Talk:RTD bus and rail services

message: It would be great if this article could include a map of lines. This would include the current lines and the possible lines of the Southeast Corridor when complete, but not the lines expected to be built under the FasTracks plan, given that they are not yet going to be built. If anyone can draw a map, please feel free to do so. MattFisher 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see maps of the current light rail system here.  The T-REX Project (southeast corridor) is here.  I'm not familiar enough with the rules to improve the relevant articles with copies of the maps... sorry.  BetaCentauri 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a map using Google Maps here.  Is that what you were looking for?  I guess you want a map that can be used on Wikipedia.  BetaCentauri 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for proposal for map

message: I readded a small line about the strike, as it is history of the light rail line, and belongs in this article.  I agree the earlier line was to long, not rail centric, and was not NPOV.  This line is short, rail centric, and has NPOV.  EnsRedShirt 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strike

message: So I just noticed that I have spent plenty of time arguing a point here without checking to so what is on the actual article page. I just saw the new table added to the article page quotes data that is inaccurate. the statistics for 2002-2004 Financial and Ridership Data is inaccurate even according to the data that it quotes. For instance, in 2004 the table quotes 82 Million trips, the PDF overview for RTD as a whole lists that number for total ridership among Bus, Light Rail, Demand Response, and Vanpool (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/2004+All/8006/$File/8006.pdf). If no one has too much of an objection, I would be happy to go through these documents and correct these stats. --Chinakow 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Year       	Passenger trips	Fare revenues 	Operating expenses	Capital expenses	Total expenses	Farebox ratio	Farebox recovery including capital expenses
2002       	10,429,572     	$7,826,147    	$18,983,692       	$138,601,876    	$157,585,568  	41.23%       	4.97%
2003       	10,635,977     	$7,463,388    	$20,068,211       	$254,753,902    	$274,822,113  	37.19%       	2.72%
2004       	10,028,459     	$8,050,707    	$21,689,060       	$205,997,532    	$227,686,592  	37.12%       	3.54%
2002 NY MTA	1,694,026,559  	$1,518,164,752	$2,255,945,154    	$2,391,429,069  	$4,647,374,223	67.30%       	32.67%
sources:
RTD 2002
RTD 2003
RTD 2004
MTA 2002
As promised here is the new data specific to the rail system, I do need a bit of help with the formmatting of the table. I would like to add a note that says the New York info is provided for comparison. Also, should I provide another table with the costs and ridership for the total systems? The link for fare box recovery provides a percentage that seems to indicate the MTA recovery was calculated from the same data I provided here. The old data on the actual rail transit in metropolitan Denver article figures fare box recovery by including capital expenses and the linked article about fare box recovery does not. That is why I figured farebox with both capital and without capital expenditures included. Any help with these issues would be appreciated. --Chinakow 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be very wary of using New York as a baseline of comparison, as they operate very different systems in terms of mode and scale.  I would suggest Los Angeles, Portland, San Jose, or Sacramento to provide a more reasonable comparison.  --CComMack 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks very spiffy.  Go for it, says I.  --CComMack 01:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it interesting that LA's capex is so low.  Perhaps it's an indication that they aren't expanding their system, while Denver and San Jose are?  Personally, I think capex recovery is best compared over the long term, rather than compared to the year those dollars were spent. But that is a gray area.  --BetaCentauri 09:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 2002-2004 Financial and Ridership Data 

message: I've added templates for these as well as some stubs for most of the termini.  See the following:
*Union Station (Denver)
*Pepsi Center/Elitch Gardens (RTD)
*I-25/Broadway (RTD)
*Nine Mile (RTD)
*Lincoln (RTD)
*Littleton/Mineral (RTD)
*30th/Downing (RTD)
*Convention Center/Performing Arts (RTD)
My main concern now is how to handle the 16th-18th Street stations.  We could just add something like 18th-California/Stout (RTD) and 16th-California/Stout (RTD) or something similar.  The lines that travel through downtown, e.g. D Line (RTD), F Line (RTD), and H Line (RTD) already adopt a similar approach.
Feedback on what I've added would be greatly appreciated.  Also please feel free to improve these boxes.  This article, if it is cleaned up, could probably be used instead of Regional Transportation District as the page linked to in the start box template.
--BetaCentauri 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since no one replied, I finished adding stubs for all the stations and linking them together.  I decided to use the format 16th/California & 16th/Stout (RTD) and 18th/California & 18th/Stout (RTD).  I'm still working on a way to generate a GFDL/CC/etc. map.  I already have a Google maps version of this, but obviously we can't use that since Google copyrighted their maps.  But I still have the raw GPS data, just need a way to generate an useful map from it.  --BetaCentauri 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you use an RTD map??  Shouldn't anything produced by RTD be copyright free since it is a public agency? EnsRedShirt 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  The copyright-free clause only applies to the federal government, and there are exceptions.  I believe the general rule is that state- and local-level agencies retain the copyright on works produced by its employees.  That being said, I have not asked RTD for clarification.  --BetaCentauri 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTD rail line boxes 

message: The fare box showings Fares for "TheRide" needs to be expanded to include SkyRide, Lightrail & its zones, and so on and maybe a discussion of passes since they have the eco pass, monthly passes, and the college passes, etc. Just a thought. Otherwise you might lead folks to believe the bus to the airport is only 3.75 (which sounds much better than the 8 or so bucks it is). jtowns 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about skyRide, but light rail's zones are described in the "Primary Services" section.  Are you suggesting that a stronger connection should be made between regional service on LRT and the regional fare in the fares box?  LRT fares are the same as bus fares for the same service level.  --BetaCentauri 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel if you are going to bring up money and fares, you should cover it all in the same place or uniformly cover the fares of each service mixed in with each service. Pick a style and go with it. Just be consistent. jtowns 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And on the zones thing, I mean the fare to travel one zone, two zones, all of the zones, etc. Sorry if I was confusing on that part above. jtowns 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how you would want this section changed.  Be bold and change it yourself.  I'll be glad to review your change.  Thanks!  --BetaCentauri 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fare box on page 

message: I went out and took a pic of the Skip in boulder use it if you want--thumbnail|center--K1000 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pic 

message: Could anyone post a map of the light rail system? I would but I don't know how to. 71.59.198.33 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Most of the articles references are just bare urls.  This sucks.  It makes it hard to find a replacement when the website owner reoganizes their site.  I strongly encourage contributors to use full fletched out  templates.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Most of the articles references are just bare urls

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on RTD Bus & Light Rail. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/2014/10/06/icymi_people_are_talking_about_denver_transit.html#
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since this article also covers the commuter rail line, does it need a new title? Is there any reason it's not just called "RTD" or the like -- is there some other article for the agency distinct from the one about its transit routes? --Jfruh (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  new title? 

message: I know I can't be the first reader to stop by here looking to take a quick glance at the system layout, only to find this article (seemingly the primary one on Denver's mass transit system) to be surprisingly disorganized and lacking in any graphic map whatsoever.
The system diagram, a poor replacement for a regular map even in normal circumstances, has apparently been gradually amended as Denver added lines in such a way that it is now all but illegible.
The diagram also contains objectively false artifacts like a "tunnel" surrounding the Louisiana-Pearl station, which in reality sits beneath a partial lid so short that it doesn't even cover the entire platform, and which is entirely exposed on the side to the eleven lanes of highway in the wide open cut that the line and the roadway share. That is *not* a tunnel, by any definition, and no matter how much Denver transit fans may wish their city to have built a subway, wishing doesn't make it so.
I implore whomever is tending to this page to get serious about cleaning it up and fixing its errors and omissions, so that it can become a useful piece of Wikipedia again. 2601:182:CE00:3152:F453:BF92:3FDA:3C97 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map and system diagram 

message: Just found out that the announcements for the light rail (and probably also commuter rail) are provided by Karen Hutton. Unsure of how to cite this, but could only find this video. If someone could actually add this as a reference, I'd much appreciate it. Edgar Searle (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice is Karen Hutton