Jump to content

Talk:Metro Blue Line (Minnesota)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Blue Line (Minnesota))

Unexplained deletions undone

[edit]

I have reverted a major deletion that was done to this article. Some anonymous person, without explanation, just deleted the whole section about deaths on the Hiawatha Line. That's been here for a long time, and revised or corrected several times.

If someone thinks there is some reason this section should be removed from this article, they they should explain why here, and see what the responses from other people are. That's the way things are properly done on Wikipedia. T-bonham (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This vandal deleted the whole section again, still without giving any reason or posting on the talk page. Just after it had been updated with new information. Wish I knew what the problem was. T-bonham (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the vandal, the entire section on deaths seems frivolous and non-sequitar. I just read the page for my first time and thought that particular section was entirely out of place (that's why I went to this edit page in fact). I don't see a list of deaths on other transportation pages (likely because they'd be too numerous), so this seems strange. Even weirder is the the death in the parking lot of a woman hit by a bus... that was included simply because it was near the light rail? Bizarre. Go with the vandal and just delete that whole section. It's silly and distracting. 68.198.35.162 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I already removed the part about the woman hit by a bus (NOT A LRT!), and I think the whole section should go. Firstly, because pedestrians hit by rail vehicles are a dime a dozen, sorry to say, so there's nothing particularly notable about these incidents. Secondly, the way they are phrased (especially the one about the lady hit by the bus) they appear to push a POV that the light rail is somehow dangerous, and therefore bad. It's a case of POV-pushing by light rail opponents, it seems, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. And even if not, it is an example of undue weight, as it is a full section of a rather short article. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know why there was a separate deaths section, perhaps this being the first LRT line in the Twin Cities anything unusual would get special focus. I added the woman's death because the bus was turning into the service area for light rail passengers, and because that marked the 3rd death at the 46th Street station. I drive by there every morning and I've used it several times so I'm familiar with it, and have had a bus driver volunteer without prompting that he thought the station was poorly designed (although being Original Research that can not be used, of course). I support light rail - love it, actually, ever since my first trip to D.C. - but I suppose there could be some POV-pushing because I don't think people are taking the risk seriously around that station for whatever reason. The platform area itself is fairly secure but the zone surrounding it seems to have some issues. Much busier stations such as Ft Snelling and MOA seem to not have that problem, nor have there been any deaths downtown despite the increased pedestian traffic and the comensurate difficulty in separating pedestrians from the LRT. Anyways, I'll go with the consensus and not try to put it back in (maybe a section on safety would be appropriate but I won't crusade for it)Haverberg (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

This article seems rather outdated. Much of it reads like it was written several years ago, talking about things in future tense.

Also, the article seems to downplay the success of the LRT. It only gives a bland statement of the number of annual passengers, and never says that the ridership is double or triple the original projections, or that the county has had to buy additional trains to meet the demand. Nor does it mention that the public acceptance has led to political pressure for more lines, with various areas wanting a line thru their neighborhood. T-bonham 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. It needs to get flagged for some work. Both in terms of the content but also in it's content having sources. A lot of things are being said in it right now that that don't have a source. Prk166 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

[edit]

This is one of those times when I must admit to a microscopic regret for Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, as I'd love to put in some remarks about the poor design of the stations. While they do have shelters, they are small and provide little protection from the elements. Furthermore, roofs over passenger areas are typically so high that unless precipitation is falling perfectly straight down, it has plenty of time to angle under the roof and soak waiting passengers.
You'd think that, given Minneapolis' notoriously foul winter weather, someone would have planned for that.
*sigh*
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map now incorrect

[edit]

Humphrey station is now open again, so the map is outdated. Can someone change this? I'm not sure how, but I think it looks bad to have the old info on here now. Mullibok 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes on articles for LRT stations

[edit]

Someone changed the article names from Station name (Hiawatha Line station) to Station name (MNMT station). I guess I can understand why someone might want to change the name (e.g. the stations downtown won't just be part of the Hiawatha Line anymore when the Central Corridor LRT is complete), but NOBODY uses the "MNMT" abreviation in real life. Could we change this to Station name (Metro Transit station), perhaps? I realize there are other public transit agencies out there using the Metro Transit name, but the agency in the Twin Cities is the only one operating a rail system at this time (the LRT being built in Seattle right now will be operated by Sound Transit, NOT Metro Transit (King County), so there shouldn't be any issues there). I'd like to have some sort of discussion before going ahead and changing it myself. Eco84 | Talk 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as MNMT is defined nowhere in any article I can find, I think some change is definitely in order. Mullibok 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station names have now been changed to "(Metro Transit station)". Eco84 | Talk 04:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Station name (METRO(MN) station)75.73.186.199 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

[edit]

Anyone else vote for changing the picture in the infobox? It seems really dated, given I haven't seen a one-car train in forever, and makes the Hiawatha line seem a lot more like a streetcar line than it is. Thoughts? Jrt989 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good idea. Also I found an ideal infobox replacement candidate (the pic on bottom section I found in the commons). Packerfan386 (talk 09:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Packerfan386 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths Section

[edit]

There has been some debate about the "Deaths" section of this article. I 100% agree with the editors who keep putting it back when deleted without consensus. That said, I'm unconvinced that this is appropriate here.

  • Comparable information is not generally included in similar articles (which would make inclusion a standard)
  • There is no suggestion that this line is more dangerous than other comparable lines (which would make the information notable)
  • No context is offered to explain why the data is relevant or meaningful (which would make it useful)

Traffic accidents are no surprise, and are not notable in themselves. By simply including this information without meaningful context, we create the impression that this line (or LRT in general) is unsafe. If the article is going to say that, then we should document that and say so. If not, we should stay clear of this list.

Thoughts? Uberhill 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that it probably does not warrant a section with each of the deaths explained, but it would be informative to have the number of deaths in the article in a different section. Subsurd (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revert; I still think it should all go, but WITH consensus. I'm afraid I still disagree. Barring some assertion that this LRT line is somehow different, I fail to see how this is relevant. Compelling, perhaps, but not appropiate here. Perhaps an article on LRT or transit safety would be in order? Uberhill 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lately, I'm noticing more back-and-forth blanking/reverting on this section. Personally, I'm of the mindset that this section is un-encyclopedic, but would like to reopen the topic for discussion, rather than watch the blanking/reverting continue. Let's see if we can't find a final consensus. I'll start this discussion this way- is there a compelling reason to keep this section in? Thanks, Skyraider1 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reason to keep it, (see earlier comments). Either in its present placement or elsewhere in the article; the information is simply neither encyclopedic nor appropriate. (I note from the comments that we have no arguments for inclusion, just objections to deleting without consensus.) We may not have consensus on this particular page, but I find it notable that this kind of information is not included in comparable articles. I agree with Skyraider1, why keep it? Uberhill 04:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet having heard a strong case for inclusion, I'm going to go ahead and delete the section, with a edit summary explaining why. If it gets reverted, then it's an opportunity for more discussion, I suppose. Skyraider1 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There being multiple voices expressed for deletion, and none for inclusion, I'm deleting the section. Please do not reintroduce it without prior consensus. Uberhill 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After removing this section due to the consensus here, it has been reverted back two times by an IP. I gave a warning each time, but I didn't want to leave only negative items there. I wanted to invite the IP user to provide their rationale here. I won't participate in a continued edit war with an IP, and if the section is added again without discussion here, I think an administrator should look into the IP user(s) who are reverting without consensus. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The content, although cited, does not belong. This is an encyclopedia article, not a running tally of accidents and details, with names of the deceased. If the content continues to be added the article should be protected. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our IP friend has reinserted the section, which I have removed. The editor also reinserted another a section, on early signalling problems, which I removed. There were no references despite the presence of an unreferenced template on the section for two years. Those signalling problems are no longer an issue. The article is not a blog reporting on current events, but rather an encylopedia article. If the early signalling problems merit a mention, it should be short, cited, and should also report current status. Kablammo (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

[edit]

Last I heard late last year, for every ticket purchased to ride the light-rail, Metrotransit lost $12 and some cents. This is an important issue, and should be listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.173.131 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If true, and verifiable, yes. Got a source? Uberhill 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Suvplustrain.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Suvplustrain.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 17 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line Names

[edit]

We need to be consistent with line names. I know Metro Council has approved the new line colors as the new names for lines, but *EVERYTHING* in the Twin Cities still currently references this as the Hiawatha Line. Randomly replacing references to "Hiawatha Line" with "Blue Line" is confusing for no good reason; its primary name is still "Hiawatha Line" at this time, since although Metro Council has approved the change, it has not been accomplished yet. At the moment I think it would be most appropriate to reference the line as "Hiawatha Line (Blue Line)", and to switch that to "Blue Line (Hiawatha Line)" once the signs on the line are switched. Opinions?

Talindsay (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As of 25 August 2011, not only has Metro Transit not updated the name of the line from "Hiawatha Line" to "Blue Line", the line is actually in RED on the map. So it is premature to be changing the name from "Hiawatha Line" to "Blue Line" at this time. [1] Talindsay (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Added the official date for switch to Blue line [2]Jdkessler (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the same committee of geniuses that renamed Humphrey and Lindberg at the airport "Terminal #1" and "Terminal #2" want us to start calling this the "Blue Line". Let's see if common usage actually changes before we move this article. Jonathunder (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move this page without discussion. I see no evidence the common name has changed. Jonathunder (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the idea of calling this page "Hiawatha Line", instead of the official name "METRO Blue Line". Metro Transit has been slowly removing Hiawatha Line references from station fixtures and printed schedules. (Current Blue Line schedule says it was formally "Route 55", no mention of Hiawatha Line). Yes, we need to be consistent with line names--and we need to be consistent about the name as the METRO system as a whole. Metro Transit is officially going for a color-coded METRO branding and it will be more prominent as METRO Green Line opens this June. I don't necessarily agree with the notion of "Hiawatha Line" being a common name ever; people simply called it (and still do) a "light rail". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanahn (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jonathanahn (talk) 4:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The route number changed from 55 to 901 when the service was officially renamed from "Hiawatha Line" to "Blue Line" in 2013. —Mulad (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Metro Transit. "Hiawatha Line (Route 55)". Retrieved 25 August 2011.
  2. ^ http://metrotransit.org/routes-change-may-18

File:Hiawatha openining023a.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Hiawatha openining023a.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiawatha Line → METRO Blue Line (Minnesota) – The line has changed its name as of April 2013. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC) --75.73.186.199 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if editors produced some evidence of WP:COMMONNAME. The !votes so so far appeear to be based on WP:OFFICIAL, which describes how we don't choose article titles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Green Line Cental / Blue Line Hiawatha requested moves

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: proceduarally closed. The article was moved sometime during the discussion. There is no overwhelming reason to reverse that close. So let's formally end this. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 07:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Official Metro website now lists the two lines as the Blue Line and Green Line. Open for suggestions on the part in parentheses to disambiguate the pages. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Conifer (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other Green Line transit links have the name of the operator in parenthesis. Green Line (Minnesota) would presume that there would only be one Green Line in Minnesota. Debate could center around any number of alternatives, some of which have their own ambiguity problems:
  • Green Line (Twin Cities)
  • Green Line (Minneapolis-Saint Paul)
  • Green Line (Metro Transit)
  • Green Line (Metro Transit Twin Cities)
  • Green Line (Metropolitan Council)
Group29 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Assuming that this discussion is still going on, I would like to cast my vote for these options below:

  • Blue Line (Minneapolis–Saint Paul)
  • METRO Blue Line (Minneapolis–Saint Paul)

The term "Twin Cities" is technically not just for the Minneapolis-St.Paul area and could be used in other pairs of cities. There are multiple transit systems called "Metro Transit" around the world, which could be potentially confusing as well. (Not to mention the governing body "Metropolitan Council", too.) Seems like we're on a consensus that we should stay away from the page title "Hiawatha Line", though? Jonathanahn (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiawatha Line" has been the common name for quite some time and should be preferred over a misleading or incorrect name. I remain strongly opposed to using Minneapolis–Saint Paul in the title of something that runs from downtown Minneapolis to Bloomington and the airport, and doesn't go to Saint Paul at all. Jonathunder (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is misleading or incorrect about its official name "Blue Line"? I don't think I really get where your concept of 'common name' comes from, and how this would be helpful especially for general readers who might not be familiar with the region and its transit system. It's been a while since Metro Transit officially adopted the new METRO branding and related color codes, and I would argue that the transition has been pretty successful so far. All the wayfinding signs, references on maps and promotional materials have been updated to reflect the new color code and name correctly. Go out to the stations or just check out their website and see if there is anywhere you can see the phrase 'Hiawatha Line.' To be quite honest, the term 'Hiawatha Line' has never been a common name among riders--before Metro Transit adopted the new branding (and when there was only one line in the entire region), it was simply referred as the 'light rail', unless you're really familiar with the system. Of course, we should mention that it was formerly called the route 55, Hiawatha Line, but do you really think it's meaningful to call it by the old name when we're getting a second light rail line with a color coded name in couple weeks? (jonathanahn)216.250.167.167 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the article title does not match what it says in the article. Everything in the article says Blue Line, which is the official title. I agree with the suggested new titles. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hiawatha Line sign at 46th Street Light Rail Station
Blue Line sign at 46th Street Light Rail Station
As late as a month ago, and maybe still, 46th Street Station included wording on a single sign that used Hiawatha Line (see image). I haven't seen that terminology anywhere else on the route, including at 46th Street. Everywhere else it says Blue Line (see other image).
  • Oppose moves for now but suggest relisting, to allow those who don't get where your concept of 'common name' comes from to read WP:AT and perhaps present a relevant case backed by policy and evidence. Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had previously moved pages to use Blue Line (Minnesota), Green Line (Minnesota), Red Line (Minnesota), etc. for a few reasons, though it is admittedly a compromise. One, the "METRO" term is fairly generic and is used in other places (both all-uppercase and title-case). Two, "Minneapolis–Saint Paul" is long and cumbersome because it uses an en-dash. Three, it's fairly unlikely that other regions in Minnesota will have transit lines using names like Blue, Green, Red, and Orange that are notable enough to justify specific articles and not just brief items on the transit provider's article page. Five, I had avoided using "(Metro Transit)" as a disambiguating term because that collides with King County Metro Transit in the Seattle area, and these lines are using the slightly different "METRO" branding anyway. I had also avoided using "METRO" at the beginning of the article title (this is currently named "METRO Blue Line") because it is more conventional on Wikipedia for the route name to be bare, with some disambiguating term appended in parentheses.
I recommend either moving pages back to Blue Line (Minnesota), Green Line (Minnesota), Red Line (Minnesota), etc., or Blue Line (Minneapolis–Saint Paul), Green Line (Minneapolis–Saint Paul), etc. —Mulad (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, as had been noted in an earlier discussion, "Minneapolis–Saint Paul" is not a good disambiguator for the Blue Line, as it does not and will not ever actually enter the city of Saint Paul. It currently goes through Minneapolis, the unorganized territory of Fort Snelling, and Bloomington, and later will go to the suburbs of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park, but not Saint Paul. Even more confusingly, the Red Line doesn't touch Minneapolis at all. —Mulad (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I think I would rename as follows: METRO Minnesota or METRO Twin-Cities, and then Blue Line (METRO Minnesota) (or Blue Line (METRO Twin-Cities)) and Green Line (METRO Minnesota) (or Green Line (METRO Twin-Cities)). That would make this system's "nomenclature" a lot more similar to similar systems on Wikipedia (e.g. Metro Rail (Los Angeles County), for example)... Whatever happens, I definitely would advise taking a lot of time, and having a lot of discussion on this issue, until a pretty strong consensus is developed. --IJBall (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Corridor (color TBD)

[edit]

This may be recorded somewhere, but I cannot find it. The Southwest corridor would get its own line color, would it not? Obviously the plan is to extend it from the Target field station where the Blue and Green lines run together. It seems that it will get its own article and does not need to be merged into another line. It has a separate build schedule and a significant about of its own controversy surrounding the plan. Group29 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the plan is (I believe) to extend the Green Line to the southwest and the Blue Line to the northwest. See http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Future-Projects/Bottineau-Transitway.aspx, especially the map on that page. Runner1928 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I cannot think of any reason why it could not be merged. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In many other regions, there are separate articles for the "line" (underlying rail infrastructure) and the "route" (the service that runs on the rails), though the specific terminology seems to vary a lot. I've been leaning toward having one "line" article each for Hiawatha, Central, Southwest, and Bottineau corridors, then one "route" article each for the Blue (Hiawatha+Bottineau) and Green (Central+a bit of Hiawatha+Southwest) services. That may also be a good way to separate out the political debates that circled around each portion (though there should be at least a brief overview of the underlying infrastructure for each service). —Mulad (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Metro Blue Line (Minnesota)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

References need to be standardized

Substituted at 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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) 04:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service at MSP Airport overnight

[edit]

@Forza NYCFC !!, I saw your edits to remove the references to 24-hour service between the two airport terminals. As far as I can tell, this service is still offered. You can see it listed at this site [1]. The late night service schedules are not published but you can tell they are in the GTFS feed and you can try scheduling a journey between the terminals on Google Maps at 1 AM, 2 AM, or 3 AM and it appears to have 15-minute service between the terminals throughout the night. Let me know if you have different information, but I will restore this content with some editing to reflect the 4 hour gap in full-line service that now appears. -Eóin (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this service is still offered? In this the update schedule (https://www.metrotransit.org/route/blue) there isn't this late night service between the two airport terminals, while in the schedules of some years ago it was present. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Forza NYCFC !! The late night trips between the two terminals are not listed on the pocket schedules or that schedule you have posted. I can't speak for the exact reasons but I suspect it may be for schedule legibility so that there aren't 16 trips (4 trips an hour over four hours overnight) listed each night that only travel between two stations. I can see that being confusing to customers and having to scroll past 16 late night trips that do not serve the majority of the line would be burdensome.
If you try and schedule a trip between the two stations on Google Maps like this [2], I see departures every 15 minutes no matter what time of night. Google Maps gets their data from the GTFS feed published by Metro Transit so the trips shown by Google Maps are official trips by Metro Transit. Other trip planning tools should reflect these trips as well.
When I look at an archive of Metro Transit's website like here [3], I see hourly service overnight but I don't see the shuttle trips between the two terminals. I suspect they haven't typically been included in a published schedule due to the limited nature of the service. I think it is safe to take Metro Transit's word from this page that says, "METRO Blue Line Trains operate 24 hours a day between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 stations. No fare is required for trips between terminals. Board at the ground level. ], that says "METRO Blue Line Trains operate 24 hours a day between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 stations. No fare is required for trips between terminals. Board at the ground level." [4]. The page appears to have been recently updated because it reflects the change to 15-minute frequencies that were just instituted in late August of this year.
The airport shuttle actually has its own route number that is Route 906. The website https://www.metrotransit.org/route/906 shows all of the late night trips. Eóin (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Compliments for your great work! Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_Blue_Line_(Minnesota)&oldid=1200647041"