Talk:Charlotte Area Transit System

message: Reinstated text deleted by user who accused author writing deleted text of being blanket, "anti-rail." 
Writer is a pro-rail user, but has lived in Charlotte since 1979, and understands, after living, and using rail heavily, for 11 years in various cities such as:  Melbourne, Australia, Barcelona, Gdansk, Poland, San Francisco, Miami, Salt Lake City, and visiting countless others, what is the best text for the "Controversy" section, as it relates only to Charlotte, and given the high degree of discernment and foresight, given vast global experiences in cities that have urban rail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopsworldscout (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Excessive Labeling - "Anti-Rail"

message: This article needs a fair amount of work.  The numbering system has been changed and many local routes are now numbered as express routes.  Is the Controversy section needed in whole since the LYNX article also has the same bit?  The Charlotte Trolley bit is also outdated. (It's coming back in March, 2008 by the way.) The information at the top of the article, before the Table of Contents probably should be brought into thte article as it's specifics and not the general information that needs to be there.  --Drmike (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "On August 19th, 2007 the Charlotte Observer revealed that mass transit on Charlotte's existing bus-only system has increased ridership by 66% since 1998, but its operating budget had increased by 170% after adjusting for inflation."
It is a well-know fact among public transit professionals that - with few exceptions - service increases do not attract additional ridership "in proportion." In this respect, the "Observer" story was a classic "Well, d'oh." This needs to be pointed out. Ldemery (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: "Many medium sized and even small cities have a rail system in Europe."
"You may find a city or two that has one rail line or two, but very hard to find one with a rail system close to Char-Meck's population, much less pop density."
This type of argument is not particularly useful... 
Charlotte proper has an estimated 664,000 residents, and the "Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)" has an estimated 1,583,000.
The recently-opened LYNX Blue Line has a system length of 15.5 km. The initial ridership forecast of 9,000 boardings per weekday implies about 3 million per year. If the "average passenger" travels 8 km, then the implied annual passenger traffic density is 1.4 million passenger-km per km of route. In other words, about 1.4 million people travel, "on average," over each km (or mile) of line per year.
The reported ridership is about 12,000 per weekday. That implies about 3.5 million boardings per year, and about 1.9 million pass-km per km of route per year.
The forecast for 2025, 18,300 boardings per weekday, implies about 5.5 million boardings per year, and about 2.8 million pass-km per km of route per year. 
(I will refrain from presenting statistics for various Swiss light railways which 1.) serve remarkably small populations, and 2.) carry remarkably light traffic. These data are available online "from the source" - Statistik Schweiz - but not in English.)
Augsburg, Germany: 2003. Population 390,000. Rail system length (tramway): 35.5 km. Passenger traffic: 30 million. Implied annual passenger traffic density: 3.4 million pass-km per km of route.
Basel, Switzerland: 2002. Population 190,000 (urban). Rail system length (tramway): 49.2 km. Passenger traffic: 88.2 million. Implied annual passenger traffic density: 3.7 million pass-km per km of route. (The Basel tramway carries a very large number of very short trips - the average travel distance was 2.1 km.) 
Bergen, Norway: Population 240,000. 9.8-km light rail line under construction. Passenger traffic forecast (26,000 / weekday) implies 7.5 million per year. Implied annual passenger traffic density: 3 million.
Much more data of the type above is available. Ldemery (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic comparison with "elsewhere" 

message: On June 28th, please be sure to delete the Lincoln County, and Rename the 88x-Lincoln County Express to the Mountain Island Express.
That route has been discontinued as a result of loss of funding, and has been renamed the Mountain Island Express effective June 28th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungshawty (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Service Changes

message: I've added a number of banners with regards to a number of issues with the article.
Before removing and stirring up a hornet's nest of negativity, I'll explain some of the issues below.
# Fancruft is beginning to become apparent in a number of articles, and the articles have become less encyclopaedic due to it.  Please read the article "fancruft" carefully, and ask if you don't understand.
#  A neutral point of view is necessary in every article that appears on Wikipedia.  It is one of the foundations that this site operates on.  Sections in the fleet table such as "the very comfortable seats" is unacceptable, and can be easily challenged and removed without notice.
#  There are a lack of many items that appear to be easily proven with proper citing techniques.  Proper citing brings a bridge of trust to an article, and allows the reader to continue research if they choose to dig deeper.
If you've provided some of the information that's listed as in question, please take the opportunity to improve the article for a subject that you've taken the time to provide information for.
Thank you, and cheers!
--Allamericanbear (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues related to banners on top of article. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charlotte Area Transit System. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605031031/http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/LYNX/home.htm to http://www.charmeck.org/departments/cats/lynx/home.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid%2BTransit%2BPlanning/2030%2BTransit%2BCorridor%2BSystem%2BPlan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the subsection of future projects, if you look at the part talking about the CityLYNX Gold Line Extension, there’s something wrong where it says $40 million. Anyone know how to clean that up LegioV (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CityLYNX Gold Line Extension