Talk:K Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Untitled

I cannot seem to find any reference in any LACMTA documents to an extension of a Crenshaw corridor LRT any further north than Wilshire Blvd. There is an extension of a red line branch down to the Purple Line that is being considered but this would be heavy rail and thus not compatible with the LRT being considered for the Crensaw Corridor. I am reverting the map to the one that is consistent with LACMTA corridor study documents, i.e. Westside Corridor and Crenshaw Corridor -- Arturoramos (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

I have moved this article. The former name was LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor. The new name makes it 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).

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) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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 line. 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) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Updated: Jcovarru (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Color

Will this new line have a color designation, or will it be referred to by name only, like the Expo Line? Is Metro planning to do away with color designations?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Page Move Proposal

In September 2013, this page was moved from Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro) to Crenshaw/LAX Line. Now that this line is actually under construction (with a projected opening in 2019), it should be moved back to Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro), so that it matches the other Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) line articles - e.g. Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro), Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro), Red Line (Los Angeles Metro), etc.

If there are no objections, I will move this page to Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro) in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Do it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. No objection. The move was done by someone who has never contributed to this page. It was done boldly, and without discussion. While I generally agree with boldness, the rationale was that there was no need to disambiguate as no other articles have this exact title. However, in this case the parenthetical expression was not intended to disambiguate, rather, it is a standard naming convention that has developed on Wikipedia over the last few years for this type of article. Changing the name like this broke the developing standard. I think it should be changed back. Lexlex (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no need for the parenthetical disambiguator. Unlike the other LA Metro lines, whose simple color names are similar to other systems and therefore require disambiguation, this line's name is unique. While that does make it different to the other lines, there has been a general move away from unneeded disambiguators; that is the actual developing standard, and in line with the disambiguation guidelines. Let's not make titles more complicated than they need to be; it makes linking and searching more difficult. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There's also a virtue in having sets of articles named consistently. E.g. Los Feliz, Los Angeles when there's probably not another neighborhood in the world named this, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated. But by having Los Angeles neighborhood articles named consistently people typing them in, or perhaps more importantly, using scripts on sets of them (which is not just editors but also researchers using the Wikipedia API) know what to expect. Also the uniformity of the naming system gives the reader extra information: that the article is part of the set.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed the main reason to do it. If anything, leaving it as "Crenshaw/LAX Line" makes it harder to find than "Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro)" for the simple reason that all of the other L.A. Metro line articles are named "[Something] Line (Los Angeles Metro)". In this case, I think the naming convention "consistency" argument trumps the "no need to disambiguate" argument... But I'll continue to wait for more comments to see if there's any other opposition before making this move. --IJBall (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Standardized name proposal

Did a bit of research and discovered that the Los Angeles times, refers to this project as the "Crenshaw line." So does curbed.LA. Even our mayor referred to it as the "Crenshaw line" in his remarks at the groundbreaking. Looking at the history of this article it was also originally called: Crenshaw Line (Los Angeles Metro) until it was changed to, I assume, try and match Metro's website at one time. However, Metro's website does not refer to this project in the same way across different pages. It sometimes refers to it as the Crenshaw line, however it also sometimes adds /LAX, and refers to it as a transit corridor, a transit project, or some combination of the preceding.

Therefore I propose that we match the newspaper of record and not try to come up with some version of the name we think is correct. I propose that the article be changed back to its original title, and what is easily confirmed as the most common name: Crenshaw Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Lexlex (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but my inclination is to stick with what Metro calls it, and consider that the "official" name, for now. I fully concede that Metro themselves will likely simplify the name to "Crenshaw Line" in the near future. But, until they do, I think their "Crenshaw/LAX" name should probably be considered the definitive version (and Metro seems to use that name most often when referring to it). --IJBall (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I also have no super-strong opinion, although I will note that a search of metro.net seems to show that it's called "the Crenshaw line" by out-of-town politicians like e.g. Barbara Boxer and also in the comments section, whereas the official metro.net text seems pretty consistently to use Crenshaw/LAX line. Obviously it will be called "the Crenshaw line" as soon as people start riding it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So, where do we stand on this, and the page move, proposals? --IJBall (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The recent page move to Crenshaw/LAX Line omitting "(Los Angeles Metro)" while seemingly correct in that there is no need for a disambiguation in the title, is not in line with the naming convention for transit line related articles. You will notice that every article related to a transit line (.e.g. Stations, lines, etc) have the name of the system in parentheses. In line with WP:Title, consistency, precision and easy recognition are considered most important when selecting an article name. Eliminating the system name from the title makes the article title confusing to the reader. Lexlex (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

While I fully agree with you, unfortunately the strong current push on English Wikipedia is to fully eliminate any and all "unnecessary disambiguation" (broadly defined) from article titles, even when such provides "standardized" titling among related articles. We're seeing exactly the same push at the various train, subway, etc. station articles (e.g. removing most instances of the use of the parenthetical system name from the article title) around Wikipedia right now as well. Personally, I pretty strongly dislike this policy. But it is what it is, and I doubt we'll get much sympathy trying to argue that the title should be moved back to where I earlier moved it, as most will chime in that it's "counter to policy"... --IJBall (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been unwritten style for years, it just needs to be codified into a special policy in the same way flora and a couple of other article types have been so it can be easily referenced. Any objections? Lexlex (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't object on my end. But I will warn you that I have found my few forays into trying to influence or revise Wikipedia guidelines even less rewarding than pounding my foot with a hammer... --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

LAX connector approved

See [1]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This definitely seems like a done deal, see also here on Metro's page. Anyone object if I edit the article to reflect that? --Jfruh (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "done deal" yet – for example, the new station that will allow transfers to the people mover will still have to go through the environmental review process. (Additionally, I think the actual planned people mover is at the same point in the process...) I'd oppose categorizing either this station or the people mover as "approved" right now, as there are no finalized plans to build it yet, just an expectation that it will go through the environmental review process. I don't think it'll be in the "definitely will be built" stage for a couple of more years... --IJBall (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crenshaw/LAX Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201213728/http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/140207_map_project_crenshawlax_eng.pdf to http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/140207_map_project_crenshawlax_eng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park

Any word on a stop, that would service this location. Only in Los Angeles would they build a Light Rail Line, and make not connect to the biggest place along the route! And I live there.--Subman758 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The stadium is going to be more than a mile away from the line, and the line was planned and designed in the early '10s, when nobody had any idea the stadium was going to be built. There's some talk of building a spur line to the stadium but it would cost $$$ and nobody, certainly not the Rams, has agreed to pay for it. I think there's going to be shuttles running to nearby Crenshaw and Green line stations to the stadium on game days. --21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

LAX People Mover

NEWS - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lax-people-mover-20180411-story.html - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably a separate article should be made for this, now that it's been approved. --Jfruh (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2018 (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) 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CrenshawLAX Map.pdf

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the change to that image in this article, restoring the previous, freely licensed version. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given a stale discussion with no consensus over more than a year. Klbrain (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Seems to me that since the newly created article Crenshaw Northern Extension Rail Project is really unneeded, considering we already have a section on a proposed northern extension of the line here. The new article is certainly more detailed, but I would say it is too detailed for an encyclopedia article, reading instead like the actual project report for the Metro board. Seems like it should be merged and redirected here, with the excess detail left out. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the next few months I'm planning on trying to reorganize the Metro Rail pages as described here. Basically I'm hoping to move the bulk of both history and future stuff away from individual lines and into a main articles for "History of Metro Rail" and "Expansion of Metro Rail," with more detailed articles for individual projects (past and future).

One thing to take into consideration is that there probably isn't going to be a specific "Crenshaw/LAX" line per se once it's complete; instead, Metro is currently planning to combine it with most of the Green Line and create a short shuttle out of a small part of the Green Line and one stop of the newly built infrastructure. The upshot is that this whole page is probably going to become a sub-page of the "History" page anyway, with information about day-to-day operations going into the Green Line article. My instinct is that because this project and the Northern Extension project are separately built, might take place decades apart, and may not be operated as a single line when opened, it'd make sense to keep them separate. I don't disagree that it's awfully detailed, and most of the details should be confined to one article or the other if there are two. --Jfruh (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the current proposal, but the final decision has not been made and there seems to be significant political and public pushback against that service pattern. Plus there's the proposals to completely rename all LA Metro services with letters as part of the major changes that will be neccessitated by the opening of the Regional Connector downtown, completely changing the Blue, Gold and Expo lines as well. Seems to me almost like a distinction should be made between the services and the physical infrastructure as is done in New York (and to a lesser extent in Washington and Chicago). Because of the unsettled nature of the future services around the entire system, I'd highly recommend against reorganizing the LA Metro articles just yet, as there's a very good chance that the changes made will just have to be changed again anyway.

Regardless of that, the fact remains that a second, overdetailed article on a possible future extension of this line is probably not needed. oknazevad (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point of my proposed reorganization is to make it easier to accommodate those changes. The proposal would separate historical pages about (to use NYC-style terminology briefly here) "lines" from top-level articles about actually operating "services". So in this case info about the Crenshaw/LAX Line (the construction project and physical infrastructure it produced) will stay on its own page. All the info wouldn't have to be copied-and-pasted to the "Green Line" article if the Metro proposal goes through, and then moved again to a "Line K" if at some future date Metro does run it as a separate line, if that makes sense.

I'm not totally against merging the two articles you're proposing to merge, and I'm certainly not opposed to pruning some of the info, but I am pointing out that they may not operate as a single line in practice, and the two construction projects may be separated by years or decades. I don't think it's an entirely clear-cut decision. --Jfruh (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about how this would help separating the physical lines from the services, which is a logical organization (and what the articles on the New York and Chicago systems already do). That said, based on the proposals, the way the Crenshaw-to-Wilshire (and possibly north) segment would be built couldn't be anything other than an extension of this physical line, as there's no track connection between the Crenshaw and Expo lines. of course, plans change and who knows what the final connections might be, or how long it would take to get built. As someone who was on the first revenue train on the Second Avenue Subway, I can definitely understand that! oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

against: when the previous project is all said adn done, this one will still be some 20 years off. they're nearly two separate things just by virtue of time. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Phased construction, even when the phases are built many years apart, does not make it a separate line. Remember, this article is about a physical rail line, not a construction project, although the building of it is a major part of the history of the line. oknazevad (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated Infobox Map Needed

Just noticed that Jerjozwik's map in the infobox is from 2008 and is out-of-date due to the completion of the Expo Line.

T–MACTION (TALK) 19:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I just went over and suggested a new map at the image's talk page at Commons:File talk:Crenshaw corridor jerjoz.jpg. It has more errors than just the E Line being completed - see the post, but it'd be useful to keep the current one around for historical purposes - it's just probably inappropriate as the lead image at this point. -Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"K Line" designation

I think that an internal Metro memo is a thin bit of evidence to put a symbol in the infobox. (The symbol we put in the infobox is an olive color, which is contradicted by the pink symbol in the memo, by the way.) In particular, it's not exactly clear what part of the system will be designated K -- right now the plan is there will be one line that goes Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk and one that goes Redondo to Willowbrook. So which one is going to be "K"? Which will be "C"? Certainly there won't be a separate designation only for the newly constructed segment, since that segment won't be operating independently of other lines. I think we should take a more "wait and see" approach on this until there is a more comprehensive public-facing announcement. There is absolutely no need to rush. --Jfruh (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering where the olive color came from anyway? Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it was on earlier Metro illustrations. But it might also be an artifact of the way older PDF handling software in iOS used to have trouble rendering colors due to a limited color pallet. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kay, so i found this article with an included map, but it even notes that names are "not official – for testing purposes only". I'm willing to say that applies to colorations also.Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that that map is for an entirely different set of services from the ones that were eventually approved for the line -- another good reason for being cautious around using the color and letter. --Jfruh (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like keeping this as the K line as the next Metro service to open is fairly safe. It's cited as such in a few other places i think. Also if the 2018 vote for service patterns holds correct, it seems unlikely that they'd reassign the C line designation away from its historical (current) routing. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The question is: if not "K/Olive" as the designator, what shall we use instead until it is officially annnounced? This is a technical problem: Color and letter designation are now required with the various LACMTA templates, and these templates are also required in LACMTA articles. Crenshaw/K already has dedicated articles, maps and charts and is also is being referenced by many others. So we have to call it something - right now it's "K". Sure, we could temporarily call it something else like "-/Grey" — but that could add more confusion and require template work to handle longer names again (which we only just removed). Consider that WP rules require only a solid reference, which we have to support "K/Olive" - yes, they are not official announcements, but they are properly sourced from Metro. We have no other information. We also know the official name/color doesn't exist, so in the meantime we can probably satisfy Jfruh's objection by clearly indicating that K/Olive is "unofficial and may change." Maybe with a "not yet official" hatnote on the line's main page (Which hatnote? See choices at Wikipedia:Hatnote). When and if the line name/color does change in the future the hatnote solution also means we can just change the template and anything already referencing K/Olive will instantly change to show the new name and color, saving us hours of clean-up work after the fact. Lexlex (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I support Lexlex's proposal as a safety measure if the service pattern is somehow changed on launch day. Lars Smiley (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Was there a discussion to make color and letter designations required with the various LACMTA templates? Seems like a bad idea: ignoring the Crenshaw/LAX line for the moment, there are multiple lines in the works (the ESFV line, the WSAB line, the Sepulveda Pass line) where we don't know what letters or colors will be used for them and probably won't for years.

I've said this above, but I will reiterate here that I think it's very bad practice for Wikipedia articles to be expressing a level of certainty if forward-facing matters that is unwarranted. The way to do this is not to use a tenuous "unofficial" color/letter designation and then add a note about how we're not sure it'll be used; the way to do this is to simply not use information we aren't sure about. To say that we "have" to do this due to technical limitations is letting the tail wag the dog. I would like someone to put together a list of the sources that are being used to support this; I think you will find they are sparse and contradictory about the routing and the color.

Also, in response to Lexlex's "if the 2018 vote for service patterns holds correct, it seems unlikely that they'd reassign the C line designation away from its historical (current) routing," the whole point is that the current routing will no longer exist. One route will go from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw, the other will go from Redondo to Willowbrook. Which is the "current" routing in that case? If I had to guess, I'd say the line that includes the new Crenshaw branch will be K and the other C, but I don't feel like that's certain and we don't have any sources to support it. --Jfruh (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is currently a train that is running a route from Redondo to Willowbrook (it just goes further on one end...a short turn). again, sort of hedged bets for maintaining references to future service as the C Line. (it's the cheapest option for metro.) The color differentiation thing is exactly one of the problems Metro themselves sought to fix by only going with distinct letters going forward. I also feel like references to colors to designate lines outside of hex values for graphics are now relics of the past – i really doubt anyone in sources or common parlance would call this the Olive Line if that's the final choice. that really needs to be made an optional parameter, as there will never be official line colors outside of the original 8 (but that seems like a bit of a different discussion). Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

this has also bee discussed to some degree at Talk:C Line (Los Angeles Metro)#Please hold off on any mention of the "K" Line Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If not K/Olive, what color and letter SHOULD represent the line in maps, icons, and templates pre-announcement? What is being proposed? If nothing, let's close this? Please note this is not a discussion forum Lexlex (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had been fairly clear in what my proposal is: I think the Crenshaw/LAX line should be treated the same way as, for instance, the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor in all those contexts: no bullet, and "Crenshaw/LAX Line" as text for the link, because that is the current official name for the line. I'm sorry this causes technical difficulties, but I don't remember any discussion of moving so many templates into a format where bullets were necessary, and there are plenty of other lines that we don't know what the letter/color is yet so we'd need to have a way to accommodate them anyway. Apologies if I'm being difficult but I don't think any of the sources being marshalled are adequate to support using the olive K bullet. The only source actually on this page is here and it gives the K a pink bullet. The article cited above by oknazevad shows a K in an olive bullet ... for a line running from Redondo Beach to Aviation/96th, which is not the full Crenshaw/LAX line. I don't object to saying in the text that there it's likely to be called K but by using it as a shorthand in so many places we are imposing a certainty that does not exist. --Jfruh (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It is a valid and interesting point, however regardless of new template logic, you can apply the same question to existing maps: We currently have maps of this line in pink and olive. We refer to it as "K", "Crenshaw" and a few other variations. It's a bit of a mess. My goal is merely standardization of the current situation. What color should it be on maps and what should it be called? Lexlex (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Note also that East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor is merely a draft proposal. Our subject line is already well into construction—quite a different situation I would argue. Lexlex (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any real strong opinion about the colors for lines on maps -- obviously they have to be some color and it probably should be consistent, and olive is as good a color as any.

For what it's worth the current public-facing Metro map with under construction lines depicted has the line in olive. However, note that the olive color is only used for the under construction section rather than showing what the new services will be when the line actually opens and is combined in whatever way with the current C Line. Maybe that should be the tack we take?

Mostly the thing that doesn't sit right with me is having the "K" bullet in templates and tables. I know it doesn't look as clean or compact but I think just having wikilinked "Crenshaw/LAX Line" text is the best thing to do there at the moment.

I know it's a lot of grunt work and I'd be happy to help if you want to divvy up the tasks. One thing that definitely needs cleanup are the "future service" platform diagrams on a lot of the individual station pages -- these are largely outdated and don't correspond to any of the potential plans that have been recently mooted, they should probably be eliminated.

(And one note on the ESFV Line -- while it's not under construction like Crenshaw/LAX it's had its environmental impact report finalized and it's fully funded, so it's more advanced that any of the other proposed lines. I believe it breaks ground early next year.) --Jfruh (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I greatly reduced the prominence of "K" in the line icon and changed all map, lines, color, etc to one standard shade of olive. (You may have to clear the cache on your browser to see these updates as no file name were changed.) I think this should satisfy. This solution means we can continue to use the templates and when an announcement is made, the icon file can just be updated. Lexlex (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's unreadable. Sorry, I get what you're trying to do, but it plain fails WP:ACCESS, and needs to be reverted to the white letter version. oknazevad (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - changed again and should be readable now (with cache refresh) - and yet still "draft" looking. If this still raises objections, let's open a new topic and revert. Not sure what the graphic protocol is for a draft/under construction line with no official name. Lexlex (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest reverting and opening a discussion on the main Los Angeles Metro Rail talk page. I am still of the opnion that we don't need, and shouldn't use, the bullet at all, and I don't think having the "faded K" signals "unofficial" to anyone. I think for that discussion it would be helpful to lay out the specific places where you think we need the bullet. --Jfruh (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, one last shot: I made the "K" the same color as the background. This effectively shows a solid color icon but allows it to be used/referenced in templates as "K"—which I think satisfies all above objections. If any standing objections to this solution, please advise with suggested options and I'll revert and open a discussion, otherwise will consider this issue wrapped until the line letter is announced. Lexlex (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is fine with me! I did open another discussion on the main Metro Rail talk page but I think this is a good way to treat it. --Jfruh (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Good enough Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Letter is announced! SofaKing381222 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The original olive color came from the original development plan back in 2008, FYI. As you can see, it is now pink. The color palette for the wiki needs an update. Lars Smiley (talk)

Also, since the K Line (Pink on maps) is indeed the final and officially designation, it's about time we add the full route to the wiki map between Expo/Crenshaw and Norwalk. The project as a whole is 99% complete with acceptance and pre-revenue test trains beginning to roll out within the upcoming months. It also seems like the C Line will be the route to terminate at Willowbrook.

Side note: the recent Metro Pin station sign designs allows module updates to establish and distinguish adjusted lines. Ex: The K Line's pink bullet can easily be installed to the Willowbrook station pins. That's something to admire. Lars Smiley (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if "announced" is the right word but it's hard to argue with physical evidence :) --Jfruh (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Final update: The bullet is not your ordinary pink. It is hot pink. Lars Smiley (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

separate articles for both the construction project and the rail service

similar to how other systems make distinctions between the infrastructure and the rail service - see Second Avenue Subway and Q (New York City Subway service), Third Street Light Rail Project and T Third Street, etc - would it be prudent to treat the Crenshaw/LAX Project and the K Line the same way? with distinct articles? All routing plans put the K line at least partially on old C Line tracks, at which point things like "Environmental review process" and "Grade separations" and even station listings don't really provide congruent information. -MJ (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this, and it's part of the reason I was hesitant about moving this article to the named line, especially before it was open or officially announced. I specifically created the History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway with this in mind -- to get endless construction detail off the individual pages of operating lines. So one option would be to move a lot of the design/construction stuff there. That said, we could still keep individual pages for specific project if that article gets super long. I do tend to believe that a lot of the blow-by-blow information on planning and construction becomes largely irrelevant once the line is open and can be condensed or eliminated, which is why I thought a single "History" article might be OK as a repository for it all. --Jfruh (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jfruh's solution. As we inch closer to the line's opening, we should thin the endless construction details and merge the information into the History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway page. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

New temporary operating plan proposed

The Twitter user Numble spotted this presentation from Metro to the South Bay Cities regional group:

https://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/transportation_committee/PRESENTATION_AMC%20CLAX%20April%202021_No%20Video%20cc.pdf

The relevant timeline is on page 13 of that PDF. Basically, in contrast with what we've previously heard, it looks like Metro and LAWA need 20 months without through train traffic to build the Airport Metro Connector station (which we've got labelled as Aviation/96th Street station at the moment). Because that construction is now set to begin in November 2021, and revenue service on the K Line is not expected to start before (according to this document) June 2022, it seems they're planning an initial launch of the K Line that will only consist of the segment between Expo/Crenshaw and Westchester/Veterans. In July 2023, they'll be able to run trains the full length of the line, but without stopping at the still incomplete Aviation/96th St station; that station and the Metro Conenctor wouldn't actually open until July of 2024.

While this is obviously not set in stone, I feel like we should talk about it in the article, yes? Not sure what if anything we should add to the K Line template, since presumably the ultimate plan still is to run the line from Expo to Norwalk in 2023, though the C Line will also presumably operate as it currently does until then. --Jfruh (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've added this to the article. Tweak as needed. --Jfruh (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Streetsblog = unreliable source?

Obviously Streetsblog has an advocacy component to it, but it also writes straight news and has for years, and is cited all over Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what this tag is about. More to the point, if you follow the link, the citation actually links to the primary source document with the information on the opening date. I used Streetsblog as the citation because of Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. I'm baffled about what someone would think the "advocacy" component of this particular article might be and am removing the tag just added by the IP address. --Jfruh (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would beg to differ - their advocacy component makes them unreliable due to their (blatantly stated) biases. that's why i avoid using them as a source. -MJ (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well if you want to change the link to the primary source, go ahead. I'm scratching my head over how a link to an anodyne article that just passes along dates that can also be found in primary source documents are "biased." --Jfruh (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

well, nobody else is reporting this date, making this one claim especially difficult to verify, even if true. and it's not necessarily that this particular article is biased, it's just that their biased style calls into question the veracity of their whole operation, not unlike the curated list of potentially unreliable sources. -MJ (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The entire name and graphic of this article was changed based 100% on a tweet from a person who took a photo of a sign next to a incomplete station that the cover had fallen off of, which has not to my knowledge been confirmed by a single secondary source. I genuinely do not understand how that's more reliable than a long-standing publication that has both advocacy and reporting elements, and that literally links to a primary source report *from Metro* in the citation I provided. --Jfruh (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A: it isn't. Neither are reliable. I'm willing to suggest reverting this to the old title. -MJ (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a primary source (a photograph) which is conveyed by a known publication. No one here is questioning the authenticity of the photo or the publication, therefore it's likely true. To try and structure an argument from authority fallacy serves what exactly? (It's not the truth.) If it's so concerning, cite the photograph directly and be done. Lexlex (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New service patterns (again) -- can someone update the template?

Hello all -- as I've noted in my latest update to the article, Metro is once again rethinking the future service patterns of how this line will integrate with the rest of the system once it connects to the C Line in 2023. I've updated the article text, but I'm not savvy enough with the syntax to update the line diagram. Can someone modify that template so that it only includes the under-constrution section, or perhaps hides the connection to the C Line behind a "see more" link and notes that it's only proposed? I feel strongly that including it on the template in its current form, without any note that planning is in flux, violates WP:CRYSTAL. If Metro does decide to go with the service pattern now portrayed in the diagram, it would be easy enough to revert back to it. --Jfruh (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect "n days time"

The date for opening is correct - Oct 7 - but on my view in the infocard, it says that (as of 4 October 2022) it is opening in "1 days time". I'm guessing this is a *heavy* error of timezones; it's supposed to open on Oct 7, 12PM PT, which is in 2 days 18 hours at the time of writing. My guess is that UTC is seeing the time until 12 UTC as 1 day and some hours, and it truncates down to 1 day. It should say 2 days, or even 3. 198.188.96.4 (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)