Talk:Third Street Light Rail Project

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Third Street Light Rail.

The County line cuts through the northern end of the Bayshore Caltrain platform, leaving most of the platform in Daly City and San Mateo County. Depending on where the final station for T Third is built, it may actually be entirely over the county line. This is significant because MUNI has never in 95 (?) ever built a rail line in another county AND it has been 60 since any streetcar ran in San Mateo County.--Jmohler1970 23:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I don't see a need to merge with T Third. T Third can refer to the line itself, this can refer to the construction project that created the line. There's a fair amount of data available on the project, how it came about, how it was funded, how it was bungled (several negative news articles have been published about how the designs were off, etc), etc. which would not be relevant to the T Third line itself. hateless 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also think they should be kept separate, after all, in the future 2 or 3 diffarant lines could run on this projects tracks in addition to other existing and to be constructed tracks. if there were a T Third and S Third-Judah and U-Visitation Valley-Balboa Park those wouldnt be the same as the 3rd street project in the same way as the Transbay Tube Project on the BART is not the same as any single of the four lines running thru it nor would it be if there were to be a single line. rail lines rarely have just one route running along them for long, nor solely thru those particular new tracks. merge would be a mistake which will simply lead to splintering later.qrc2006/email 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A Quick Change[edit]

Hello! I was looking over the page and noticed a little error. The route replaced was the 15, but it was the 8X that was extended from Fisherman's Wharf to City College and not the 9X, which, at least to my knowledge, does not exist, or never did. Just a small change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.28.128 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Thx. --Lexein (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an SF resident, I do have knowledge of the current light rail construction. However looking back through google and the SFMuni route line history, no route as 9X has existed. We do have the 9 and 9L which traverse the area and do share the route corridors at times, but the 9X is a non-existent express line, the 8AX and BX are existent as Commute Hour lines. However, as a cited source, all I can give you is localization and sources from other articles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.28.128 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/m1209/dec09service.htm#R9X9AX9BX -- spoke a bit too soon, however, with the current mergers in the timeline we did have an 9X but that was split into the current 8/X structure and both still exist though different than when the implementation took place. I am only here to make a small edit, and my intention is to not vandalize but to claify, however I should have spent extra time with Uncle Google.

Heh heh - relax! I wasn't arguing, just querying for that source. Glad you found that source. FYI the article needs inline refs - those external links should be integrated as refs wherever appropriate. Thanks for the update. --Lexein (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]