Jump to content

Talk:Buffalo Metro Rail

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

Not Going to happen

[edit]
Two lines that are at the front of their cause include the Airport Corridor, and a Tonawanda Corridor.
The Airport Corridor is planned to begin in Downtown Buffalo, near the current Metro Rail's CHURCH station, and continue in an easterly direction in/out Division Sts., diagoanally in a northeastern direction near Jefferson toward the abandoned New York Central Terminal, cross Broadway, and then continue eastbound in it's private ROW (Right of Way) to the Thruway Plaza, Galleria Mall and Buffalo Airport.

This is currently in the article, but i can find no evidence that plans like this actually exist. Given the pathetic state of the current system and that this would be really expenscive it is never going to happen. Also this would have the trains going right through my house, so you would think that I would have heard about it if it is true. Unless anyone says anything to support this, I plan on deleting this section --T-rex 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree that the plan for this expansion is not going to happen in the near future, however I would not say that it is a pathetic system."--Railmogul

If you look at the bottom of the article you will see a link to the CRTC web site. On that web site they have a link to a 100 page document that outlines this dated in 2000 and published by the NFTA. Here is the link to the document: http://citizenstransit.org/STA2000.pdf

Look at page 17 for a map of all of the proposed lines.

I agree that it probably will take many years before we have the funding to make this happen as there are so many projects that are higher on the city/reqions priority list, but that does not mean that they are not planned.

T.C. 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to "proposed" since the Tonawanda and Airport lines are just CRTC's suggestions, not actual plans. Vesperholly 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Rail or Metro/Subway

[edit]

I think its pretty clear, since it uses lrt vehicles and has no third rail, it should be classified as light rail, even though it is described as running underground.

Also, I'd like to know WHY so much of the line was built as a subway, if they are using lrt vehicles? Was the switch to lrt vehicle and street running made after the initial planning, as a cost-cutting measure? Redneb 00:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo's Metro Rail can be considered a "pre-metro". It is a mixture of LRT features, and metro features. LRT can run almost anywhere. Above grade, below grade, at grade. This is what makes LRT so attractive over a conventional metro. It is more versatile. Go and look at Edmonton's system. It is mostly underground, yet it is LRT. If you need a defintion of Buffalo's system. The closest would be an LRT with pre-metro sections.

The Buffalo Metro Rail uses lrt vehicles becuase part of the line runs through a pedestrain mall. A third rail in this area would be hazardous. The switch to lrt vehicles was not made after initial planning.

Ahh, I beg to differ: the earliest rapid transit proposals did indeed specify heavy metro running underground. Through 1974, newsletters and other promotional material showed a car similar to the PATH PA3. However, by the summer of 1976 the decision appears to have been made to switch to LRT. (Now why did you have to make me go and look that all up? Now I'm going to have to do the rest of the research, and add it to the article.) Useddenim (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Buffalo is now the smallest city in the U.S. to have a subway system of any kind" is factually incorrect

[edit]

Newark is smaller than Buffalo and has a subway. I'm new to Wikipedia and do not yet know how to change this. Can someone please correct this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethelk (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While that's true strictly speaking, Newark is part of a much larger conurbation (greater New York). --Jfruh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that Newark and New York City happen to be part of the same greater metropolitan area, their subways and city transit systems are entirely different. Newark is the smallest city in the United States with a subway. That is technically and factually correct. This article (and the one on Buffalo, NY, which incorrectly states "Buffalo is the smallest city in the United States to have a subway system") is wrong and should be changed. Ethelk 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get technical, the smallest city in the US with a subway is Union City, New Jersey, which is served by an underground subway stop on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line. But, like the Newark Subway, the Hudson-Bergen LR is part of the larger transit picture in greater New York. Both the Newark Subway and the HBLR offer connecting services to the PATH and NJ Transit commuter rail lines. The modes are different and there isn't a unified fare structure, but plenty of people use the Newark Subway as part of their commute to and from New York City, and one could argue that the Newark Subway wouldn't exist if not for the connection it offers to other NY-area rail trasnit.
The Buffalo Metro Rail, by contrast, exists in isolation. While you're right to say that it's incorrect use the phrase "smallest city in the U.S.", I think it would be both accurate and, more importantly, noteworthy to mention that Buffalo is the smallest urban area in the U.S. with a subway system. --Jfruh (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railcar Rehabilitation

[edit]

It was quoted in the article:

"The improvements will include enhanced video monitoring of the railcar interiors, upgraded brakes, rebuilt HVAC systems, rebuilt door systems, a brand new white, blue and gray interior, upgraded propulsion, and repair to the body shells. In addition, the railcars will receive new monitoring systems, automated announcements, new door chimes, and interior/exterior LED signage to replace existing rollsigns. The first rehabilitated railcars are expected to be in service around Spring 2008."

It's now mid-August, 2008. I take the system nearly daily on my way to work and don't have the luck to see any rehabbed cars out there...have any of them been done, or is the idea scrapped for the time being?

I, for one, can't wait for the current chimes to be replaced.

--Allamericanbear (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly rehabilitated railcars have been slowly introduced to the system. Currently there are only 4 railcars that have been completed with the remaining cars to be completed within 3 years.Babyox4420 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the Metro Rail map

[edit]

Does anyone know how to update the map used in the article? Theater station permanently closed on 2/18/13 and I was not sure how to go about this. The rest of the article has already been updated.Babyox4420 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:PAGE (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) Please change March 30, 2014–Present: NFTA-Metro begins phase three of the "Returning Cars to Main Street" project by single tracking along the 500 block of Main Street from Chippewa Street to Mohawk Street, just north of where Lafayette Square Station currently stands. From March 30, 2014 to July 17, 2014, the inbound track from Allen/Medical Campus Station to Church Station was used, as the outbound track, along with Fountain Plaza Station's outbound platform, was redone. During the weekend of July 18–20, 2014, Allen/Medical Campus temporarily served as the southern terminus of the Metro Rail as construction shut down above-ground service. As a result, NFTA-Metro offered shuttle buses to accommodate passengers between Allen/Medical Campus Station and Erie Canal Harbor Station, with each shuttle running every 15 minutes. From July 21, 2014 to October 10, 2014, the outbound track was used, as the inbound track, along with Fountain Plaza Station's inbound platform, was redone. On October 11, 2014, Allen/Medical Campus temporarily served as the southern terminus of the Metro Rail as construction shut down above-ground service. As a result, NFTA-Metro offered shuttle buses to accommodate passengers between Allen/Medical Campus Station and Erie Canal Harbor Station, with each shuttle running every 15 minutes. Since October 14, 2014, the inbound track is used to March 30, 2014-October 30, 2014: NFTA-Metro begins phase three of the "Returning Cars to Main Street" project by single tracking along the 500 block of Main Street from Chippewa Street to Mohawk Street, just north of where Lafayette Square Station currently stands. From March 30, 2014 to July 17, 2014, the inbound track from Allen/Medical Campus Station to Church Station was used, as the outbound track, along with Fountain Plaza Station's outbound platform, was redone. During the weekend of July 18–20, 2014, Allen/Medical Campus temporarily served as the southern terminus of the Metro Rail as construction shut down above-ground service. As a result, NFTA-Metro offered shuttle buses to accommodate passengers between Allen/Medical Campus Station and Erie Canal Harbor Station, with each shuttle running every 15 minutes. From July 21, 2014 to October 10, 2014, the outbound track was used, as the inbound track, along with Fountain Plaza Station's inbound platform, was redone. On October 11, 2014, Allen/Medical Campus temporarily served as the southern terminus of the Metro Rail as construction shut down above-ground service. As a result, NFTA-Metro offered shuttle buses to accommodate passengers between Allen/Medical Campus Station and Erie Canal Harbor Station, with each shuttle running every 15 minutes. From October 14, 2014-October 30, 2014, the inbound track is used. 192.135.227.163 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Not done and not likely to be done. As the instructions above say, “the request must be of the form ‘please change X to Y’.” (not one long, rambling paragraph). Useddenim (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buffalo Metro 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffalo Metro 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:

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) 10:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffalo Metro 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:

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) 07:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership graph

[edit]

I don't think that this proposed change to the ridership graph is an improvement. Module:Graph renders as an image, with no alt text of any kind. Module:Chart exposes all the raw numbers as text. Also, I think it's more visually appealing:

1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
1996
2001
2006
2011

I don't see a reason to make a change. It's frustrating that when editing with Module:Chart you get a pretty good Canvas element, but on save it renders as an image. Certainly the former looks pretty great, but the reader never sees it. Mackensen (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph breaks and opinionated language

[edit]

I'm going to say this once and as nicely as possible. Whoever keeps removing paragraph breaks and placing their own opinions on this article and any related articles, such as Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, please stop doing so.

Removing the paragraph breaks makes the article much harder to read for everyone and gives it the appearance of a long, rambling rant. I recommend you check out Wikipedia's guideline on punctuation and paragraph breaks. In addition, the opinions expressed, unless quoting a reliable source, possibly violate WP:NOTFORUM. No public transit agency is perfect, but Wikipedia is not the place to vent your frustrations.

Thank you. --WuTang94 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_Metro_Rail&oldid=1206470131"