Talk:MAX Light Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleMAX Light Rail has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 11, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the MAX Light Rail system in Portland, Oregon, includes North America's deepest transit station, at 260 ft (79 m) below ground?

September 10

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Yes, it was the 10th of September, 2001 when MAX Red Line opened. Alphalife (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make use of route diagram template

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments wanted on MAX, Streetcar maps

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Geographically correct and not?

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)[reply]

Rumored extension subsections

Regarding the "rumored or briefly mentioned" subsection, I've added a {{Fact}} tag to the subsection header as I'd like all six possible extensions addressed. Some I've heard of (i.e. the possibility of extending MAX service to MHCC or to Clackmas Town Center), but others (like a MAX line all the way down Barbur from downtown Portland to Tigard) are new to me. Surely I'm not completely out of the loop??? —MicahBrwn (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to use the template for "this section does not cite any sources", or cite each instance. Citing the heading highlights the citation needed because the system knows it doesn't belong there, and the citation needed also shows up in the contents box.
I'm not clear why you tagged the material. Is it because you want to see more inforamtion on the subjects because it interests you, or because you doubt the information provided? Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, of course. Of course I'm interested in the subject because I love riding on MAX and would like to be able to ride it all the way to Clackmas Town Center (for instance) … but I'm doubting the veracity of the statement. As for your suggestion to replace the fact tag with the "this section doesn't cite any sources", you're right, that would be more appropriate. Unfortunately, I can't find that specific one. Would the {{Disputed-section}} tag work? —MicahBrwn (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to but in here, but I'd like to point out that "possibility" is not the right word to use for "extending MAX service to Clackmas Town Center". The MAX Green Line has been under construction and should open next year all the way to Clackamas Town Center. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The markup for the no sources tag is {{Unreferencedsection}}. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these MAX expansions are mentioned in TriMet's Transit Investment Plan (TIP, fiscal year 2008). I didn't add this area to begin with, so that may not have been where it originated from, though. I've added a citation to the category and tweaked the wording.

You can find the information about these extensions here, in section 2:Expand high-capacity transit. It goes over them in detail from pages 47-51, as well as details of other rail extensions such as Eastside, Oregon City, Vancouver, Milwaukie, and Wilsonville. The report also has other great TriMet info. Hope this helps. Alphalife (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation. Glad to see these extensions are not just rumors. The citation doesn't belong in the section header, though, just as citation needed tags don't belong there. A good solution is to make an introductory sentence ahead of the list of extentions, and then put the citation there.
I'm sorry to be critical, but being loose with formatting like this makes the article hard to read. Like these last sections of the article used to be. The constant, clear format of Wikipedia is a great advantage. It's one thing that helps Wikipedia make the internet "not suck" as Jimbo Wales has pointed out. So, if you aren't sure how to do some formatting, just ask someone before you do it. Thanks for impoving the article with your additional content. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made it look prettier. I'm not good with potpourri, though. I ask that someone else make it look nicer. It should look professional enough for now. Alphalife (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Station page names

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)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. Jason McHuff (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity?

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)[reply]

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
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)[reply
]

Rolling Stock

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)[reply]

No, not in proper English. Each TriMet rail car is a single car, an
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)[reply
]

What happened to the System Map?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For expansion

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)[reply
]

Userbox for editors

Code Result
{{User:Thewellman/Userboxes/Portland}}
This user rode the
MAX Light Rail
 Usage

Thewellman (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source re: Bridgeport Village extension

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone article for the Portland–Tualatin extension?

Should we have a standalone article for the Portland–Tualatin extension? Perhaps, Portland–Tualatin Light Rail Project, or similar? @SJ Morg: Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good. Thank you, both. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related to above, see

Southwest Corridor light rail project. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]
I concur. SJ Morg (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split rolling stock section to TriMet rolling stock

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
split dat thing Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been split. Thanks. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reverse the split of separate Rolling Stock page

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)[reply]

S/N Line history section

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)[reply]

Potential crime/safety section

TOD

--truflip99 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MAX Gold Line" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Missing: Public art

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MAX_Light_Rail&oldid=1213588847"