Talk:West Main Streetcar: Difference between revisions

From Cvillepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==A few deficiencies==
==A few deficiencies==
A good start, but this page neds work. For one thing, the history section ignores the streetcar Charlottesville already had--and discarded--from 1895 to 1935.  The reasons a streetcar already failed need to be explored before we talk about building a new one. And the page does not report why Maurice Cox's vision of a Portland Oregon-like streetcar fell into dessuetude: we just don't have the density.  Finally the cost figures are ludicrous.  A roller coaster (ultra-light rail if the loops are streched out) costs more than this reported streetcar budget. And a roller coaster is not enclosed, has no heating or air-conditioning or brakes or engine; it needs no catenary wires; needs no digging up asphalt streets to anchor steel rails. So this page needs to get real. I will do what i can to fix it shortly.[[User:Polonius|Polonius]] ([[User talk:Polonius|talk]]) 08:45, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
A good start, but this page needs work. For one thing, the history section ignores the streetcar Charlottesville already had--and discarded--from 1895 to 1935.  The reasons a streetcar already failed need to be explored before we talk about building a new one. And the page does not report why Maurice Cox's vision of a Portland Oregon-like streetcar fell into dessuetude: we just don't have the density.  Finally the cost figures are ludicrous.  A roller coaster (ultra-light rail if the loops are streched out) costs more than this reported streetcar budget. And a roller coaster is not enclosed, has no heating or air-conditioning or brakes or engine; it needs no catenary wires; needs no digging up asphalt streets to anchor steel rails. So this page needs to get real. I will do what i can to fix it shortly.[[User:Polonius|Polonius]] ([[User talk:Polonius|talk]]) 08:45, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
:Just remember to keep the tone neutral. --[[User:Seantubbs|Seantubbs]] ([[User talk:Seantubbs|talk]]) 12:18, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
::Good advice--but right back at 'ya.  The section  "Proponents explain their support" is both long and full of unanswered bosterism.  There are answering arguments.  Like [https://reason.com/archives/2012/09/27/the-streetcar-swindle here].  Rather than a balancing point-by-point rebuttal,  I think better the section should be reduced, and arguments broken into a "pros" and "cons" sections.  I will look at it overnight and take a shot at bringing some balance to the article tomorrow.[[User:Polonius|Polonius]] ([[User talk:Polonius|talk]]) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
:::Sounds good. Just know that a lot of my edits consist solely of writing quick updates based on [[Charlottesville Tomorrow]] articles. I value your work on this to make them much better. --[[User:Seantubbs|Seantubbs]] ([[User talk:Seantubbs|talk]]) 17:01, 13 October 2015 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 18:01, 13 October 2015

A few deficiencies

A good start, but this page needs work. For one thing, the history section ignores the streetcar Charlottesville already had--and discarded--from 1895 to 1935. The reasons a streetcar already failed need to be explored before we talk about building a new one. And the page does not report why Maurice Cox's vision of a Portland Oregon-like streetcar fell into dessuetude: we just don't have the density. Finally the cost figures are ludicrous. A roller coaster (ultra-light rail if the loops are streched out) costs more than this reported streetcar budget. And a roller coaster is not enclosed, has no heating or air-conditioning or brakes or engine; it needs no catenary wires; needs no digging up asphalt streets to anchor steel rails. So this page needs to get real. I will do what i can to fix it shortly.Polonius (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2015 (CDT)

Just remember to keep the tone neutral. --Seantubbs (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
Good advice--but right back at 'ya. The section "Proponents explain their support" is both long and full of unanswered bosterism. There are answering arguments. Like here. Rather than a balancing point-by-point rebuttal, I think better the section should be reduced, and arguments broken into a "pros" and "cons" sections. I will look at it overnight and take a shot at bringing some balance to the article tomorrow.Polonius (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (CDT)
Sounds good. Just know that a lot of my edits consist solely of writing quick updates based on Charlottesville Tomorrow articles. I value your work on this to make them much better. --Seantubbs (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2015 (CDT)