From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funding

The Expo Line still has problems with funding, so it's still in design only. -- Pelladon 03:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply

UPDATE 2: Metro secures additional $315 million in state funding, $523 million so far. Note: this is for Phase 1 funding only (from Metro Center to Culver City). Phase 2 (to Santa Monica) is not viable yet.
Source: mta.com press release — Pelladon 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Color

Has the color of this line been confirmed?? Georgia guy 03:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Not officially, but it will by the end of the month [July 2006]. Donald Hosek
The Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) board officially named the line "Metro Expo Line" on August 24, 2006. They haven't designated a color for the maps yet. Esirgen 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It looks like the Downtown Connector project will finally be built. When this happens, I think the portion of the Gold Line that runs from Union Station to Pasadena should be renamed "Blue Line" as was originally planned and the Expo Line should be an extension of the East Side Gold Line. 74.100.48.167 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC). reply
Metro installed aqua-colored pylons at the Expo Line phase 1 stations. A facebook page called "Hello Expo" said on facebook when posting photos that the color is vivid aqua, or vivid bluish cyan, RGB #00A9E0 or Pantone 2995. The photos are of the Crenshaw station's pylons. I believe that is enough proof that the color will be aqua. I am unsure if these links will work, but here is a link to a photo: http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/205443_192466527464457_129341747110269_528247_1332563_n.jpg and here is a link to the gallery on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=192466480797795&id=129341747110269&aid=48386 -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The Expo Line will open in less than a month and there still isn't a color designation. Will this always and forever be known as the Expo Line? 108.23.147.17 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC). reply

Page move??

Any opinions about moving this page to LACMTA Aqua Line?? Georgia guy 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This was just a staff recommendation and has not been formally approved by the EMLCA board. When they do we will change the name. Calwatch 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I like "Expo Line" better than "Aqua Line". Sounds better to me. -- Pelladon 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Please explain. I always prefer colors over random names for transport lines because colors are always unambiguous and sensible. Non-color names of lines are sometimes misnomers (check out Line 5 Blue (Montreal Metro). Georgia guy 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
To me, MTA (and/or the city) is getting carried away with the "colors". The mayor hinted about the "Purple" line which is the existing Red line at Wilshire. The use of colors to tag various proposed rail lines makes for a convenient pr ploy (like the "Aqua" line publicity stunt). -- Pelladon 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply
When the LACMTA officially changes the name to the Aqua Line (as opposed to the staff recommendation) then we will change the name. User opinions are irrelevant here, although if you actually care about the title I suggest you contact your MTA board member. Calwatch 03:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The change is due by the end of the month. Aqua seems likely. -- Donald Hosek 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I laughed. The LA Times recently ran an editorial blasting the MTA on its long-standing fot-dragging on what to rename this line. Hbdragon88 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This comment was made nearly six years ago. What's the status? Is there a color designation? If not why not? Why is the Expo Line so special that it is referred to by name instead of color? 108.23.147.17 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC). reply
It looks like Metro is moving away from color names. This is because of a project known as the Regional Connector - it will merge most of the lines together allowing one-seat rides. This will mean a whole cloth name change to the line system - probably using the line numbers (e.g. Expo already has a number (806)). In any case, the "Expo" name stuck - and that is the official name. It never been referred to as a color and probably never will be. Lexlex ( talk) 13:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, the line name was officially changed several months back, but the decision on renaming the Wikipedia article seems to have been discussed (and apparently postponed) on Metro's A Line page. Alika|Alex 06:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Technology?

What technology will be used for this line? Please don't tell me it's going to be another dinky at-tram like the Blue Line? Jpatokal 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes it will be primarily at-grade like the Blue Line. ( Damienwg ( talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Pictures

Do these have to be centered? It looks nothing like other Wikipedia articles now. ( Phattonez 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)) reply

I had right aligned the pictures, but Esirgen moved them back to center for some unknown reason and did not explain his actions here. He obviously is not going to let us make any changes for the better. ( Phattonez 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
These thumbnails are 600 px wide; therefore, it doesn't make sense to align them left or right. When you aligned them to the right, the continuity of the text got lost and the placement of the pictures with respect to the text became incorrect. I think they look much better this way. The only way they could be placed right is if you make the thumbnails half the size, but since these pictures contain so much detail, I don't think it makes sense. There are many other Wikipedia pages with large thumbnails aligned in the center—just look around.
I appreciate your inclusion of the "Current status" though.
Esirgen 06:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Captions

I have no problem with the content of the captions in terms of the information expressed. I just don't find it at all appropriate to have a paragraph-long caption, when the information should go either (1) on the image page, or (2) in the text near the image. The information isn't exactly "critical" as it was described before, at least not "critically" located in the caption. Please compare to other Wikipedia articles. Trust me, I love the future Expo Line as much as the next transit freak, and that's exactly why I think the page should look more professional. -- SameerKhan 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A caption could be a word, a few words, a complete sentence, or a few sentences, or a small paragraph. The caption of a picture is as important as the picture itself in that it describes the picture. Show me one place in the Wikipedia style manual that says what should be the maximum length of a caption.
I spent quite a bit time making those three pictures and I know that their captions are critical descriptions of them. When you deleted their captions, you pretty much killed those pictures—it was almost like vandalism.
I understand that you are a Ph.D. student in linguistics at UCLA, and when you write scientific papers, I am guessing that you don't use pictures, hence captions, much. Coming from a different background myself, I am very familar with captions and pictures.
Although the caption of my third picture also looks a little bit long to me as well; I will think about it when I have time. The other two captions are two and three sentences, respectively. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is free form—what really matters is the content itself but not much the style and format.
Esirgen 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
--Your caption for the picture can just go inside the article. The caption is supposed to be a short reference. ( Phattonez 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
I agree with Phattonez. The information in the caption belongs in the article, not the caption. I don't mean to "kill" your pictures, and I am not interested in vandalizing this page. I know I am a linguist, but my passion is in urban transportation, so I want this page to look as professional as the articles on other parts of the Metro Network and other transportation systems. Also, please don't make personal assumptions. As a phonetician, much of my dissertation and other papers are made up of tables, charts, and most importantly, images of spectrograms, waveforms, and (more recently with my work in intonation) pitch contours, and I have been told by many reviewers that captions are meant to be short, and details are meant to be in the text. Long captions detract from the point, rather than enhance them. -- SameerKhan 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The Community’s perspective

The residents of the community along the Expo Right of Way have often been stereotyped by non-resident advocates of the extension as unreasonable and blind in their opposition to the proposed route. Whereas in fact, there are real concerns about safety, noise, traffic, and ridership and the MTA's willingness to adequately address these concerns.

Safety

The alignment would pass through a suburban single family home neighborhood - the train in some places would be within 50 feet of homes. This brings up concerns about safety (and noise). Although there is a natural ditch behind Palms Park that which allows for a grade separated parkway, once the right of way reaches Overland Avenue, it is at street level and within 50-100 feet of homes and the playground of a local elementary school. Possible mitigation would involve building the light rail above or below grade. However, the MTA has demonstrated resistance to these options because they are more costly than simply building at street level.

What the MTA has withheld from residents during community scoping meetings is its abhorrent safety record for at grade railways. An LA Times article by Douglas P. Shut dated 2/22/2000 [1] featured an interview with Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, County Supervisor and then head of the MTA, in which she expressed anxiety about crossing the Blue Line Tracks. As of 2000, there has been 53 deaths attributed to the Blue Line. In light of this danger, the MTA explored a proposal to rebuild the Blue Line to put it below grade. The cost for such a project once the the rail line has been built was estimated at 1.6 billion - much too high to make it feasible. Burke has been quoted as saying that the best chance for addressing safety concerns is at the construction phase. Putting a light rail below ground during construction may be more expensive than at street level. However, it will be much more cost-effective to make a decision to invest in a safe infrastructure at the onset. Stuck with an unsafe at grade railway, the MTA's response has been to develop a safety education program for children and seniors. This involves a component about speed and stopping distance which would be a challenging concept to teach young children who live and walk to school along the right of way [2]. Safety education, alone, is an unacceptable form of mitigation for a route along which hundreds of children as young as 5 years of age pass on their way to school.

Environmental Impact (Noise and Traffic)

Although the MTA holds up the Pasadena Gold Line as its success in integrating an at grade light rail into a residential neighborhood, there has been much concern about the noise. So much so that even transit advocates propose that the at grade Gold Line be rebuilt into a below grade line [3]. Again, the cost of doing this post construction is prohibitive. Moreover, while the at-grade rail way will increase access from the Eastside of town to the Westside, the crossings along major streets will disrupt the flow of already congested north-south traffic along Overland Ave and Westwood Blvd.

Safety, noise, and traffic are serious considerations. The Community supports smart public transit. The MTA has not adequately addressed these concerns in building already existing Metro lines. They appear poised to repeat past mistakes. A light rail is a long term investment in the future of our city. A poorly designed route would not only impact upon ridership (and therefore alleviation of traffic congestion) but would also bring unfair negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhoods. No neighborhood, regardless of their demographic, should have bear the unburden of poor planning.

Cheviotla 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I removed some of the more tendentious material making assertions about Cheviot Hills without really giving both sides. The links that were cited are now invalid. Nothing major is lost. This entire article is way too long and detailed for an encyclopedia, anyway. GeorgeLouis 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I live near Arlington about 1/2 mile from the track. What kind of impact can I expect? Is it more negative than positive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.76 ( talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Because of the proximity to the Expo Line, rents and housing prices will go up in your neighborhood once the line is built. So, it depends on whether you rent or own a house. Esirgen ( talk) 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
There are four-quad gates proposed at Arlington/Exposition, which will be down some 38% of the time during peak hours during rush hour. So you can expect a severe traffic impact on Arlington, and with the closure of 2nd Ave and 3rd Ave all the cut-through traffic diverted to the street. You'll also hear the train horns 960 times every weekday (240 trains X 4 horns per train). Damienwg ( talk) 01:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Grade separation and other issues

Thanks to CheviotLA for helping keep the page on topic. We tried to incorporate the key facts from the section back into the article. At the same time we questioned some of the other opinions expressed about the homeowners association.

One issue that is interesting is the idea that because the rail has gone at grade in other less affluent neighborhoods, it would be discriminatory to do anything different in Cheviot/Rancho Park. It certainly would have that appearance. But if you look at the problems created by running at grade, it doesnt make sense to do that in any neighborhood. The argument is like saying that just because you did something badly once - you need to do it just as badly for everyone else just to be fair. I think it is time to stop the MTA from building badly designed rail. If it takes the rich neighborhoods to get the MTA to change its ways, it will be better for everyone in the future. The Expo is not the last rail to be built in the city. Bruabf 06:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Venice/Sepulveda Boulevards diversion

This section is almost completely negative about the Venice/Sepulveda route. I was tempted to put an {{ unbalanced}} tag on it but decided to discuss it first. I don't know anything about this route or what its advantages are, but surely there are some. Maybe someone can fill in the gaps and create a more balanced account. Didnt the MTA actually select this route at one point? We need to fill in the history. Bruabf 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Bruabf is correct; the section is unbalanced: Somebody is using Wikipedia to flog his or her personal opinion. Neither this nor any other part of the line west of Culver City has been studied in great detail. I simply removed what is speculation and left what we know (which isn't much). Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
So much of the article seems to be unbalanced; both regarding the Venice/Sepulveda alignment issue as well as regarding grade-separation issues. I would agree that an "unbalanced" or "neutrality disputed" (does that exist?) tag should be added to both of these sections. In short, I'd like to see a much more concise article about the Expo Line; and article that's more general in scope. Perhaps concerns for and against elements of the line could be listed in a bulleted fashion in a special "Support and Opposition" section of the article. -- Alika ( talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Alika, you are right that the article is a little bit on the long side but with so much mindless opposition taking place, let's try to keep it as comprehensive and representative of the facts as possible so that the Expo Line will get built right. The future of the light-rail network in Los Angeles is also at stake. In the past there have been numerous neutrality etc. tags added and once the specific concerns were addressed, they were removed. Esirgen ( talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If that's statement by Friends 4 Expo member Gohkan Esirgen is not a clear indication of the bias that is in play in this article I don't know what is. ( Damienwg ( talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Questionable Neutrality of Sections Advocating for Specific Routes

One issue under investigation for the Expo Extension is whether the route should go directly along the alignment or go from the end of Phase I extension in Culver City down Venice and up North on Sepulveda. Environmental impact (noise, safety) and ridership are among the key factors being considered in an Environmental Impact Report.

In reading the sections dealing with these two options, one gets the sense that the neutrality and encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia is being compromised. I have tried to add some facts to balance out the perspectives but repeatedly find that these facts have been deleted rather than talked (Cheviotla - I sent you a message through talk. Please check and respond. If you haven't received it, I can send it again). The route options is a contentious local political issue. Perhaps too "hot" for Wikipedia. However, it seems that there are facts out there that should be included in this page to balance out the perspective.

Any reactions or suggestions for dealing with an ongoing political issue such as the Expo Line Phase II extension?

Kerryla 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Kerryla reply

Agreed. Much of this article reads more as an advocacy piece for a certain alignment or grade-separation strategy. I, too, made an edit in an attempt to preserve noted concerns while removing judgment as to whether the concerns were valid. I'm thinking this article needs either some large-scale changes or one of those "neutrality disputed" tags. How does one initiate the latter? -- Alika ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
( Damienwg ( talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Line Colors

Assuming the Downtown Connector is ever built....

I'd like to see phase one of the Gold Line renamed "Blue Line" as was originally planned. We would finally have a single Blue Line running from Long Beach to Pasadena (and beyond?).

The Expo Line should be connected to the East L.A. Gold Line extension and should retain the Gold Line name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 ( talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Since naming is based on rail lines, not the tracks themselves, you really wouldn't have to rename the Gold Line, per se. Rather, the Pasadena - Downtown LA - Long Beach line could be called the Blue Line and the Pasadena - Downtown LA - East LA line could be called the Gold Line. Come to think of it, a new East LA - Downtown LA - Long Beach line could be created too! As long as the equipment is compatible trains could run between all three endpoints. The Expo Line could even be brought into the fray. Oh well; pie in the sky. -- Alika ( talk) 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The time has finally come. Begin change all E (Expo) bullets to Gold E bullets. Lars Smiley ( talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
File:Downtown Connector track system.png
Actually, the natural way to name/color/number the lines is by the destination. See the figure on the right. Therefore, the colors can remain as they are. Esirgen ( talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
How can they remain as they are? What would you call a single line that went from Long Beach to Pasadena? Would it be considered a brand new line, or an extension of the Blue Line? Do we really need a line that goes from Pasadena to East L.A.? Wouldn't be better to have East L.A line continue on to Santa Monica rather than do a U-turn and head east towards Pasadena? 72.67.35.97 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A single line from Long Beach to Pasadena would be called Gold Line. A single line from Pasadena to Long Beach would be called Blue Line. Metro's current plans are to start with two routes: Pasadena–Long Beach and Santa Monica–Eastside. Esirgen ( talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Anti-light-rail campaign by Damien Goodmon

This section seems like a personal attack on Goodmon - and since there is not a pro Goodmon section, this opposition seems unnecessary. If there is something relevant here maybe it can get reworded in some appropriate way. Bruabf ( talk) 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply


While there has been a considerable public reaction to the proposed at-grade crossing at Farmdale Ave, much of this reaction is a result of a highly polarized campaign by the self-acclaimed transit advocate Damien Goodmon [4]. Damien Goodmon doesn't believe that light-rail is an efficient form of public transportation and, as a result, he has made the utmost effort to promote the Expo Line as being ugly, inefficient, and dangerous. His efforts have focused on having the line built as a subway or, if not possible, otherwise grade-separated as an elevated line.

In order to accomplish his goal, Damien Goodmon has chosen to accuse the Expo Authority of racism. He has claimed that the Phase 2 (future western) segment of the line would be built grade-separated, unlike Phase 1; therefore, the Expo Line is racially discriminating against African-Americans. Although his claims are unsupported, his misleading campaign has gained popularity and, after thousands of fliers and a Web site [5], he managed to gather a large African-American crowd at the latest California Public Utilities Commission hearing [6].

Other opposition groups such as Expo Communities United (headed by Mark Jolles and Clint Simmons of Mid-City) [7] and Neighbors for Smart Rail (headed by Terri Tippit of the Westside Neighborhood Council [8], Michael Eveloff of Tract 7260 [9], Colleen Mason Heller and Kevin Hughes of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association [10], and Loren Kosmont of the Westwood Gardens Civic Association [11]) [12] have joined Damien Goodmon in protesting grade-separation and other issues.

It was a personal attack, and inaccurate characterization. But since the authors and editors of the article are all Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot members, I'm not surprised. ( Damienwg ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
What happened to Damiuen Goodman? He had a really good plan to build a huge rail network a few years ago and now it appears he joined forces with the BRU. 108.23.147.17 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC). reply
He is now using the same preacher tactics in the Crenshaw district for the Crenshaw line: warning of dire consequences and dead children (no matter the science), threatening legal action - and (of course) constantly needing money to fund his efforts. He now has a reputation in the city due to his over-the-top confrontational style, and is not taken very seriously by the powers that be. Bring up his name at Metro and you'll get a sigh and and eye roll. Lexlex ( talk) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Conflict-of-interest discussion between Cheviotla and Damien Goodmon

Original post by Cheviotla: conflict-of-interest edits by FixExpo (Damien Goodmon)

  • Group FixExpo [13], created and headed by Damien Goodmon, is currently in a legal battle with the Expo Construction Authority [14], trying to stop the construction of the line (see, e.g., one of his latest legal filings [15], among the numerous).
  • It is highly unethical for FixExpo to make edits on the LACMTA Expo Line article, given its direct legal interest and lawsuit against the Expo Construction Authority, who is constructing the light-rail line.

It is highly unethical for any organization to make edits on Wikipedia on its own behalf (such as Microsoft editing articles on Windows).

It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a discussion board and use such language to pass one's ideas, opinions, or views.

Moreover, there were specific edits by FixExpo which were entirely false, such as the statement that Overland Ave traffic count is below the Metro criteria. (Overland Ave traffic count is around 1,500, more than any Phase 1 count, and well-above the Metro criteria.)

  • Therefore, please remove any similar edits by FixExpo, which violates Wikipedia ethics. Further such edits may result in the deletion of the FixExpo account.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Cheviotla ( talk) 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

First reply by Damien Goodmon: major conflicts of interest with Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot - this reads like an advocacy page

This is an advocacy page written by members of the citizen organizations Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot (cheviotla and Esirgen), representing clear conflicts of interest. They even have links to this wiki page on their advocacy literature. The entire article needs to be rewritten and FixExpo's edits (my previous account) attempted to add factual balance to the article, and still I didn't go far enough. Here are some of the changes I suggested that have been removed/specific issues that remain with this page.

1) The absence of linking to critical articles or websites to provide alternative information in the External links section. I'm trying to understand why any site devoted to Expo would not be linked in the External links section?

Previous edits added the following links but they've been removed without explanation and completely without justification:

  • Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line—coalition of South Los Angeles community organizations working to build the Expo Line below grade in the South LA segment
  • Expo Communities United-coalition of four community organizations leading the battle at the CPUC; organization is part of the Fix Expo Campaign
  • Exposing the Expo-Journalism project by students at USC's Annenberg School for Communication in the Spring 2007 semester

2) Relatedly the controversy in Phase 1, that is the major source of the media attention for the line right now, is given a paragraph. Specifically, there's absolutely no mention of the Los Angeles Unified School District's motion opposing the street-level Expo Line crossings near public schools. I'm trying to understand how that's not relevant?

Here's the section on the LAUSD that was removed without explanation or justification:

After nearly a decade of staff letters from Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Office of Environmental Health and Safety and former Superintendent Roy Romer, the LAUSD Board of Education formally stated their opposition to the at-grade crossing at Dorsey and Foshay Learning Center at Western/Exposition in November 2007, through the "Keeping Kids Safe Resolution." The resolution was sponsored by School Board Member Marguerite LaMotte, who represents the area that includes many of the public schools near the Expo Line, and the longest serving member of the school board Julie Korenstein. Since the resolution was passed, LAUSD lawyers have entered the CPUC case as a formal party and added to the case record a brief overview of LAUSD's communication with Metro and the Expo Authority.

Relatedly, the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority Board of Directors has directed staff to study grade separated options at the Farmdale/Exposition location including closing the street with a pedestrian bridge, and keeping the street open with a train overpass.

There was a section devoted to Environmental Racism that was balanced and accurate that was removed, again without explanation:

South Los Angeles community groups have been very vocal regarding the disparate design of Expo Line Phase 1 as it passes through the majority-white area in the city of Culver City, where the train operates 100% grade separated, compared to the South LA alignment from just west of Figueroa to just east of La Brea (a distance of 4 miles), where the train is planned to operate completely at-grade. The only currently proposed grade separation in South LA is at La Brea Avenue, which is an overpass. Comparatively, at Figueroa/Exposition, where USC and Exposition Park are located, that grade separation is an underpass, which cost more to construct. Underpasses produce significantly less environmental impact than overpasses. Specifically, overpasses produce much more noise, there is a blight impact, and there are privacy concerns. The groups claim the design is textbook environmental racism.

3) There are several attempts to characterize the motives and attitudes of individuals and organizations instead of simply stating their positions. To no surprise anyone that slightly differs from a completely pro-Expo party-line is portrayed as Satan. The hit piece on me (below), that has since been removed, is one of the most egregious examples, not only for the tone but inaccuracy. Others issues:

The attitude of the high-level administration of the University of Southern California (USC) toward the Expo Line has been generally negative while the attitude of students and neighbors has been positive.

If that doesn't scream bias I don't know what does. This sentence should read something like "The administration of the University of Southern California (USC) has been critical of the Expo Line, particularly USC President Steven Sample" and there should be a link to a document or report.

Additionally, the neighborhood council for the area (North Area Neighborhood Development Council) has supported the position of the other South LA organizations which is to alter the design of the line from Figueroa to La Brea. (See the downloads on the website: http://www.nandc.org/land_use.php). Support from neighborhood councils in Phase 2 communities is used to characterize support for something or other, but neighborhood councils that request alterations in Phase 1 are ignored in favor of "positive" neighbors "attitudes."

4) While Phase 2 is only in the planning stages and stations have not been finalized as stated throughout the page, phase 2 station locations are mentioned in the Station section as though they've already been determined. And to the benefit of Light Rail for Cheviot (who favor the right-of-way route) vs. the Venice-Sepulveda hump (which was the originally preferred route in 2001), all the stations are on the right-of-way route. Additional, the map at the top of the page, doesn't show the Expo Line with the two routes, just with the one on the right-of-way, which again is the position of Light rail for Cheviot.

5) The source of much of the controversy that resolves around phase 2 relates to grade separation, specifically which streets will and won't have grade separations. Without pointing to any data or report, the author states that many of the intersections will be grade separated or should be grade separated. C'mon editors:

Bagley Avenue: Since the tracks are next to a freeway overpass at this crossing, there is zero visibility coming from the freeway side of Bagley Avenue. In addition the crossing is in between two overpass inclines (National and Venice/Robertson) where the train would have little room to slow down or stop for an oncoming vehicle stuck in the gates. Therefore, this crossing seems to meet the criteria in the Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail [26].

No component of the grade-crossing policy mentions this as a basis - and the lone basis at that - for grade separation.

Metro staff has indicated that there would very likely be grade separation at Overland Ave; although, they have declined to commit to this before they have done the draft environmental study.

There's no link or basis for this conclusion. In fact, the threshold for grade separation is 1100 vehicles per lane (see the grade crossing policy), and per the Friends 4 Expo own traffic count Overland only reaches 952 vehicles per lane ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgGmEFDTfrM) meaning it does not exceed the threshold.

Westwood Boulevard: Westwood Boulevard is also a major arterial helping Westwood, Century City, and Rancho Park connect to the Santa Monica Freeway. Given the traffic congestion in the Westside, grade separation at this crossing is highly desirable.

Self explanatory.

Sit back I'm just getting started.

( Damienwg ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

First reply by Damien Goodmon continued: additional conflicts of interest

If my participation in the CPUC proceedings, (that by the way intends not to stop the line, but instead to alter the alignment of the line) disqualifies me from editing the page, shouldn't it disqualify Friends 4 Expo (among other reasons) as well since they too are involved in the CPUC legal case? Here's their information on the service list for the case: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists/A0612005_75389.htm

You have a big problem here wiki. None of the edits I made were inaccurate or anything but factual. I suggest putting a "neutrality disputed" tag on the page until it can be completely rewritten.

( Damienwg ( talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Cheviotla you're just making stuff up.

1) Fix Expo is not involved in trying to stop construction of the line. Just as your organization (Light Rail for Cheviot) is attempting to have the Expo Line go below grade through Cheviot Hills, Fix Expo is trying to do the same for South LA.

2) All of the edits were factual in nature, and were made in an effort to combat the bias that everyone reading the page recognizes (see the several comments below), and to provide important information that previous editors neglected to mention. Some of this information is discussed above.

3) Metro's criteria is based on vehicles per lane per hour, with a threshold of 1100 PER LANE PER HOUR (see Exhibit 2 of the often linked to grade crossing policy which is now a broken link!). Overland is not at 1500 per lane per hour, and Friends4Expo's own video showed it was only 952, which is less than 66% of what you have claimed. (Again the link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgGmEFDTfrM) There is no document or basis for making the statement that Overland will be grade separated or that traffic counts are 1500 per lane per hour.

( Damienwg ( talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Final discussion

Unlike Mr. Damien Goodmon, I am not a member of a group, such as Light-Rail for Cheviot, and more importantly, unlike him, I haven't filed a lawsuit against the City and State (with or without the cover of safety and race issues) and I don't intend to do so. I do happen to live in the Cheviot Hills area but I don't see why this wouldn't be a plus but a conflict of interest. In fact users such as Bruabf also live in my neighborhood, even though they are on the opposition side like Mr. Goodmon and we share completely different personal views. Bruabf is also not a member of a group according to him/her. Cheviotla ( talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The supreme irony of all of this of course is that the edits which were all factual by me came weeks after the neutrality of the article and edits by members of Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo were questioned. I notice you didn't question the since deleted sections (which provided accuracy and balance to the article), but instead went after the source. Indeed, the only specific reference you made was regarding Overland Avenue traffic counts, and in this case you presented factually inaccurate and unverifiable information in an attempt to discredit me. Indeed, it is supremely ironic that though you claim you're not a member of Light Rail for Cheviot you're using their own inaccurate statements without verification.
And I can't conclude my comments here without mentioning your characterization of the complaints about safety hazards of the crossings and the design discrepancy as "cover," and your characterization the position of the organization which stated name is to FIX Expo as "opposition." That's not the type of unbiased/objective statement I would think would be desired for a person who desires to edit or prevent edit of the article.
Neutrality disputed label is soon coming cheviotla. And it is appropriate.
( Damienwg ( talk) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
Once again, I am not the person who is filing lawsuits against the City and State (= people of Los Angeles). I do not promote an underground line through the Westside but I trust the authority in performing their study. In fact I don't even expect a subway but perhaps some underpasses. If it comes at-grade or elevated, let it be.
Latest Overland count of approximately 1,500 is right. The video you've seen is not during the rush hour. Also the numbers have to be adjusted for 2020. You will find out when the authority announces the results. So far nothing in this article has been found to be wrong.
What I don't want to see in this article is stuff like why this line should not be built or why it should be built as a subway instead. This kind of stuff is well beyond the scope of the article. If you believe that the line should be a subway and pursue it through lawsuits, and even if you achive it, it's fine, but please do not claim that this article is the appropriate place for such discussions, given the fact that the line is already being constructed as a light-rail line.
Please do not threaten to put a neutrality tag and then say that USC is getting a subway. There are at least five at-grade crossings at USC (Vermont, Menlo, Watt, Trousdale, Jefferson).
Please do not say that USC should have got an overpass instead of underpass at Flower/Exposition. This was entirely based on the cost considerations for that specific location.
Please do not say that Culver City got grade-separation: the line is completely at-grade in Culver City. The reason why there are no crossings there is just because that's how the City was built in the early 1900s. They just didn't have streets crossing the railroad right-of-way in that location.
Please do not say that Venice/Robertson doesn't meet the Metro criteria.
Please do not say that Washington, immediately south of Venice should be left at-grade, while putting a bridge a few hundred feet to the north.
Please explain to me if the line is to be built as a subway, how would they come up with the $8 billion needed to build it.
Please explain to me if they find this $8 billion, how would they explain to the people that they would build the Wilshire subway on the Exposition railroad right-of-way.
And please do not claim that the tone of my language is not appropriate and thereofe I am not an impartial editor. Because I believe this is a discussion page, not an article.
And good luck in your lawsuits.
Cheviotla ( talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
$8 billion for 4 miles of rail in bored-tunnel, cut-and-cover or trench? Rrrrriiiggghhtttt. Did you pull that one out of the same place that you found that 1500 vehicles per hour per lane cross the Overland Ave intersection?
Argue amongst yourself Cheviotla. I'm dealing in world of facts and data, not fantasy. My time is too precious to debate people who are too lazy to simply inform themselves on the facts and constantly pull stuff out of nowhere that doesn't even pass the basic logic test just to make themselves feel better. The rest of the communication from me can be found at www.FixExpo.org ( Damienwg ( talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
Mr. Goodmon, the Expo Line is 15.2-mile-long, not four-mile-long. I hope you, being a strong advocate for environmental justice, are not suggesting that only the four-mile-long segment in your neighborhood should be a subway. With today's rising construction costs and inflation, $8 billion is about right for a fifteen-mile-long metropolitan subway. Besides, even with a conservative estimate of yesterday's costs of about $350 million per mile, it still comes to more than $5 billion. Cheviotla ( talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

—

(Discussion reorganized according to chronological order by Cheviotla ( talk) 11:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Neutrality Disputed tag

I added the neutrality disputed tag, as it is harming wikipedias name as it is now. This page needs to become more like other metro rail line and extension pages and less like the advocacy pages. Both sides of the debate should have their links in the bottom and should leave the bickering to their own pages NOT wikipedia. ( Dnwh ( talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

I agree. This article should not be used as a battleground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am adding the links for the opposition groups at his request. I don't see where there is bickering from the support groups in the article. Removing the tag. Agreed for the need for the article not to be a battleground. Cheviotla ( talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs) reply
I think it's funny how Cheviotla is so petrified of a neutrality disputed tag. You should not have removed the tag, as the many issues still remain with the article that I and many others on this talk page have mentioned. So you know: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Indeed the person who put it said it needs to read less like an advocacy page and more like others. There have been no changes to that effect, so why did you remove the tag? Will/Administrators please warn Cheviotla, so they will not do it again and return the tag. ( Damienwg ( talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
And by the way, no one has said our position was subway - it has always been below grade. Cheviotla if your going to make edits you need to know how to read or maybe understand what you're editing. Allow me to educate you, below grade can be trench. Trench is not subway. Thus, you have once again inaccurately characterized the position of our group. The following explanation should be applied to both ECU and Fix Expo: "coalition of South LA community groups working to build the Expo Line below grade from Vermont to La Brea." And Cheviotla should be prohibited from implementing any further edits or be banned. ( Damienwg ( talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
I'm returning the neutrality disputed tag. Cheviotla, do not remove it again please. We're going to completely rewrite this article to conform with wiki practices and all of the issues highlighted on this talk page will be considered. Do not remove the tag again until we all (including me) agree it should be removed. ( Dnwh ( talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)) reply
BRAVO Dnwh ( talk)!!!! Fight the mob! Maintain wiki's credibility. ( Damienwg ( talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

Dnwh ( talk), it's OK for you to think that there are neutrally issues in the article, but it's not something for you to judge and correct on your own, which would create exactly the problem you are trying to solve. You are welcome to make edits, of course, but keep these in mind:

  • Do not delete previous edits without justification and reference. They will be restored back.
  • Do not make edits without references. They might be deleted, especially if they are found inappropriate.
  • Any extensive discussion of why the line should be grade-separated or should not be grade-separated will not be allowed. This is nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • Any extensive speculation of why the line will be safe or will not be safe will not be allowed. This is, again, nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • Any extensive speculation of why the line will be fast or will not be fast will not be allowed. This is, again, nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • Any extensive speculation of why the line will have enough capacity or will not have enough capacity will not be allowed. This is, again, nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • Any extensive of speculation of environmental-justice issues will not be allowed. This is, again, nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • Any extensive discussion of Blue Line safety issues will not be allowed. This is, obviously, nowhere within the scope of the article.
  • If you want to write about such issues, you should create new articles.
  • Using any material, directly or indirectly, from the Web sites of marginal groups such as FixExpo [16] or Expo Communites United [17] is not allowed.
  • If your edits are found to be done to specifically reinforce the current legal protests of the marginal groups mentioned, they will be immediately deleted.
  • If your edits do not respect these basic rules, you will risk them to be undone.

Thank you and please always remember the No. 1 rule of Wikipedia: Be courteous to others! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheviotla ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well then I guess you'll have to remove the images and references to the daylighted stream too. How sad. I'm giving any and all editors permission to download material from the FixExpo.org or ExpoCommunities.com websites and upload to wikipedia. ( Damienwg ( talk) 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

—

The images and discussions are not taken from the Light-Rail for Cheviot or Friends 4 Expo Web sites. In fact nothing in this article is taken from these sites! The Light-Rail for Cheviot copied those images from Wikipedia to their Web site.

These neighbor suggestions you are referring to are part of official public comments that were timely filed for the environmental study and can be found at the Expo authority Web site.

Even if you give permission for the FixExpo and Expo Communities United Web sites, the material from these Web sites is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it represents the views of marginal groups who have filed legal protests [18] with the CA Public Utilities Commission long after the environmental study has been completed.

Cheviotla ( talk) 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Summarizing the Issues in Dispute / Recommended Changes

This is as good a place as any to summarize the issues in dispute so they can be edited. I'll begin by saying neither I, nor Cheviotla, nor any other Friends 4 Expo or Light Rail for Cheviot members should be making the edits. Contrary to Cheviotla's contention, unlike Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot, my goal is an unbiased and balanced wikipedia article. So let's use this section to debate the merits of what is currently there and what should be there and allow others to do the editing.

Just to recap the issues highlighted on this page so far:

  • Overall neutrality of the article as a whole (Alika, Kerryla, Bruabf, GeorgeLouis - indeed the only people that haven't made this claim are the F4E/L4C people). This will require much editing for the neutrality tag to be removed.
  • Neutrality of Venice/Sepulveda diversion compared to the right-of-way (Kerryla).
  • Constant speculation about motives of those who provide alternatives or resistance: Cheviot Hills, USC, Phase 1 communities. (GeorgeLouis) It just shouldn't be there.
  • Omission of Venice to Venice Beach route. There's no reason it shouldn't be included.
  • The map at the top of the page only shows the route on the ROW and shows extension that have not been approved and are not funded. Should be replaced with a map that shows both potential routes currently under study.
  • The entire speculation about Phase 2 should be removed (grade separations and stations locations)
  • The travel times are completely without any basis or documentation and defy Expo's own calculations (but again when you're pushing for the line to be built a certain way what do you expect). Should be replaced with Downtown to Culver City in under 30 mins as stated on the BuildExpo.org website.
  • Why again are stations on the right-of-way in the station box when there are two routes the board is currently studied (the reason is simple: members of F4E and L4C who favor the ROW route are making the edits). Again all speculative station locations should be removed from the station box. Only Phase 1 stations should exist.
  • Characterization of the links in the external section and absence of other sites (see suggested terminology above).
  • Severely below par explanation of the Phase 1 controversy and (not surprisingly) inaccurate and incomplete explanation of the major sources of the legal challenges (see Orange Line page to see how this was incorporated into the article).
  • A satellite picture of Dorsey HS or Foshay Middle School, which are the source of the PUC controversies are not provided.
  • Any reference to the cost of the project or the fact that the project budget just increased significantly.

My overall suggestion is truncate the article and eliminate all speculation about travel times, future station locations and grade separation at particular streeets until documents are produced to that effect, especially since the phase 2 route has not be chosen. (See the 2nd Avenue subway page for a good example).

Simply explain there are two routes chosen, which can be done in a paragraph, and link to both organizations in the paragraph for more information.

The organizations which support the routes should be removed, as should the daylight stream. That's what advocacy websites are are for. Why these people are so intent on abusing wikipedia to push their agenda is beyond me. Both organizations have their own websites.( Damienwg ( talk) 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

I agree with you that the page is generally not very good and full of attempts to bias it. KerryLA and I have tried to eliminate the worst of these, but the small issues we havent fought over. I disagree on two of your points. I dont see why you or CheviotLA should not be able to edit the page so long as you stay within the wikipedia guidelines. I think the site works better when opposing viewpoints are active in keeping the page from drifting to one side or the other (adversarial system). I dont agree with truncating the article to remove the speculation about Phase II. People in the neighborhood are concerned about the details and it is often too late to develop opposition to the plan if you wait for the official release. Presenting information about what Metro has said and the various opposition statements and lawsuites seems appropriate to document here. That said, this page could do a much better job of documenting these things.

Finally, I want to add to your list of concerns about the page:

  • the misuse of the trench picture for phase II. This is a real trench but it lasts only 100 yards or so and the rest of the tracks through rancho park are at street level. It is very misleading.

Bruabf ( talk) 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regaining Neutrality

It seems like everyone has taken a useful step back from the editing war, so I think now is the time to figure out to make the page acceptable to all involved. For the purpose of this I would suggest that we try to ignore the people and organizations involved and focus on the issues surrounding the Expo Line. The accusations that someone is working for this group or that or that this person is simply on the "fringe" server no purpose here. All issues that are reasonable should be addressed even if only one person raises it. This is not directly in line with with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but since we dont have any good measures of who is in the majority or minority it seems the best approach.

References to groups or individuals should be extremely limited - only when that person or groups identity is relevant should they be named (the relevancy should be clear to the reader).

Now Damienwg has presented a list of issues with the site. Here are my suggestions to address the most important (IMHO) ones:

  • Venice/Sepulveda diversion - cut out all the speculation about this route and list only the facts. If someone has some more documented information about the line than details should be added, but the current state of this section is unbalanced.
  • Brief description of the Venice Blvd to Venice Beach option should be mentioned (again not likely to be an important - but is under consideration).
  • Add some caveats to the possible travel times and move the phase II travel times to the phase II discussion about the ROW. I think we all know how speculative these are.
  • Add information about the current status of the legal challenges and approval process.
  • Add more pictures of the tracks through Rancho Park to give a more accurate vision of the impact on the community (as opposed to the idyllic looking trench picture).

I strongly disagree that we should remove speculative (but documented) information about Phase II. That is where all the interest is.

Other people's thoughts on these or other changes to the site? Bruabf ( talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I endorse that proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no Venice Blvd to Venice option being considered for the Expo line (or any other line for that matter). I just went through the LACMTA Long Range Transportation plan and there is not one mention of such a line... fantasy rail lines have no place in an encyclopedia article. If I am incorrect, can someone point me to a source of the claim that a Venice Blvd to Venice line is officially being "considered"?

-- Arturoramos ( talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually the Venice Blvd to Venice route for Phase 2 was asked to be studied by Neighbors for Smart Rail and the Expo Authority did study it in the alternatives analysis for Phase 2 right before they began the ongoing draft environmental study. After the alternatives analysis was completed, the route/mode options were reduced to three, which later were reduced to two (BRT eliminated), and Venice Blvd option was one of the options that got eliminated. This is explained in detail in the article. Esirgen ( talk) 20:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Trip Times

Is there a reason why official construction authority trip times aren't being used? They are available and can be cited. It's a bit odd that whoever came up with the current times had to note that actual trip times might be longer, but that the construction authority has longer times up to avoid 'criticism' ... and not because these user generated numbers might be complete happy thoughts garbage. 76.90.19.85 ( talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I recalculated the trip times with additional precision, using the assumptions that were listed, and then adjusted them on the page. Unfortunately, they've been shortened again.

This is not an advocacy page -- there's no need to skew the numbers to make the trip times seem shorter. We should either (a) show the numbers determined by Metro staff, or (b) calculate the numbers -- but only if the parameters of this calculation are made very clear.

At this point, since their seems to be controversy here over the correct numbers, I recommend option a -- showing the numbers determined by Metro staff. Jcovarru ( talk) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I've added back the 30 seconds (your convention including the first-station dwell); so, now, they are back to your numbers, except some very minor round-off errors of yours (±0.1 minute) are corrected. I also like this convention better because it treats the first station identical to the others, which will be important when the line is extended beyond the first station through the Downtown Connector.

As far as official Expo numbers are concerned, there are really none at this point other than some rough estimates, and the timetable won't be released until the prerevenue service is almost completed (March 2011 or later). Esirgen ( talk) 07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Now that the line is open, and LACMTA has official timetables posted (for example, here), wouldn't it make sense to use those numbers? The timetable shows, e.g., 26 minutes between Metro Center and La Cienega (the westernmost station currently open) whereas the route map on this page shows 19 minutes for the same. ( 76.168.95.124 ( talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)) reply

Since nobody responded, I went ahead and copied the trip times from the official timetable for the Phase I part of the line. In my experience riding the line, the timetable is somewhat optimistic, (i.e., the actual travel times are longer) but at least the page is now more accurate than it was before. Unfortunately, since there is not yet a published timetable for Phase II, I cannot similarly update that segment. Thus, we are left with the awkward situation that the trip time from 7th/Metro Center to National/Palms is now listed as shorter than the trip to Culver City. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed. 128.125.8.146 ( talk) 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Expo_parkway.jpg Original Research?

Since the photo is cited as by a wikipedian and not official LACMTA materials, wouldn't the image be original research and removed from Wikipedia as it gives a false illustration of the Expo Line? -- 128.54.237.250 ( talk) 05:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Move to 'Expo Line (LACMTA)' (or some other name)

Metro Expo Line (LACMTA) → Expo Line (LACMTA) — Both the construction authority and Metro's official blog refer to it as the Expo Line, as do most reliable sources. - Relisting Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • On the official Metro lines page [19], they are all named Metro Name Line. Esirgen ( talk) 17:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment From WP:COMMONNAME: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would object, because this would make the Metro Expo Line page different from all the other L.A. Metro Rail pages, which would cause confusion. Jcovarru ( talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • In addition, this would break the s-line templates. Jcovarru ( talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think Metro likes to include Metro in front of these lines so that they won't be confused with Metrolink etc. I think LACMTA Blue Line etc. is inappropriate because no one calls it that. Blue Line (LACMTA) etc. is fine but I don't see an immediate need to rename these lines, as they are called Metro Blue Line etc. in many contexts. So, this is something for the future perhaps but not for now. Esirgen ( talk) 07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Jcovarru: The other Metro Rail pages can (and should) be moved as well, and the s-line templates can be changed. Esirgen: If not now, when? To reiterate: Wikipedia guidelines state that common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name (emphasis added), and the common usage in reliable sources for the Metro Rail lines is not Metro (Color) Line, it is (Color) Line. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Its name may well be shortened to "Expo Line", within a context where readers know that it means part of the Los Angeles County Metro Rail System. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure if you're in support of the move or not, but if you aren't, the article and the (LACMTA) in the title would provide the context you are referring to. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 01:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I am opposed to redundancy in names, and "Metro Expo Line (LACMTA)" is pretty redundant (since "Metro" and "LACMTA" both refer to the agency). And, the "(LACMTA)" part is here to stay, since the pattern "Line Name (Agency)" is well established in wikipedia. Finally, common usage does not include "Metro": nobody I know would ever say "let's take the Metro Red Line to Downtown L.A." Thus, "Metro" probably should be removed from the name, but only if this were done for all the other articles that follow the "Metro ... (LACMTA)" pattern. It sounds like all four respondents here are ok with this happening. Jcovarru ( talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • This would also require consideration of the many other Metro pages, such as "Metro Rapid". Should this be renamed "Rapid (LACMTA)"? I think common usage for that is "Metro Rapid" or "the Rapid bus". At minimum, those should have "(LACMTA)" added to them, and they should be in the LACMTA category.
    • The common name for the Rapid buses seems to be "Metro Rapid". Unless there is another service with a substantially similar name, there's no need to append a disambiguating (LACMTA) to the article title. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Is there a consensus for moving the page then? -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Who knows? I have more trouble with the (LACMTA), which is meaningless to most of the world. Would be happier with Metro Expo Line, California or Expo Line, California, whichever is the more commonly used term. Skinsmoke ( talk) 04:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps Expo Line (Los Angeles)?
      • Depends on whether it extends outside the city limits. Prefer Expo Line, Los Angeles though: we try not to use partentheses for geographical locations. Skinsmoke ( talk) 09:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Whatever the solution, it should be applicable to all of L.A.'s Metro Rail lines. I looked around wiki and I found the following examples of how other agencies have done this:
   
Circle line (London Underground)

   
Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority)

   
1_(New_York_City_Subway_service)

   
Red Line (MBTA)

   
Green Line (MARTA)

   
Orange Line (Washington Metro)

   
Paris Métro Line 1

In other words, in situations where disambiguation is needed, most wiki articles that I checked have names that begin with the common name, and end with the agency name in parentheses. (The Paris article name is an exception: it starts with "Paris Métro".) This would suggest we use one of the following patterns: 

   1. 
Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro)
   2. 
Los Angeles Metro Expo Line
   3. 
Expo Line (LACMTA)
   4. 
LACMTA Expo Line

I prefer the first one, because it is descriptive and understandable, it matches the 'standard' (such as there is), and it isn't redundant (as the current name is). If not the first pattern, then the second one. I don't like the third and fourth ones, because to me, LACMTA is useless.
Unless there are any objections, I will move the various Metro Rail pages (and related articles) this weekend to match the first pattern. Jcovarru ( talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Skinsmoke: Technically, the line does extend beyond LA city limits, but it's into two cities that are basically enclaves of LA. I suppose if necessary it could be Expo Line (Los Angeles County). Also, it's not a geographic location per se, it's a rail line. As demonstrated by Jcovarru's links above, parentheses are the precedent.

Jcovarru: While I still prefer the (Los Angeles) disambiguation, what's wrong with (LACMTA)? Two of the links you yourself linked to as examples of previous precedent use their respective abbreviations, and Los Angeles Metro doesn't really make it clear that it's a county-wide agency. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Torritorri: Good points, but I still prefer Los Angeles Metro, here's why.

"MARTA" (like "BART", for example) is in common use as the name of the system. I'm less enamored with "Red Line (MBTA)": in my time working in Boston, I've never heard anybody say "let's take the MBTA". (Bostonion's call it "the T".)

New York City Subway uses "New York City Subway" instead of the more cumbersome "NYCTA". London uses "London Underground" (rather than "TFL"). And Washington DC uses "Washington Metro" (rather than "WMATA"). In these cases, these articles use the familiar name of the system that includes the location name.

"LACMTA" may be correct, but it is not in common use. The authority has gone to great lengths to brand the system as "Metro", and people I talk to call it that. But since "Metro" could refer to any number of metro systems, we need to add "Los Angeles" to it. The name "Los Angeles" can refer to either the county or the city, depending on context: in this case it's accurately referring to the county (or the metropolis, if that goes down better). If the City of Los Angeles had a Metro system, I would say "County" is required: but since this is not the case, I don't see that "County" is necessary.

A person in Los Angeles might know to look for "LACMTA" on wiki: but someone in another country or region would undoubtedly look for "Los Angeles" in the title.

Jcovarru ( talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Makes sense. (Los Angeles Metro) would be a fine compromise. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply


OK then, I am going to make the following moves (I will publish these on the other talk pages, as well): 

  
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)

I may not wait until the weekend to do this.

Jcovarru ( talk) 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Um. You probably should have waited for an uninvolved user to close the request. Just sayin'. -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 01:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I will more careful to do things right next time, and will now read the instructions you linked to. Jcovarru ( talk) 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem! Wikipedia guidelines can be pretty confusing, and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. :) -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
This works. It's actually the preferred name for the agency according to all their latest press releases. Looks good! Lexlex ( talk) 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Splitting-Out Project History Into Separate Articles

I have separated the article " Metro Expo Line (LACMTA)" into three articles: the original article (which becomes the main article), a new article covering Expo Phase 1, and a new article covering Expo Phase 2.

When I made this change tonight, the article was ranked "C" on the quality scale for train articles, and was in the "C" category for California articles. Even worse, the article had developed a reputation for advocacy and bias. It was overly long and, for the person interested in factual data, far to full of historical minutia to be useful.

By splitting the historical characteristics of the Expo Line from the less-controversial core information, I hope to both provide a resource that is easier for people to use, while simultaneously making it easier for contributors to avoid making non-neutral depictions of history.

By making these changes, I am attempting to follow the spirit and letter of the "be bold" directive. All three changes will require some additional editing over the coming days and weeks. I hope this is acceptable to everybody. Jcovarru ( talk) 06:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

One more thing. My primary goal is to make this page more usable. The page had grown too large and unwieldy to make any sense of. Given that the first phase of this line will probably be opening next year, people are going to be coming to wiki for facts. My hope is that the quality of this page can be raised by that time. There are many examples of excellent transit articles in wiki, from those covering old major systems ( New York City Subway) to those that represent new systems ( Bergen Light Rail). These and other well-written articles should be seen as models, or at least inspiration, for how well-designed the Expo Line article could be. Jcovarru ( talk) 07:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

As long as you're at it, what do you think of the idea of showing the former historical names on the Expo station pages? Many maps still use these names (e.g. Sentous for La Cienega). For example, my 2011 Audi GPS navigation system has a bright blue dot with these names next to each station and in checking, the map system is the same used in many other GPS systems. Otherwise, I have no idea where someone could/would look these up. Maybe put it somewhere in the station infobox? I have a scanned map from the Metro librarian showing old stations and names. It's PD and I could put it up. Thoughts? Lexlex ( talk) 16:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge proposal

The sub articles on phase 1 and phase 2 have been tagged for merging back into this article for months, yet no tag was ever placed on this article, not was a central discussion begun. So I wanted to do that now. I also wanted to say that I agree with the proposal. The existence of separate articles only serves to give a a forum for excessive, unencyclopedic details of day-to-day stuff (including and especially local politics), for a major infrastructure project that will be around for decades. It's the very definition of WP:UNDUE. And now that phase 1 is open, it really is redundant. I understand the idea was to minimize the effects of the nitty gritty on the article, but the better way to do that is just to edit it out, not give it a pointlessly redundant article to fester in. oknazevad ( talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd just do it. Those articles are orphans. Nothing of merit links to them and this one needs a re-write anyway. Lexlex (白痴美國) ( talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Agree. Do it! RickyCourtney ( talk) 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I believe this was done years ago... -- IJBall ( talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Still confusing re timeframe

It's still a bit hard to follow about the two-phase construction. Mangoe ( talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It'll be easier to deal with all of this once Phase 2 is completed – right now the article is awkward because Phase 1 is done and in operation, but Phase 2 is still in the works. Once Phase 2 is operational, all of that discussion can be unified together and moved to the 'History' section. -- IJBall ( talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Mangoe:: I just undid the merge on Phase 2. At present, there's virtually no information on the construction of Phase 2 in the article. Phase 2 can be merged back into the main article when it opens, and it can be written before then. But count me on the side of believing that the content in the Phase 2 article needs to be visible in its near-entirety. p b p 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Opening Date

Heads up...Phil Washington will be announcing the opening date on Thursday after the board meeting, so we will have to go through and add the opening date! TJH2018 ( talk) 02:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Incidents

The article should include a list of incidents / accidents. Compare it to the Gold Line page, which notes incidents which have occurred. 17.255.233.9 ( talk) 01:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Darwin reply

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) 19:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 09:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:E_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)&oldid=1196283990"