Jump to content

Talk:Strong Republic Transit System

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

Preference for elevated and street-level railways

[edit]

Is there a reason as to why Metro Manila (or maybe indeed the rest of the country) prefers elevated and sometimes street-level railways to subway systems?

That's because flooding is a serious problem in Metro Manila though its not as bad as it used to be. Plus elevated systems are cheaper to construct. Themanilaxperience (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate terminals

[edit]

I've been reverting some recent edits adding intermediate terminals (that is, terminal stations which are not the ends of a line) because they're a very thorny issue. For starters, if we are to discuss the number of intermediate terminals alone, I don't think we'd want to choose.

  • LRT-1: 5 (EDSA, Central Terminal, Doroteo Jose, Blumentritt, Monumento)
  • MRT-2: 2 (Pureza, Araneta Center-Cubao)
  • MRT-3: 5 (Magallanes, Ayala, Guadalupe, Shaw Boulevard, Araneta Center-Cubao)
  • PNR: 7 (Sucat, EDSA, Pasay Road, Paco, Santa Mesa, España, Blumentritt)

I don't think it's prudent to name intermediate terminal stations unless there is definitive proof that these stations are indeed the sole intermediate terminal for their respective lines (the only proof of this is in LRT-1, which has Central Terminal LRT Station). Let's try gathering consensus on this issue. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has SRTS been put aside by the new administration? Does this article have a right approach?

[edit]
  • After a bit of strolling and searching the web I've concluded that SRTS has been left. What's been checked: national government, pnr, lrt, mrt and some newspapers (all by internet). Anyone who would find out that it has been continued, or integrated in some form into current project / programs, please say so. I've changed the tense of the article to the past tense already.
  • This article is imho having a bit of a strange approach; if one looks at SRTS link, one can read that it is a project aiming at 7 interchange stations and at fare integration using a Contactless SmartCard. "We" are more or less making SRTS into the rail transportation system of greater Manila, a combination 3 rapid transit lines and 1 commuter line, which is something different.

Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer this in brief as the one who wrote the article:
  • The SRTS is still active in that SRTS Flash Passes (sold in select MRT stations) are still called SRTS Flash Passes, and nothing else. SRTS signs and maps are still up on LRT trains, SRTS branding is still visible on some (older) magnetic tickets and there has been no indication from the current administration that it has been or it will be discontinued. If it was, then Flash Passes would have dropped the SRTS branding, which as far as I know they haven't.
  • The article's approach isn't "strange" as you see it: the original aim of the project is really turning the separate LRT, MRT and PNR networks into a single, unified rail transportation system called the Strong Republic Transit System. This was the plan envisioned by the President in her 2003 SONA. I don't see how the article's approach differs from that.
In the meantime, may I recommend that the article be rewritten back into present tense until such time that the current President has either abolished the program or has called for its discontinuation. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the wider definition of SRTS, it being an integrated transport system and not a project aimed at interchanges and the Smartcard is not to be found in the 2003 SONA, and I would say that the maps and cards are more like a result of the program, not a proof of it still running. I've changed it to a present tense to talk about it first, that's better. You're not really convincing me though. And I doubt if the current president will officially acknowledge it, when the program is abandoned. (edited) -- Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was mistaken there with the 2003 SONA, although it mentions closing the loop, which was supposed to be a key component of the SRTS. This might help though: a DOTC press release. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(altered) Sky Harbor, it's again not stating that SRTS is the name of the integrated system of four lines. It tells us that SRTS is going to link the existing four lines. Just like the above linked description by the LRT authority. The statement that it still is a program remains an assumption, and not too likely; Noynoy has included his plans for the rapid transit lines in his CAPEX plan. I searched the official websites quite thoroughly, but hopefully you can find something about the continuation of the program, you should prove that the "is" is ok. Utnog La (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always felt that this article was too specific, "Strong Republic Transport System" having always been a name that was going to fall out of use as soon as the party of the president who used the term was removed from power. (Since the term "Strong Republic" is an administration slogan.) If following administrations choose to name it, it will be named. If not, it will probably be referred to in general terms (which seems to be what is happening.) I thus always felt that perhaps it should have been named something like "Rail Transportation in Metro Manila". Just my two cents' worth. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article exists as Rail transport in the Philippines. Until there is definitive evidence that the current administration (vindictive as it is against anything Gloria-related) has cancelled this project, I do not think it's right for us to jump to conclusions. As a result, I will slap a big [citation needed] on that part of the article about the current administration not continuing the project.
In response to Utnog La: if I were to follow your argument, and your argument is that the SRTS is the name of the project but not the final name of the network, then what's the final name of the network? As far as I know, the SRTS name refers to the name of the project and the name of the final network: it's not like the Iloilo International Airport, where the airport's project name was the "New Iloilo Airport Development Project". --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRTS

[edit]

SRTS is currently not mentioned in PNR's history section (http://www.pnr.gov.ph/history.htm) not on http://www.dotc.gov.ph/, nor does NEDA (http://www.neda.gov.ph/) or Presidente (http://president.gov.ph/) mention the discontinued program. The various LRT and MRT sites do not show any sign that SRTS is still running. If the program is not to be found on these sites, how in the world could SRTS not be discontinued? UtnogUtnog (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number Lines

[edit]

First, I would like to say, I thought it was LRT-2? Nevertheless, I use LRT-2 instead of MRT-2. I saw once in the transit itself as LRT-2. I know this is like an opinion, but It is either:

  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-4
  • (Green Line/Northrail) PNR-5(or some chance,since it will be remade,PNR-9)
  • LRT-1 Extension as 6 (or 5 if Northrail PNR will be 9)
  • MRT-7
  • LRT-2 Extension as 8

or

  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • LRT-1 Extension as 4
  • Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-5
  • (Green Line/Northrail) PNR-6
  • MRT-7
  • LRT-2 Extension as 8


If the "sub-lines" are counted and this is a most signified opinion , it is either

  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • LRT-1 Extension as 4
  • Phase 1 = 4a
  • Phase 2 = 4b
  • West/East LRT-2 Extension as 5
  • East/West LRT-2 Extension as 6
  • MRT-7
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-8
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 1 PNR-9
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 2 PNR-10

EDIT: I just saw that the LRT extension is 6.


  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • West/East LRT-2 Extension as 4
  • East/West LRT-2 Extension as 5
  • LRT-1 Extension as 6
  • Phase 1 = 6a
  • Phase 2 = 6b
  • MRT-7
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-8
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 1 PNR-9
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 2 PNR-10

or

  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-4
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 1 PNR-5a
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 2 PNR-5a
  • LRT-1 Extension as 6
  • Phase 1 = 6a
  • Phase 2 = 6b
  • MRT-7
  • West/East (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 8
  • East/West (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 9

or


  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-4
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 1 PNR-5
  • LRT-1 Extension as 6
  • Phase 1 = 6a
  • Phase 2 = 6b
  • MRT-7
  • West/East (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 8
  • East/West (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 9
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 2 PNR-10

or again

  • LRT-1
  • LRT-2
  • MRT-3
  • (Orange Line/Southrail) PNR-4
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 1 PNR-5
  • LRT-1 Extension Phase 1 as 6a
  • MRT-7
  • West/East (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 8
  • East/West (L/)MRT-2 Extension as 9
  • (Green Line/Northrail) Phase 2 PNR-10 (or 11)
  • LRT-1 Phase 2 as 11 (or 10) Taposa1 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SRTS has been a Project

[edit]

This primary source, LRTA site and a useful article on SRTS are clear about what SRTS is, it's a project. It's not currently being used by LRTA, DOTC or the newspapers to designate the different rail lines, so I will change this article according to the sources, it looks like the abbreviation has been going to live its own life. - Na Na Utlog (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. While its clear that the JICA rail transport integration plan for Metro Manila stays, we just don't know what this administration calls it, and it's best therefore to leave SRTS as what it is, a project of the previous "Strong Republic" administration. May i propose therefore that the List of Strong Republic Transit System stations be renamed to a generic, neutral form? My suggestions:
Oh, there you go. List of rail transit stations in Metro Manila. Well done!--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, rail transit encompasses the different types of urban rail, and it's a pretty clear one, I hope. Na Na Utlog (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This was a project of one president a couple of presidents ago that wasn't continued. There are similar efforts under different names. Is this WP:Notable enough to justify a separate article? I propose merging it into Public transport in Metro Manila or some similar article as part of a larger discussion of the history of transport in Metro Manila. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better to ask the article's creator @Sky Harbor. Personally, instead of merging it tho, i'd rather keep this article but rename it to something like Rail transportation in the Greater Manila Area that would cover all the different rapid and commuter rail lines and govt projects/campaigns on rail including this SRTS as a subsection of History of this Manila urban rail transit. We dont have a separate article yet for Manila's rail transport, only individual articles on LRT/MRT /PNR systems.--RioHondo (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would disagree with merging since they're supposedly different projects: the SRTS is a project all its own, while those of succeeding administrations are of a different name altogether. There should be enough reliable sources from the time period to justify the article being kept. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we revisit the issue at this time, now that sufficient time has passed (Aquino's term is done; so far I have not heard Duterte use or even mention the term SRTS at any time. I don't hear about it in social media.) I agree with Iloilo Wanderer, this SRTS is a term for a project by GMA, not a government program for improving mass transit. Anyhow, the objectives of this project were never really achieved. Personally, I think this would just be a paragraph in the history of Manila's mass transportation, no more than a mere slogan by an administration, replaceable by the next. Thank you. --Miles2north (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other admin will really call the program Strong Republic anymore as the name is Ex-President GMA's development plan akin to FVR's Philippines 2000, Erap's Angat Pinoy 2004, and Duterte's Ambisyon Natin 2040 (Long term plan). GMA used this tagline in almost all her big projects such as the Strong Republic Nautical Highway and this article. Ergo, I think it merits to stay as this is more of a platform article than the current transport article itself. Korean Rail Fan 02:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what do we do now? I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia, so I don't know how it (or Wikimedia Philippines) makes decisions on issues like this. Do we do it by consensus, and if so, who makes the actual decision to revise or merge or delete? --Miles2north (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strong_Republic_Transit_System&oldid=1203782281"