True, but for the record this would be just as true if the name was "Joe Smith" as for "Zev Yaroslavsky"
Some might think, the fact that things might get more confusing for riders might apply to any name, so also to the future "East Los Angeles Civic Center/Gloria Molina station". To some, the reaction might be "Look what kind of a long station name that is", and as it seems to be the intention of the board, this long name is going to be used in full on all signage (extra long signs), on system maps, on verbal station announcements. The reason to point out the future "North Hollywood/Zev Yaroslavsky station" above was because it is even the terminus of the red line, amplifying what some might see as a negative effect (see example below). Some might think, as there are other station names using a slash to communicate intersections, street names or landmarks, people not familiar with the area might falsely conclude that Zev Yaroslavsky is a street, landmark or neighborhood. Some might think, there already have been many people who wondered what "Diridon station" in San Jose would be about, if it is the part of town the station is located in, or a thoroughfare nearby (after all, it was called the Cahill Depot at some point of time), only to possibly find out at a later point of time that it is named after a politician. Many might agree that public servants work is important, still might wonder if there are other ways to commemorate their efforts, like putting up a plague, installing a history display or some public art that is referencing to them, but some might think there is no copelling reason from a user's point of view why the station name shouldn't be refering to the location but receive some arbitrarily chosen designation instead.
That it's a mouthful of a name for most English/Spanish speakers is a red herring, IYAM. Naming transportation facilities for living politicians
is a bad idea, though of course there are a number of airports that have embraced that wholeheartedly.
Of course to some the fact alone of naming these stations after living politicians, when they still made the decision to name it after them themselves, might seem a little weird - so possibly Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina sitting in a board meeting, and declaring wholeheartedly "Hereby I vote to have that station named after myself".
But at least to some, that is not the point, still the point is that some think rail systems should be as attractive and successful as possible, and that works by making it as convenient as possible to current and future riders. Some might think, without the users of a rail system, there would be no reason to have a rail system, so it's them who the system should be designed for. And at least some might come to the conclusion, naming those stations after Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina will not make the system more convenient to users, but the opposite, more confusing. Rail systems and thus rail station names are used to navigate a city, and some might think the same doesn't apply to airports, and that maybe it's even easier for users to talk f.e. of "LaGuardia" and "JFK" then to name them respective to their localities "New York City Queens East Elmhurst airport" and "New York City Queens Jamaica airport".
Some might think rail systems are being used to navigate a city, and rail systems should be designed for users, and to make it concrete there always seem to be two kinds of users, local residents and visitors to the area. Some might be aware of the fact that a city like Los Angeles also had millions of visitors annually, f.e. Los Angeles concretely in 2013 had 36 million domestic visitors in 2013, and 6.2 million internatonal visitors (and the biggest group among them not Australians anymore, but the Chinese), according to the Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board. For example, imagine some international tourists staying at the Standard Downtown LA hotel, wanting to go to Universal Studios, so they have to figure out at 7th St / Metro Center which red line train to take, and it probably would be easier for them to just figure out "We gotta hop on the train headed for North Hollywood", instead of "We gotta take the train bound for North Hollywood / Zev Yaroslavsky". Some might think, f.e. when you're an international tourist, everything is already difficult by itself navigating through a foreign country, through a city that's strange to you, so don't arbitrarily add any difficulty to it by adding irrelevant parts to station names. Same might apply to domestic visitors or local though, as there are many people who never took a train before in their lives, and to whom the whole process might seem difficult. Some might conclude that there have been another examples of products in other industries where it became obvious, that some product became successful because its designers made it as easy to use as possible, so some might think it would be great if transportation board members agreed to that as well.
At least that's what some comments on above L.A. Times article seem to indicate by stating "Stations should be named based on geographical locations to be intuitive for riders, especially for those who are new to/visiting the area" and "Ridiculous! These two politicians should kindly decline the renaming". And already some time ago, there was even a L.A. Times editorial opinion published about this:
Metro shouldn't play the name game
by The Times Editorial Board
October 1, 2014
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-1002-renaming-metro-stations-20141002-story.html
Slightly off-topic about the sitting board members renaming stations after themselves, but still about the topic of renaming rail stops, there already have been some additional proposals to rename Los Angeles metro rail stations earlier this year: Metro's Grand station should become "Grand / Los Angeles Trade-Technical College Station", the current 23rd St station should be "23rd St / Los Angeles Trade-Technical College / Orthopaedic Institute for Children Station" and current Expo / La Brea station is supposed to be "Expo / La Brea / Ethel Bradley Station". Some may be thinking that rail station names including two slashes are not so helpful to advance the benefits and ease of using rail, and all these changes were suggested while the 2003 board-approved Property Naming Policy states that single names for stations are preferable. Gogole Maps now shows the first two stops as "Grand / LATTC" and "LATTC / OIC" respectively, so the 23rd St designation pretty much seems to be dropped here, which to some might make it even more confusing as local signage at the station probably will still say 23rd St, leading to inconsistencies, and instead of some understandable 23rd St designation, now people online will have to try to unscramle the LATTC / OIC "letter salad". In addition some might think, instead of having two clearly distinguishable 23rd St and Grand stations, now both of those stations feature the LATTC designation, making them more easy to mix up (a statement frequently to be heard might be "No, you gotta go to the other LATTC station"). The L.A. Times editorial above speculates "And what's next? Will every county supervisor or Metro board member get his or her own transit stop upon leaving office? If so, Metro had better keep building rail lines, because there are 13 politicians on its Board of Directors" but some might think building building rail lines is not necessary, after all it might be possible to always add another slash, f.e. just making it the "North Hollywood/Zev Yaroslavsky/Michael D. Antonovich" station. ^_^
