Talk:RTD bus and rail services

Request for proposal for map

It would be great if this article could include a map of lines. This would include the current lines and the possible lines of the Southeast Corridor when complete, but not the lines expected to be built under the FasTracks plan, given that they are not yet going to be built. If anyone can draw a map, please feel free to do so. MattFisher 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see maps of the current light rail system here. The T-REX Project (southeast corridor) is here. I'm not familiar enough with the rules to improve the relevant articles with copies of the maps... sorry. BetaCentauri 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a map using Google Maps here. Is that what you were looking for? I guess you want a map that can be used on Wikipedia. BetaCentauri 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

More dogma from the anti-car crowd

Amazing how you post an entry shining some light on the bottomless financial pit that is light rail and it gets edited out almost immediately. The topic (Denver) has to have some of the most flowery, optimistic, pro-light rail spew I have ever read. Post one bit of info contrary to that belief and watch it get deleted in record time. Wikipedia is a joke run run by tree huggers and America haters.

Since the anonymous user at IP 162.111.235.18 seems to have directed the above at my recent edits, I will respond. The article is intended to describe the rail transit system in the Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area - its history, where it goes, what vehicles it uses, how frequently it operates, how many passengers it carries, etc. It is not meant to be a forum for political debate over light rail, which is the subject of articles dealing generally with light rail. For the record, I did edit out certain "flowery, optimistic, and pro-" statements, as these do not represent a NPOV. Also for the record, nothing in the present article says anything pro or con about private automobiles, but it does mention how cars can be used to access the transit system and parked at the stations. As for the last statement, Wikipedia is "run" by anyone and everyone who wants to - which probably does include some "treehuggers" and people who "hate" the United States of America. A further note for the record - I am neither. Denvoran 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

>> It is not meant to be a forum for political debate over light rail... >> Unfortunately, when you present only facts that support one side of the story (the side you agree with), sprinkle in a little subjective language like 'completed on-time and on budget' (PU-LEEEZE, not light rail project in history has done this), and edit out FACTS that, God forbid, paint light rail as less than utopian, you ARE making it into a philosophical debate. I am done with this charade. Post whatever the hell you want.

As the article stands, the article is not supporting sides, or describing light rail as "utopian". There are no statements like "completed on-time and on budget", and if there were at one time, I didn't write them. I don't see how a philosophical debate can be found in the present article. In any case, it's good to know that the anonymous user and his/her disagreeable attitude has decided to troll elsewhere and won't be inserting any more POV into the article or trying to pick fights on the talk page. Denvoran 15:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt "completed on-time and on budget" would be concidered political if coorberated by the evidence. The fact is Denver Light rail has been a huge success for RTD, with ridership numbers above the predicted from day 1. The Newest line, T-Rex, is going to open ahead of schedule, and if I recall correctly on budget, or below. If that is the case and supported by the fact then it is not taking one side or the other, and merely showing the true nature of the topic. EnsRedShirt 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is Denver Light rail has been a huge success for RTD>>>

How exactly is losing $500 million PER YEAR and doing nothing to reduce traffic or pollution considered a success? Ridership was up less than 2% over a three year period from 2002-2004 and expenses are growing at double digits. Like any other light rail system, they make no difference in pollution or automobile use, and waste money that could be spent on schools, police, etc. There is just this bizaare new urbanist movement that thinks mass transit is a good idea and does not care what it costs. Anyone with common sense and a calculator would agree this is a catastrophic failure. Here in Charlotte, NC we claim that our yet-to-be-built light rail is 'on budget' by simply changing the budget every time there is a cost increase. Once $220 million, now its $426 million and still 'on budget'. Not including raiding the roads money to pay for cost overruns and not add that in.

Stop being a sucker. I bet if you dig deeper you will be disgusted to find corruption, bribery, and kickbacks between politicians and construction companies. They are the only ones who benfit from this boondoggle.

I'll be the first to admit that mass transit on a whole is subsidized heavily. At least it is not a 100% loss like some other programs.. but that is off topic. The fact that your not in Denver shows you have no clue what type of impact is felt from light rail. The existing rail lines and cars are packed during rush hour and during sporting events or concerts downtown. I can guarantee that it reduces the number of cars coming into downtown at any given time. I find it much easier and convienent to park for free at a park and ride and ride the rail in when I go to an event. Light rail dispurse the traffic allong its route as well, so you have less cars coming from many points rather than lots of cars from 1 point. It helps free up traffic in downtown. EnsRedShirt 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am done with this charade." It had to be too good to be true. Wikipedia is the worse for people who troll around ranting, "spewing" sarcasm and confrontational remarks, without constructively contributing. Denvoran 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can guarantee that it reduces the number of cars coming into downtown at any given time:::

You can?? Do you have any actual evidence? Again, my observation that these glowing claims are never backed by any actual facts and used on a web site the ends in the word '-pedia' is the problem. I have plenty of people I know who live in Charlotte who moved here recently from Denver who are disgusted that we are repeating the same mistakes. All I am asking for are facts and references to back up wild claims like 'light rail reduces congestion and pollution'. You will make me a true believer if you can link to some data that supports that claim. You don't observe that most light rail riders are just former bus riders, and the amount of 'new' previous automobile riders is negligible.

Again, anonymous user, the article makes no claims to the effect that "light rail reduces congestion and pollution". You - becoming a "true believer", "treehugger", "America hater" and "sucker"? NEVER! Denvoran 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here [1] is a link that shows that indeed, Denver's southwest light-rail line has reduced the number of cars on that line. BTW, as of 2006, there are 34,273 average boardings on light-rail everyday according to RTD's own figures [2]. Pretty good, I think, especially considering there is really only one major line at this point. Also, the argument that they are just bus riders and that is not lowering pollution or congestion is ridiculous. Light-rail is on it's own right of way, so even if it is just people that would've taken the bus before, that means less diesel polluting busses taking up valuable space on the roads. Santa Fe Drive doesn't have bus service anymore, and neither will I-25 when T-REX is done. I'd say that is an improvement on both counts. Vertigo700 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is from 'lightrailnow.org', a PRO-light rail advocacy group. Those are cherry-picked data (also from 2002, so it is a bit stale). If you read on the current date from 2002-2004 (national transit database, which is the only objective source of info), ridership has gone up only 1.8 percent in total in 3 years for the TOTAL system. Light rail ridership DECREASED from 2002-2004. 2002 represented the peak in light rail ridership in Denver, and it has declined for last two years for which there is data (through 2004). Bus ridership has actually INCREASED slightly during that same span.

". . .which is the only objective source of info." Is it? The dictionary is not a reliable source as well? As it pertains to light rail I looked on (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ntdhome.nsf/?Open) and to be specific looking at the 2004 data (http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntd/NTDData.nsf/2004+TOC/Table19/$File/Table+19++Transit+Operating+Statistics+-+Service+Supplied+and+Consumed.pdf) we see a total of "82,362.8" thousand trips. Checking for 2000 (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTDData.nsf/2000+TOC/Table28/$File/t28_32.pdf) we see a total of 76,823.3 thousand trips. An increase in ridership of 7.2%. Could you please provide light rail specific info and links as well? I would like to review the information myself. I did find that according to (http://www.rtd-denver.com/History/index.html#Facts) there where "10,396,623 LRT boardings" annually from December 2004 to November 2005 Also would you like to show some evidence of this "losing $500 million PER YEAR" I was only aware that the RTD Denver spent less than $400 million per year (http://www.rtd-denver.com/History/index.html#Facts). As a side note signing your posts allows everyopne to know who said what.--Chinakow 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also guessing that those numbers are only paying customers as well. One thing I hate about light rail here is it is an honors system, you purchase a ticket and show it on board if a conducter requests it. (except for broncos games, where there is a turnstile at the investco field stop) So this means people can (and more than likely do) ride for free. With the TREX and Fasttracks expansions I hope RTD has plans to change this. 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are quoting really old data (2000). As I mentioned earlier, ridership peaked in 2002 and declined in 2003 through 2004. If you look at each year's consolidated data, you will see it broken down by mode (bus, light rail, demand response, etc.). In 2003, the entire Denver mass tranist system LOST $500 million. In 2002 and 2004 they lost approximately $450 million. The disturbing trend is that expenses increase at a rate far in excess of ridership and revenue from fares. It is just more government waste, with nothing to show for it, other than more 'make-work' and government job creation. I will never argue that there is some segment of the community that uses this, but statistically it is very small (less than 2 percent in urban centers and less than 1 percent outside of urban centers). Roads carry far more passengers for the money.

As far as the cash outlay, I beleive you are only looking at 'operating costs' from that RTD link. That does not include annual capital costs. That is why I would refer to the NTD as the only objective source, since municipalities have to tendency to paint a rosy picture of things in their reports to the public by hiding or creatively wording things like 'boardings' versus 'fares'. Who cares about boardings if people are not paying their fares due to the ingenious 'honor' system. We will also use that same asinine system in Charlotte. I hope terrorist are on the honor system and do not bring backpacks full of explosives on the train like they did in Madrid and London.

First of all, what the hell does terrorism have to do with any of this? And secondly, how are statistics from 2004 old and out dated? I asked you for specifics and all you provided are vague statements that the system is losing massive amounts of money with merely a general hand-wave at the NTD saying, "the NTD as the only objective source." Yet I have yet to see one piece of evidence to support your claims, I ask again for specifics. Also, in reference to your statement, ". . . municipalities have to tendency to paint a rosy picture of things in their reports to the public by hiding or creatively wording things like 'boardings' versus 'fares'," what evidence do you have that the RTD is cooking it's books or manipulating it's financial information? Beside that, what does it matter if they only count boardings? Total fares received is still a total income. Granted the honor system is a terrible way to do business, but the fares where checked on at least an occasional basis the last time I rode the light rail.

when you say losing $500 Million a year I find that the NTD says otherwise. Looking at the NTD data for 2004 (http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntd/NTDData.nsf/2004+TOC/Table26/$File/Table+26++Fare+per+Passenger+and+Recovery+Ratio.pdf) for the whole of the RTD Denver there was a total operating expense of $267,646,843 from all services listed and a fare revenues earned total of $56,112,545 it should be apparent that while they operate at a loss your unsubstantiated claim of $500 Million is completely inaccurate. You can now feel free to claim that RTD Denver operates at a loss of $211,534,298 a year without objection from me although I doubt that the federal government does not have a hand in making up some of that loss. On a more specific note light rail is listed in the same link as having $8.0 million in fares and $21.6 Million in expenses. Can we now discuss specifically those losses only? This is the after all the talk page for rail transit in Denver, not RTD Denver as a whole.--Chinakow 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Losses for 2004- $288,000,055 in operating funds and $$217,201,390 in capital exepenses = $505,201,445 minus roughly $56 million in fares. I pointed out above the it was about $450 million in losses for 2004. 2003 was about $500 million in loss. You are not including 'capital' costs, which are the purchases of hard goods, not just salaries/benefits and operating expenses. Let me inject a civil tone here. I support your right to believe this is a good idea. I just do not support using a broad taxation to fund it. In 2004, almost $100 million in taxpayer subsidies came from the Federal government. Why on Earth am I paying for Denver's transit system???? (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/2004+All/8006/$File/8006.pdf)

Do me a favor and scroll waaaaay back to the top of this page and you will see that it says Talk:Rail transit in metropolitan Denver. If you want to discuss the finacial status of RTD as a whole then the page you should be posting to is Talk:Regional Transportation District.

I will assume this was an honest mistake. Let us now discuss, specifically, the light rail lines. While it does appear that RTD expends about $500 million dollars a year, those losses are not entirely because of the light rail. The Capitol costs and Operating funds are not all of light rails responsibility. The bus lines or the demand service or Vanpool get a cut of that as well. Let us look at what we can learn from this 8006.pdf. First the light rail expended $205,997,532 in Capitol funds. So we see immediately that almost half of the money spent by RTD in 2004 was on the light rail lines. This figure includes Revenue Vehicles, Systems and Guideways, Facilities and Stations, and Other. Second Operating Expenses are listed at $21,689,060. When we remove the $8,050,707 in fare revenues we get $13,638,353. Adding the Capitol funds and Operating expenses we still get $219,635,885. A total of less than half of the $450 million stated before. These figures are taken from the Modal Characteristics section of the document the anonymous user linked to. So can we please contain any further discussion of finances to those that relate specifically to rail transit in metropolitan Denver?--Chinakow 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The honor system will continue to be used on the new Southeast Corridor lines along I-25 and I-225 (T-REX) and certainly on any future expansions. It is simply too impractical and expensive to design relatively low-volume light rail stations with fare barriers, and it makes for a less user-friendly environment. With the honor system, stations can be designed to be much more accessible and open, instead of having to funnel everyone through a single or limited number of access points. All of the new light rail systems built in the U.S. in the past 25 years use the honor system - it's a proven method of operation and isn't likely to be changed. For the record, Madrid's and London's rail systems use fare barriers - not an honor system. Terrorist bombings on a light rail vehicle in Charlotte, North Carolina? "PU-LEEEZE!" Denvoran 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte is the 2nd largest banking center in the United States (next to New York). Corporate headquarters to Bank of America, and Wachovia Bank. Our proposed light rail will run directly behind both of those main buildings. Not searching every single passenger in a post 9/11 era is insane. It would be more convenient to stop searching people on airplanes as well. I hate standing in line.

Whoo-hoo Charlotte! Frankfurt is the 2nd largest banking center in Europe (next to London). Why has there been a terrorist bombing in Madrid, but none in Frankfurt? If every single passenger on Charlotte's light rail system needs to be searched, then so does every vehicle that enters downtown. Let's see: a terrorist wants to damage the Bank of America or Wachovia Bank. S/he can either fill a backpack with a DOZEN pounds of explosives, board a light rail train (during the 18 or so hours of operation, and only every 15 minutes) and wait until the train - traveling in the MIDDLE of the street - moves past the building. OR s/he can load up a car or truck with HUNDREDS of pounds of explosives, and drive it to any location of her/his convenience near the bank - even into an underground parking garage or just crash it right through the front doors - at any time of day or night. Which method would a terrorist use?

The Oklahoma City bombing was not carried out by someone riding a OK City Transit bus, the Pentagon was not damaged by someone riding the Blue Line Metro that passes by it, and the World Trade Center was not destroyed by bombs planted in the handful of subway lines that ran directly beneath it. It is insane to suggest that light rail riders need to be searched. If that is your vision of the future, be prepared for search cordons on every freeway and on every street entering downtown Charlotte. Hate standing in line? Think about slow-moving traffic queued up for miles behind every one of these checkpoints.

I fully admit this posting is off-topic, and those who have an issue with that can take it up on my talk page. I simply cannot allow such illogical, blatant nonsense to remain posted here without it being exposed as such. Denvoran 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in here after the fact, but I have to weigh in. The very idea that somehow fares need to cover the entire costs of operation for public transportation is just non-sensical. No one expects highways (even tolled highways) to cover the entire construction and maintenance cost through user revenues. Heck, 95% of highways have no user revenues. Even E-470 doesn't cover their entire operating costs despite the highest toll rates in the country. The same could be said for any municipal service from city streets to state parks to trash pickup to libraries. Please, would anyone advocate abolishing public libraries because fine collection doesn't cover their entire operating budget? So why is public transit the only government service that is judged on whether or not it makes a profit? The most unfair side of this is that transit opponents almost invariably bit transit versus highway expansion -- yet highway expansion gets no revenues of any kind from users! (except for tollways).

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is also not USENET. Keep the discussion about the article, and keep it civil. Thank you. --CComMack 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Christ, you'd think we were debating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it stands, I can see no problems with the neutrality of the article. It makes no assertions about cost effectiveness except exact figures at the bottom. It says nothing about environmental impact or congestion relief.Loodog 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Here, let's end it with the facts: This argument is done. Td18178 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Strike

I readded a small line about the strike, as it is history of the light rail line, and belongs in this article. I agree the earlier line was to long, not rail centric, and was not NPOV. This line is short, rail centric, and has NPOV. EnsRedShirt 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

So I just noticed that I have spent plenty of time arguing a point here without checking to so what is on the actual article page. I just saw the new table added to the article page quotes data that is inaccurate. the statistics for 2002-2004 Financial and Ridership Data is inaccurate even according to the data that it quotes. For instance, in 2004 the table quotes 82 Million trips, the PDF overview for RTD as a whole lists that number for total ridership among Bus, Light Rail, Demand Response, and Vanpool (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/2004+All/8006/$File/8006.pdf). If no one has too much of an objection, I would be happy to go through these documents and correct these stats. --Chinakow 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

New 2002-2004 Financial and Ridership Data

Year	Passenger trips	Fare revenues	Operating expenses	Capital expenses	Total expenses	Farebox ratio	Farebox recovery including capital expenses
2002	10,429,572	$7,826,147	$18,983,692	$138,601,876	$157,585,568	41.23%	4.97%
2003	10,635,977	$7,463,388	$20,068,211	$254,753,902	$274,822,113	37.19%	2.72%
2004	10,028,459	$8,050,707	$21,689,060	$205,997,532	$227,686,592	37.12%	3.54%
2002 NY MTA	1,694,026,559	$1,518,164,752	$2,255,945,154	$2,391,429,069	$4,647,374,223	67.30%	32.67%

sources: RTD 2002 RTD 2003 RTD 2004 MTA 2002

As promised here is the new data specific to the rail system, I do need a bit of help with the formmatting of the table. I would like to add a note that says the New York info is provided for comparison. Also, should I provide another table with the costs and ridership for the total systems? The link for fare box recovery provides a percentage that seems to indicate the MTA recovery was calculated from the same data I provided here. The old data on the actual rail transit in metropolitan Denver article figures fare box recovery by including capital expenses and the linked article about fare box recovery does not. That is why I figured farebox with both capital and without capital expenditures included. Any help with these issues would be appreciated. --Chinakow 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be very wary of using New York as a baseline of comparison, as they operate very different systems in terms of mode and scale. I would suggest Los Angeles, Portland, San Jose, or Sacramento to provide a more reasonable comparison. --CComMack 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Year	Unlinked passenger trips	Fare revenues	Operating expenses	Capital expenses	Total expenses	Farebox ratio	Farebox recovery including capital expenses
2002	10,429,572	$7,826,147	$18,983,692	$138,601,876	$157,585,568	41.23%	4.97%
2003	10,635,977	$7,463,388	$20,068,211	$254,753,902	$274,822,113	37.19%	2.72%
2004	10,028,459	$8,050,707	$21,689,060	$205,997,532	$227,686,592	37.12%	3.54%
2002 San Jose	2,446,130	$5,888,072	$53,581,300	$258,391,157	$311,972,457	11.00%	1.89%
2002 Los Angeles	32,605,548	$18,332,264	$83,689,122	$4,058,191	$87,747,313	21.91%	20.89%

sources: RTD 2002 RTD 2003 RTD 2004 San Jose 2002 Los Angeles 2002

Here is the revised edition with two systems closer in size to Denver's and this time I compared light rail to light rail instead of light to heavy. This seems to give a better idea of the range these systems can run. Any other suggestions before I put this on the main page? --Chinakow 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks very spiffy. Go for it, says I. --CComMack 01:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that LA's capex is so low. Perhaps it's an indication that they aren't expanding their system, while Denver and San Jose are? Personally, I think capex recovery is best compared over the long term, rather than compared to the year those dollars were spent. But that is a gray area. --BetaCentauri 09:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of date

They've opened up four new lines. Perhaps someone should edit the article to reflect this. I'd tag it but i don't know which one would be good to use.

RTD rail line boxes

I've added templates for these as well as some stubs for most of the termini. See the following:

• Union Station (Denver)
• Pepsi Center/Elitch Gardens (RTD)
• I-25/Broadway (RTD)
• Nine Mile (RTD)
• Lincoln (RTD)
• Littleton/Mineral (RTD)
• 30th/Downing (RTD)
• Convention Center/Performing Arts (RTD)

My main concern now is how to handle the 16th-18th Street stations. We could just add something like 18th-California/Stout (RTD) and 16th-California/Stout (RTD) or something similar. The lines that travel through downtown, e.g. D Line (RTD), F Line (RTD), and H Line (RTD) already adopt a similar approach.

Feedback on what I've added would be greatly appreciated. Also please feel free to improve these boxes. This article, if it is cleaned up, could probably be used instead of Regional Transportation District as the page linked to in the start box template.

--BetaCentauri 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, since no one replied, I finished adding stubs for all the stations and linking them together. I decided to use the format 16th/California & 16th/Stout (RTD) and 18th/California & 18th/Stout (RTD). I'm still working on a way to generate a GFDL/CC/etc. map. I already have a Google maps version of this, but obviously we can't use that since Google copyrighted their maps. But I still have the raw GPS data, just need a way to generate an useful map from it. --BetaCentauri 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you use an RTD map?? Shouldn't anything produced by RTD be copyright free since it is a public agency? EnsRedShirt 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The copyright-free clause only applies to the federal government, and there are exceptions. I believe the general rule is that state- and local-level agencies retain the copyright on works produced by its employees. That being said, I have not asked RTD for clarification. --BetaCentauri 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fare box on page

The fare box showings Fares for "TheRide" needs to be expanded to include SkyRide, Lightrail & its zones, and so on and maybe a discussion of passes since they have the eco pass, monthly passes, and the college passes, etc. Just a thought. Otherwise you might lead folks to believe the bus to the airport is only 3.75 (which sounds much better than the 8 or so bucks it is). jtowns 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right about skyRide, but light rail's zones are described in the "Primary Services" section. Are you suggesting that a stronger connection should be made between regional service on LRT and the regional fare in the fares box? LRT fares are the same as bus fares for the same service level. --BetaCentauri 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just feel if you are going to bring up money and fares, you should cover it all in the same place or uniformly cover the fares of each service mixed in with each service. Pick a style and go with it. Just be consistent. jtowns 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And on the zones thing, I mean the fare to travel one zone, two zones, all of the zones, etc. Sorry if I was confusing on that part above. jtowns 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how you would want this section changed. Be bold and change it yourself. I'll be glad to review your change. Thanks! --BetaCentauri 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Combine with Regional Transportation District

Shouldn't this article be combined with Regional Transportation District because it talks about basically the same thing. It is very confusing for people that want to find out about bus service in the Denver area. It is commonly reffered to as RTD and as far as I can tell, TheRide and RTD are one and the same. I live in Boulder(just outside Denver) and use the bus all the time. I do not think that the busses are ever refered to commonly as TheRide anymore. I searched for RTD because that is what the bus service is called and came up with Regional Transportation District not TheRide. As it turns out I actually wanted TheRide because it talks about the bus service operated by RTD. This is horribly confusing. At the very least something should be added to Regional Transportation District to talk about their bus service.--K1000 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's what RTD calls their service, and is consistent with other transit articles, which separate their articles about the services from the operator. The two articles are closely linked, so I do not see a need to combine them. Though I am certainly biased since I'm the one that separated them. --BetaCentauri 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see why they are seperate, but there is not really enough in each article. This article does not really have all that much information, it just tells about the services of TheRide, not anything about operations or history. That is all on the RTD page. Combining RTD with TheRide would not actually entitle too much because of this.--K1000 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was my hope that by revamping the way the RTD pages are written, more people would contribute.. and thus would help justify the separation. Another issue was there used to be a Rail transit in metropolitan Denver article that I felt was separated too much in style and coordination with the RTD page. There is not really any rail service besides RTD in Metro Denver, so I got rid of that page and merged it into TheRide along with the bus services (since currently we don't have enough material to have dedicated articles for bus & rail), which were separated from the operational/historical notes that are now on the RTD page. As I said in a previous discussion at Talk:Regional Transportation District, my intention was to turn the RTD page into something more like TriMet and the TheRide page into something more like MAX Light Rail. There were several other operator/service pairs that I took cues from as well. In conclusion, I think that improving the current articles would be more useful than simply merging them. I would love to have someone else to work with/talk to about these pages at any rate. --BetaCentauri 05:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking. I would definitely be willing to help with these pages in any way possible. I'll remove the merge tags.--K1000 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to clear up confusion, the "theRide" page could be renamed "RTD Bus and Light Rail" and you could make a note about the official name being "theRide". NOBODY from Denver calls the service "theRide" I would ventrue that many in Denver do not even know it is called "theRide" they just call it the RTD, or the Light Rail. In fact RTD's new panint scheme eleminates the large "theRide" logo. --Gash22 22 April 2007

That makes a lot of sense actually. Good idea--K1000 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am fully aware no one in Denver calls it TheRide. It's a lot more concise than "RTD Bus and Light Rail" though. But RTD never markets the name, so no one knows... *shrug* Would be interested in seeing their new livery. I don't use RTD on a regular basis, unfortunately. --BetaCentauri 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am renaming the pages as RTD Bus & Light Rail. I asked an RTD employee about it and the name for the services is RTD Bus or RTD Light Rail, 'theRide' is a slogan. --Gash22 3 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

pic

I went out and took a pic of the Skip in boulder use it if you want--

--K1000 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

Could anyone post a map of the light rail system? I would but I don't know how to. 71.59.198.33 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the articles references are just bare urls

Most of the articles references are just bare urls. This sucks. It makes it hard to find a replacement when the website owner reoganizes their site. I strongly encourage contributors to use full fletched out {{cite}} templates. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RTD Bus & Light Rail. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/2014/10/06/icymi_people_are_talking_about_denver_transit.html#

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 16:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

new title?

Since this article also covers the commuter rail line, does it need a new title? Is there any reason it's not just called "RTD" or the like -- is there some other article for the agency distinct from the one about its transit routes? --Jfruh (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Map and system diagram

I know I can't be the first reader to stop by here looking to take a quick glance at the system layout, only to find this article (seemingly the primary one on Denver's mass transit system) to be surprisingly disorganized and lacking in any graphic map whatsoever.

The system diagram, a poor replacement for a regular map even in normal circumstances, has apparently been gradually amended as Denver added lines in such a way that it is now all but illegible.

The diagram also contains objectively false artifacts like a "tunnel" surrounding the Louisiana-Pearl station, which in reality sits beneath a partial lid so short that it doesn't even cover the entire platform, and which is entirely exposed on the side to the eleven lanes of highway in the wide open cut that the line and the roadway share. That is *not* a tunnel, by any definition, and no matter how much Denver transit fans may wish their city to have built a subway, wishing doesn't make it so.

I implore whomever is tending to this page to get serious about cleaning it up and fixing its errors and omissions, so that it can become a useful piece of Wikipedia again. 2601:182:CE00:3152:F453:BF92:3FDA:3C97 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Voice is Karen Hutton

Just found out that the announcements for the light rail (and probably also commuter rail) are provided by Karen Hutton. Unsure of how to cite this, but could only find this video. If someone could actually add this as a reference, I'd much appreciate it. Edgar Searle (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)