Talk:Sepulveda Transit Corridor

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Trains: Rapid transit / Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

This article lacks references.

Post-Measure M developments

I've updated this page to have slightly more information about the funding situation and plans that Metro has developed since the passage of the Measure M transit funding ballot measure.--Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[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) 19:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly confusing table iconography?

Hi – just a visitor. The tables here use a combination of “× on red” and “– on orange.” I think the “× on red” means “yes” and “– on orange” means “no,” but they both register as “no” and initially I thought “– on orange” was “yes” since it was lighter. I wonder if it might be more legible to move to green and/or checkmarks for the “yes” options? Mwichary (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. The chart is useless as there is no key to explain what the marks mean. And even if they were a red x is absolutely piss poor to use for "yes". Incredibly stupid. oknazevad (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and changed them. oknazevad (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]