Talk:Skyline (Honolulu)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead is far to short. Look at WP:LEAD, which states that all sections are to be covered. I am also concerned about the split of history and controvercy. Also, the section on the route is very short, and should at least be supplemented with a route map (more info at WP:TRAIL).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is very little technical information, such as capacity, headway etc. Also, after the decription given on the offical site, it seems the system is a rapid transit and not a light rail (as the terms are used on Wikipedia). The latter is simply a modern tramway, while the former is grade-seperated (which all fully-elevated systems fall into). Note that the terminology between light rail and rapid transit is vague, and slightly different in North America, Europe and Asia, but that on Wikipedia we are trying to be a bit consequent in our use of terms.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no need for a split in this case (simply merge the controversy into the history section, since it convers part of the chronology of events).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is completly unimaged. While it is understandable that an article about an unbuilt system cannot have images of the system itself, it would be nice with substitute images (for instance of key locations, the bus system, politicians etc). Be creative.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold until the matters mentioned are seen to. There may be a fair amount of undone work. If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to state them. Good luck, and good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am passing the article. The expansion has addressed all my concerns. I would just like to comment that this is a fairly fast-moving matter of happenings, and that to remain at GA, it should be kept up to date when major incidents occur (politically or technically). Good work and congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review comments

This entire article is hopelessly out of date and most of the supporting links do not work.

It should be removed from Wikipedia until such time that it meets Wikipedia's standards for correct information.Scottca075 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question of "rapid transit vs. light rail," the rolling stock that would be used on the line is closer to what is used on other light rail systems in the United States than a typical rapid transit system (see this brochure from the official website here.) The city chose to build an elevated system to minimize the physical footprint of the rail line (see the "Why will the tracks be elevated?" question here.) Musashi1600 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot find any information about the rolling stock either place. All the images in the brochure depict rapid transit systems. The definition of urban transit is a bit loosely an urban, public rail transport system that runs entirely in its own right-of-way with no crossing traffic, and operates at a high frequency. As far as I can see, this projects meets all the criteria. To confuse you further, the Midland Metro (in the UK) is a light rail, while the Docklands Light Railway is a rapid transit. I notice that the official material consequently refers to it as "rail transit". I have been bold during my copyedit, and reclassified the system to rapid transit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that rapid transit systems normally have significantly higher throughput capacities than what Honolulu's rail line will be capable of (the rapid transit article mentions a figure of 36,000 people per hour), but I see your point. I'll leave the rapid transit designation as-is for now. Thank you for your work on reviewing this article. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Take a look at light metro for more about low-capacity rapid transit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

I finally finished my copyedit. The research looks very thorough, although I will point out that I know absolutely nothing about rail projects. Kudos for your hard work. Below are some comments from my read-through. Feel free to implement or ignore them as you will.

• How about a map of Honolulu with the proposed route on it?

• I'm changing the tense in the lead from the conditional (would construct) to the simple future (will construct). I assume that since the amendment passed and the project is underway, this is a fair change to make?

• If Blaisdell set plans in motion for a rail project (as I assume from the text), it should be made explicit.

• I don't like "if .. then" statements in Wikipedia articles, so I replaced the parenthetical explanation with something more succinct. Hopefully I didn't reduce clarity along the way.

• The City Council vote to approve the tax increase reversed the decision made thirteen years earlier in 1992 against raising taxes to pay for a rail line. Do we really need this? I'd vote to remove it, as it feels repetitive.

• I'm not a big fan of one-paragraph sections. Any way to combine some of these? (I think the "Alternatives Analysis Report" section could become the final paragraph in the "Background" section.)

• We should get a basic (1-2 sentence) overview of what the DEIS is — and how it was done, if possible — before we start hearing about when it was released.

• For future reference: The timing of the release ... was criticized as deliberately denying key information... This is an example of passive voice, which appears elsewhere in the article as well. (I've remedied it wherever I find it.) Most editors consider this poor writing, because the person or institution taking the action isn't identified in the sentence. The active voice form of this sentence is: "Some observers criticized the timing of the release..." Note that it's much better to get specific about who "some observers" are.

• How many names were required for the Stop Rail Now petition? (Better for us to say: "...well short of the XX,XXX required.")

• The city currently plans to build the section of the line between Ewa Beach and Ala Moana Shopping Center, excluding the portion passing Salt Lake, with a total of 22 stations along the route. This is confusing — I changed the sentences above it to the present tense, since the project has been approved. (And if we're talking about a proposed route, the conditional — would run — isn't necessary.) But now it looks like the city's not actually building that route? Is this just what they're building right now, with the intent of building other parts later? Can you clarify?

Good luck with this article! If you have any questions, please let me know. Scartol • Tok 13:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can pull a map off the city's website and load it here claiming fair use, but I think it'd be better if someone with vector graphic skills reproduced under a free license. I'll see what I can do about that.
• Changing the lead tense is fine.
• Clarified: Blaisdell was the first to raise the idea, but Fasi was the one who started actual work on it.
• No clarity lost there.
• Line removed.
• I folded the sections about the Alternatives Analysis and DEIS into a new "Studies" section. Hope that works.
• DEIS overview included.
• Rechecked the references, and named the voice.
• 44,525 signatures were needed; that has been added in.
• There's an abstract route map in the infobox that should make clear what the city plans to build, although it's hidden by default, and doesn't display the way it should.

Thanks for the help. I'll probably list this up at WP:FAC sometime in the next week or two because of you. Musashi1600 (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Route image

Just out of curiosity, is there any way to make the image of the route a bit smaller, or to otherwise reconfigure it so it is a bit more compact? As it is now, the pic takes up a lot of space, creating a large white spot on the screen after the end of the article. This is a bit distracting on the eyes... -Pax85 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It used to be integrated into the infobox, but it apparently ran into width limits that messed with its formatting and appearance. I'm not sure what to do with it. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about making the default view as hidden? Then if a reader wants to, he/she can expand it. Also, I would recommend adjusting the dark green header a little, as it makes it very difficult on the eyes to see the edit button... -Pax85 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolling stock?

Has any decision been made on the rolling stock (i.e. manufacturer and type of train) yet? Will the trains be powered by third rail or overhead wire? --Jfruh (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The city is currently reviewing bids from three companies (AnsaldoBreda/Ansaldo STS, Bombardier Transportation, and Sumitomo Corporation of America), but they haven't announced a winner. [1] As for the method of electrification, the final environmental impact statement refers to third-rail system on page 2-30, as part of a section about the technology to be used by the rail line. [2] Musashi1600 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to Honolulu Rail Transit?

The official page uses the less turgid name "Honolulu Rail Transit", time to move this page there? The name certainly seems more popular, Google New gets lots of hits for "honolulu rail" but precisely one for "Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project". Jpatokal (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea.Haberstr (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate section deleted

I deleted the section "Planned stations" as its text was copied word-for-word from TheBus (Honolulu), which is the more appropriate article for that information. Fenwayguy (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Four-car trains

Intro says that Honolulu will use 2-car trains. A decision was made earlier this year to use 4-car 256-ft trains, instead. Milbrooky, September 30, 2014‎

This is an important difference, which needs to be included in the article, as it is substantially different from what the article currently says about the rolling stock. But if they go with 4-car trains, with each train having the potential to hold 2,400 passengers, then with anything better than 10 minute headways on the system, and this system will go well past systems like Copenhagen Metro or London's Docklands Light Railway and will no longer be a "light metro", but will instead qualify as a true rapid transit system. But I'd like to see the 600 passenger per railcar figure confirmed somewhere else first... --IJBall (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: OK, the Honolulu Rail Transit website (see under "How many people can fit on the train?") says something different: 800 passengers per train, not 600 passengers per railcar. That definitely falls back into the "light metro" transit regime. But the Honolulu Rail Transit website does confirm that 4-car trains are planned to be used. --IJBall (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this issue has relevancy when it comes to future-proofing. I know at first ridership projections aren't over optimistic, which is very realistic for a lower density small city. But how long are the platforms going to be? Will four cars be the max potential? Two-car platforms really would be pushing it well into classification as very light metro/light rail even. B137 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Map

Perhaps HART would be willing to release its maps to the public domain, or perhaps someone would like to recreate: [3] -- Beland (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I searched but I haven't been able to find one. I agree they would add to the article. Tjej (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beland: @Tjej: I made a map and added it to the route section. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mliu92: Awesome! Thanks so much for your contribution! -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Honolulu Rail Transit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729021514/http://www.honolulutransit.org/rail-system-guide/facts-and-figures.aspx to http://honolulutransit.org/rail-system-guide/facts-and-figures.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www6.hawaii.gov/tax/announce/ann05-11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615111105/http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1626 to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1626
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610135634/http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB1626_.HTM to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB1626_.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

needs a section on criticism?

I have just begun reading some material about this project and it would seem to deserve a separate section outline the criticism of the proposal. This seems to be somewhat buried in the article. Also the opening should reference the blowout in budget and scheduled opening. Overall the article needs an update but I'm sure there are others out there who are more familiar with it than me, for reasons indicated. Tjej (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made some of the changes I suggested. Some of the other material is contained in the text but I think a section on criticism is still warranted. I will try to put it together. Tjej (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Timeline of progress" needs update

Tthe "Timeline of progress" needs to be brought up to date Tjej (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done some work editing the article in general and the timeline in particular. I think some of the details in the historical narrative can be cut back. Having read about the issue somewhat I think the need for a criticism section is all the more warranted since it can be well referenced through new sources. Some of this is hinted at in the text. One of the major weaknesses of the article was a tendency to take the rail advocates arguments at face value or to include positive rail assertions that weren't backed by the reference. I have added figures to show the increase in the budget over time. Given it is still three years until the first train carries passengers and eight years until the line is finished having this background to aid future edits will be helpful.Tjej (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

estimated costs "$9 billion to $10 billion as at Sep-17

HART submitted a new recovery plan to the FTA in Sep-17 with an estimated cost of $9.023 billion which has been added to the article. There's a comment on the article cited as a reference - that says this excludes certain costs properly caused by the project. This isn't a satisfactory reference to include in Wikipedia but it is worth noting as something to keep in mind when updating the page in future. "I think this headline is very misleading. The $1 billion reduction includes at least $430 million in HART administrative costs that are now the responsibility of city taxpayers. The other big chunk is reduced financing costs. There was also a bit of rounding to get to the $10 billion. Now that costs are split between HART, the city (for HART’s administrative budget and ADA compliance work) and the state (for additional oversight), it will be especially challenging to figure out how much rail is costing us." 00:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Honolulu Rail Transit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129163425/http://m.kitv.com/news/hart-cancels-bids-for-first-9-rail-stations/27967000 to http://m.kitv.com/news/hart-cancels-bids-for-first-9-rail-stations/27967000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422000532/http://www.honolulutransit.org/hart.aspx to http://www.honolulutransit.org/hart.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Map

Someone needs to fix the route map. The way it is showing up (at least on a mobile browser) is as html code. I’m not familiar with the template, so I don’t think I’d want to make a fix and have it not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

West Kapolei and Waikiki/UH Mānoa branches

Questions for the locals and thinking out loud... we still include the West Kapolei extensions and Waikiki/UH Mānoa branch extensions. Is there any real discussion about doing those? From what I can tell by reading the websites and documents, this is more of a "dream" or future planning discussion, not a serious proposal at this point. If that's the case, I'd like to remove those until they're more solidly planned. Thoughts? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should be included on the route map, but this arguably still is eventual goal, and thus I strongly feel is worth mentioning & including in the article. I'm not plugged into leeward coast/West side discussion as much, but the goal of it reaching Waikīkī and UH Mānoa one day is certainly still discussed in the community and is what people are hoping and planning for, even if these are less solid than the other sections of the rail. All HART/rail-related documents are public record and viewable at http://hartdocs.honolulu.gov/docushare/dsweb/HomePage and looking through some of these, e.g. this one it looks like UHM and Waikīkī as destinations that are still used to frame the project, are taken into account during project audits, etc. Governmental stuff moves pretty slow here, and I'm sure recent reports have been focusing on continuous testing, opening, and operation of Phase 1, but here are a few key mentions of "Waikīkī" and "UH Mānoa" that have been made as recently as 2022, showing their continued relevance:

• "The purpose of the Honolulu [Rail Transit] Project is to provide high-capacity rapid transit in the highly congested east-west transportation corridor between Kapolei and UH Mānoa"
• "Delay caused by traffic congestion accounts for nearly one-third of the scheduled time for routed between ʻEwa and Waikīkī"
• "The Final EIS/4(f) analyzed the Project, including future extensions to Waikīkī and UH Mānoa."

Figures including diagrams of the "Beretania Street Tunnel Alternative UH Mānoa Station" exist and are provided in these documents as well – the exact locations of these stations, their staircases and emergency exist, building plans, etc. all seem pretty solidified at this point! I'd say this is enough reason to leave them mentioned in the article. Hope this helps! –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As the editor who originally put those extensions into the route template (see Special:Diff/262826982), that was done a long time ago before the rail project had massive cost increases that eventually led to the line being truncated to end in Kakaʻako instead of Ala Moana. Given that HART doesn't have a timetable for completing the line to Ala Moana, never mind any of the Kapolei/Mānoa/Waikīkī extensions, I'd say removing them is appropriate. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Parenthetical (Hawaii vs. Oahu vs. Honolulu)

Hi @Epicgenius! I noticed you recently moved/renamed the article from "Skyline (Hawaii)" to "Skyline (Honolulu)". I fear this may be confusing for some since the county of Honolulu is different from city of Honolulu. The "city" definition is what the vast majority of people mean when they use the word "Honolulu", and this is what the article for Honolulu describes well. While located in what used to be called "Oʻahu County" and is now technically called "The City & County of Honolulu", the rail does not reach Honolulu city yet (seen in the article and in the tabled route diagram too). Per WP:PRECISE which you cited in the move log, I believe it would be much clearer for the article to be named "Skyline (Oahu)" – as it serves the island of Oʻahu, not just (or in fact at all, at this point) the city of Honolulu. The current "(Honolulu)" parenthetical is confusing because it's unclear whether this would refer to the city or the county – and the county definition is essentially never used on a day-to-day, common-use basis by either locals or visitors. Please let me know if you have any objections to the article being moved. @RickyCourtney, you may want to to weigh in as well since you've been doing many helpful edits to the article recently too. Thanks! –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really have a strong preference for the parenthetical presentation. I'd say that even if the line doesn't operate in the city of Honolulu it does operate in greater Honolulu or metropolitan Honolulu (pardon me if there's a better phrasing). In that sense, I do think it's precise enough. Also, I like that Skyline (Honolulu) matches TheBus (Honolulu). But, again, I don't really have any strong preferences. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any strong preference for the disambiguator either; I was honestly thinking of Honolulu County, Hawaii, when I renamed this article. If we're going strictly by WP:PRECISE, more people would know about Oahu than about the coextensive city-county of Honolulu. As such, I agree that it may be better to rename this article so the disambiguator matches the name of the island rather than that of the city-county - however, the title of the article should be Skyline (Oahu) to match the main article, which is at Oahu. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a good point about it aligning with TheBus (Honolulu). I agree they should match. And the entire island of Oʻahu (or Oahu, whatever orthography you prefer) is probably-arguably greater Honolulu… Moreover, TheBus is the primary transit system here and TheBus does indeed primarily operate in Honolulu and across the south shore of Oʻahu. TheBus uses "Honolulu" and not "Oahu" in their official communication, e.g. HEA (their real-time GPS tracking system) stands for "Honolulu Estimated Arrival", and the decals on the side of the electric buses say "Power up, Honolulu!" Thus, I think leaving it as "TheBus (Honolulu)" and – and then "Skyline (Honolulu)" to match – is actually best, and definitely the clearest & cleanest solution. You've convinced me to actually change my opinion/recommendation, ha! :) In other words, leaving it as-is is now best IMO. Thanks for the discussion. –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To further justify this, the official social media hashtag for the rail opening is "#SkylineHNL" – so "Skyline (Honolulu)" is assuredly best. :) –Fpmfpm (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether to add "rail" as a nickname

I had added an edit about Skyline being colloquially referred to as rail, but I see that it has since been reverted. I don't see why not to add it, as many news articles and stories still commonly refer to it as "rail" as well as it being a largely used term. See: [4][5][6][7] among others.

That is compared to very few articles which use Skyline by name consistently. [8][9]

Essentially, the first few use rail as the name for the entire system itself (e.g., riding rail) versus the later which has it more as the type of transportation (e.g., riding the rail, riding Skyline). I don't see why not having "rail" is a problem, given that it is largely the common name given to Skyline and is often used to refer to it as a whole. Other railway systems are known by different names, such as the MBTA subway being known as the "T", Chicago's "L", or the Washington Metro just being called the "Metro". I don't see why this is any different.

Pacamah (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)