Talk:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

message: the link for the current years budget under http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority&action=edit§ion=20 needs to be updated. i dont know where the original one came from but the current is invalid  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.46.50 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link needs updating 

message: This article is about the authority not the history of indivisual lines.  For History of individual lines one can refer to those independent articles.
It is not necessarily to devide the history of MTA up into further categories.  This only makes the readability of the article more difficult as the flow is heavily disrupted.   For example the history as it now appears starts in 2004, eleven years after the foundation of the twelve year old authority then it jumps back to 1990, then forward to 2000, then back again to 1993, 1994, 1999 and then once again back to 1994....  It's very difficult to get a quick understanding of  how the  order these the lines came into operation.
The division also makes the article lopsided as the bus history is obviously less developed then rail.  
Beyond the structure the article now several run on sentences and misspellings.
I am hesitant to revert back to the Nov. 12 edit because I have already once reverted HBdragon's edits when he/she deleted swaths of information several weeks ago.  It is my hope that someone else will revert or hbdragon him/her self will consider my comments and revert the article him or herself
Thanks
--SAUNDERS 18:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current organziation of article 

message: User:Pacific Coast Highway added the  tag to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. I left a message on his talk page saying that he need to join the discussion on this talk page describing what he thinks needs to be done to improve it. In my own opinion, I think that article has already been greatly improved over the last few days by User:SAUNDERS. If he does not respond, I will delete the cleanup template. 
As for the transit strikes, does the bus drivers union have a website? Also, there probably should be a little more info on the Bus Riders Union (maybe they even deserve their own article). BlankVerse 20:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup-date tag 

message: I messaged BlankVerse about a proposed temp page (listed above).  BlankVerse said that it was too decisive.  So I altered it, reintergrating the bus history into the rail history.  Then I left notes on SAUNDERS's and BlankVerse's user pages to request more inquires.  It has been a few days now (12 for SAUNDERS, 4 for BlankVerse).  I've rolled my changes in there. - Hbdragon88 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good, but as usual, everybody feels they need to clean up, myself included. I do support more commas for extra readability, instead of the short clipped unpunctuated sentences that some prefer. Commas are your friend, and are not evil. Calwatch 08:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So I did it 

message: I would like to avoid using :Image:Los_angeles_bus_colors.jpg :Image:Bus_los_angeles_local.jpg if at all possible.  So far I have managed to catch a somewhat decent picture of the Metro Express (blue) bus.  I'll upload it soon.  Can someone take a take a picture of the Metro Local and Metro Rapid ones so we can delete the copyrighted ones? - Hbdragon88 05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I reordered the article so that the enormous History section appears after the basic information about the organization and its services. I know that other transportation authority articles seem to first discuss the history, but no article has a history section THIS long. I felt it really detracted from the article, although the information is very important. Instead of shortening the history section, I simply moved it down. If people are unhappy about this, please feel free to revert my reorganization. I feel it's a much easier read this way, but I'm sure I don't speak for 100% of the readers here. --SameerKhan 10:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I went through about half of this article and cited a lot of statements.  I need someone to format these references correctly and add more to the rest of the article.  Stuff like Julian Burke, the BRU agreement, Day Pass, naming change, and others need to be cited.  I'd like to work this up to a possible WP:FA status.  Can we do it? - Hbdragon88 05:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing references 

message: Once again, we have an anon reverting my comments about the Governance Council. My source is the California State Auditor, which says, to wit:
:One issue identified by the MTA in its planning phase for sector implementation was a need for community input. However, weaknesses in its methods of advertising governance council meetings could cause it to miss opportunities to use these meetings effectively as a means of improving community input into bus operations and tailoring services to local needs. For example, the MTA occasionally advertises monthly governance council meetings via "Metro Briefs" in local newspapers. However, MTA staff acknowledged that the MTA does not advertise the governance council meetings in these print advertisements on a monthly basis, making it difficult for the public to know how to find out when a council meeting is about to occur. Moreover, the MTA does not provide links to its monthly governance council meeting schedules on its Web pages for service sectors or for bus routes. Currently, the only avenue MTA bus riders have for determining the sector responsible for a given route is through a toll-free number for customer service. Callers to this number must go through several steps to reach MTA staff members who can provide this information. Further, the MTA does not publish the fact that bus riders can get sector-related information through this number.
Continuing to change the sentence to remove criticism of the GC's is POV and will be dealt with reversion. Thanks. Calwatch 03:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance Council reversion 

message: I added information on Metro's APTA award to the history section, I put it at the top because it works nicely with the brief history of Metro. Although, it seems a little out of place in the whole article so suggestions of where it would be better placed would be appreciated.
RickyCourtney 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to the bottom because the history is arranged chrologically - starting fromthe formating of the SCRTD and LATAC in the 1960s and 1970s down to the Expo Line in 2005. Or it could be placed at the very top before the first header, but I think the history is good for now. Hbdragon88 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  APTA Award 

message: This article is currently 54KB long.  Curious to know how we can trim thsi down.  Many long articles have a short history in a "History" header with an in-depth article forked off from the main one.  I think we shoudl do this here, but I wanted to get some other opinions. Hbdragon88 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it Jorobeq 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I think as a part of the Wikipedia pages of Metro we should include information on the "Metro Design Studio" they were recently featured in Communicaton Arts, the first time a transportation agency has ever been featured in it. The studio also creates the agencys quarterly magazene. So any feedback where it might work the best on this page?
RickyCourtney 17:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro Design Studio 

message: Back when I lived in California, circa 1978, the Los Angeles-based bus system was known as "RTD".  There is a lot of history there, and it might be better to use the existing Southern California Rapid Transit District (which currently is a redirect to this article) and have the history of the agency there.  RTD's service changes (they went from a series of different numbers to a unified numbering system), the time they had a special subsidy back around 1974 or so and bus service anywhere for 25c on weekdays and 10c on sundays.  The constant problems with service, etc.  Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can expand on the RTD's history, be bold and go for it !  The article before was a one-pargraph stub that sipmly summariezed what this current page had. Hbdragon88 06:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old RTD Page 

message: not sure where it would go, but "In boost to LA subway extension, House lifts tunneling ban" -- this clears the way for construction of the red line along Wilshire to Santa Monica
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16644770.htm Revolute 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that we are not Wikinews, and also remember that the same bill passed the house last year, but never went further. I'd wait until the Senate also passes it and then President Bush signs the bill, before I would go and amend anyplace on the Wikipedia where the tunneling ban is mentioned . BlankVerse 09:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New News - someone pls add 

message: Wikipedia's articles on transit in Los Angeles are almost as confusing as the reality of transit in Los Angeles. For example, the Pacific Electric Railway article contains big chunks of historic stuff that I'd say belong either here or in the Southern California Rapid Transit District article. While the P.E. article seems overlong, the Los Angeles Railway article is still fairly stubby. Both contain some inaccuracies. Also, I've just created a stub for Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, the pre-SCRTD post-Metropolitan Coach Lines agency which people often conflate with the current LACMTA. There's also the Los Angeles County Metro Rail article, which has some overlaps with other articles. I'm not sure if some of these articles ought to be merged, or split apart and rearranged, or what, but some serious re-organization is surely in order. Also, for anyone interested, in both the new MTA stub and in the P.E. article I've linked a PDF from the Huntington Library which covers the history of L.A. transit plans from 1951 until sometime after 2001. It's worth looking at, and clears up some of the fuzzy details about the subject. Whyaduck 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get there from here? 

message: I'm an Australian tourist that's been in Venice/Santa Monica in Los Angeles today (10 May 2007). I took photos of Orange, Green, Blue, and Red buses, all seemingly on non-express roads.
This article states that there are 3 colours of buses (red, blue, and orange), but the Blue bus (which should be an "Express" according to the article) was going along Main St (a minor road).
Could someone perhaps look into the description for the bus service and address the current colour scheme for the buses? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.15.1.228 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the LACMTA may substitute colors when none are available.  For instance, I've seen Metro Express routes being handled by Metro Rapid red buses and the old Metro Local paint scheme buses. hbdragon88 06:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility is that our Australian tourist may have mistaken a Big Blue Bus for a LACMTA bus.  The Big Blue Buses tend to outnumber LACMTA buses in the area between Venice, Brentwood, Santa Monica, and Westwood.  --Coolcaesar 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bus Colours

message: Considering all of the controversy over the transit system in LA, this article gives a surprisingly rosy picture of things. Might we add a section on criticism of the system, its policies, and its governance? There are many well-documented sources of criticism that could be used.aluxeterna 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism is sprinkled throughout the article, both in the 1998 measure, the multiple strikes, and other situations.  If there is something that we have grossly missed, by all means please edit it in.  However, I believe that criticism is better spread throughout the article instead of ine one big section. hbdragon88 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section Needed

message: Large swaths of this article, particularly the sections about rail transit planning, appear to use heavily biased language. This really does need to be dealt with to return the article to a more neutral tone. It's annoying that I have to write this as I'm a huge fan of rapid transit and a big supporter of the L.A. metro, but this is an encyclopedic article and is really needs to have the personal opinions of the author removed from the content. 134.50.7.201 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, along that vein, I've heard that the LA subway was created and routed with ward-level politics in mind, which is why its stops are where no one wants to go.  If anybody has a source for this, it should definitely be part of the article.--Loodog (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I looked over this article and decided to quick fail the article due to a couple of points 1.) External links in article when the information should be cited, 2.) Colors (distracting, and I think people know the colors of the rainbow). This is also against WP:MOS. 3.) Some original research in paragraph structure (no cites) 4.) Cites are not properly formatted according to WP:CITE. 5.) Trivia section.  You are welcome to get a second opinion or have the article re-assessed once improved to GA-quality.miranda 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The GAN was a procedural one as someone inserted the WP LA template with a GA-class rating and another user removed it.  I am well aware that there are a number of holes (stuff that's been around for ages but hasn't been cited), and if I ever get around to it I will nominate the article myself. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Looking at this article, I'm noticing that this article is way too long. An example of how to break it up may be found in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) page, where that article is very short, but has links to many sub-articles; there are hundreds of sub-articles coming from that (including stations). The fleets should be broken up into their own article, as well as LACMTA buses, rail-based rapid transit, and bus rapid transit articles. The New York MTA article is just an example of how it can be done; that article is not long at all. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to break the article up into separate articles 

message: How about removing US in front of all fares? There's no need and $ symbol already by default mean US$. We can specific all fares in US$ at the top of table, but should not be necessary by context, esp. if we specify it MTA is an agency in the US. --Mistakefinder (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove US in front of $ 

message: Can we go ahead and remove this section? ~ Butros (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: lacmta is in charge of providing funding for la county roads. they also provide tow service for stranded passengers on la freeways. that should be on here too. thats also what they do75.16.39.200 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metro Freeway Service Patrol is mentioned under other services, and the funding for highways is mentioned in the lead. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 17:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no mention highway support 

message: "Between 2003 and 2008 Part I crimes have decreased 29.4% on Metro rails and 10% on the Metro buses." - I can't figure out what this means. This is a multi year claim, so was the high in 2003 and it's dropped a couple of percentage points per year to a low in 2008, or...? Anyone? Lexlex (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime quote 

message: has been adding routes to the main page. This is a bad idea. There are more than 200 routes... so it will undoubtedly become a giant list. On top of that... we really shouldn't be listing routes at all (even on separate pages). There's a great discussion about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TriMet bus routes. Paraphrasing that discussion , Wikipedia is not a travel guide and this list will be of little use to anyone planning to take a bus, since they would need to go to Metro's website to find out whether the route still exists, where to catch the bus, and when it runs. I recommend this list be deleted and we consider deleting the lists on the Metro Local, Rapid and Express pages. --RickyCourtney (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of routes 

message: Hey all,
I finally created a page for the Kinkisharyo P3010. Feel free to take a look and make some changes/additions. TJH2018talk 16:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinkisharyo P3010 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 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/20061214194651/http://home1.gte.net/tpnews/current.htm to http://home1.gte.net/tpnews/current.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060314002422/http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/riderep/indexus.cfm to http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/riderep/indexus.cfm
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) 10:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently reads like a marketing brochure, complete with price guides. I keep trying to remove the worst of the marketing, but keep getting reverted by a new editor. Examples:
*"Already boasting the largest fleet of compressed natural gas busses in the United States, Metro is now stating that they aim to have a fully electric bus system by 2030, along with a full switch to electric operations for the Orange and Silver lines by 2020 and shortly after, respectively."
*The price guide in the "Fares" section
*"Reduced Fare Opportunities: Metro offers an array of reduced fare programs for low-income riders. Such programs allow eligible applicants to use special TAP Cards and reduced-rate daily, weekly, or monthly Metro passes, also including free balance protection for cards, so that qualifying riders don’t need to worry if their cards are lost or stolen.". With a price guide. 
, can we please discuss? Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section on reduced fares and left a single-sentence summary. It seemed to the be worst of the kind of advertising-like stuff that was added. Maybe more work needs to be done. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup badly needed 

message: A few months back someone (perhaps an employee of Metro) added quite a bit of material to this article that relied solely on primary sources and read like an official Metro guide for riders. I think the worst of it has been removed, but the templates remain and I think are still relevant, since the article is over-reliant on primary sources (and has been for some time). I just don't really know where to find decent independent sources to replace primary sources or to use as the basis for rewriting sections. Any suggestions on how to improve this article so that the templates can be removed? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article reads a bit too much like a guide or advert for Metro when it should instead read like an encyclopedia article about the agency, describing both the agency's successes and failures.  The article History of the LACMTA provides more coverage of that sort, and the content from there could be summarized and included in this article. Looking through that article, it seems to me like local news stories and reports from state and federal auditors could be used as good third-party independent sources. ECTran71 (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance Templates 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) which affects related pages. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Lexlex (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress