Talk:Link light rail

message: @SounderBruce Re: Land Use Impacts, I agree that in text attribution is maybe unnecessary but think it would be helpful to at least include the source because it speaks to local land use impacts and the relationship between Link Light Rail and changing land use / transportation behaviors. Your thoughts?  MarcusLeland (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are better sources out there for the land-use impacts that Link has specifically affected; enabling students and workers to commute in from further out, more affordable housing is applicable to most transit systems and is thus unremarkable. This is a summary article for the system and should not be going into those kinds of details. SounderBruce 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you propose an additional article or? MarcusLeland (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Following up on this, by this metric would it not be logical then to remove this "By concentrating new development along light rail lines (a practice known as "transit-oriented development"), more people can live more densely without the increases in automotive commuting traffic that might otherwise be expected. In addition, the concentration of residents near stations helps maintain ridership and revenue. Climate change activists also point out that compact development around light rail lines has been shown to result in reductions in residents' CO2 emissions, compared to more conventional suburban automotive commutes." because it applicable to most transit systems and thus unremarkable. And not sure what you mean by better sources for land-use impacts Link has specifically affected.  MarcusLeland (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't touched that section yet, so what is written there is entirely disposable to me until I get back to it. SounderBruce 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Use Impacts  

message: Generally speaking think it is warranted to include this given that there are criticisms and ongoing issues / debate around Link Light Rail and starting a new article on this would split it up which is not conducive to Wiki policies.  MarcusLeland (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See the essay at WP:CRIT. A mixed bag section is to be avoided, and it's better to spread it out into appropriate sections. I'm hoping to take this article to GA and FA status in the near future when the dust settles on the Line 2 situation, so it'd be best to avoid making a mess out of things in the meantime. SounderBruce 22:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the essay. Understand you are looking to take the article to GA / FA status but do not think that the article should be compromised / watered down by excluding mention of valid criticism (disability access, technology / design choices, etc. ) in the interest of GA / FA article status. That said, I acknowledge that it would be best spread out into appropriate sections as the essay points out - when I have time I will work on incorporating this (understanding that for something like accessibility, this would require a section or similar on accessibility across the entire system).  MarcusLeland (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create a separate page for the "Link Light Rail" rolling stock. This would tidy up the main page and allow more thorough look into the details for those interested 
As the system grows more and more cars will be ordered, with the 1, 2, and T line expansion in a few years I believe this section will soon become crowded making the overall article difficult to navigate.
Hope I can hear y'all's thoughts! matt. (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be best to have a general Sound Transit fleet article to also remove some clutter from the Sounder and ST Express articles. I've gone ahead and parked a redirect there, but I do have a draft from a few years ago in my userspace that I can revive. SounderBruce 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: that sounds like a really good idea! I'd love to help out :)   matt. (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Sage or something (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for rolling stock 

message: I see that some of the photos are old, and some lacking quality. Might it be a good idea for me to venture out to Seattle and get more to add and replace old ones?
Sage or something (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo quality