make sense since this is a very densely populated part of the city that connects major job centers in Downtown Los Angeles, Miracle Mile and Century City. Alas, Mr. Henry Waxman who represented Hancock Park NIMBYs blocked the route and so LACMTA did a last minute reroute up Vermont instead, leaving the vestige stub of the Wilshire subway running to Western only. They then went about building the ancillary light rail lines with no backbone in place.

Now there is an additional 0.5% sales tax that will be put on the November ballot which will include the building of the multi-billion dollar Wilshire subway as well as a number of other light rail projects (Expo Line Phase 2, Crenshaw Corridor, Gold Line extensions, etc. The potential of $30 billion for capital projects has the various members of the LACMTA Board having kittens about who can bring the pork home to their respective feifdoms spread throughout the County, with very little discussion about a PLAN that would be prudent.

--Arturoramos (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Explains a lot. I had a friend from San Francisco who had been to LA, he wasn't aware a subway existed! Definitely worthy of note in the article, maybe in a brief "history" section?--Loodog (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think a history section would be useful. It would likely take a bit of research to find all of the source material. The Vermont/North Hollywood subway ended up not being a complete waste, since it led to the revitalization of Hollywood and now there it is in the midst of high density urban development, which has been made possible by the subway. I think people have seen the success of this "transit oriented" development and started changing their minds. If you see stats, the Los Angeles subway is pretty successful. It has ridership per route mile similar to Washington DC's metro and higher than San Francisco's BART system or Chicago's L. The Wilshire line would certainly have higher ridership as the route has higher residential and job density than the Vermont route. The Beverly Hills City Council and Henry Waxman last year turned face and are now vocal proponents for the construction of the Wilshire subway since their city and district are now basically parking lots.

--Arturoramos (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange County?

I'd like to see Orange County included in future plans.

I think the following extensions could work.

1. Green Line to John Wayne Airport, via Knott's Berry Farm and Disneyland.

2. Red Line extension down I5 fwy to Disneyland and John Wayne Airport. Most, if not all of the extension would be at grade or elevated.

3. Gold Line Extension to Whittier, La Habra and finally Disneyland and John Wayn Airport.

4. Blue Line extension running on PCH to Newport Beach.

Green Line, Red Line and Gold Line would service the Anaheim Artic.

The above would be paid with a .5% increase in Orange County sales tax. OCTA would be financially responsible for any portion of the lines that operated in Orange County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article focus

Please keep this article focused on the Metro Rail system. This includes a list of current and future lines, with high-level descriptions. However, the details of these lines should appear on specific articles related to those lines, not in this article.

Also, this article should not become a dumping ground for speculation about fantasy lines. As it says at the bottom of the wiki editor, "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.". Jcovarru (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the UK many transport projects often use the heading 'Current projects' for projects that are in progress and where there are diggers out on the ground. Then there is a 'Proposed projects' section which details ones for which there are official plausable plans - ie, there is are reasonable grounds that they may actually be built. Each of these projects normally have their own sub-sections. There is then a further subsection for 'Other proposed projects' for any others where are more speculative but are notable for the article as a list. Personally I think 'Future' is definitely the wrong heading because these projects may not happen. Would anyone object to using the headings I suggest? Check Docklands Light Railway and M25 motorway to see how it works in the UK. In some cases there is also a 'Recent developments' section for projects that have just been completed but are not yet 'history'. PeterEastern (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

missing stations on map

the system map is missing a couple stations on the red line - hollywood/vine and hollywood/highland. --SameerKhan 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was a different map in 2007, but now those 2 stations are actually marked, but both erroneously stated as Hollywood/Western also. Maybe someone could change this? VanillaBear23 (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in map

"Los Angeles Metro System Map (Dec. 2009).png" is lovely, but there's an error: all three stops along Hollywood Blvd are labelled "Hollywood and Western". I don't have the graphics chops to fix but thought I'd point it out so that those who do can take it up in due course. --Jfruh (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Map is still erroneous as of Jan 2011. Red line stops need to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.11.143 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New Map?

I've created a new map, reflecting the Expo Line. It's not yet a final version, but due to the above concern, I've uploaded a version of it. The final one will have a skeletal street and freeway grid. Anyone have any suggestions or anything that I might have missed? Pacific Coast Highway (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks fantastic, thanks for your work. --Jfruh (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Proof of payment system

This sentence: Fare collection is based on a proof of payment system. is no longer true. All underground stations now have locked gates which require a TAP card to open. It's true that many of the level crossing stations and the internal transfer stations "require" a TAP but are open and hence I suppose are subject to a proof of payment system. Anyway, I would fix this myself but I don't have the first clue what the technical language to describe it is. Maybe someone more knowledgeable would take a shot at it? Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Line ridership

If you're going to count Boston's Green Line as one light rail line (and I wouldn't for several reasons) then to be consistent Philadelphia's Green Line also has higher ridership than the LA Blue Line at 120,500 daily boardings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.212.228 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Phili's light rail lines are not "branded as one line" (indeed, they're branded as five separate streetcar lines) in the same way Boston's Green Line is. --IJBall (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, it should be noted that Philly's "Subway-Surface" lines, which the thread starter appears to be suggesting should be treated analogously to Boston's Green Line, only carry 85,000 daily passengers. (The thread starter is inaccurately transcribing the ridership number for all of Philly's light rail, including Upper Darby-terminating lines that don't so much as intersect with the Subway-Surface branches.) Therefore, even if the Subway-Surface trolleys were branded as a single line, in the style of Boston, their cumulative ridership would still fall below L.A.'s Blue Line.73.53.47.241 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Add the number of stations the metro in Los Angeles has

The New York City subway wiki says how many stops they have so why don't they add the number of station in LA here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening of the Purple Line

On the page the opening of the Purple Line is listed as 2008... but that was the year it was renamed. The stations that make up the Purple Line are actually older than the Red Line. I think the opening date should be the same as the Red Line since the Purple Line was always intended to be operated as a branch of the Red Line. Thoughts? RickyCourtney (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a weirdly confusing situation. The stub-branch up Wilshire is actually older than the line up Vermont into Hollywood, so technically the Purple Line is older than the Red Line. We might want to slightly complicate the table to get the info in. --Jfruh (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically oppose. The "line" itself was "created" in 2006. That's the figure that should be quoted. The fact the it was operated before that as the "Red Line" going back to 1993–96 can be covered in detail at the Purple Line article. Indeed, details on that are even found further down this article's page, in the 'Expansions' section. At most, a 'Note' can be added to the Purple Line "open" date with details, but in this case I'm not even sure that it's necessary. --IJBall (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So-called "Yellow Line"

I would propose the deletion of the entire "Yellow Line" entry under "expansion concepts". I cannot find a shred of evidence that reuse of the abandoned "Hollywood"/"Belmont" tunnel downtown has ever achieved credibility beyond fringe/dreamer pontificating. Even if it weren't infeasible for multiple reasons (the block's width worth of solid concrete Bonaventure foundation far more than the new apartments at the portal), it still wouldn't the remotest priority in a world where the Red Line already exists and the Regional Connector tunnel is funded.

The bar for inclusion on the "expansion concepts" list seems depressingly low already, but this one may be the lowest. Absent a source that confirms the purported inclusion "as a Tier 2 strategic unfunded project in the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan" -- I can find no evidence whatsoever -- it should be summarily deleted.73.53.47.241 (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I found the document in question. Tier 2 projects are listed as "candidates for further project definition", and the list appears to be a bit of a graveyard for a range of vague proposals likely not worth pursuing. Reuse of the abandoned tunnel is not mentioned, though linking to the Regional Connector tunnel (in an unspecified manner) is mentioned.

Updated the article entry to accurately reflect Metro document text. I still think the "Yellow" mention should be deleted outright, as it seems under no serious consideration at any level. 73.53.47.241 (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should trash it. Frankly we should have a serious discussion about what "concepts" should even be included. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Future concepts

Hello,

Per advice given to me, I am here to discuss the line name changing section. From what I have seen on Metro's website and The Source, which is Metro's official blog, there has been no mention of this since April. It was brought up at the Service Council meetings that month but nothing ever came of it. Here's the link to the STAFF report, which shouldn't be used to provide reliable information. This was only an internal .pptx that was published for the public to see. https://www.scribd.com/doc/260801832/Staff-report-on-renaming-Metro-Rail-and-BRT-LinesTJH2018 (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)TJH2018

• Everything seems to trace back to that single presentation. I did a quick search of the Los Angeles Times and found no coverage. This could probably be stubbed down to "In 2015, Metro contemplated renaming the lines using a letter-based scheme, but did not adopt the proposal", if it needs to be mentioned at all. Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Thank you!! – I said at the time it was added that that section should never have been put into the article as it was total WP:CRYSTAL. It's not surprising that I was proven right about that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, as PCR's were claiming an edit war. TJH2018 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Gold Line Station List

Hallo!

In lieu of not being able to get any input from anyone on the TP:Gold Line, I will post this here and see if you can give me any pointers. I added the new stations for the Foothill Extension which opens on the 5th, and would like to know if I did everything right ahead of time. Thanks for the input! (PS: Sorry if someone complains if this is on the wrong TP, but TP:Gold Line doesn't seem to get much exposure. Also, I want to know if this will fit in with all of the other Metro Rail station listings)

Station listing

The following table lists the current stations of the Gold Line, from south to north.

Station	Station Connections	Date Opened	City/ Neighborhood
Atlantic	Metro Local: 260 Metro Rapid: 762 Montebello Transit: 10, 40, 341, 342 El Sol: City Terrace/ELAC, Whittier Blvd/Saybrook Park	November 15, 2009	East Los Angeles
East LA Civic Center	Metro Local: 258 Montebello Transit:40 El Sol: City Terrace/ELAC, Union Pacific/Salazar Park, Whittier Blvd/Saybrook Park
Maravilla	Metro Local: 256 Montebello Transit: 40 El Sol: Union Pacific/Salazar Park, Whittier Blvd/Saybrook Park
Indiana	Metro Local: 30, 68 Shuttle (Weekdays Only), 254, 620, 665 Montebello Transit: 40 Whittier Blvd/Saybrook Park
Soto	Metro Local: 30, 251, 252, 605 Metro Rapid: 751		Los Angeles (Boyle Heights)
Mariachi Plaza	Metro Local: 30, 620
Pico/Aliso	Metro Local: 30
Little Tokyo/Arts District	Metro Local: 30, 40, 330 LADOT DASH: A, D		Los Angeles (Little Tokyo/ Arts District)
Union Station	Metro Red Line  Metro Purple Line  Metro Silver Line Metro Local: 40, 68, 70, 71, 78, 79 Metro Express: 442, 485, 487 Metro Rapid: 704, 728, 733, 745, 770 Amtrak Big Blue Bus: Rapid 10 FlyAway Foothill Transit: Silver Streak LADOT DASH: B, D, Lincoln Heights/Chinatown Metrolink	July 26, 2003	Downtown Los Angeles
Chinatown	Metro Local: 45, 76, 81, 83, 84, 90, 91, 94, 96 Metro Rapid: 794 LADOT DASH: B, Lincoln Heights/Chinatown LADOT Commuter Express: 409, 419		Los Angeles (Chinatown)
Lincoln/Cypress	Metro Local:81, 84, 90, 91, 94, 251 Metro Rapid: 751, 794		Los Angeles (Lincoln Heights/ Cypress Park)
Heritage Square	Metro Local: 81, 83		Los Angeles (Montecito Heights)
Southwest Museum	Metro Local: 81, 83		Los Angeles (Mount Washington)
Highland Park	Metro Local: 81, 83, 256 LADOT DASH: Highland Park/Eagle Rock		Los Angeles (Highland Park)
South Pasadena	Metro Local: 176		South Pasadena
Fillmore	Metro Local: 260, 686, 687 Metro Rapid: 762 Pasadena Transit: 20		Pasadena
Del Mar	Metro Local: 177, 256, 260, 686, 687 Metro Express: 501 Metro Rapid: 762 Pasadena Transit: 20
Memorial Park	Metro Local: 180, 181, 256, 260, 267, 686, 687 Metro Express: 501 Metro Rapid: 762, 780 Pasadena Transit: 10, 20
Lake	Metro Local: 180 Metro Express: 485 Foothill Transit: 690 Pasadena Transit: 20
Allen	Metro Local: 256, 686 Pasadena Transit: 10
Sierra Madre Villa	Metro Local: 181, 264, 266, 268 Metro Express: 487 Foothill Transit: 187 Pasadena Transit: 31, 32, 40, 60
Arcadia	Metro Local: 79, 487 Foothill Transit: 187 Arcadia Transit	March 5, 2016	Arcadia
Monrovia	Metro Local: 264, 270 Foothill Transit: 494		Monrovia
Duarte/City of Hope	Metro Local: 264, 270 Foothill Transit: 272 Duarte Transit: Green, Blue		Duarte
Irwindale	Foothill Transit: 185		Irwindale
Azusa Downtown	Foothill Transit: 185, 187, 280, 494, 496		Azusa
APU/Citrus College	Foothill Transit: 187, 281, 284, 488

References

TJH2018 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging RickyCourtney who's worked pretty extensively on these tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Two comments:

1) I feel like this table, along with the route map, should be now oriented north to south. That's how most people think... north to south and west to east. The reason why it started off inverted was all of the tables were done with Union Station at the top, since it's the hub. The orientation really hasn't been logical since the eastside extension opened. You may disagree and I may just be being obsessive.

2) I'm starting to question the logic of having all the local bus connections on Metro Rail pages. It's made the chart huge, I often find inaccuracies and at the end of the day Wikipedia isn't a travel guide.

Overall it looks good. Thanks for doing the work. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Rickey, I agree with you about the route situation. I had to go through and add Pasadena Transit, and I was really surprised that it wasn't even there. But then someone reverted them and cited no references, so I then had to go and do twice the work. Kind of the reason I put the reference by the station name to ease things up. I'll try posting this today, and I will also work on the station page on Metro Rail. Thanks again for the input!TJH2018 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of this fails NOTTRIVIA and NOTGUIDE. The locations of the stations are probably fine. The specific route numbers should definitely be removed, and perhaps only significant connections like rail should be included in the list. A complete referenced list of connections, as well as opening dates, are perhaps better left for specific station pages.

Disagree about the opening date of the station – including that info in the table strikes me as reasonable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm also unsure over whether this should be a list or prose. I suppose as long as an appropriately sourced prose route description remains in the Gold Line article, a short list of stations can be appropriately encyclopedic. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 16:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, while this amount of detail is probably inappropriate for Wikipedia, it seems like other wikis would make use of it. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If you guys want me to, I'll go through all the lines and take out the bus routes but will leave the rail connections. We would then have to move the bus routes to the station pages themselves . I will wait for a consensus before I go ahead with this. TJH2018 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest continuing to include connections to the Orange and Silver lines – those aren't just standard "bus lines", and Metro considers those lines as comparable to the Gold and Blue light rail lines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, as those are cheaper alternatives to a rail line...TJH2018 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

LRV Dilema

Hello all,

I have a bit of a problem on my hands. I have been working on creating articles for the Nippon Sharyo P865, Siemens P2000, P3010's, and the P2550's. The last two that aren't wikilinked are the ones I am having issues with. I am unable to find a single reference from the manufactures about these vehicles. For the P2550's, AnsaldoBreda was bought out by Hitatchi Rail earlier this year, so the factsheet that was there previously is now gone. For the P3010's, Kinkisharyo hasn't released a fact sheet on it yet, so that isn't an issue for the time being. I was looking for some input on where to go from here, as I am kinda lost at this point. Thanks again for the insight!

--TJH2018 talk 00:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here's an archived version of the AnsaldoBreda web page on the P2550. Hope that helps. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Big thanks. I went through the Way back but couldn't find anything. If only the PDF was still there. TJH2018 talk 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC) TJH2018 talk 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Seismic risks -> limited underground rail network?

I was a bit surprised to learn LA has a subway system; I'd always thought it was an option they had chosen not to explore (and it rarely features in films and books...). But according to the article, almost all of the stations are overground anyway (except on the red and purple lines) and probably a major part of the actual tracks are overground or elevated too. And of course there wasn't any metro rail at all until the 1990s, despite LA being one of the biggest and sometimes smoggiest urban areas in the US. Does this reluctance to pursue underground railway have anything to do with the well-known risk of earthquakes in the area? 83.251.170.27 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, basically it was a combination of political factors (including the inability to pass sales tax increases) and the high cost. Also, concerns from area homeowners about gentrification in their communities played a big part in this. I suggest reading Railtown by Ethan Elkind, if you would like to know a little bit more.--TJH2018 talk 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Worth also noting that there was an streetcar tunnel downtown up until the 1950s. Admittedly it was relatively short (only a mile or two) and I think it lacked any actual underground stations, but it was still there. Jfruh (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

See Subway Terminal Building. Fettlemap (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Belmont Tunnel / Toluca Substation and Yard is probably more direct in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) → Los Angeles Metro Rail
• List of Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stations → List of Los Angeles Metro Rail stations
• Metro Rail rolling stock → Los Angeles Metro Rail rolling stock
• Metro Liner (Los Angeles County) → Los Angeles Metro Liner
• List of Metro Liner stations → List of Los Angeles Metro Liner stations

– While within Los Angeles this rapid transit system will obviously be referred to as "Metro Rail", it is generally known as the "Los Angeles Metro Rail" system, see the book Railtown: The Fight for the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the Future of the City and further publications (incl. scholarly ones): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The proposed naming is also well in line with Buffalo Metro Rail, Washington Metro, Baltimore Metro Subway, the New York City Subway or the London Underground, which locally are also simply referred to as the "Metro Rail", the "Subway", or the "Underground".
Secondly, as per WP:NATURALDIS, we're strongly preferring natural disambiguation, as long as it's an established name, to appending some disambiguator. This is also important to avoid clumsy titles on secondary articles, such as List of Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stations, or categories such as the proposed Category:Future Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stations.
And while the operator's name may be Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it is quite common for metropolitan rapid transit services to extend beyond the borders of the central municipality, so there's no real need to add "County", unless that name was more common, which doesn't seem to be the case.
-- PanchoS (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is a well stated proposal. I agree with the rationale set out. As noted, this is a situation where it's obvious that local common usage is going to differ from general common usage, and we should be using the general common usage, just as we have "New York City Subway" rather than "Subway (New York City)". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• DismissThis claim is based on a book, and the LACMTA's service area is not just in LA. It is the entirety of LA County, so this move would end up being both confusing and a problem. I have also read Railtown, and in LA, it is just referred to as the Metro, not the LA Metro. The LACMTA is a county based agency, and has no affiliation with the City of LA. LA County, not LA City. --TJH2018 talk 01:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In NYC, it's referred to as "the Subway", not "the New York City Subway". This is the difference between local common usage and general common usage. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a local one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You're missing my point. It is not operated by the city of LA. It is under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. My point is that it wouldn't make sense to make a move here. We will need a lot more input here. TJH2018 talk 02:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm missing your points. I was commenting on one of the points you made, which was "in LA, it is just referred to as the Metro, not the LA Metro". The County issue is another one of your points, but just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean I missed it. As for that issue that I allegedly missed: ultimately, I don't think it matters a whole lot what entity has jurisdiction over the metro; what matters more is what the overall common name of it is. The article text is more than capable of clarifying what entity runs the metro. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am changing my comment to Support. --TJH2018 talk 16:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I like the Natural disambiguation instead of appending a disambiguator. While the city/county is important as a technical issue and can be confusing since they are both Los Angeles, I agree it is quite common for metropolitan rapid transit services to extend beyond the borders of the central municipality and that adding "County" in unnecessary. A technical person can dig into the details if they want to sort it out. It is unimportant to the general reader. Fettlemap (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is a very solid, reasoned argument. Los Angeles Metro Rail and other similar names are logical and naturally unambiguous. Even though the Metro Rail system extends beyond the Los Angeles city line (and may one day extend beyond the county line) I think that most people will understand that it serves the Greater Los Angeles Area. --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support for reasons listed above. Might want to take on Miami and Houston next. --Jfruh (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support — A common sense change that is long overdue. – Zntrip 20:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NATURALDIS solution makes good sense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Good use of WP:NATURALDIS. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We should perhaps wait on moving Metro Liner (Los Angeles County) → Los Angeles Metro Liner & List of Metro Liner stations → List of Los Angeles Metro Liner stations With the release of the new maps for the foothill Gold Line it's clear Metro is no longer using the term "Metro Liner" and is instead using "Metro Busway" (Examples: Go Metro map & System map). Maybe the move should be: Metro Liner (Los Angeles County) → Los Angeles Metro Busway & List of Metro Liner stations → List of Los Angeles Metro Busway stations. Thoughts? --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree – hold off on the last two until Metro actually settles on a name for these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

LA Metro Rail station article accessibility

As of recent, I have edited a number of LA Metro Rail station articles to include the city, state and zip codes. I have noticed recently the infoboxes just included the street address only, and I remember the general rail station inboxes including street address, city and state altogether, possibly before being revamped to the custom LA Metro Rail infoboxes. But it has been brought to my attention that my editing has reduced accessibility, and I am still trying to understand how and why. I have included infoboxes to rail transit articles for other systems over the years off and on, and I have never had this issue till now. So it is not my intention to reduce accessibility in the articles, but to enhance them where needed. I'm still reviewing W:MOS to better get an idea of how to edit and make changes if needed before resuming edits. Thank you. GETONERD84 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

True length of red/purple lines

Hi,

I'm currently working on the French version of L.A. Metro, and I'd like to know if someone had a real reference concerning the length of red and purple lines. Indeed, if we follow that article, North Hollywood to Union Station (which corresponds to the Red Line) is a 17.4 mile route, thus why can we read here that its length is 16.4 miles ? Concerning the Purple Line, and following the same article, it is 6.5, while on Los Angeles Metro Rail article it's written 6.4.

In a word, I'd like to find the length of the Red Line and the one of the Purple Line, taken distinctly, though they r used to be on the same rail section.

I don't notice the same problem for the other four lines, as they are quite distinct to each other, while Red/Purple are very linked, sharing 6 stations, and that is for me the source of my misunderstanding.

Regards, --3Jo7 (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Metro Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311233050/http://www.transit-insider.org/master.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transit-insider.org%2Fredline%2Flactc.htm to http://www.transit-insider.org/master.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transit-insider.org%2Fredline%2Flactc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of Wikipedia articles on history and future of Metro Rail lines

Hello all! I would like to suggest some changes I've contemplating in how Wikipedia should cover the LA Metro Rail/Busway system, particularly when it comes to coverage of history and future expansion in a more systematic way.

Somewhat uniquely in the English-speaking world, the system has been largely built out in the Wikipedia era, which means that many of the articles about lines contain a lot of WP:RECENT blow-by-blow details on their planning and development which was useful at the time but is now of more specialized interest or can be deleted as cruft. In addition, while the named lines of the system so far have been relatively stable, that's going to change soon with the opening of the Crenshaw/LAX Line and the Regional Connector, which means we're going to have to confront the question of what parts of the history section of existing articles go where.

Over the next few months, I am planning to create some new articles and tweak others to prepare for this shift. Because it represents a big shift, I wanted to lay it out here first to make sure that there weren't objections or to field suggestions (and to recruit helpers, if you're interested!). My vision for the arrangement of articles going forward would look like this:

• Each named line gets its own article, which includes a "History" section that gives a high-level overview of the history of all the segements that went into that line. These articles can be changed as needed if Metro adjusts services and creates different named lines going over new or existing infrastructure.

• We create a new "History of Los Angeles Metro Rail" article that treats the expansion of the system chronologically, rather than by line. A somewhat simplified version of the the table here would serve as the skeleton for this article, with each segment getting its own section. This is where we would move most of the detailed info on planning and construction that's currently spread out across the articles for individual lines. For some segments, this History article would only include a summary and then link to the more detailed article for that segment, some of which already exist and some of which we could create if the top-level "History" article gets too unweidly.

• We create a "Los Angeles Metro Rail expansion" article that again treats future expansion chronologically, with the table here serving as the skeleton. For most segments, this page would serve as a way to systematically give a reader one-stop access to the many proliferating pages article various in-progress projects; each section and link could then "graduate" to the "History" page once the project is completed and put into service.

My thinking on this structure was motivated by Metro's plan for to absorb all the new construction for the segment that's long been labelled as the Crenshaw/LAX Line into the existing Green Line; it seemed to me that the existing article for the Crenshaw/LAX Line should stay together, since it describes a single coherent project, rather than getting dumped into the "History" section of the Green Line article. This way we can preserve much of the work Wikipedians have done documenting the process of building these lines without making the top-level articles for each line overlong or constantly needing to move big swaths of text from article to article as Metro changes service patterns around.

My instinct would be to include the Metro Busway articles in this structure rather than creating a parallel structure for them, just because Metro treats the Orange and Silver Lines in its maps/branding as basically the equivalents of Metro Rail lines. Admittedly this could make the article titles a bit unweildy ("History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway") but I think it's worth it.

Anyway, my plan would be to put this structure in place bit by bit over the next several months, with the plan to have it firmly in place well in advance of the Crenshaw/LAX Line opening in 2019. Interested in hearing your thoughts, objections, modifications, etc.! --Jfruh (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Endorse and appreciate the effort. Agree that article naming will be tricky until/unless a unified naming scheme is widely adopted for Metro's BRT and rail lines. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. The rail network is undergoing a lot of changes and wikipedia's coverage could be better organized. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Behind you %100. Any modernization of the LA Metro pages is good news. Redspork02 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, this has now been done! The History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway article is, in essence, a compendium of the History sections of the individual line pages, which have now had their info pruned. We're now ready for the surgery that's going to be needed for the individual lines once they start changing the names and services starting next year. The big catch-all article definitely can use some TLC, particularly in the early history of planning the Blue Line. --Jfruh (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Timing of renaming lines

Hey all! An official announcement from Metro today on the line renaming progress:

The A Line is the first rail line to employ the new naming convention in which Metro Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Lines will be named with letters and colors to better help riders navigate a growing system. The remainder of the system will transition to the new naming convention when the Crenshaw/LAX Line opens. [6]

So, get ready to throw the switch on the Blue/A line in a couple weeks. The other lines will wait until mid/late 2020. --Jfruh (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

But there's also this from Metro's website:

Our plan is for all stations to have updated permanent signage within the next several years. During the transition, our riders may see both color and letter symbols throughout the system, though the service colors in use will remain the same.

To help bridge the two conventions, a temporary hybrid naming system will be introduced using both the letter and the color to refer to the line. For example: the Blue Line becomes the A Line (Blue) . This hybrid will be phased out eventually, and then we will only use the letter names on our materials. [7]

Also the upcoming A Line timetable and the upcoming system map are using the naming convention for all lines. So, at least "on paper" the re-naming of all lines will take place on November 2. So should we switch all lines on the same date and include references to the old colors (as Metro is doing)? --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Their responses to this have been all over the place. I think we should hold out to see if the map on their official maps and schedules page (as opposed to a map linked to from a page specifically about the renaming) gets updated with all the letters at once or if they just change Blue to A Line. If they do update all the letters on the official map, my vote would be to switch them all here. If not, we should just switch the A.

I would not be in favor of renaming the actual articles "A Line (Blue)" and the like, because that's specifically called out a transitional reminder -- it's not a permanent name. We should probably put a reference in the lede of the article, though. Like, the lede to the Line A article could be something like this:

The A Line is a 22.0-mile (35.4 km) light rail line running north-south between Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, passing through Downtown Los Angeles, South Los Angeles, Watts, Willowbrook, Compton, Rancho Dominguez and Long Beach in Los Angeles County. It is one of six lines in the Metro Rail system. Opened in 1990, it is the system's oldest and third busiest line with an estimated 22.38 million boardings per year as of December 2017. It is operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Originally named the Blue Line, its name was changed in 2019, although its icon and color on maps remain blue. Metro refers to the line as "the A Line (Blue)" in some publications during a transitional period.

The A Line passes near the cities of Vernon, Huntington Park, South Gate, Lynwood, and Carson. The famous Watts Towers can be seen from the train near 103rd Street station. The under-construction Regional Connector will directly link this line to Union Station and beyond.

I totally agree. I should have been more specific in my original comment, but I agree with your proposed plan. We should follow what Metro is doing on its official maps and schedules page. When it comes to the page names, the article(s) should be named "A Line (Los Angeles Metro)" with a reference to the "Blue Line," in bold, in the first paragraph of the introduction, exactly as your example shows.

However, I do not think that this line is necessary:

"Metro refers to the line as "the A Line (Blue)" in some publications during a transitional period."

I think that detail is somewhat redundant for the lede and therefore unnecessary. --RickyCourtney (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm definitely not married to it. I could see someone trying to add it on the logic that "A Line (Blue)" is an "official" name now because it appears in official documents, and this was more my idea for heading it off appearing in some even more prominent place in article. I could do without it for sure. --Jfruh (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References