 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request to change name of the article to the newly implemented official station name: "LAX/Metro Transit Center" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D300:1FE:ADE4:229A:5B4D:49AF ( talk) 04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some official document with this name change on it? I haven't seen any. -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Is this article about a single station that includes both Metro and APM platforms, or about two separate but adjoining stations (Metro and APM), or about just the Metro part? The infobox says: "Owned by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority," with no mention of LAWA ownership of any part. The infobox says: "Architect: Grimshaw Architects", with no mention of APM architects, or LINXS contractors. The infobox and "Official website" says: "Website: metro.net/projects/airport-metro-connector," with no mention of any APM website. The (dated) ITF East Plot plan, https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/connecting-lax-links/entitlements/project-documents/faq3/file-z2---itf-east-plot-plan.ashx, shows that ITF East consists of more than just an APM platform, including parking and kiss-and-fly facilities east of Aviation Blvd, separate from the proposed Metro station and its facilities west of Aviation. Perhaps APM riders arriving or departing by car are intended to use the facilities east of Aviation. The "official website", https://www.metro.net/projects/airport-metro-connector/, shows "LAWA ITF East" as a separate station located south of the "LAX/Metro Transit Center," not just "another name" for the Metro Transit Center, as shown in the infobox. Musicman103 ( talk) 00:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CPUC treats it as two connected stations. The "Rail Safety Division Monthly Performance Report—April 2024" says under the heading "Crenshaw/LAX Corridor Project:" "Now the AMC (Airport Metro Connector) Station is under construction in Segment A; it will connect to the East Intermodal Transportation Facility (EITF) of the future LAX APM."
- https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/rail-safety-division/documents/monthly-reports/2024/rsd-monthly-report--april-2024-fnl1.pdf#page=19 Musicman103 ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in practice this will be perceived as a single station complex and we should treat it as such under a single article. The biggest reason for this is that the two platforms are connected and immediately adjacent to one another: all the information about, for example, the neighborhood, connecting services, etc., etc., would be identical for both articles, and it's pointless to repeat it at all. We need to approach this not in terms of "well is this technically one station or two" but rather what's most useful for an encyclopedia article that non-specialists will be consulting. The two platforms will be part of a single continuous structure and separating them into separate articles would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing to the reader. I think the
the logic behind the rejection of the proposal to similarly split up the Expo/Crenshaw station article should similarly apply here. --
Jfruh (
talk)
22:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources or official documents that support the claim in the article that EITF is just another name for the Metro station. Instead, the official documents describe two connected stations separately developed, separately owned, separately operated, with separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate. If the article is intended to be about one combined station complex then it is missing material about the EITF part of station complex.
Musicman103 (
talk)
21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, describing the two stations as having "separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate" is simply not true in any meaningful sense. The purpose of the LAX/MTC Metro Rail station is to connect Metro passengers to the people mover. It was designed and built specfically for that purpose, as the design of the people mover was only finished after construction on the Crenshaw Line was underway. The purpose of the stop on the people mover is to connect passengers to the Metro Rail station. There will also be bus services arriving at the station, connecting to both systems. I cannot fathom what the "separate purposes" of the two stations could be described as being. I suppose that technically there probably is a legal distinction between the two "parcels of real estate," but they will be part of a single continuous structure and passengers will not perceive them as separate stations.
- If you feel this article should have more material about the people mover station, feel free to add it. I will also note that there was at least one attempt to create separate articles for each of the stops on the people mover, but the consensus that fairly quickly emerged was that they did not merit separate articles. So it doesn't really make sense to just have a separate article for this particular platform. --
Jfruh (
talk)
02:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The purposes of the EITF station are not difficult to fathom. They are explicitly stated in the EITF fact sheet: "The APM will reduce vehicle congestion in the Central Terminal Area, provide a connection with L.A. Metro’s regional transportation system, create new locations for passenger pick-up and drop-off, reduce emissions and provide reliable access to the terminals."
- https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/cip-microsite/factsheets/itf-east-station-fact-sheet.ashx
- Connecting with the Metro is only one purpose, and not even mentioned in the first paragraph. Most passengers using EITF for pick-up and drop-off probably won't know or care that the Metro station exists, as they won't have any reason to enter it. Musicman103 ( talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources or official documents that support the claim in the article that EITF is just another name for the Metro station. Instead, the official documents describe two connected stations separately developed, separately owned, separately operated, with separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate. If the article is intended to be about one combined station complex then it is missing material about the EITF part of station complex.
Musicman103 (
talk)
21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in practice this will be perceived as a single station complex and we should treat it as such under a single article. The biggest reason for this is that the two platforms are connected and immediately adjacent to one another: all the information about, for example, the neighborhood, connecting services, etc., etc., would be identical for both articles, and it's pointless to repeat it at all. We need to approach this not in terms of "well is this technically one station or two" but rather what's most useful for an encyclopedia article that non-specialists will be consulting. The two platforms will be part of a single continuous structure and separating them into separate articles would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing to the reader. I think the
the logic behind the rejection of the proposal to similarly split up the Expo/Crenshaw station article should similarly apply here. --
Jfruh (
talk)
22:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- One page. This article is absolutely intended to be about the combined station complex. If it is missing material, you are welcome to add it with reliable sources.
RickyCourtney (
talk)
22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- What should the article's title be to indicate that the article is about the combined station complex, not just the Metro station part of the complex?
Musicman103 (
talk)
22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that can wait until the station opens. I suspect that "EITF" is an internal name for the station and will not in practice be used in a public-facing way when it's open. For the moment I think the using the public name for the Metro station is fine. We can revisit closer to the point when everything is opening. -- Jfruh ( talk) 02:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- What should the article's title be to indicate that the article is about the combined station complex, not just the Metro station part of the complex?
Musicman103 (
talk)
22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- Start-Class Stations articles
- WikiProject Stations articles
- Wikipedia requested images of train stations
- Start-Class Streetcars articles
- Unknown-importance Streetcars articles
- WikiProject Streetcars articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request to change name of the article to the newly implemented official station name: "LAX/Metro Transit Center" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D300:1FE:ADE4:229A:5B4D:49AF ( talk) 04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some official document with this name change on it? I haven't seen any. -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Is this article about a single station that includes both Metro and APM platforms, or about two separate but adjoining stations (Metro and APM), or about just the Metro part? The infobox says: "Owned by: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority," with no mention of LAWA ownership of any part. The infobox says: "Architect: Grimshaw Architects", with no mention of APM architects, or LINXS contractors. The infobox and "Official website" says: "Website: metro.net/projects/airport-metro-connector," with no mention of any APM website. The (dated) ITF East Plot plan, https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/connecting-lax-links/entitlements/project-documents/faq3/file-z2---itf-east-plot-plan.ashx, shows that ITF East consists of more than just an APM platform, including parking and kiss-and-fly facilities east of Aviation Blvd, separate from the proposed Metro station and its facilities west of Aviation. Perhaps APM riders arriving or departing by car are intended to use the facilities east of Aviation. The "official website", https://www.metro.net/projects/airport-metro-connector/, shows "LAWA ITF East" as a separate station located south of the "LAX/Metro Transit Center," not just "another name" for the Metro Transit Center, as shown in the infobox. Musicman103 ( talk) 00:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CPUC treats it as two connected stations. The "Rail Safety Division Monthly Performance Report—April 2024" says under the heading "Crenshaw/LAX Corridor Project:" "Now the AMC (Airport Metro Connector) Station is under construction in Segment A; it will connect to the East Intermodal Transportation Facility (EITF) of the future LAX APM."
- https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/rail-safety-division/documents/monthly-reports/2024/rsd-monthly-report--april-2024-fnl1.pdf#page=19 Musicman103 ( talk) 20:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in practice this will be perceived as a single station complex and we should treat it as such under a single article. The biggest reason for this is that the two platforms are connected and immediately adjacent to one another: all the information about, for example, the neighborhood, connecting services, etc., etc., would be identical for both articles, and it's pointless to repeat it at all. We need to approach this not in terms of "well is this technically one station or two" but rather what's most useful for an encyclopedia article that non-specialists will be consulting. The two platforms will be part of a single continuous structure and separating them into separate articles would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing to the reader. I think the
the logic behind the rejection of the proposal to similarly split up the Expo/Crenshaw station article should similarly apply here. --
Jfruh (
talk)
22:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources or official documents that support the claim in the article that EITF is just another name for the Metro station. Instead, the official documents describe two connected stations separately developed, separately owned, separately operated, with separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate. If the article is intended to be about one combined station complex then it is missing material about the EITF part of station complex.
Musicman103 (
talk)
21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, describing the two stations as having "separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate" is simply not true in any meaningful sense. The purpose of the LAX/MTC Metro Rail station is to connect Metro passengers to the people mover. It was designed and built specfically for that purpose, as the design of the people mover was only finished after construction on the Crenshaw Line was underway. The purpose of the stop on the people mover is to connect passengers to the Metro Rail station. There will also be bus services arriving at the station, connecting to both systems. I cannot fathom what the "separate purposes" of the two stations could be described as being. I suppose that technically there probably is a legal distinction between the two "parcels of real estate," but they will be part of a single continuous structure and passengers will not perceive them as separate stations.
- If you feel this article should have more material about the people mover station, feel free to add it. I will also note that there was at least one attempt to create separate articles for each of the stops on the people mover, but the consensus that fairly quickly emerged was that they did not merit separate articles. So it doesn't really make sense to just have a separate article for this particular platform. --
Jfruh (
talk)
02:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The purposes of the EITF station are not difficult to fathom. They are explicitly stated in the EITF fact sheet: "The APM will reduce vehicle congestion in the Central Terminal Area, provide a connection with L.A. Metro’s regional transportation system, create new locations for passenger pick-up and drop-off, reduce emissions and provide reliable access to the terminals."
- https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/cip-microsite/factsheets/itf-east-station-fact-sheet.ashx
- Connecting with the Metro is only one purpose, and not even mentioned in the first paragraph. Most passengers using EITF for pick-up and drop-off probably won't know or care that the Metro station exists, as they won't have any reason to enter it. Musicman103 ( talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources or official documents that support the claim in the article that EITF is just another name for the Metro station. Instead, the official documents describe two connected stations separately developed, separately owned, separately operated, with separate purposes, and on separate parcels of real estate. If the article is intended to be about one combined station complex then it is missing material about the EITF part of station complex.
Musicman103 (
talk)
21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in practice this will be perceived as a single station complex and we should treat it as such under a single article. The biggest reason for this is that the two platforms are connected and immediately adjacent to one another: all the information about, for example, the neighborhood, connecting services, etc., etc., would be identical for both articles, and it's pointless to repeat it at all. We need to approach this not in terms of "well is this technically one station or two" but rather what's most useful for an encyclopedia article that non-specialists will be consulting. The two platforms will be part of a single continuous structure and separating them into separate articles would be, in my opinion, unnecessarily confusing to the reader. I think the
the logic behind the rejection of the proposal to similarly split up the Expo/Crenshaw station article should similarly apply here. --
Jfruh (
talk)
22:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- One page. This article is absolutely intended to be about the combined station complex. If it is missing material, you are welcome to add it with reliable sources.
RickyCourtney (
talk)
22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- What should the article's title be to indicate that the article is about the combined station complex, not just the Metro station part of the complex?
Musicman103 (
talk)
22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that can wait until the station opens. I suspect that "EITF" is an internal name for the station and will not in practice be used in a public-facing way when it's open. For the moment I think the using the public name for the Metro station is fine. We can revisit closer to the point when everything is opening. -- Jfruh ( talk) 02:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- What should the article's title be to indicate that the article is about the combined station complex, not just the Metro station part of the complex?
Musicman103 (
talk)
22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- Start-Class Stations articles
- WikiProject Stations articles
- Wikipedia requested images of train stations
- Start-Class Streetcars articles
- Unknown-importance Streetcars articles
- WikiProject Streetcars articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages