Talk:MAX Light Rail

message: What's so special about September 10?  That's the day in 2001 that the red line opened, and according to this article that's also the scheduled opening day for the green and orange lines.  Ipoellet (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (First of all, are we sure its the 10th?)  I believe the beginning September is when TriMet does its major service changes.  It is the start of an operator work quarter and is after the summer season; my guess is that this possibly allows for construction to wrap up during good weather and, moreover, September is when many people go back to school/are done with vacations.  Almost all previous rail lines have opened in early September; the Yellow Line was originally going to before they decided to open it early. --Jason McHuff (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was the 10th of September, 2001 when MAX Red Line opened. Alphalife (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: September 10

message: The articles about MAX could benefit from the use of the Wikipedia:Route diagram template.... 68.167.252.191 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been playing with the rail diagram templates on my user page, please feel free to look, copy and use: User:Yourpalbill/Rail_Diagrams. Bill (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make use of route diagram template 

message: I have made maps of the MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar systems and submitted them to Picture Peer Review.  If anyone would like to, feel free to comment on them there.  Thanks, Jason McHuff (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up, I have sent the MAX map to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see the discussion on it here) and have decided to place it in the article. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the new map, however here is my feedback: You need to add a kilometer scale as well. The "1 mi" is great, but you should add  another tick for "1 km". Alphalife (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments wanted on MAX, Streetcar maps

message: Is there any way we can get the simplified (not geographically correct) map as well as the very nice geographically correct one?  I think both types are very useful. gren グレン 09:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographically correct and not? 

message: I believe the quadrants (Northeast, etc) in station page names should not be spelled out.  I've looked at various places, and I don't see anywhere that TriMet spells them out.  Its always "NE" and never "Northeast". Jason McHuff (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. Jason McHuff (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Station page names

message: I have been comparing several light rail systems in the US by reading their articles.  Of those, MAX appears to be the oldest, longest (in total track length), and has the most routes.  Can someone confirm if this is true for all US light rail systems?  I don't know how it would be handled in the article, but it does seem appropriate. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding age, Portland is only the third-oldest of the "new-generation" US light rail systems, after San Diego (1981) and Buffalo (1984), but that whole area is subject to interpretation, since many older streetcar systems in the U.S. have evolved into light rail by making changes such as replacing single, 45-foot-long cars with 180ft+ trains of articulated cars, adopting honor fare systems to permit boarding via all doors, moving existing tracks into reserved LRT-only lanes, etc.  Many of the older systems really already were light rail (e.g. Philadelphia's suburban "trolley" lines and Cleveland's Shaker Heights lines), or had some common light rail features (e.g. the tunnels in Boston, Phila. and San Fran., or a high percentage of private right-of-way), but have been around since long before the term light rail was coined.  If anyone uses a label like "the oldest" or "the first" in connection with LRT systems, he has to make it clear he's referring only to the new-generation systems (opened 1970s and later; the first in North America was Edmonton in 1978).  With regard to the other points, you can find more data in the article, List of United States light rail systems by ridership, but note that this table actually includes some heritage streetcar systems simply because the Federal Transit Administration apparently groups those systems (when they operate as real transit services) in with LRT for ridership stats. There is also a List of rail transit systems in the United States, another sortable table, but it includes even more rail modes, so be careful to sort it by light rail if you are just comparing LRT systems there. It has a "Lines" column, but it only applies to systems for which someone has written separate Wikipedia articles for a system's different lines, and even so, it has gaps in its coverage (which I haven't had time to look for and fix). SJ Morg (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity? 

message: Passenger carrying capacity is listed "per car", with a note that trains consist of two cars. Each car is itself a "double", being permanently joined in the middle by a flexible coupling. So a train consists of four half-cars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.211.16 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not in proper English.  Each TriMet rail car is a single car, an articulated car consisting of two body sections (or, really, three sections for the Siemens cars, if you count the short middle section).  The connections in the middle of each car are not "couplings", but rather are permanent articulation joints, whereas the cars have railway couplers at their outer ends.  References to these as being "double cars" is terminology that usually arises from inaccurate translation into English from another language. SJ Morg (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stock 

message: In the past there has been a small map showing the MAX service network; now it's gone, with simply a red link to nothing. Did a vandal change the link? Was the file deleted for some reason -- if so, what? (There is a map at commons, but it was created in 2009 & is clearly out-of-date.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Commons page for that map has a message saying it was deleted on November 18, 2013, having been  claimed by someone to be a copyright violation.  Although I support efforts to remove copyright violations from Wikipedia, I had nothing to do with that deletion. Maybe the administrator who deleted it can tell you more, such as what link – to support the claim that the map was  copyrighted – was provided by whoever tagged it as a copyright violation. SJ Morg (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the System Map? 

message: I came here to find the total construction cost of the system, but quickly identified several bits of data which are also missing:
* historical ridership
* system construction cost and breakdown
* maintenance cost
* operational cost:  salaries, electricity, fuel, debt service, etc.
* effects of line openings on other transportation mode utilization
Also, the article does not mention that hot days slow the trains due to overhead catenary droop, nor does it mention that snow and ice mess up the system. —EncMstr (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  For expansion 

message: Thewellman (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox for editors 

message: *http://www.wweek.com/news/2018/06/13/the-price-tag-on-light-rail-to-bridgeport-village-has-grown-by-nearly-a-billion-dollars/ ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source re: Bridgeport Village extension 

message: Should we have a standalone article for the Portland–Tualatin extension? Perhaps, Portland–Tualatin Light Rail Project, or similar?  Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be better known as the Southwest Corridor (Portland), which would be a bit better than destination-to-destination naming. The DEIS seems to say that it will be an extension of the Green Line, so it will have to be merged into that article sometime later. SounderBruce 23:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Too soon, in my opinion.  Although it will be a major project (multi-billion-dollar) when it goes ahead, well worthy of its own article, we are still probably more than three years away from the majority of the funding being in place. The vote for the local share of the funding has been postponed to November 2020, and approval of the federal funding would come after that, maybe more than a year after. SJ Morg (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Thank you, both. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I've boldly redirected it to the Green Line article, and hope that it gets incubated there instead. It would be best to wait until the funding referendum is actually placed on the ballot, instead of potential spending a lot of time maintaining an article about a failed proposal. As a comparison, I'm holding off on creating articles on Seattle's Ballard and West Seattle extensions until the preferred alignment is decided, despite having voter approval. SounderBruce 05:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. SJ Morg (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standalone article for the Portland–Tualatin extension? 

message: I propose splitting the section to its own page. I think there's enough information (and we can definitely add more) to warrant it. A good example: Buenos Aires Underground rolling stock --Truflip99 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: split - Looks like most systems with more than a few types of rolling stock have them split into their own page. Zabacad (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: split dat thing Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi guys! I prefer having the Rolling Stock of MAX Light Rail within the "MAX Light Rail" page, as it used to be, and not on a separate "TriMet Rolling Stock" page. First it is much clearer when it is on one page. Second, it is incorrect to only list light rail vehicles under the page of "Trimet Rolling Stock", as TriMet also has buses and other vehicles. Can this be revised? Thank you very much! 77.57.88.243 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Split rolling stock section to [[TriMet rolling stock]]

message: Hi there! I am not really happy with the split of the Rolling Stock section. I really preferred the way it was before (i.e. all on the "MAX Light Rail" page, instead of the "TriMet Rolling Stock" page). There are several reasons for that:
1.) It is much cleaner to read if it is all on one page. Splitting the Rolling Stock into a new article makes it just more complicated.
2.) TriMet Rolling Stock would not only encompass Light Rail vehicles, but also buses, LIFT vehicles, O&M vehicles and many more. This would lead to the need to split other articles, which is a lot of work, that probably wouldn't be done in the near future.
3.) Linking the Rolling Stock of MAX Light Rail to a general TriMet Rolling Stock page, does not make sense in my opinion either, as it leads to even more confusion. (If somebody reads about MAX Light rail, the only information they want is MAX Light Rail Rolling Stock and not other.)
4.) You would also have to split the Rolling Stock of WES Commuter Rail, which does not really make sense in my opinion, as it is a small paragraph.
I preferred the old style much more! Please consider reverting this. What are your opininions?
77.57.88.243 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse the split of separate Rolling Stock page 

message: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/55095-after-35-years-of-waiting-trimets-green-line-hits-all-the-parties --Truflip99 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  S/N Line history section 

message: * What's ahead for MAX and why it matters, May 14, 2006 --Truflip99 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential crime/safety section 

message: * https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=oscdl_trimet
--truflip99 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOD 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :MAX Gold Line. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#MAX Gold Line until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 06:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "MAX Gold Line" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: First of all, congrats on the GA! What a great Wikipedia entry. I wonder if this article could benefit from an overview of public art associated with the light rail (there are quite a few entries in :Category:Sculptures on the MAX Light Rail, after all). I don't know if I'm willing to draft one at this time, so I know this comes across as drive-by criticism, but just wanted to flag as a possible way to improve this article in the future. In terms of what to include, I doubt the page needs to mention specific artworks, but perhaps there are some general claims about how much funding was dedicated to public art during various construction projects, etc? Sharing in case editors more familiar with the light rail than me recall coming across such info. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: Public art