Talk:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County)

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.

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.

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!

More Templates!

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

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 wiht 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]]''' |}

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)