Talk:Portland Aerial Tram/Archive 1

The following discussion 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.

---

Sourcing Question

This article claims that the Doppelmayr CTEC built the Roosevelt Island Tramway. Doppelymayr's web site doesn't list or indicate this is the case. Can this claim be validated by someone? Theflyer 14:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) website and other references at Talk:Roosevelt Island Tramway, The Roosevelt Island Tramway was not built by Doppelmayr CTEC, so the reference has been removed from this article. Theflyer 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cost

According to the OHSU website: How much does it cost and who is paying for the Tram? The Tram and all of its assorted aspects, such as neighborhood improvements and pedestrian walkway, costs $57 million. OHSU and South Waterfront Central District will pay for 85 percent of the construction cost. The remaining 15 percent will be contributed by the City of Portland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.179.69 (talk • contribs) 08:53, November 30, 2006

intro too long

I like this article, but I think it could be improved by pruning the intro. I am a numbers kind of guy, but even my eyes glazed over at all the stats! I'd suggest maybe a new section for "technical specifications" or "trivia." For instance, nobody needs to know in the intro that the initial delivery of the cars was delayed for 2 weeks. The intro should be a quick read that gives a good overview.

Also, I'm a bit hesitant to rank this article "good" when its subject is so young, and when controversy still surrounds its construction. It's tough to hit a moving target, and the way WP editors approach the Tram might vary significantly over the next year or so, until it becomes a fairly established part of Portland. -Pete 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just did a quick copy edit, but I don't think it's even close to being a good article. The prose is choppy, the article as a whole isn't well-organized, there are a number of statements that beg for expansion, and there are many references that are outdated. It's a good start and I like the pictures, but it fails most of the GA criteria IMO. -Big Smooth 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be Good, but not there yet. As Pete said, the intro is way too long. Plus I would see if some of the wikilinks could be removed from the intro and then wikilink further down in the article where there are fewer wikilinks. No change in content, just where a term is linked. Then I'm thinking maybe "Construction" would be a better section title that could take in the cost estimate info and be able to expand with a nice timeline or anything related to building, but leave the design part as is. Then followed by maybe "Operations" that could take in much of the intro information. Aboutmovies 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing. Well-written: Failed the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading - the article is very broken up, and the paragraphing is in general very short. This makes the article harder to read, and difficult to understand. Factually accurate: Pass Broad: Pass Neutrally written: Pass Stable: Pass Well-referenced: Pass Images: Pass My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened! Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review or discuss my decision at my talk page if you believe I have been misguided. Sincerest regards, anthonycfc [talk] 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1500 round trips per day?

Basic math reveals that the above figure is impossible; even if the tram were to run every three minutes 24/7 that would be only 480 round trips per day. Given loading/unloading time, and hours of non-operation, even that is too much.

Anyone have the real figure???? Or does the round-trip figure refer to the number of passenger-trips per day (in which case it would be believable--but still requires a cite).

--EngineerScotty 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it say 1500 passengers per day? (Maybe it was changed already?) —EncMstr 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When I added that I took it from here and it says round trips. I guess their math is off in both cost estimates and elsewhere. Aboutmovies 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It does say "round trips," which clearly must mean passenger round trips. But taking it literally: 5,500 trips per day = 3.8 trips/minute = 15.7 seconds per cycle = 210 feet per second = 143 mph (average)!

I wonder why they didn't claim 3,000 passenger trips per day? (3,000 trips = 1,500 round trips) They missed a number inflation opportunity. 78 passengers per trip times 2 cars at 5 minute cycles by 24 hours per day is an impressive 44,928 passengers per day. (Which is what Jackson Hole's old tram felt like. Clowns in the crowd would even moo like cattle.) —EncMstr 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Howdy. Changed the infobox from the generic template, I believe it is easier to read. Also, reading above, am definitely interested in collaborating to make this a viable GA candidate -- I'll keep a watch on it. I dunno, I thought the intro was pretty concise myself. Of course, I just added a few lines ... maybe I need to take those back out ... pinotgris 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Renomination

I've had a look at this article, and while someone beat me to it in reviewing this article, I don't understand the following two sentences. They need fixing:

• While the taxpayer share has grown, OHSU is paying for 85 percent of the total cost of the tram yet it will be operated as public transit facility. - I get the vibe of this sentence, but it needs to be worded better.
• Almost all of the journey is near its upper elevation, making the tram easily visible for some distance, and providing tram riders with good views of the eastern metropolitan area and the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and Washington. - what does "almost all of the journey is near its upper elevation" mean? Does this mean that the distance between the upper terminal and the middle pole is far greater than the distance between the lower terminal and middle pole? This sentence also needs rewording.

Also, Image:PortlandAerialTramTower.jpg needs a source in its image description page.

Those are my only concerns. If no one reviews this within the specified time, contact me and I'll pass it if these things are fixed. JRG 01:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the second strange sentence—which I authored a while back (impressive it's still present). I don't know what to make of the first one either. —EncMstr 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Upper station cost increase

Originally, wasn't the upper station for the tram going to be a standard built-in-the-hillside configuration like you might find at a ski resort, but got changed to a complex one after OHSU said it had building plans for the site? I think I might have read it in the Oregonian's (or Portland Tribune's?) special section a while ago. If it is true, it should be mentioned, especially since it means that its not fair to call it a supposed-to-be $10M project (+$5M to make it nice per Vera Katz). IOW, people on the project never said that the as-built configuration could have been done for $15M.

Overall, I kind of think that maybe they should have done a streetcar tunnel towards OHSU w/elevators at the end. No need to change modes. Jason McHuff 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that specifically; I do recall (but haven't found a source for) the claim being made that absolutely no vibration from tram operations could be conducted into the structure of the hospital buildings, due to it interfereing with microsurgery performed there. --EngineerScotty 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally very well-written and in compliance with the Manual of Style. There's minor stuff here and there though. For the intro, isn't OHSU in Marquam Hill? Saying "and" makes them seem like separate areas. Also, it says that the tram is the second one in the country, and then towards the end mentions "Jackson Hole's tram". Not that this is necessarily contradictory, but the chronology and tense interaction was a little confusing to me; the intro made it seem as if no trams have been built after Portland's. Am I crazy? In Description, is the tram closed on "certain" holidays or national holidays? There's a difference there that may be important to distinguish. For the winning firm, it might not be necessary to say the cluttered LA/Zurich. If one is distinguished as the "head office" where the firm is incorporated then just say that. Blockquote formatting is exclusively for quotations of four lines or more in length, so the one now present should go. Structurally, it seems to me that the two sentences following "The tram cabins are shaped..." should go higher up in description right after the first mention of the cars. The article also repeats the names of the cars a couple times. It would seem to me that once in the Construction and opening section is enough. I know most Portland hoods have stubs at least; has anyone tried disambiguating Corbett-Terwilliger and Lair Hill?

2. Factually accurate?: The article generally does a good job of verification. However, a few issues need addressing. Reference number 33 doesn't have a retrieval date. Partly out of curiosity, and partly to make sure you're not using questionable sources, what is The Portland Communique? You use it to verify a statement repeated twice in the article, used in almost exactly the same manner. That should be remedied. Direct cites for quotations and exact dollar amounts are a must for GA-class articles. The "bubbles in the sky" quote needs a ref, as does the second of the two part Sam Adams passage (i.e. "ugly postcard") and the quote in Justification for the cost increases. The first paragraphs of History and Construction and opening lack any refs, and claiming that the planners considered things such as gondola lifts and funiculars could definitely be challenged without attribution. Most of the first paragraph of Planning and design is not covered by a citation, so an end ref should go there. To cover dollar amounts, the latter halves of both of the paragraphs of Initial estimates and funding need end refs. One bit that wouldn't normally need a direct cite, but would seem to contain pretty outlandish ideas without a ref is the "The surface of the cabins..." sentence. Considering that their impact on the neighborhoods underneath is contentious issue, this should be attributed.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article pretty much covers all points concisely, but I'm wondering if there was somewhere a cursory mention about the tram's safety. Maybe I missed it. Was a review ever done? It would seem to be an issue for only the second commuter tramway in the country. Have there been any incidents with either U.S. or international trams that had an effect on the construction of this one? If you can give me some kind of response about safety the article looks passable in terms of comprehensiveness.

4. Neutral point of view?: All significant views given fair treatment and equal weight. One very minor thing, and maybe this is more a WP:V issue: the last sentence in the first paragraph of Construction and opening reads pretty biased. Not does it say "expected to be met" (expected by whom?), but saying "...which would have otherwise been spent on streets and parks." does not sound neutral, especially since we're predicting future events. Simply attributing this to a source would fix it in my view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Two of the images, uploaded by User:Cacophony, have no source specified. I'd really like these to stay, so I contacted him/her on their talk to specify a source. If not, they'll have to be replaced. I like the new infobox image much better, btw.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes

So I don't miss any of them, please place any comments or notes on the requested improvements in this section, rather than within the review. Thanks a million, VanTucky ^Talk

One thing: Portland Communique is a now-defunct blog, essentially Portland's first political blog. Personally, I think that blogs are fine for establishing non-controversial claims, but not for controversial ones; I don't really know where this statement falls on that scale.

Just to clarify a point; the Jackson Hole, Wyoming tram is not a commuter tram; it hauls mainly tourists and ski bums around. (There are lots of trams and similar vehicles installed in theme parks and ski resorts around the country). The Portland and NY trams are the only ones in the country used for mass transit. --EngineerScotty 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the Portland Communique as a source. --EngineerScotty 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the difference there. As to the Communique issue, though personally I think blogs aren't as bad they get made out to be sometimes, they honestly are never acceptable as reliable sources (at least in a GA-class article). They don't have professional-level fact checking or editorial review at all. So really, you can use them to verify self-referential information but not anything else. VanTucky ^Talk 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Areas still needing inline citations:

• Cars (bubbles in the sky quote)
  • Done. Was done before, but got zapped in an edcon. --EngineerScotty 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Concerns over the cost (the auditor's statement quote)
  • Cited. --EngineerScotty 18:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• the intro to History (to cover specific claims about options)

Done; took a bit to track that down. --EngineerScotty 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• the latter half of Planning and design
  • Got it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerScotty (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• the last sentence of Initial estimates and funding (NPOV)
  • Now cited.--EngineerScotty 18:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, since things have gotten pretty jumbled up since all the recent work done (nice job). VanTucky ^Talk 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all has been taken care of. Please note that on the main WP:GA page, I listed this as an Air transport Good Article. There is no Miscellaneous section, and since aerial is in the name of the thing, it fits better than say Railroads or Trains. Really nice work everyone, and congratulations! VanTucky ^Talk 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are several sentences, mostly regarding funding, that are repeated either in their entirety, or in substance, in different sections. For instance: "Construction began in August 2005; by October, The Oregonian was reporting that steel costs had led to bids pushing the project's price (with contingency funds) to $45 million"

Somebody should take a closer look at this, and improve the flow. -Pete 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw what you were referring to. I believe it's been fixed in the recent flurry of activity. VanTucky ^Talk 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steps for A/FA class

A list of things that need to happen, in my estimation, for this to be a FA candidate (or an A-class article).

• Continue tightening the article's prose for clarity and readability, other general copyediting (spelling, grammar)
• More information, from an engineering and architecture prespective, on the tram structures and machinery. I've added quite a bit here, but I'm neither a civil engineer nor an architect; much more detail will probably require a subject-matter expert.
• Diagrams and maps. In particular, a cross-section diagram of the route (similar to this one published by The Oregonian), and a street map showing the tram's route (along with the shortest route via the street network, up Sam Jackson Park Road, for comparison).
• More information sourced on community reaction.

Anything else?

--EngineerScotty 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

diagram

route diagram (previous versions at commons under the same name)

I took a stab at drawing the route. I know it needs more work, but some feedback about which direction(s) to go with additional effort would be helpful. Ideas I have in mind so far:

• topographic indication of elevation
• indication of downtown location
• Route 10, 99W, 43 indications
• scale, compass
• inset containing overview of Portland and/or NW Oregon for location context

—EncMstr 08:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is great. I used to drive up to OHSU regularly though, from the R.I Bridge, and always went out Barbur. Is the driving route you mapped out really the quickest? If so, I must have wasted many hours ;) -Pete 09:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Which barber route? (Barber to Beaverton-Hillsdale to Terwilliger and up past the VA hospital? Or is there another shorter route I'm not aware of? --EngineerScotty 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. My girlfriend at the time was working up there, that was her route, I guess I took it on faith that it was quickest. Sometimes we'd use the one depicted if going to/from downtown, but it never occurred to me as a quicker way to the bridge. -Pete 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For fun, I asked for Google Maps' route solution. Its surprising result ought to be time-consistent relative to traffic density. Click on "Get reverse directions" and it chooses the route I plotted. They are 2.7 and 2.4 mile routes; it predicts a considerably optimistic ten minutes—which could occur at 3 in the morning.... —EncMstr 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. VanTucky ^Talk 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Conditional completion

I think everything that should be in it is in it. As usual, I'm struggling with scaling of text and details. I inserted it into the article at 400px, which is rather large, but big enough to read most of it, except the Oregon inset doesn't show Multnomah County too well. I experimented with a few colors, but now I'm thinking maybe it should show only the NW corner of Oregon. Suggestions? Comments? —EncMstr 07:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One minor technical glitch--Oregon Route 10, like Oregon Route 99W, goes up Front Avenue, and ends about the bridgehead of the Ross Island Bridge. Barbur Boulevard north of the Barbur/Front split is not a signed state highway. (The article on Oregon Route 10 was incorrect--I double checked with a reliable source and corrected that article...)--EngineerScotty 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked pretty hard at several maps and decided that 10 followed Barbur to 4th, where it seemingly ends. In this map I thought 10 (in the middle, 2 blocks south of "Park") was the highway number mostly by association with the 43 to its NNE. But maybe it's a section number like the 9 and 63 to the west.... Does Barbur here have a highway number? —EncMstr 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

North of the intersection with Front, no. A long long long time ago, U.S. Route 99W came down Barbur to 4th and 6th, over to Broadway, crossing the Broadway Bridge. When Harbor Drive was constructed, 99W was re-routed down that and the Steel Bridge to Interstae Ave; when Harbor Drive was demolished after I5 and I405 were built, 99W was routed down Front instead. And some years ago, 99W got truncated back to its interchange with I-5 in Tigard, then re-extended back down Barbur and Front to the present interchange with US 26. Complicating matters, US26 was recently taken off Clay/Market and Front streets; it now goes from the Ross Island Bridge to Arthur Street to I-405 to the Sunset Highway. But Barbur north of Front hasn't been a numbered highway for years. --EngineerScotty 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got a chance to update it, and took the opportunity to fix some other nuisances. Does the Multnomah County context seem clear now? —EncMstr 15:21, 1 November 2007 (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.