Jump to content

Talk:Metro Green Line (Minnesota)

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Eóin (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 31 May 2024 (→Safety section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Suggested article titles

[edit]

If anyone ever needs to move this page, I suggest Central Corridor (Twin Cities), Central Corridor (Minnesota), or Central Corridor (Minneapolis-St. Paul). Mulad 17:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hm, the Hiawatha Line doesn't have a little dingy indicating where it is. Also we don't know if this is the final name as the Hiawatha Line was initially called the Hiawatha Corridor. When a LRT line is planned, its called a corridor because although they know in what alignment and direction the line is located in, they don't know exactly if it will follow that path. For example the Central Corridor is still up in the air over its U of MN routing but that whole area is considered part of the corridor. It will be officially named a Line when it is done. I think for now this naming works until we know. .:DavuMaya:. 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metro Transit is officially referring to the Southwest Corridor (Minneapolis-Saint Paul) as Metro Green Line (Minnesota) Extension. It would make sense to merge accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.178.86.60 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porky's

[edit]

The claim has been made that Porky's closed due to the light rail. I reverted, and have myself been reverted. So weigh in folks...

The edit in question makes a claim not truly substantiated in the article. The reference cited states "A slowdown in business the last couple of years, combined with the new light rail project along University, ultimately made owner Tryg Truelson decide to sell the family business." The way I read this, the light rail was cited as a contributing factor but not the cause. Claiming that Porky's closed because of the rail project is a misrepresentation.

So, I dug, and find that they approached a buyer for their land before construction started, on the assumption that they'd suffer. The Finance & Commerce article, published in March 2011, says negotiations began 9 months earlier, which would be June 2010. The Startribune interview with the owner refers to the construction as a secondary concern, " "is going to ruin the avenue, and I'm sure there isn't going to be any parking," she said, adding that high taxes and disruption from the line's construction were also factors."

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/hindsight/progress-our-doorstep-who-closed-porky%E2%80%99s http://finance-commerce.com/2011/03/light-rail-pushes-porkys-owners-to-seek-sale/ http://www.startribune.com/local/119000504.html

In short, the claim made isn't backed up by the cite used, and I can't find a cite that is clearer, so I recommend we remove it. Uberhill 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:CurrentCCLRTRouteMap.pdf Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CurrentCCLRTRouteMap.pdf, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CurrentCCLRTRouteMap.pdf)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hiawatha Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No map

[edit]

a map of the green line would be nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.88.234 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Metro Transit Route 16 be merged into this article. Generally, we don't have articles for individual bus routes, even those far more heavily patronized than this one. Given that the light rail route has largely supplanted this bus line, it is the logical candidate for merger. Conifer (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally opposed. There is a lack of bus articles, but that's really a type of "rail bias"—there are a lot of bus routes out there that carry more people than many of the commuter-rail/light-rail/streetcar articles on Wikipedia (not that I'm really offended—I prefer a train to a bus too—but often buses suffer from a lack of visibility/awareness). The 16 has provided a couple hundred million passenger trips over the course of its existence. The article on the 16 is in need of an update, though. The route has been shortened (it now runs from downtown St. Paul to the Stadium Village station by TCF Bank Stadium rather than all the way to downtown Minneapolis), and it has been altered somewhat, detouring down Marion Street to provide access to the Ravoux Hi-Rise, which lost some service when route 94 was altered to just be a direct downtown-to-downtown service.
Merging this specific route may be okay, but other articles should be added on high-ridership routes such as the 3, 5, 6, 18, and 21, which were all carrying 10,000 or more riders each day according to the best data set I currently have (from May 2014).—Mulad (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's a significant rail bias in articles, but that's more due to a lack of sources besides a transit agency's schedule and route pamphlet. Bus route changes don't tend to be covered in media outlets, while rail construction/BRT does. That contributes to an overall lack of notability for even the busiest routes. Conifer (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metro Green Line (Minnesota). 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) 04:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Metro Green Line (Minnesota). 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) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still 24/7?

[edit]

From Aug 19, 2019, weeknight overnight service had been withdrawn. There is now no train service for ~3 hours each weekday morning to allow for regular track maintenance, similar to the Blue Line. This amounts to 2 trips each way canceled and replaced by buses that travel the same route as rail replacement buses during line closures or service disruptions. This new bus service has been given its own internal route number, 992. From this it is clear that the light rail line no longer runs 24/7; yet the article says it is still considered 24/7 despite the overnight closure, and it is still recognized as such in the articles for Staten Island Railway and the PATCO Speedline, two of the five US mass transit lines/systems that run 24/7 (but not in the articles for Chicago's Blue and Red Lines). It is high time to remove this distinction that this route no longer deserves. TroyVan (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safety section

[edit]

@Mitchpberg: welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits to the safety section of the article! I think we may want to format the safety section similar to how the Metro Blue Line (Minnesota) article is set up with a portion on traffic safety and a portion on rider safety. The names and identities of those killed in collisions likely won't be worth including in an encyclopedia in 10 years but the overall trends are very much worth mentioning. You can read about how some Wikipedia editors approach articles that begin to resemble breaking news reports at Wikipedia:Recentism. Don't feel obligated to re-write the section to have a similar structure as the Blue Line but it might be a guide you can follow if you are interested. - Eóin (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_Green_Line_(Minnesota)&oldid=1226516851"