The MAX Red Line is the second-busiest line in Portland's MAX Light Rail system and the region's only airport rail link. After commencing service nearly twenty years ago just one day before the September 11 attacks, it now carries over 20,000 riders per day between the cities of Beaverton and Portland, and Portland International Airport. Having successfully gone through GA and DYK nominations, as well as numerous read-throughs and copy edits, I feel the time is right to nominate this article for FA. Truflip99 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder comment. So far, this looks good, but I will look at this more in depth later. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
The MAX Red Line is a light rail service in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system. It serves 26 stations in the cities of Beaverton and Portland, running predominantly east–west. - this has a minor contradiction. I'd rather you mention Beaverton in the first sentence. E.g. "The MAX Red Line is a light rail service within Beaverton and Portland in Oregon..."
I may have modeled this off of the Red Line (Sound Transit): The Red Line, formerly Central Link, is a light rail line in Seattle, Washington, United States, and part of Sound Transit's Link light rail system. It serves 16 stations in the cities of Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila, traveling 20 miles (32 km) between University of Washington and Angle Lake stations. -- Would it be better to reword it to: It serves 26 stations between Beaverton and Portland...?
it then splits to an exclusive, 5.5-mile (8.9 km) segment, - I can somewhat see what an "exclusive segment" is, but is there a better wording?
Done. I've omitted "exclusive".
It is the second-busiest service in the MAX system, carrying an average of 22,530 weekday passengers in September 2019. - Do you mean "passengers per weekday"?
Done
owing its quickness to - generally, "owing to" is unwieldy and should have a more appropriate wording like "because of".
Done
TriMet plans to further extend service west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro, among other improvements, by 2024. - I'd rather you mention "improvements" first. E.g. "TriMet is planning several improvements for the line, including a further extension west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro by 2024." Alternatively, if the extension is the main improvement being highlighted, you can reword it that way. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6 to 14 million passengers between 1990 and 2000 - six to fourteen million, per MOS:NUMERAL.
Done
Was the Port of Portland the agency responsible for the expansion?
Indeed.
This project also provisioned for a future - Typically, either something is provided for, or has provisions for.
Done
In 1994, parking lots were operating at 90 percent capacity as projections fell short of demand - I'd mention the lack of demand first, before the 90 percent capacity.
A bit of a misunderstanding. Reworded it. Hopefully it's more clear. --Truflip99 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clark County, Washington, and Clackamas Town Center - this looks like it is not a serial list as it's talking about only two places. But the placement of the commas make it appear that way. Would "Clark County in Washington" work?
Done -- Agreed.
Part of the agreements authorized Bechtel to design and build a 5.5-mile-long (8.9 km) light rail extension to the airport - do you mean "A part of the agreements"? "One part"? The beginning of this sentence sounds strange.
Done
in December 1997.[22] In October 1998, - I wouldn't go with dates right next to each other in adjacent sentences
Done -- However, I'm not familiar with grammar rules against this, especially for prose that's written chronologically and with dates that are paramount... It would be amiss not to say when (at least in wikipedia), but at the same time, the lack of variety would be tedious.
$182.7 million - conversion?
Done
I'd split the first paragraph of "Funding and construction" section into two paragraphs, probably because each of these sentences is so short.
Done
6 new rail cars - "Six new rail cars"
Done
Can you briefly expand the description on Metro (Oregon regional government) in the end of the first paragraph? I didn't know it was a regional government until I hovered over the link.
Done
owing to - "because of"
Done
limited to twenty parking spaces at Gateway Transit Center and several others along Airport Way - how were these impacted? Eliminated or added?
@Epicgenius: Based on my reading they were eliminated, as the sentence was referring to impacts from the line's construction. I considered commenting on that but thought it was understandable. It could definitely be clearer though.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- yes, they were eliminated.
Bechtel began end-to-end testing in March 2001, followed by TriMet in July - So how did the end-to-end testing go about? Did each contractor have different rolling stock?
Done -- TriMet rolling stock
In 2000, TriMet named the new MAX service to the airport the Red Line to differentiate it from the established service between Hillsboro and Gresham - this sentence probably needs some reorganization or punctuation, e.g. "the 'Red Line'" (note that you would also have to put quotes around the "Blue Line").
Done
after which TriMet introduced 272–PDX Night Bus, which operates in the late night and early morning hours when the Red Line is not operating.[44][45] - I feel like this is going on a tangent from the original point of the sentence, which is that the Red Line replaced a bus service.
Done -- split
deploy two-car consists temporarily for the first time - I'd go with "temporarily deploy", because "temporarily for the first time" just sounds wrong. Or you can reword it another way. Was this temporary deployment only for holidays?
Done -- this was only done in that instance, until September 2005.
no-transfer airport connection - this is probably just another term for a "one-seat ride"
one-seat option from Portland International Airport to ten additional stations on the Westside MAX - I find this to be clunky. Is TriMet adding these stations as brand-new stations, or is the one-seat airport service being extended to ten existing stations?
Done -- they are existing; Corrected.
If the project is approved, construction is targeted to begin in 2021 and finish by 2024 - when is the approval expected to be?
Done -- I omitted that, it's already approved by TriMet. Just needs FTA funding.
In 2020, TriMet will temporarily close Portland International Airport station from March 29 to May 30, and again from August 30 to November 4, - What is the status of this? Have the closures started yet?
Done -- Updated.
Near Rocky Butte, the line enters a tunnel beneath the northbound lanes of the freeway and exits on the median. - I think "surfaces on the median" or "emerges on the median" would be better, since "exits" can be quite confusing.
Done
two segments of the Airport MAX extension are single track. - This has a grammatical error; use "are single-tracked" or "consist of a single track".
Done
On July 24, 2019,[72] TriMet announced the permanent closure of the Mall stations, as well as a one-year pilot closure of Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon Street station, in an effort to speed up travel times. The closures took effect on March 1, 2020.[3] - I think this can be condensed. The announcement dates are not likely to be relevant at this point, since the stations are already closed.
Done
For the "Commenced" column of the station table, can the dates be referenced?
I'm not sure how to do this effectively without overref'ing it. My thought was the links to the station articles would suffice. Suggestions?
I was asking a general question. If there are already sources in the prose section of the article, then I think it is fine. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Columbia Area Transit" is a red link. While that would otherwise be fine, I don't think we generally include red links in featured articles.
I can make a stub this week.
Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as frequently as 15 minutes for most of the day - I think "from a headway of..." is weird in this context. I suggest "with headways ranging from..."
Done
From Monday to Sunday, - "seven days a week" perhaps
Done -- Each day
last three trains turn into eastbound Blue Line trains - should "trains" be "trips" in this context? It would be difficult to be imagine physical trains "turning into" something.
Done
Cascade Station - is this the same as Cascades station? If so, capitalization has to be consistent.
In 2008, Cascades station recorded an eight-fold increase in traffic, from 250 passengers per week to 2,000.[81] By 2010, this number had increased to 6,000.[82] - is there a way to combine these sentences?
Done -- does a semi-col work?
Sure. 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think all of my major comments have been resolved, except for the red link. But if you will make a stub for that, it should be fine. Given how long this review has turned out, I should mention that I will be claiming points in the WikiCup for this review. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some minor copy edits which I believe leaves the article meeting FA criteria. The content looks good. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: "Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as little as 15 minutes for most of the day" – 'as little as' is misleading and possibly POV. Consider removing it or replacing it with 'as frequently as'. 2c Nutez (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Epicgenius, I will look at this more in-depth later. Here are a few comments
Lead:
The extension began construction in 1999 and was completed in just under two years due to the exclusion of federal funding and the utilization of existing public right-of-way. Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that to a typical reader, that the fact that project was sped up by excluding federal funding might be counterintuitive. I understand the reasoning, and know that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but it seems a bit off left unexplained here.
Done
Amid strong westside ridership on the Blue Line, Red Line service was extended west to Beaverton Transit Center in 2003. You should establish that the Red Line was being extended along an already existing line.
Done
Background and partnership agreement:
In 1975, during the preliminary design phase of Interstate 205 (I-205), Portland city planners recommended... Do you know the agency or agencies the city planners were working for? If you could find that information, it would be useful to include in the article.
Done -- the source doesn't state which agency rather who (the city's chief transportation planner), which leads us to assume it's PBOT (or its 1975 equivalent). But since this isn't expressly stated, I went with a less-but-still ambiguous approach.
In 1986, regional transit plans The citation indicates that Metro was behind the plans. I would mention that to make clear to the reader that these were official plans done by a government agency.
Done.
with construction projected to begin around 2010. I just want to make sure this is right. In 1986, the plan projected the line to be completed in 2010, and later it was accelerated to open in 2001?
Yes, that is correct.
was defeated by Clark County voters in 1995. It would be helpful to mention the margin of the defeat.
Since this is talking about a different line, I believe it exceeds the scope of the topic and would prefer to omit it. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In late 1996, Bechtel initiated discussions This is abrupt, and I think it would be useful to explain what Bechtel is and why they solicited the proposal.
Done
The project was accelerated with the establishment of a public–private partnership, which eliminated the need for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding I think it would be useful to note that the timeline was also sped up as an Environmental Impact Statement would not have to be completed, as the project was not using federal funds.
EIS was still processed however. This source (p. 82) states that lack of FTA funds was the central factor that allowed it to be fast-tracked. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found a source. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funding and construction:
Additional costs raised this total to $182.7 million. What are these additional costs?
Done
Under U.S. federal regulations, the Port of Portland was able to fund only the portion of rail located within its property, with approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Was this a Passenger Facility Charge? If so, I would mention that and link to Airport improvement fee.
This is mentioned later in the paragraph with that link included.
funded by $30 million in bonds I am just being curious here, but were these bonds from a voter iniative, a local government, or somewhere else? Thanks.
Article isn't very detailed about this, but perhaps I can track it down...
over the freeways Is this referring to multiple highways? If so, what highway in addition to I-205? You should mention them instead of just saying freeways.
Done
owing to the I-205 Transitway I would change this to "owing to the already constructed I-205 Transitway" or something like that.
Done
Much of the extension was built over public right-of-way. Besides the highway right-of-way, were any other rights-of-way used for the project? If so, they should be mentioned.
Done
Opening and later extension:
Upon opening, the Red Line terminated at the Library and Galleria stations in downtown Portland, where its trains turned around at the 11th Avenue loop tracks. Had these loop tracks already been in place? Were any modifications made so this station could be a terminal for Red Line service?
They were laid as part of the original line in the 1980s.
C-Tran moved its service Make clear that C-Train is a bus operator
Done
On September 1, 2003, Red Line service was extended farther west using the existing Westside MAX tracks Upgrades are being made to extend Red Line service to Hillsboro. Was any infrastructure constructed to enable this extension of Red Line service in 2003?
I'm not entirely sure about this one, actually. @SJ Morg: could you possibly point me in the right direction for this? --Truflip99 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The extension to Hillsboro and the 2003 extension are two entirely different things. The 2003 extension, from downtown Portland to Beaverton TC, did not require any additional infrastructure; the entire "extension" (of service) was along existing Blue Line tracks, and at Beaverton TC, the third track (on which Red Line trains began terminating and laying over upon implementation of the 2003 service extension) and connecting switches were all built in the 1990s as part of the Blue Line project. There was also already a break room for Red Line operators at the new terminus, since Beaverton was already a large TriMet transit center. No new infrastructure was needed. In contrast, the current Red Line extension plan, if approved, will require new infrastructure at both its west end (Fair Complex) and especially on its eastern section (around Gateway). SJ Morg (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I do recall seeing a Beaverton TC rendering with three tracks in a late 1980s news article. I failed to mention this in that station's wiki article. Anyway, the answer to the question is no. Thanks, SJ Morg. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Future plans
This section needs to be expanded to provide additional information about the project, which TriMet calls the A Better Red project. The project's $200 million cost and TriMet's application for an FTA Small Starts Grant should be mentioned, in addition to the improvements to be made as part of the project, including signaling and switch upgrades and the construction of crew facilities at the new terminal. You should also note the changes at the Gateway Transit Center in more detail. This document provides a lot of important information.
I plan to add more detail to this once the final design is out. It would be premature to cover it in detail only to see huge changes. Some changes added.
You should also note the history of the plans. The plans, according to this link were first drawn up in the 2013 Westside Service Enhancement Plan. This should be mentioned, in addition to pertinent details.
As comment above.
I would also note the announcement made four days ago that the Portland Airport station would be closed for two months to accommodate work at the airport. I happened to see this in yesterday's Progressive Railroading newsletter which showed up in my inbox.
Done -- thank you for that! I didn't even see this announcement due to all the covid articles.
Stations
The closures took effect on March 1, 2020. You have a source from when the changes were announced, but you also need a source to indicate that they actually took place on March 1st.
@Truflip99: This article is exceptional, and I look forward to hearing your responses. I will look at references and images later.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this here while I review it. If sources haven't been particularly examined, I'll do that. First note that, though the many Oregonian sources are generally inaccessible, I have had to look over some from here for a GA source review, and they turned up fine (no OR, no copyvio, it is RS) - so I won't look over these on assumption that the same standards have been met. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 (2 downtown...) isn't the best source for the number of stations and closures, since it doesn't say how many stations there are (there's a link in the infobox, but with a different number...), and though the link is about closures, it doesn't establish what lines nor the dates (could double up with a source saying that those stations are indeed on the red line, but if there's a single source with the info that might be better)
Done I've supplemented this with the rail map ref, which shows all stations but doesn't show the temporarily closed station. So I will keep that additional ref. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what source 10 (Case Study...) is being used to cite - it's used once, and that statement is in the other source attached. Unless I'm missing something?
Done It's used for the 6-14 mil. passengers claim. I added a page number (the doc's page number not the pdf)
Source 14 (Airport Max) doesn't mention the location, as far as I can see
Done "... plans included an accommodation for a light railtransit station near the baggage claim area." -- The arrivals hall (pick up area) and baggage claim area are next to each other; I added this to the prose. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things to look at already, tell me if I'm missing something in these archive pdfs before I check the rest :) Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a cite error at ref 73: Cite error: The named reference station-closures-2020 was invoked but never defined
Done -- I have replaced it :)
Could you add page numbers for Ernico, Sheri (2012). Considering and Evaluating Airport Privatization (page 36?) - I found the info, but it would help others if they have the actual book and not a searchable web version
Done -- thanks for the catch
Archiving of sources looks good. There's some books I'd have to go to a library for, however...
Yes. This has been my pet peeve about transit-related sources. Often, a source is only available in that locality. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: I have no issues with the prose, images, etc. While suggesting an additional source review when physical books are available to someone, I give this a provisional support (also noting that I'll be claiming this for WikiCup) Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images are free and seem appropriately licensed and sourced. I'm not entirely sure why File:Cascade Station shopping center entrance - Portland, Oregon.JPG is used in the article though—it apparently just shows the mall, not the station, so its immediate relevance is unclear.
Modified description, hopefully clears things up. Alternatively, I can just omit.
I think the new caption is fine as it ties it to the relevant text beside it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References:
Spot-checked statements attributed to sourced to refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 33, 45, 46, 53, 60, 74, 76, 83, and 84.
Ref 2 is used to support Transfers to the Yellow Line are available at the Pioneer Square stations and Rose Quarter Transit Center, while transfers to the Green Line (beyond the shared Eastside MAX alignment) and the Orange Line can only be made at the Pioneer Square stations., but my reading of the map is that there's no stops shared between the lines.
They are transfers to nearby stations, but transfers nonetheless. I've clarified it.
I didn't spot issues with plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
References all appear to be from reliable sources; primary sources from operating company or sources to trade journals and the like appear to be used appropriately.
Thanks for the comments! --Truflip99 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Is there anything else you would like me to address? --Truflip99 (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose:
The airport expanded rapidly in the 1990s as traffic increased from 6 million to 14 million passengers between 1990 and 2000—this is a bit unclear to me whether they're referring to 6 to 14 million annual passengers, or an aggregate (so 8 million trips in the ten-year period.) If the latter, rewording to be clearer would be good.
Otherwise, article looks solid. I did a very minor copyediting pass, and I'm happy to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified it. Thank you for the review! --truflip99 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from my FAC Cyclone Chapala, hoping you might do a review in return for not my article, but one of the four other tropical cyclone related articles.
I think the first sentence has too much in it, and suggest the "operated by Trimet" should be its own sentence. I suggest the first one be "The MAX Red Line is a light rail service in Portland, Oregon, part of the city's MAX Light Rail system." Your call though
I prefer to retain current format, as it has been accepted by the GA reviewers of all the other GA MAX articles.
"as traffic increased from six to 14 million passengers" - I think there's something in WP:MOSNUM that both numbers should be the same format if they're in close proximity. Maybe even reiterate that it's not literally "six" by saying "6 million to 14 million passengers"?
"Anticipating this growth, the Port of Portland embarked on a 20-year, $300 million phased expansion project in November 1991" - I read that as the Port having an expansion project. I had to open up the article for the Port to realize it was the owner of the airport. Maybe explain the Port as the owner role here?
Done. I think it is well understood that "Port of [city]" is often an American city's airport operator, so I will compromise with specifying what was being expanded
"After long deliberations, agreements were made between Bechtel, the Port, and local governments." - this is a bit vague. When was the agreement? You earlier mentioned the former transit employee helping on the project, but you don't go beyond that incorporating local governments' role. Did the city of Portland give its approval, just like the Port did?
Done, and added refs. I use "local governments" because the jurisdictions are overlapping (Metro, city, and TriMet) --Truflip99 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"$125 million (equivalent to $183 million in 2018 dollars)." - you didn't mention the current USD in the previous paragraph. Also, why not 2019 USD? Or 2020 even? (because 2020 isn't over yet, I'd imagine)
If you are referring to the $300 mil figure -- that amount is there to be helpful, but I consider it beyond the scope of the article (as it's about the airport) and therefore I don't think it needs to be expanded upon. The 2018 dollars uses the inflation template.
"The final 2.9 miles (4.7 km) along I-205 was covered by local jurisdictions." - does that include the city of Portland and other areas? Or just the municipal government?
City, Metro, and TriMet. Does it need clarification?
"Starting March 29, 2020, Portland International Airport station will be closed through May 30, and again from August 30 to November 4" - is this still on track?
Yes. We won't really see any updates until after May 30, typically.
Should you add that "3:30 am" is local time?
No, I think it is well understood in this context.
Any updated annual ridership since 2015?
Unfortunately, no. TriMet provides monthly figures regularly. The yearly are often provided in infrequent fact sheets.
The article is rather good. My issues shouldn't be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I believe so. Prose, refs, licenses, MOS, etc. have been addressed. I am satisfied with the article. --truflip99 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argh - sorry, meant to ping @Kew Gardens 613: as they said they were planning to return... --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Just a heads up -- I've reached out twice on separate occasions and have not gotten a response to this post but he remains active to address his many GANs. --truflip99 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth and Truflip99: Sorry about that, with tons of GAs and papers to write for school I had not gotten around to replying yet. Yes, all my concerns have been dealt with!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
