Talk:E Line (Los Angeles Metro)

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

text: I like "Expo Line" better than "Aqua Line". Sounds better to me. --Pelladon 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The change is due by the end of the month. Aqua seems likely. --Donald Hosek 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page move?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes it will be primarily at-grade like the Blue Line. (Damienwg (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology? 

message: 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  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 .  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 .  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.
*Safety concerns for at grade rail line Analysis of Blue Line safety concerns (relevant to at grade proposal for Expo Right of Way Extension)
Cheviotla 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Community’s perspective

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grade separation and other issues 

message: This section is almost completely negative about the Venice/Sepulveda route.  I was tempted to put an  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Venice/Sepulveda Boulevards diversion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The time has finally come. Begin change all E (Expo) bullets to Gold E bullets. Lars Smiley (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Line Colors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-light-rail campaign by Damien Goodmon 

message: *Group FixExpo , created and headed by Damien Goodmon, is currently in a legal battle with the Expo Construction Authority , trying to stop the construction of the line (see, e.g., one of his latest legal filings , 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:
#editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
#participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
# linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
#:and you must always:
# 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)
thread_title: Original post by [[User:Cheviotla|Cheviotla]]: conflict-of-interest edits by FixExpo (Damien Goodmon)

message: 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)
thread_title: First reply by [[User:Damienwg|Damien Goodmon]]: major conflicts of interest with Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot - this reads like an advocacy page

message: 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)
thread_title: First reply by [[User:Damienwg|Damien Goodmon]] continued: additional conflicts of interest

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. This article should not be used as a battleground.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: BRAVO Dnwh (talk)!!!! Fight the mob!  Maintain wiki's credibility. (Damienwg (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:   Neutrality Disputed tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summarizing the Issues in Dispute / Recommended Changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I endorse that proposal.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regaining Neutrality  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trip Times 

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No problem! Wikipedia guidelines can be pretty confusing, and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. :) --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Splitting-Out Project History Into Separate Articles

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree. Do it! RickyCourtney (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this was done years ago... --IJBall (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. pbp 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: It's still a bit hard to follow about the two-phase construction. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. pbp 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Still confusing re timeframe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening Date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to structure of Metro Rail/Busway articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress