Talk:L Line (Los Angeles Metro)/Archive 1

Untitled
The Gold Line cost $859 million and was projected to board 38,000 per day. Two years later, the boardings were only 17,000. My opinion is that the mid-portion of the line doesn't service residential areas, hurting ridership. Speed could be better too.--Pelladon 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize List of Stations
The List of Stations would really benefit from being reorganized... possibly from West to East including all proposed and current stations in their proper order. RickyCourtney 08:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Linea de Oro
I added the Spanish name to the title. This is what the line will be called when the Eastside extension opens. I hope people do not get offended - it is L.A. after all. Nutmegger (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I understand it the new extension is named "La Linea de Oro, Edward R. Roybal." For all english documents the name of the line will be translated to "Edward R. Roybal Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension." But that will only be the name of the new extension. The line in its entirety will still be called the Metro Gold Line on both english and spanish documents. I am going to change the name back on the rest of the article. I hope nobody is offended. You can still refer to the extension in its spanish name. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastline extension delays?
Does anybody know why the MTA keeps delaying the opening of the east LA extension? It was originally was announced to open July 2009, then it was pushed back to August. Now I hear Fall. Does anybody know the reasons for the delays?69.234.53.48 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Paint problems. See http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gold-line12-2009sep12,0,145997.story Seneschal (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Color
It looks like the Downtown Connector project will finally be built. When this happens, I think the portion of the Gold Line that runs from Union Station to Pasadena should be renamed "Blue Line" as was originally planned and the Expo Line should be an extension of the East Side Gold Line. 74.100.48.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

There is no source of the claim that line's color will be "eliminated" as the article currently claims. Though there have been discussions about LACMTA's line colorization when the Regional Connector is finished, no decisions have been made by the board (as far as I have heard) and thus this claim probably cannot be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.72.111 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Most All-Encompassing Line?
This lines seems to have it all. It's an at-grade streetcar. It's an elevated train. It's an underground subway. It's on an old right-of-way. It's on new rails. It's an in-freeway train. It's everything!

Are these multiple features worth mentioning? And is this the only line in the world that has all these features? 69.234.188.124 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

tendentious/POV section
This section:


 * Although this route was better suited for and already built to long-distance commuter standards which would have allowed Metrolink to begin service almost immediately at minimal cost, the city of Pasadena was adamantly opposed to continued running of conventional diesel locomotives through the city and lobbied hard for light rail because of the latter's aesthetic visual appeal that would highlight Pasadena[6] as a modern, 'progressive', transit-oriented city, even if it meant several times the cost and wait time of nearly a decade. This is evidenced by the rehabilitation and subsequent development along the route including at and around the site of the former Santa Fe depot.

Is uncited and really seems to be trying to prove a point, years after the fact? I mean, there are plenty of other reasons Pasadena might've preferred light rail to commuter rail (the fact that Metrolink often runs only about 10 trains a day whereas light rail runs every 6-12 minutes, to start). --Jfruh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Azusa
The Azusa stations are now open. Can someone please change this page to reflect this? 2601:646:C401:5BE5:494C:E39:6E50:F72A (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New rolling stock
Now that Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A is open they're running new Kinki Sharyo P3010 rolling stock but I'm not sure which numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackaday (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And... TJH2018  talk  19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What are LACMTA late night/Early morning operations regarding trains?
Can anyone else corroborate what happens late night with trains? Because I work late night, I occasionally arrive a the Indian station about 3:30 in the morning. What the average reader may not know is that preparation for the 4:30AM departure from Atlantic station, there are unlisted trains that depart the trains yards and make passenger pickups late night/early morning. I have taken a train home, heading to Atlantic Station, when it stops at Indian station at 3:45AM. I have asked the bus driver about the unscheduled trains and it seems that LACMTA does rail and carriage testing on some the lines--Kencaesi (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gold 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/20160301212054/http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/804_2016-0221.pdf to http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/804_2016-0221.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Current Issues
The Current Issues section still reads like personal opinions rather than description. For example, it is true that the Gold Line travels 19.7 miles in 54 minutes, the slowest of any of the Metro Rail lines at 22 mph. But that number is taken out of context. The Blue Line travels 22 miles in 55 minutes (24 mph). Looking at Metro's Draft 2010 Congestion Management Program, transit network speed in Los Angeles County increased from 16 to 17 mph from 1992 to 2009. The report estimates countywide travel speed at about 30 mph. Bigger issues with the Gold Line and Metro in general are the Los Angeles area's low density, peripheral access of the Gold Line to major attractions and need for multiple transfers on rail and bus to reach destinations.

The Gold Line page also has contradictory statements, such as the description of the rolling stock. I'm going to try to clean it up it shortly.

Karstkarst (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Karstkarst, the speed of the line is a fact and therefore belongs in wikipedia. Comparison to other lines within the system is also valid. These are facts, and that is what wikipedia is for. It is true that the Gold Line is faster than the average bus. Unfortunately, it is slower than the Arroyo Seco Parkway, and this has contributed to the lowest per-mile ridership (1,740 weekday boardings/mile) of any Metro Rail line.

BTW, I'm not trying to pick on the Gold Line: it is probably the most scenic and pleasant ride in the system, especially through South Pasadena. I'm just saying, you can't deny it's slower than the other lines. But anyway, if you have facts that are relevant to the topic (speed) and provide context, you are of course welcome to add them to the article.

As for the section on rolling stock, I agree that it's sloppily written. I'm sure one of us will get around to cleaning it up soon.

Jcovarru (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Jcovarru, speed of the Gold Line is a fact. Ridership is also beyond dispute, assuming the methods for estimating it without gates or fare boxes are accurate.

The real question intended for discussion here is whether speed belongs in a section called Current Issues. Where does the Gold Line stand in terms of speed? Perhaps not surprisingly, it turns out to be faster than any New York City subway line (except the shuttle) but slower than non-rush hour freeway traffic in Los Angeles. Now if the Gold Line speed (22 mph) were somehow increased to the speed of the more well-traveled Blue Line (24 mph), would that affect ridership? There's no evidence that a ten percent change in travel time would have any impact.

You make a comparison with the Arroyo Seco Parkway/110 Freeway, which leads right through Downtown, near LA Live and past USC. We know that those are major hubs of activity in the Southland, drawing many thousands of people and leading to snarled traffic. But the Gold Line does not reach any of those locations (nor the Rose Bowl, Caltech, the Huntington Library, etc.). Even to get Downtown, Gold Line riders need to travel through a long corridor and down three levels to reach the Red Line for a transfer. Limited access to major destinations has a huge effect on ridership. It is in this context that the discussion about speed in the Current Issues section strikes me as a bit petty.

Karstkarst (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated the rolling stock section, but it still reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps the two paragraphs can be reduced to one while still maintaining the correct information. The commemorative cars are long gone, so perhaps the verb tense should be adjusted. We also have banner ads and wrapped trains now, but I will have to look and see when that contract started, since there are currently references to dates of banner ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsterp9 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Trains on this line can reach 300 mph?!?!?! o_O Those speeds are comparable with the TGV speeds in France. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)