Jump to content

Talk:Valley Metro Rail

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

Requests for more information

[edit]

I'd like to ask that some "in the know" people add some dates. For example, when funding was approved, construction began, stations finished, etc. Chrysrobyn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Station descriptions

[edit]

When adding stations, ensure they look like the Central Avenue at Encanto Boulevard article. It will be nice to have everything consistent. Eddiejensen 07:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also use the Valley Metro templates as described in Template_talk:S-line ... I used the color Red as the line generally follows the current Red Line bus... the color lines were intended to eventually transition to rapid transit. - Wlindley (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the station names are incorrect. All official station names are the street names in the format of Street1/Street2. There are no "named" stations. For example, there is no "Chris Town Station". That station is called 19th Avenue/Montebello. I will post corrections on the discussion pages of the individual station pages. Also, the station template has all wrong station names in it. The station names should reflect what the public sees in publications and while using the system. Recnet (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

METRO's official names ("Central Avenue and Washington Street and First Avenue and Jefferson Street") are not only the longest in the world -- longer even than Wales' Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch -- and the "official" route maps only print station numbers -- the absurdly long names are in a box off to the side. The stations do have 'real' names but they only appear on the platform signs.

Please on the map, which shows for example: "On Central Avenue" let us just put station names below that as "Camelback," "Campbell," "Indian School," and so on; otherwise, each line of the map will have to have, "Camelback and Central Avenue," "Campbell and Central Avenue," and "Indian School and Central Avenue" which is redundant and impossible to fit in a box to be displayed on a web page. Even better, let us use the 'real' station names, including "Heard Museum" instead of "Encanto and Central Avenue." METRO really needs to change these to follow best practices of every other transit system in the world, simplify their maps, and establish a sense of place in the stations' neighborhoods. Wlindley (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station names

[edit]

I have added a list of proposed simplified common station names, referring to nearby landmarks as is done in most other cities, at Template_talk:PHXLightRail Wlindley (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's METRO Light Rail

[edit]

Never was it called Valley Metro Rail. It is, to be quite honest, quite a weird name and obviously bestowed upon by a person not living in Arizona. Please use the term METRO Light Rail, which is also the official name of the project. Arbiteroftruth 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

The web site says Valley Metro Light Rail. Do you think that's derogatory to use the full name? Lighten up sissypants. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The early name was Valley Metro Rail. Their manhole covers clearly say VMR. And here's a souvenir of the groundbreaking, clearly labeled Valley Metro Rail: [1] Wlindley (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) And here's a photo of Phoenix Mayor Rimsza with the "Valley Metro Rail" logo: [2] Wlindley (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farebox recovery ratio

[edit]

At a 2007-05-16 meeting, the Valley Metro board pegged a 25% recovery ratio (Valley Metro Board of Directors (2007-05-16). "Meeting Minutes" (PDF). p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))... not the 33% as claimed in the main article. The linked Arizona Republic article ([3] is offline, does anyone have the name of the article or other citation? Wlindley (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lane removed? Projected riders?

[edit]

Were the streets where this runs reduced by a lane? That's important, in that this pork project will increase congestion. Each remaining lane will carry 50% more vehicles then. Will be there redundant buses on the streets?

How many passengers are there suppose to be? 68.180.38.31 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Avenue, and Washington and Jefferson Streets, were redesigned and reconstructed. Traffic is now flowing better on those streets than in their former configurations.
Official estimates (from original, circa 2000 data) are around 26,000 passengers. Based on recent experiences in cities like Salt Lake City, high gasoline prices, and the new ASU Downtown campus, however, actual ridership may be far higher. Wlindley (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or far lower. The agencies planning these things tend to inflate the expectations a bit to justify their construction.--Loodog (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte, NC: 35% above projections. Salt Lake City: 15,000 projected, 40,000 actual. Minneapolis, MN: 100% above projections. What data are you looking at, loodog? Wlindley (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APM separate article?

[edit]

Should we separate the Sky Harbor APM info into another article... or suggestions on how to tie it in with the Sky Harbor page? 65.39.84.242 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article. This one is about a light rail system while the APM is a people mover. I'm doing it now.--Loodog (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Train speed and trip times

[edit]

Agree with loodog's recent correction regarding travel time and train speed. We need clarification of top train speed, as well as "average" (endpoint-to-endpoint) route trip time, especially as it compares to existing Red Line buses. Some reports say top rail speed is equal to roadway speed; other reports say somewhat higher. Wlindley (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to road speed isn't relevant, the average speed is guaranteed to be lower anyway. The trains will go as fast as they have the time and space to accelerate to. Top speed is given by the specs of the rolling stock, but the trains will rarely, if ever, go this fast. The most meaningful figure that can be figure is an average speed for the whole trip, which I'm guessing will be around 20mph.--Loodog (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some numbers in their pamphlet and used them: 55mph max, and 25 mph average during rush hour, which I have to say, isn't bad for a light rail system. The Baltimore Light Rail was built in the 90s and averages 22mph.--Loodog (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because trains will replace the Red Line, the only relevant speed comparison is elapsed ride time from Christown to Dobson (endpoint-to-endpoint) -- even if the routes are somewhat different (Red Line via University and Sky Harbor, trains via Washington/Jefferson). Redid my earlier explanation paying attention to citations.Wlindley (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's invalid because the bus route isn't from the same two places. It's a longer route by about a mile, so any comparison of times will exaggerate how much faster the train will be.--Loodog (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the system uses ungated grade crossings (at virtually every intersection on the system), the system can not exceed 35 MPH in most locations due to federal regulations. Higher speeds are permitted on the section approaching and on the Tempe Town Lake Bridge where speeds can go to 45 MPH. Recnet (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock?

[edit]

I don't recognise the model of tram depicted in the photo, so who are supplying the rolling stock for this system? David Arthur (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinki-Sharyo. Wlindley (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Measuring units

[edit]

Exactly why are kilometres cited before miles in the discussion about top and average speeds of rolling stock? Leaving politically-sensitive issues of metrication aside, the SI units seem to be conversions of the original round numbers in customary units, not vice-versa. Why don't we stick with US measurements first (then SI conversions) on articles on US topics, and vice-versa for officially metric jurisdictions like Canada and Britain? Ectuohy (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operating times

[edit]

The article should probably include when the Light Rail begins and ceases operation for the day, especially since this is almost impossible to find on Valley Metro's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.108.252 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. I'm not even sure there is a consensus on what the common name is. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) → Metro Light Rail – The Arizona line is now the primary topic for Metro Light Rail. I have tried to direct the current Sydney-related links to the page to Light rail in Sydney. However, some of these still remain. Once these have been dealt with, the title will be free for this page. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The ones in a template required doing a null edit to each article using that template. Apteva (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert "Metro Light Rail" into a disambiguation page. Quite a generic name, and since the Sydney article was recently displaced from the suggested location, seems like a disambiguation page is a better idea. The term is also generic, so should also point to the topic of metropolitan area light rail in the general sense. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already did, I added Dubai and tagged talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation, agree with the anon IP. While the "Metro Light Rail" name was dropped in Sydney, it will still be commonly known by people as Metro Light Rail. Bidgee (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong name. If required, it should be moved to Valley Metro Rail, as a unit of Valley Metro, which is the name used on its website and other documents. They only use "light rail" as a descriptor for the type of service. Valley Metro Rail (Phoenix) is already a redirect. Sw2nd (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused Why was Phoenix's system made the primary topic? This is a common phrase, in planning for other cities even if not an official name (yet) of others. Seems premature to have made Phoenix's system the primary topic given the many possible listings/other meanings.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently the primary topic. This discussion is to acertain if it should be. 65.95.179.90 (talk)
Good point. . . or any Valley Metro. Secondarywaltz (talk)
Note that Valley Metro Rail (Phoenix) is the redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my mistake there. That doesn't mean I'm still not undecided on which of the two names should be the primary one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the common name, it doesn't matter that it has an official name. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Metro Light Rail (Phoenix). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2016

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. After almost nine years, it is back at the right name. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Undiscussed move. Inconsistent with e.g. category name Category:Metro Light Rail (Phoenix). Inaccurate; Metro serves the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I just talked to a representative of the Valley Metro, and she stated that they are moving to going under the "Valley Metro Rail" name. She also helped to answer a few other questions relating to how we can deal with potential extension articles, so it was good to be able to get some confirmation on what we expected. Since that appears to be the official name, does anyone have any qualms against an early closure of this and moving the page? @Elizium23: You might also want to weigh in, since you opened this, and @Onel5969: you also might want to as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktr101, and thanks for the ping. Actually, it was Elizium23 who opened this thread, I was merely the first to respond. I was waiting to see if more folks would weigh in, but at this point, I think the article should be moved to Valley Metro Rail. Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valley Metro Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valley Metro Rail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news

[edit]

Phoenix voters substantially back light rail expansion -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valley_Metro_Rail&oldid=1200609153"