Jump to content

Talk:Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

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

BART extension to Santa Clara County

[edit]

The article talks about a connection which will exist "when BART is extended into Santa Clara County". Has it been decided that such an extension will be made (and can someone provide a reference)? I thought it was still up in the air. --Jasonuhl 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the status of the BART extension right now, and probably the reason why no time frame of the extension is mentioned in the article. Any suggestion to clarify this? --Will74205 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing it to read "A potential connection to BART at the Montague station is being considered as part of the "BART to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara" project [1]"--Brianvdb 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there supposed to be a connection near Diridon as well? Or will Diridon/Arena BART station be wholly separate?
Don't know. Does someone have a source that might asnwer this?--Brianvdb 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They look about 1000 ft. apart based on map on the extension website. It's listed as an 'intermodal transfer centre'. Market Street BART, which is even closer to Santa Clara LRT (500ft.) than Diridon/Arena to Diridon Station, is not so listed.

Too much detail in paragraph on Vasona extension

[edit]

The paragraph that describes the opening of the Vasona extension of the Light Rail line seems to be an unnecessary play-by-play of relatively insignificant events that led up to the opening of this line.

How about: "Service to the San Jose Diridon and San Fernando stations began on 29 July 2005 to coincide with the 2005 San Jose Grand Prix race. Service to the remaining stations on the Vasona extension (to the terminus at Winchester) began on 1 October 2005."--Brianvdb 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Vasona extension deserve its own article? I think its history needs to be put in some article. Maybe the in the Mountain View - Winchester article? --Will74205 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Mountain View-Winchester is a great place for the info --Brianvdb 19:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in "Bus Routes"

[edit]

The last paragraph in the "Bus Routes" section does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. There is a lot of conjecture in this paragraph that has no cited sources. I would suggest that it be removed.--Brianvdb 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

[edit]

I think the other article ought to just be deleted. It's not named correctly, VTA is about more than just transit as it governs roads as well, and it doesn't really have anything to say.

Almaden Shuttle

[edit]

Any thoughts on whether the Almaden Shuttle LRT service needs its own article like the other two lines? Does anyone know, for example, about its history (its service isn't worthy of an article, except for the fact that its ridership is apparently quite low? Bayberrylane 01:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a short article that lists the length of the route, stations along the route, and the route's history (funding, opening date, etc.).--Brianvdb 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of light rail system

[edit]
SVG map

Hello.

I've put a notice in the light rail section that a map be made (in this case, for the light rail system.) MattFisher 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks. I manually created a Google Earth map of all of the stations. By my count I hit them all. The file is in PNG format, though if someone wanted to make it available as a smaller image, perhaps directly linked/displayed to the page, that would be cool. Rrauwl 11:48, 21 April 2006

A better option would be to take the coordinate data at [2] and use that to populate a SVG map. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created an SVG map using Inkscape, but could not get it to upload properly, so it's there in PNG. If anyone wants the SVG, they can figure out how to get the vector format to upload properly. Bayberrylane 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice schematic-type map. Can you describe the problem you are hitting in uploading the SVG? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the svg (under same file name as PNG but with different extension), but most of the text doesn't appear and there are black boxes that obscure some parts of the image. If the black boxes can be eliminated, then the image is a fine but text-less (and therefore use-less) map. The image displays fine in Inkscape under both the SVG formats the program offers ("Inkscape SVG" and "Plain SVG") but will not go correctly onto wp servers. Bayberrylane 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This SVG uses "flows" for the text look at the "flowRoot" "flowRegion" and "flowPara" tags in the document. I believe this is not supported by either the Wikimedia renderer or Firefox. The "text" tag is supported by both. I recomend you change the SVG to use text tags. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally got a chance to cleanup and update the SVG map at Image:VTALightRail.svg. Please review it (posted above) and let me know if any corrections are needed. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints, so I went ahead and added it to the page, plus the pages for the individual lines. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

In regards to the newly added section "criticism"... in order to ensure the article is in line with Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR, can someone cite a source for these criticisms? Some of these items are pet peeves of mine too, but that doesn't neccessarily make them published criticisms. --Brianvdb 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "criticism" is inflected the same in both singular and plural. There is no such thing as "criticisms." --Coolcaesar 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... thanks for the tip. --Brianvdb 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

This should apply to the appropriate sections in this article. If the sections are spun off into separate articles, include them there instead. Use {{Infobox Company}} for the main article. --Geopgeop 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bankruptcy

[edit]

I changed the wording that VTA planned to file bankruptcy to decreasing service, but it was reverted again. To my knowledge over the years, VTA has not planned to file bankruptcy, and the article cited never mentioned bankruptcy other than the headline, which was used more as a rhetorical device than a fact. VTA was indeed planning to cut service by 21% in an attempt to make the agency more financially sustainable. Acnetj 03:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dot-Com Bust

[edit]

The article states: "After 2000, due to the dot-com bust, existing revenue sources declined and VTA was forced to cut service and increase fares." There are many who would dispute this. Long before the "bust", TALC and the major environmental groups predicted the revenue predictions were unrealistic and that the spending plan did not add up. A more accurate statement might be: "due to massive spending on the BART extension, bus and paratransit service had to be severely reduced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.69.189 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill College picture in "Bus Routes"

[edit]

VTA Line 23 does not serve Foothill College, as the caption states; it serves De Anza College. Foothill is served by lines 40 and 52. I think this is a picture of Foothill College. I can't see the route number on the bus. Mattwigway (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line 23 did serve Foothill College at the time I took the photo but I guess it doesn't any more. VTA routes have changed a LOT over the years due to VTA budget cuts, which unfortunately were necessary due to VTA's abysmally low utilization. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that but didn't think VTA would reuse a route name so quickly. Thanks for the clarification. Mattwigway (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the words 'line 23' from the photo caption; it isn't really necessary to provide this information and it could cause confusion. Mattwigway (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 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) 22:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 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) 11:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the 2021 San Jose shooting

[edit]

As per what was talked about here, should the 2021 San Jose shooting, which happened at a VTA rail yard, still be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewhereattheendofspace (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided to remove it anyways. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely should. This is a single agency, not a supermarket chain. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree after reading through the mention of SEPTA and the sexual assault on one of their trains. The SA’s perp had not association with SEPTA white the shooter did. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass Bringing your attention to this.
The argument on the Tops page was "The content that is repeatedly being added is not due for inclusion as it is only tangentially related to the supermarket chain as a whole. While the shooting did occur in a branch of the supermarket, it was only within a single branch. The effect on the chain as a whole is minimal. Unless this shooting somehow effects the business as a whole, rather than a single store location, I do not think it is relevant to include here."
That couldn't be further from the truth here.
The 2021 San Jose shooting, wasn't just tangentially related to VTA... It happened at the agency's only train yard, forcing the light rail network to be closed for months. That had a major effect on the entire system, including the bus network. Not to mention the incredible impact had on all employees of the agency. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full agreement with RickyCourtney here. A multi-month shutdown of an agency's flagship rail network is a major event and obviously deserves mention in its article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_Clara_Valley_Transportation_Authority&oldid=1207908345"