Talk:Light rail in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philadelphia's SEPTA trolleys, heritage and modern[edit]

Philadelphia's SEPTA trolleys, heritage and modern, should be in this list.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY ! ! ![edit]

This article needs to be a general summary, the inclusion of a paragraph on every city doesn't convey the subject matter in an appropriate fashion. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the folks at Light rail in North America. I tried splitting this off of that a year ago because it was getting overloaded and I got reverted. Some folks like to see as much information as possible jammed into a single page. Shereth 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update map[edit]

The map needs to be updated. Norfolk, Virginia opened its light rail system in August 2011, but the map still shows it as under construction --GoUrban (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Systems 'Summary' Table?[edit]

Would there be any interest in adding a 'summary' table for the systems in The U.S. to this page? It already pretty much exists over at the List of tram and light rail transit systems page, and it wouldn't be hard to move that info over to this page too. The added benefit of doing that is that it would provide a lot of the reference 'sourcing' that's currently missing from this page...

So, would anyone object to this? Would anyone like to see me move that table & info over to this page? Thoughts?... TIA. --IJBall (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Believe it or not, still working on this project. So far, I've worked up something line this:

City/Area served State System Year
opened 		Total
route
length 		Stations Lines Year
last
expanded 		Type of vehicle System
type
Los Angeles  CA Metro Rail light rail:[note 1]
Blue, Expo, Gold
& Green Lines 		1990[1] 70.3 mi (113.1 km)[1] 65[1] 4[1] 2012[1] Siemens P2000, Nippon Sharyo P865 & P2020, AnsaldoBreda P2550 Light rail
Notes
  1. ^ This system also has a heavy rail rapid transit/metro portion (see List of metro systems), and connections to a commuter rail system; the figures and statistics presented here represent the light rail portion of the system only.
References
  1. ^ a b c d e "L.A. Metro - Facts at a Glance". Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). June 13, 2013. Retrieved 2013-06-28.

Anyone have any thoughts, comments, suggestions...?

On my end, I'm wondering if the 'Lines' and 'Stations' columns looked better switched... --IJBall (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am 1-2 days away from adding the Summary table, very similar in format to the one shown above, to this page.
The follow-up question once I do add the table is whether the paragraph summaries of each system can then be cut from this page at that point. I'm currently leaning in the direction that a Summary table is enough and the paragraph summaries, which are a pain to keep updated, should be cut once the Summary table is added. Anyone who has an opinion on this question should reply here... --IJBall (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Individual Systems' Sections[edit]

Now that I've put in a Summary Systems Table into the article, I would strongly urge that the sections on the individual systems finally be cut from the article. Reasons:

  1. They are much harder to keep up-to-date than the Summary Systems Table will be.
  2. They are now redundant with the Summary Systems Table, and the individual Wiki articles on each system.

I don't plan to cut them until I get some feedback here. But I'm really hoping there will now be some consensus to cut those, as they are a large part of why this article is tagged with so many 'maintenance tags'. --IJBall (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut em. Too much detail for an overview article. Readers can link through the table to the individual system articles. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will cut the individual sections in the next two weeks, if there are no substantive objections before then (still hoping for a couple of more supportive comments in the meantime...). --IJBall (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FTR, I haven't forgotten about this project. But because it will need to be done carefully (so no good references are lost...), I have postponed it until I can devote some proper time to doing it right. --IJBall (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Based on the previous discussion here (and also here (sort of...)), I am going to being deleting the individual system sections from this article within the next 24 hours. As discussed, the sections that will be cut first will be the system sections that are completely unreferenced. – Again, if anyone has any last minute comments, please post them here... --IJBall (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And  Done! All the extraneous summary systems sections have been deleted. At this point, the summary systems table is all that this article should need. --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore/Buffalo expansion dates?[edit]

Not sure what the dates in the table refer to? Baltimore hasn't seen added track since 1997. In 2005 Hamburg Steet opened to full-time service. Nothing new was added to the system in 2006, though some existing sections that had been closed for a year for double-tracking were reopened.

I don't know of anything of interest that happened with the Buffalo system in 2013. They actually lost a station, I think. --Jfruh (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is from memory... but if I read the Baltimore article correctly, they did add that station in 2005 or 2006, which is what I think is what the date refers to(?...). (Questionable if adding an 'infill station' is really an "expansion", but I think it technically counts...) Or maybe it was the double-tracking (I would consider 'double-tracking' a previously single-track section to technically be a system "expansion").
In the case of Buffalo, I think the date may refer to the loss of that station.
If you can find better dates, feel free to alter them - as long as they're referenced, no one can really object. (Though I remember that references for Buffalo's systems are quite hard to come by...) --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if I'd call the double-tracking expansion. I live in Baltimore and the change made scheduling more reliable but otherwise wasn't an impact in how the system operated. The Hamburg Street station already existed, but because of the single track it was difficult to integrate it into normal operations and only operated during events at M&T Stadium; after the double-tracking was complete it became a regular stop, but the infrastructure was already there. --Jfruh (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less familiar with these two systems, and don't have any strong opinions on them, so feel free to use any dates you feel will be more accurate (again, preferably referenced, if you can find any). --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honolulu?[edit]

The Honolulu system will be entirely grade-separated, powered by third rail, and use an automated rolling stock that runs on other systems around the world generally classified as metro rapid transit rather than light rail. Not sure if it really belongs here? --Jfruh (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is another case where the operator is self-categorizing the system as "light rail". Therefore, there's no third-party reference characterizing the system as "rapid transit". (Objectively, it could probably be categorized as "light metro"; but no one seems to be calling it that...) Until that changes, Honolulu belongs listed here. --IJBall (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Rapid transit" is a terrible wikipedia compromise word that isn't used the same way in the real world as it is here, but that's another story. At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how APTA categorizes it (my money is on metro.) --Jfruh (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's seems to be modally the same as Docklands Light Railway and Norristown High Speed Line - own right of way with smaller, lighter (and automated) vehicles. That points to Medium-capacity rail transport system for me. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjdestroyerofworlds: Yeah, that's about right – that's pretty much what an objective observer would probably call it... I haven't checked the Honolulu website for this system lately, but last time I checked, the builders were themselves calling it "light rail". It's worth remembering that not every fully grade-separated urban rail system is called "metro/rapid transit" – there are a few fully grade-separated systems that are still categorized as "light right", primarily because they use small trains and/or have low frequencies and thus have lower passenger capacities than "metro" systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of understand the issues here, but I still don't think Honolulu fits in the light rail table. For a start it is the only third rail system listed here, which points to it being more of a rapid transit system. I concur with the similarity to DLR etc., but on that basis I would argue that it has more resemblance to a people mover system. If that were true, then we would be expanding this list to include all of those systems in the USA (of which there are numerous). A close example would be the Las Vegas monorail, which has 4-car trains rather than 2-car trains ... so should we include that in this list too?? I just think that light rail is more closely associated with overhead catenary systems rather than third rail systems. Another system like this would be Baltimore Metro, but that's not listed here either. KirksKeyKard (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It basically comes down to this – if someone can find some recent solid secondary sources calling the system (full) "rapid transit", post them to the Talk page, and then it can probably be removed from the list. But if the builder/operator website is still referring to the system as "light rail", then it's kind of hard to justify removing it from this article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if your going to use that argument, then I'll invoke WP:PRIMARY which is part of WP:OR . In other words, primary sources should only be used with care and should not be relied on. You make it clear that the only source which says that this is a light rail system is the primary source. I think your skating on thin ice here arguing to keep Honolulu in this list. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "doing anything". The fact is, no one has yet produced a source confirming that the system is true rapid transit, while there are several things about the system itself, and from the builder, that show that it isn't full rapid transit and may be categorized as "light rail". As for WP:PRIMARY, it says "care must be used" when using them, not that they cannot or should not be used. When it comes to rail systems, no one know their systems' particulars better than the builders and operators. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the system is "Hawaii Authority for Rapid Transit". Wikipedia defines Rapid transit as "... as heavy rail, metro, subway, tube, or underground." So project name does not suggest it to be a light rail system. APTA defines light rail as follows "Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps." The key issue I take from this is the reference to drawing power from an overhead electric line, which this project does not, but which most Rapid transit systems do. Also, APTA defines "Heavy rail" as "...Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic.". So I give you two reasons why I think this system cannot be categorized as "light rail". KirksKeyKard (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that – I've been working on this longer than you have. Bottom line: You need to produce solid secondary sourcing that the system is not light rail – especially as the builder does refer to the system as "light rail" – or it's WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be good if you provided a reference that supported the inclusion in the list. That is your responsibility if you are promoting such an addition. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope – I actually have a paying job, and I don't have time for that kind of thing for the next several months. I can tell you that the official website did use the words "light rail" when I last checked this last year. I don't have time to go do that now. I really don't care enough about this to make a stink over it. Still, it is interesting that no one has produced a definitive secondary ref calling the system "rapid transit" either. This gets back to Mjdestroyerofworlds' point that this is really an "medium-capacity transport" system, and neither "light rail" nor "rapid transit". But good luck finding a ref calling it that either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could light rail help train reach Ala Moana and beyond?"Years ago, as the city closed in on launching the rail project, people on the job recall the atmosphere as officials pushed for heavy rail." "“We had a nationally recognized transportation expert — a lover of trains — develop that study,” said local architect Peter Vincent. “Rail is great. We need a fixed guideway to help the traffic congestion, but it should have been light rail from the get-go.”" "Now that heavy rail is draining the bank account — and with the feds withholding any more money only halfway through their committed share — old ideas like that just might get a fresh look." "“The cars could receive their power both from the third rail as well as catenary power above,” Vincent explained. “That change could be made. The cars would have to change because they’re high-platform..." Here's the kicker: “The pros are huge,” Vincent [ said. “We get a more environmentally friendly system downtown. We save $1 billion or so, and it’s much easier to extend. That has a better chance of then going on to UH Manoa and Waikiki, because our current heavy rail all-elevated system will never be able to make it to those destinations which are really critical to a full transit system.” Also, the bottom of the article outlines why light rail was specifically rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk • contribs) 07:47, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
Not to complicate this further, but I'm betting you're not going to see "rapid transit" used in any secondary source because the way Wikipedia uses it, to mean specifically heavy rail transit, is not the way the real world uses it, which frustrates me to no end but there you are. If I'm remembering correctly "rapid transit" is a years-old Wikipedia compromise between American editors who wanted to use "subway" and Brits who wanted to use "metro". In the real world, it's used generically to refer to any rail transit or even bus transit all the time. --Jfruh (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but in this case, Mjdestroyerofworlds found a source referring to it as "heavy rail" (the other "American" term besides "subway") – though I bet we'd both still agree that this system is really an "medium-capacity rail" system (which, incidentally, is another term that's used nowhere besides Wikipedia) – so that's all that was required here, and any editor can now feel free to remove it from the list... Still, somebody sometime is going to have to explain why the official website was calling it "light rail" – to my mind, what they're calling it should actually carry some weight in this discussion... But, c'est la vie. 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Light rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Light rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Rail =/= Light Rail[edit]

I've noticed that "hybrid rail" is listed here as a form of light rail, but in the US (as defined by the FTA), hybrid rail is a different type of rail operation, just that it typically uses light rail vehicles (https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/national-transit-database-ntd-glossary#H). It should either be clarified that HR is not Light Rail or moved to a separate article. Piemadd (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the prose at the start of that section explains the distinction adequately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Light_rail_in_the_United_States&oldid=1201573305"