Talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail

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. [1]

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. [2]

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

How to treat the Crenshaw/LAX line aka the "K Line" until officially opened

Hello all! There has been an extensive discussion at Talk:LAX_Line#%22K_Line%22_designation over how to graphically represent future service that will travel along the Crenshaw/LAX Line project. There have been some Metro documents indicating some version of the service on this line will be designated the "K Line" and will use olive as the color of its bullet and its color on maps. While that info is reliably sourced, I personally think that, because it isn't really public facing and has evolved over time and may do so further before the line opens, we should avoid using the olive K bullet in templates and infoboxes for the time being (though we should mention the sources that talk about them in article text). To me, using the bullet across our Metro Rail pages implies a certainty about the future that isn't justified, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. However, other editors, including @Lexlex , believe it's important to have some bullet for use in maps, templates, and infoboxes, rather than just the wikilinked phrase "Crenshaw/LAX Line." I thought it would be a good idea to move the discussion over here to get more eyes on it and come up with a consensus. --Jfruh (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This has now been resolved to the satisfaction of people involved in the initial discussion, but if others have opinions feel free to chime in. --Jfruh (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Inglewood Transit Corridor

Now that the Los Angeles Metro Board has voted to enter a joint venture to jointly own and manage the construction, financing, and operation of the Inglewood People Mover project, with the City of Inglewood, would it make sense to integrate that article into this page as well? --SofaKing381222 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would advise waiting until there are more concrete developments first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, same. Particularly would wait until the project shows up on Metro's own websites. I don't think there's a need to update these pages with every internal development of projects that might not even happen. --Jfruh (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@SofaKing381222 will IPM even be considered a Metro Rail line? I wouldn't be surprised if they just throw some random 8XX or 9XX on it (maybe 841?) and not give it a system name designation. Until then, any info about IPM should probably be on a page for the project, and if they announce it's part of Metro Rail, can be copied inward. Amyipdev (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And of course that's still presuming that LA Metro considers it a part of them at all... even if they operate it, it might not get explicitly mentioned with numbering. Amyipdev (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Regarding the table under history

I made an edit to the table under the history section listing the chronological order in which the various segments of the system opened. My edit entailed replacing the various "L Line" bullets with "A Line" bullets, since from my perspective, it appeared as if the rest of the table were applying the bullets to the segments with the respective lines that currently run along those segments of the system, so my rationale was that I was simply just updating these entries in lieu of the service changes brought about by the recent opening of the Regional Connector. IJBall would quickly revert this edit however, and their rationale for this action was that since the table was listed under the history section, the table should list the line at the time of that respective segment's opening. I have a couple of issues with this, however. My first issue is that going by this rationale, then pre-2020, the solid color name files should have already been used for those segments (they are on Commons as older, separate files). However, instead, the letter-based bullets were used before my edit. My second issue is that, for example, with the entries for "Blue Line To Financial District" and "Red Line MOS-1," etc., these list multiple lines cooperating on those segments when the E/Expo and D/Purple Lines did not exist at the times when those segments opened. While I personally understand their rationale for reverting my edit, I am admittedly confused with this outcome, since those two issues are still in contention since a complete revert without any additional changes afterwards still leaves those contradictions in play within the table. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the table should be consistent. To be clear, my position is that, in the 'History' section, the table should list the lines when the segment was opened – anything else is inaccurate WP:RECENTISM. I would even agree that most of the table should actually be turned back to "Red line"/"Blue line" labeling over A/B line stuff for pre-2022? segments. But, at a minimum, it should use the line letter that corresponds to the line at the time of the segment's opening. IOW, all the "Gold Line" stuff should link back to the Gold/L line article, not the current A/E configurations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

One possible solution here is to add another column to this table – the first can list the "lines on segment at opening", and the second could list "current lines on segment". That might solve the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The latter is the only logical answer. It also has the advantage of showing when routes have changed at a quick glance. And I would argue "at opening" means the old color names, not the letters. The "L Line" designation was always intended as temporary. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to be sure – you are saying you support the "two-column" solution?... If so, I think it has merit, yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the two-column idea is a good one. One column for showing what route a segment was used for when it opened (with the old color names for those segments that pre-date the switch to letters) and one showing its current use. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this suggestion. I think it will be the most helpful option to showcase to readers the history of the segment while also providing a visual guide as to which lines utilize each respective segment currently. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm sensing there won't be opposition to this. Let's wait a few days to see if anyone else comments – if no one objects, one of us can try to implement adding the new column to that table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I made an edit similar to the one that started this discussion off. In my defense, the previous state was wildly inconsistent in a number of ways -- why were there letter bullets instead of plain color bullets? Why was the "E" line listed for the extension to the 7MC when that didn't exist then? why was the E bullet gold instead of aqua? -- and I don't think the version I just created was actively worse. I don't fully buy the criticism of "inaccurate WP:RECENTISM" -- we make clear the dates the segment actually opened, and indicating what lines currently run on each segment will help the reader situation themselves, especially if they're not familiar with the system history. I did change the header to make it clear that we're talking about the current line running on the segment in question for each line.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of also indicating the original line running on each segment in the table, but frankly in almost every case that information is already in the "Segment description" column. Perhaps we could add the original color bullet to that column instead of adding yet another one? --Jfruh (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally would not mind the addition of original line indicators. My main issue was also with the wildly inconsistent usage of the line bullets, so I would be okay with this change. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge with the Metro Busway article?

So, I am not as confident with this proposal like my other one that I made for merging the Metro Rapid article into the Metro Bus one, and I acknowledge that it may be more of a wild proposal, and not one that I am really particularly pushing. But I just wanted to at least throw out this idea to see if anyone else had any ideas about it. I was thinking if we combined this article with the one for the Metro Busway article, much like how Metro (Minnesota) is structured. Technically speaking, the two systems are separate, but even Metro themselves likes to usually group them together; i.e. on their system maps and announcing the Metro Busway lines as transfers to riders on the Metro Rail lines. Even then, Metro Busway on its own doesn't really form a cohesive system in its own right; it consists of two completely disjointed lines and one could argue furthermore that the two systems almost function as one altogether. Even the history article for both systems is one and the same on here. Even if there are new Metro Busway lines being planned, I don't really expect this arrangement to change, even as the Metro Busway greatly explodes in size.

I was also thinking perhaps the new article and the articles for the lines could follow the naming methodology that Metro (Minnesota) and its associated line articles do; perhaps the merged main page could be something along the lines of Metro (California)? After all, there are current (albeit unfunded) plans to extend the A Line beyond Los Angeles County. And the line articles could be named like Metro X Line (California), since Metro themselves even refers to the lines as "Metro X Line" both in public and train announcements. Was curious to hear some other thoughts. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I see where you're coming from, but there are just too many differences between the pages for a smooth merger. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose. Different modes entirely, even if Metro gives the busway tours names consistent with the rail lines as part of their total system. Metro Rapid, conversely, may be limited stop service, but they're ultimately still bus lines (and as noted on that talk page, the branding is largely being phased out as it didn't really work that well). oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Though I don't feel super strongly about it, I do think that the two systems are treated more or less as peers by Metro, and I agree that grouping the G and J lines together by themselves is pretty arbitrary. Honestly the biggest barrier to merging them from my POV is the incredibly clunky article title that it would produce. Even if we don't merge the two articles, I do think it makes sense to merge the two templates that list all the stations. --Jfruh (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)