Template talk:SRTS

South what? Blue Line extension? Tram system?

So what is this "South" thing? It is color Blue, is it part of Blue Line, proposed extension perhaps? But then, it is impossible since it includes PICC, that's very much out-of-the-way. The only conclusion I have is that this is a different line altogether. But if it is, 3 stations only? Maybe it's a tram system? In any case, it shouldn't be Blue-color either. Finally, I can not find any information about it. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget it, the update made by user "112.204.183.144" on "13:33, March 24, 2012" messed the template. I reverted it back to a working template dated "01:59, March 24, 2012" by user "Sky Harbor". I will try to merge the additions in the messed-up edit though I have double thoughts on the "Blue Line Extension" where "PICC" is included. In fact, I have double thoughts on the whole "Blue Line Extension" section. It's just not feasible to do so, they will be blocking the EDSA-Taft Ave. intersection and there are no alternative routes for a "U-Turn" system. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure there is a Blue Line south/south west extension currently being planned either. The link the user included in the reference of each new MRT-3 station page doesn't work and Ive also done my research on any current proposal on this, with no luck. Unless its actually the user proposing it? Will have to undo his changes to the template.

Hmm... seems like the MRT-3 Bay City extension was based from this: http://ttpiph.com/userfiles/file/TTPI%20Brochure_Feb8_%202012.pdf However, it was only a pre-feasibility study that was done on 2009. I can not find any other information about it, nor the name of the supposed stations. Not to mention, how they plan to do it to give it any chance of being 'possible'. Yep, better leave it out for now to avoid confusion. I did not merged the other updates since it will require more in-depth research, and not much reliable information can be found online. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Santos Station is part of Phase 1A

From the LRTA website: "The construction of the Cavite Extension Line is divided into two phases - the first phase shall be from Baclaran to Dr. Santos Avenue (Phase 1A) and the second phase shall be from Dr. Santos Avenue to Niyog Station (Phase 1B). I've updated the template with the correction. http://www.lrta.gov.ph/projects/proj_l1southex.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by RioHondo (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

SRTS

Please do not again revert the title to SRTS, as SRTS was merely the name of a government program. The abbreviation was and is not coterminous with the combined system of rapid transit and railways. UtnogUtnog (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. When the network was conceived in 2003, the network was called the SRTS: an amalgamation of three disparate metro lines and a commuter rail service. The mere action of amalgamation was the point of the program, hence the name, as I have explained previously. Unless there is WP:RS to prove that the system had been given a new name, I have no choice but to revert. (Actually, I should be asking this: what then is the name of the network if not the SRTS?) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki article on the Strong Republic Transit System states that the program has been discontinued by the current administration. However, the link provided merely supported the Northrail discontinuation/reconfiguration aspect and nothing about the SRTS. While the current government under the DoTC has stopped referring to the system as SRTS per se, it still promotes its overall concept by bidding out the single rail ticketing project for instance this year. So far, the Aquino government has only come up with ITS (Integrated Transport System) under Executive Order No. 67, s. 2012 but that also includes the bus transport system and north/south terminals much like the earlier MMDA program: the Greater Manila Mass Transport System (Executive Order No. 179, s. 2003) which had also been discontinued/nullified by the SC back in 2007. The new name for the mass transit system for Greater Manila Area as well as the line colors rebranding (Yellow for MRT-3, Green for LRT-1 and Blue for LRT-2) will have to come when this administration has actually completed any of its rail projects i guess. For now, it's still the SRTS. Cheers! --RioHondo (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as the most relevant source lrta.gov.ph describes SRTS as a program and furthermore no relevant source has been found that explains that SRTS is a network and not a plan, it does not even matter which part of the former program will be continued. The term governemntal plan SRTS has not been used by the government as the name for a network. In reply to Skyharbor In response to Utnog La: if I were to follow your argument, and your argument is that the SRTS is the name of the project but not the final name of the network, then what's the final name of the network?, there is no official or widely used term, which does not mean we should misuse the name of a former program as the name of the network. UtnogLaLa (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Utnog La and your sock puppets (and I really wonder why you have so many): I still do not buy the argument that the SRTS is but merely the name of the project, and not of the network proper. Again, unless you can prove to me that the administration (previous or current) used the name "SRTS" to refer only to the project and not to the final product, and has said explicitly that the SRTS is not the final name of the network and will be in fact called something else, the average person will believe that the network's name and the project's name are the same.

To use an analogous example: I bet you'll think that the Strong Republic Nautical Highway system is but a "project name" and is not the name of the network itself. However, there are indications that it is the network name as well: road signs say the network is called the SRNH, the DOT still calls it the SRNH even though we're no longer under an Arroyo administration, etc. The same argument can be said for the SRTS: during its existence (and its current existence, mind you, until the Government of the Philippines under Benigno Aquino III comes up with a new name for it, or at least tells us what it calls it, since it "supports" the concept), both the project and the network were called the SRTS, from the signage down to the promotional material. You cannot have a name for the project without having a name for the final product: in this case, the final product's name is the same. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're changing the proof of burden. Saying that "you don't buy something" is nonsense. The official and relevant source, lrt.gov.ph, does not mention the abbreviation being (the name of) the system. Please give relevant sources that SRTS is the designation of the network. That's the way things work here @ Wiki. You've never done so, and been reverting me several times. Please, work with sources or stay outta here. Otherwise we should stick to the relevant sources. The analogous example doesnt mean anything, it's not said that if in the case of SRNH the program and network are coterminous this implies something for the case of SRTS. Regards, UtnogLaLa (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I posted this yet, but here's an article from the Philippine Star: GMA launches transit system. To quote:

The President said that Strong Republic Transit System is composed of five lines and seven interconnections with a single ticketing system. The five lines will include Yellow Line for Rizal to Taft; Blue Line for EDSA; Purple Line for Aurora to Magsaysay; Orange Lines for Southrail and Green Line for Northrail.

She said that the SRTS project includes the rehabilitation of the old line like Light Rail Transit line 1 and the Philippine National Railways, the completion of the LRT line 3 and the physical integration of the different railway lines through the construction of seven links or interconnection facilities like covered walkways with escalators.

I think the President was serious in calling the final product of the project the SRTS. Thanks. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're overinterpreting this source (SYNTH) by concluding the abbreviation is used here in the way it would mean network. The project SRTS was inaugurated, as you can hopelfully understand. Not the enhanced network. Furthermore, this is not a particulary reliable source with respect to defining a term. And, what's most important, the current administration is not using the term anymore. To use SRTS as the name of the system, and as the name of this template should be avoided. - UtnogLaLa (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Railways and rapid transit in Metro Manila, Laguna, Rizal, Cavite and Bulacan"?? And i thought "Strong Republic Transit System" was already a mouthful. :) How about we name it "Rapid transit system in Greater Manila Area" where all those neighbouring provinces along with NCR are all covered? But no, i'm a regular commuter in both Manila's LRT and MRT and as of my commute yesterday, the magnetic cards they issue still have the Strong Republic Transit System logo in them along with those of LRTA/MRTC and DOTC. And yes, they haven't phased out even those cards with Gloria Arroyo's pic (one where she's wearing a hard hat). So if you have issues with the "Strong Republic" program, i suggest you take it to Malacañang. Cos only when they decide to replace them or come up with a new name should we here allow anyone to edit it. Ever wonder why until now, even new cars bought after 2010 still carry the "Matatag na Republika" in their plates? Cheers. --RioHondo (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Rapid transit system in Greater Manila Area" is shorter and quiet clear, I agree with you. The flash pass does not prove that SRTS was the designation of the network itself. If parts of SRTS are coming back in a recent governmental plan - in a different way though - it's exaggeration to say the program is continued. As a matter of fact, extending current lines of a system will be a common thing of public transport plans now and years ago. UtnogLaLa (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

From the link I posted of the LRT-1 South Extension PPP Project presentation pdf file, please pay close attention to the line in the Executive Summary: "An integral part of the Rail Transit Network envisioned in the Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study.." Again, this rail transit network being referred here is the existing system that was given a name by the former administration: The SRTS, which has its roots from the 1996 JICA-funded project study as I indicated in the main article which you deleted. This "Rail Transit Network" is the "Strong Republic Transit System" born in 2003. And it wasn't just a name, it came with it the different color lines which are in fact still in use to this day: The MRT-3 Line became Blue, MRT-2 or Megatren became Purple, LRT-1 went Yellow, and the PNR: Blue and Green. The name, the colors, these are all part and parcel of the SRTS. Go search in lrta.gov.ph, pnr.gov.ph, and dotc.gov.ph and you'll see blue, yellow, purple lines. Colors that didn't exist before 2003. And then you also have the interchange terminals and unified fare system project (that Aquino will be bidding out this year) all born from this program, which again goes back to the 1996 plan and recommendation, but was only implemented in 2003. The fact that the DoTC under Sec. Roxas wants those color lines reorganized (Yellow for MRT-3, Green for LRT-1, and Blue for LRT-2) along with the common ticketing scheme, i think that already says a lot that this administration has indeed continued the program. It's just that they haven't thought of a new brand yet, so for me, this is still binding unless otherwise challenged or modified by the current admin. --RioHondo (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RH: Again, this rail transit network being referred here is the existing system that was given a name by the former administration: The SRTS, which has its roots from the 1996 JICA-funded project study as I indicated in the main article which you deleted. - The document linked by you does not contain your claim that them abbreviation SRTS was given as the name of the system. If the colour system has been kept in use, that doesn't mean the project is still going on; it just means some of the results have been kept in order. Please do not change the title back, unless you can provide us with relevant sources that explain SRTS has been and continues to be the name of the system. - UtnogLaLa (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Philippine star does not use SRTS as the name of the system, they inform the reader that a program has been inaugarated. SkyHarbor didn't come up with a decent source providing a basis that SRTS is the name of greater Manila's rail system. We should use a descriptive title (WP:title) as no other term (and not unimportant neutral) designation for the rail transit system exists. Even if SRTS was a name once used by the government - which is not true, SRTS was a program name - it would be more appropriate to use a descriptive name, as SRTS isn't neutral; it's Aquino terminology. - UtnogLaLa (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is the name of the rail system. It's always been. AGREE with Sky Harbor (talk]) that unless there is WP:RS that proves that the system had been given a new name, we can not just modify it on our own. We'll let you know once they have replaced the SRTS as i ride the train almost everyday. RioHondo (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming/Recoloring of Lines 1, 2, and 3 needed

Renaming/recoloring of Lines 1, 2, and 3 is needed. See Sec. Roxas' statement here: http://business.inquirer.net/43411/dotc-lists-priority-projects-for-ppp

• Yellow Line (f. LRT-1) is now Green Line
• Purple Line (f. LRT-2/MRT-2) is now Blue Line
• Blue Line (f. LRT-3/MRT-3) is now Yellow Line

--- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 03:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't account for the Commuter Express (PNR Southrail) and MRT-7. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You see, this statement from Sec. Roxas goes all the way back to February 2012 and yet nothing has been done really to effect these changes. It's been like 6 months but the trains are still the same. The maps on trains indicating line colors haven't been altered, the train coaches haven't been repainted, edsa is still blue, taft-rizal still yellow and recto-aurora still purple. Although I noticed some MRT-3 station signs have lost their blue background at least on the platform level. But that's all thats ever changed, even the mrt magnetic cards have the same blue design. Even the LRTA.gov.ph website still calls its Line 1 and 2 yellow and purple lines respectively! Lol. The same goes for dotcmrt3.weebly.com. So im not sure doing those changes at this point is necessary. Cheers. --RioHondo (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd share this fairly recent article from the Manila Bulletin dated 10 July 2012 A NEW CITY, A NEW METRO MANILA, A NEW FUTURE that talks about several MMDA projects under the current Chairman Francis Tolentino. You'll be surprised our chairman still calls them Yellow, Purple and Blue. With these inconsistent and overlapping statements from the admin, I don't know how we can proceed with those changes yet. Although, today at the Ayala MRT station, i noticed they have repainted the walls and columns at the platform yellow. Could have been done earlier i just haven't noticed. The signs are all still blue though. RioHondo (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they repainted MRT-3 to Yellow a long-time ago. Then the next thing they did was relabel all "MRT3" and "Blue Line" to "Yellow Line". Then they started releasing tickets coloured Yellow. I can not speak for LRT-1 since I rarely use it for the past few years.

In any case, the inconsistent leads messes everything up. Since Mar Roxas left as the head, we can assume that everything goes back to square one, which in fact I already noticed. Some of the newly printed MRT-3 tickets were coloured Blue again! --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Generic name

As agreed at Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System, the Manila rail lines have been renamed to avoid confusion with the new color scheme being implemented by the current admin. This template therefore, along with the Strong Republic Transit System article needs to go on hiatus until all the dust has "settled" and the implementation has been completed. So while the SRTS system is in limbo, i would suggest using these "generic" templates i have created {{Manila LRT and MRT stations}} and {{Navbox PNR}}. --RioHondo (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PNR Metro South Commuter Extension to Calamba

Hello. Are Golden City 2 and Banlic considered operational stations? Because in the fare matrix posted at PNR's website, they are both included; but in the timetable, they are not included. Thanks Hiwilms (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Greater Manila Area"

This article lists stations as far away as Capas, Tarlac. What's the limit of "Greater Manila Area"? This links to List of rail transit stations in the Greater Manila Area and includes stations not shown in that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck The Greater Manila Area article needs to be updated so bad. It hasn't moved past its 1990s/early 2000s definition based on what? What media sources said back then? I just havent had the time, but as far back as the early 2010s under Aquino administration, its definition has already evolved into what the government documents now refer to or at least the economic agency (NEDA) now focus on for its medium to long term economic and infrastructure plans for the capital, the Greater Capital Region, which is now the metropolitan region or urban agglomeration covering the built up area of Metro Manila and the whole Central Luzon and Calabarzon regions that have become increasingly linked by infrastructure to the capital region. The Metro Manila Dream Plan article discusses this quite clearly. It's been around for a while and i just havent had the confidence to update the article yet hehe! It's all over those JICA documents too.--RioHondo (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Greater Manila Area" is a term that's tossed around frequently but isn't precisely defined. Should other definitions that are used by everybody and not on some study a few people have heard about be used? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe terms like metropolitan areas or greater city areas are decided by their planners. In short, the government. And their definitions are updated and dictated by the same planners. Like Metro Manila, we all know it is not anymore a real metropolitan area, that it is already just one city with one metro/mrt/lrt/mass transit network, financial districts that Makati, Pasig and Taguig can't really call their own, and even govt offices scattered all over place. It makes the original Manila economically and demographically look like just a single ward of the big city, whose students and workers are coming in from beyond its borders already to the University Belt and CBDs of the city. The real Metropolitan Manila now is Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna and Batangas, if we really know what a metro area is. But the planners have the last say so what can we do? Hehe--RioHondo (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Places in the Philippines are incorporated. "Metro Manila", "Bulacan" "Rizal", "Cavite", "Laguna and "Batangas" all have definitions. "Greater Manila Area" isn't. Should we use other concrete definitions instead of the ambiguous "Greater Manila Area"? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Are Metro Cebu and Metro Davao incorporated too? How about those nine other earlier metropolitan area groupings that the planners (i think also NEDA) also came up with but have since 2017 been discontinued? As far as my memory serves me, those were all defined by the govt without really an intention to incorporate or even set up a governing body for most of them, but just to include them in their economic strategies and planning. Except for Metro Manila, which was designated an administrative region and the National Capital Region in 1975, those other metropolitan areas were all just metropolitan statistical areas by NEDA and the govt. Now we can include this too to the statistical areas as NEDA also identified it and gave its definition in their dream plan or medium to long term plans for Manila's urban area. As far as places in the Philippines are concerned, we should only rely on the govt, be it incorporated towns or statistical areas.--RioHondo (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the governments definition of "Greater Manila Area"? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did a bit of research on the historical use of the term Greater Manila Area because you asked. The term GMA was in heavy use by the govt in the 1960s and 1970s in the run up to the creation of the Metropolitan Manila or NCR. Of course, the idea of a GMA back then was more or less the same idea from 30 years earlier, the City of Greater Manila of Manuel Quezon, which during the Marcos presidency became the Metropolitan Manila. If you look at official gazette documents from the 70s and 80s, the two terms GMA and MM were used interchangeably by the govt. From 1975 when Metro Manila (and the MM Commission) was created after a referendum to 1995 when the MMDA was formed, its legal definition did not change. However, the term GMA resurfaced with PIDS documents from the late 90s/2000s referring to Metro Manila and its peripheries or Metro Manila and peripheral areas as the new Greater Manila Area. Those PIDS studies mentioned the spatial development of Metro Manila after the closure of US bases in Clark and Subic, the expanding infrastructure into these peripheries at the time, the conversion of those bases into economic zones as well as the creation of industrial parks in Cavite and Laguna all happening in the 1990s. Initially, it mentioned Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan and Rizal. And then in some documents, Pampanga and Batangas were included. The idea of a rapidly expanding Metro Manila then morphed into the "Greater Metro Manila Area" (GMMA) first before NEDA officially came out with its 2014 plan for a Greater Capital Region. So is Greater Manila Area the same as the Greater Metro Manila Area? I believe so, PIDS and NEDA documents have used the term post Marcos years but for Metro Manila now and neighboring provinces. Is Greater Metro Manila Area the same as the Greater Capital Region? Yes, NEDA uses both terms interchangeably to still refer to this ever expanding "Metro Manila and peripheries." Theres not one exclusive term for it, in some NEDA documents the term "Mega Manila" was also used to refer to the earlier expansion of Metro Manila into Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Cavite, but what remained constant was the Greater Manila Area, maybe because of its longer history as that all encompassing idea of Manila's growth into surrounding areas, the only difference with the earlier definitions is, the Manila has grown a lot so its builtup environment has crossed more and more borders. And like all urban agglomerations, the Greater Manila Area/GMMA/GCR are dynamic entities and therefore its definition continues to evolve, the latest being NCR+Calabarzon+Central Luzon. And for good reason, the planners chose to include, among others, the province of Tarlac to the Greater Manila development area as that is where Manila's new administrative center is located, i know the DOTr is already in Clark, so the planners are now working on an urban mobility plan across a wider geographical region. From its origin as a metropolitan area of Manila, Greater Manila Area is now what might be considered a megalopolis, its earlier role as a metropolitan area is now taken by Metro Manila, athough i really believe the metropolis now is MM and the four surrounding provinces.--RioHondo (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, since both the Greater Manila Area and Mega Manila articles are basically disambiguation pages with multiple and overlapping definitions, id suggest we merge the two now that we have something tangible to work on. We use this latest NEDA definition as the default and primary topic of the article, with sections on Mega Manila and other earlier definitions mentioned in the same article. IMO, there should only be one article for the city, one article for the metropolitan area, and one article for the megalopolis. The government's definition should be prioritized as with all other places in the Philippines of course.--RioHondo (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)