Talk:Lynx Rapid Transit Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 31, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
April 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
          This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Rapid transit (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality 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 Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This redirect 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)

Dedicated Blue Line article[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:LYNX Blue Line Extension#Move proposal regarding the creation of an article for the Blue Line separate from this LYNX system article. Please comment there. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

CityLYNX Gold Line[edit]

This seems to be a very confusing circumstance now. I'm not sure that CityLYNX Gold Line should be considered "part" of this system. Can somebody show where both Blue and Gold lines are considered part of the "same" system called Lynx Rapid Transit Services? (itself misnamed as neither light rail or streetcar are actually "rapid transit")... In any case, this is a bit of a mess as the Blue Line is light rail, and the Gold Line is streetcar, and anywhere else that I can think of where both types of systems are in operation, the light rail and streetcar systems are considered "separate systems" (e.g. Seattle and Portland). --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In truth, it isn't, they are two separate beasts. Also, funding is different as the Gold Line is totally funded by the City of Charlotte, thus called CityLYNX. However, they are part of the system together of future color lines that utilize light rail, street car and possibly commuter rail, all within' CATS. If you don't feel they should be lumped together, what proposals do you suggest the articles should be organized? --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't really have an answer for that. I'm asking really because I'm more concerned about how to handle this at places like Light rail in the United States, Streetcars in North America, etc., where Portland's and Seattle's streetcar systems are handled separately from their light rail ones. In my opinion, Lynx's Blue and Gold lines should be treated as separate systems on these pages for the same reason. As for this article, I think it needs to be made very clear that while both are part of Charlotte's overall "transit system", these two lines can't really be considered part of one unified "light rail" system, because they really don't seem to be. Also if the two lines' owners, or operators, are separate entities, then that would "cinch it" that these are, in fact, two distinct systems. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood, the funding for the street car is from the City, but it and everything else is still managed/operated by CATS. As for a break out, Charlotte just now has two lines that happen to be different from each other; would we have enough original content to break it out further with LYNX and CityLYNX and then Blue Line and Gold Line. It just seems a lot of departmentalizing for such little amount of information at this time. But hey, that is why we talk about it here. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You say CATS operates both – do you know who "owns" each line? For example, does the city own the Gold Line, but CATS (or some other entity) own the Blue Line?... But circling back to your earlier point, they may be under a "unified transit system" with different "colored" lines, but that doesn't mean that, say, any future LYNX Red Line should be "counted in" with, say, the Blue Line, as the former is commuter rail, and the latter is light rail, which makes them "different modes". The problem is that things get a little "fuzzier" when it's light rail vs. streetcar. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You seemed very confused that this one particular line is funded differently but is still OWNED and OPERATED by the Charlotte Area Transit System. Explaining this would be a long write-up, the quick summary is that its existence has been controversial from the start. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and you're right about the "over-compartmentalizing" thing. I think that's why I'm wondering if this article should exist. The CATS article should cover the whole network. The Blue and Gold lines should get their own articles (and apparently do, now). But does this article need to exist? Is a separate "Lynx Rapid Transit Services" really it's own "thing"? Or should content from this article be merged in to those other articles, and this article then converted into a redirect?... I think that's a real question worth pondering now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Considering some of the articles were recently broken out here, I'm going to say merging is not an option at this time. It is true that CATS uses a branding of LYNX as light rail and CityLYNX as streetcar, at this time. However, I'm hoping others will also way in on this discussion before anything further happens to the layout of these articles. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with modes of transport, funding source, ownership, or trying to fit this into Wikipedia's model of how to define a system. It comes down to how Charlotte-Mecklenburg County describes and organizes its transit system. I just reviewed the websites for CATS and the City of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, and it doesn't seem like "Lynx Rapid Transit Services" exists anymore. At one point, the collection of "rapid transit" lines in Charlotte was known as "LYNX Rapid Transit Services," and there may have been a plan to have a LYNX system operating within CATS. However, other than on Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can find no mention of this entity (though the name does still exist on LYNX Blue Line physical signs). Everything seems to be categorized directly under CATS. "Lynx Rapid Transit Services" does not seem to exist as an entity, and therefore, it does not need its own article here. I agree that this article should be divided up and merged to Charlotte Area Transit System, LYNX Blue Line, and CityLYNX Gold Line. --Scott Alter (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I propose changing/renaming:

These new names are more appropriate and accurate, and can be separate from the dissolution of this page. I don't think we need "LYNX" categories and templates separate from "CATS." Regarding station articles, if they are ever created for other lines, a new category can be created for them. Maybe there would be a separate container category of Category:Charlotte Area Transit System stations. Also, some of the succession templates code/terminology will need to be cleaned up a bit (which I can/would do). --Scott Alter (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If you put in the Requested move, I'll support it... It is kind of a shame to "lose" this article, as it's currently a "Good article" – if this article is divvied up, it means the destination articles will have to be nominated as good articles separately... In any case, I agree with you that it looks like this needs to be done, regardless. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If consensus can be reached here, there is no need for an RM. We can just do it ourselves. --Scott Alter (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the changes. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I just changed the category structure. Category:Charlotte Area Transit System is now the main category for all the articles and templates. This new categorization fits most other transit system categorization on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't have been controversial at all. I'll hold off for a bit on dividing up this article to see if more people comment. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I support the proposed moves per the reasons set out above. Conifer (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)