Talk:Metrolink (California)

Light vs. heavy rail vehicles

When I found this page, it said that Metrolink used both light and heavy rail vehicles. I believe that whoever wrote this sentence thinking of the LA MTA's Metrorail system. Metrolink is, in my understanding, strictly a commuter rail enterpise. Please let me know if I am wrong.

-You are right. When I wrote the page I was thinking of the MTAs light rail system and associated that with Metrolink for some reason. Anyway, I stand corrected. Thanks. :) RockBandit 03:21, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Page move

I plan to move this to Metrolink (Southern California). It would probably be best for Manchester Metrolink and St. Louis Metrolink to move to parenthetical-style pages too, since Metrolink appears to be their offcial names too. Mackerm 21:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me! Perhaps a Metrolink disambiguation page linking to all three pages would be in order? --Jfruh 22:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ridership numbers

I take issue with the contention that Metrolink does not have a very large ridership compared with other systems. Its passengers-per-day numbers are depressed because it only has ~8 hours of service per day, compared with the 18-20 hour service offered by Chicago's Metra or the various New York commuter railroads.--Slightlyslack 06:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most commuter rail systems have 75% or so of their ridership in peak times, with trains running half empty off-peak, so I don't think your point holds. Metrolink has 10 million trips per year, Long Island Railroad 96 million, Metro North 72 million, Metra 68 million. In England, there are 10 commuter rail franchises serving London, with riderships ranging from 14 million to 160 million. Bombay's commuter rail system carries something around 2 billion a year, or 6 million per day! Exile 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, its ridership numbers are SO LOW that the use of wording like "very high peak-hour ridership" pertaining to some of the lines in the article sounds sarcastic. Aadieu (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Burlington train accident

I added a paragraph involving that incident. Please clean it up and verify as needed becuase what I know about it is from watching and remembering the news way back when it happened. Hell, I don't even know if it was Burlington...as I remember it, that's a coat factory, but it sounds similar to the actual train company that smashed into the Metrolink train. Hbdragon88 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Burbank Airport service

This page does not mention Metrolink's Burbank Airport service. It is not exactly a single line, but a combination of three lines (one of which has no coverage). Burbank Airport service has dedicated trains on the #9XX line as well as shared trains on the Antelope Valley (#2XX) and Ventura County (#1XX) lines. The Antelope Valley trains connect to the Burbank Airport station by bus, but the others are direct trips from L.A. Union Station (with the exception of a few non-peak trips on the early and late ends of the #9XX schedule that are also bus connections). Mike Dillon 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisions made and to be made

This article has a lot of information, but I felt that there were some pressing issues that needed attention:

1. The huge overview section needed to be divided into the traditional subsections, and so I went ahead and did this (along with some rearranging of sentences). 2. The lengthy comparison with express bus lines was just a little more than necessary. It looks like this is supposed to be a point-counterpoint article when it should just be an encyclopedia entry. I removed some of this, but I'm sure there's more that can be revised. 3. The information about the future development is quite interesting, but there's no reference given (except about the Buena Park Station). Can someone please find a reference for the future extensions? Otherwise this will have to be removed, as it would look bad for Metrolink's site to not have any mention of all this information in their Wikipedia entry.

--SameerKhan 10:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work. The "Rolling stock" and "Fleet" sections could probably stand to be merged. Mike Dillon 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that express buses should not be included. Los Angeles has had a robust express bus system for some time. One of the reasons Metrolink ridership is so low (compared to other commuter rail systems) has to do with the fare structure, as well as other factors such as number of trains operated, travel time and station location (Union Station at the edge of downtown, vs. express buses distributing people to their final destination). The paragraph is designed to expand on the reasons why people avoid Metrolink and instead choose express buses or driving/carpooling. Calwatch 19:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a source for this information, it is original research and should not be included in the article. Mike Dillon 02:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fleet section

Hope everyone likes the changes made to the fleet section, I tried to merge the rolling stock section as best as possible. I think the tables make the whole thing a little more readable, but I don't have much experence making tables so if someone is willing to clean them up it would be appriciated. RickyCourtney 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've changed the tables to wiki table syntax and added class="wikitable". Mike Dillon 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed couple attempts to reformat this section. One of them put a line break in the middle of a sentence, which I don't think works very well because it only improves the layout for a specific font/browser size. I attempted two versions:

1. Setting the "Notes" column width to 30%: link
2. Removing the "Notes" column and using the {{fn}} and {{fnb}} templates to create manual footnotes: link

I left it in the fn/fnb format. If people prefer the 30% "Notes" column, I can revert to that or the earlier version without an explicit column size. Mike Dillon 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried using the line breaks in an attempt to get the columns to not be so wide. But in my opinion... the set column width looks better. Maybe we should set all the columns width so that its standard across all of the fleet tables. These little footnotes are tough to see and they look cluttered. RickyCourtney 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

General Updates

Made a number of statistical updates to the page. I hope not too much for my first time. I have a problem with the Fares section in that the comparison of fares between Metrolink and commuter buses is not relevant. Commuter buses are not what Metrolink competes against. The great majority of Metrolink riders were drive-alone commuters, not former bus riders or other transit mode users. Metrolink is a premium service with discretionary users. The second it no longer works for them, they are right back in their cars. The real price comparison (if even that is relevant since most Metrolink riders are making a lifestyle choice, not a dollars and cents choice) is to compare train fares to gasoline costs and other costs to operate a vehicle on the same commute. Under those conditions, Metrolink is actually cheaper. By the way, Metrolink's subsidy per mile is actually less than that of most bus operators and Metrolink riders take much longer trips. Scrra 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, see that reference about "controversial fare restructuring". You have to understand that it was brought out at public comment as a concern, and that is notable since Metrolink has virtually no public comment (since the people riding are working during the day and can't attend board meetings). I agree that Metrolink is a premium service, subsidized by employers (a majority of Metrolink riders get a subsidy from their employers, and many get a subsidy from the city they live in as well). But it is notable that several bus routes (Foothill Transit 699, Omnitrans 90, El Monte Busway service, AVTA 785, various LADOT routes) compete directly with Metrolink, even going as far as to pick up at or within a few blocks of a Metrolink station.

AVTA is notable because of the following statement in their Long Range Plan [1]:

When the Palmdale Metrolink Station opens, access to train and bus service in the Antelope Valley will be equivalent, but AVTA has many more stops in Downtown Los Angeles, making it more likely for an AVTA commuter to have a one-seat ride to work without the need to transfer. Metrolink trains operate all day and on Saturday, while AVTA service is more frequent during peak periods. Travel time is slightly less on Metrolink, but this does not include any time transferring to other modes to reach the final destination. Usually, travel time via train is more consistent and reliable than via bus because the train has its own right of way. Finally, there is a significant cost difference between Metrolink and AVTA, with Metrolink monthly passes currently priced 38 percent higher than AVTA, and rising to 44 percent higher after July 1, 2004.

Incidentally, the AVTA Long Range Plan qualifies under WP:RS since it is a primary source document from a government agency, and as such is relevant criticism. Any removal will result in revertion. Calwatch 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to several of your points:

While concerns about higher fares were obviously raised at Metrolink's public meetings (which were always held in the evenings in several locations in the five-county service area until attendance dwindled to literally 0) they were consistently raised by train riders, not commuter bus riders. Public comment is overwhelmingly made eletronically these days, not in the traditional public meeting setting, and this type of comment becomes part of the formal public record just like in-person testimony at a public hearing. Summaries of public comment have been provided to the Metrolink governing board at each meeting where staff has recommended that an adjustment in fares be made.

It is not correct that a "...majority of Metrolink riders get a subsidy from their employers..." and that "...many get a subsidy from the city they live in as well". According to Metrolink's "2006 Onboard Survey", only 42% of Metrolink's full-time employed riders receive some type of employer subsidy. The number receiving a city subsidy is much smaller. Metrolink is only aware of two cities that provide a subsidy to Metrolink riders and in each case it is less than $30 monthly. The larger contribution towards the commuter train service's operation comes from the same source that subsidizes other public bus and rail services - the local or county transportation agency or commission. In Metrolink's 2006-2007 budget, subsidy per passenger mile is approximately $.15 which I understand compares very favorably to that of other transit systems and more accurately captures the difference between long and short trips.

The AVTA Long Range Plan excerpt does reveal a key reason why a commuter may choose their service over Metrolink - more convenient downtown drop-off location than what the Red Line or other Union Station connections can offer. In addition, the Plan also reveals what AVTA riders who have used Metrolink in the past but haven't continued and what AVTA riders who have never tried it think about the service. For the first group, over 93% of the respondents mentioned something besides the cost of the train as what they disliked about Metrolink. The top answer (with almost 1/3 of the responses) was "nothing" - they actually had no complaints. The second group, AVTA riders that had never tried Metrolink, had only 3.9% of the respondents respond that cost was the reason they had never used the train. Their top response was "it does not go where I need to go" with 37.5% of the responses followed by 28.1% who responded "I prefer my car".

The AVTA Long Range Plan also notes that making the commuter bus services pay for themselves or come close to it is a priority. It estimates that commuter bus fares would have to increase from 24% to 40% to achieve that goal which would put them essentially on par with Metrolink fares.

While the comparison of commuter bus services and commuter train services on a price or subsidy per rider basis can create the sense of direct competition for riders, it is not borne out by those that actually decide to use one service or another. A commuter bus rider takes the bus for reasons other than cost when compared to the train. A commuter train rider takes the train and not the bus because it works for them better than taking their car. A commuter bus is not an option they consider for many reasons. According to the same AVTA Long Range Plan, "...commuter services do not duplicate Metrolink, because they offer different levels of service and serve different portions of the commute market." Scrra 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, discussion in a talk page is about the article, not about the points made. The fact that fewer and fewer people show up to public hearings doesn't mean much, if Metrolink shows no interest in listening to their customers. The fact that two people showed up during the day to the formal public hearing to complain about the distance based fare restructuring shows something about the increase. While you correctly note that AVTA fares short by about 20% (80% farebox recovery, which as you correctly note would result in an 25% fare increase), Metrolink's farebox recovery, at 42% according to the National Transit Database [2], would require Metrolink fares to more than double, which would obviously scare more people off at the train. Yet, on a cost per mile basis, Metrolink charges higher fares than other commuter rail agencies. According to the NTD again, Metrolink's fare per mile (fares/passenger miles) is 13.3 cents, compared to 10.8 cents on Caltrain, 9.0 cents for ACE Train, 9.6 cents for Sounder, 14.4 cents for NCTD, and 6.7 cents for Trinity Railway Express. The New York commuter rail agencies charge in the 20 cent per mile range, but Metrolink is on the high side for commuter rail west of the Mississippi (which incidentally makes this discussion on-topic as it justified the claim that "Metrolink fares are high compared to its peers", using data from the NTD, a publication of the Federal Transit Administration). As the NTD data notes, Metrolink's farebox is higher than any of the other agencies, and part of the reason is the conflicted nature of the board, as stated in the article. Counties have a limited dedicated pot for commuter rail, and any additional funds that go into Metrolink are taken away from roads or bus service in their communities.

You also need to check your facts about city subsidies, as a simple Google search found that Walnut, La Verne, West Covina, Azusa, Diamond Bar, and Pomona all offer Metrolink subsidies. As far as employer subsidies, I am going by the only Web-available study, conducted in 2004 [3], which notes "The percentage of riders that receive a Metrolink fare subsidy from their employers has dropped to 50% from 57% in 2002." It may have kept dropping, but the 2006 study is not available on the Internet.

As far as I'm concerned, all the criticisms in the article have been documented with data from NTD and other planning documents. Any removal of the criticism will result in reversion. Calwatch 08:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

System map

The Metrolink system map is great! It's just got two minor mistakes: (1) the new Buena Park station needs to be added, and (2) "Anaheim Canyon" is misspelled "Aneheim Canyon". --SameerKhan 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Another misspelled station lists "Anahiem" while it should be "Anaheim". Frozenbrains 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the maps. I still have the files on my computer and I will get on making those changes when I get home later. Thanks for finding my typos. RickyCourtney 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem-- other than those minor typos, its really well-done. Frozenbrains 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright new version up sans-typos and including the new Buena Park station. Enjoy! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fares high compared to peers?

The article asserts,

Metrolink's fares are high compared to its peers and to competing bus service.

It goes on in the next sentence to substantiate the part about cheaper competing bus services, but doesn't define who "its peers" are, or give any citations to its fares being higher. Some spot-checking makes the claim seem dubious as well. As an example of an "expensive" ticket, the article cites a $13.25 round-trip between Montclair and Downtown Los Angeles, a distance of about 35 miles each way. A roughly equivalent trip on its peer in Northern California would be between Palo Alto and San Francisco on Caltrain, which costs $11.50 roundtrip---marginally cheaper, but not particularly noteworthy. If we go further afield to New York City, Metro-North fares are considerably higher---the 35-mile trip from Greenwich, CT into Manhattan is $21.50 roundtrip during peak hours, or $16.00 off-peak. So I'd suggest removing this claim. --Delirium (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be clarified. I think the original writing meant to just compare metrolink to its express bus service peers. Comparing commuter railroads are difficult as each agency has different factors influencing the fares. Maybe it should read "Metrolink's fares are high compared to competing bus services." RickyCourtney (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, sure, that makes sense to me. Although it should probably be limited to "along some lines", or maybe even only "along the San Bernardino line" ---as far as I know, only that one of the seven Metrolink lines actually has directly comparable cheap express-bus service, which is the Foothill Transit Silver Streak that the article mentions. The other lines don't; there isn't, for example, a cheaper competing express-bus service from Lancaster to downtown, or from Oceanside to San Bernardino. --Delirium (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the NTD database data above (fare per passenger mile) and, as noted, there is express bus service from Lancaster to Downtown, Riverside to Santa Ana, Montclair to Riverside, etc. along many of the Metrolink corridors. Calwatch (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no express bus service from Riverside to Santa Ana (would be nice though). RTA's 149 serves parts of the city of Orange, but it doesn't go anywhere near Santa Ana. I do seem to remember it going to Long Beach in the late 80's. It was cut back to Disneyland sometime in the '90's and finally cut back to Orange - not sure when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OCTA - expanded Metrolink service

OCTA claims that it will soon be running Metrolink trains 18 hours a day every 30 minutes within Orange County.

Does anyone know when this is supposed to start? Will it be possible to buy a single montly pass that is good for travel between any two Orange County stations?

San Francisco Muni 30 day passes are good for travel between any two BART stations in San Francisco. Is OCTA going to do the same thing with Metrolink?

Huntington Beach Metrolink line

There is a little used freight line running through Huntington Beach. I believe it ends at Ellis Ave., about three miles from the beach. Would it be possible to use this track for a future Metrolink line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

that section that you are talking about, the MTA is considering to incorporating it to its metro system. it would be cheaper to use that line for light rail instead of heavy rail. but you know what, you should go to one of metrolinks monthly meetings and discuss this to the board of supervisors. pretty sure they would be interested(i think 3 of them are mta members), or they will say that it is going to take forever to build because that line in run by either bnsf or .75.25.12.24 (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Links please!

Why would MTA be building light rail lines in Orange County? I think it's a great idea, but isn't MTA limited to serving L.A. County? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some points for Discussion

The article claims that the " fare recovery rate" is one of the highest in the country,yet when one clicks the link ("fare recovery rates")display is the 2004 rate of 30.6% which is NOT one of the highest and is in fact near the bottom. I also would like to see mention of the fact that these MetroLink trains use a 3200 horsepower diesel engine (plus a 5-600 HP generator) which cause tremendous particulate pollution.During mid-day one can observe near empty trains with maybe 2 dozen riders being propelled by this enormous contraption.It seems ludicrous. These engines and coaches were built in Canada. I believe this point is also relevant and I would like to see what other options or bids were considered. I would like to see a comparison between the San Francisco bay area B.A.R.T. system and MetroLink as to pollution,fares,ridership,scheduling convenience,fare recovery rate etc. I noted the selective useage of statistics to imply a healthy ridership increase. Let's show the actual stats,not just 2002-2005 in Orange County,or from beginning to a recent temporary spike due to high gasoline prices. Thanks.BrianAlex (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Page taken into the yard for maintenance

I have more or less overhauled the page. Some text was redacted and I attempted to organize the paragraphs into a more coherent order. Comments/Suggestions? ~ Butros (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, great job. But...I wouldn't have split off the SCRRA. The authority exists purely to oversee Metrolink, and Metrolink is completely controlled by the SCRRA, if operated by a contractor. There's really not enough notable distiction between the two to warrant separate pages, unlike, say, the Maryland Transit Administration, which oversees and operates multiple services, each of which has its own article. So I'd recommend reversing that split. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What prompted me to split up the pages was a difficulty I encountered when rewriting and citing the intro section. Originally, we had written "Metrolink was created in 1991 as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. What is clear here, however, is that Metrolink did not exist when the SCRRA was formed. The agency was created in 1991 and then selected the name "Metrolink" for the system. Additionally, the front page of this document submitted by the SCRRA to the Federal Railroad Administration makes the distinction between agency and system clear:

"The SCRRA is a five-county Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that operates Southern California's regional commuter rail system known as Metrolink on member agency-owned and on private freight railroad rights-of-way"

I would like to note that this split is not without precedent. Caltrain and its governing agency, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, are on separate pages even though the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board's only function is to manage Caltrain. If you look at the wording in the SCRRA article, you can see that I relied heavily on the PCJPB/Caltrain model for the split.

I appreciate the correspondence; it's much easier to edit with critical input. Thanks! :D Butros (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See, I would have gone the other way. Instead of emulating the PCJPB article, I would have proposed that it'd be merged into Caltrain as a "Governance" section. As it stands, the PCJPB article is a stub that says, essentially, "This agency exists. It manages Caltrain. It was formed in 1987. It includes representatives of these three counties: (list)". Not enough to support a separate article, for either the PCJPB, or the SCRRA.

The apparent conflicts you mentioned are really only wording issues. No, Metrolink didn't exist at the time of the SCRRA's formation, but the SCRRA was specifically and explicitly formed to create and oversee Metrolink, so the formation of the SCRRA was the formation of Metrolink. The legal formation, branding (really a d/b/a-type name) and startup may have not have been simultaneous, but it doesn't make them different things. Just like an expansion team in sports will announce details, such as team names, colors, coaches, etc. at press conference after the original announcement of the team, but that doesn't mean the franchise hasn't been granted. Separating the "Metrolink" branding and service from the SCRRA makes no sense to me, as neither would exist without the other.oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I created a separate article is because I don't think the previous version adequately made the distinction between Governing Agency and Rail System. IMO, it would have been difficult for an outsider with no knowledge of Metrolink to ascertain what exactly the SCRRA is and how it is distinguished from the Metrolink system.

Additionally, I believe both Metrolink and the SCRRA have their own histories. The history of the SCRRA could be expanded to include the legislation that needed to be passed for its formation, further rail acquisition, board members, etc. Metrolink history deals with fare hikes, accidents, and line expansions. It would be difficult to incorporate the history of the SCRRA and Metrolink in the same article without confusing a reader.

If it would please you, I am willing to expand the SCRRA article, adding relevant history, in order to make it worthy of being a stand alone. Butros (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily think that the distinction between governing body and rail system needs to be made. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. It'd be like splitting off the board of directors of AT&T off into a separate article from the list of states the company's landlines serve.oknazevad (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more analogous to having separate articles for AT&T (an agency) and U-verse (a service)--to me it's misleading to place information about the agency in the system's article. In any case, I think we should get an outside opinion or two to resolve the matter. Butros (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not that pressing to me, but if you want to solicit opinion at the the wikiprojects talk page that's fine by me. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, there is no real difference between SCRRA and Metrolink. Metrolink is just a "trade name" of sorts, which I assume they use because "SCRRA" doesn't roll off the tongue. :) See here and here: both sources mention "The Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink", implying they are equivalent. Also, even if they were functionally separate entities, there isn't enough information on the Authority itself, in my humble opinion, to justify a separate article. I would go with oknazevad's suggestion to cover the Authority in a governance section. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 05:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll merge the two articles back together soon Butros (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think it should be a separate article. Northern California's MUNI is split up this way.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MUNI has multiple, different services under its umbrella (MUNI metro, trolleybus, regular bus, and the über-famous cable cars). That's not the case for SCRRA, which has Metrolink and only Metrolink. As TorriTorri aptly describes it, Metrolink is the trade name/common name for the SCRRA.oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the two pages, please feel free to rearrange the page as needed. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance Yard Citations

I have scoured the Google for information relating to the Taylor and Camp Pendleton yards. I can only find sources which reference location and that Bombardier operates the buildings. I have removed the information as to its cost for now. If you can cite this information, please re-add it with a ref. Thanks ~ Butros (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the list of rolling stock needs to be sourced. Is there a list somewhere we can cite? ~ Butros (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metrolink (Southern California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is very meager, and should be considerably longer. For examples of articles, look at Trøndelag Commuter Rail, Bergen Light Rail and Copenhagen Metro.

I'll do my best to flesh it out with the cite-able information I can find. Unfortunately, rail service does not get much attention in the Southern California media unless there is a crash (car culture dies hard). Butros (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't use the term "currently". If no such term is used, it is presumed by the reader to mean now. If it is critical to mean now (and not, for instance, last year), use "as of [year]".

Done Butros (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sick in "United States".

Done Butros (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Try to merge the lead into two paragraphs. Avoid stray sentences.

Done Butros (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of "it served a total of 55 station", just say "it served 55 stations".

Done Butros (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Convert all US values to metric; use {{convert}}.

Done Butros (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't say "For the year 2010", but "For 2010..."

Done Butros (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Joint Powers Authority" is a common noun, and should be lower-case.

Done Butros (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The history section is very short; I would expect a lot more detail, for instance dates, not just years. But there also needs to be more flesh. What was the political background for the system? Where there any major upgrades of lines? New rolling stock? Was there controversy about the change of operators?

Added information about the recent push for safety Butros (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The list of lines is nice, but it should be supplemented with prose. Particularly given the short length of the article, consider prose to explain where the various lines run, major institution they serve etc.

Added a list of several destinations Metrolink serves Butros (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if defining a line by the roads it follows it good; this requires a very good knowledge of the road system. Consider mentioning the communities or valleys the line follows.

I tried to only reference well-traveled roads here; listing each community the lines run through would take a few paragraphs each, as they run through the multiple suburbs of Los Angeles Butros (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "25 cent" should be hyphenated.

Done Butros (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would have though service/frequency is more logical to say before fares.
• Don't start with saying there is little off-peak services; instead, state the peak service, and then contrast the off-peak. Also, please include numbers, not just relative terms. Ridership figures need to be specific; "very high peak-hour ridership" is not encyclopedic.
• Lines between to places use an endash, not a hyphen. see WP:DASH.

• • Comment: I'm not sure if I'm supposed to comment here or create a new section, anyway, the hyphen is in the common name, and looking over the good article criteria, as I understand it, only certain sections of the Manual of Style have to be followed for a good article. Is this correct? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I added endashes between the termini Butros (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes get this sort of feedback; my goal here is to improve the article, and sometimes I give advice which is not part of the good article criteria (whether it is MOS, advanced grammar, esthetical placement of images or other things), sometimes I remember to tag them as not a GA criteria, sometimes I don't. The goal of the review is to improve the article, and maybe even more importantly, give editors feedback where they are doing thing systematically wrong. If I did something incorrect, I would much rather that someone point it out to me than leave it uncommented because the review type was not to cover all aspects of good article writing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Port of Los Angeles" needs to have a capital "P".

Done Butros (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• 91 Line should be linked more than once.

Done Butros (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't use a slash in prose. Is it both or one of Beaumont/Banning?

Fixed Butros (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Metrolink owned" should be hyphenated.

Done Butros (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Year ranges in the rolling stock table should use endashes.

Done Butros (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Passenger Cars" and "Cab Cars" should be lower-case.

Does this refer to the rolling stock table? Butros (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Done --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• The livery of the leased units needs a reference.

Would a photo suffice? Butros (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The "2005 Glendale train crash" has no reference. This is very critical, because it contains BLP information, since it names the culprit. Perhaps, to make more sense, it should mention that the incident was presumed to be a suicide attempt (not just someone who accidentally left their car on the track).

Cited Butros (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• First it says " At least 26[41] people were killed" and then "Authorities announced 26 confirmed deaths in the collision." Why this vagueness and doubling of information?

Done Butros (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid galleries. Just stick in the images as thumbs.

Done Butros (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• All-caps is a typographic choice, just like font or italics; do not use it anywhere on Wikipedia.

Done Butros (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Metrolink website" should not be in italics. "website" is redundant.

Fixed refs Butros (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Amtrak" is mentioned in the prose, so it doesn't need to be a "see also".

Removed Butros (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Only a single logo (the current) is allowed for non-free images. The old logo needs to be removed.

Done Butros (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• A lot of the images are not on the Commons. Except the logos, please move them to the Commons so other-language wikis can use them. This tool makes it easy.

Bada bing, bada boom Butros (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't force image sizes (except the map can be at 300px).

Done , although I think this makes it look a bit more choppy Butros (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you mean by "choppy", but at least I can see the images now, and people with dial-up connections can force down the size so they can download them quickly. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall nice work, but a bit short, and otherwise a few minor issues as mentioned above. I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What remains to be done, good sire? Butros (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 12 does not say that the change of operator was because of safety issues.
  • Fixed --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 19:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 1 needs to be de-capitalized.
  • Done --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 19:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Images can be used to state uncontroversial things like "the trains have a green cheatline". For what you are asking about the leased trains, it is a border-line case of OR, and I would much prefer it was not done that way. On the other hand, if no other RS exists, it becomes a choice between not including the information and having weak referencing. It would never pass FAR. The other problem is that an image only says at a particular time, at least one car looked like that; you cannot generalize from it.

Removed I had to go ahead and remove the leased unit info. When I Google "metrolink leased livery" I get about 50 copies of this article and there is nothing on the Metrolink website about the livery. Butros (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• The whole article is still a bit short, particularly because of the history section. The problem is that much smaller systems have a lot more extensive history sections; Metrolink is one of the largest such systems in the US, and even in an international standard is no small commuter rail system, yet virtually no sources seem to exists. If all possibilities at RS have failed, including news archive searches, then the article can pass, but don't try this at FAR FAC. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I encounter is that when I search "Metrolink" on Google, most of my results are copies of this article. I have managed to find some information in news archive sites, but it appears not much was written about Metrolink even when it first opened. Butros (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article, and a deserved one as such. As my comments above show, it is not your, but the news outlet's fault, that the history section is so meager. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Burbank-Bob Hope question/comment

Hey. I was thinking. I don't believe the Burbank-Bob Hope trains should be listed seperately on the chart of lines (nor have their own article either). While Metrolink does post a separate schedule for them on the website, and they do have their own train series numbers, the line isn't given a separate listing on the map (seen here), and the Burbank runs don't have any unique stations. It seems to me that it's less a separate line and more a short turn run on the Ventura County Line. To give an east coast analogy, some New Haven Line trains turn at Stamford or South Norwalk, but they're still New Haven Line trains, as they run on the New Haven Line, even if only a portion of it. Similarly, some of NJ Transit's Northeast Corridor trains originate at Jersey Ave., and those have different train numbers, but they're still NEC trains. So I think that the Burbank trains would best be served by mentions in the chart and in the article under the Ventura County Line.oknazevad (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. It would help if someone who has actually ridden a Burbank-Bob Hope train could tell us how the conductors refer to it onboard. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally left it out because it isn't listed on the Metrolink map I have on my wall. Butros (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So I combined them in the line chart here. (The description is a little long, but it's needed). What do you gents think?oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

expansion needs updating

in the section of where the article talks about the peris valley line, rctc recently approved the final design for the right of way for this line. within a year from now, construction will start. it was on the news about a week ago.Javiern (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC) that section needs updating.

Could you provide a link to a news article? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

[[4]] this is the final proposed alignmentJaviern (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion 23 July 2011

A number of edits were reverted on the 23 July 2011 on the grounds that the article has already passed a 'good article' test and that the changes had not been discussed first. I disagree with this reversion and suggest that it is reverted for the following reasons. Firstly, the guidelines recommend that editors should be bold and contributors do not need to discuss changes first. Secondly, the reversions seems to have been done in some haste and has resulted in new content and corrections being lost. In particular:

• The ridership figure has been reverted from a new referenced 41,000 figure to an earlier figure of 38,400.
• It removed the reference to the record usage figures during the recent 'carmagedon' weekend.
• It reintroduced the confusion in the lead sentence stating that Metrolink is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority rather than the edited text which stated that Metro was created by and is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority which is more accurate.
• It moved the shocking fatality and injury figures from the first sentences of the accident sections putting them back at the end of the paragraphs.
• It reintroduced what seems to be a rather random section order where history and future expansion don't follow each other, where the 'governance' precede the list of the lines. My order put the key information about lines and fares first, followed by history and then the future and then finally the more specialist information about government and maintenance facilities.

Can I politely suggest that we revert this revert and then deal with any issues in the edited version one by one to avoid loosing a number of beneficial changes? -- PeterEastern (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now done the revert for the reasons given above and have then edited the lead to remove the word 'extensive' from the lead which was objected to as a 'peacock' phrase and have corrected some other grammatical errors in the lead which I had introduced. PeterEastern (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed Perris Valley Line extension to the 91 Line will link Riverside and Perris by 2012

Can we get an update? It's now 2012 and construction hasn't even started.I don't think it's even been approved yet.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

The proposed Perris Valley Line extension to the 91 Line will link Riverside and Perris by 2012

It is now August 2012 and construction hasn't even started. Supposedly a lawsuit is preventing the project from happening. Can someone PLEASE update the article?74.100.47.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Horns

Is this section really encyclopedic or necessary for this page? It seems far too "insider" for the casual reader. --RickyCourtney (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)