Talk:List of United States light rail systems

Oceanside, CA

While updating the list, the APTA listed Oceanside, CA. Does this get lumped in with LA's or do we have a new entry to the list? FoUTASportscaster (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a system distinct from both LA's lines and the San Diego Trolley (Oceanside is actually closer to San Diego than to LA). It should get its own entry. --Jfruh (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be removed from this list entirely. The Sprinter is listed by APTA as commuter rail, which the station spacing, main line running, etc. would all point to as well. I propose taking the Sprinter off the list.Tampasteve (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sprinter is listed by APTA as light rail, not commuter rail. The Oceanside/North County Transit District entry under commuter rail in the APTA number is for the Coaster.

I agree that the Sprinter is an edge case, but since we're using APTA numbers as our main source, we should probably follow their categorization scheme. --Jfruh (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, if APTA lists it as Light Rail then I am good with keeping it here. Interesting case though, logically it would be more commuter rail, but if APTA has it as LR then I agree with keeping it here.Tampasteve (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an edge case, as I said. It's a very similar system to the River Line in NJ, which is also covered here. On the other hand, the A-Train in Denton and the Austin Capitol MetroRail use very similar vehicles but are classified by APTA as commuter rail. It's somewhat artbitrary, but I think part of it is scheduling. Sprinter and River Line don't run trains as often as most light rail systems, but I don't think they go under 20-30 minutes ever? Meanwhile the Austin and Denton systems really are almost exclusively peak-direction commuter lines. --Jfruh (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Miami Metromover

Someone needs to add in the Miami Metromover. Why is this not already included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.100.141 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the comment section directly above this one.--Louiedog (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey numbers are weird

The new numbers put in for New Jersey Transit lines appear not to use unlinked trips. If you look at APTA statistics, the three New Jersey numbers (Hudson-Bergen + Newark + River Line) should add up to 70,000 or so. It might make sense to go back to the FY 2011 statistics which were there before, since those use the same metric as the rest of the table. platypeanArchcow (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reworking The Table - Any Interest?

How would people feel about a fairly substantial reworking of this table? I feel like, in format (i.e. in the way the columns are set up), it should really look more like the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership table (which is just a much better set-up table than this one).

Basically, I'm thinking the columns on this page should be (in order) Rank, System, Transit Agency, City Served, (Annual Ridership - not in the current version of this page's table, but a stat that's very easy to obtain, so optional...), Ave. Weekday Ridership (same as "Daily Boardings"), eliminate the "As of" column (that should be in the column heading for Ave. Weekday Ridership anyway; entries that aren't, say, "Q1 2013" can be indicated with a 'Note'), Route Length (or Length of System), Boardings Per Mile, Year Opened, # of Stations, (# of Lines - optional), and eliminate the Other Sources column (references should be integrated into the other cells of each row - there shouldn't be a separate column for this anyway...); the last two columns Recent Expansion and Vehicle Type can stay if people want them (though both of those column are mostly empty in the current version, and aren't exactly germane to the focus of this page, so maybe they should be cut anyway).

At this point, I'm not really planning on doing anything - I'm just trying to generate some discussion to see if there's any interest in improving this table (which I think needs it...). At the least, I'd like to see if I can get agreement to cut the Other Sources column (and definitely the As Of column), and replace those with a (Number of) Stations column (something that is definitely missing from the current version of this table.

I'd appreciate hearing anybody's thoughts on this matter. TIA.. --IJBall (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is the format that I propose we replace the current version of the table with (it will make this table significantly more comparable to the similar List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page and table...):

	System	Agency	City/Area served	Annual Ridership (2012)	Ave. daily weekday boardings (Q1 2013)	Route length	Ave. daily boardings per mile (Q1 2013)	Year opened	Stops	Lines	Year last expansion	Type of vehicle
1	MBTA Green Line & Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line***	MBTA	Boston	8.729,400	221,900	25.2 mi (40.6 km)	8,806	1897	74	2	1959	AnsaldoBreda Type 8

I'm starting to think that the "Type of vehicle" column is 'a bridge too far' for this table (it leads to "scrunching" of all of the other columns...), and it really doesn't seem germane to a table that's devoted to Light Rail Ridership figures. So if a column needs to get cut, I propose it be that one.

Thoughts?... --IJBall (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

More on Reworking The Table

Speaking of reworking the table .... the MBTA has most certainly expanded since 1959 (Alewife was built in the 1980's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figital (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have continued to work on this project. (No one has objected so far...)

Basically, the first necessary step was updating all of the Ridership figures to Q1 2013 numbers. That is now done.

The issue is that if I want to next eliminate the As of and Other sources columns, I will need to move Reference sources and 'Notes' next to their respective stats - but, in order to do this, I am going to have to discontinue use of the 'ridership' template that this page current uses.

The upside of that 'ridership' template is that it does all of the Ave. Daily Boardings per mile calculating for you.
The downside of this 'ridership' template is that it makes Reference sourcing of the relevant stats impossible.

Therefore, I think the benefits of removing the 'ridership' template outweigh the disadvantages of removing it. (One 'workaround' for this is that I may try and put a 'Ridership' table that uses the 'ridership' template up at either my own 'Sandbox' or my own 'User' page - that would allow people to still input new figures and get new Ave. Daily Boardings per mile calculated for them...)

Anyway, I'm not going to make any changes like this... yet. But if I don't see any objections here in the coming days, I will plan on making these changes to the List of United States light rail systems by ridership table in the (near) future... --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've migrated the 'ridership' template over to a couple of Ridership tables on my User page (User:IJBall), one for Light rail systems and one for Heavy rail systems, in case anyone ever wants to use them to calculate Ridership per Miles stats fast – the 'ridership' template is very useful for that.

The next step for this page, however, is to stop using the 'ridership' template (ending use of the template will then allow for proper inline referencing of stats such as Route length) – I'm going to try to get over that over Labor Day weekend... --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Table is now fully renovated, and referenced as much as possible. In terms of info and referencing, I would say this table is now every bit as good as the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page.

I'm still not sure about the "look" of this table, though, with the inclusion of the Light Rail Type of vehicle column - the table is awfully "scrunched" with that left in there. For now, I've left the Type of vehicle column in. I may experiment with "relocating" that info from the column of this table to the Light rail in the United States page... but, for now, I'm leaving it here. If anyone else has comments, concerns or ideas, please report them back here... --IJBall (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Seattle/Tacoma

Hi IJBall! First off, as someone who has had this article on a watchlist for a long time, I want to say that I very much appreciate all the work you've put into revising it. It looks great!

I do have one quibble that I think needs to be implemented though. I know due to the quirks of how APTA reports data that the Seattle and Tacoma Link numbers are lumped together. However, I think it's extremely deceiving to present them this way on the table. The two systems are over 25 miles apart; they use very different rolling stock; have different fare regimes; and are even structurally different (the Tacoma Link is a classic streetcar while the Seattle Link is almost entirely separated from car traffic for most of its route). There are very long-range plans to connect the two someday but it seems to me that for the moment they should be treated as the distinct systems they are.

Basically, it's exactly analagous to the situation with the three NJ Transit light rail systems, which have been rightly separated out on this list. I imagine there are separate numbers available for the two systems from the transit agency itself somewhere, as with NJ Transit?

Also, on a related issue, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether the Seattle streetcar system should be lumped together in the table with the Central Link or not, but it seems strange to treat Seattle any differently than Portland, where we do put the Streetcar and MAX in the same line in the table. The two situations are quite similar and it seems strange to treat them differently. --Jfruh (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Just wanted to add that I'm happy to do the grunt work of making this change if needed; I just wanted to put it out here on the talk page to see if anyone objected.) --Jfruh (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jfruh, my take is that I have no objection to separating Central Link and Tacoma Link (for now - as you say, in a decade or two, they are supposed to be linked up in to one system!), provided up-to-date (say, within the last 1 year, or so) figures can be found for both (and the figures 'Noted', as to when the figures are from).

On Seattle Streetcar, I'd tend to leave that separated from Central Link. Again, Seattle vs. Portland is just a quirk of how APTA counts its figures (by transit agency). But on this, it would actually be better if Portland's two systems could be broken out, rather than Seattle Streetcars numbers be "bundled" with Central Link's...

Oh, and on the table "renovation" - I'm still looking at whether I can squeeze columns for Stations and (number of) Lines in (I'll figure though out today...), but it may not be possible. Regardless of that, though, I'm going to go through and add references to the Total route length stats. And I will probably add S.F.'s cable cars to this list, with the same 'Note' that I put them in to the List of North American light rail systems by ridership page's table.

And, Jfruh - thanks for the kind words!  :) --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Portland Streetcar

So, Portland Streetcar has just been split out from Portland's MAX light rail system in the table. In general, I approve of this move, and there is no doubt that there are (non-APTA) numbers for the Portland Streetcar system available.

But, my question is, are we 100% sure that APTA numbers don't bundle MAX's and the Streetcar's numbers together (which would have the effect of now inflating MAX's numbers in the table)? I really would like to see some kind of reference confirming that APTA's Portland figures don't also include the Streetcar ridership in them (e.g. see Jfruh's post on this subject above, under the "Portland data inconsistency" heading...).

It turns out that this is an important issue, as others have made similar claims about other systems (e.g. San Francisco's), so it would be really, really useful if there was a resource (or resources) out there that listed exactly which systems and lines APTA includes in their ridership figures for the various cities, and which systems and lines APTA doesn't include.

So, is there a reference somewhere that confirms exactly what APTA is including in figures like Portland's?... --IJBall (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to the last question above, it would be good if someone could find that, if one exists. In response to the first question: Yes, I am certain – and will give evidence in a moment – but there's no need to be certain that APTA's Portland figures don't include the Portland Streetcar. APTA's list names only TriMet for its Portland figures, and the Portland Streetcar is not a TriMet line, so the burden of proof falls entirely on anyone claiming that APTA's Portland figures do include the Portland Streetcar, because there's no evidence that they do. As far as I know, that was just an assumption by some Wikipedia editor.

In any case, here's evidence to prove my claim: The Portland figure currently given in this Wikipedia table is 123,200, which is the 2nd Quarter 2013 figure from APTA's report. Now, here are links to TriMet's Monthly Performance Reports for April, May and June 2013 – the same period as covered by the 2013 Q2 APTA report. Look at the first sentence of items 3 or 4 on the first page of each TriMet report. They give average weekday MAX ridership of 122,700 for April, 122,800 for May and 124,000 for June 2013. Average those three figures, and guess what it comes out to: 123,167, which rounds to 123,200, matching the APTA figure exactly. The same monthly TriMet report also includes streetcar ridership on a quarterly basis only – compiled by TriMet on behalf of the City – and if you check the May 2013 report, you'll find the streetcar ridership on the last page. It was averaging 12,700 for that quarter (March, April, May). I've followed MAX ridership figures for years, since it's the light rail system that I use personally, and it has always been clear to me that APTA figures do not include Portland Streetcar ridership, but I certainly realize that I cannot simply expect people to take my word on this, and that is why I provided the example (and supporting material) above. It's a mystery to me why APTA doesn't report Portland Streetcar ridership, but my best guess is that the system is owned and managed by a city government, not a transit agency, albeit using contractors (one of whom is TriMet) to carry out most functions. SJ Morg (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that convinces me.

On my original question, I'd love to find a reference like that from APTA (but I'm not sure one exists...). --IJBall (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Type of vehicle Column

I just want to reiterate that the current version of this table is too "squished" while including the Type of vehicle column, and I am planning to "migrate" that information to a new summary systems table that I intend to add to the Light rail in the United States page (where it is far more germane info than it is here in this Ridership table); I then plan to remove the Type of vehicle column from this page to alleviate the "squishing" in the table. However, I'm still at least a couple of weeks from getting to that.

If you have any comments or suggestions on this proposed move/"migration" of the Type of vehicle column info, please follow-up here. --IJBall (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

On Updating The Quarterly Ridership Figures

I am starting to wonder whether it is a good idea to update the Quarterly Ridership figures in this table every Quarter.

1. The first issue is that it's labor-intensive to update the table every Quarter, and I'm starting to think that it's not necessary to do so - wouldn't it be better if we just updated this table once or twice a year?...
2. The other problem, which became glaring with the just-added Q3 figures, is that there are seasonal variations in these light rail ridership figures which probably hobble their usefulness for comparisons, Quarter-to-Quarter.

To minimize the second issue, I am thinking that using Q2 figures year-to-year would be best for comparison's: they would minimize the winter weather effects that would lead to increases and decreases in ridership in some city's systems, and Q2 figures would also minimize the summer tourist "bumps" in ridership that cities like San Francisco's and San Diego's systems seem to see.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal?... --IJBall (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My 2-cents, I don't object to using the Q2 figures when they become available. But I would also suggest that if we are already updating the table with annual figures every Q4 we may as well update the average boardings at that time as well. In this way we only have to update the table twice a year and the numbers are always somewhat recent. -Killian441 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - let's plan on updating both sets of figures every time the Q4 figures become available, and the Quarterly Weekday Ridership figures let's plan on also updating every Q2 as well. --IJBall (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

MBTA

Speaking of reworking the table .... the MBTA has most certainly expanded since 1959 (Alewife was built in the 1980's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figital (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The "expansion" date listed here is in reference to just the Green Line or Ashmont-Mattapan Line. AFAIK, there has been no meaningful change in the routes of either since 1959. (In the case of the Green Line, that will eventually change when the Somerville extension opens...) --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Boston Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line and "Heritage streetcar"

It seems we have an IP editor who is dedicated to having the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line declared as "not" being a heritage streetcar line. Except the very same article he is using to "prove" that Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is not a "heritage streetcar line", explicitly mentions Boston in its United States section.

IP editor seems to be confused by the heritage streetcar's article lede (which, admittedly, needs to be rewritten - that's on my 'To do' list...), but nowhere does the lede exclude continuously operating lines like the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line from the definition.

Unless there is a groundswell of opinion here in favor of the IP editor's position, I am going to revert the IP editor's changes soon - actually, I've already reverted, as IP editor's changes "broke" the 'Notes' section.

So - does anyone else object to characterizing the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line as a "heritage streetcar line". --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Heritage_streetcar#United_States mentions the use of PCC vehicles on the Mattapan line, but stops short of describing it as a relevant example of a "heritage trolley" in the United States. Indeed, the sentence reads as an aside -- a curious and tangential "factoid". It hardly suggests an authoritative classification.

I agree that the lede of Heritage_streetcar could stand to be rewritten, but its clumsy present form fully fits the widely-accepted definition of a "heritage line": a line that has been maintained, revived, or built anew AT LEAST PARTIALLY for the purpose of invoking nostalgic sentiment and infusing another era's "charm" into the civic realm. A heritage line may ALSO serve a vital transportation purpose, but the "charm factor" is fundamental to its existence.

By contrast, the Mattapan line just happens to have remained over the decades, with enough dedicated infrastructure to serve as a vital and non-replaceable link to the rapid transport network, but insufficient ridership to justify upgrading to rapid transit or even to modern light rail cars. The PCC cars, formerly used on the Green Line, continue to be used simply because they are available. There is zero "heritage" intent at play.

Thank you for engaging rationally here, and I apologize if I may have overreacted to the initial dispute.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I too apologize if I came off as "gruff" in those revisions. Anyway, my thinking on this topic is more fleshed out at Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line Talk page, so maybe we should move the main discussion over there... --IJBall (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry as well. I would like to say that I think this page (and the North American and Rapid Transit equivalents) are among the most useful pages related to public transportation on the entirety of Wikipedia, and that's probably why I care so much about their accuracy. I do appreciate the extensive work you've obviously put into them.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One possible compromise here would be to revise the 'Note' to say "This line or system uses heritage streetcars." That's a pretty minor change that still gets across what I want to get across, while still making a concession to your viewpoint. Thoughts?... --IJBall (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That would make sense to me, as long as the consensus is that it doesn't make the page unnecessarily confusing. (It's not quite as vital as, say, the note about the system connecting to heavy subways or commuter rail.) Two other wording options: the more generalized "heritage vehicles", or the "operated using historic streetcars/vehicles" form found in the Mattapan line's info box. I think I'd be fine with any of these, though.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about: "This line or system is operated using heritage streetcar vehicles."? I'll be honest – I find the word "vehicles" to be a little clunky here, and I think I'd prefer: "This line or system is operated using heritage streetcars." But, if you're OK with either of these, I'll go ahead and revise the 'Note' at both pages. --IJBall (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with the shorter version. Perhaps it trades off a bit of accuracy for brevity (in cases where the line itself is not a streetcar), but the pages are already so huge and complicated that brevity is highly desired! 73.53.29.108 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK,  Done! - 'Heritage Note' revised at both pages, as discussed. --IJBall (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning belatedly to say how happy I am that this worked out productively and amicably, despite my initial overreaction. This represents the exact opposite of a couple of bad-taste prior experiences (in which an editor's defensive revert of a good-faith improvement became a protracted edit war, with the clarity of the Wiki page the primary casualty).

You've helped restore my trust in Wiki process. Thanks!

(My unregistered IP does seem to change awfully often, doesn't it?) 50.181.254.76 (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)