Talk:TRAX (light rail)

Airport Trax news
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3946874 -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proximity Map
I like the proximity map, but per MOS:IMAGES images should not sandwich text between two images (or in our case an image and an Infobox), but theres really no other place to put it... -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Station Coordinates
I have inserted coordinates for most (if not all) stations in the TRAX network that were previously missing. Unfortunately, the GTFS data from UTA labels the stations by their cross-streets, not the station name nor nearest major street that UTA uses on their official maps. I mapped between the official station addresses and the official route map by tracking the rail lines on Google Maps and finding the station approximately close to the official address. I put the coordinates approximately between the north- and south-bound platforms. Ian.w.lloyd (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 system overhaul
I just came across this page on the UTA website about upcoming route changes. Apparently the entire TRAX system is being redesigned on August 7. In addition to the opening of the West Valley and Mid-Jordan lines, the University Line is going to completely disappear and the Murray-University line will be combined with the new Mid-Jordan line. Also, it looks like they might be adopting color-code names for the lines; this page uses terms like "701 - BLUE LINE" and "704 - GREEN LINE". On the other hand, the new system map uses destination-based line names, so who knows. Anyway, I thought this should be mentioned here since it's such a major change to the whole TRAX system. I'll start working on fixing various TRAX-related pages, but I'm not sure what to do with the University Line page. Should we keep the page after the line is shut down? Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 13:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They indeed are moving to color-based line names. It's been pretty well publicized in Salt Lake. I think the destination-based names on the official map are just to help with navigation. We should probably rename all the articles accordingly. Sandy/Salt Lake becomes the Blue Line, Mid-Jordan/University the Red Line (probably should merge those two articles together, instead of keeping the University Line article), and West Valley the Green Line. The Airport Line article should likewise be merged into the Green Line, as when that extension opens that's where the Green Line will go. The Murray/Midvale/University Line article should redirect to the Red Line. CL (T · C) — 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, I wonder how I didn't hear about this. It might make more sense to merge the Murray/Midvale/University line with the Mid-Jordan line, since the Red Line will pretty much follow that exact route. The University Line seems to be the one getting cut out here. In fact, the map shows the new Red Line's route number as 703, which is currently the Murray/Midvale number. The number 702, currently the University Line, isn't on the new map.


 * All three should be merged into one, I suppose. I guess all the valuable elements of each article could be combined and made into one. I think it'd be nice to include the history of the old University line into the new article. By the way, here's a Salt Lake Trib article about the color-based line names. CL (T · C) — 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave the University Line article alone for now, since the line is still operational for a few more weeks, but moving West Valley Line to Green Line (UTA TRAX) and merging the Airport Line into it seems like it could be done now. Should we go ahead and move Sandy / Salt Lake Line to Blue Line (UTA TRAX) yet? It's going to be the exact same route, but I guess the name change isn't official yet.


 * You make a good point – these changes aren't official for another two weeks. I like your suggestion; merge West Valley and Airport into Green, and keep Sandy / Salt Lake as is until 7 August. Exciting times for UTA! CL (T · C) — 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you hear that the Airport extension will be part of the Green Line? It sounds perfectly plausible, but I can't find a source for that and I don't want to do a merge without a source.


 * An email from the UTA is all I can offer, unfortunately. They have no source on their website that says so. CL (T · C) — 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Sounds like it could be subject to change then. I'm just gonna leave the Airport Line page alone for now. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 08:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I updated the lines table on the main article. The wikilinks to the articles just need to be updated once the Blue Line, Red Line, Green Line articles are created. CL (T · C) — 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm making a map of the system to replace the cumbersome thing we have in the infobox right now. CL (T · C) — 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean the image map inside the infobox, or the template map underneath it? Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Yeah, switch those around. The image map in the infobox. The template map outside the infobox is the cumbersome one. CL (T · C) — 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a little unpolished but I think it'll do for now. CL (T · C) — 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy/University Line
What should we do with the Sandy / University Line page when the changes become official? I had been planning to merge it into the Red Line page as some sort of history section, but I just looked at it and there's not much history there. Should we just blank all the existing content and redirect it to the Red Line? Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine with that. CL (T · C) — 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

TRAX vs. Trax
I know UTA considers the official name of TRAX to be in all capital letters, but according to this policy page we should be using the name Trax instead. I'm fine with ignoring the rules if people prefer it as TRAX, but I bring it up anyway because it does seem like using seven capital letters (UTA TRAX) could be confusing when only three of them are pronounced as individual letters. I'm just wondering if UTA Trax would be a better title, as it would be less confusing to people who aren't at all familiar with the system. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 08:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent. When I write it I always use "Trax," but I see the value of "TRAX" here on Wikipedia. Beats me. CL (T · C) — 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this page is listed as being on 37 watchlists, but it's starting to look like the other 35 never get checked. I would go ahead and move it, but I've opened a similar section on the MAX talk page, and I'd like to wait a few days (due process, and what not) and then move them both at once.
 * 3 days with no comments&mdash;that's long enough for me. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like "corporately styled." Sums it up well. CL (T · C) — 23:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have continued to use TRAX despite seeing Thatotherperson's many "WP:MOSTM" edits in related articles because there is no objective difference between using TRAX (an abbreviation for Transit Express) and using BART (an abbreviation for Bay Area Rapid Transit), except possibly for the difference that would suggest using TraX (note that WP:MOSTM does not say anything specific about the interaction of trademarks and abbreviations that I have seen)... I do not think that people could be convinced to use Bart instead of BART on Wikipedia, and UTA is just as deserving of having a four-character capitalized system name even if the fully expanded version of the abbreviated name is not as popular ("transit express" is an appropriate name for the system, though it obviously has the same problem that public transportation operators adopting the name MTA face, non-uniqueness). I do not think that there is sufficient consensus to justify an on-going campaign of "WP:MOSTM" edits (I now realize that Thatotherperson's campaign is ongoing since TRAX was just changed to Trax in my recent addition to Midvale Fort Union (UTA station)); most secondary sources use TRAX, right? I think we should at least have a policy similar to WP:RETAIN ("first main contributor", etc.) for the moment (not that I am claiming to be the first main contributor on any particular TRAX articles, since I do not think that I am). Esetzer (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My 2¢ worth: TRAX. Useddenim (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'll refer back to my original comments on the matter, the issue boils down to the use of "UTA TRAX" instead of just "TRAX". We can't have three capital letters that are pronounced individually followed by four that are pronounced as a word. Wikipedia needs context for people who are completely unfamiliar with the subject. Perhaps we could rename this page to TRAX (light rail) or commandeer the name TRAX (currently a redirect to the disambiguation page Trax) since article titles are case-sensitive. Whatever happens, I'm certainly not going to take the time to change everything back to TRAX, so you'll have to do that yourself if you really care about it that much.

I am not proposing to change Trax to TRAX in any specific places right now. I mostly wanted to introduce pro-TRAX arguments to the discussion and suggest that the spirit of WP:RETAIN includes a warning that making a lot of terminology-related edits in a body of articles without clear consensus (beyond the two-participant discussion prior to my first comment above, for example) can be unproductive if a consensus later forms to do it differently... On the subject of article names, I think that Max and FrontRunner ought to have names in a format similar to whatever TRAX's ends up being; they do not right now (there is no justification for capitalizing Max on Wikipedia since it truly is an unexplained non-abbreviation; it is also very non-unique, especially in this part of the world). Putting UTA in parentheses at the end (similar to Max's title) might make sense (regardless of the "TRAX" capitalization), though I have not done a thorough study of the popularity of that naming convention for rail lines in Wikipedia. Esetzer (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble finding examples of light rail systems that have their own name (i.e. TRAX) indepentent of the overall system (i.e. UTA). The best examples I can find are Charlotte's Lynx system, which has a longer formal name used for the article title, and Portland's MAX Light Rail, which seems like it may have borrowed its naming convention from systems like DART Light Rail even though DART is not exclusively light rail like MAX (and TRAX). I also can't find a naming convention page that deals with rail systems, so we might just have to settle on a name without any precedent or hard-and-fast rules. Here are the various names I see as options:


 * 1) TRAX (UTA)
 * 2) TRAX (UTA light rail)
 * 3) TRAX (light rail)
 * 4) TRAX light rail
 * 5) TRAX Light Rail

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Options 3 and 4 are my favorites. I could live with option 1, although I still feel like it doesn't provide great context. (I've ruled out the possibility of commandeering the name TRAX, because apparently there's a Korean band with that name and their page gets more hits than this one.)
 * As for MAX and FrontRunner, I'm pretty sure Max is a combination of the words Magna and either express or TRAX, as it's purpose was to be an express connection between Magna and TRAX. I don't see why FrontRunner would need anything extra in the article title, as there's nothing else on Wikipedia with the exact name FrontRunner. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Having "light rail" in the title seems redundant to me since TRAX, when unabbreviated (and also when abbreviated, by homophony), itself suggests what kind of system it is; of course it only does that for the few people who know the abbreviation, but at least the abbreviation appears in its full form at the very beginning of the current article. I still do not think that there is much reason to change the title from the current UTA Trax without having a reason based on consistency with the naming of Max and FrontRunner, on consistency with the names of other US light rail systems (which exhibit very little consistency currently), or on some other larger pattern. Even if we come to an agreement here, the consensus is hardly any larger than the two-participant "consensus" for lower-case Trax above (the UTA Trax status-quo has less need for consensus than any alternative now that it has been around for a while, I assume). About Max, I doubt that you could find a citation for Max referring to Magna at all (even though it seems like an obvious possibility); I think that UTA does not want to commit to an expansion of the name Max since they are thinking that they may not be able to come up with a better name once the BRT system starts expanding to places not near Magna... Esetzer (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "UTA Trax" title has been in use for less than a month now, so I don't think we need to be too concerned about status quo. I don't really see how putting "light rail" in the title would be redundant, since there are other types of "transit express" systems (subways, and what not) and there are plenty of other things called Trax that aren't trains. Regardless, I don't really like putting UTA at the beginning of the title. If "Transit Express" is the full name, and in common usage the name is only "TRAX", then the current title is neither the formal name nor the common name. It seems to me that the title of the page should just be TRAX, and then anything else in the title should be simply for the purpose of disambiguation.


 * Names starting with "TRAX (" (followed by disambiguation) certainly make sense since there are probably actually more people in Salt Lake County that know what TRAX is than know what UTA is and using "light rail" as anything other than parenthesized disambiguation still seems redundant (and is not the most common name used). However, I thought of another problem with names like "TRAX (light rail)" that do not mention UTA at all: if the Max article was then renamed analogously to "Max (bus rapid transit)", the name choice would conflict with Las Vegas's Metropolitan Area Express BRT Line (and also with two other lines that I did not even find previously when listing systems named "Max": Metro Area Express and Hampton Roads Transit's Max (not really BRT)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esetzer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 04:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be necessary to rename the Max article just for the purpose of uniformity. TRAX only needs to be disambiguated from other things called Trax besides light rail, whereas Max needs to be disambiguated from other BRT lines called Max. In those circumstances, I think it would be perfectly logical to use different forms of disambiguation for each article.

Page move proposal
Reviving this debate. "UTA Trax" has never sat well with me, although I understand the issues that "UTA TRAX" brings with it. What if we just changed the name to "TRAX (light rail)"? CL (T · C) — 15:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you brought that up; I completely forgot about this for a while. I support the move. I don't know who originally put the letters UTA in the title, but I think it's time to move on from that. No one ever refers to the system as anything other than TRAX. Adding "(light rail)" is also my favorite form of disambiguation, since the fact that it's a light rail line is the most important difference between this and other things called Trax. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 04:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I really don't think anyone will object, so I'll go ahead and move it. CL (T · C) — 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stock data
The vehicle data is from August 2008. Has UTA purchased more cars since then?

In late September, there were almost a dozen Siemens 70 cars with TRAX livery, still in the shrink wrap, sitting in a siding off of the Front Runner line to Ogden. Going by the tears and dirt on the shrink wrap, my guess is that those cars have been there for at least six months. p (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

former Green Line
has edit and created several templates for the “former Green Line”. Are these really necessary, or can their use be covered by the already-existing “Green Line” ones? Useddenim (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The "former Green Line" allows for the former routing to be used in the info box's for the station articles on the former routing. If the current Green Line template were used, it would show a terminus at the Airport Station rather than the former terminus of Salt Lake Central Station. There may be a way to get this two work some other way, but if so, it is unknown. Suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. An Errant Knight (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thatotherperson talk contribs  10:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do station articles need to list former routing in the infobox? That information seems well enough as a blurb in the history section or something similar.


 * @Thatotherperson: It’s actually quite common to list former services in station infoboxes. @An Errant Knight: Sorry, I don’t know anything about the use of S-line succession templates. Useddenim (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the  parameter might do the trick. Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

History section chronology
Reading through the History section, it seems very strangely structured to me. I would expect a more chronological presentation of events, instead there's currently a bit of summary, then it jumps around the timeline. If I find more time I can address it; I gave it a shot in my drafts and didn't love what I came up with. D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 15:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)