Talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)/Archive 1

Beacon Hill Station Not Deepest
I removed the following statement:
 * At a depth of 165 feet, the project's Beacon Hill station will be the deepest and largest underground station in the US.

In actuality, according to the Washington Park (MAX station) article...
 * At 260 ft. (70m) below ground, Washington Park is the deepest transit station in North America, second-deepest in the world.

Even when the Beacon Hill station is completed, the Washington Park station will remain the deepest by about 100 ft. --Westonmr 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Stations
Please do not delete or change the new stations list. I am in the process of revising it by Sunday (Pacific Time). Thank you. - One Taiwan No China

Which Map?
Does anyone have an opinion on these two route designs? They each have their merits, but overall, which one works better? The top left one (I couldn't figure out how to make them run side-by-side) that has the proposed extensions (University Segment; First Hill Streetcar) and some geographical features (the Ship Canal; Duwamish River), or the one that is more compact and shows arrival times from Tukwila, as well as being more directionally correct? Perhaps any suggestions for merging the two?


 * I created the more compact second one. My thoughts with that were that because the University Extension / University Link / North Link has its own page, that would be left off, at least for now. And because none of the other street cars are official yet, I don't think they should be listed in the map until they are truly approved. I had considered adding waterways, but it was getting too complicated with this layout. I hadn't thought to add the Waterfront SC as did, but it's looking unlikely that it will be in operation for another 10 years, if ever again. Finally, I left the Boeing Access Road station off because it's not on any drawing boards anymore for being built. Again, one of those 'maybe sometime WAY down the road' things. That's my two cents! Joshuadkelley (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about just including some of the added features (Water bridge, connection to East Link) to the bottom one... the top one fails to show the monorail and commuter rail connections for example; and the extra white space between stops on the south end is unnecessary. Straightening the line could be a good idea, but don't remove content. Wlindley (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote add water bridges & East Link to second one, and remove travel times. They're confusing, nonstandard, and still only predicted (I for one am dubious of the 7min from Seatac to Tukwila International Blvd.). I would go add the East Link connection now, if I knew how. I am considering taking off the travel times too. YB3 T@lk/contribs 06:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put Eastlink in yet. I don't think they've decided on the route yet, have they? They say it'll join at the tunnel, so I'm not sure if that means at the SODO or Stadium stop. At least, not where it will split off from Central Link. The times are also probably fairly accurate, they've been running test trains along the track for months now. Well, obviously not the part all the way to SeaTac (Is there even tracks yet from the stop by 518 to the airport?), but the rest of the track they've been going up and down fairly frequently. It's amazing how fast one can go when there isn't any traffic.;)--Bobblehead (rants) 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no mention of using times on Route diagram template. Furthermore, I think it's cluttering and not very useful to have times to Tukwila on each station. I am working on a derivative of the second map, dropping times and generally cleaning it up and making it more compact, clearer, and more standards-compliant. I'll share it with you all when it is to better than either of the two currenty on here. YB3 T@lk/contribs 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we switch to this map I (YB3 T@lk/contribs) created (Moved here on Feb. 03, 03:52:51 UTC, for newest version see User:YB3/Sandbox/CenLink):

I think this should become the new wikimap on the main Central Link page. YB3 T@lk/contribs 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with YB3. This map is more accurate, includes more information, and takes up a smaller amount of space than either of the other ones above. Alexseattle (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and moved my map to Template:Central Link map. YB3 (t) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the latest map.

Suggestion: Ghost out the "East link" segment, as it is not even in planning phase yet. It is not even confirmed where the new line will connect. However, include the "Boeing access rd" station, it is deferred, but the rail plans have a definite location in the switching system for it.Ac7ss —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Source Material
I work as a supervisor at Link Light Rail, what are the criteria for citations? I have the rail plans in hand (Full set of switching, single and double line.) And I have discussions with the other staff. For example we have recently changed the 'Live Date' to July 10th. but I have no citation for this. There is also some internal discussion on the length of one trip, it may be 40 minutes to International station (154/International blvd) instead of the original 30, but there is no confirmation on this. Ac7ss (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline will probably help you as far as what sources are allowable. But the short answer is that the sourcing has to be available to the public and must be from a reputable source. The Sound Transit website would probably be acceptable for "uncontroversial" things like the live date and time it takes to go end to end, but internal memos and discussions generally would not be acceptable. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point made today in the office was that it will be on 7.5 minute headway. Once again, no public source. But next week I should be able to take photos of the Beacon hill station.Ac7ss (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 40 minutes? Ugh.  I know that the time between cars will be less than that of the 194, but a 40 minute trip time means that it's really not going to save time over the 194.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove Boeing Access Road?
Since it's not even up for consideration of being a station, maybe remove it from this article? But keep it under List of Link Light Rail stations

~ 98.247.241.149 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I agree, that would make sense. I talked to a Sound Transit employee and they said that no one's ever even talking about it. Alexseattle (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits/overhaul
Before you go and revert my overhaul (I guess it's that since I spent a long time and there were quite a few edits), here's why I did a couple of things: ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reversed station list to reflect north/south. All maps, and even the one used on the page have Westlake at the top and SeaTac/Airport at the bottom, so the station list should be the same.
 * Removed central link banner in station list table because this is the central link article--no need to be repetitive.
 * Removed Boeing Access Road Station as discussed above.
 * Wikified station list table because this is a wiki, not a HTML page. Yes, it does get turned into HTML, but even though it's confusing at first I think the Wiki syntax is more suitable.  Also it wasn't proper HTML since none of the &lt;td&gt; and &lt;tr&gt; tags were closed, and even though MediaWiki automatically took care of that, it keeps me awake at night worrying about unclosed tags.
 * Added fares Please double check to make sure I typed everything correctly
 * Added transfer information I hope I made it easy enough to understand. If you don't understand it, I cited my source so you can read that and update the article
 * Removed contradictory information on fares The Travel Times section stated that LINK would cost $2.75 between SeaTac/Airport and Westlake. This may have been left over from when it got edited to reflect the board's decision on fares.
 * Moved the Equipment section so that the article flows directly into travel times after fares, since the travel times section discusses fares some.
 * Fixed the 400 passenger typo that said that each car could hold 200 people. I think I may have been the one that introduced that error.  But it's fixed now.
 * Board's decision not recent any more so I axed that.


 * Perhaps you should also change the order of the route description to match this. YB3 (t) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do! - Atomic Taco (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Time format
I agree with 67.171.44.250 that the time should stay in 24 hour format time. Just because you live in the US and don't use that format doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The phrase Railway time is rarely used in the US, but when used always describes a time in 24 hour format. Furthermore, 24 hour format time is used widely in situations where personnel perform duties around (or near) round the clock, for example: public safety (police, fire EMS), retail businesses that operate for all or most of the day (McDonald's employee schedules are usually posted in 24 hour format), medical care, or any place where it is necessary to definitively differentiate between morning and night. Lastly, if you listen to the operators of the train, they always refer to the time in 24 hour format.

Wikipedia is not set up to have every article listed in your preferred format. If you don't like the way it's listed here, don't read the article. Also see the Manual of Style. 75.92.135.196 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with 67.171.44.250-- AlexSeattle is correct. The MoS says that context determines which format to use. First, it's an American topic, and second, bus and light rail schedules in the U.S. use the twelve hour format.

As a practical issue, Americans will be the main readers of this article and it's harder for us to understand the table with the 24-hour format. This is an encyclopedia article for the general public, and when police, McDonalds etc. deal with the general public, they use the 12 hour format. Diderot's  dreams  (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Diderot's dreams said, most people who will be trying to find out when Central Link runs will be Americans who can much more easily understand 12-hour time. In fact, the information is published on the Sound Transit website in 12-hour time (http://www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/Schedules-and-Facilities/Central-Link-Light-Rail---coming-soon.xml). -- Alexseattle (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 12-hour format, but I think it should read 5:00 - 6:00 pm instead of 5:00 am - 6:00 am. Note that the space between the time is a Hard Space  rather than a standard space, as per the MoS, and also that the MoS says to use "midnight" and "noon" rather than "12:00 midnight". YB3 (t) 00:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although personally I prefer 24-hour format, I agree with the above comments that the 12-hour format for this article is appropriate in the context of the general public. Oranviri (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I'm the one that originally added the headways table, I'll sound off. I put it in 24 hour format because that's what I hear the train operators and Link Control using while talking to each other.  Also, Metro (who is operating Link) uses 24 hour format time for all of their other operations. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for adding the table. It's a good addition, regardless of which time format is used.  On that less important issue, I have a question: Which format do you favor now?    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Metro does use 24 hour format for internal communication, but all of their published schedules are in 12 hour format. Since the Wikipedia article is mostly for prospective riders, it should be in the 12 hour format. -- Alexseattle (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Diderot's dreams--I personally prefer 24 hour format, but the discussion above shows 12 hour is the preferred format for this article. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tables
I'll admit that this table is ugly:

But this table:

Is very difficult to read due to its right aligned text.

Furthermore, the first table is more versatile, as it allows the user to use rows and columns in a way that suits them best. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find the original style much more awkward to use, as I have to look in different places for the start and end points of a trip. The style I introduced is especially easy to use for short trips, where the fare will always be close to the station names. I think the relationship between distance and fare is also a little more apparent. I also have concerns with the duplication of information in the original style; it's easy for accidental inconsistencies to be introduced if the information is updated. I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference, but since one of your complaints is the right-alignment, maybe we could compromise with the following style? It also includes the station pictograms, which I was about to add, until I saw your revert. Klparrot (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one is better, but very cramped. More opinions are needed. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking personally, I find the stair-step versions easier to use than the square grid version. They don't look cramped to me. --Jfruh (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, a bot had a problem with the station pictograms being used on a talk page. Grr. I've removed the garbage left behind by the bot, and you can see what it looked like with the pictograms by checking the history. Klparrot (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Stair step has less redundant info and is easier to read. Just add some padding to the cells for some white space. Oranviri (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on feedback, here's a new version with more whitespace. The blue dots would be replaced with station pictograms (which have slightly larger dots) in the actual article. Is this something we can all be reasonably happy with? I'll drop it into the article tomorrow unless I hear objections. Klparrot (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Sorry for the reverts, I'll skip directly to talk next time. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wondering, would highlighting alternate rows and/or columns help readability? ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although the table does look much better now, if it's possible to apply a light shading to alternate rows/columns (both vertically and horizontally) I think the table would be easier to use. SJ Morg (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The design could add white space and also increase the information it gives by adding youth and Reduced fares a la the Seattle Times' table (pdf). This could also allow the pictograms to be larger, which I think would enhance the quality of the chart. YB3 (t) 05:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, The Times. Not only do I hate them, but that table is chock full of too much information.  The coloring is OK though. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Think what you will of the Times (I too often disagree with their viewpoint), but their table is a model of gaining white space and adding information. I think it will look better with a standard typeface and less weird lines. YB3 (t) 10:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for stations
I thought repeating the word "Station" twice ("Westlake Station (Link station)") sounded awkward, so I moved the articles ("Westlake (Link station)"). I can't find any other Wikipedia articles for light rail or metro/subway stations in North America where "Stationname Station (Systemname station)" is used. They seem to use "Stationname (Systemname station)" or "Stationname (Systemname)"; North American examples: List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, List of Buffalo Metro Rail stations, List of Chicago 'L' stations, List of Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail stations, List of METRORail stations, List of LYNX stations, List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations, List of MBTA Subway stations, Table of Montreal Metro stations, List of New York City Subway stations, List of Santa Clara VTA Light Rail stations, List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, List of Toronto subway and RT stations, List of UTA TRAX stations, List of Washington Metro stations. I'm really not sure why the standards for Link Light Rail stations should be any different. As far as people not being able to find the articles by typing in something like "Westlake Station", the old artcle names are still maintained as redirects, so that shouldn't be a problem. Finally, the s-line templates used on the articles were already linking to the new names before I even moved the articles. Eco84 | Talk 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The stations in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) are not dedicated link stations. Perhaps the proper Systemname would be "Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.67.4 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Three car trains
The statement that three car consists can be used before the completion of University Link is incorrect, regardless of what the SIP says. I emailed Sound Transit about this and received the following response:


 * Thank you for contacting Sound Transit.


 * All Central Link stations were built to accommodate up to four-car trains for the future. However, until the completion of University Link, the Stub Tunnel within the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (where Link trains reverse for SB service) will preclude running anything longer than a two-car consist.


 * I hope this answers your question and please do not hesitate in contacting me if I can be of further assistance.


 * Sincerely,


 * Denene Dean
 * Sound Transit
 * 401 South Jackson St.
 * Seattle, WA 98104

209.119.209.130 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come up with a verifiable and reliable source and edit the article. A copy and pasted email is hardly believable.  ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

MPH, WTF
Any Seattleite knows that it does not run at 55mph. While sources before and after construction show that it should not be notated as the average. We can discuss OR (the train getting passed while along both the freeway and a city street) or you can just stop inserting primary sources that shed only a positive tone (POV)66.235.46.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

University Link Extension
This article makes extremely poor mention of the University Link Extension that is set to extend this system by 2016. I realize that the University Link Extension already has its own article, but that doesn't preclude at least some introductory mention of the extension here. In fact, this article is, in general, missing anything on "Future plans" and future extensions and the like. All of this should information should be added to the article to improve it. --IJBall (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Central Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216045204/http://metro.kingcounty.gov:80/tops/bus/schedules/s194_0_.html to http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/schedules/s194_0_.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091022131928/http://www.soundtransit.org:80/x12025.xml to http://www.soundtransit.org/x12025.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Future after opening of U Link
The March opening of the University Link Extension brings up some interesting questions. Should we merge the information on the University Link Extension page onto the Central Link page or have separate pages on the development of each line? Should we rename the Central Link page "Red Line (Sound Transit)"? Do each of the Link extensions really need their own individual pages? Thoughts? --RickyCourtney (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd wait on official word from Sound Transit about the branding change. They seem to be preparing for the switch to colors (strip maps in trains and now stations have the red line but no label). I've started setting up some of the backend templates to handle the switchover (including "branches" for future extensions to make it more seamless; see this sandbox page for some examples) and support an eventual change.  Sounder Bruce  07:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the extension pages: I'd rather split up the information and merge them in the appropriate places (stations and tunnels, mostly, but some information might make it into the line articles). The extensions are, however, notable enough to warrant a standalone article with some significant expansion.  Sounder Bruce  07:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Link Light Rail which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019
- 121.44.104.108 (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)