Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Map

The current map is crap, IMHO, it misrepresents the positions of many stations. Is the official Metro one public domain? (The one that shows the routes of the trains in relation to streets, not the one that is stations only) Sycocowz 22:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


I think it is about on par with the metro one (that doesn't show the streets). It is distorted, especially where the different lines angle around each other (eg the farruguts, metro center area). I am not familiar with the map you are talking of, can you post an URL. I doubt it will be in the public domain, the rest of them aren't. Lorax 01:28, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The official map is NOT public domain; I asked. I'll check my email to see if they offered any out, but I don't recall one. What don't you like about it, Sycocowz? How is it bad compared to the official map? --Golbez 01:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Some quick problems I see: The eastern part of the red line is south-east of where it should be, since when is Silver Spring in DC? Foggy Bottom and Rosslyn look like they're on the water, when they're somewhat inland. Also, last time I checked, DC was shaped as a rectangle, I don't remember this vertical border in SE :) Too many of the stations look equidistant to me, maybe this map was warped to make equidistant stations work? Do you know what map I'm referring to in the comment above, the one they put on top of where it shows you the fare to various locations? It seems that that would be the best representation, if one could find it and roughly copy it. I'll try and bring my camera next time I go on the metro. Sycocowz 15:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
1) Silver Spring is a valid complaint, though [1] shows it to be very close to the border. 2) They look like they're on the coast; best thing to do there would be to narrow the river. Remember, this is not an exact representation, it's a metro map, in the grand tradition of the London Underground map. The real Metro Map is inaccurate; the western branch of the Red Line extends much, much farther north than the eastern branch, yet on the official map, they both terminate at the same latitude. 3) Good point with SE, but to make it accurate would mean making the image even wider. :) 4) I'm searching Outlook for my email from the WMATA... 5) These complains should be addressed primarily to the map's creator, User:Montrealais. --Golbez 00:06, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the distance between the Silver Spring metro and the DC line, I can only confirm that it is a matter of no more than three blocks along Colesville Road. --Etoile 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Today's Washington Post has a miniature picture on the front that shows the route of the lines through the district. Can anyone get a photo of this? I know we cant use it, but it's good reference for a future map. Sycocowz 21:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps an alternative map would be the Washington D.C. Metro Route Map by Michael Calcagno. --Etoile 00:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and copyrighted, though I haven't asked if he'd allow us. --Golbez 02:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind. Michael Calcagno's NYC subway route map says: Please note: We do not allow reproduction rights of our map. Please don't ask. If you wish to use a subway map in your own project, you should consider licensing the official MTA map. So I guess that's the same policy for the DC map. --Etoile 19:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, here's the email I got from WMATA: 

Good afternoon, Mr. Leonard.
Your e-mail regarding the use of the Metrorail System map was given to me for review and
reply. You are welcome to create a direct link to our Web-site and the Metro System map to
enable your customers to readily access Metro information. The Metrorail System map is a
copyrighted piece, and use of the map is closely monitored. 
You must request permission to use the map. If permission is granted,  you will be sent a
current version of the map in a high-resolution electronic format (suitable for printing)
and also provided with a full list of the guidelines pertaining to its use. One of the
guidelines is that the requestor will not alter the map in any fashion, by adding or
deleting information.
Thank you for your interest in Metro.  If you'd like to request permission to use the
map, please call me or reply to this e-mail. Please include specifics regarding how you
intend to use the map.
Sincerely,

Carmen Mack
Information Specialist
WMATA Office of  Marketing

I'm guessing this license would not be compatible with Wikipedia. --Golbez 00:06, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Another problem with this current map is that is the Green line looks completely different from the official map. I'm suggesting we take down the current map and link to the official one. Also, to Golbez, I think you should press into this more. Who knows, you may be able to get them to relicense it for Wikipedia with enough pressure. - Colin Barrett 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if a different solution might work better... I designed my own WMATA map for my Transit Center Web site, and it follows the shapes and proportions of the official WMATA map much more closely. Take a look, and let me know what you think:
Schumin Web Transit Center WMATA Map
And I'll happily license it under GNU if you think it's worth using on Wikipedia. Schuminweb 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information on buying naming rights for metro stations? The persistant rumor at American University is that AU paid a million dollars to get Tenleytown renamed Tenleytown-AU. I don't know if that's the truth, and if naming rights are open exclusively to educational institutions or not. It would be interesting material to see in the article.


I haven't heard that (but that doesn't mean it isn't true). I wouldn't be suprised if AU at the very least paid the cost of the changes to signs/maps/brochures, that could add up to a significant amount.


Purple Line

I'm surprised there isn't any information on the proposed purple line to service the suburbs and create the wagon wheel to support the spoke structure. Of course, this is supported by hippies, and while it is on hold due to the political ramifications of a republican governor and a prior democratic governor who was not frugal with his budget, it is a matter of hot debate for long term residents. Here's the Sierra Club's take: Purple Line :: DC Metro Sprawl --ojin 05:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't actually a well-known proposal, believe it or not. Despite all the complaining they do, DC-area commuters don't necessarily keep themselves informed about current projects to ease congestion. Those who have heard of the purple line, in my experience, have no idea that it's anything more than a rumor. ("My experience" consists of water cooler chatter, for the most part.) -Etoile 05:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC

I want to bring this article up to Featured article-status. Right now, what I think it needs is 1) An up-to-date map (Montrealais has been contacted, but I may make one on my own) and 2) I think a physical map would be useful, in addition to the abstract system map. But if we're making them ourselves, then maybe this could be combined. Anyone else have any ideas of what's needed? It seems pretty solid. --Golbez July 5, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I don't think that a physical map is absolutely necessary. I think that the system map gets the point across sufficiently, though I think that on the one we have, the shapes look a little weird. I don't think updating the map would be all too difficult. All we'd need to do would be to fill in the end of the Blue Line and bold in those names. Schuminweb 7 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
There is one problem with that map that has been pointed out before - it smushes the east end of the district. Now, true, doing that helps fit the map in that space, but it's still a nasty distortion, especially when the district's dimensions are so specific. --Golbez July 7, 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Two-car trains

From the article: "Trains are usually four or six cars; eight-car trains are used on high-traffic days, while two-car trains are sometimes used for low-ridership days like work holidays."

I have NEVER seen a two-car train in all the riding I've done. The only time that two-car trains ran was June 2004, when it was instituted in late evenings as a cost-saving measure. However, this was discontinued two or three days later due to complaints.

What I've found is that eight-car trains only run on special event days such as the inauguration (eight-car trains ran on the Red Line), for major delays (with the Woodley Park accident, all Red Line trains were eight cars), and Nationals games (where Orange Line trains are often eight cars). Six-car trains are your most common configuration outside of the late evening on most lines. Four-car trains mostly run on weekends, mid-day, and late evenings. Basically all your low-ridership times. Two-car trains are RARE.

Schuminweb 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

I am positive I've seen two-car trains before, on holidays like Thanksgiving. I rode the Metro on Thanksgiving Day in 1998, and I remember being surprised that the train only had two cars. And even then, it was mostly empty. Washington is a ghost town on Thanksgiving. --Golbez July 7, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

De-stubification of individual station pages

To explain for a moment why I removed the stub markers for the individual station pages...

I cross-checked the pages marked as stubs with the information on both nycsubway.org as well as what I wrote on my own site, The Schumin Web Transit Center. All the pages that were marked as stubs contained the same or more information than those pages' introductions, indicating to me at least that there's not much more to say about those stations, thus while the article is short, it is for the most part complete, thus by definition, no longer a stub. Schuminweb 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Separate history page?

As I work on the BART section of the Richard A. White article, I realize that BART and WMATA both have a lot of history that I would be interested in reading about and writing in Wikipedia about. I thought it might be a good idea to start a separate History of the Washington Metro page, similar to the History of the New York City Subway. (It even has daughter articles like Dual Contracts.) The excellent History section in Washington Metro is already getting a bit long. Thoughts? Massysett 20:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of making good comparisons between them here, I looked at the parent article and child articles that you cited, and then at WMATA's "History" section.
My gut feeling is that for New York, there's enough written there for there to be lots of specific articles relating to history, since New York was originally three separate systems that were later unified, etc. etc. etc. not to mention that New York's system first opened in 1904, 72 years earlier than Metro.
For the Washington Metro article, I don't think we're there yet (but I can see it coming). If we can get some really good write-ups about the planning of the system, the different architecture methods considered, etc., we could pull it off, since that would be more than enough to fill out a good article on Metro history. There's an "online exhibit" about Metro's planning here. Right now, all we have about Metro's early planning and construction in the existing article are three sentences. So we're basically starting from scratch there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rolling stock facts/figures section (the numbers)

I'd like to point out a few issues I'm having with the section on the individual car series' sections. Most of these are minor "tweak" kind of issues, and one is more significant.

  • One disagreement of facts. On the 4000-series cars, it lists the motors as made by Westinghouse. Previous information I'd received on this from Oren H. (who really knows his technical stuff) stated that it was Gupta-Permold who made the Bredas' original DC motors, not Westinghouse.
  • On kind of that same note, we do need references on the car stats in general.
  • I can see the question now: If the car numbers only go up to 3289, why did I get a car numbered 3290 (or 3291)? There is a set numbered 3290-3291 [2] [3] [4], and the pair is a "mismatched" set, created from the mates of the two cars that collided in the 1996 accident at Shady Grove. We need to put a footnote or something in there, but I'm not quite sure how we want to do this. I can get the original car numbers from the report on the accident later.
  • We need to include information about the Rohrs' and 2000 and 3000 Bredas' information before rehab. The last one (the unrehabbed 3000 Bredas) still has many cars running on the railroad. My understanding is that the 2000 Series cars had somewhat different equipment than the other two series of Breda cars (something to do with cams, but I'm not the one to ask to elaborate on that), and were incompatible with the Rohrs or other Breda series.
  • New Alstom order: My understanding is that the car bodies are being manufactured in Spain, and then finished off in Hornell.
  • Maximum train length and minimum train length in general: The minimum train length (two cars) is related to the rolling stock (due to married pairs), but the maximum length isn't specifically related to the rail cars. That's due to the station design, since any train longer than eight cars will be unable to put all of its cars on the platform. In addition, trains longer than eight cars do run, but not in revenue service. This is done when two trains are coupled together in order to push a disabled train back to the yard, etc.

Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Last year, I talked to Oren H. and provided information to him about the motor systems used on Metro. I originally stated that Gupta Permold did build the Breda Motors. After doing further research though, I found that they are indeed Westinghouse motors that were used, and Gupta Permold was one of the companies that was contracted to build them. Swiger Coil Systems is a company that did upgrades. Their website is www.guptapermold.com. Because of the new information, I decided not to include Gupta Permold and instead used the Swiger Coil Systems link as part of the article after finding out they were Westinghouse branded propulsion.

As for the original Breda 2000 series cars, they did have a cam control system for the propulsion, which did make them incompatible since 3000-4000 series Breda cars do use a chopper system. Breda's website (www.ansaldobreda.it) does still show the car profile for Metro and lists equipment for all series that they built. Metro switched to the Westinghouse chopper system because it was more efficient and can withstand voltage fluctuations much better thus providing better performance. I don't know of the reasons why they were incompatible though and am not sure of the original propulsion system that was on that specific set of cars. Same with Rohr 1000 cars where I don't know what was originally run but do know it was a different cam control system than the Bredas. Babyox4420 6:47 PM EST January 4, 2006

Rearrangement in order?

It seems that the way the article is currently arranged, it comes off as a touch choppy. Copying the table of contents from the article, we have this:

1 Metrorail network

2 History
3 Safety and Security
3.1 Rules and Regulations
3.2 Accidents
4 Accountability
5 Funding
6 Future expansion
7 Rolling stock
7.1 1000-Series
7.2 2000-Series
7.3 3000-Series
7.4 4000-Series
7.5 5000-Series
7.6 6000-Series (On Order)
8 Signaling and Operation
9 Intermodal transport
10 See also
11 References

12 External links

Thus we have the intro, talk about the system, its history, safety, go into management issues, then back to the railroad itself, and finally to "Intermodal transport" before the "See also", "References", and "External links". It seems to skip all over the place.

Here's how I'd arrange things:

1 Metrorail network

2 Rolling stock
2.1 1000-Series
2.2 2000-Series
2.3 3000-Series
2.4 4000-Series
2.5 5000-Series
2.6 6000-Series (On Order)
3 Signaling and Operation
4 Safety and Security
4.1 Rules and Regulations
4.2 Accidents
5 Intermodal transport
6 Funding
7 Accountability
8 History
9 Future expansion
10 See also
11 References

12 External links

Why this order? It tries to put related topics together. We talk about the rail system, including the network itself, its rolling stock, the signaling, and safety and security. Then we talk about intermodal transportation. Metro to other modes of transportation. Then we get to more "management" topics, such as its funding and accountability. Then we get into Metro's history, and its future expansion. And then following that is our "end material".

Whatcha think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Still no thoughts? Wondering what anyone thinks about this rearrangement proposal... SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts...
I think the article is way too long, and suggest:
  1. Details such as Rolling stock series be split off into a sub-article. That would help the readability of the article.
  2. "Inter-modal transport" is an extension of the "Metrorail network"; So these two sections need to be tied together.
  3. Going in chronological order, as many articles on Wikipedia do, History should be #1 or #2 (after Metrorail network).
    1. Rolling stock is very much related to history, so should be grouped under or after History.
    2. The paragraph in the introduction, about the architecture and design should also go under History.
  4. Future expansion is dependant on funding, so those two topics ought to be sequential.
How about arranging the article as:
  1. Metrorail network
    1. Intermodal transport
  2. History
    1. Rolling stock
  3. Signaling and Operation
  4. Safety and Security
    1. Rules and Regulations
    2. Accidents
  5. Accountability
  6. Funding
  7. Future expansion
  8. See also
  9. References
  10. External links
--Aude 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article has grown a bit too large. I like the idea of splitting the "Rolling Stock" section off into its own article. That part has grown to be a bit of a monster, and is well suited to being a separate article. Also, your plan for rearrangement is a good one, since it puts it all together quite nicely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that rolling stock could be split off and linked to the original. It has grown a lot lately and it would give a chance for us to be more detailed on what we know, show more pictures, sound clips, video clips, etc. It could definitely add to the article. Babyox4420 7:01PM EST, January 4, 2006

Parking lot gates open in mornings?

Regarding the following text from the article:

In December 2005, Metro announced that on weekday mornings, the gates to the parking lot would be open.

I have searched and searched through the December press releases at wmata.com and through the December chats at forums-wmata.com, and I have found nothing to substantiate this statement, and this is why I've marked it with the {{fact}} tag. Can someone provide the source for this statement?

The most recent documentation that I've found regarding parking hours is from a press release dated June 24, 2004 stating that parking hours will be expanded from 9 AM until closing. Additionally, my own experience in using Metro's parking facilities, primarily at Vienna, leads me to believe that nothing has changed on this front. When I arrive at Vienna in the morning around 9:30, the parking gates are already down, and thus a SmarTrip is required to exit at that time.

Again, a source for this statement would be appreciated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rationale for removing Huntington snippet

Regarding this passage from the article:

Huntington is the only station in the system whose name contains none of the letters in the word 'mackerel' (see entry on London Underground for similar info)

Viewing the articles about the Metro as a whole, including the station pages, trivia about the stations has been included on the pages for those stations. Examples can be found on Brookland-CUA about the curved platform, Glenmont regarding lighting, etc. Thus the bit regarding Huntington being the only station not to contain any letters that are also found in the word "mackerel", if this is actually encyclopedic at all (I doubt it is), would belong on Huntington. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The "trivia" isn't encyclopedic at all; thus, doesn't need to go here or in the Huntington article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I say put it in this page; the London Underground is the grandpappy of subways, and if mackerel is an odd thing there, and we have an identical situation (with fewer stations), why not? --Golbez 05:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Golbez, Wikipedia is about collecting knowledge. I ride the Metro all the time, and I never knew that until I read it here. It isn't false, irrelevant nor inappropriate. Just because it is trivia doesn't mean it is trivial to everyone. -- MicahMN | μ 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What's the significance of 'mackerel' in London? Where does it come from? If one could click on mackerel (or external link) and find out, I then I wouldn't mind including it. Otherwise, one bit of trivia sets a precedent for a section that I've seen get excessive on other articles. This article is already quite long as-is. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is a compelling case for keeping it. It's a "gee, how about that" trivia item that relates to the overall metro system, and it has precedents not only in the London Underground article on Wikipedia but apparently also in other contexts (from The Mackerel Theorem: "There are quite a few of these "mackerel" related groups - the only team in the football league with no letters from the word "mackerel" is Swindon Town. The only US state with no such letters is Ohio. The only such element of the periodic table is tin."). --Elvee 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Elvee, let me pick your mind for a moment, especially as this has drifted from my original premise (placing it in Huntington (Washington Metro) instead of Washington Metro). My problem is not so much the content, but rather the location of the content. Since only one station contains this "mackerel" property (Huntington), why not put this on the article specific to that station, vs. on the article about the entire system? I have no problem with the "mackerel" bit if it's placed properly. Lemme know what you think. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Because that kind of marginalizes it, and no, the trivia isn't just about Huntington - Huntington is the exception to the Mackerel rule here, but the trivia applies to the whole system. --Golbez 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The statement is about the set of names of the whole metro system, and not just the single station Huntington, so, if it belongs on any extant page, it belongs here. If someone is going to come to wikipedia to look for the answer they are going to either come here or to mackerel. This page seems the only place to include it. Can you explain better why you think it is not a quality of the whole metro system or why it (if included) should go on the mackerel page? (continued next paragraph)
To provide some context for adding it to wikipedia, I have run into this question/trivia three times in public. Once it was asked/mentioned on WTOP (perhaps 1.5-2 years ago), once (according to a friend, so technically it is "hearsay") it was mentioned on one of the FM rock stations here in DC, and most recently at a "trivia night" at a bar in town. I was then perusing the London Underground page and ran into the similar trivia there and the "whoa, I guess this 'mackerel' thing is bigger than just some weird metro trivia - let's add it to wikipedia where people will look for it" neuron fired in my head. Georschm 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced we should add this trivia. We just need to watch what other trivia gets added, so the list of trivia doesn't get excessive. Though, one other "fact" I think belongs is that the Wheaton station has the longest escalator in the western hemisphere. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm joining this party quite late just to say that I agree that this bit should be removed. I was just about to post here to ask what the import of the statement is, so I'm not surprised to see the question has been raised before. To me, this is like saying "Jimmy is the only student in his 3rd-grade class to have a name starting with j. This is backed up by the website a fan of the letter made documenting names that include the letter j." Unless someone can provide a source saying that this is a very commonly discussed bit of trivia, to the point that it cannot be separated from discussions of the Metro as a whole, it really should go. At the very least, it shouldn't be listed at the top as the most prominent trivia bit. Beginning 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on your point, but just to let you know about why it's the first one, the reason is simply because it was the first bit of trivia to be added (the "trivia" section was created in the first place to hold this useless-yet-controversial little fact). SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'm moving it to the bottom for now until the issue is resolved about whether it should remain. To see that as the most important piece of unimportant information was a bit startling to this reader, even as someone expecting useless trivia.  ;) Beginning 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Routes

Any idea what H and I were to be? Dulles and Columbia Pike branches? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best way to refer to the L Route is as the bridge route, since its main feature is the bridge over the Potomac River. As for what H and I were to be, John Cambron has a description of what those were here. Seems that Columbia Pike was J originally, and when that got cancelled, the J designation got assigned to the line to Springfield (originally H). Then I was never used. The Dulles line is to be the N Route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah - thanks. Do you think it would make sense to have separate articles about the routes? Otherwise we have a problem with duplication - which article, Blue or Orange, talks about the details of the Rosslyn-Stadium section? Obviously, as the Red Line is separate from the others, those route sections can redirect to it. Maybe cover Greenbelt and Branch Avenue on Green, Vienna and New Carrollton on Orange, and Addison Road and Franconia-Springfield on Blue, but the Huntington Route doesn't even have a single color. We also get a problem then in that Stadium-Metro Center is covered on the Orange Line article, as is Rosslyn-Vienna, but details of Metro Center-Rosslyn would be on a different article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually let's have this discussion on the WikiProject talk page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Metrobus

In a word: Great! I love the new Metrobus section. I see that as a strong area for serious expansion, and ultimately forking off to its own article, since it's got a storied history of its own, and was saved from extinction during Dick White's tenure as general manager.

Thought I'd throw that out there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with quailty of the bus section. Personaly i think we ought to be proactive now, and fork the section off into its own article. The term Washington Metro is more assoicated with the rail system rather then with the bus (Metrobus). Considering that we aslo have a seperate article on the WMATA, i think it would be a good idea. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Forked. Metrobus is now located at Metrobus (Washington, D.C.). SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with forking into a separate article. However, I think there should still be a brief paragraph here about Metrobus... maybe as a section between "Metrorail network" and "Intermodal transportation". Metrobus is a super important way that many people get to metro rail stations, moreso than all the other intermodal forms of transportation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
A seperate Metrobus article is a good idea, but then shouldn't this article be called "Metrorail"? "Washington Metro" is a overarching term for the whole transportation network: bus & subway (& presumably light rail when that happens). It's basically synonymous with Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority which already has its own article. -- D.M. (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the justification for making Washington Metro about the rail system is that the term "Metro" in Washington usually refers to the rail system exclusively. I also see the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority article as more related to the "back end" organization. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've lived in D.C. for 20 years. "The Metro" usually refers to the subway, but "Metro" by itself - ie, "I got here with Metro" or "I took Metro to a friend's house" can mean the bus system, the subway system, or any combination thereof. In Montgomery County, it also refers to the Ride On system. --Nugneant 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I believe something under "Intermodal transport" would be a wise idea, with a "Main article" template in there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit about Metrobus back into the main article from the Metrobus article into Intermodal transport". I also slightly restructured that section. Comments... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds and looks a good to me, as of now. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Transit Police section reduced to section stub

I've cut the section on Metro Transit Police down to a stub tag because the text was a copyright violation, lifted directly from http://www.wmata.com/about/mtpd.cfm. I do think more discussion in the article on Metro Transit Police would be worthwhile, but we of do of course need to write our own text for it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just added a Transit Police addition to the article. I will work on wikifying and expanding it.--Brian H 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

System infobox suggestion

Washington Metro
Overview
LocaleWashington, D.C.
Transit typeSubway
Number of lines5
Number of stations86
Daily ridership520,000 (2004)
Operation
Operator(s)Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
Technical
System length106 mi (170.5 km)
Track gauge4 ft 8½ in (1435 mm) (standard gauge)

I just created a new infobox Template:Infobox Public transit for the St. Louis Metrolink page that I believe is better suited to describing public transit systems than the currently used Template:Infobox SG rail infobox and I thought that it would be a useful addition here. I would appreciate any comments regarding my new template. --Millbrooky 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks nice, if no one has any problems with it, i might just add it to the article over the weekend, need to find a good metro logo though. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Merge

The article on the 1996 Gaithersburg Metrorail Accident should be merged into this one. It meets the suggested guidelines given in Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. The accident is already commented on in the Washington Metro article. If there is a desire to expand the entry on the accident then the accident article should be merged in. If not, then the accident article should be deleted entirely. There is very little room, if any, for expansion on the accident article. --Strothra 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Two short paragraphs hardly warrants a full article. Should be easy enough to merge in. Now, I could see consolidating this, the Woodley Park crash, and some of the yard incidents into a general Washington Metro accidents article. --StuffOfInterest 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The base for such an article would be the NTSB report that describes the accident in detail and analyzes possible causation. This is available online at the NTSB's Web site in PDF form, and I have a copy of it. That was my thought for the article, but I've not had the chance to do it. Ah, well. We can always fork it out again later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be more efficient to simply put a link to the NTSB report into the Washington Metro article as a citation for a brief paragraph on the accident. It is not an event which merits substantial attention. --Strothra 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Restrooms?

Perhaps we can start a category listing the location and status of public restrooms along the Metro. I know there's one at Metro Center, for example, but I'd like to know if anyone else has found some somewhere else.

Every station has restrooms, but they are behind a locked door. Station managers are supposed to let you use them if you ask, but not all will do that. There are some exceptions to this, as restrooms are not available at Pentagon, Vienna, Addison Road, and I think a couple of others. Then there's the automatic toilet by Exeloo at Huntington, which is discussed at Huntington (Washington Metro). Is discussion of Metro's restroom policy worthwhile in the article? Possibly, as it has been in the news before. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the general answer is "no". There are no public restrooms in stations. They are employee restrooms, and if you ask they will most likely say no [5]. They may make exceptions to the policy for those with small children, are elderly, or disabled [6]. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and added mention of this policy to the "Rules and regulations" section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually that is wrong-take a visit to the Metro Center Station, go to the red line-level exit without the ticket booth (I forget which side it is, but probably the Shady Grove-bound side), and behind the 'Fire Equipment' door on the left there are two doors, one labled 'Employee Restrooms', which is locked, and one labled 'Customer Restrooms'. It is outside the gates, and you have to ask an employee to let you out, but it is clearly labled for customers and the door isn't locked. -rmeskill (talk | contribs) 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor change to Signaling and operation

I change the running voltage from 700 volts to 750 volts. The warning label above the third rail reads: "750 volts." WMATA's website says that 750 volts of power is in the third rail. Also, the article third_rail also mentions a 750 volt power rail. I hope nobody minds the change. I can help clean up the rest of the article when I have time. Keep up the good work everyone! --Starionwolf 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Didn't realize that it was incorrect on the article. But 750 is indeed correct. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Parking overnight?

Does anyone know if you can park overnight at a parking lot? If the gates are open in the morning, it seems reasonable to presume that you could stay there all night, but WMATA thinks differently. I called them and they said that you were not allowed, but does anyone know if this is enforced. I'm specifically interested in Vienna or W Falls Church. --Rmeskill 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, the gates at Vienna close at 10:30 AM, and reopen at 11:00 PM. Signage in Vienna's North Garage indicates that parking is limited to 24 hours. You get towed for parking at the wrong time, however, that's your problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridership Numbers

I think it is noteworthy to point out the relative ranking of certain days in 2006 in comparison to the days mentioned for high ridership in the article. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-04-23-lede-mass-transit-usat_x.htm JVittes 17:40, 03 May 2006 (EDT)

After thinking about it, it may be better to wait until the April numbers are released, that way the article may not have to be rewritten much. JVittes 15:23, 06 May 2006 (EDT)

Both articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901738.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002235_2.html Mention April's average weekday daily ridership was 739,525, which is higher than March at 719,861 riders per weekday. JVittes 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite your sources in the article? I noticed the same number in one of those articles and was trying to see if there was an official press release with the same numbers (I was just looking for general ridership information). The USA Today remark needs citation too. 192.52.57.33 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The site http://www.wmata.com/riding/viewReportList_update.cfm gives links to the day data for an entire month, the press release giving the numbers for March gives the weekday numbers too. I rounded each weekday in April to a multiple of 1000 and then took the average and it was close enough to the WP number that I figured not to question it any further. I also looked at the data for the last year to see if I was wrong about the weekday data. I'm have not the slightest idea how one makes a citation, as I don't remember ever reading about it, though I may have, I'll look it up, and list the sites. JVittes 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I found an official WMATA press release giving the ridership for "a typical weekday" and added that info to the top section of the article. 192.52.57.33 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that based on the site http://www.wmata.com/riding/viewReportList_update.cfm, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of this week would make the 6th, 9th, and 8th highest ridership days, repectively, in Metro history. Metro has yet to make a press release about the last two of these days. I wonder what happened to cause this upsurge this last week? No doubt Metro would list Nationals games as part of the reason (although the Rockies swept the Nationals, something I doubt many fans were eager to go to the stadium for). What other reasons are there, though? Any major events this last week?

Recent high ridership days (in the last 3 months): 2nd April 10th with 821,238; 4th March 31st with 808,108; 6th June 13th with 786,843; 7th April 20th with 780,820; 8th June 15th with 777,287; 9th June 14th with 774,802; 10th June 8th with 774,255; 13th April 18th with 765,516; 15th June 7th with 764,511; and 17th April 11th with 763,351. Of the top 10 ridership days for Metro, only 3 (Reagan's funeral procession, the Million Man March, and Clinton's first inauguration) did not occur in during the last 3 months! Mecaterpillar 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Metro just released a new press release saying as much http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/story.cfm?ID=729. --JVittes 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
New press release concerning last week: http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1265. Friday set the record for 7th highest day therby pushing all subsequent numbers down 1. -- Mecaterpillar 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wednesday moved into 10th position at 769,641 riders. On July 8th we should have one year of data so new averages can be posted, since weather and holidays, and vacations affect ridership it is best to pick an entire year to average it out. The good thing is that saying 7 out of the 10 highest ridership days would probably stay true for a long time, since 6 more days above 804k would be needed otherwise, though June has 22 workdays so that might bring in a new record for ridership. --JVittes 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice Friday was not in your list, Wednesday is 11th position. --JVittes 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that would make it the 12th highest day. Notice that 10th up there is June 8th with 774,255 trips. June 8th is now the 11th highest ridership day. Mecaterpillar 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I guess I wasn't paying much attention, regardless one thing that needs to be thought about is that if ridership increases become consistent we may end up having to change the page too often just to keep up, I think as it is now it is not a problem as the numbers would probably only need to be checked monthly, but explicitly saying the rankings of the days or listing the top 20 might be more of an issue. --JVittes 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of just listing X of top 10 or Y of top 15 (only 10 or 15 days appear on WMATA press releases) and which could be easily ascertained from looking at 1 or 2 WMATA press releases or news articles. (i.e. using at most 2 sources limited to press releases and news articles). I think any more information than there is right now is unnecessary. I think the general point (record breaking ridership on those 3 recent months) come across just fine as it is. Mecaterpillar 07:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the latest releases [7] the ridership for FY 2006 is over 200 million, making the average daily ridership just shy of 550000, 549799.315 to be exact. Though average weekday ridership is much higher, and Sunday and Saturday have much lower ridership, once a better indicator is given (I don't trust that it includes all of FY 2006, I think it is missing Friday) I'll update the infobox and intro. --JVittes 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Metro's Zero Tolerance eating policy

As ridiculous as Wikipedia edit wars are, it is pretty much "common knowledge" for any Metro rider that Metro received a LOT of bad word-of-mouth over the 12 year old girl's arrest. However, I can't well cite a source when that source is literally a two minute conversation, on the system, along the lines of "can you BELIEVE what Metro did?" "Hah... next thing you know they'll be locking up four year olds for temper tantrums".

Rather than the old edit, which was "supporters argue blahblah (link to some third rate C.J. Studies paper) - detractors conuter-argue with (bla bla bla)", how about leave off the supporters AND detractors comments, and let the facts stand for what they are?

Thanks - --Nugneant 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the "supporters argue", as it is a substantiated, verifiable fact (not POV opinion) with proper citation. The point about the detractors can also be included if proper citation is found. I don't think it should be too hard to find something, given the amount that is written about Metro in the local newspapers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that one paper means something is "fact". If so then orgone accumulators would be "fact". --Nugneant 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is already discussed anyway, the addition of pov opinion to end it is unnecessary. Nugneant, if you have such distane for metro, as you stated on my talk page , how about you refrain from editing the article, as you stated you don't want an edit war. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A bloo bloo bloo. Learn to read. --Nugneant 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I do know, thats why i removed your edits. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between WMATA and Metro

is there a difference? For example, it says that Metrobus is operated by Metro. Isn't it operated by WMATA? -- Awiseman 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I see it saying "The Metrorail (subway) system, as well as Metrobus (bus) services, are owned and operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)". --Golbez 21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is it, under the Metrobus section: "Metrobus is a bus service operated by Metro, consisting of 182 bus lines serving 12,435 stops, including 2,038 bus shelters and nearly every Metrorail station." --Awiseman 20:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Basically, "WMATA" and "Metro" are synonymous when "Metro" is used to refer to the organization as a whole. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Without looking at the article, I can see where the confusion comes, as "Metro" is used to refer to the rail system exclusively, as well as the organization as a whole, e.g. "Take Metro to New Carrollton," and "Metro officials announced a fare hike," are both common uses. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is a quasi-governmental agency created by the WMATA Compact. It provides a Transit Service known as "Metro." Metro provides two services: "Metrorail" and Metrobus" (one word) Metro also provides a contract service for the disabled known as "MetroAccess." WMATA, Metro, Metrorail and Metrobus are one organization. Metro Access is paid for by Metro, but is contracted to a third party.--Brian H 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper Article Citation Format

I think we should have just one citation format for newspaper articles. I've noticed that the date format varies, as does whether the author, the page number, and the date the webpage was access are included. I personally think the author and the page number should be included if known. I don't think the date accessed should be put since the articles that were published in the paper are unlikely to change at all (although if they are very recent they could be subject to revisions, I suppose). I don't have a preference on the date format. At this time I'm going to pick one format and change all citations of nespaper articles to match it (I'm going with Day 3-letter-month Year format for now). Mecaterpillar 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Being that this is a US based topic is should probably use the standard US date format (Mmm dd, yyyy). That is how you will usually see the date formatted in the newspaper article. --StuffOfInterest 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, Template:Cite news states the following: "ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format recommended. May be wikilinked to enable date user preferences." I personally just went with the style for dates used in the MLA format. As I stated, I personally have no preference, so if somebody wishes to go and change them all, they're welcome to do it (though you may want to say here that you'll do it). Mecaterpillar 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

{{toobig}} tagging

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro for discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured-article quality

What do you all think would be required to bring this article up to FA quality (not necessarily FA status though)? I know there have been some small things that have needed fixing (e.g. lack of citations, spelling, grammar, etc.) and fixing these still needs to continue, but what about in terms of content? What's lacking here and what should be removed and or condensed? I think this article is close enough to FA quality that it be worth putting the effort to improve it. Mecaterpillar 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one would shorten the "Metrorail Network" section considerably, cutting it entirely below a certain point, starting with "Smithsonian station lies under the National Mall and is the busiest station for tourists." and going to the bottom of the section ("See also: List of Washington Metro stations." would be kept). My question becomes twofold: Who wants to read all that, and also, why keep it here when we have articles about the individual stations, where we discuss the neighborhoods, and where many have "Notable places nearby" sections.
I agree with shortening the Metrorail network section considerably.
For example the summaries for the line colors can be reduced considerably if not eliminated and replaced with a format presented for the london underground (a featured article) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_underground#Lines if someone wanted to research more on each line, they can click on its link and go to its respective page. The thing I would change from the london format is instead of showing section and date openings, replace that with the name the end stations. For example:
Line Route Length
Red Line Shady Grove - Glenmont XX km
Blue Line Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center XX km
(Example only, change the format to whatever fits) -Limitedexpresstrain 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. There's also a similar table in the Paris Metro article. Mecaterpillar 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion I just came up with based on a mix of the tables found in the Paris Metro article and Barcelona Metro article as well as the limitations of what info can be found here on wikipedia:
Washington Metro lines
Line Name Opened Last extension Stations served Termini
  Red Line 1976 1998 27 Shady Grove - Glenmont
  Orange Line 1978 1986 26 Vienna/Fairfax-GMU - New Carrollton
  Blue Line 1977 2004 27 Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center
  Yellow Line 1983 1991 12 Huntington - Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center
  Green Line 1991 2001 21 Branch Ave - Greenbelt
  Silver Line (Planned) 2011 (Planned) 2015 (Planned) 29 Route 772 - Stadium-Armory

Mecaterpillar 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening and extention dates should be removed, as its not as important as the line color, length, and end stations (of course the dates are exellent info for the individual line pages). Also it doesn't account for fill in stations such as New York Avenue on the red line, so it makes it appearlike the Red Line hasn't been upgraded since 1998. I think color/name, length, number of stations and end stations (termini) should be on the list minus the dates. Just my opinion though. Limitedexpresstrain 06:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Paris Metro, RER, Barcelona Metro, London Underground articles, all of which have such tables, the tables all have the opening date on them. In the case of the Washington Metro, 4 of the lines opened at about the same time, so this information may not be as interesting. There are also fewer lines here than in those articles (except for the RER article. Personally, I think I'd prefer keeping the years in there simply because it is still informative (even if not as important as the rest), and is taking up space that would otherwise be white space on either side of the table. As the table only has 5 columns now, I don't think it would look cluttered either. For comparison, here's the table without the years:
Washington Metro lines
Line Name Stations served Termini
  Red Line 27 Shady Grove - Glenmont
  Orange Line 26 Vienna/Fairfax-GMU - New Carrollton
  Blue Line 27 Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center
  Yellow Line 12 Huntington - Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center
  Green Line 21 Branch Ave - Greenbelt
  Silver Line (Planned) 29 Route 772 - Stadium-Armory

Mecaterpillar 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that currently my preference would be for the first table I created but without the word "(Planned)" in the dates for the silver line (it makes those columns narrower). Mecaterpillar 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How about keeping the opening dates (with silver planned) and instead of last exended (not really as important though important in its respective line page) and instead include Length of the line? So line opening date, and length. Limitedexpresstrain 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd actually prefer to have the length on there, but I haven't found that information. If someone could find that information, then I'll certainly make a table like that. Mecaterpillar 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I also see "Intermodal transport" as one that could be reworked. In that case, we should combine it with Category:Transportation in Washington, D.C., which could use a parent article. One with the title of Transportation in Washington, D.C. would be just right, serving as a tie-together for all of these topics with plenty of {{main}} tags throughout. I still don't see the relevance of a number of the sections in our "Intermodal transport" section, aside from that they dump passengers at or near Metro stations.
All in all, let me know what you think. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There does seem to be more information in the "Metrorail Network" section than there ought to be and most of it does appear in the station information. One thing though is that the summary of the colleges and university accessible from Metro does not appear elsewhere. I don't know if that's something that should be placed somewhere though.
The "Intermodal transport" section appears to be just for mentioning where Metro links up to other modes of transportation. I don't know exactly how it should be re-worked. I could see the point of mentioning that one could access these other modes of transportation via Metro. I think, though, that it is important to mention Reagan Airport and Union Station as well as the fact that one can transfer to VRE and MARC at a number of stations. I can also see the point of mentioning the carsharing services. However, I would imagine that all that could fit in a 5 to 7 sentence paragraph, leaving the rest of the information for another article.
I would say that an article with the title Transportation in Washington, D.C. would need to cover transit, streets and highways, airports, and intercity rail and bus, etc. Essentially it should be a longer version of what should appear in "Transportation" section of the Washington, D.C. article (that section actually needs to be rewritten somewhat, BTW). The streets and highways are currently covered in the Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. article. So I would say that a Transportation in Washington, D.C. article should summarize what appears in Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. in one section then cover what appears in the "Transportation" of the Washington, D.C. (in more detail and divided into other sections) and this "Intermodal transport" section as well. There are other things that such an article should cover as well, but I wouldn't go into discussing that until that article exist and I can comment on its talk page. Mecaterpillar 21:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You said: "There are other things that such an article should cover as well, but I wouldn't go into discussing that until that article exist and I can comment on its talk page."
I say: Out with it! Please share! I'm currently trying to figure out if such an article would be worthwhile to create, and I'm getting the feeling that it is worth creating, but still need to figure out what it should look like. We can always reference this discussion later on from another talk page, or move it entirely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, one thing I was thinking was related to the intermodal transport was how some of the stations are easy access from interstates (Vienna, Shady Grove, Greenbelt, New Carrollton, Pentagon and to some extent Franconia-Springfield (as well as Eisenhower Ave in the future)). More importantly I was thinking there should be mention of the HOV lanes (which exist on I-95/395, I-66, Dulles Toll Road, I-270, and US-50) and slugging. Possibly with mention of future HOT lanes. I figure the HOV lanes make up an important part of the commute for many people (at least they do in the I-95 corridor in Virginia). I don't remember if there was anything else I was thinking of here. Mecaterpillar 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My summaryless edit

Accidentally hit enter before I could enter a summary... just so you know, I changed it to "use" because "to go to to" just sounded really weird. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that before and somehow changing "to go to to" to "to use to" didn't come to mind. I guess "to go through to" would have worked too. I simply noticed that "to go to", which was what it was change to before I edited it, didn't work. Thanks for the rewording. Mecaterpillar 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New WMATA Facts page

I was just looking to see if I could cite this source for some of the Trivia info that is not sourced (I thought it was before, though), and I saw that the PDF is different than before. That means it's time to change some of the information on this page to match (such as the annual ridership). I'll try to update some things and hope not to miss anything. Mecaterpillar 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that WMATA shortened this PDF in addition to updating the numbers. This appears to have left some of the information on this page without a source. It also gives a shorter length for the escalator in Wheaton (to 508 feet, I haven't changed the article since I doubt the escalator was shorterned) and reduces the number of elevators in stations. Could someone please check what the length of that escalor is? And could someone also look for sources for the rest of this info? I could not find a link to the old document or determine if it's still up somewhere. Mecaterpillar 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to archive the talk page

Unless anyone has any strong objections, I'm going to go ahead and archive this talk page and start a fresh one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Metro/Archive_1&oldid=577144647"