Talk:MetroLink (St. Louis)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned Station Pages[edit]

There are currently a bunch of separate pages for Metrolink stations from North Hanley to Forest Park that are inaccesible from the main page here. Since each of the station pages has very little info to offer, would it not be better to merge those pages into this Metrolink page somehow? A station list of sorts. --Millbrooky 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The stations seem to have been linked in the interim, along with new articles for the rest of the Missouri stations and a few in Illinois. I'd suggest adding stub tags and trying to gather more material for them. Lordsutch 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea that each individual MetroLink Station is notable seems crazy to me. Grand Central Station is notable. Individual Metrolink stations are not. Can't we just include any relevant information on this page and then delete the individual station pages? TMS63112 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sort of what I was arguing a while ago that without any notable information, the individual station pages should be deleted. For example, the Union Station (St. Louis Metrolink) fails to add any information aside from the obvious that it is near St. Louis Union Station. Park and Ride information does not deserve a separate page. --Millbrooky 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guess what; I just found an official collection of station profiles with details that can be added to each station. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new stations[edit]

I know the new Skinker station opened today, as well as several others. How should these be added? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:St Louis Metro Logo.gif[edit]

Image:St Louis Metro Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red/Blue Lines Update[edit]

I took the liberty of doing some line descriptions with matching colorized titles, added some pictures I took, etc. to the page. If someone feels like proofreading it so that way it doesn't look like it's droning on incessantly or something I'd appreciate it. We still need to add some more pictures to the page, and somehow make one of those maps where you can click on stations and it will direct you to that stations respective page (as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Street_Subway under Route map) if someone has any idea how to do that or knows a place where to make a request to do that.

P.S according to a memo from Metros website metrolink ridership increased about 10-11 thousand to around 77.5 thousand a day.

DMG-42 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. I'll see about better incorporating what you wrote into the article. May I ask which memo you've seen that mentions the increased ridership? --Millbrooky (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/NewsRoom/releases/2008-027AprilRidership.pdf shows record ridership which when divided equals something to the tune of 77k we'd probably get a more updated ridership stat at the end of this year. DMG-42 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red / Blue Line Articles should be merged back into this section[edit]

They don't look nearly notable enough to be in their own sepreate articles; a section each on this article should suffice. Jon (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act[edit]

In the proposals put forward by Mayor Slay and Mr. Dooley there were a number of changes to the metrolink. One of the big ones is the possibility of a North-South Line. There is also the replacement of rolling stock etc. Find it if you can, I lost it. There's a PDF file somewhere with all the projects listed.

Daron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.74 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Transit Forward[edit]

It isn't an official plan, but it is very much officially organized. DaronDierkes (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map[edit]

User:71.167.17.227 finally explained his/her repeated deletion of the map in the infobox via an edit summary. The user said, "I deleted [the map] because it is an inaccurate & unprofessional representation of the Metrolink system. The remaining map is closer to the official Metro image." I think the user has a point. --Millbrooky (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine map and comparable with other transit system maps. I don't see a problem with it. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I too don't see a problem with our map. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Below are some of the problems I have with the map that make it look amateurish. That it is comparable with maps on other transit system articles does not speak highly of the quality of those images. Some of my reason are:

  • straight lines between stations on an otherwise geographic map
  • labels that are partially obscured by lines
  • stations that aren't circular and have incomplete fills (that black radial line within the station dot isn't on purpose)
  • weird transparency issues.

Basically, what I'm saying is the map could be a lot better. That being said, it's no excuse for the repeated removal of the map (should be considered a WP:3RR violation) by the anonymous user. --Millbrooky (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last issue (all are small issues btw.) is my biggest, I think it might be b/c the file is an svg file most other transit maps on here are pngs. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another inaccuracy with this map is that it shows the blue and red lines merging into a pink line, and it does so without any map key or explanation. This is an amateurish and ambiguous way of showing that the two lines run together. Nowhere in any Metro literature or maps is there a pink line or a 3rd color used to show the two lines running together. Also, no other transit map on Wikipedia (Boston, San Francisco, DC, Chicago, New York) shows two lines merging and changing color. Basically this is a really bad and misleading transit map that detracts from the page. 71.167.17.227 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point, however. the map is not as inaccurate, bad, etc... to be deleted. If the original creator or another wikipedia user wants to take some time and create a new version of the map then we can replace it. I don't think any of the maps on wikipedia or even offical maps from the transit companies are perfectly accurate-these arent satellite views. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official maps from municipal transit agencies should always be given preference over amateur interpretations of a transit system. Official agency maps are the ones that riders of the system see at stations, on the agency's website, and at tourism offices. It should not be assumed that one's own interpretation of the system is somehow more informative or accurate than the map developed by the professionals at the tax-payer funded transit agency. Therefore, the placement of the two maps on this page should at least be switched, since the current 2nd map more accurately reflects the official St. Louis Metrolink Schematic Map, which can be found here: http://www.metrostlouis.org/MetroBus/Maps/SystemMaps/MLSchematicMap102708.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.17.227 (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official maps are, in most circumstances, copyrighted, and cannot be used. Thus the reason for look-alikes or original creations scattered on other transit system articles. The map you keep trying to delete is a supposed to be a geographic representation of the MetroLink system; it could be better, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Metro also has alternative maps posted at stations that look more like the kind you find at amusement parks. As for your proposal to switch the placement of the two maps, why not be bold and see if your edits stick (make sure to use the edit summary). Though I will say I prefer the schematic map where it is. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former railroad lines[edit]

I see categories here claiming that MetroLink operates on former Wabash Railroad, Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad lines. Which stations were along these systems? ----DanTD (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on MetroLink (St. Louis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MetroLink (St. Louis). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on MetroLink (St. Louis). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MetroLink (St. Louis). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MetroLink (St. Louis). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light Metro?[edit]

Could the Metrolink be considered a light metro since it has a completely separated right of way, high-level platforms, and higher top speed than even many rapid transit systems? It feels closer to a rapid transit system than to most light rail systems in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckania (talk • contribs) 07:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I thought this was discussed a few years back but I can't find the discussion. One issue is that since Light Rail is still a fairly new form of public transit and kind of a modern re-form of streetcars and interurban railways. There's a wide range and lots of gray areas with some systems more = to streetcars and others more = to heavy rail, interurban, or heavy true metro operations. Personally I believe that MetroLink more than qualifies as a light metro and really it's rolling stock and a few tight curves downtown St. Louis are the only commonalities to light rail, but we will need references to support that idea. There does seem to be some references that it should be listed as a light metro, aka Medium-capacity rail system. i.e the following possible citations: [1][2] [3] --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a St. Louis native and frequent user of the system, I disagree with this, strongly. MetroLink uses lighter vehicles, shorter trains, overheard power and the owner/operator itself considers the system light rail.
While it may share some characteristics of a "light-metro" much of this can be attributed to its original right of way considerations and that it predates modern low floor vehicles. The system does not function with similar rolling stock and especially the automation that characterizes light-metro's like a Vancouver SkyTrain.
MetroLink shares more characteristics with other American and Canadian light rail systems that built in freeway and railroad rights-of-way. St. Louis just uses level boarding, like Calgary and Edmonton in some places. Other cities like Denver use low-floor LRVs that you have to step up inside of (SD100/160s which are the low floor variation of our SD400/460s) while running in very similar right-of-ways. Our N/S expansion plan will also use street running LRVs and won't use the dedicated ROW like the existing system does.
MetroLink could potentially be considered a "semi-metro" (subway-surface) however, these fall under the general umbrella of light rail.
There are many definitions for these types of public transit systems. It's probably best to go with what the agency itself considers it to be. Lightmetro (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, the system is fully grade separated. They are even currently installing turnstiles. I know it has grade crossings with gates, but so does the Chicago L, and its status as a metro never comes into question. The point I'm trying to make is, this system has more in common with the Chicago L, PATCO, the NORSTOWN High Speed Line, or better yet, the Cleveland Red Line, that it does that say, Salt Lake City, Portland, or Pheonix. The fact that the RTA red line will soon be using the same rolling stock as Metrolink is going to make this even muddier. Another thing that will make this muddier is the north-south line, which will use low floor trams and run on a street. This will be a separate system than the red and blue lines so some kind of distinction will need to be made if that day ever comes.
At the end of the day, something needs to be said about its metro-like characteristics, but I believe the article as is already does this. Rckania (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing I want to add. What's the difference between the Newcastle Metro and the St Louis Metrolink? I have ridden on both and they are exactly the same. They even run similar rolling stock. And yet, the Newcastle Metro is considered a metro without question. Rckania (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pedestrian crossings across tracks at stations are not something I’m familiar with on a true metro system. There are multiple locations where you access platforms by walking over one of the tracks in St. Louis.
This is easy though. I’ll simply reach out to the owners of the system and ask them to clarify. I already know what they’ll say.
Never mind the first source specifically separating MetroLink and the Noristown HS line specifically because of the rolling stock. These articles have existed for how long? Why are we suddenly trying to shoehorn in a new identity for a system that’s had the same identity since it opened in 1993? There are a dozen or more sources on this very page referring to MetroLink as LRT. Never mind the MCS page NOT including MetroLink. Lightmetro (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fair enough. The only true rapid transit systems with pedestrian crossins like that would be the Chicago L and the Rotterdam Metro. There is no need to shoehorn anything. I am still curious about what the rolling stick implications will be once the RTA Red Line starts running the same vehicles as Metrolink. Rckania (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You shared some very interesting information. --Rckania (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken daily ridership template?[edit]

This intro text wasn't displaying daily ridership ("...or about {{American transit ridership|MO Saint Louis LR daily}} per weekday as of {{American transit ridership|dailydateasof}}") so I removed it. I looked at the template documentation, but couldn't see how to fix this; maybe someone else can help? PRRfan (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page for the Green Line / Jefferson Alignment[edit]

I believe a separate page for the new MetroLink line should be created as there will only be more information as the project progresses, however, I would like to get others opinions on this!  :) matt. (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; once there’s enough information and development on the project, I’d say yes; split the article. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MetroLink_(St._Louis)&oldid=1215032208"