Jump to content

Talk:Silver Line (Washington Metro)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Silver Line (WMATA))
Good articleSilver Line (Washington Metro) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 28, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Silver Line name

[edit]

Where does the name "Silver line" come from? The Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project says that the line has not yet been named and I haven't seen this name mentioned in any other sources. Greyfedora 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been official for a while. Just plug "Silver Line" and "dulles" into Google and you'll see it repeatedly cited by this name in the media. --Jfruh (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just look at the map linked to from the main article: [1]. You can see that the new line is labelled "Silver Line" on the legend at the top of the page. This is on the Dulles Metro corridor's official site. --Jfruh (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title of this article needs revisiting. The Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project web site states cleary that "A new Metrorail line is making its way from the East Falls Church station on the Orange Line, through Tysons Corner..." With respect to previous posts, WMATA is really the only official source and authority on the naming of a new line (they are the system operator, after all), and they have consistently billed this project as an extension of an existing line. Sure, that's open to change, but WMATA has never used "Silver Line" in any of its previously published materials about the project. --Signof4 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While WMATA not have used it yet, we do have multiple reliable sources using the name. A quick Google search turned up this and this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver or Gray? Perhaps it was placed on maps as a gray line -- as in no color or color not yet determined. Then pop-culture and the media called silver. The trains themselves are "silver and brown", there was already a purle-line proposed (the sixth color)...Metro is running out of colors to asign to lines. Think up some more colors other than the primary six; how many colors are used London Underground? Njbob (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although London and New York have zillions of lines and use many colors on their map, neither actually uses the colors as line names. London has the Picadilly line, District line, etc; New York identifies them by letters - and indeed, some lines share colors (A, C, and E are all blue). Washington, however, does identify the lines by color, so it is essential that this article be named properly. I've looked over the WMATA website; it references "the Dulles rail program" and "the Dulles Project" and has a link to dullesmetro.com called "Dulles Metrorail Extension". That site doesn't refer to colors at all from what I can tell. -Etoile (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ride the Metro daily, and this is the first I've encountered any talk of a "silver" line. Last I heard, the Dulles extension was just going to be the Orange line. But the sources referenced obviously use it, so it makes sense for now. It can always be renamed later. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not really talking to myself.) WMATA seems to reference the new line internally as the Silver Line. (I see it in a bunch of commuter chat transcripts, like this one: [2]) So, that's about as official as it's going to get for now. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all the sources point to "Silver" for now. Whether it ends up as Silver in the end, though, has yet to be seen, because "Silver" might very well be a working title until a final color is settled on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The report "METRORAIL STATION ACCESS & CAPACITY STUDY" from April 2008 states, "This report refers to the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension as the Silver Line, though this line does not yet have an official name." Of course, now that Wikipedia has labeled the extension "Silver Line", WMATA has no choice but to name the line that color :) hulmem (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with a representative from the planning commission at Viva Vienna last weekend, they had a booth there with information. She confirmed that it is called the Silver Line. For whatever it's worth. :) -Etoile (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is the name that is supported by reliable sources. What I'm saying is it is unknown at this point whether the line will be "silver" in the end, or if that's just a working title at this point. Based on hulmem's source above, "silver" is a working title, and we have yet to see what the service will be officially called. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

[edit]

I'm thinking that it would be good to have some mention about how the construction is to be funded. I think that the approach taken is somewhat unusual. I also think that funding is also one of the major reasons this extension is likely to be built (since the sources have been mostly identified at this point). There's also the question, when it comes to the tunnel issue, as to whether the federal government will or will not provide funding if the tunnel option is chosen (supposedly the government criteria considers overall costs instead of how much it will be putting in). Ultimately I think it's something worth mentioning in the article. Mecaterpillar 05:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASCE Panel Findings

[edit]

Since the ASCE Panel released their findings on Monday (July 31st), would anyone like to summarize their findings? There's quite a bit there (Follow the source I added, the ASCE press release), and I'd prefer it if someone else went about doing that 'cause it seems like it would take me quite a few sentences to summarize that although I find this paragraph from the press release rather telling:

During a press conference releasing the report, Robert S. O'Neil, the TRP's chair, explained that Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer "did not ask our panel to recommend the preferred option. Instead, the Secretary asked our panel to ensure that the state had the best information available with which to make its decision. However... considering the magnitude and long-term impact of this project, and considering that the intangible benefits almost entirely favor the tunnel, it is reasonable to conclude that our findings suggest strong consideration of the tunnel alternative."

In any case, it seems like it's time to add a quick summary of that. Mecaterpillar 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read. Unfortunately, it will be a couple of days before I can digest the information and try to regurgitate it into another paragraph or two. Hopefully someone else is up to the challenge before that. With talk now of rebidding the whole phase 1 project, there could be a lot to write about in the article. --StuffOfInterest 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

[edit]

Does anyone happen to know or have read somewhere why the planners are going to be overly redundant with the stations on the Silver Line? Is it really necessary to have 3 lines running from Stadium-Armory to Rosslyn? Why not have the Silver Line begin at Rosslyn? Better yet, why not have it take a new course and add new stations in the District? --Tjtenor2 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Silver Line run all the way to stadium will minimize the chances of anyone having to make more than one train switch. At the very least, the line needs to run far enough to cross the Red Line so riders don't have to change from Red to Blue/Orange and then again to Silver. Why all the way to the Stadium? Not sure, but there could be some siding tracks around there which make it a more natural termination point than in the middle of the city. I've always found it a bit odd how the Yellow line just stops.
As for running a completely new route, expensive! Trying to push a new tunnel through downtown DC would cost hundreds of millions if not a couple of billion. I've seen designs calling for splitting the Orange and Blue lines through downtown, with a new branch running up through Georgetown, along K-street, and through Union Station. It would be nice, but getting funding for such an expansion won't be easy. --StuffOfInterest 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note, the funding for the new stretch of the Silver Line is coming partly from the Federal govt. and partly from the state of Virginia, as is the usual formula for US transit projects these days. New stations in the District would in theory require matching funds from the District; however, since DC is notoriously cash-strapped and also under strong Congressional oversight, I'm not sure that this is feasible or even possible. Presumably the Federal government would only expand in the District proper if it can be convinced that doing so would make it easier to operate the Federal government. --Jfruh (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Stadium-Armory, you are correct - there is infrastructure to make it a more natural termination point than earlier. Specifically, the D98 pocket track, seen at File:WMATA D Route Pocket Track.jpg. Trains can do a Mt. Vernon Square-style termination here, offloading at Stadium-Armory, running empty on Track 1 into the pocket track, changing ends in the pocket, running empty back into Stadium-Armory on Track 2, and then boarding again on the other side. By the way, with Rosslyn, since it was mentioned, it should be noted that there is NO provision to turn trains at Rosslyn. Any attempt to turn trains at Rosslyn requires a significant amount of single-tracking or running empty to do so, with the nearest crossover interlockings at Arlington Cemetery, Clarendon, and Foggy Bottom. Arlington Cemetery and Clarendon would require single-tracking (this is done on July 4 with Arlington Cemetery to turn trains at Rosslyn), and Foggy Bottom would require offloading at Rosslyn, running empty under the river and through Foggy Bottom station, before changing ends east of Foggy Bottom. Then one would have to run empty all the way back as well. This was done later in the day on July 4, 2006, when a problem with the Arlington Cemetery interlocking developed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Yellow Line no longer just stops, at least during off-peak hours - the system map now shows it running to Fort Totten. For those of us who like to head out to U St on weekends, but hate waiting for the Green Line, this should help.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fasrad (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • The most natural spots for the Silver Line to split off of the OR/BL would be Farragut and Metro Center, in each case jumping onto the Red. The problem is that neither station has a full-fledged switcher; it just has some emergency track. That means they'd have to dig another hole without compromising the existing one. All across the system, you'll see that the general skepticism about public transit that dominated the 1970s resulted in a Metro system that is very inflexible and very difficult to expand. This is a general problem for ALL subways, but it's particularly disappointing that a modern system would be so constrained. --M@rēino 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not even that - the A&C connection track points the wrong way to facilitate that. The A Route (Red Line) end is on Track 2, which requires trains entering from the A Route end to wrong-rail into the connection. The C Route (Blue/Orange Line) end is on Track 2 just west of McPherson Square. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One eventual long-term possibility might be that the Silver might replace the Blue entirely from Rosslyn to Largo (eliminating the need to triple-stack the overlap area downtown). The Yellow is more efficient than Blue between Downtown and Alexandria anyway. Very long term, Blue could even connect to the Purple line somehow, although the Purple line still appears to be far more speculative than the Silver at this point. Still, I have heard talk that the new Wilson bridge might be used one day for rail (although a Purple extension via that would essentially eliminate the Arlington Cemetary stop) - the McLean area could use some service too, but that'd require an expensive reconfiguration at Rosslyn. 76.21.170.28 07:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Trap

[edit]

I'm a little concered about including Wolf Trap in the list of planned stations. The current plan[3] does not show it and WMATA doesn't have a really good track record on in-fill stations. Anyone out there remember the "future" Potomac Yards station? I'd say it should be mentioned in the text as a possible future in-fill but not in the list of planned stations. --StuffOfInterest 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. My understanding is that Wolf Trap will have an RTU number of N06, like how Potomac Yard has an RTU of C11. [4] So there certainly is a provision for the station in there (compare to New York Avenue with the RTU of B97 between B03 and B04), but since it's not going to get built, we might as well leave it off the list, but certainly give it a mention in the text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tysons?

[edit]

Just wondering, when the article mentions the project's goal as to connect DC to the edge cities of Tysons Corner...., is Tysons Corner technically a city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planes&mustangs510 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an edge city, which has a specific definition outside of "city". Tysons Corner itself is an unincorporated census-designated place. --Golbez (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Line (Washington Metro) → Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project—The name "Silver Line" has not been officially confirmed by WMATA or any other transit agency. Because the line is colored silver on its official map it has been informally dubbed as the "Silver Line." After doing a Google search, I did not find the name "Silver Line" listed on any official sites. Its official title is the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, according to the WMATA's website and the line's official website. —–Dream out loud (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Connection to Udvar-Hazy Center

[edit]

The Udvar-Hazy Center is a few miles south of the Route 267; it's unlikely that someone's going to run a shuttle (free or otherwise) down Route 28 for tourists. Tedickey (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is an improvement Tedickey (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a shuttle bus from Dulles Airport to Udvar-Hazy, so it seems assumed anyone who wants a metro-accessible trip from downtown to the museum would just take that. 128.229.4.2 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

[edit]

There has been a lot of intermingling between the History and Controversies sections of the article. The material in both sections needs to be reorganized, summarized better, and switched into more of a paragraph form than a list of events. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After revising and moving the text around, I removed the cleanup tag. Please suggest other improvements you think would help the article. Be as specific as you can. Folklore1 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Tollway comparison

[edit]

Why compare the cost per mile of the Dulles Toll Road to the Illinois Tollway? Are they similar? Jcmurphy72 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I've removed the comparison, because (1) I can't find any support for the cost-per-mile figure, and (2) the Illinois Tollway is not actually a road -- rather, it's the collective name for four roads that are all run by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority -- so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. --M@rēino 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Silver Line (Washington Metro)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The first sentence is very long, could some of the information be spun off in a second sentence or something. - done
  • The lead tends to overfocus on why the line is being built, and less on the actual properties of the line. There is for instance no indication of when construction started or when the project is scheduled for completion. - done
  • 'Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority' is linked twice in the lead. - I think it is gone
  • Should be 12th-largest in the 'country'; a 'nation' is a group of people with a common culture, while a 'country' is a political entity. - done
  • No mention of the length of the line, both the Siver Line as a whole, and of the Dulles extension. - done
  • No mention of the phases in the lead, and not really in the history section either. - done
  • Parts of the history section are unreferenced. - done
  • In particular the 'Tysons Corner tunnel dispute', the paragraphs are very short. It would be better to merge them somewhat. - done
  • 'The tunnel controversy, however, was not yet over.' is completely redundant, just leave it out. -done
  • 'cost-effectiveness' should be linked. - done
  • What or who is 'Tysons Tunnel, Inc.'? - done
  • Ratings ("medium-low" and "medium") should be lower-case. - done
  • The information contained in 'Contract award controversy' should be in the history. Controversy is often better dealt with in history sections then stand-alone sections. -done
  • 'Pier support' lacks references. - done
  • 'Toll increases' seems very POV. Instead you could create a section called 'financing' and include all the financial information there. - done. This has drawn a lot of attention and press coverage.
  • Normally it is sufficient to include the list of station in the list of stations-article, but if you want to include them, please put them in a table to ease readability.
Generally, WikiProject Washington Metro has had a separate article for each line, e.g., Red Line (Washington Metro), which contains a station list for that line. I am following that format. Do you envision a one-column table?
If you want to include a list of stations, that is fine. As far as I can see, this is the first GAN for a Washington Metro line, so don't worry too much about what the other articles have. Already there is two sets of information in the list, the name and "notes". I would expect all the information from the List of Washington Metro stations. Either do the list all the way, or leave it out. Arsenikk -done(talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on the map is rather trivial. - given that the map is up for deletion, I am taking it out for now. It just appeared a few days ago.
    • Hm, the map itself could have stayed, but if it's up for deletion.... Hm. And looking at the existing maps, I do see the problem that was being discussed as I can't just add a line, I would have to redo everything. Arsenikk (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article on a line should contain some information on the route, see for instance Ring Line (Oslo) and Sognsvann Line. - done
  • What is the service level going to be? What will the headway and travel time be? What type of rolling stock will be used? - done
  • 'List of Washington Metro stations' is in the navbox, so it shouldn't be in the 'see also' section. - done
  • There are several dead links. - done
  • 'Chapter 560 of the 1995 Acts of the Assembly.' is a very confusing ref, as it does not make it possible to identify the source. What assembly is this? Who and when was it published? -added Commonwealth of Virginia for redundant clarity. This is a standard way to cite a law.
  • Some of the links lack accessdate. - done
  • If File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg is in the public domain, why is it also marked as a non-free poster? - dispute as to whether WMATA is a federal agency for copyright law purposes.

Placing on hold. There might be a few more issues, but these are the major things. Overall, I would like to see some work be done on improving the lead, it is rather messy and little focused. I would also like to see a restructuring of the sections. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I though of/in the new parts see a few more issues:
  • Are there any prediction for ridership/number of travelers? - done
  • This article covers the whole Silver Line, not just the new part, so there needs to be a summary of the history of the construction of the other parts of the line. - done
  • 'vehicle traffic' by which you mean automotive traffic? Buses and trains are also vehicles. - cars, trucks and buses. There are no railroads in Tysons Corner. Done
  • I've written quite a number of railway/metro line articles now, and I feel the "ideal" way to portray the information is through four sections: route, service, history and future. Now, I know there will always be other ways of doing things, and that both service and future are not relevant here, but I have a hard time seeing why there needs to be a 'pier support' section. Can't it go straight into the history section? The sections on financing and Phase II are fine.
  • As a reader, the term Phase II is not well defined, and comes more as an afterthought. The dilemma is sort of that right now Phase I is being built (so it is "current", while Phase II is "future", so I don't mind its own section, but there is no mention of this, neither in the lead or the description section. - done
I agree that once the line opens in 2013, all sections should be reorganized, perhaps along the lines that you describe. Right now we have the near future and the far future with no service. (Current service is covered in the Orange Line article.) Phases I and II are defined in the second paragraph of lead. Racepacket (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenikk (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably been more than picky now, so congratulations with a good article. Hope to see more of the lines at GAN soon :) Arsenikk (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Greater Washington's validity as a source?

[edit]

So apparently we have a question about the reliability of a source. The question is, does the group consider Greater Greater Washington a sufficiently reliable source per our guidelines, or is it insufficient to be used to verify information.

Personally, I say no, because while it's certainly well-written and raises good ideas by some well-educated people, it still is a self-published source, and therefore insufficiently reliable.

What do others think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is somewhat irrelevant; at the very least, the first reference is of course citable to GGW because it's something they reported. For the second reference, since the source does include the internal WMATA map, I again don't see how it doesn't qualify as a valid source (And it's linking here anyway, for the image). And I personally do consider GGW a reliable source; it's a brave new world where some blogs are quality enough to count. --Golbez (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GGW is only "self-published" under the guidelines when David Alpert is the author of a piece. "Material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users" is acceptable. The best analogies, I think, would be to Marty Peretz's The New Republic and Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post. Both of those are legitimate news sources, even though their founders are still influential. --M@rēino 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed station names (2011)

[edit]

I see that someone has renamed the stations on the Silver Line to the names proposed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. The problem is that by the article listed as a reference the names are not final until the Metro board approves. To quote: "Final names for the stations will require approval from the Metro board." I think this is jumping the gun to rename the articles before the names have been approved. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same, and brought this up on their user talk page, but then I realized... the 'existing' names are just provisional, suggested names as well. Might as well go with the more recent provisional, suggested names, right? Either way it doesn't seem major enough to push back to the previous provisional, suggested names. The actual names will come out someday, and if they're different, then we can move the articles to those. --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed station names (2012)

[edit]

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has approved new names for the Silver Line, all of which are expected to be approved by the WMATA Board of Directors. The respective articles should be changed to reflect the new names, which are (from east to west): McLean; Tysons Corner; Greensboro; Spring Hill; Wiehle-Reston East; Reston Town Center; Herndon; Innovation Center. 207.197.128.151 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the newest station names were approved by the Fairfax Board of Supervisors, the same body that approved the last round of station names, I say we be bold and rename the articles too. Article about 2011 decision Article about 2012 decision Dmp348 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this jumping the gun? According to the referenced article, "Final names for the stations will require approval from the Metro board." Even if WMATA is expected to rubber-stamp the names approved by the Fairfax board, they're not yet final. Martindelaware (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that too, and I would advocate waiting until official approval in most renaming cases. However, so far no names have been approved by WMATA. The 2011 article notes that the previous station names (used for Wikipedia article titles) were also "recommended" and awaiting approval, while the original names were placeholders. So, until we have any official names, it makes sense to use the most recent set of unofficial ones. Dmp348 (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Need of Material Updating to Maintain Good Article Status

[edit]

I am no specialist on this line, but the article seems to me to miss quite a lot of what has been going in in recent months. I depend on what's in the media, and don't read everything that appears, but if I'm not mistaken: (a) the issue over the station at Dulles (above or below ground) may now have been decided (?) in favor of the cheaper above-ground alternative; (b) the Commonwealth of Virginia passed a state budget that did not include funding for this line; and (c) there's also been controversy generated by discussions in the new (conservative) Loudoun Council over their stance towards the project -- with objections encompassing (I believe) the project labor agreement, any possible funding from Loudoun, the issue of how far the line should run....

It would be helpful if someone who takes a closer interest in the project than I do could update the article in a way that accurately takes account of these and any other recent developments. Nandt1 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help Update this Article

[edit]

Another user has suggested withdrawing the Good Article Review request and urging others to update the article. I'll go along with this for now at least. An update is urgently needed -- if you have relevant knowhow, please help! Nandt1 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

User:Train2104 has tagged Wolf Trap (WMATA station) for deletion, but I suggest it should be redirected here in the event that Metrorail decides to build the station, although judging my the linear map, it might be kind of difficult to build. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largo?

[edit]

Unless I've missed something, I don't see any sources saying the Silver Line is going to Largo. Everything I've heard has it going to Stadium-Armory. It wouldn't make sense to have the train go further; the Armory-Largo segment is the lowest-ridership segment of Metro. So unless somebody can provide a source saying otherwise, I'd recommend changing the Overview and Route Map to show Stadium-Armory as the eastern terminus. 69.140.103.42 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather recent news, I saw something on the Greater Greater Washington blog a week or two ago. Basically, there's not enough pocket track at Stadium-Armory to turn around a full train, and to build more would be more expensive than simply extending service to Largo Town Center. (Kind of something they should have examined before approving the line, but eh, this is WMATA we're dealing with) --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I found a source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-officials-detail-silver-line-service-change/2012/12/05/ac842438-3ef0-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html). I'll edit it in, I suppose. I've never done a Wiki edit other than grammar and such, so hopefully I don't screw it up :P 69.140.103.42 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. If you know what a "pocket track" is and why that matters, expanding on it would be helpful. RossPatterson (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I know what a pocket track is (it's a turnaround track, basically), but I don't really know how to word it without the sentence sounding weird. I'll take a crack at it. 69.140.103.42 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind it was easy to reword it to keep it looking nice but still add the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.103.42 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Map

[edit]

I'm familiar with where the silver line will be traveling, but I'm not sure what kind of map would be requested, or how to make maps without violating copyright (I.e. I could create one using google maps as a start, but that would be a copyright violation). How can I help? McKay (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official new map is available at http://www.silverlinemetro.com/wp-content/uploads/final-wmata-map-silver-line.pdf ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.231.228 (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Park and Ride

[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metros-silver-line-is-coming-to-tysons-but-dont-look-for-lots-of-new-commuter-parking/2013/11/27/d6139e78-41b0-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html?hpid=z5 --189.122.201.52 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? RossPatterson (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in map

[edit]

In the image for Effect on the metro map, Montgomery County is misspelled. Terrorist96 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there's no Montgomergy County, Maryland? Martindelaware (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a simply google search will tell you that as well. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually agreeing with you about the typo (note the redlink and my edit summary, "I second that"). I guess it didn't come across as the joke I had intended. Martindelaware (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't catch that lol. Hopefully whoever it is that made the original image can edit it. Terrorist96 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that WMATA has updated the official map to include the Silver line, perhaps it's time to stop using this user-created alternative map? RossPatterson (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting we use the WMATA map, we can't; it's copyrighted. There's a reason Washington Metro doesn't use the official map either. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Names

[edit]

I vote that we remove the "planning names" for stations that are now open. It's confusing and we don't list planning names for the OR/BL stations (eg Eastern Market's planning name was Marine Barracks). Can we move this info to the individual station pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmag (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although it would be funny if all lines had this, for example- Pooks Hill = Medical Center, Weapons Plant = Navy Yard. Check the 1968 Adopted Regional System :) 216.164.56.98 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo time?

[edit]

Some decent usable images are making their way to Flickr, like this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/39017545@N02/14567668979/ Anybody want to upload it? 216.164.56.98 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that has a CC-BY-NC-SA license, which can't be used on Wikipedia (see WP:FLICKR for more details). However, there are some good photos with proper licenses available: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=silver+line&l=commderiv&d=taken-20140726-&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1. Conifer (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of nice photos, but none with trains. The other line articles feature pictures of rolling stock at station platforms--Zr2d2 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kitcase/14757489564/ This one, maybe? Conifer (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that could work, I think a photo at a new station would be even better --Zr2d2 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Silver Line Opening 4.jpg is at one of the stations on the new segment, but all the photographers in the image might make it suboptimal. Conifer (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria?

[edit]

The article says the Silver Line services Alexandria. I don't believe that to be true. The span from Rosslyn to Ballston is in Arlington, EFC is in Fairfax County, and the new stations along the N route are also in Fairfax County. What parts of the Silver Line operate in Alexandria? Harej (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I copied the intro from blue line on 7/28 and forgot to remove the Alexandria reference. Just fixed it. (Mattmag (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Phase 1 Length

[edit]

I think the existing article is ambigous on the length of phase 1. it lists it as 29.6 miles but much of that is running on the existing orange line.

if we go to http://silverlinemetro.com/sv-about/ which is the official Metro page,

we see "Reston: Phase 1

This 11.7 mile segment will include five stations: McLean, Tysons Corner, Greensboro, Spring Hill and Wiehle-Reston East. It will provide a transfer-free ride to downtown DC on to Maryland."

and then

Dulles: Phase 2

The second phase of the Silver Line is projected to open in 2018. The final 11-mile section includes six stations: Reston Town Center, Herndon, Innovation Center, Dulles International Airport, Route 606 and Route 772."

Perhaps the line should be described as "11.7 miles in Phase 1, 11 Miles in phase 2 and then runs along 16 miles of the existing Blue orange line"????

--Patbahn (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silver Line (Washington Metro). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Silver Line (Washington Metro). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silver Line (Washington Metro). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

[edit]

Unless someone puts forward strong arguments to the opposite, I plan to move the history section after the route and the stations, on the grounds that more people are now likely to be interested in where the line goes than in the gory details of how it came to be. 2A01:CB15:8068:9B00:BC7F:AC86:D901:CA26 (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current section order is good. All other articles about transit lines that I've checked begin with a history section, and it seems logical to me to put the history section first. (The only exception I've found is Green Line (Washington Metro), but the first two sections - Planning and Construction - are essentially a history section in two parts.) I do agree that the history section on this article is full of "gory details", especially the subsection about the much delayed Phase 2 construction. I think that rewriting parts of the history section for concision would improve the article more than reordering the sections. Inverted Hourglass (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps move the detailed history to its own separate article and leave a much shorter summary here? 2A01:CB15:8068:9B00:B178:166:5DFC:E8BA (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Inverted Hourglass that rewriting the section is the initial fix here, not splitting it out. A lot of the phase 2 content was added to keep the article updated while construction was underway, but now that the line is open, a lot of that can be condensed (and that just hasn't happened yet). For example, we don't need to go into rich detail about all of the construction events like the multiple sets of cracks and the installation of pedestrian bridges. We summarize sources, not reiterate them, so simply mentioning these things and leaving the citations for further info is fine. There is also some information that is completely irrelevant to phase 2 and probably not even noteworthy for inclusion in the history section as a whole, like the Blue Line platform rehab. I doubt that the history section would be unreasonably long if we address these issues first. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Interested editors should comment in the consolidated discussion at Talk:Red Line (Washington Metro)#Requested move 22 January 2024. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Line (Washington Metro) → Silver line (Washington Metro) – Lowercase the word “line” per WP:NCCAPS. The word “line is a generic descriptor. 2600:1700:1960:F100:A882:B52C:C11A:62E9 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Red Line (Washington Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Silver Line (Washington Metro" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Silver Line (Washington Metro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Silver Line (Washington Metro until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silver_Line_(Washington_Metro)&oldid=1210380949"