This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sounds and looks a good to me, as of now. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Washington Metro | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Locale | Washington, D.C. |
Transit type | Subway |
Number of lines | 5 |
Number of stations | 86 |
Daily ridership | 520,000 ( 2004) |
Operation | |
Operator(s) | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) |
Technical | |
System length | 106 mi (170.5 km) |
Track gauge | 4 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro for discussion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Line | Route | Length |
Red Line | Shady Grove - Glenmont | XX km |
Blue Line | Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center | XX km |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sounds and looks a good to me, as of now. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Washington Metro | |
---|---|
Overview | |
Locale | Washington, D.C. |
Transit type | Subway |
Number of lines | 5 |
Number of stations | 86 |
Daily ridership | 520,000 ( 2004) |
Operation | |
Operator(s) | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) |
Technical | |
System length | 106 mi (170.5 km) |
Track gauge | 4 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro for discussion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Line | Route | Length |
Red Line | Shady Grove - Glenmont | XX km |
Blue Line | Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center | XX km |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)