![]() | 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 |
Does anyone know what the length of each line is? I'm suprised this piece(s) of data is not included in either the main article or individual line pages or at least missing for some of them, it would sure help bring the article and or pages up to featured artcle standard. Also the bit of information would help in creating a new table for the lines. Limitedexpresstrain 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why someone edited out the sentence, "The previous recordholding day was January 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton's first inauguration" in the history section. It seems like something that should be discussed. Mecaterpillar 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following sentences don't belong in Metrorail Network section, particularly since this information already appears in the Trivia section: "However, the deepest stations in the system are not in Washington, but at the northeastern end of the Red Line, with Wheaton having the longest escalator in the western hemisphere at 230 vertical feet (70 meters) and 508 feet long (155 meters) diagonally, and Forest Glen being even deeper than that.[1] It is so deep, the only way to the surface is by elevator.[4]" Mecaterpillar 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the Accountability and Controversy section in the main page, it states that the new, cashless parking system requires users to buy a SmarTrip card to exit. This is true, but the wording is somewhat misleading. SmarTrip cards cost $5, but the minimum you can put on one is $5, for a total minimum spent of $10. The math is right that they pay $7.50 extra, but perhaps we can reword this to say that they are forced to pay a nonrefundable $5 for the SmarTrip-the rest of the $5 can be used for parking, even if they will only feasibly use it once.-- Rmeskill 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
An extension to Ft. Belvoir has been studied before http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051901618.html, either as a light rail extension or Metrorail, lately with the new BRAC realignment expected to move 18000 jobs to Ft. Belvoir by 2012 new interest has been place on this possible extension. Sorry for not signing it earlier, I added two sections at once. -- JVittes 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again new data is available, for fiscal 2006 we have new year totals at above 205 million, and new records for total ridership in a month, and highest avg weekday ridership. http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1303, I think it is impressive given that June is only 30 days as opposed to 31 for March, and given the issues that rain caused especially for June 26th. I'll get to updating the page soon, if anyone else can do it though I would much appreciate it.-- JVittes 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know how that 930,000 avg. weekday ridership number is calculated (see change to lead)? It seems utterly wrong given that it's significantly higher than the record setting ridership on the highest ridership days as given my Metro (see what used to be cited on that sentence). I'm inclined to change it back to Metro's estimate of 700,000 (which is actually just above the avg. weekday ridership of 699,599 during FY 2006 (see http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1303)). Mecaterpillar 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Such an interesting article recently removed as a reference. I'd hate to see it go to waste:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901738.html
I don't want to lose the address for it in the shuffle of things, so here it is. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Before the talk page was archived, there was a discussion about replacing the line descriptions with a table. I'm currently thinking of replacing it with a table like this (since I couldn't find the line lengths):
Line Name | Opened | Stations | Termini | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Red Line | 1976 | 27 | Shady Grove - Glenmont | |
Orange Line | 1978 | 26 | Vienna/Fairfax-GMU - New Carrollton | |
Blue Line | 1977 | 27 | Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center | |
Yellow Line | 1983 | 12 | Huntington - Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center | |
Green Line | 1991 | 21 | Branch Ave - Greenbelt | |
Silver Line (Planned) | 2011 | 29 | Route 772 - Stadium-Armory |
Given that the lengths of the lines are not currently in the article, I don't think it would hurt to put a table without it, although I do think it is something that should be there eventually. Mecaterpillar 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you lost a lot of information when you made that table. Was it not needed, or do you plan on readding it somewhere? -- Golbez 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this trivia bit should be sourced just as everything else should be and since it's not currently, it should have a "[citation needed]" appearing at the end. Also shouldn't it say "pass from one car to the next" or something like that? "pass between cars" sounds, at least to me, like one is passing from being outside on one side of the train to being outside on the other side of the train by passing between the cars. At least on other contexts, I believe, it would imply something like that. For example, if a driver of a vehicle was passing between cars I would think it would mean driving the vehicle between two cars while to change from one car to the next would be described in language similar to what I just used. Mecaterpillar 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm noticing lately that there's been information that keeps being added to the article. That's fine, it's just that it seems to me that almost every time information is added, the person adding it forgets to cite their source. This is problematic. It can be difficult and time consuming for the rest of us to go hunt down a source for information that someone else added. It'd be much easier for all of us, if in the future, when anyone adds new piece of information to the article, for them to cite their source at the same time.
In the meantime there is quite a bit of information now for which a citation is needed. Would some of you like to help hunt down sources? Mecaterpillar 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the depth and expansive size of the Metro stations in any way attributable to their possible use as bomb shelters? Just wondering. -- RevWaldo 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember a reference to the No food or drink policy on the Metro. Can a link to that article be added to this one? -- Ancheta Wis 09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm bringing up this discussion again. What do all think is needed to bring this article up to featured article quality? I know that quite a bit of what was discussed last time has been accomplished. I think finishing up on editing the Metrorail network section needs to be done. In addition, obviously, finding sources for the [citation needed] tags. I don't have any other ideas at this time. Mecaterpillar 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding SmarTrip and fare structure, there's already an article on SmarTrip. Would you consider expanding that article to include other types of fare media (this move would obviously require a rename), or would it be worthwhile to create a sub-article on fares and tickets? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some source that could provide information on the farecards similar to the information in the Bay Area Rapid Transit article regarding their farecards. Also it would also be nice if we could have a photo of a farecard similar to the one on that article. I think the fact that the balance is printed on the card should also be noted because while some sytems do put it on there, like BART, some don't, like MBTA (which I find quite annoying, BTW). (Then again, BART, like Metro, has variable fares while MBTA has fixed fares so in the latter you only have to keep track, in your head, of how many trips you've already made) Mecaterpillar 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have started to add the total number of parking spots to every station with parking. I realized something I didn't know, however, which is that different stations charge different amounts for parking. Should I include the price/day in every Parking header, or just the total number of spaces? See Glenmont for the just-spaces format and Wheaton for the with-price/day format. - Rmeskill 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this an accurate statement:
"Simultaneously, with its coffered groin and barrel vaults, it reflects the neoclassical style of architecture that can arguably be described as the closest thing to an "official" federal style in Washington, as demonstrated in such buildings as the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the former U.S. Patent Office building (now the Smithsonian American Art Museum), by Robert Mills; the White House, by James Hoban; and the Beaux-Arts Lincoln Memorial, by Henry Bacon."
The Treasury Building and Patent Building are both Greek Revival buildings built well before the official Neoclassical era began . The White House is Georgian (although I note that the White House page erroneously identifies it as Neoclassical). The Lincoln memorial is the only one that is actually Neoclassical (and technically Beaux Arts because Bacon designed it, but hardly the most extravagant example of Beaux Arts even for DC. That would be Union Station) but I don't see the resemblence. Frankly the only Neoclassical building that the Metro even remotely resembles would be the interior of Union Station due to the coffers.
Call me pedantic or a bore, but does the length of cars on the NYC subway and the locking or unlocking of end doors merit a full paragraph in an article on the Washington Metro? Let me throw it out to everyone here rather than reverting it again myself, but I just don't see the editorial relevance -- for this subject, that information makes very little difference. -- GGreeneVa 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the accuracy of the following (unsourced) statement in the "Funding" section: "Washington Metro is unique among major public transportation systems in having no dedicated source of funding."
I guess it depends on your definition of the word "major", but the Lynx system in Orlando, Florida, for example, also has no dedicated source of funding. I'm sure there are others.
If the Metro system is the largest in the US without dedicated funding, it seems to me that we could correct this by simply changing it to "Washington Metro is unique in that it is the largest public transportation system in the United States that has no dedicated source of funding" (or something similar that scans better). In any event, at the very least this claim needs a citation.
DBowie 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The clearly incorrect claim of uniqueness has been hanging around for a long time now, so I simply changed the claim to one of unusualness. Seems to me that it still needs a citation, though.-- DBowie 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Huntington, Union Station uses none of the letters in Mackerel.
mathewbrooks@gmail.com 71.114.108.69 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
MathewBrooks 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some editorial confusion about the reference to Chief Justice John Roberts and the Metrorail policy on eating and drinking, so let me clear it up. The reference to the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of the arrested schoolgirl means that the court made findings of law in the case. The findings of law, in this instance, were authored by John Roberts.
Here's a blockquote from the beginning of the case:
“ | Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBERTS.
ROBERTS, Circuit Judge: No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm. |
” |
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. — GGreeneVa 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In law, opinion is the word used for a higher court's published decision which establishes new legal precedent, or supersedes or reverses existing precedent. Cases decided by a country's Supreme Court, for example, sometimes become well-known because they express the court's "opinion" on how law is to be interpreted, which can have very wide implications. This usage of the word opinion is different from the common usage (outside the legal field), because the court's opinion is not the opinion of any person, but the court's decision after careful deliberation of the case, and is binding on relevant future cases in lower courts.
Changed from "Chief Justice of the US" to "Chief Justice". The context of the country is obvious, last time I checked, DC was in the US. martianlostinspace 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This page needs a new subway map showing the yellow line extension and the extension also needs to be reflected in the approriate articles. jtowns 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Some 'discussion' of a potential need for a Disambiguation page has been included in recent edit summaries. Do others have a strong belief as to whether such a page is needed for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 January 2007
What does this mean: "Farecards, unlike other forms of payment on Metrorail, are intended to be used once per trip"? Aren't farecards, just like all other forms of payment, used twice per trip? -- dm (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And if you took a trip to the zoo, you would probably use it 4 times (twice on the way to the zoo and twice on the way back). I don't even understand what the writer was trying to say, so I can't rephrase it. The number of times they can be used isn't a distinquishing feature of any of the forms of fare payment. I think we should see if the original author can explain it, otherwise remove it. Lorax 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the currently ongoing reversion war: discuss it here and stop with the ongoing discussion-by-undo. -- Thisisbossi 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this, because we can't say there are "two planned lines" - one is planned and real, the other is still a proposal, vaporous, in the air and subject to massive changes. We don't even know what the stations are. I suggest the Purple line be given a mention in the text, but no 'official' recognition. -- Golbez 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
what distinguishes a "transfer" station from one which simply serves multiple lines? Pentagon, for example is labeled a transfer station, serving blue and yellow, but Pentagon city is not, even though it serves the same lines. Is the desgination of a "transfer" station only applied to the first and last stations with the oppurtunities to change trains? Is it applied to those which offer bus connections? -- Ybbor T 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For a discussion on the name of this article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#Should Washington Metro be renamed to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)? -- NE2 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the boxes out to deal with them being slammed to the side of the page and the resulting giant whitespace. Feel free to change to back it was intentional to have giant whitespace and small boxes. Just trying to remove giant whitespaces in the article. Amazingracer 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the closure of the gap under the infobox only, as having that gap gives the infobox some space around it, which does what I consider a good service to the box and to the images by having them start in the next section. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I was inspired by an animation I made being on the main page, so I whipped this up.
Obviously it's a bit raw, as names need work, and there's no transfer station dots, but any comments? I was thinking maybe only show the names of stations as they are added; that would kill all of the horrible clutter as the network grows. Also please point out any errors I made. -- Golbez 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to get anyone's attention: On the scale map, Forest Glen and Silver Spring are swapped. I would fix it, but I don't have the right software. -- Jnelson09 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we include something in here about the fires that have come about in these last few days? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think its appropriate, seeing the wide range of news coverage about it. Also because there were similar problems two days in a row. -- Woogers 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This was originally brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro, and Golbez suggested that I bring this up here as well to give it a wider audience, considering this went nearly a month without comment. The original message was:
“ | Considering the "parent" article for all these stations was renamed, would anyone be opposed to a mass-rename of the station pages to something more descriptive and also slightly shorter? I was looking at the station pages for BART, and most of their station pages are named "Whatever (BART station)". Thus I propose we change the suffix from "(Washington Metro)" to "(WMATA station)". That would create a name like Metro Center (WMATA station). Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Your thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is lacking a pretty essential number: the annual budget number for the Metro system. does anyone have it?
Benwetmore 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro:
There is a great deal of inconsistencies among abbreviations in the titles of station names. According to the project's main page, it states that articles should be named "exactly as [they are] written on the official Metro system map." The problem with that is the fact that many of the abbreviations on map are present just to save space, but aren't exactly necessary. For example, McPherson Square (Washington Metro) is listed as "McPherson Sq" on the map, but is not abbreviated its article "McPherson Square." Also, both Minnesota Ave and Eisenhower Ave are abbreviated on the map, but the article titles are Minnesota Ave (Washington Metro) and Eisenhower Avenue (Washington Metro), respectively. Words such "Memorial" shouldn't need to be abbreviated, such as Archives-Navy Mem'l-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro), as opposed to Archives-Navy Memorial-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro). With the exception of acronyms such as VT, AU, CUA, etc., I think that words should be spelled out in full for consistency reasons. In addition, endashes (–) should replace all the hyphens (-) in the article titles as well. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you're already doing this; please bring this change up on Talk:Metrorail (Washington, D.C.), as many more people see that. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add any additional discussion below this point. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The System Map does not show the Metro Center station! For correct map, see, e.g.: http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm 208.54.95.88 ( talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stop reverting and bring this here. I don't know how common derailments are, but compared to the other incidents, which were fatal or had injuries or closed stations down for days, this one seems minor and not entirely worthy of mention. Any thoughts? -- Golbez ( talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to reopen the discussion on whether to include links to infrastructure information that has been taken down by various site owners but is archived. Is this information detrimental to security? Why or why not? Has WMATA expressed an official position on this? If WMATA ever suggested that the information be taken down for security reasons, then we should respect that request unless it was illegal. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing that isn't mentioned here is the issue of frequent name changes Metro made. This was in part due to politics, part due to Metro's willingness to change names as long as the sponsor covered the related costs (which, as I recall, were about $50,000 in the late 1980s). This resulted in some real mouthfuls such as Archive station becoming " Archives–Navy Memorial–Penn Quarter". While there are a few parallels in other systems, the phenomenenon on this scale is confined to WMATA, and flies in the face of the rule of thumb used in most places that station names should be concise and stable (London has " Westminster", not, say, "Westminster-Houses of Parliament-Cenotaph-London Eye", despite the importance of nearby sites). ProhibitOnions (T) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The mention in the farecards section about "bus pass with rail value" is not true, is it? I remember that they used to have combined bus-rail passes, which unlike rail-only passes (which were gate-activated) were good for the specific week printed on the pass. They were discontinued some years ago, at the time of a fare increase, when they also discontinued the 28-day Fast Pass (which was for convenience only, as it cost exactly four times a 7-day pass). Hgrosser ( talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any science fiction movies (or any other movies) that use subway stations of the Washington metro as a location?-- Soylentyellow ( talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I've moved this article back onto the Washington Metro title. The part that convinced me to change it back was, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I remember back in the 90's when I was first looking for Metro on the Internet, I put "Metro" and "Washington DC" in there. "Metrorail" never came to mind, and I've never heard anyone but Metro themselves refer to the system as "Metrorail". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WMATA has proposed a new line to run from Franconia-Springfield to Greenbelt and has used brown to designate this line on the map that they used. Would it be considered somewhat premature to create Brown Line (Washington Metro)? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Metro's website, at http://www.wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm and http://www.wmata.com/riding/passes.cfm#Metrorail, states that weekday schedules will be in effect on Columbus Day, Mon. Oct. 13, and 3 other holidays, and therefore peak fares will be in effect during peak hours and 1-day passes will not be valid until 9:30 am. However, this is contradicted by the press releases cited in Washington_Metro#Passes, which state that a modified (starting at 5 am) Saturday schedule will be in effect for those holidays. Before I added that sentence, I wrote to Metro pointing out the contradiction, and this is the response I received:
Monday, May 5, 2008 7:07 AM From csvc@wmata.com Mon May 5 07:07:51 2008 Return-Path: <csvc@wmata.com> From: csvc@wmata.com To: hgrosser-at-yahoo.com bcc: jgreene@wmata.com Subject: Your Reply Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=ps-boundary-1 Content-Length: 2073
Dear Mr. Grosser:
Thank you for your recent email concerning holiday Metrorail schedules. We apologize for any confusing on this subject. The holiday page on our website is correct. Metrorail operates from 5:00 a.m. until midnight, however, the trains do not operate as frequently as they do on a non-holiday weekday.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact our team directly whenever you have questions or concerns related to the Red Line. To speak to a Red Line Customer Service Representative for Comments, Complaints or Suggestions, please call 301-562-4605 weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. You can leave a message at all other times or complete the comment form located on our website at www.wmata.com.
If you ever need to speak with a Customer Information Agent for assistance with general questions, please call 202-637-7000; Mon-Thurs: 6 a.m.-10:30 p.m., Fri: 6 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sat: 7 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sun: 7 a.m.-10:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
Jeannie Greene-Barr
Case # 405263
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on 2008-05-02-18.01.46.000000, hgrosser-at-yahoo.com (Harvey Grosser) wrote:
Your holiday page (
http://wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm) says that weekday schedules (and by extension, fares) are in effect on Metrorail for the 4 minor federal holidays of Columbus Day, Veterans Day, M.L. King Day, and Presidents Day. However, according to the press release archive, weekday schedules for these days was put into effect in the fall of 2006 (FY 2007) (
http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1392) but was switched back to modified Saturday service next year due to insufficient ridership (
http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1806). Please correct this page if wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When responding to this email, please include the following ID number: "[THREAD_ID:346452]" . This will help us serve you better.
To help resolve this discrepancy, will anyone reading this post who happens to ride Metro on Monday Oct. 13 please post a reply to this post on whether you were charged peak fare for entry before 9:30 am or from 3−7 pm (the digital clock above the station manager’s booth is authoritative), or if you were able to use a 1-day pass before 9:30 am. Thanks.
Hgrosser ( talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please write a neutral section on the bag searches that Metro has instituted? I would write one, but I'm so thoroughly PO'd about it, that I'm afraid that if I do, it won't come out neutral. Here are some sources:
And for what it's worth, I was the commenter who talked about "money down a rat hole" in the Express. But if someone would be so kind as to lay a neutral base for this section, I'd much appreciate it. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Why can I not get the whole fare schedule that is posted in all metro stations? I live in other state and can expense my fares, but neglecting to write them before leaving D.C. has caused problems. Do you have a web site with fares?†⅔₳₣ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.127 ( talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be a variety of figures on the total number of cars. Each of the following sources lists a different number:
If the information about the four-car money train and the eight damaged vehicles is correct, then that would match the information provided on the media guide. Why, then, does the document that was published most recently (the fact sheet) list 1116 cars? We have to provide some sort of explanation to readers as to why we chose one number over the other, especially if we are not using the most recent figure provided. Best, epicAdam( talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is amazing how little has changed in six years:
The arrival lamps are now red and there is a new LED signboard, but otherwise it is nearly unchanged. What lens was used for the 2003 photo? Any chance you could use a similar focal length so that the angles of the photos line up?
-- Autopilot ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to include that "Metro in 2030" image, since it's just a blogger's dream and hasn't been a serious proposal by Metro officials, government officials, or the media. It seems to be one man's arbitrary wish list, but including it on this page gives it a lot more credence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 ( talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay I have a problem with that map. I've been looking around the source blogger's website, and looking through the WMATA documents he refers to. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the blogger, and applaud his website, this map does not belong on Wikipedia.
1) Its WP:SPS 2) It is put to together very piecemeal from various unrelated reports. WMATA has never put forth a plan saying "this is what our comprehensive plan is." A reasonable person would not look at these reports and based on them say that WMATA is committed to building these projects, and especially would not come to the conclusion that all these projects are likely to be built. But a reader might look at this map and assume that these speculative projects are actually a reflection of WMATA's serious intents. 3) The primary presentation the map is supposed to been used in is not available (dead-links), and the related press release has been pulled from WMATA's website. This suggests that WMATA's plans have changed. 4) It admits that some of the information on it is mere speculation by the map creator. "Potential station. Not in WMATA presentation." 5) Some things are wrong. It inexplicably reroutes the Blue line. The alignment new alignment that is shown on this map as the blue line -- the document that comes from clearly shows the blue line still following the current alignment. The source document has no indication that the Blue line would be rerouted this way. 6) It is outdated. It ignores the Brown Line proposal which is covered in the blogger's website.
I think it should be removed. A reader is likely to see it as a reflection of WMATA's comprehensive plans, and this is not an accurate assumption. Ehlkej ( talk) 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be a sentence somewhere (here or Metro rolling stock article) where it says whether the cars are the same as BART or not. The whole world is watching and wants to know! User F203 ( talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time for a subarticle on safety issues, where we can go into detail. It might include a list of incidents, which is a handy thing for Wikipedia to have for our readers. There have been too many incidents, making it harder to remember each one, along why they happened, the outcome of investigations, and other such things. A subarticle could also provide broader context, than just the incidents. -- Aude ( talk) 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. The names of Wikipedia articles follow the most common name, not the official name. See also Wikipedia:Official names. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Washington Metro → Washington Metrorail — The lead sentence currently reads "The Washington Metro (officially Metrorail but commonly referred to as just Metro)...". Should the proper name of this article be "Washington Metrorail"? Note that the other WAMATA operating agency article is Metrobus (Washington, D.C.), which is inconsistent. I am bringing this up, because it also affects the name of the 2009 Washington Metro train collision article. Dhaluza ( talk) 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Golbez. Best, epicAdam( talk) 16:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Golbez and because reliable academic sources use the current name, e.g., Zachary M. Schrag, The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Martindelaware ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. There seems no question that Metro is the common name, the only reason for the proposed rename seems to be the disputed claim that Metrorail is the official name. The policy is to prefer the common name in any case, so there's simply no case to answer. Andrewa ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Acording to WMATA - "Metro" applies to the entire "Metropolitan" system, "Metrobus" to the bus system and "Metrorail" is the train service. That seems very clearly defined to me. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Common name vs. official name. Acps110 ( talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As others have said, Metro is the common name for the rail system, no matter what the official differentiation between the rail and bus systems might be. If readers are likely to expect Washington Metro to bring them to a page on the rail system, that’s what it should do. DBowie ( talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with all these oppose comments if they had some solid evidence that most people use "Washington Metro" to refer to the subway system alone. I'm not convinced that that's the case. — D. Monack talk 22:06, 30 June 2009 (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 |
Does anyone know what the length of each line is? I'm suprised this piece(s) of data is not included in either the main article or individual line pages or at least missing for some of them, it would sure help bring the article and or pages up to featured artcle standard. Also the bit of information would help in creating a new table for the lines. Limitedexpresstrain 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why someone edited out the sentence, "The previous recordholding day was January 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton's first inauguration" in the history section. It seems like something that should be discussed. Mecaterpillar 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following sentences don't belong in Metrorail Network section, particularly since this information already appears in the Trivia section: "However, the deepest stations in the system are not in Washington, but at the northeastern end of the Red Line, with Wheaton having the longest escalator in the western hemisphere at 230 vertical feet (70 meters) and 508 feet long (155 meters) diagonally, and Forest Glen being even deeper than that.[1] It is so deep, the only way to the surface is by elevator.[4]" Mecaterpillar 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the Accountability and Controversy section in the main page, it states that the new, cashless parking system requires users to buy a SmarTrip card to exit. This is true, but the wording is somewhat misleading. SmarTrip cards cost $5, but the minimum you can put on one is $5, for a total minimum spent of $10. The math is right that they pay $7.50 extra, but perhaps we can reword this to say that they are forced to pay a nonrefundable $5 for the SmarTrip-the rest of the $5 can be used for parking, even if they will only feasibly use it once.-- Rmeskill 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
An extension to Ft. Belvoir has been studied before http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051901618.html, either as a light rail extension or Metrorail, lately with the new BRAC realignment expected to move 18000 jobs to Ft. Belvoir by 2012 new interest has been place on this possible extension. Sorry for not signing it earlier, I added two sections at once. -- JVittes 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again new data is available, for fiscal 2006 we have new year totals at above 205 million, and new records for total ridership in a month, and highest avg weekday ridership. http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1303, I think it is impressive given that June is only 30 days as opposed to 31 for March, and given the issues that rain caused especially for June 26th. I'll get to updating the page soon, if anyone else can do it though I would much appreciate it.-- JVittes 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know how that 930,000 avg. weekday ridership number is calculated (see change to lead)? It seems utterly wrong given that it's significantly higher than the record setting ridership on the highest ridership days as given my Metro (see what used to be cited on that sentence). I'm inclined to change it back to Metro's estimate of 700,000 (which is actually just above the avg. weekday ridership of 699,599 during FY 2006 (see http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1303)). Mecaterpillar 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Such an interesting article recently removed as a reference. I'd hate to see it go to waste:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901738.html
I don't want to lose the address for it in the shuffle of things, so here it is. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Before the talk page was archived, there was a discussion about replacing the line descriptions with a table. I'm currently thinking of replacing it with a table like this (since I couldn't find the line lengths):
Line Name | Opened | Stations | Termini | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Red Line | 1976 | 27 | Shady Grove - Glenmont | |
Orange Line | 1978 | 26 | Vienna/Fairfax-GMU - New Carrollton | |
Blue Line | 1977 | 27 | Franconia-Springfield - Largo Town Center | |
Yellow Line | 1983 | 12 | Huntington - Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center | |
Green Line | 1991 | 21 | Branch Ave - Greenbelt | |
Silver Line (Planned) | 2011 | 29 | Route 772 - Stadium-Armory |
Given that the lengths of the lines are not currently in the article, I don't think it would hurt to put a table without it, although I do think it is something that should be there eventually. Mecaterpillar 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you lost a lot of information when you made that table. Was it not needed, or do you plan on readding it somewhere? -- Golbez 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this trivia bit should be sourced just as everything else should be and since it's not currently, it should have a "[citation needed]" appearing at the end. Also shouldn't it say "pass from one car to the next" or something like that? "pass between cars" sounds, at least to me, like one is passing from being outside on one side of the train to being outside on the other side of the train by passing between the cars. At least on other contexts, I believe, it would imply something like that. For example, if a driver of a vehicle was passing between cars I would think it would mean driving the vehicle between two cars while to change from one car to the next would be described in language similar to what I just used. Mecaterpillar 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm noticing lately that there's been information that keeps being added to the article. That's fine, it's just that it seems to me that almost every time information is added, the person adding it forgets to cite their source. This is problematic. It can be difficult and time consuming for the rest of us to go hunt down a source for information that someone else added. It'd be much easier for all of us, if in the future, when anyone adds new piece of information to the article, for them to cite their source at the same time.
In the meantime there is quite a bit of information now for which a citation is needed. Would some of you like to help hunt down sources? Mecaterpillar 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the depth and expansive size of the Metro stations in any way attributable to their possible use as bomb shelters? Just wondering. -- RevWaldo 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember a reference to the No food or drink policy on the Metro. Can a link to that article be added to this one? -- Ancheta Wis 09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm bringing up this discussion again. What do all think is needed to bring this article up to featured article quality? I know that quite a bit of what was discussed last time has been accomplished. I think finishing up on editing the Metrorail network section needs to be done. In addition, obviously, finding sources for the [citation needed] tags. I don't have any other ideas at this time. Mecaterpillar 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding SmarTrip and fare structure, there's already an article on SmarTrip. Would you consider expanding that article to include other types of fare media (this move would obviously require a rename), or would it be worthwhile to create a sub-article on fares and tickets? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some source that could provide information on the farecards similar to the information in the Bay Area Rapid Transit article regarding their farecards. Also it would also be nice if we could have a photo of a farecard similar to the one on that article. I think the fact that the balance is printed on the card should also be noted because while some sytems do put it on there, like BART, some don't, like MBTA (which I find quite annoying, BTW). (Then again, BART, like Metro, has variable fares while MBTA has fixed fares so in the latter you only have to keep track, in your head, of how many trips you've already made) Mecaterpillar 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have started to add the total number of parking spots to every station with parking. I realized something I didn't know, however, which is that different stations charge different amounts for parking. Should I include the price/day in every Parking header, or just the total number of spaces? See Glenmont for the just-spaces format and Wheaton for the with-price/day format. - Rmeskill 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this an accurate statement:
"Simultaneously, with its coffered groin and barrel vaults, it reflects the neoclassical style of architecture that can arguably be described as the closest thing to an "official" federal style in Washington, as demonstrated in such buildings as the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the former U.S. Patent Office building (now the Smithsonian American Art Museum), by Robert Mills; the White House, by James Hoban; and the Beaux-Arts Lincoln Memorial, by Henry Bacon."
The Treasury Building and Patent Building are both Greek Revival buildings built well before the official Neoclassical era began . The White House is Georgian (although I note that the White House page erroneously identifies it as Neoclassical). The Lincoln memorial is the only one that is actually Neoclassical (and technically Beaux Arts because Bacon designed it, but hardly the most extravagant example of Beaux Arts even for DC. That would be Union Station) but I don't see the resemblence. Frankly the only Neoclassical building that the Metro even remotely resembles would be the interior of Union Station due to the coffers.
Call me pedantic or a bore, but does the length of cars on the NYC subway and the locking or unlocking of end doors merit a full paragraph in an article on the Washington Metro? Let me throw it out to everyone here rather than reverting it again myself, but I just don't see the editorial relevance -- for this subject, that information makes very little difference. -- GGreeneVa 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the accuracy of the following (unsourced) statement in the "Funding" section: "Washington Metro is unique among major public transportation systems in having no dedicated source of funding."
I guess it depends on your definition of the word "major", but the Lynx system in Orlando, Florida, for example, also has no dedicated source of funding. I'm sure there are others.
If the Metro system is the largest in the US without dedicated funding, it seems to me that we could correct this by simply changing it to "Washington Metro is unique in that it is the largest public transportation system in the United States that has no dedicated source of funding" (or something similar that scans better). In any event, at the very least this claim needs a citation.
DBowie 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The clearly incorrect claim of uniqueness has been hanging around for a long time now, so I simply changed the claim to one of unusualness. Seems to me that it still needs a citation, though.-- DBowie 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Huntington, Union Station uses none of the letters in Mackerel.
mathewbrooks@gmail.com 71.114.108.69 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
MathewBrooks 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some editorial confusion about the reference to Chief Justice John Roberts and the Metrorail policy on eating and drinking, so let me clear it up. The reference to the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of the arrested schoolgirl means that the court made findings of law in the case. The findings of law, in this instance, were authored by John Roberts.
Here's a blockquote from the beginning of the case:
“ | Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBERTS.
ROBERTS, Circuit Judge: No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm. |
” |
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. — GGreeneVa 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In law, opinion is the word used for a higher court's published decision which establishes new legal precedent, or supersedes or reverses existing precedent. Cases decided by a country's Supreme Court, for example, sometimes become well-known because they express the court's "opinion" on how law is to be interpreted, which can have very wide implications. This usage of the word opinion is different from the common usage (outside the legal field), because the court's opinion is not the opinion of any person, but the court's decision after careful deliberation of the case, and is binding on relevant future cases in lower courts.
Changed from "Chief Justice of the US" to "Chief Justice". The context of the country is obvious, last time I checked, DC was in the US. martianlostinspace 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This page needs a new subway map showing the yellow line extension and the extension also needs to be reflected in the approriate articles. jtowns 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Some 'discussion' of a potential need for a Disambiguation page has been included in recent edit summaries. Do others have a strong belief as to whether such a page is needed for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 January 2007
What does this mean: "Farecards, unlike other forms of payment on Metrorail, are intended to be used once per trip"? Aren't farecards, just like all other forms of payment, used twice per trip? -- dm (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And if you took a trip to the zoo, you would probably use it 4 times (twice on the way to the zoo and twice on the way back). I don't even understand what the writer was trying to say, so I can't rephrase it. The number of times they can be used isn't a distinquishing feature of any of the forms of fare payment. I think we should see if the original author can explain it, otherwise remove it. Lorax 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the currently ongoing reversion war: discuss it here and stop with the ongoing discussion-by-undo. -- Thisisbossi 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this, because we can't say there are "two planned lines" - one is planned and real, the other is still a proposal, vaporous, in the air and subject to massive changes. We don't even know what the stations are. I suggest the Purple line be given a mention in the text, but no 'official' recognition. -- Golbez 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
what distinguishes a "transfer" station from one which simply serves multiple lines? Pentagon, for example is labeled a transfer station, serving blue and yellow, but Pentagon city is not, even though it serves the same lines. Is the desgination of a "transfer" station only applied to the first and last stations with the oppurtunities to change trains? Is it applied to those which offer bus connections? -- Ybbor T 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For a discussion on the name of this article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#Should Washington Metro be renamed to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)? -- NE2 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the boxes out to deal with them being slammed to the side of the page and the resulting giant whitespace. Feel free to change to back it was intentional to have giant whitespace and small boxes. Just trying to remove giant whitespaces in the article. Amazingracer 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the closure of the gap under the infobox only, as having that gap gives the infobox some space around it, which does what I consider a good service to the box and to the images by having them start in the next section. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I was inspired by an animation I made being on the main page, so I whipped this up.
Obviously it's a bit raw, as names need work, and there's no transfer station dots, but any comments? I was thinking maybe only show the names of stations as they are added; that would kill all of the horrible clutter as the network grows. Also please point out any errors I made. -- Golbez 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to get anyone's attention: On the scale map, Forest Glen and Silver Spring are swapped. I would fix it, but I don't have the right software. -- Jnelson09 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we include something in here about the fires that have come about in these last few days? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think its appropriate, seeing the wide range of news coverage about it. Also because there were similar problems two days in a row. -- Woogers 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This was originally brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro, and Golbez suggested that I bring this up here as well to give it a wider audience, considering this went nearly a month without comment. The original message was:
“ | Considering the "parent" article for all these stations was renamed, would anyone be opposed to a mass-rename of the station pages to something more descriptive and also slightly shorter? I was looking at the station pages for BART, and most of their station pages are named "Whatever (BART station)". Thus I propose we change the suffix from "(Washington Metro)" to "(WMATA station)". That would create a name like Metro Center (WMATA station). Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Your thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is lacking a pretty essential number: the annual budget number for the Metro system. does anyone have it?
Benwetmore 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro:
There is a great deal of inconsistencies among abbreviations in the titles of station names. According to the project's main page, it states that articles should be named "exactly as [they are] written on the official Metro system map." The problem with that is the fact that many of the abbreviations on map are present just to save space, but aren't exactly necessary. For example, McPherson Square (Washington Metro) is listed as "McPherson Sq" on the map, but is not abbreviated its article "McPherson Square." Also, both Minnesota Ave and Eisenhower Ave are abbreviated on the map, but the article titles are Minnesota Ave (Washington Metro) and Eisenhower Avenue (Washington Metro), respectively. Words such "Memorial" shouldn't need to be abbreviated, such as Archives-Navy Mem'l-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro), as opposed to Archives-Navy Memorial-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro). With the exception of acronyms such as VT, AU, CUA, etc., I think that words should be spelled out in full for consistency reasons. In addition, endashes (–) should replace all the hyphens (-) in the article titles as well. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you're already doing this; please bring this change up on Talk:Metrorail (Washington, D.C.), as many more people see that. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add any additional discussion below this point. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The System Map does not show the Metro Center station! For correct map, see, e.g.: http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm 208.54.95.88 ( talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stop reverting and bring this here. I don't know how common derailments are, but compared to the other incidents, which were fatal or had injuries or closed stations down for days, this one seems minor and not entirely worthy of mention. Any thoughts? -- Golbez ( talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to reopen the discussion on whether to include links to infrastructure information that has been taken down by various site owners but is archived. Is this information detrimental to security? Why or why not? Has WMATA expressed an official position on this? If WMATA ever suggested that the information be taken down for security reasons, then we should respect that request unless it was illegal. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing that isn't mentioned here is the issue of frequent name changes Metro made. This was in part due to politics, part due to Metro's willingness to change names as long as the sponsor covered the related costs (which, as I recall, were about $50,000 in the late 1980s). This resulted in some real mouthfuls such as Archive station becoming " Archives–Navy Memorial–Penn Quarter". While there are a few parallels in other systems, the phenomenenon on this scale is confined to WMATA, and flies in the face of the rule of thumb used in most places that station names should be concise and stable (London has " Westminster", not, say, "Westminster-Houses of Parliament-Cenotaph-London Eye", despite the importance of nearby sites). ProhibitOnions (T) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The mention in the farecards section about "bus pass with rail value" is not true, is it? I remember that they used to have combined bus-rail passes, which unlike rail-only passes (which were gate-activated) were good for the specific week printed on the pass. They were discontinued some years ago, at the time of a fare increase, when they also discontinued the 28-day Fast Pass (which was for convenience only, as it cost exactly four times a 7-day pass). Hgrosser ( talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any science fiction movies (or any other movies) that use subway stations of the Washington metro as a location?-- Soylentyellow ( talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I've moved this article back onto the Washington Metro title. The part that convinced me to change it back was, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I remember back in the 90's when I was first looking for Metro on the Internet, I put "Metro" and "Washington DC" in there. "Metrorail" never came to mind, and I've never heard anyone but Metro themselves refer to the system as "Metrorail". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WMATA has proposed a new line to run from Franconia-Springfield to Greenbelt and has used brown to designate this line on the map that they used. Would it be considered somewhat premature to create Brown Line (Washington Metro)? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Metro's website, at http://www.wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm and http://www.wmata.com/riding/passes.cfm#Metrorail, states that weekday schedules will be in effect on Columbus Day, Mon. Oct. 13, and 3 other holidays, and therefore peak fares will be in effect during peak hours and 1-day passes will not be valid until 9:30 am. However, this is contradicted by the press releases cited in Washington_Metro#Passes, which state that a modified (starting at 5 am) Saturday schedule will be in effect for those holidays. Before I added that sentence, I wrote to Metro pointing out the contradiction, and this is the response I received:
Monday, May 5, 2008 7:07 AM From csvc@wmata.com Mon May 5 07:07:51 2008 Return-Path: <csvc@wmata.com> From: csvc@wmata.com To: hgrosser-at-yahoo.com bcc: jgreene@wmata.com Subject: Your Reply Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=ps-boundary-1 Content-Length: 2073
Dear Mr. Grosser:
Thank you for your recent email concerning holiday Metrorail schedules. We apologize for any confusing on this subject. The holiday page on our website is correct. Metrorail operates from 5:00 a.m. until midnight, however, the trains do not operate as frequently as they do on a non-holiday weekday.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact our team directly whenever you have questions or concerns related to the Red Line. To speak to a Red Line Customer Service Representative for Comments, Complaints or Suggestions, please call 301-562-4605 weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. You can leave a message at all other times or complete the comment form located on our website at www.wmata.com.
If you ever need to speak with a Customer Information Agent for assistance with general questions, please call 202-637-7000; Mon-Thurs: 6 a.m.-10:30 p.m., Fri: 6 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sat: 7 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sun: 7 a.m.-10:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
Jeannie Greene-Barr
Case # 405263
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on 2008-05-02-18.01.46.000000, hgrosser-at-yahoo.com (Harvey Grosser) wrote:
Your holiday page (
http://wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm) says that weekday schedules (and by extension, fares) are in effect on Metrorail for the 4 minor federal holidays of Columbus Day, Veterans Day, M.L. King Day, and Presidents Day. However, according to the press release archive, weekday schedules for these days was put into effect in the fall of 2006 (FY 2007) (
http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1392) but was switched back to modified Saturday service next year due to insufficient ridership (
http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1806). Please correct this page if wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When responding to this email, please include the following ID number: "[THREAD_ID:346452]" . This will help us serve you better.
To help resolve this discrepancy, will anyone reading this post who happens to ride Metro on Monday Oct. 13 please post a reply to this post on whether you were charged peak fare for entry before 9:30 am or from 3−7 pm (the digital clock above the station manager’s booth is authoritative), or if you were able to use a 1-day pass before 9:30 am. Thanks.
Hgrosser ( talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please write a neutral section on the bag searches that Metro has instituted? I would write one, but I'm so thoroughly PO'd about it, that I'm afraid that if I do, it won't come out neutral. Here are some sources:
And for what it's worth, I was the commenter who talked about "money down a rat hole" in the Express. But if someone would be so kind as to lay a neutral base for this section, I'd much appreciate it. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Why can I not get the whole fare schedule that is posted in all metro stations? I live in other state and can expense my fares, but neglecting to write them before leaving D.C. has caused problems. Do you have a web site with fares?†⅔₳₣ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.127 ( talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be a variety of figures on the total number of cars. Each of the following sources lists a different number:
If the information about the four-car money train and the eight damaged vehicles is correct, then that would match the information provided on the media guide. Why, then, does the document that was published most recently (the fact sheet) list 1116 cars? We have to provide some sort of explanation to readers as to why we chose one number over the other, especially if we are not using the most recent figure provided. Best, epicAdam( talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is amazing how little has changed in six years:
The arrival lamps are now red and there is a new LED signboard, but otherwise it is nearly unchanged. What lens was used for the 2003 photo? Any chance you could use a similar focal length so that the angles of the photos line up?
-- Autopilot ( talk) 15:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to include that "Metro in 2030" image, since it's just a blogger's dream and hasn't been a serious proposal by Metro officials, government officials, or the media. It seems to be one man's arbitrary wish list, but including it on this page gives it a lot more credence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 ( talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay I have a problem with that map. I've been looking around the source blogger's website, and looking through the WMATA documents he refers to. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the blogger, and applaud his website, this map does not belong on Wikipedia.
1) Its WP:SPS 2) It is put to together very piecemeal from various unrelated reports. WMATA has never put forth a plan saying "this is what our comprehensive plan is." A reasonable person would not look at these reports and based on them say that WMATA is committed to building these projects, and especially would not come to the conclusion that all these projects are likely to be built. But a reader might look at this map and assume that these speculative projects are actually a reflection of WMATA's serious intents. 3) The primary presentation the map is supposed to been used in is not available (dead-links), and the related press release has been pulled from WMATA's website. This suggests that WMATA's plans have changed. 4) It admits that some of the information on it is mere speculation by the map creator. "Potential station. Not in WMATA presentation." 5) Some things are wrong. It inexplicably reroutes the Blue line. The alignment new alignment that is shown on this map as the blue line -- the document that comes from clearly shows the blue line still following the current alignment. The source document has no indication that the Blue line would be rerouted this way. 6) It is outdated. It ignores the Brown Line proposal which is covered in the blogger's website.
I think it should be removed. A reader is likely to see it as a reflection of WMATA's comprehensive plans, and this is not an accurate assumption. Ehlkej ( talk) 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be a sentence somewhere (here or Metro rolling stock article) where it says whether the cars are the same as BART or not. The whole world is watching and wants to know! User F203 ( talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time for a subarticle on safety issues, where we can go into detail. It might include a list of incidents, which is a handy thing for Wikipedia to have for our readers. There have been too many incidents, making it harder to remember each one, along why they happened, the outcome of investigations, and other such things. A subarticle could also provide broader context, than just the incidents. -- Aude ( talk) 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. The names of Wikipedia articles follow the most common name, not the official name. See also Wikipedia:Official names. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Washington Metro → Washington Metrorail — The lead sentence currently reads "The Washington Metro (officially Metrorail but commonly referred to as just Metro)...". Should the proper name of this article be "Washington Metrorail"? Note that the other WAMATA operating agency article is Metrobus (Washington, D.C.), which is inconsistent. I am bringing this up, because it also affects the name of the 2009 Washington Metro train collision article. Dhaluza ( talk) 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Golbez. Best, epicAdam( talk) 16:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Golbez and because reliable academic sources use the current name, e.g., Zachary M. Schrag, The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Martindelaware ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. There seems no question that Metro is the common name, the only reason for the proposed rename seems to be the disputed claim that Metrorail is the official name. The policy is to prefer the common name in any case, so there's simply no case to answer. Andrewa ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Acording to WMATA - "Metro" applies to the entire "Metropolitan" system, "Metrobus" to the bus system and "Metrorail" is the train service. That seems very clearly defined to me. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Common name vs. official name. Acps110 ( talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As others have said, Metro is the common name for the rail system, no matter what the official differentiation between the rail and bus systems might be. If readers are likely to expect Washington Metro to bring them to a page on the rail system, that’s what it should do. DBowie ( talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with all these oppose comments if they had some solid evidence that most people use "Washington Metro" to refer to the subway system alone. I'm not convinced that that's the case. — D. Monack talk 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)