Talk:Metro Orange Line (LACMTA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject buses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bus 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 buses to do list
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the buses WikiProject.

|- |North Hollywood |Template:LACMTA-Red Line
Metro Bus: 152, 154, 156, 166, 183, 353, 363 |-


|- |North Hollywood |LACMTA Red Line
Metro Bus: 152, 154, 156, 166, 183, 353, 363 |-


I looked at this for about an hour and could not figure out what the original version showed. This seems like a good solution given that all of the LACMTA "colored" templates were deleted. Schmiteye 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/November_2005#Various_formatting_templates Schmiteye 17:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Orange Line Transitway"

I don't believe that the title of this article should be the "Orange Line Transitway." Not only have I never seen the Orange Line referred to as a "transitway," when entered on the search engine Google, this Wikipedia page comes up as the top hit. "LACMTA Orange Line" was a much more appropriate title. The Orange Line is handled very similar to the light and heavy rail operations in Los Angeles, much unlike the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway which this article and the general LACMTA article seem to lump into the same group as the Orange Line.

[edit] "Brad Sherman gets funding for Orange Line extension?"

This needs a citation. Hadn't heard anything about construction starting as early as 2007, on a extension to Chatsworth.

[edit] "Conversion" section

Who are the nameless "opponents" cited in the "Conversion" section? Why do they think that light rail won't have the same collision problems that the BRT vehicles have? The collisions have universally been the fault of auto drivers ignoring red lights, and the problem is endemic on the Blue Line as well. --Jfruh 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it's the drivers fault. Most of the collisions are caused by dumb motorists breaking laws. Craking down on traffic violations will solve the problem. Pacific Coast Highway|Spam me!

Yes, but the Blue Line is under less scrutiny becauue it has railroad crossing gates, which the Orange Line currently lacks. If a motorist goes up against a 55-mile-per-hour three-car Blue Line train, they're dead. A motorist that goes up against the much lighter Orange Line bus will push the bus around and injure the bus riders (as has been the case in all the Orange Line accidents). The LACMTA Blue Line article says that accidents significantly decreased after quadrant railroad crossings gates were installed. Doing the same for the Orange Line would at least cut down on the accidents. Converting it to light-rail would at least better protect the passnegers against accidents.

Eh. I guess Metrolink has proven that a car can kick butt on a train, but overall a light-rail trian has more might over a car than a bus. I compare this to the rear-pushing to the front-leading Metrolink train cars. Critics keep calling for the Metrolink to have the engines at front to prevent another accident like the Glendale train crash. Now the critics are calling for the MTA to convert the Orange Line into an LRT to avoid accidents like these ones that have been springing up. Like I said, motorists will think twice before trying to challenge a light-rail. They'll get crushed in the process and the won't drag anybody else down, either. - Hbdragon88 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The key issues to justify conversion are capacity and operating expense. Orange Line traffic has already reached the point where light rail would - in theory - cost marginally less to operate. Whether this is true, and how traffic growth would affect the difference in operating cost between modes, remains to be worked out.Ldemery 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the grammar, spelling, and poorly worded phrasing. NorthofDC 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Curitiba? No mention?

  • It's a shame that the article on the Orange Line doesn't mention the transportation system where it is modelled on: the Curitiba Transit system. Why not add a reference to it? --Mecanismo | Talk 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collisions

What is the purpose of listing the narrative of each of the collisions to date? It seems superfluous to me, as a mere summary would suffice. LorenzoB 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The line, especially upon opening, was claimed to be unsafe, and a lot of people still voice doubts about the safety of the 60-foot artics. The list of accidents allows the reader to determine for himself how safe the line actually is as well as the cause of the accidents (which so far has always been driver fault/red light running). I think it makes sense to keep the stuff. —lensovet–talk – 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
True, but Wikipedia isn't a news agency designed to report on every collision possible. We should summarize all the accidents, perhaps listing the ones that caused the MTA to speak, such as teh accident that caused them to issue an order to run buses at 10mph at intersections. hbdragon88 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)