Talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail

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)

Existence of far-off station articles

Not too long ago, Arts/Industrial District station was deleted in accordance with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Following this through, I wanted to inquire if any of the other station articles for the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project, Southeast Gateway Line, and the Eastside Transit Corridor are justified in their existence at this time. None of them have shovels in the ground as of the writing of this comment, though this may be quickly subject to change within the end of the year. Still, these stations are at a minimum, due to open in 2031 for the ESFV line’s Phase 1, while others (the SEGW line’s Phase 1 and the ETC’s Phase 2) are due to open in 2035, but then again, these dates are broad predictions and very subject to change. This isn’t even mentioning the fact that some of these station articles are part of even further future phases, which currently have no estimated timeline for completion. However, it seems as though Phase 1 of these projects are seemingly going to break ground not too far into the near future from the looks of things, so I am not sure if we should retain these articles for the time being. I could definitely see keeping the station articles with opening dates of 2031/2035 around, since those stations are part of the phrases set to break ground first, however. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to agree that it's WP:TOOSOON to be making articles for stations on lines that are still on the planning stage. Far too much can change between now and actual construction, let alone operations commencing. Redirect them to the articles on the lines until they actually exist as pieces of infrastructure. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Oknazevad. Take Nordhoff station (Metro Rail). It's mixing tenses talking about a station well before groundbreaking. Location, design, even the name can change before it opens. Does Van Nuys Boulevard even have a median strip right now? Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)