Talk:King County Metro

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as High-importance).

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

stop removing critisism

This is not a comercial. A metro employee erases the warts and boils from this page, but they ate stll present in the system, and need the light of day cast on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.150 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

How about adding information about accidents on the system, like the one where the bus went over the side of the Aurora bridge.

please stop removing the information about homeless in the free ride area.

Justforasecond 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure, just as soon as you can verify it with a reliable source. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 20:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uncited material

this article lacks citations. i'll leave some sections here for now, but if they don't show up the uncited information will have to go.

Justforasecond 01:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This article has been protected due to the recent revert wars between User:Stubblyhead and User:Justforasecond. Calm down and diffuse the situation here or on your talk pages. Once you feel disputes have been resolved, please request unprotection. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when will the wikistalking stop? Justforasecond 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

tomf688, thank you for the article protection. Maybe now we can reach a consensus about this. Justforasecond, I'm glad I got your attention. I disagree that the removed information is non-notable, and you're just plain wrong when you say it's not cited. Yes, there are some rows at the bottom where citations are needed. If you must remove them, go ahead, but the majority of that table is well referenced. As for your edits regarding the homeless, I'm still waiting for a verifiable, reputable source. I am still curious as to how it is notable to this article, however. Can you see how such a statement could be seen as inflammatory? I ask you again, suppose the edit in question was "Many riders in Capitol Hill are homosexuals." What would your feelings be on that? -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added citations for about a third of it. That leaves 2/3rds uncited, and, really, an inventory of buses is not notable. I provided multiple sources for the vagrants in the free ride zone and you have observed it yourself. What compels you to continue to remove this and at the same time insert non-notable information such as the manufacturers of various buses, I can not imagine. Tell you what, leave the homeless info in and I won't contest the bus inventory. Justforasecond 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my estimation, over half of that table is cited. I tracked down as much of the information as I could on both the bus manufacturers' websites and the Metro Transit website. If you feel strongly that the uncited material should be removed, go ahead. Also, please note that I did not insert any of that information, I only found citations establishing verifiability. I say again--what you or I have observed is completely irrelevant. WP:NOR is policy, and I don't think the sources you have given establish verifiability. I'd still like to hear what you think about the potential for someone reading that as inflammatory. I've put a request on the third opinion page, and I really think this would do well to have input from more than just you and me. I'll try to find an appropriate place to request some disinterested parties to take a look in the Esperanza pages, maybe put an RfC in. I may take a break from this for a couple days too; I don't edit as much on the weekend. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright, then it seems we have come to most of the way to an agreement. all uncited material needs to go. beyond that i'd like to remove non-notable material. lets unlock the page and get to it. Justforasecond 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sourced material should be removed, but I would propose that it remain for the time being with the {{unreferenced}} tag in place in order to give us all an opportunity to verify the information within. I encourage you to do this as well--it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I think a consensus should also be reached on what information is non-notable. NB--This will probably be my last post in a while. Going home soon, and I don't edit much over the weekend.-- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 22:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info has been uncited for a long time. I put the notice up a few days back. I'll give it a few more days, then the illegitimate material needs to go. The non-notable material needs to go even with citations. Justforasecond 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd drop uncited/unverified material on 24 or 25 July as long as it doesn't break the flow of the article, and slap tags on stuff that would break it. Properly cited materal should not be deleted, as it stands as verifiable information. Just my two cents, nothing official here. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Torinir. Good to see someone else looking at things. Justforasecond--I ask you again. What information do you feel is non-notable? -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the bus inventory. Very non-notable. If you agree we can unprotect. Justforasecond 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I will concede that those busses no longer in service lack relevance today, and will not object to their removal. I think the current inventory is notable, relevant, and interesting. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well there seem to be just two of us here so it could be hard to accomplish anything with back-and-forth. Hybrid/electric buses, the underground half-electric bus tunnel, the ride free zone, and advanced IT systems all seem novel to me. A general listing of buses doesn't, and we don't seem to have similar information for other companies to the level of detail in this article. But, seeing as you think its notable -- I'll leave it alone if it is moved towards the bottom of the article. Sound reasonable? I would like some comment about vagrants in free ride zones (if not specifically in the seattle free ride zone). Justforasecond 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away. I agree with your proposal. Although I don't think what another article lacks should be used in a discussion over notability (I think that's policy on AfD discussions, for instance), I agree that it would be fine at the end of the article. We haven't really discussed if you're from this area or not, but there's a woman who writes a public transit blog for one of the papers here. She's also an advocate for the homeless. I asked her if she knew of any sources that we could use to verify that statement. She wasn't personally, but she referred me to someone else who might. Gmail isn't cooperating right now, but if you'd like, I'd be happy to forward that info to you later on. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah drop me a line through wikimail. I'd like to read it. Justforasecond 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from WP:3O, but it looks like you now have consensus. Any reason not to unprotect the article? - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're there. I'm waiting to hear via email from someone who may have a source for the addition that caused all this, but I would support unprotection now. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just plugged mention of the 240, as it probably deserves mention, being one of the major bus routes from south Renton all the way to Clyde Hill, and covering a huge portion of the Eastside in between... being from the area, I can assure you it's noteworthy. ~LoL

Biased and Outdated

I appreciate your addition, it is very helpful, in some ways. What is the currents bus fare? What are some of the problems that have occurred? Is the bus priced fairly, according to rider polls? I need a bit more information... (98.125.242.219 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Freeway Stations

there should be some mention of the abundance of freeway stations in the seattle area. -- Tcmetro 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro as a Light Rail and Streetcar Operator

KC Metro entered into an agreement to operate the Central Link Light Rail system, this should be mentioned. Sources: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2003/060203.htm http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2003/0512031.htm Ordinance: http://mkcclegisearch.metrokc.gov/detailreport/?key=4527

They also operate the South Lake Union Streetcar for the City of Seattle. KC Ordinance: http://mkcclegisearch.metrokc.gov/detailreport/?key=7696 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranviri (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanpool/Vanshare

67.171.44.250 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) says:[reply]

There should be mention of both programs. If I knew what the difference was, I'd add it. But I don't, so hopefully someone can figure it out based on prior knowledge. Here's a good jumping off point:

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/van-car/van-car.html

Metro Transit (King County) vs. King County Metro

It seems to me that Metro has been re-branded as King County Metro over Metro or Metro Transit. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to if the page title should be changed with a redirect to the new page? Joshuadkelley (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all their publications I see the "King County Metro" logo but then they talk about Metro this or Metro Transit that, even in the latest Rider Alert. On their website homepage it says "King County Metro Transit" but on other pages it says "Metro Transit". In the About Metro page it says "Metro Transit" is the name... The system map's titled "Metro Transit System Map". Some official reports say King County Metro Transit or King County Dept. of Transportation Metro Transit Division. The WSDOT Summary of Public Transportation 2007 gives Metro's operating name as "King County Metro Transit (Metro). If you look at the other systems named "Metro Transit" you notice that they're all called just "Metro Transit" and not Twin Cities Metro Transit or Oklahoma City Metro Transit in their logos but Madison Metro is called just that. My opinion is King County Metro is the most straightforward and easiest when making wikilinks. Oranviri (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Oran on this one. I see "KC Metro" in quite a few places. ~ 98.247.241.149 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, at least between the three of us, is it agreed the page name should be changed to King County Metro?Joshuadkelley (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it four, but I'm also 98.247.241.149. Metro Transit (King County) is good for disambiguation, but I don't think it properly reflects the agency's branding. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this discussion, and agree. I also have the literally "latest" reliable source in my hand, a June 2009 Puget Pass that I bought 90 minutes ago: it's "King County Metro" on it. :) I just moved the page. rootology/equality 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

There are also other systems named Metro Transit

Is this line still needed? ~ 98.247.241.149 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your addition, but it is a bit outdated... what is the current bus fare? I also feel that you are biased. Not a single one of the problems that occurred are in your article. (98.125.242.219 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Puget Pass information.

In an attempt to update outdated information I tried to update the Puget Pass information but it was reverted because someone wanted to keep old information, that's fine, but the Puget Pass image is still in a nonsensical location since it was around long before the Transit Now initiative and has nothing to do with it. It was introduced in 1999 whereas the Transit Now initiative was created in 2006. The Puget Pass information should either be moved to a section on payment methods but it most definitely should not be under the Transit Now section.173.250.146.34 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Citation Problem

I added info about the removal of the Ride Free Area, in the caption of the flowchart and in the main article. However, since I cited both, now I have two citations- 16 and 18, but they're the same site. Can someone merge the citations if that's even possible? I'm new to editing.
Thiaminz (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ride Free Area

Metro has eliminated the Ride Free Area, it's time for Wikipedia to eliminate the huge section dedicated to it. Since it's gone... it doesn't seem right to have it in the operations section of the page. I propose the information be shortened and merged into the history section. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move is a no-brainer, and I've gone ahead and done it, without cutting content. We can talk a little more about what should stay. I think we can cut the image and the second paragraph that describes the fare-paying system in detail. The rest mostly deals with the motivations for introducing and ending the RFA, and I think are worth keeping. The alternative would be keeping this content but splitting it off into its own article like Portland's Fareless Square. Ibadibam (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the fat

Some sections on this page have become ridiculously long. Specifically we have huge tables that have very little information on transit centers, bases and "other". While I think the information on the transit centers is useful and notable (although needs improvement), bases should at best be a list without pictures, and the other section is not useful or notable and should therefore be removed.

I'm also split on the fleet tables. I'm not sure a huge list of retired vehicles belongs on the main page, maybe it should be split off into another article. Also, while the current fleet table is good, it could also possibly be split off into a separate article.

Thoughts? --RickyCourtney (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting off a couple of new articles, leaving summaries of one to three paragraphs to provide adequate information to the casual reader:

The operations section is a little long but I think it's central enough to the topic that it should stay in the main article. Ibadibam (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that suggested split, and would be happy to help with it. (Assuming I remember to do so.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the facilities information is useful or notable enough to warrant another article. I went ahead and cut that section back on the main page. I like the idea to split off the fleet info. I'll do that when I get some time. --RickyCourtney (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being bold and making your changes! I reverted a few minor things you removed (like the {{verify source}} -- feel free to remove it if you do actually verify the source (and update the accessdate)), but generally, that seems reasonable. I do disagree with you about the information on the bases not deserving a separate article, and as such, I've made the List of King County Metro facilities article suggested above, and moved the tables listing the bases into that article. I'm currently working on merging your (nice) new design for the tables with the images (which I want to keep). JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King County Metro. 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/20090624023607/http://www.kingcounty.gov:80/transportation/kcdot/MetroTransit/BurienTransitCenter.aspx to http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/MetroTransit/BurienTransitCenter.aspx

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} 23:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King County Metro. 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/20110930171754/http://www.newflyer.com/index/news-app/story.47 to http://www.newflyer.com/index/news-app/story.47

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) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be "King County Metro Transit"?

In the HTML title of their Web site, in the copyright notice on the bottom of their trip planner, on Google Play, on their commute blog, on Facebook, in a legal case and elsewhere "King County Metro Transit" is used and not just "King County Metro". I'm thinking that's the official common name and should be the name of the article.

There seems to be many names that can refer to the agency: KCM, KCMT, Metro, KC Metro, King County Metro, Metro Transit, King County Metro Transit, King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division, Transit, Seattle Metro, ... Jason McHuff (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"King County Metro" is more commonly used by the media (611 results for "Transit" vs. 1,449 in the Seattle Times archive, for example) and just "Metro" is often the nickname people use. I don't think we should be adding Transit to the end, since it's inconsistent even in Metro's own uses (see the logo, for example). Sounder Bruce 05:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the DSTT be marked as a "former facility"

Since Sound Transit owns the tunnel now, it doesn't really make sense to list it as a KCM facility. It also feels wrong to delete the section from the page wholesale since KCM did play a major role in the development and operations of the tunnel. Would it make sense to add a "Former facilities" section as a compromise? Compsig (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]