Talk:GoTriangle

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

United States: North Carolina / Durham Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Durham. Buses This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

IIRC, didn't both of NC's senators effectively call the RR endeavour dead in December 2005? (posted by AlanzoB)

Yes, though it hasn't officially been discontinued as a project by the TTA. -Jcbarr 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are "rethinking" it - see here: [1] Jpp42 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of mass transit relative to other means of transportation seems to be missing from the equation of the its value to the community. An informal analysis of TTA (which was moving strongly toward light rail as well) which I did several years ago showed cost per bus ride of $50! What is the actual cost of private vehicular transportation by comparison? We will never know unless someone looks at the whole transportation system as an interrelated system with a strong emphasis on cost/benefit ratio. If as much energy and money were directed toward existing transportation as to new forms, I think our money would be used much more efficiently.

For example, in 2005 TTA fare receipts were $1.5M, and the expenses related just to the Board of Directors was $1M. (TTA) [2]--Tobyw 12:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would argue that ticket fares don't cover the cost of public transportation. Your obtuse comparison of TTA fare receipts (ticket sales) vs. Board of Directors expenses indeed does reinforce the call for an objective cost benefit analysis of public transportation. AlanzoB 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the bus in the main picture has a glitched front display; does anybody have a better picture? If not, I can go to the terminal and snap some. 152.7.10.88 (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

152.7.10.88 back. I finally found my camera cable and got around to taking a picture at the transit center. For clarification, by "bad", I meant that it seemed to place TTA in a negative light, not that anything was wrong with the quality of the photograph.Tastyduck (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GoTriangle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080517231139/http://www.transitblueprint.org:80/ to http://www.transitblueprint.org

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]