 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:C Line (Los Angeles Metro). |
Anyone know what the schedule of the green line shuttle to LAX is or if it can be found on the MTA site? Does the shuttle to LAX run whenever the green line is running, or can you be stuck at Aviation station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.108.194 ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It runs nearly continuously There is little chance of getting stuck.-- Jmohler1970 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
However, by the time the Green Line opened in 1995, the Cold War was over, and the aerospace sector was hemorrhaging jobs. Furthermore, during the 1980s, the bedroom communities in the Gateway Cities region of southeastern Los Angeles County were rapidly losing their population of middle-class aerospace workers (primarily whites and blacks), a process that radically accelerated in the early 1990s. The working-class and poor Hispanics who filled the vacuum generally had no connection to the aerospace sector. This rationale for Green Line construction was a principal argument cited by the Bus Riders Union when it contended that MTA was focusing its efforts on serving middle-class whites and not working-class minorities. As a result, ridership has been below projected estimates, averaging approximately 44,000 daily weekday boardings in June 2008.
The causal factors alleged in the article are speculative and unsourced. Mbstone ( talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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) 23:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This article describes the line as light rail but notes that it is "fully grade-separated", which is the technical description of heavy rail. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.42.179 ( talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the terms "heavy rail" and "light rail" refer primarily to the passenger load each mode can handle. In practice, heavy rail is most often grade separated due to the equipment used, but that does not preclude any light rail line from also being fully grade separated. --AlikaAlex 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikaalex ( talk • contribs)
- In the Los Angeles region, heavy rail refers mainly to Metrolink and Amtrak trains. The Metro trains are called "light rail" and the green line does run on a cable system suspended above the track right-of-way, which is a common feature most light rail systems upon which I have traveled. 173.75.117.35 ( talk) 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Los Angeles Metro). 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/20131121025059/http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/block-by-block/exploring-the-south-bay-metro-green-line-extension.html to http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/block-by-block/exploring-the-south-bay-metro-green-line-extension.html
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 20:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
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) 19:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: "(DEIR). The study is expected to be completed in 2011." That was 8 years ago! What is the status? Bhami ( talk) 02:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
As we discuss in the article, Metro is on the record as saying that, after the Crenshaw/LAX Line opens, there will be two services, one going from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw and one going from Willowbrook to Redondo Beach. While it seems obvious from the fact that the Gold Line has been renamed "L" that one of these new lines will be "K", there's been no official verifiable word yet as to which one that will be, nor has there been any indication of what its color will be (some internal Metro docs have leaked out but they are contradictory on these points). I pruned out some of this stuff from the article; please hold off on going beyond what we can verify until Metro makes an official public-facing announcement. -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Both the K line and olive color information come from Metro meetings and memos, and are well cited. While it's true the final determination has not been announced, it's the best information we have to date and it's well sourced—which satisfies Wikipedia inclusion criteria. When any announcement is made, the articles can be updated to reflect the new information, however until that time we should use the best information we have. Your argument seems to be that we should intentionally omit factual information only because an official body hasn't yet announced its conclusion. This isn't a Wikipedia policy (or at least I am unfamiliar with it). Many articles grow over time as new information becomes available. As long as it's made clear that no official announcement has been made, I don't see a problem including K line/olive color here (e.g. as proposed, pending, etc.).
Lexlex (
talk) 11:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with "Metro planning documents as of 2020 describe this new line as the K Line" or the like. But lots of articles prominently use the "K" olive bullet in infoboxes and so forth, or give the name as a fact without any hedges, which is much of what I've deleted from other pages. That would definitely be giving that information undue weight IMO. For what it's worth, the reference on this page to the K Line that I removed had exactly one citation, to an article that didn't mention the K Line at all! It's also worth noting that another reference to the K Line I spotted on one of the other LA Metro Rail wikipedia pages linked to Metro document that had the K in a pink bullet, so clearly this is not something that's set in stone. I guess what I'm saying is that if the information is out there, fine, let's say in the article "this is Metro's current plans" but I would strongly object to putting the branding all over the pages -- particularly in infoboxes that offer unnuanced, at-a-glance info -- in a way that implies it's on the same footing as the current public-facing names and colors. --
Jfruh (
talk) 22:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- To say this slightly more succinctly: "Metro planning documents use the name 'K Line'" is factual information. "This line will be called the 'K Line'" is not factual information, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have no object to cited references to the former, but I object to the latter -- and I think putting bullets and letters in the infoboxes where we can't explain the nuances amounts to tak the latter position. -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with "Metro planning documents as of 2020 describe this new line as the K Line" or the like. But lots of articles prominently use the "K" olive bullet in infoboxes and so forth, or give the name as a fact without any hedges, which is much of what I've deleted from other pages. That would definitely be giving that information undue weight IMO. For what it's worth, the reference on this page to the K Line that I removed had exactly one citation, to an article that didn't mention the K Line at all! It's also worth noting that another reference to the K Line I spotted on one of the other LA Metro Rail wikipedia pages linked to Metro document that had the K in a pink bullet, so clearly this is not something that's set in stone. I guess what I'm saying is that if the information is out there, fine, let's say in the article "this is Metro's current plans" but I would strongly object to putting the branding all over the pages -- particularly in infoboxes that offer unnuanced, at-a-glance info -- in a way that implies it's on the same footing as the current public-facing names and colors. --
Jfruh (
talk) 22:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a duplicate discussion in progress on Talk:Crenshaw/LAX Line#"K Line" designation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Lexlex ( talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The lines that are being compared in the Speed section, the A, E, and L Lines, have since been reoriented and these statistics are no longe applicable. Timnmnangers ( talk) 18:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Done --
RickyCourtney (
talk) 19:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- Start-Class Rapid transit articles
- Unknown-importance Rapid transit articles
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class Los Angeles articles
- Low-importance Los Angeles articles
- Los Angeles area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles