Talk:METRORail

message: Maybe images shouldn't be tabled, but the layout is broken on my computer without it... RADICALBENDER★ 04:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have created a proposal at:  User:Johntex/Proposal.  I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:
I propose:
(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy
(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:
:(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.
:(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.
(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation.  I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:
:(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003
:(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0), Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia).  I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.
:(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them.  What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail
:(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.
(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility.  My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation.  Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google, 264 on Altavista), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities.  There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.  
In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at:  User:Johntex/Proposal.  Thank you.  Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of the belief that for the time being we should work out the remaining issues on the Houston Chronicle page before merging any article or moving them to a second page. Right now that may only complicate things further, though in the future it may be an option. Furthermore, there is more to be said about TTM and TPT than the Houston Chronicle memorandum issue. IOW, some of the information currently present on this article does not neatly fit into an article specific to the Houston Chronicle. Thus I would propose (1) an article specifically on the Chronicle's memo scandal and (2) an article on the METRORail expansion campaign of 2003 with subsections containing the info on TTM and TPT and redirects from TTM/TTP to the respective locations in that article. Again, I do not think it is yet timely to start this reorganization with other things unresolved though so hold off for the moment. As a second note, I will mention that I do not see how this article proposal substantially impacts the METRORail article itself other than to change around the links pending the outcome we decide. Rangerdude 01:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Move / Merge Proposal 

message: What color is the University Line?? Georgia guy 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Line color 

message: I believe that the links to the political web site, "Wham-Bam-Tram Collision Counter" should be removed. The crash rate should be mentioned but the neutrality needs to be looked at further. --Texaswebscout 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro Crash Rate 

message: I removed the Bias page tag and just added the section bias tag to the sections I believe are somewhat bias. I believe we need to present both sides of the issues. There was a lot of controversy around the METROrail partly because Houston loves a good old fashion scandal. A lot of the people against it where against it because they where afraid of bigger goverment. People love to drive there cars in Houston and anything that may encroach on that right makes them mad. --Texaswebscout 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not really just the bias, the article needs to be cited especially controversial sections. Please cite the article with citations from credible sources. --Ben 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I would like to see a map of the METRORail system drawn for the article. If anyone can do one, please feel free to do it. MattFisher 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on one should be done 2/8/2006, --Ben 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for map proposal 

message: I would like to see some more information on the ridership and success of the METRORail system on a riders per mile basis for the article. I think that the information is available, but didn't want to add it without some additional thoughts. Thanks! --Jsabs 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds useful to me, please add the info if you can find it.  If you need help adding it, please post back here with what you've found.  Thanks! Johntex\talk 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for ridership and overall neutrality 

message: Why is there no financial information published on the METRORail website? 
An informal analysis of a North Carolina metropolitan bus service which is moving strongly toward light rail as well(TTA)  I did several years ago showed cost per ride of $50! In 2005 the fare receipts were $1.5M, and the expenses related to the Board of Directors was $1M. One wag commenting on a light rail system located elsewhere noted that with X number of riders per year the cost of the system in his area was equivalent to leasing each rider a new Jaguar automobile every three years. A review of the Washington D.C. area light rail seemed to show reasonable numbers, but the cost and subsidy per ride were still not broken out.
Not surprisingly, this N.C. information was not available directly, but derived by dividing the revenues from all sources (fares were a minimal portion) by the number of rides for the year. Public transportation can be a great convenience, but astronomical cost to the public can only be a drain on the economy and on important uses like schools and roads. How can this cost be minimized with no information available? 
With billions of dollars in the till and no accountability, these organizations really need to be independently audited on an annual basis. Tobyw 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Financial Information Found on METRORail Website 

message: I added a sentence and cite (a whole sentence!), but am not confident enough or think it's proper to put the crash late on a yearly graph.   If additional wording is needed, please do so. 
Thanks--Hourick 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated latest Metro Release of Crash rate with link. 

message: Whoever keeps putting that probably needs to stop. That isn't what the Red Line is called. METRO has tried correcting this, too. It is a common misconception among people (especially those against rail who like to say that "it doesn't even run on Main Street" to make METRO sound stupid).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main Street Line" 

message: * I created a SVG map released into the public domain. Everyone is suppose to be using SVG and not JPG/GIF/PNG when possible. I think I have fixed any problems with the map. So I have changed the image back to the SVG version. -Ben 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Line Map 

message: Undue weight has been given to the system's future expansion.  Over half the article is taken up with details of future plans.  If I wrote an article about New York City, for example, the focus would be on what exists rather than what will.  I propose moving details of the future expansion to METRORail 2011-2020 expansion and leaving behind an outline here.--Loodog (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: I wouldn't. I would just move the expansion plans (new stations and new lines, etc.) to their own pages. It's simple. Someone needs to get the route maps up on the other lines because who ever edited it left it looking sloppy. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ya go, I've trimmed about 4K off the article, removed copious redundancies, and given the future plans weight more commensurate with their current importance.  I think it does wonders for readability.--Loodog (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some minor editing in relation to that. all in all, the page is MUCH better. IAH777 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Undue Weight 

message: Trill, what's up?  You reinserted the section I deleted about "Light Rail lines".  That section was ridiculously redundant and absurd considering there's only one line.  Compare it with the intro:
Why dilute the article and write the same thing twice?  Why give a sole line its own section that says nothing the lead doesn't?  More importantly, why write about lines not scheduled to be running for 4 years as if they already exist?  Future expansion is already covered below.--Loodog (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion of redundant material 

message: Because there is a Red Line page. How else are we suppose to link to the Red Line page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a redundant article anyway since METRORail is the Red Line.  It contains the exact same information. I move to merge.--Loodog (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i second merging the two pages. IAH777 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm coming into this little debate, but why not just offer a brief summery on the redline on the summery page and go into more detail on the Redline Page?  this isn't unprecedented.  Chicago's L include a list that includes all of the lines, but offers a separate page (example: orange line) along with individual stations.  While it's still a bit too soon to go into much depth with the other lines, I think it currently is time to set a organizational standard at the moment or else we risk some major rewrites and confusion in the future.--Hourick (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a merge. It's excessive to have separate pages for the system and the line when the system only is one line; there will be plenty of time to separate if needed should other lines come to be built. David Arthur (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support DavidArthur's argument and sentiments.--Loodog (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And done.  The pages have been merged.  When and if other lines are created, this article may warrant more subarticles.--Loodog (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. Look at the page now. Messy. Having the Red Line page with the stations on there was much better. The current METRORail page could still have: a brief summary, rolling stock, future expansion, and controversies. It looks pathetic now. Hell, even the Charlotte LYNX page is much, much better. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no clear division between ‘Metrorail’ and ‘Metrorail Red Line’; there would either be no consistent principle defining what belong to each page (why is the rolling stock or the crash-rate controversy more relevant to the brand name than to the line?), or we would have to create one, which would be tantamount to original research. David Arthur (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's at least model it after Charlotte's LYNX page. They did a great job with that. Even the Minneapolis residents have made their light rail page (which has one line like Charlotte) much better and more organized. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Be Bold if there's something you don't like.  The only thing we're agreeing against is the creation of a Red Line section while no other lines exist.  As for the LYNX page, I do rather like it, except that they also gave an entire section to their only line.  Fixing time...--Loodog (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Line 

message: Trill, I noticed you bumped "future expansion" to ahead of "crash rate".  I object to this change for three reasons:
#Again places emphasis on something that does not exist yet over something that does, the exact trend I wanted to reverse ever since the days when the "future" section was over half the article.
#It's unnatural organization by "temporal" considerations, i.e. 1. This is the system today, 2. This is the planned system for 5 years from now, 3. This is the crash rate today.
#It's inconsistent with LYNX Rapid Transit Services, Green Line (MBTA), LACMA, St. Louis MetroLink, and TheRide transit pages.
--Loodog (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of "future expansion" section 

message: This seems like it might have been settled with little far reaching impact.  If no one objects, I will blank it out after a month or so and simply merge it to the rest of the section. --Hourick (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like the section is starting to get a bit out of control as far as the length goes, and some of the statements is almost WP:NPOV.  Perhaps a bit of trimming? While quite a bit of is referenced, not all of it is needed. --Hourick (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Buy American" section 

message: I'd like to put in a request for someone who knows how to edit the box labeled "Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas". Because of the discovery of information that has changed the lines, is there a way to get the box to reflect these changes (i.e. instead of "North/Blue Line", show that it is now the "North/Red Line Extension", etc.)? Likewise, is there a way to edit the headers of the articles to reflect these changes? Oliver kanjo (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Out Box 

message: While I believe the names should be renamed, I am not sure that not referring them only to the section of town is appropriate or consistent with other articles such as, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Los Angeles County Metro Rail, and Pittsburgh Light Rail.  But as it has been demonstrated so far, they can't seem to settle on a color scheme yet, so I recommend that we change the names back and rename them when the lines are completed. --Hourick (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked through the METRO Solutions website and as far as the North Line, East End Line, and Southeast Line are concerned, METRO is using the colors from Go METRORail as an official update for the lines. At the very least I would like to suggest that they reflect this. Oliver kanjo (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Line article names. 

message: Anyone is free to move the pictures back to their original spot, but I wanted to give a heads up that I was shifting the two photos of the actual cars to the "Rolling Stock" section so that I could better place the maps (both the current map and the downtown map that I found) under the "Future Expansion" section. This way, it doesn't look as clunky down toward the bottom. Oliver kanjo (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Realignment 

message: I was going to move the information in the "History" section into the "Controversy" section until I noticed that the information had been duplicated. If no one is opposed to it, I'd like to remove the "History" section altogether since the only information it contains is both listed and under the proper section. Oliver kanjo (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a "merge" of the information.  While I'm not fond of the controversy section myself, it WILL be part of the history of what trials this system has gone through to be constructed.  Metro ran a series on the community channel (ch14) about the history of metro, but I was never able to find an online equivalent online. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the metro articles. --Hourick (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that seems good.  The controversies are basically history for the most part and have little relevance other to what metro has gone through. Mentioning of the accidents could me shrunk to a sentence or two.  Even the most serious ones didn't include any major policy changes that I'm aware of, so that can be a brief mention as well, if not deleted altogether.--Hourick (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How does The Woodlands (a master-planned community in Houston's ETJ) involve METRORail and the Museum District?  I understand that The Woodlands is contributing money to the city of Houston to fund projects per the agreement, but it has nothing to do with The Woodlands being directly involved in the Museum District or METRORail.  Also, what "annexed towns" are you referring to in your post above?  —RJN (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The first sentence is confusing: The opening of METRORail on January 1, 2004, came 64 years after the previous streetcar system was shut down, which left Houston as the largest city in the United States without a rail system since 1990 when the Blue Line opened in Los Angeles.  Does this mean that Houston 1) became the largest city without rail in 1940, or 2) acquired this dubious honor in 1990? Casey (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I found:
*Oberg, Ted. "Why is rail working in Dallas and not Houston?" - KTRK. Monday March 15, 2010.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ted Oberg Houston and Dallas

message: Putting this as a reminder for a ref before it disappears so I can add when I have time: 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7445303.html
if anyone else wants a crack at it, by all means go for it.  Wish they specified what model and style of cars they are. --Hourick (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah cars in Texas 

message: *Gray, Lisa. "Gray: Metro asks artists to give riders a sense of place." Houston Chronicle. Wednesday October 12, 2011. 
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: An image used in this article, File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg, 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
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Apparently, METRO is holding a competition for the design of a new station on Main between Capital and Rusk. , there is a mention of it on the official blog .  I wish I had more time to include it in the main article, but I just saw this in passing.
Additionally, at what point are we going to have a separate article simply for the line itself?--Hourick (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Station 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/houston-metrorail/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: A map is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.88.234 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No map? 

message: The Green and Purple lines need to be added into the article now. They're open now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.161.190 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait until Saturday, when they officially open. Conifer (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They're open now. I just rode on them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.161.190 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green and Purple need to be added 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on METRORail. 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/20090923122927/http://www.transportation.siemens.com:80/usa/en/pub/products/vehicles/vehicle_lines.htm to http://www.transportation.siemens.com/usa/en/pub/products/vehicles/vehicle_lines.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.transportation.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/sts_usa_internet/houston_s70.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727215458/http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2011/02162011.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2011/02162011.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106200556/http://www.ridemetro.org:80/News/Releases/2011/09292011.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2011/09292011.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217020535/http://www.metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/549823/ to http://www.metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/549823/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607232147/http://www.khou.com/news/Feds_Scold_Mero_and_Take_Action_To_Protect_Taxpayers-91788899.html to http://www.khou.com/news/Feds_Scold_Mero_and_Take_Action_To_Protect_Taxpayers-91788899.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on METRORail. 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/20150525172242/https://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/ParkRide.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/ParkRide.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330033705/http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdfs/700-redline.pdf to http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/Pdfs/700-redline.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transportation.siemens.com/usa/en/pub/products/vehicles/vehicle_lines.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Releases/2011/09292011.aspx
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) 21:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on METRORail. 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/20150524125133/https://ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/ParkRide/Fannin.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMaps/ParkRide/Fannin.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525171936/https://www.ridemetro.org/Services/Rail/PaidFareZones.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/services/Rail/PaidFareZones.aspx
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120904055113/http://www.khou.com/home/Metro-announces-49M-budget-shortfall-101085904.html to http://www.khou.com/home/Metro-announces-49M-budget-shortfall-101085904.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606145813/http://www.rail.co/2011/12/08/900m-awarded-to-extend-houstons-light-rail-system/ to http://www.rail.co/2011/12/08/900m-awarded-to-extend-houstons-light-rail-system/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525172256/https://www.ridemetro.org/Services/Rail.aspx to http://www.ridemetro.org/Services/Rail.aspx
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) 20:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lprez (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods