Jump to content

Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 2

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

Line lengths

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)

Previous Highest Ridership Day

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)

I don't know, so I reverted the edit and put it back in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia in Metrorail Network Section

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)

If you're going to remove that information, remove it from the "trivia" section, as it's more relevant in the "Metrorail network" section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and comment it in the Trivia section. This will also eliminate 2 of the "[citation needed]" texts. Mecaterpillar 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, someone uncommented it, and so it looks like were stuck with it appearing in the "trivia" section. BTW, the only information on those trivia bits that are sourced is the repeated information that also appears in the "metrorail network" section. Also I don't think trivia info regarding what other long escalators there are in the world is all that pertinent to the Washington Metro article. Perhaps it belongs in the escalator article (and guess what, it's in there and in more detail!). So in any case, is there any objection to removing the repeated information from the "metrorail network" section since removing it from the "trivia" section will not really work? Mecaterpillar 05:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The trivia appeared to have unique info, like how Metro has had the longest escalator for some time, starting with Bethesda, then Rosslyn, etc. etc. --Golbez 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Inventory of stations with escalators over 45' (13.71m) vertical rise
A Route Red Line
Dupont Circle 01 17 1977
3 escalators north end surface to in train hall mezzanine level 94’ 5 3/4" (28.79m)
3 escalators south end surface to in train hall mezzanine level 84’ 9 1/4" (25.83m)
(Note) when station opened on 01 17 1977 south entrance had only 2 escalators
Woodley Zoo Park 12 05 1981
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 103' 2 1/2" (31.45m)
Cleveland Park 12 05 1981
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 58' 9 3/8" (17.92m)
Van Ness 12 05 1981
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 56' 6 1/8" (17.30m)
Tenleytown 08 25 1984
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 81' 3 1/2" (24.76m)
Friendship Heights 08 25 1984
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 65' 10 3/4 (20.08m)
Bethesda 08 25 1984
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 107' 6 1/2" (32.77m)
Medical Center 08 25 1984
3 escalators surface to in train hall mezzanine level 100' 11 7/8" (30.78m)
B Route Red Line
Wheaton 09 22 1990
3 escalators from level below surface to platform level 115' 5" (35.17m)
C Route Blue Orange Lines
Rosslyn 07 01 1977
4 escalators from surface level mezzanine to upper level platform 97' 9 1/4" (29.80m)
C Route Blue Yellow Lines
Pentagon 07 01 1977
3 escalators from Pentagon Concourse to mezzanine/upper level platform 59' 3/4" (18.00m)
(Note) Station in cut and cover, Pentagon Concourse to mezzanine escalators closed and are no longer accesable
K Route Orange Line
Court House 10 01 1979
3 escalators intermediate level below surface to in train hall mezzanine level 48' 6 1/4" (14.76m)
(Note) Deepest station in cut and cover
All Stations in bed rock except Court House and Pentagon
John R Cambron cambronj@chesapeake.net
"The Wheaton station, a mile down the street, has 230-foot escalators, the longest outside of Leningrad." From the article "Wheaton, Forest Glen To Climb Aboard Metro", September 16, 1990, Washington Post. Tjamro 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading this correctly, John's list gives the depth the escalators climb, while the Post article gives the length of the escalator tracks (which is depth * csc(track_angle)). Some quick back-of-the envelope math tells me that the track angle would be about 30° - can anyone verify this? -lee 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue With The Main Page

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)

Tweaked language --Brian H 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Extensions

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)

Ridership

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)

If nobody objects, I'll change it back to the official WMATA numbers at some point in the future. Mecaterpillar 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to figure out the methodology used by that source, and the best I could come up with is that they take the total and divide by the number of weekdays, but that gave me a slightly lower number, but close, for example for June 2006, that would give 937k. Of course one sees the obvious problem with that methodology (weekend ridership is not zero), so just change it back now, or I'll do it when I find the lines that need to be reverted. --JVittes 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so I tried to fix it, and now there is a citation problem as in two citations are actually the same citation, sorry I can't figure out what to do. --JVittes 06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll take accountability for adding the 930k figure. I admit that at the time, even I had concerns about it, because I couldn't square that w/ the stats given by the WMATA press release. But the *.pdf I referenced from the public transit association provided the only ranking of systems, by ridership, that I could find online -- and the point I wanted to make was that the Metro has more riders, per day, than the Chicago Transit Authority's L trains. Someone had edited the article to bump WMATA to 3d place, which I knew was incorrect.
Best I can reckon about the 930k figure is that the association counts each leg of a journey across multiple lines as a separate trip -- so that someone going from Anacostia to Farragut North, say, would count as two trips because of the train change at Gallery Place. But that's completely conjecture on my part.
The article now lacks a cite for the Washington Metro's ranking just behind the New York City Subway in ridership, so let me make a suggestion: can we cite the APTA *.pdf to back up the fact that Metro ranks second in transit systems by passengers, but keep using the ridership figure (complete with the citation) provided by WMATA itself? --GGreeneVa 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to include the link to the *.pdf I mentioned: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q1hr.pdf --GGreeneVa 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering about that because it may be hard to say that ridership is 700,000 per weekday and then go and say that Metro is the 2nd busiest while pointing to a source that states ridership at 930,000. It tends to being into question the credibility of the source's rankings (if the numbers are off, how can we trust the rankings?) and it brings up the argument that the number 2 rank is based on numbers of 930,000 maybe it wouldn't be ranked 2nd with 700,000. This does bring up the point of how can this article claim that Metro is the 2nd busiest? WMATA itself claims to "[operate] the second large rail transit system and fifth largest bus network in the United States" WMATA Facts, but that sounds ambiguous to me (is it necessarily referring to ridership?). I know this ranking tends to be repeated every now and then by Washington Post articles, but I don't know if there is some official source for this ranking. Mecaterpillar 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's where I feel your pain -- but in APTA's defense, the American Public Transportation Association, when it comes to the subject at hand, is about as official as it gets.
Maybe the answer is contacting them to figure out why they have a discrepancy w/ WMATA's official number, and writing that explanation into an end note -- or, in the alternative, sleuthing around until we find another cite for the 'second-in-the-nation' figure. If I could make heads or tails of the DoT's statistics -- or could even find them -- I'd say we should just look there. --GGreeneVa 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hold on -- just found APTA's explanation, and it's just as I guessed. From http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/definitions.cfm: "Unlinked Passenger Trips is the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination."
Long story short: just as in the example I gave, if someone boarded Metro on the Green line and disembarked on the Orange line, they would count as having taken two rides because of the train change. So the article could say something like "700k riders taking 930k trips per day." --GGreeneVa 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told, WMATA counts trips as one user entering and exiting (i.e. they count the number of times anyone entered (or exited, same count) through the fare gates) but most people would likely take at least 2 trips on any given day unless they had an alternate way of coming or going to their destination (i.e they make round trips instead of one-way trips). As such you actually have closer to ~350,000 people taking 700,000 trips with 930,000 train rides involved. Mecaterpillar 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
~350,000 sounds about right. To help break down that figure, according to 2004 Census Bureau figures, ~186,970 people use Metro to get to work each day. By place of work, the figures are 143,318 (DC), 27,767 (VA), 5,536 (Prince George's), 10,349 (Montgomery).[1] Average weekday ridership for 2004 was 604,400. [2] That means 62% of weekday ridership consists of people travelling to/from work, with visitors (tourists & those on business), and occassional users accounting for the rest of the ridership. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The census figures also say that 671,678 people that work in DC (21% of which use Metro to get to work). --Aude (talk contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I hear about Metro there is alot of people going to Rosslyn, VA as well though. Also quite a few going to the Pentagon, Crystal City, Silver Spring, and Bethesda, as not so minor workplaces, though driving to and from is probably more likely for these places than DC itself. --JVittes 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's probably about 21% that use Metro to get to Rosslyn, and Crystal City, and perhaps a slightly lower number for the Pentagon (w/ big parking lots and slugging popular), Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Ballston. But, I'm getting into speculation there. The census figures (American Community Survey) don't break down into finer geographies, to give that much detail. Though, the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package data compiled by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics would provide that detail. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Carpet/seats article

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)

Table for Metrorail Network Section

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):

Washington Metro lines
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)

Any further thoughts on this? If not, I'll go ahead and replace that part in the Metrorail section at some point in the future. Mecaterpillar 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea and I'll support its implementation, but I did make one revision to keep the width of a column in check. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I made the change and made sure to remove the width attribute for the table. Tell me if there are any issues with how it looks. The map appears to be next to the table when I look at the page and I don't know if that could be an issue under some resolutions. I can see that when I vary the width of my browser that it can make the table stretch vertically quite a bit, but I couldn't figure out how to prevent it from getting squished by the map (forcing it to be out on its own before it gets completely squished) without specifying a particular width. Mecaterpillar 14:30, 31 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)

That information should be in the individual pages about the lines. If any information is missing from the pages for the individual lines, then they should be added there. I haven't done a thorough check for that but it seems to be the case. This discussion here is an extension of the discussion started in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Metro/Archive_1#Featured-article_quality. I supposed if you want to discuss whether that information should be here (or some of the information should be) then you should look at that section in the archives and then discuss it here. Mecaterpillar 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The following distances were calculated from unpublicly published WMATA schematics with chaining information on them and volume IV of the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project FEIS
Red Line 31.83 miles (51.23km)
Blue Line 32.56 miles (52.40km)
Orange line 26.29 miles (42.31km)
Yellow line 10.94 miles (17.60km)
Green line 22.82 miles (36.72km)
Silver line 35.75 miles (57.54km)
You might modify the opened with first segment opened last segment opened.
John R Cambron cambronj@chesapeake.net

Trivia bit about passing "between cars"

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)

Would a picture of the current sign be enough documentation? I can snap one on the way home. I linked to a Metro flash animation as a citation for the trivia, but somebody deleted it. --Brian H 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't know what problem, if any, there was with the link to the flash animation. A picture, however, seems kind of excessive for just a simple trivia item. Ultimately, I don't know how best to provide a source for this. If there were some webpage with this little nugget of information in it, that could work. Mecaterpillar 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions of uncited info

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)

Bomb shelter?

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)

No blast protection on entrances or vent shafts. Metro was designed at the height of the cold war and "mutually assured destruction" likely made any shelter capibility politically incorrect. However on the otherside, Moscow was designed for bomb protection and is much deeper than the Metro with blast doors. --Brian H 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No food or drink

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've restored the section, with copyedits to shorten it. The "no food and drink" policy, along with the restroom policy, and the relatively low level of crime in the Metro system are all important things that visitors tend to notice and what distinguishes Metro from other subway systems. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That language had been moved to the MTPD subsection.--Brian H 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I found it. However, I consider these as major facts/details about Metro that should be included in the main article, per featured article criteria (2b). And, I'm not sure the MTPD article is the best place for these topics, as issues of policy and crime go beyond the police agency. The low level of crime has more to do with the architecture and design of the stations, than the police (which most transit agencies have). And, I'm not sure what the police have to do with the restroom policy? Though, discussion of police enforcement of policies is definitely appropriate for the MTPD article. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to avoid redundant text. Perhaps a further reduction to "The Metro Transit Police are responsible for enforcing Metro's no eating and drinking policy." and a direct link to the sub article.--Brian H 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Understand the leaning toward brevity, but agree w/ Aude. Newcomers to the system do notice, and it makes an impression -- I've seen tourists mention it in stations and on trains. Plus, to mention personal experience: (1) enforcement of it is leaps and bounds above that of similar policies on MARTA and the Chicago 'L', where riders pretty much ignore it (and where you've certainly never heard of someone arrested for it); and (2) it's a heck of a lot stricter than policies in places where agencies have pretty much given up, like the London Underground, for instance, where they merely ask (w/o any legal requirement) riders not to eat 'smelly food.' --GGreeneVa 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Safety and security" section now has a "Rules and regulations" subsection and so I'm thinking that the section title is no longer appropriate and ought to be changed to something else. I don't see what's discussed in the "Rules and regulations" subsection as having to do with either safety or security. It has more to do with the maintenance, cleanliness and image of the system. As such I think the section should be retitled to something that would logically include what is discussed in that subsection. I personally can't come up with a title that I like, so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion here. Mecaterpillar 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I took your suggestion and ran with it. The design issue has now more detailed and the no eating/drinking (I am going to add smoking) rule has been explained a bit more. I moved some text to make the flow more about a historical perspective than just pointing out the faux pas of locking people up for eating. Also, updated restroom policy with a cite.--Brian H 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
changed phrase in excellent editting by GGreeneVa from "maintenance of order" to "order maintenance." Order maintence is a specific term used in criminal justice theory see:Example of current research The whole shool of thought directly relates to the "broken windows" concept cited in article. --Brian H 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Quality

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)

One major issue I see with the article is the history section which goes from "The system opened March 27, 1976" and then jumps ahead to 2001 in the next sentence. What would help is to draw more on offline, print sources such as The Great Society Subway (ISBN 080188246X), which in turn is extensively referenced with useful sources. Google Scholar also turns up a large number of sources [3]. As well, the Washington Post has written extensively on Metro over the years. This level of research and sourcing would take the article (and its subarticles) to the next level. I have been busy working towards featured status on another article, but just about done with it now and can help out more here. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the featured articles that are about a specific mass transit system (such as London Underground, Hong Kong MTR, and Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)) and I've noticed that they all have a section titled either "Fares", "Fares and tickets", or "Ticketing" that covers what types of tickets can be purchased for use in those systems, what the fares are, etc. It seems like that is a section that could be put in this article (with the "SmarTrip" section then becoming a subsection of it). Mecaterpillar 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Fares and tickets" idea sounds good. It's mentioned in the intro, and maybe that can somehow be combined with the "SmarTrip" section. Aside from that, I urge caution in looking to these other articles as "featured articles". London Underground achieved featured article status in May 2004, when the bar was much lower. With the referencing it has (or lack of), I highly doubt it would pass WP:FAC today. MTR looks much better with its referencing, though it too passed FAC quite a while ago (Jan 2005). Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) which passed most recently (Dec. 2005) looks good, with proper referencing. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I had the same thoughts on morphing SmarTrip -- which I edited a while ago -- into a section on fares and tickets. In addition, delving into three topics would really bring this article up a few notches:
-- Elaborating on the actual construction history of the system, elaborating on how the funds were shifted from highways, touching on the absence of a station in Georgetown, and pointing out the racial impact of the Green Line being the last to open;
-- Getting into the nitty-gritty about the architecture of the system -- the standard underground Harry Weese designs, and their effect on security and crime rates (this should be moved out of the intro and expanded); and
-- Exploring the impact of the system -- how it's driven development in once run-down neighborhoods like U Street and Columbia Heights on the Green Line, and how Montgomery County and Arlington County officials leveraged it to create some of the best, most textbook examples of transit-oriented development in the United States.
And yes, we definitely need to read through The Great Society Subway.
Thoughts? -GGreeneVa 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You hit on 3 key points. The FAC criteria mention including "all important details", and I would include everything you mention. A related point to consider is Fairfax County, and how the orange line is built along the median of I-66. Had Fairfax County planners had vision back then, they could have insisted then that the orange line be built through Tysons Corner and to Dulles (instead of waiting until now). And, it was considered for Montgomery County, to build the red line up the median of I-270. But, county planners had the forethought, not to do that. (as did Arlington County) --Aude (talk contribs) 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair to Fairfax County, much of the Red Line runs next to railroad tracks including most of the NW arm past the Beltway (actually both ends overlap with the MARC route out to Frederick but at different points). All railroads heading west through Arlington were removed in part to build part of I-66 and most of the rest to make the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Trail. As such there are no railroad ROWs to be used there. Using land next to railroads is done for both ends of the Red Line, the south end of the Blue Line (and Yellow Line through Alexandria), the east end of the Orange Line and the north end of the Green Line. This strategy saves money over tunneling or arial tracks just as using highway medians does. Mecaterpillar 13:54, 11 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)

If we come to the point that the section is too large and needs a subarticle, then we can deal with merging or naming the SmarTrip article. For now, I'm not sure we'll have enough to say to warrant that. Though one thing worth mentioning are the fare hikes, which tie into the "funding" portion of the article. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Farecards

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 think I read somewhere that both agencies used the same contractor to make the farecard systems, and that at one point one could use the BART cards on Metro and visa-versa, though I didn't quite trust the source, maybe I can find something on this. --JVittes 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Parking details

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)

I'd say no prices, and I'm not even sure about # of parking spots. Prices are too trivial, and do change from time-to-time. (e.g. Twinbrook charge $4 if you actually travel on Metro and use a SmarTrip card (at another station), but if you just park there it costs $7.75. For those details, we should just link to Metro's website. As for # of parking spaces, I think it's okay to mention if its put into some context. For example, say:
"Glenmont has one parking garage with x number of spaces, while it has daily ridership of x with demand for parking far outweighing available spaces.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] The parking garage usually fills up by x time. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] WMATA and Montgomery County officials are in planning stages for building a second parking garage at Glenmont. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]"
Here are some sources that discuss the parking issue: [4] [5], more out there. If there are such parking issues with other stations, then there probably are articles and sources discussing it that can be used. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 20:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree that the prices will cause all sorts of trouble-the $4/7.75 thing is common to many stations and could cause far too much confusion to be worth it. However, in adding parking spots, I found that all of the western end of the Orange line already had parking added. It seems reasonable to even out the coverage to every station with parking-it helps give an idea about how heavily the station is used by commuters. Details that are available, such as the Glenmont citing should certainly be included, but I see no reason not to include the fact that New Carrolton has 3,519 spaces (one of the largest in the system) even if there is no article to speak to. -Rmeskill 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if nothing else, the Stationmasters site or the official WMATA pages should have parking information to cite. I wonder if that's information that best belongs in an infobox w/ basic information about each of the stations, rather than in the middle of the article body? --GGreeneVa 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh -- it is in the infobox. My bad. =o --GGreeneVa 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that I probably put those parking spaces for the K Route into place to test out the feature when it was first implemented. Either way, though, thanks for the long-overdue completion of the job. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Architecture

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.

Re: locking of doors on NYC Subway--

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)

Good point. let's take it out. --Awiseman 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dedicated funding

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)


Trivia "Mackerel"

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)

And I still consider the whole "mackerel" bit to be a really dumb bit of trivia to the point of being irrelevant, but it seems that it's here to stay, so I'll modify accordingly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And as it turns out that it's not in the main Washington Metro article anymore anyway. Good deal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm, there's an "A" in both Union Station and Mackerel. --Millbrooky 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my stupidity. I must have read it five times before i posted.  :)

MathewBrooks 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, color me unobservant as well. Still, though, I agree with AWiseman about its lack of merit for inclusion, rendering it a moot point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I didn't think it was notable at all if two stations didn't, but it still seems kind of silly to include. I say leave it out --AW 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My inclination: lighten up and include it. The 'mackerel' game is a fun bit of word-gaming and subway lore -- the St. John's Wood puzzle from London has stumped people for years, admittedly myself among them -- and it's good for at least a chuckle. Nothing wrong with that. —GGreeneVa 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure it's good for a chuckle, but is it notable? Maybe the game in London is, but I've never heard anything about it in DC. And why mackerel? Why not avocado or toothpaste or any other word? --AW 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? That's a bit of a 'why do birds sing' question — I'm not sure there's a way to respond, other than with a Scooby Doo "hunh?!" But as a fun fact, it's gained enough notice on its own strange merits to get attention here on Wikipedia — note the other word games in the latter article — and elsewhere (see here, here, here and here]). —GGreeneVa 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it may be notable in London, but I'm not sure it is in DC --AW 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "a" in "Union Station", I'm pretty sure that the "station" is excluded from the letters. Otherwise, both Huntington Station and St John's Wood Tube Station would not meet the criteria. As for whether or not to include it in Wikipedia: do I think it's notable? No. Do I think we could include it in Wikipedia? A case could be made for it -- besides, the great thing about Wikipedia is that we're not particularly bound by any costs typically associated with hardcopy encyclopedias. However, I ultimately think it's more of a regional thing best applied to English transport; not so much for metro DC. I don't mean to be anti-trivia, but I feel it's just a slippery slope to a whole list of "this station doesn't have any letters of this word". --Thisisbossi 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sticking my oar in..."Union Station" is the name of the station, as it's named after the railway station of the same name. So technically, it's "the Union Station station"...which is why I'd just call it "the Union Station stop". --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the elevator lady just says "Union Station", and so does the street pylon. Though it would be amusing for the elevator lady to say, "Welcome to the Union Station station. Please give priority..." (you get the point) SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hedgepeth v. WMATA

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:


Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. —GGreeneVa 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just to make it as clear as I can, the word opinion here comes up in this sense (emphasis added):

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.

—GGreeneVa 06:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not gonna RV, but I used the full title to distinguish his role from those of, say, the 40-plus state supreme court chief justices -- and also to help less court-savvy readers who might know less about the federal bench, and not realize that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has no 'chief justice.' Those five words are a small price to pay for making it clear, y'know? —GGreeneVa 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, but I would use "U.S. Chief Justice" for stylistic and length purposes. Surely that's a compromise that we could agree on, since it would still make the point but also only add four characters in the process. Beginning 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That can work -- wait for more input, or would you rather just go for it? —GGreeneVa 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New maps & updates for yellow line extension of service

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)

Green Line (Washington Metro) and Yellow Line (Washington Metro) are already up to date. The map does need an update, and I seem to be the logical one to do it, since I designed it originally. The station pages for E02, E03, E04, E05, and E06 should be adjusted to be Green/Yellow stations, since station signage indicates things that way already. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Big map updated. Line-specific maps are still not up to date. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

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

I do not believe that a disambig is necessary, though personally I prefer having the breaks. Is there a formatting policy indicating that we should not use breaks, or is there a policy which sets a recommended amount of dablinks before creating a disambig? --Thisisbossi 11:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at WP:DAB, and it says "several" before creating a dab page. I also looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and they do not give any guidelines about when to jump or how to format dab links in articles. Best I could find is templates. My reasoning for disliking the split-into-lines dab is that no one else that I can find does it as a top link, and it makes it look too long. Top-page disambiguations are supposed to be short and sweet. If it gets too long, then it's time to create the separate page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Once per trip?

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)

I think he/she meant "used by one passenger at a time." Upon entering the system, a passenger has to keep the card to himself until he exits; he can't, say, give the card to his friend who never rides Metro to enter right behind him. That would make the faregate balk. —GGreeneVa 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive.org Website

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 see nothing to discuss, we have been thoroughly insulted by the person and he has yet to justify his change, whereas we have gone out of our way to be civil and justify our reverts. The onus is entirely on him. --Golbez 12:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bottom line is that the link doesn't add anything new to the article. NYCsubway.org is already listed as a link, and we have a more detailed and up to date track map already linked. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup -- and aside from that, have we demonstrated that the track map -- which is still available to the public, clearly -- was withdrawn from NYCSubway.org because of September 11? Seems like there's a correlation ≠ causation fallacy at work here; without establishing the reasons for the removal of that track map, it would make about as much sense to put up a route map with an unfinished Green Line, and say that Metro took that map down after September 11. --GGreeneVa 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but the linked maps are out of date. The green line was extended beyond the Anacostia Station prior to 9/11/01 (January 13th 2001 to be exact, not to mention the subsequent "Largo extention"), so the map was out of date "pre-9/11". None of the maps contain any information not available currently on Metro's own website. But I may be a moron, so what do I know. ;) --Brian H 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding about the track map on nycsubway.org is that WMATA contacted the site and asked that it be removed, citing "security" as their reason. The site complied with the request. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Total bunk, and we can safely ignore the WMATA, but either way, don't we already have a better map linked than the one available on archive.org? --Golbez 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by "we can safely ignore the WMATA"? A substantive argument why increased information is, or is not, detrimental to security would be preferable. 69.140.164.142 04:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that our friend has so generously pointed out which map he refers to, what do y'all think? It is more readable than the more technical one, BUT it's also very out of date. --Golbez 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's stay with the technical one. It has more information on it, and is more up to date. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple line in template

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)

Agreed. It may also be possible that the Purple Line may not ultimately be maintained by WMATA, technically questioning its placement within the Washington Metro clan despite its obvious relationships to the system. The Purple Line is an important thing worth mentioning, but yes: I don't think it should be a particularly prominent path quite yet. ...of course, if I read this again on another day, I'll probably have a completely opposite opinion :P --Thisisbossi 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also agreed. --StuffOfInterest 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a Transfer Station?

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? --YbborT 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The official WMATA definition is those stations where lines cross or converge/diverge, probably because extra track infrastructure is needed, and because it's your "last/first chance" to switch lines. --Golbez 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Washington Metro or Metrorail?

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)

Expanding the Boxes

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)

Gap under infobox

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)

Animation

I was inspired by an animation I made being on the main page, so I whipped this up.

File:Metro test.gif

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)

As far as chronology goes, I think you've got it. As far as station names go, I guess you could remove them as the growth progresses. However, you might want to think about at least having the outlines of the completed system in place from the beginning, and then filling it in as the system grows. That would emphasize the fact that except for three stations (New York Avenue, Morgan, Largo), it was all planned like that from the get-go. Then the names could stay static from the beginning and we could just watch the lines fill in with dots. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty cool. I agree with SchuminWeb having the outline of the current system on the map from the get go would be nice. And also if the dates being displayed were a little bigger. Other than that nice work. Amazingracer 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The dates are just a placeholder; rough draft and all. I'm not sure how well having the outline will work, if I do it that will be the last thing I try, I'll try a few other things first. --Golbez 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If not an outline, you might want to try /// on the incomplete sections like Metro did. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Orange line went to National Airport from 1978-1979. Aside from that, that's really good. --Jnelson09 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't I show that? :) --Golbez 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, geez, my bad. --Jnelson09 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg

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)

Scale map

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)

Fixed. By the way, Inkscape is a good free SVG-editing program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, man. --Jnelson09 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fires?

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)

Rename of station pages?

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:


Your thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical "BART station" identifier makes sense because that's the common grouping by which BART riders and area residents refer to them. Metrorail riders refer to their stations collectively as "Metro stations" however, and not "WMATA stations". In a broader context, "Metro" alone is not specific to the Washington rail service, so "Washington Metro" is appropriate. As such, I'm opposed to a mass-renaming of the station pages. —Adavidb 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm netural, but overall don't think it's worht the effort. Would we have a bot running this? And there'd be work afterwards cleaning up all the resulting double redirects, dab pages, and the like. I would also add that making the city explicit in the title makes it marginally clearer for readers exactly what they're looking at, and where they're linking to. But then again, most other articles get along fine without that type of stuff. For the sake of clarity, i'm netural, leaning towards oppose. some might argu this is a case of use common names.--YbborTalk 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ybbor summed up my opinion: I'm neutral on the subject, but it would be quite a bit of work for something that is marginally warranted. I'd be curious how Purple Line would fit in if it ends up MTA-funded rather than WMATA, albeit popularly considered part of the Washington Metro. In that case, it seems like "Washington Metro" would be more appropriate. The DC-MD-VA hodgepodge of jurisdictions means that what's "Metro" may not always be WMATA. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Budget?

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)

Not offhand, but considering Metro is a public agency, it shouldn't be that hard to get. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just did a quick Google, since I've been staring at transit budgets these past several nights (albeit in PA and NJ). This is a Powerpoint turned .pdf, but somebody might be able to pull something out of there. I'm sure WMATA has some better info hidden in the deep dark depths of bureaucratic webspace. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in progress re: Station pages

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)

You have some points, though I disagree with using dashes (which most people cannot type) in article titles. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Users can still use hyphens instead of dashes to get to the article because the title with hyphens can redirect to the title with dashes. This has been done to many metro station articles, including every New York City Subway station article with dashes. Dashes are allowed in article titles as long as there are redirects from a hyphened title. This is explained at WP:DASH. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:41, 5 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)

About to be copied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add any additional discussion below this point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

problem with System Map

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've gone ahead and added the bullseye for Metro Center. However, someone more skilled in Inkscape than myself needs to go in and fix spelling errors for Rhode Island Avenue, Takoma, and Largo Town Center. Additionally, there is a missing hyphen in "Franconia-Springfield", and the "U" in "AU" needs to be capitalized on Tenleytown-AU. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Derailment

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)

It seems to me that a good criterion for inclusion is if the NTSB has sent investigators to the scene. The agency doesn't investigate incidents unless there is a significant property loss or a death. If there is no NTSB investigation, it's a minor incident, and IMO could be excluded from mention. Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And per [6], the NTSB is not conducting its own investigation, relegating this to "minor" status. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

News article for consideration

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org Website

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)

No, such information is NOT detrimental to security, whether WMATA thinks it is or not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)==

Controversies: Station names

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 article for National Airport station does discuss its early-2000's renaming, and how Congress forced the name change on Metro. There is, however, no one unifying section on Metro's renaming policy. If it can be written neutrally and be well-sourced (the full text of the actual policy would do nicely if it can be obtained), then I don't see why we couldn't add such a thing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bus passes with rail value?

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)

Science Fiction films that use/feature/are set in Washington Metro subway stations?

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)

Moved back to "Washington Metro"

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)

Good move. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Brown Line article - yes, no, maybe?

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)

Looking at Google News, I only see a couple of references, so at this point I think an article is premature, if only due to a complete lack of information. Is there an actual WMATA press release? Also, from one news result: "Metro's planning maps depict the new route as a brown line, but no color has been chosen." In other words, it would be like the articles named "Britney Spears' fifth studio album". --Golbez (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
WMATA press release, not yet. This is actually based on a PDF from WMATA's site. But based on your discussion, I'll agree that for now, it's premature for a Brown Line article until more ink is spent on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested to see this PDF, though, have a link? :) --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Here you are. Additionally, WTOP cited it as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Day — will peak fares be in effect?

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)

I'm not quite seeing where you're trying to go with this... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If it turns out that peak fares are not charged on Columbus Day, then WMATA’s web site is incorrect, and a statement to that effect should be added to the Wikipedia article. Hgrosser (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I took Metro today from Rosslyn to Wheaton at the beginning of the evening rush period, and was charged the reduced fare. However, this is totally original research, and I provide this information mainly to satisfy your curiosity. As it is original research, do NOT add this information to the article. Don't even think about it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I called Metro’s transit information line (twice) on Monday during the morning peak. There was a recording stating that Metrorail would be running a modified Saturday schedule starting at 5 am and that parking would be free all day. Both times the info clerk stated that non-peak fares would be in effect all day and that 1-day passes could be used at any time. On the 2nd call I informed the clerk the Metro’s website listed Columbus Day as a weekday. She put me on hold to check it out and then said that they would be fixing it. Now, http://www.wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm lists Columbus Day as a “Modified holiday schedule” (whatever that means), but they didn’t change the other 3 minor holidays. It’s clear from this and the e-mail exchange above that their Web staff is not on the ball, and when I have the time (it’s getting really late now) I will add a note to the reference (not the text of the article) that this page is highly questionable. Hgrosser (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bag searches

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)

I'm not sure that a section is really needed. One or two sentences could be added under Metro Transit Police but is not significant enough to warrant an entire section. --Patrick (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fares

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)

The first link under the Washington Metro#External links section is for the official web site. A "Fares" tab along the top of that site provides access to current fares. For fares from a particular station, use the "Rail" Stations tab and select a station, then click the "Get Fares" button. As fares are subject to change by Metro, it's not feasible to include them here. —ADavidB 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of cars

There seem to be a variety of figures on the total number of cars. Each of the following sources lists a different number:

  • WMATA Railcar Fleet Profile, February 2007: 1136
  • WMATA Media Guide, April 2008: 1128 (taking into account the cars that were still on order)
  • WMATA Fact Sheet, August 2008: 1116
  • Washington Post article, November 2008: 1140
  • User:SchuminWeb has asserted that the fleet has 1140 cars, but that "four cars are now the money train, and eight have been damaged in accidents." Since he's the most knowledgeable one on the subject, I'd tend to believe him but I think we still need to have a third-party source that says as much.

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)

Sorry, I misread the article date. It was published in November 2008, which would make it the most recent source. My only concern is, then, why the varying numbers on the fact sheets and media guides? Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see...
  • The first source appears to discount the Rohr and Breda rail cars that were accident-damaged and taken out of service. That takes four Rohr cars (1982 Federal Triangle and 2004 Woodley Park/Zoo) and two Breda 3000's (1996 Shady Grove) out of the mix. The
  • The second source appears to discount the Money Train and accident cars from the Rohr total, and two others I can't account for. The Breda 2K/3K total discounts the two accident cars from Shady Grove, and also discounts the cars then undergoing rehab. The 4000 number is correct, and then the 5000 number appears to subtract the CAF cars damaged during the Mt. Vernon Square derailment. Alstom then seems to be related to the ongoing delivery.
  • The third source appears to subtract the Money Train and the accident cars from the Rohr total. I can't figure out where they got the Breda 2K/3K numbers from, as I can't account for an 18-car discrepancy unless 16 cars were off the property for rehab at that time. 4000's and 5000's are accurate. Alstom number is off by two, and I can explain it. The original Alstom order was for 64 cars, which was later dropped to 62. Then WMATA took their 120-car option, bringing the total to 182. Likely that page failed to take that slight drop into account.
  • The fourth source, I didn't see anything about WMATA's railcar fleet, unless I'm missing something.
Hopefully that clarifies things? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does clarify things somewhat; however, there are several number we simply can't account for. Bad record keeping on WMATA's part? Probably. In any event, do you think we need to clarify that trains go in and out of service due to maintenance and accidents? Or don't you think anyone will actually question the numbers? As for the fourth source, at the end of the article it says simply that Metro has 1,140 cars in the fleet. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to 2003 photo

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)

As I took both photos, let's see...
The 2003 photo was taken with a Sony Mavica CD400, which has a 3x optical Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar zoom lens. The new photo was taken using a Canon PowerShot SX10 IS.
As far as changes to the station go, however, let me also introduce into the mix a third photo that was taken using flash moments before the other 2003 photo was taken, but never used:
This confirms that we're on the Glenmont platform both times, and shows the PIDS screen that was out of frame in the other photo. I believe the PIDS screens were added systemwide in 2000. The only change I see besides the red platform lights and the advertising is a lighted map of the station on the Shady Grove platform, which apparently was removed at some point, because it's not there in the 2009 photo taken yesterday, with the space being blank.
Regarding taking a photo to replicate the angle of the earlier photo, I can probably do that next time I'm at Metro Center if I can figure out where I was standing for the 2003 photo. Based on the second photo, I believe I was closer to the PIDS screen than in 2009, and further away from the platform edge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Future expansion photo

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)

Actually, this was used by WMATA in a presentation to the WMATA board showing where they wanted to be, so it does deserve a space on here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 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)

Disagree - The map proposal is adequate. While this is one person's creation, it was presented to the Metro board as a possible future configuration. The Metro board agreed. Further, the press release has not changed, Metro simply upgraded their website and as a result many URLs changed. The press release can be found here: [7]. The blue line reroute is a long-discussed plan to reduce congestion along the orange line as described in numerous sources in the article. The map does show the Yellow Line reroute between Franconia-Springfield and Greenbelt stations. Whether to make the line an alternate Yellow Line or a new "Brown Line" is still up for discussion. As it is, the map is perfectly up-to-date, acceptable, and an adequate representation for Metro's plans. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I had found the relocated press release like you linked when I made this comments. (It does not have this map... that link is broken.) So its still seems to not be a published source that can't be verified. But mostly, having a map like this seems to give the undue impression that these plans are further along in the planning/funding/whatever stages and are much more likely than not to be built this way. Okay, I reworded the caption a bit to make it clearer this is a "vision of the future" and not a more concrete proposal. Ehlkej (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing information

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)

Why BART? --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see why BART because the two systems are comparable in age, and both have rail cars by Rohr. However, the similarities pretty much end there, because BART and Metro are very different systems otherwise. No sentence needed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle

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)

A sub-article may be fine, but it may just end up being a list. The general consensus on this page is to only list those accidents that resulted in injuries or fatalities. People are welcome to go through the Metro service disruption reports to find every of the hundreds of instances where a train experienced a failure or derailed. The vast majority of these incidents are unremarkable but I wouldn't object to them being on a sub page. On a related issue, I dislike the way that the current "Accidents" section is structured. For starters, I think the information should be listed chronologically, just as history section would be. Additionally, I think there are too many subsections and that do not serve any purpose except to categorize text that could be better presented as a narrative. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think the June 2008 incident requiring evacuation of hundreds of passengers was major and worth mentioning, along with the fact that there is a history of these incidents, a tendency for Metro to disregard safety recommendations, and a lack of oversight on safety matters. For now, incidents logically fall into two categories: collisions and derailments. I have restructured the section as such and moved some things to the new subarticle. --Aude (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I think this is a good idea. One of the things that has bothered me about this week's news coverage is the total ignoring of the 1996 Shady Grove crash, which was eerily similar to Monday's crash. It seems to have been glossed over because only the train operator died and no customers did. :-( Acps110 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper name?

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 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)

I agree that this article should be titled Washington Metrorail. WMATA consistently uses the term "Metrorail" for the subway, "Metrobus" for the buses, and "Metro" for the whole system. Just because some people shorten it to "Metro" in casual references doesn't mean we should. I feel the current title reflects an anti-bus bias. This has irritated me for a while. —D. Monack talk 19:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that there was already some discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Washington_Metro#Should Washington Metro be renamed to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)? It doesn't seem like any consensus emerged. —D. Monack talk 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to avoid parenthetical disambiguation, so I think "Washington Metrorail" is preferable to "Metrorail (Washington D.C.)". Let's make this an official request now. Dhaluza (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"Metrorail" is the official name. "Washington Metro" is the colloquial name. "Washington Metrorail" is neither. Oppose. --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Would "Washington D.C. Metrorail" be more appropriate? Dhaluza (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how that fixes the problems with "Washington Metrorail". "Washington" was never ambiguous here, so why do you think it needs disambiguation? --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 28 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)

That's ignoring the second half of the oppose, which is that "Washington Metrorail" is neither official nor colloquial. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think Metrorail (Washington, D.C.) is the best solution as it has the advantages of being the official title and being akin to Metrobus (Washington, D.C.) —D. Monack talk 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Then wait til this RM expires and propose that one. :) --Golbez (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Metro/Archive_2&oldid=1137309431"