Talk:Lynx Rapid Transit Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Lynx Rapid Transit Services has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Rapid transit (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
WikiProject United States / North Carolina / Charlotte (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Charlotte (marked as Low-importance).
 

Amtrak[edit]

Are there plans for this system to serve the Amtrak station? Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The light rail lines both under construction and proposed will not have a direct link to the current Amtrak station on North Tryon. The only transit access to the station directly is CATS 11U & 11H bus routes. Future plans call for a new "Gateway Station" at the SW corner of West Trade and South Graham Streets the will serve as a replacement to the current Amtrak station in addition to serving as the primary transit hub for future commuter rail projects into Uptown. Patriarca12 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LYNX logo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:LYNX logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

The light rail debate has become a very contentious issue within the county, and mentioning it is essential in developing a well balanced article telling the WHOLE story of the LYNX system. With that being said, the information should be apolitical in nature and just let be known the petition drive and the ramifications of the tax repeal and its greater effect on the systems funding. What I had originally included in the article I felt provided that insight to a degree and should be included. Discuss please what should be included and STOP this edit war! Patriarca12 02:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How does deleting 2/3rd's of the controversy section "tell the WHOLE story" as you state above? Hoopsworldscout 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed out some of the earlier text that Patriarca12 reverted to hopefully strike a balance. Hoopsworldscout 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete 2/3rd's of the controversy section. In fact, I started the controversy section as the light rail issue has become such a hot-button topic in Charlotte today. The whole section is cited from Government sources and established local media, and does tell the story of the tax repeal being on the ballot and the criticisms brought forth by the opponents. I don't understand what more there is to say about it here.

The whole controversy is just part of the whole story and I feel that it is adequately covered in this article. However, I have requested a peer review on this article as well, so a fresh set of eyes can take a look at it and offer fresh insights as well. Patriarca12 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure what you mean about the URL's in the controversy section. Do you want me to put the remaining ones right behind each portion of text?

Perhaps - pasted the code in another email to me exactly as you think the URL's should be placed in the text, and I will make the change.

as for the JLF foundation... it does not matter if they admit they are conservative or liberal, or do not admit. Everybody has bias. The difference is JLF is honest and open about it, whereas, other "sources" do not state, and indeed, cast themselves as "unbiased."

What matters is that the sources that the actual think tank uses. For example, JLF uses Dr. David Hartgen, Engineer, PhD, Transportation Policy, UNCC as a major source. Doctors are considered authorities in their subject field whether you agree with them or not.

If one is to cite a Dr. coming from a liberal perspective, I do not delete these. I rather add the counter-opposing view from another doctor or relevant source. Hoopsworldscout 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For proper sourcing, refer to WP:Cite, or simply take a second to look at the existing syntax and copy that.

Again, in my opinion, the article should present a whole picture of a project that has been in the works for quite a while. Mention of the tax repeal and the underlying reasons for it are and have been present in the article. There are other places and forums to debate whether or not light rail is appropriate for Charlotte IMHO.

As for think tanks, if you feel these think tanks are reliable and unbiased sources, conservative or liberal, that is your prerogative. I do not see them in the same light, and I will leave it at that. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not they should be eliminated.

Regardless, I just want a good article on the LYNX network when it's all said and done. Patriarca12 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we both see the subject in different lights, as do most residents of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. As such, it is important to show both the positives, and the negatives. As for, "Mention of the tax repeal and the underlying reasons for it are and have been present in the article." ... Where?? Other than in the Controversy section. I have read the Cite rules and WP:EL policy. I think we are missing the big picture. The overwhelming bulk of the LYNX article casts it in a good light. Complete even with sleek photos and charts as such. It would make any salesman salivate. It is appropriate to have at least one small section, called "Controversy" that shows there is another side than just the "sexy" pictures, charts, and diagrams. This adds balance to the entire subject. Hoopsworldscout 04:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

consolidation of future section[edit]

Seeing as how non-existing proposed infrastructure was taking up over half the article, I've taken the liberty of creating spin-off articles for proposed lines. I believe it greatly improves readability and focus. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gramatical errors[edit]

I corrected some of the Blue Line script that showed its operation as future tense, given it opened this morning. Further, similar corrections are likely needed. --Eightane (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Title Inaccuracy/Confusion[edit]

"Rapid transit" traditionally (and in the public transportation industry) refers to heavy rail transit, such as the Washington Metro, New York City subway, Atlanta MARTA and San Francisco BART, etc., and not to light rail systems, which typically share city streets, traffic signals and the like along with regular vehicular traffic and thus are not really "rapid" (especially as compared with heavy rail, which operates on exclusive rights of way and often underground). Devoted editors of this page (of which I am not---I'm just passing through) may wish to adress this issue in the title of this page as it detracts somewhat from the credibility of the article. In addition to the regional BART subway, My hometown of San Francisco also operates an extensive network of Muni system light rail trains in the city, but never would they be considered "rapid" transit, and I doubt Charlotte's light rail would be much different. Just a thought...

...Okay, I see now that your transit system's logo incorporates "rapid transit," so I now better understand the page title, although I find it rather strange that the transit system elected to use that terminology in the logo, considering the type service it provides :)


As far as Charlotte transit goes, this is as rapid as it gets :) Tingrin87 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Its considered rapid transit because its separated from traffic, and therefore doesnt function like San Francisco's Muni system. London's Docklands Light Railway is another example of such a system. The article on Urban Rail as a more detailed explination. Suodrak (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LYNX Naming[edit]

does anyone have any information on why or how the LYNX name was chosen? I can guess that it is to tie in with the Charlotte theme of Bobcats, Panthers, CATS... but does anyone know if LYNX stands for something? Tingrin87 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridership stats[edit]

The previous ridership stats linked to a source that no longer exists. I replaced it with the APTA source. I'd actually prefer to keep this source for the article, since APTA numbers are the basis for ranking in the List of United States light rail systems by ridership article, and offer the only consistent comparison across different systems.--Loodog (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In Q4 2010, CATS apparently(?) changed their method for reporting weekday ridership. I e-mailed APTA and they said they get the weekday ridership numbers from the agency. See some analysis here: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/43281-charlottes-light-rail-lynx-blue-line/page-122 . Listing ridership numbers before and after this date is therefore inconsistent and misleading. The ridership section should be re-worded with more consistent stats. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grodney (talkcontribs) 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stock Delivery Dates[edit]

In the main article is the claim that the rolling stock of 25 additional vehicles "were delivered January -March 2010". How can this be as it is only Mid February when I write this addition to the article? Yes they may be scheduled for delivery between january, through march, but until the chickens are not all hatched I would not count all of the eggs as being delivered. Richard416282 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:LYNX Rapid Transit Services/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airplaneman 06:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I am making minor fixes myself as I read. Please check them over to make sure I didn't change any of the facts inadvertently. Something that confused me was the last sentence in the first paragraph in the section "Rolling stock":
    The trams cost $3.8 million each and were delivered (are to be) by Siemens between January-March 2010.
    What does are to be mean? Airplaneman 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrected. The statement was placed there as a placeholder as the trams were being delivered. as they have now been delivered the statement is no longer needed. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
All good! Airplaneman 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Suitably referenced. Checklinks clear; the only green link is an "intro" site; could you instead link the site it leads to? Thanks, Airplaneman 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Link to actual flash document corrected. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Checklinks clear. Airplaneman 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I learned something new today. Airplaneman 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    YesY Airplaneman 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable. Airplaneman 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Impressive; I see you took many of them yourself. Airplaneman 06:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The issues have been addressed; I will gladly pass this GA :) Airplaneman 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
On hold for seven days for minor issues to be addressed. Airplaneman 00
19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick review and taking the time to make those minor prose edits. I have been working on this one since the beginning and am glad to finally have it nearing GA status. Please let me know if anything else needs to be corrected or clarified. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)