Talk:Albuquerque Rapid Transit

--23.31.113.138 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ridership data

I've been in contact with ABQ RIDE, who is wrapping up public comment on the proposal. They have not gone through official FTA channels for projected ridership data, nor have they discussed what they will do with the old equipment. I will get that data o here as soon as I can get it (and get it properly cited) ®amos likes messages! 21:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ABQ Ride has figured out what to do with the existing rapid ride buses, and I was told what that is in an email from the principal planner. How would that be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.143.106 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The information would have to be publicly posted on a website, whether it is the city website, a blog, or a news source. The information needs to be seen and verified by other parties (unless you want to post your email login information :) ). If you don't mind my asking, what did ABQRide say they were going to do? You can respond here if you wish, or send me a message. Ramos Can't hear you, TYPE LOUDER!! 19:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I figured as much. Some 6600s along with all 6400s will be retired, and only enough buses to maintain the 790 will be kept if ART goes in. There was some money approved last week by the council for bus replacements which is planned to go towards ART buses. If ART does not happen, the money will be spent on normal 60' buses for the red and green lines. No new rapid ride lines will be started unless the operating budget is increased to pay for them and money is also approved to expand the fleet. The existing buses have too many miles on them to justify keeping them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.143.106 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Local controversy

One major issue missing from this version of the article is that many local organizations, businesses, and people are very against the ART system, as currently proposed. Some general sentiments among many residents of Albuquerque is that the system will cost too much, and that the system is not really necessary. Finally, some citizens feel that the current plan both destroys the current tree-filled medians and prevents drivers from making left turns at most intersections on Central, which is considered by many to be an unacceptable side effect that could possibly decrease traffic into many businesses on Central. Should I use the local newspaper(s) as a source when adding this? 23.31.113.138 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albuquerque Rapid Transit. 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/20150906011756/http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NM__Albuquerque_Central_Ave_BRT_Profile_FY16.pdf to http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NM__Albuquerque_Central_Ave_BRT_Profile_FY16.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)