Talk:Baltimore Light RailLink

Boarding Payment

I updated the reference to paying to get between modes. In Baltimore all modes of local transit on the MTA require a payment per boarding (unless you buy a pass), even when the lines a passenger uses connect.

http://www.mtamaryland.com/fares/currentfares/ --D carth kelly 08:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted your change D Carth kelly - The complaint is about the fact that tranfers between LR and subway are not free. As you point out, all intermodal changes are the same way; regardless, it remains a criticism slightly more irksome than a bus to rail transfer. If you get on the light rail in Boston, transfers to the subway are free. In fact, in every other system I'm aware of, transfers between one type of local rail and another are free. Result: I changed it back to say that fare must be paid twice, but added that this is true of all MTA intermodal transfers.--Loodog 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, I understand this seems weird if you don't live in the area, but this is by right a criticism that should be levelled at the Maryland MTA as a whole. It's not just intermodal transfers: you don't get a free transfer even when you transfer from one bus to another. In fact, the light rail is the only MTA service where one fare gets you a ride on more than one vehicle: you can transfer from one light rail line to another without paying for a new ticket. --Jfruh (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the criticism, there was a few points that I considered before I revised the wording:
-The light rail system serves the local area, just as the other modes within the system do.
-Because the system is local, is the means of charging fare when transferring between the light and heavy rail systems substantially different than transfers between other modes used in the system (bus to [local or commuter] rail, bus to bus, Mobility service to any other mode)?
-The article is not a discussion of differences between light rail systems run by other government or private groups.
-Using totally different equipment, not connecting, use of different means to proceed through certain intersections on the system (the light rail operator sometimes has to reach out of the control cab to press a platform-mounted button, like a pedestrian would, to gain right-of-way) and having separate maintenance facilities for the rail modes, all contribute to the reality that the light and heavy rail systems are separate "bus" lines, so to speak.

Given the separations that exist between the rail systems, I don't think that a free transfer was expected by anyone locally. (Otherwise, public protests would have forced the issue.) The original criticism of the transfer would fit, but not in an informational article about Baltimore's light rail system. --71.179.34.52 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling stock

Light Rail vehicle on Howard Street downtown

Each car is shown to have three trucks, only articulated passenger cars or trams have three or more trucks. Rigid North American passenger cars are 85 ft or 86 ft long and 10 ft 6 in wide. Freight cars are 10 ft 8 in wide. See Loading gauge for dimensional data. A rigid 95 foot long car would be "fun and games" on tight curves. Peter Horn 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, the cars are articulated. Thanks for adding that point to the article. --Jfruh (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fares

Attempted to add complete fare structure to section entitled "Fares and transfers." Immediate revert and reference to Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Re-reverted and explained to find immediately re-re-reverted with demand for explanation.

Explanation: adding fares to the "Fares" section feels a little bit like common sense, not like writing a travel guide. We're not talking about adding information about the amenities available at each stop, nor on the scenery along way; we're talking about adding basic encyclopaedic data.

Globaledits (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor, please start new topics at the bottom of the page.

The level of detail offered is above and beyond what is needed to describe the light rail system. Such information is more suitable to wikitravel, since it's simply nonnotable detail existing solely to be of use to a traveler. Such information is also available at the MTA's website, which has been linked to.--Loodog (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking the Light Rail

Attempted to add an article about Taking the Baltimore Light Rail for the first time, as it is chock full of information. I'm unsure as to why it was moved. Yes, it links to somewhere else, but can't external links be used here? I'm unclear as to why this particular one was cut. It was written specifically to help people understand the Light Rail, and what they needed to do to take the first move in taking it. Thanks.

There are no such things as "yellow" and "blue" lines

While the various light rail routes are colored fairly consistently on maps, the terms "Yellow Line" and "Blue Line" aren't used by the MTA (and, as far as I know, aren't consistently used by passengers in practice), and thus shouldn't be used in articles about the light rail. While this terminology isn't used in this article, I've noticed it creeping into the individual station articles. I'm going to edit those to remove the references, but I'm putting this note here as a place to refer people to when I make the tweaks, and for further discussion. --Jfruh (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baltimore Light Rail. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207003754/http://www.mtamaryland.com/MTA%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202007%20031308.pdf to http://www.mtamaryland.com/MTA%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202007%20031308.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909233527/http://www.baltimorerailplan.com/linked_files/brreportfinal.pdf to http://www.baltimorerailplan.com/linked_files/brreportfinal.pdf

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltimore Light Rail. 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/20090207003754/http://www.mtamaryland.com/MTA%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202007%20031308.pdf to http://www.mtamaryland.com/MTA%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202007%20031308.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light RailLink. 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/20101228100635/http://www.baltometro.org/TIP/TIP2010_13Final.pdf to http://www.baltometro.org/TIP/TIP2010_13Final.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) 18:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fares and transit connections

Currently there is content that reads: "There are no cross-platform connections with the Metro Subway. The Lexington Market subway and light rail stations are a block apart and connected only via surface streets. There are plans to cover the sidewalk between the two stations.[9]" It should read: There are no cross-platform connections with the Metro Subway. The Lexington Market subway and light rail stations are a block apart and connected only via surface streets." The current connection city sidewalk is uncovered (as of Nov 2018). There are no plans for them to be covered, and the cited article is from 2009. I think after 9 years we can consider that point closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.224.219.226 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it's been shown to be a high priority for the city. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Including the disambiguated Mt. Vernon, which is moved to Mt. Vernon station (Light RailLink).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Timonium Fairgrounds station (Light RailLink) → Fairgrounds station
• Timonium Business Park station (Light RailLink) → Timonium station
• Mount Royal station (Light RailLink) → Mt. Royal/MICA station
• Centre Street station (Light RailLink) → Mt. Vernon station
• University Center / Baltimore Street station → Baltimore Arena station
• Hamburg Street station (Light RailLink) → Stadium/Federal Hill station
• Cromwell / Glen Burnie station → Glen Burnie station

– I was made aware of the fact that the article names of seven of the stations on the system currently use their former names. This is because two years ago, another user had previously moved the article names from their new, official, updated names, back to their old names under the rationale of WP:COMMONNAME. While back then I could definitely see the argument as to that people wouldn't be yet used to the new names, I'd argue that two years is a sufficient period of time for people to have gotten well-acquainted with and adjusted to the new names, and as such WP:COMMONNAME would now apply in favor of moving them back to their new names. At this point it's just silly to retain the former names for these stations for their respective article names. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisted. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The MTA site, schedule, and GTFS all agree. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The moves back were in error even then. WP:COMMONNAME includes the clause WP:NAMECHANGES, which was improperly ignored. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment a Mt. Vernon station article would need at least a hatnote to Mount Vernon railway station in Scotland or perhaps Mount Vernon (disambiguation)#Transportation stations. Certes (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely. Would the article title be better as Mt. Vernon station (Light RailLink) instead? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Any additional thoughts about certain article name spellings? The MTA abbreviates "Mount" as "Mt." on their Light RailLink maps. Which spelling should be preferred here? (If Mt. is preferred, Mount Washington station should also be moved to Mt. Washington station for consistency across the system). Additionally, spaces exist between the words and slashes (like for example Mt. Royal / MICA station on their maps, vs. Mt. Royal/MICA station which is cleaner in my opinion. Should these spaces be included or the spaces deleted? Just figured that we clear this up and enforce spelling consistency across the system. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: for consensus on Mt. Vernon station Bensci54 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, and Mt. Vernon should be disambiguated as Mt. Vernon station (Light RailLink). Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.