California Template‑class | |||||||
|
Trains: Rapid transit Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
The LAX branch of the Green Line was part of the line's original Phase I plan. In addition, the LAX extension is listed as a Tier 1 improvement in LACMTA's 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (also included are extensions to central Norwalk and the South Bay Galleria). Future extensions appear on other maps of this type. Is there a convention on line mapping here that I don't know about? Samhuddy ( talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Someone placed this extension on the wrong side. Can someone please fix it? 107.77.214.201 ( talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to convert this template to use {{ Routemap}} instead of the deprecated {{ Railway line header}}, {{ BS-header}} and {{ BS-table}}. Since this operation doesn't change the appearance of the diagram, I consider it a rather minor change. Zr2d2 ( talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The false positive sensor allows people to blank the page, but doesn't allow people to make constructive edits. 71.198.231.208 ( talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As explained here, current Metro plans after the Crenshaw/LAX line opens are to split the current Green Line in two: one line would go from Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk, and the other from Redondo Beach to Aviation/Century (and, when it opens, to Aviation/96th). This hasn't been approved by the full Metro board yet, but it seems that the longstanding proposed pattern illustrated on this template diagram is no longer going to happen -- the other possible option is different as well. Can someone remove the Crenshaw/LAX section of the diagram? Maybe just replace it with a branch showing it's connecting to the new infrastructure without including any stations? I'd do it but the syntax for these diagrams always defeats me. -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
California Template‑class | |||||||
|
Trains: Rapid transit Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
The LAX branch of the Green Line was part of the line's original Phase I plan. In addition, the LAX extension is listed as a Tier 1 improvement in LACMTA's 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (also included are extensions to central Norwalk and the South Bay Galleria). Future extensions appear on other maps of this type. Is there a convention on line mapping here that I don't know about? Samhuddy ( talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Someone placed this extension on the wrong side. Can someone please fix it? 107.77.214.201 ( talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to convert this template to use {{ Routemap}} instead of the deprecated {{ Railway line header}}, {{ BS-header}} and {{ BS-table}}. Since this operation doesn't change the appearance of the diagram, I consider it a rather minor change. Zr2d2 ( talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The false positive sensor allows people to blank the page, but doesn't allow people to make constructive edits. 71.198.231.208 ( talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As explained here, current Metro plans after the Crenshaw/LAX line opens are to split the current Green Line in two: one line would go from Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk, and the other from Redondo Beach to Aviation/Century (and, when it opens, to Aviation/96th). This hasn't been approved by the full Metro board yet, but it seems that the longstanding proposed pattern illustrated on this template diagram is no longer going to happen -- the other possible option is different as well. Can someone remove the Crenshaw/LAX section of the diagram? Maybe just replace it with a branch showing it's connecting to the new infrastructure without including any stations? I'd do it but the syntax for these diagrams always defeats me. -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)