Talk:Regional Connector

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Regional Connector.

Future of the Gold Line?

Once the Downtown Connector is completed, will the Gold Line become part of the Blue Line as was orginally planned?

I'd like to see the line from Long Beach to Pasadena be designated "Blue Line" with the Eastside Gold Line connecting to the Expo Line. Is this possible?

The current Gold Line Eastside extension is a direct continuation of the Gold Line tracks from Pasadena and all plans are to designate the entire route (Azusa to Monterey Park) as the Gold Line. However, once the Downtown Connector is complete, these tracks will have a connection to Expo and Blue line tracks in Little Tokyo and trains could theoretically switch from one line to another. Arturoramos (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Fantasy Maps Please

As has been discussed in the Los Angeles County Metro Rail Discussion Page, we should not be putting fantasy maps up of projects. It is highly unlikely that LACMTA would be able to fit four tracks on surface streets in downtown Los Angeles and I have not seen any mention in any official document to a four track system being installed. If I am incorrect acount this, please let me know. Arturoramos (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

I have moved this article. The former name was LACMTA Regional Connector. This was not consistent with the naming used for the various other projects (e.g., Metro Green Line (LACMTA)). The new name, -- where the word LACMTA appears at the end in parentheses -- is better because it then acts a disambiguator. This is consistent with other transit systems' wiki pages as well (like NYC subway and Chicago). Jcovarru (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard format for Los Angeles Metro project articles

I am trying to standardize the format of Los Angeles Metro (LACMTA) project articles. The format is helpful to readers and editors, because it follows the lifecycle of a typical infrastructure project, and allows the article to grow organically as the project progresses.

The format consists of five sections, as follows:

Section name	Topics
Background	Discusses the motivation/objective/purpose of the project. Also discusses the history of early work to get the project going. Should include major milestones through Major Investment Study (MIS), Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Environmental review process	Describes the history of environmental review, and the alternatives studied in the DEIR/FEIR. May also list some or all of the alternatives considered in the AA. Should list all alternatives studied in the DEIR.
Selected alternative (after LPA selected)	Describes the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in detail, plus any design options being carried forward for further study.
Other considerations	Discusses project funding, planned service, and any other important issues affecting the design and implementation of the project.
Construction phase (after construction began)	Discusses the history of construction, from groundbreaking through revenue service.

Jcovarru (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Updated: Jcovarru (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New map

I've created a new map for the project based on the one the MTA has on it's site. Before I go any further (since it's obviously not 100% done), are there any concerns that should be addressed? I know off the bat landmarks and highway shields need to be added. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I posted a link to this on the Transit Coalition website. Let's see what you get. I'm not sure how the lines will be designated after the connector opens, but I seem to recall some noise that indicates each line will get either a letter or a number for the route (à la New York) and colored designations will disappear - but I don't think anything is official at this point. Lexlex (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of responses on the Transit Coalition message board ( Here Are you a member BTW? ). Very positive overall. Questions were on selection of destination names. Thanks again, looks great! Lexlex (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the thread. I've registered for an account, but it said something about it having to be approved. I'll respond here:

The Purple Line isn't scheduled to reach Westwood until 2030. The Regional Connector should be open around 2020. A Montclair extension should be wrapped up within that time frame. I'm went by the MTA's estimates which is why I picked those destinations.
The Silver Line will be included in the final version. Other bus service won't be on this map, it wouldn't serve any purpose. I am however in the process of drafting a county-wide system map in a style similar to that used in New York that includes both bus and rail.
I'm aware that they're moving towards letters. The problem is other than the Expo Line, none of the lines have them (they do have numbers, and they're used semi-publicly by the MTA but I doubt they'll use them in a primary sense).

Thanks for the responses. They're very much appreciated. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Tokyo Station

Will the existing above ground station be preserved for use as a streetcar station, or will it be demolished once the underground station opens?96.251.0.173 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Final EIR document for the Regional Connector (page 33):

The proposed underground 1st/Central Avenue station would replace the train service currently provided at the existing at-grade Little Tokyo/Arts District Station. However, there may still be some uses for the existing at-grade station, such as special event service and other contingencies.

So it seems like the Little Tokyo station and above-ground infrastructure will be retained, but not used in general service after construction is complete. Conifer (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opened?

The tag Opened should be changed to Opens or Opens in, since it won't actually open until 2020, about four years from today.2605:E000:AA14:FA00:F5A2:2E54:83BC:EEE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for noticing that. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East-west line will be E

Sorry for my recent revert, but there is absolutely no question that the east-west line will be E, not L (although it will use the current L line's gold color rather than the old E line's aqua color). The map on the Regional Connector page is in error. The documents on the Dropbox links are clearly official Metro presentations, and are clearly dated, and there is no reason to discount them. Check out this video from one of the stations, you can see that the E labels are already up: [1]