Talk:METRORail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Houston This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Houston
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Maybe images shouldn't be tabled, but the layout is broken on my computer without it... RADICALBENDER★ 04:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article Move / Merge Proposal

I have created a proposal at: User:Johntex/Proposal. I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:

I propose:

(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy

(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:

(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.
(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.

(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation. I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:

(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003
(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0)[1], Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia)[2]. I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.
(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them. What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail
(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.

(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility. My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation. Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google[3], 264 on Altavista[4]), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities. There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.

In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at: User:Johntex/Proposal. Thank you. Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am of the belief that for the time being we should work out the remaining issues on the Houston Chronicle page before merging any article or moving them to a second page. Right now that may only complicate things further, though in the future it may be an option. Furthermore, there is more to be said about TTM and TPT than the Houston Chronicle memorandum issue. IOW, some of the information currently present on this article does not neatly fit into an article specific to the Houston Chronicle. Thus I would propose (1) an article specifically on the Chronicle's memo scandal and (2) an article on the METRORail expansion campaign of 2003 with subsections containing the info on TTM and TPT and redirects from TTM/TTP to the respective locations in that article. Again, I do not think it is yet timely to start this reorganization with other things unresolved though so hold off for the moment. As a second note, I will mention that I do not see how this article proposal substantially impacts the METRORail article itself other than to change around the links pending the outcome we decide. Rangerdude 01:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University Line color

What color is the University Line?? Georgia guy 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Crash Rate

I believe that the links to the political web site, "Wham-Bam-Tram Collision Counter" should be removed. The crash rate should be mentioned but the neutrality needs to be looked at further. --Texaswebscout 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Replaced link. You ask about neutrality in a discussion setting, but remove the link BEFORE it is discussed. Be patient...

Urban909

I thought links do not have to be NPOV. WhisperToMe 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that removing before there is discussion creates problems. i also believe RJN/Sarbox/Texaswebscout may be a possible sockpuppets (multiple accounts) RJN/Sarbox sure had a quick revisions from mine. all within 3 or so minutes from a supposedly "two" different users...convienent

Urban909

I am not Texaswebscout or Sarbox. It is called keeping an article on the watch list. That is how I know when you edit and will be watching all of your dubious edits from now on.-RJN 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) User:Urban909 has violated the 3RR within 24 hours. -RJN 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, if i "should be blocked" for the 3rr, then shouldn't sarbox and texaswebscout as well? just curious why YOU are singling me out. how about this, seeing that you are so caught up in taking away so called NPOV, maybe you should remove the entire "controversies page" because, if you remove the "wham bam" (note the next word) CONTROVERSY, then will you calm down a little? i mean, that section has it all, Texans for True Mobility, Texans for Public Transportation, and even something from the houston chronicle, which, if i might add all seem along the same lines as the "wham bam" addition...

Urban909

I have restored the article to revision made on 00:26, 19 December 2005 WhisperToMe . Are you satisfied now Urban909 aka 70.XX. –RJN 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

yes i am. and trying to be sneaky with the 70.xx is nonsequential. i sometimes forget to log in. good to see that UH has raised the bar...

Urban909

It's just when an editor places a tag (regardless of what it is), you shouldn't just take it down without explanation and discussion. I don't know what goes on here since I don't bother to edit or even read this article. The reason why I reverted your changes because you keep deleting things people put that you dont like. Now, I dont agree with the tag that Texaswebscout had put, but that doesn't mean I am going to take it off. That tag was put there to resolve a dispute on the talk page. Instead, you never resolve anything on the talk page or leave an edit summary. You just go ahead and quietly take it off thinking that other people don't click the "dif" to see what you have done, especially when you don't leave an edit summary. You have taken other people's work off simply because you dont like what they did many times, including mine. You used to take things out of the Houston article without explanation back when you first signed up for an account. To this day, you still delete other people's edits without explanation or taking it to the talk page. I never delete anyone's work even though I dont like some of it! RJN 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Texaswebscout, I am a real person. I lived in the Houston area all my life and I know people worked on the METRO project. I am no longer in the Houston area. From what I understand, the tag needs to stay on the page until everyone agrees on the page. --Texaswebscout 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I've lived in the Houston area my entire life and have never before heard METRORail referred to as the "Wham-Bam-Tram". --Blathersby 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard people calling that, but only after visiting the action america website (which seems like it's inactive). the MetroRail's safety has improved considerably, so maybe it should all be listed as past tense?

Hourick 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to article

The link to the article at the Houston Chronicle shows a page full of gibberish (I believe the technical term is garbage.) There are links to other articles, some of which seem to discuss METRORail safety. I would like to see links to the specific data crticizing METRORail's safety record.

[edit] Bias

I removed the Bias page tag and just added the section bias tag to the sections I believe are somewhat bias. I believe we need to present both sides of the issues. There was a lot of controversy around the METROrail partly because Houston loves a good old fashion scandal. A lot of the people against it where against it because they where afraid of bigger goverment. People love to drive there cars in Houston and anything that may encroach on that right makes them mad. --Texaswebscout 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some playing around with editing the two sections that has been flagged as bias. i HOPE this will clear some things up and make everyone satisfied with the section. Urban909

It is not really just the bias, the article needs to be cited especially controversial sections. Please cite the article with citations from credible sources. --Ben 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for map proposal

I would like to see a map of the METRORail system drawn for the article. If anyone can do one, please feel free to do it. MattFisher 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will work on one should be done 2/8/2006, --Ben 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Map Done, Needs a little more work to make in look just right in svg but basic done. --Ben 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for ridership and overall neutrality

I would like to see some more information on the ridership and success of the METRORail system on a riders per mile basis for the article. I think that the information is available, but didn't want to add it without some additional thoughts. Thanks! --Jsabs 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds useful to me, please add the info if you can find it. If you need help adding it, please post back here with what you've found. Thanks! Johntex\talk 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Financial Information Found on METRORail Website

Why is there no financial information published on the METRORail website?

An informal analysis of a North Carolina metropolitan bus service which is moving strongly toward light rail as well(TTA) [5] I did several years ago showed cost per ride of $50! In 2005 the fare receipts were $1.5M, and the expenses related to the Board of Directors was $1M. One wag commenting on a light rail system located elsewhere noted that with X number of riders per year the cost of the system in his area was equivalent to leasing each rider a new Jaguar automobile every three years. A review of the Washington D.C. area light rail seemed to show reasonable numbers, but the cost and subsidy per ride were still not broken out.

Not surprisingly, this N.C. information was not available directly, but derived by dividing the revenues from all sources (fares were a minimal portion) by the number of rides for the year. Public transportation can be a great convenience, but astronomical cost to the public can only be a drain on the economy and on important uses like schools and roads. How can this cost be minimized with no information available?

With billions of dollars in the till and no accountability, these organizations really need to be independently audited on an annual basis. Tobyw 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Postoak 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated latest Metro Release of Crash rate with link.

I added a sentence and cite (a whole sentence!), but am not confident enough or think it's proper to put the crash late on a yearly graph. If additional wording is needed, please do so.

Thanks--Hourick 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Main Street Line"

Whoever keeps putting that probably needs to stop. That isn't what the Red Line is called. METRO has tried correcting this, too. It is a common misconception among people (especially those against rail who like to say that "it doesn't even run on Main Street" to make METRO sound stupid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Line Map

  • I created a SVG map released into the public domain. Everyone is suppose to be using SVG and not JPG/GIF/PNG when possible. I think I have fixed any problems with the map. So I have changed the image back to the SVG version. -Ben 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Very well done, it's a great improvement.--Hourick 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Undue weight has been given to the system's future expansion. Over half the article is taken up with details of future plans. If I wrote an article about New York City, for example, the focus would be on what exists rather than what will. I propose moving details of the future expansion to METRORail 2011-2020 expansion and leaving behind an outline here.--Loodog (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Undue Weight

I wouldn't. I would just move the expansion plans (new stations and new lines, etc.) to their own pages. It's simple. Someone needs to get the route maps up on the other lines because who ever edited it left it looking sloppy. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There ya go, I've trimmed about 4K off the article, removed copious redundancies, and given the future plans weight more commensurate with their current importance. I think it does wonders for readability.--Loodog (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done some minor editing in relation to that. all in all, the page is MUCH better. IAH777 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsertion of redundant material

Trill, what's up? You reinserted the section I deleted about "Light Rail lines". That section was ridiculously redundant and absurd considering there's only one line. Compare it with the intro:

“ METRORail is the 7.5mi light rail line located in Houston, Texas (USA). It is the second major light rail service in Texas following the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system. With an approximate daily ridership of 45,000 daily, the METRORail Red Line ranks as the twelfth most-traveled light rail system in the United States, with the second highest ridership per track mile.

The arrival of METRORail comes approximately 60 years after the previous streetcar system was shut down, which left Houston as the largest city in the United States without a rail system (since 1990 when the Blue Line opened in Los Angeles). METRORail is operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, or METRO for short.

 ”
“ METRO currently operates one light rail line, called the Red Line. Four other lines are to be complete by the 2012. Three of the four lines were previously going to be bus-rapid transit, but due to high ridership possibilities, the decision was made to make them all light rail.

METRO's first light rail line is the 7.5 mile (12.1 km) light rail line located in Houston, Texas, United States. It is the second major light rail service in Texas following the DART system. The arrival of METRO light rail comes approximately sixty years after the previous streetcar system was shut down, which left Houston as the largest city in the United States without a rail system (since 1990 when the Blue Line opened in Los Angeles).

 ”

Why dilute the article and write the same thing twice? Why give a sole line its own section that says nothing the lead doesn't? More importantly, why write about lines not scheduled to be running for 4 years as if they already exist? Future expansion is already covered below.--Loodog (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Line

Because there is a Red Line page. How else are we suppose to link to the Red Line page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a redundant article anyway since METRORail is the Red Line. It contains the exact same information. I move to merge.--Loodog (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
i second merging the two pages. IAH777 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm coming into this little debate, but why not just offer a brief summery on the redline on the summery page and go into more detail on the Redline Page? this isn't unprecedented. Chicago's L include a list that includes all of the lines, but offers a separate page (example: orange line) along with individual stations. While it's still a bit too soon to go into much depth with the other lines, I think it currently is time to set a organizational standard at the moment or else we risk some major rewrites and confusion in the future.--Hourick (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I support a merge. It's excessive to have separate pages for the system and the line when the system only is one line; there will be plenty of time to separate if needed should other lines come to be built. David Arthur (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I support DavidArthur's argument and sentiments.--Loodog (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And done. The pages have been merged. When and if other lines are created, this article may warrant more subarticles.--Loodog (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. Look at the page now. Messy. Having the Red Line page with the stations on there was much better. The current METRORail page could still have: a brief summary, rolling stock, future expansion, and controversies. It looks pathetic now. Hell, even the Charlotte LYNX page is much, much better. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
But there is no clear division between ‘Metrorail’ and ‘Metrorail Red Line’; there would either be no consistent principle defining what belong to each page (why is the rolling stock or the crash-rate controversy more relevant to the brand name than to the line?), or we would have to create one, which would be tantamount to original research. David Arthur (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's at least model it after Charlotte's LYNX page. They did a great job with that. Even the Minneapolis residents have made their light rail page (which has one line like Charlotte) much better and more organized. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Be Bold if there's something you don't like. The only thing we're agreeing against is the creation of a Red Line section while no other lines exist. As for the LYNX page, I do rather like it, except that they also gave an entire section to their only line. Fixing time...--Loodog (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of "future expansion" section

Trill, I noticed you bumped "future expansion" to ahead of "crash rate". I object to this change for three reasons:

  1. Again places emphasis on something that does not exist yet over something that does, the exact trend I wanted to reverse ever since the days when the "future" section was over half the article.
  2. It's unnatural organization by "temporal" considerations, i.e. 1. This is the system today, 2. This is the planned system for 5 years from now, 3. This is the crash rate today.
  3. It's inconsistent with LYNX Rapid Transit Services, Green Line (MBTA), LACMA, St. Louis MetroLink, and TheRide transit pages.

--Loodog (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)