This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Light rail article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 150 days

	Light rail was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Rapid transit High‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Top-importance).

There's text in the article that states that construction costs for light rail per passenger-mile are comparable to freeways due to peak carrying capacities of 20k/hour (passengers) and 2k-2200/hr (vehicles). Earlier in the article, there is a reference to the average vehicle occupancy being 1.5, so that's a ratio of 6.06-6.67:1. Also, just beforehand, it states that the average cost for light rail is $35M/mile and for freeway is $2.3M/mile, a ratio of 15:1. That doesn't strike me as comparable. Am I missing something? If not, can I just remove this contradictory conclusion (which has no reference, incidentally)? Mmtmmt ( talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Put another way, that's $1750 per passenger-hour-mile for light rail and $1045-$1150 per vehicle-hour-mile for freeway. Even with all single-occupancy vehicles, that doesn't fall into any reasonable definition of "comparable". Mmtmmt ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113002142/http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm to http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.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: 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

In Cleveland, we have two rail systems, referred to as heavy and light. The former is post-war construction; the latter is 1920s construction to support real estate developers (who incidentally bought a controlling interest in the Nickel Plate RR to support their efforts).

Does that qualify? Is it not listed because it's nearly a century old on a fifty year old concept, or just because nobody has bothered? Snile ( talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Added it to the appropriate passage; don't know why it was left off, but Cleveland's Green and Blue Lines totally fit the description of pre-World War II streetcars that were upgraded to modern standards over the years. oknazevad ( talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

[…] tram […] is a form of tramway […] that constitutes a form of tram.

Perhaps we could find a better way to phrase that? Cheers ⌘  _hugarheimur 18:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That terrible wording crept in through some bad rewrites in September that plainly ignore that tram (aka streetcar or trolley) has a separate article. I restored the older version of the lead. oknazevad ( talk) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the Tyne and Wear Metro Should not be include in Light Rail & instead Commuter rail because it better follows the requirement's to be a commuter rail instead of Light Rail. Also the Tyne & Wear Metro only has level crossing which are at about Right Angles to the Road. Also the Tyne & Wear Metro get's some quite heavy freight trains heading to/from Drax Power Station & Tyne Dock running on the same track as the Tyne & Wear Metro. I Like The british Rail Class 483 ( talk) 16:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

You may be right, especially after the old stock (based on type B trams/LRVs) will be phased out by 2025. KatVanHuis ( talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply