# Talk:Green Line (Washington Metro)

In the interest of promoting uniformity, I find it would be beneficial to turn the list of Green Line stations around so as to list them from south to north. This would harmonize with the existing sections for the Blue Line, Orange Line, and Red Line, which all list their stations south-to-north and west-to-east.
The Yellow Line is also listed north-to-south, and I am also separately proposing changing that line's station list around to list south-to-north.

I'd like to see an article or sub-article on the Green Line Shortcut. I had always heard of it, but living in NoVA and staying mainly on the Orange Line, I never rode it. I'd like to know more about it... --Phil Kirlin 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno what more info we can have on it that isn't already here.. what more do you want to know? --Golbez 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree - there's not that much else to say about it. Trains used the B&E connection to go from the E Route (Green Line) to the B Route (Red Line) and back, and terminated at the pocket track at Farragut North. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Here are some possible questions.
Where is the spur that was once used for the shortcut? Can you see it when you're riding the Green or Red Lines? Can you see it in an aerial photograph?
When it was in operation, did all Green Line trains take it? Did the Green Line ever even stop at Fort Totten? Did the shortcut run in both directions? Did it run all day, or only during rush hour?
Why stop it? Even though the Green Line middle section was eventually finished, it seemed pretty popular. After all, everyone who works in DC works near Farragut North, right? :)
What is a pocket track?
--PKirlin 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
To answer your questions:
The B&E connection is right around the Fort Totten station. The opening for the Red Line end of it is above ground just south of Fort Totten. There's an interlocking connecting both tracks to a third track that descends underground. That's the B&E track, and they also use it like a pocket track to turn trains around when they terminate trains at Brookland-CUA. On the Green Line side, it's only on Track 1 (Greenbelt side), and it is in the tunnel just north of Fort Totten. As for seeing it from the train, I've not seen it, but I've also not been looking for it.
Whether all Green Line trains took it or not, I don't know. I didn't ride the Green Line too much back then.
Why stop it? It was never intended as a permanent solution, and the connection was not designed for revenue service. Its purpose, along with the A&C connection near the two "Farragut" stations, is to allow trains to be moved to and from the Red Line and the rest of the system. This was also the only connection to the system that the outer Green Line had with the rest of the system before the mid-city segment opened. The purpose of running the commuter shortcut was to get outer Green Line riders to downtown Washington without having to make a transfer at Fort Totten. This is now possible on the Green Line without the shortcut, as riders can go downtown via Gallery Place-Chinatown and Archives-Navy Memorial.
Lastly, a pocket track is a third track connected to both sides that's used for train storage and to turn back trains. File:WMATA D Route Pocket Track.jpg shows the D Route pocket track. Pocket tracks are regularly used at Grosvenor, Silver Spring, and Mt. Vernon Square. At these stations, the train is offloaded (put out of service), it moves into the pocket track, and then resumes service in the other direction.
Hope that helps! SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Line (Washington Metro)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I will be doing this review.  I've given it a glance and will settle down to read it later in the day.  Initial thoughts.

Can anything be done to shrink the infobox without a long and boring discussion at some Wikiproject or other?
More images would be good.  Perhaps one of the exterior of one of the aboveground stations, or the entrance with the name pylons?  Take it for granted that I am familiar with the Metro system as an area resident, though I rarely go into the District these days and rarely have taken the Green Line itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your initial comments and for doing the review.  Infobox is far above my pay grade and would probably require an act of Congress to change.  I have found the following photos:
File:GalleryPlaceSign.jpg - interior photo of Gallery Place station.
File:Naylor Road Station.jpg - Naylor Road
File:College Park-U of Md Station.jpg - College Park Station
I will add the last two to the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That is fine.  I've been delayed with other things but have now read the article and will pound out a review later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This should start you.  A good effort but a fair number of prose glitches.  I'm probably going a bit above GA standards, hope you don't mind.  I see nothing unfixable.

History

Please divide into at least two paragraphs.
This section seems a bit jargony.  For example:
"included two rapid transit lines which anticipated subways in downtown Washington."  I'm a bit unsure what this means.  Were the "rapid transit lines" in fact subways?  If so, perhaps it would be wise to avoid the word "anticipated" and simply call it an early plan for subways in DC.  It might be wise also to mention, if only briefly, the pre-Metro local transit in DC (streetcars, I'm told).
The rapid transit lines were sited on the assumption that they would be subways in downtown DC, but would be above ground at least when sharing the right-of-way with existing railroad tracks. I believe that the antecedent trolly cars and other pre-Metro transit should be handled at the level of the articles on WMATA and Washington Metro and that we keep this article focused on the history of the Green Line itself.Racepacket (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I would eliminate the specifics on the moratorium and simply state limit the discussion of that to the residents were able to block the freeway (we're still paying for that one(=).
Reworded.
"which did not include the route that became the Yellow Line.[6] A central route under 7th Street in downtown was only added in 1967 primarily to serve the "inner city.""  This is confusing.  Perhaps it would be best if you said which lines the 1962 report did include.  It took me a moment to realize that the central route was the Yellow LIne.  I would try to mention every line right here, so there's no confusion.
Changed to Green Line. It was a typo.
"It also indicated"  perhaps "suggested" or "provided for"
foresaw
Early decision making

"creation of WMATA" You haven't said when that was,
Done
"the District's less affluent neighborhoods."  This is ambiguous.  Are you trying to say the District as a whole is less affluent and less well served, or that only the District's less affluent communities are badly served?  Hope that make sense.
The latter
You're mentioning 7th street again.  Perhaps I was wrong, it may have been the Green Line.  Can you find some clever way to break off some of this and move it to the previous section?
We are trying to go into greater detail here about construction techniques and impacts.  Above we are discussing the decision to have a Green Line.  The reference to 7th Street is to describe which portion of the Green Line was built with cut and fill rather than tunnel drilling from the side.
"At that time, a Green Line was planned"  If this was its initiation, I would say "was proposed".  Is there anything that can be said about pressure from District politicians, such as they were then, to build a line to reach this neighborhoods?   If you have any information (I won't hold it against you if you don't) that the Green Line was a reaction to the '68 riots, by all means throw it in.
See proposed paragraph rewrite below. Reference to Schrag at 211-12.
If you were ever to think of pushing this towards FA, I would strongly advise you to get maps made showing the proposed and actual routes.  There are people on wiki who will do such things without renumeration.
Excellent suggestion, but my remaining wikicareer will be measured in hours rather than years.
As you know, I did not care to get involved in all of that.  However, I admire your dedication in improving the project with the sword of Damocles hanging over your head.  If you are indeed voted off the island for a time and have any concerns about any article, email me and I will look at it and exercise my own judgment, keeping in mind I rarely get involved in arguments if I can help it!  However, I've dropped a note on the proposed decision talk page informing ArbCom that we're working on this and not to send the headsman just yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"The original plan called for a line under 13th Street with just two stations. However, in 1970, the District of Columbia Council agreed to pay an additional $3 million to add a third station"  I take it by "original plan" you mean the 1968 Master Plan?  I suspect some clarification is needed.  Also "under 13th Street may not convey to the reader that the tunnel was under 13th St.  NE BTW?
It was 13th Street NW instead of the current 14th Street NW. I would propose to replace this paragraph:Plans for rapid transit prior to the creation of WMATA in February 1967 focused on the needs of commuters while neglecting some of the District's less affluent neighborhoods. However, by late 1966, some plans started to include a line along 7th Street in the District of Columbia. The new line was included in WMATA's master plan for its proposed then-101-mile system in 1968. At that time, a Green Line was planned to pass through some of the area's poorest and most transit-dependent neighborhoods and provide them with subway service. The southern part of the Green Line was originally to pass over the 11th Street Bridges to the intersection of Good Hope Road SE and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE, follow Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE to Suitland Parkway, down Suitland Parkway to Branch Avenue SE, and down Branch Avenue to a terminus at the intersection of Branch Avenue and the Capital Beltway. Public hearings on whether to build a Green Line and the route it should take were completed in 1973, and the Green Line was originally scheduled to open in 1976. The original 1969 plan called for a line under 13th Street NW with just two stations.  However, in 1970, the District of Columbia Council agreed to pay an additional $3 million to add a third station and reroute the Green Line under U Street, and then 14th Street NW. Instead of opening in 1976, the first Green Line stations opened in 1991.with this one:Plans for rapid transit prior to the creation of WMATA in February 1967 focused on the needs of commuters while neglecting some of the District's less affluent neighborhoods.<ref>Schrag at p. 106.</ref> However, by late 1966, some plans started to include a line along 7th Street in the District of Columbia.<ref>Schrag at p. 106.</ref> The new line was included in WMATA's master plan for its proposed then-101-mile system in 1968.<ref name="BurgessHaltStart">Burgess, John. "Metro to Halt Start of Leg To Rosecroft." ''Washington Post.'' March 18, 1982.</ref> At that time, a Green Line was planned to pass through some of the area's poorest and most transit-dependent neighborhoods and provide them with subway service.<ref name="BurgessHaltStart" /> Riots following the death of [[Martin Luther King]] in 1968 destroyed much of the commercial district around 14th and U Streets and planners hoped that adding a subway stop in that area would stimulate redevelopment.<ref>Schrag at p. 211-12.</ref> The original 1969 plan called for a line under 13th Street NW with just two stations.  However, in 1970, the District of Columbia Council agreed to pay an additional $3 million to add a third station and reroute the Green Line under U Street, and then 14th Street NW.<ref>Schrag at p. 213.</ref> Instead of opening in 1976, the first Green Line stations opened in 1991.<ref>Schrag at p. 213.</ref> The southern part of the Green Line was originally to pass over the [[11th Street Bridges]] to the intersection of Good Hope Road SE and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE,<ref name="DecadesFrustrating">Sisler, Peter F. "Decades of Frustrating Debate Kept Green Line Sidetracked." ''Washington Times.'' December 27, 1991.</ref> follow Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE to [[Suitland Parkway]], down Suitland Parkway to Branch Avenue SE, and down Branch Avenue to a terminus at the intersection of Branch Avenue and the [[Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)|Capital Beltway]].<ref name="BurgessHaltStart" /><ref name="Feaver">Feaver, Douglas. "Metro Choices Detailed." ''Washington Post.'' October 18, 1977.</ref><ref name="Vesey">Vesey, Tom. "Green Line War Heats Up Again." ''Washington Post.'' June 23, 1982.</ref> Public hearings on whether to build a Green Line and the route it should take were completed in 1973,<ref name="WilliamsThreaten" /> and the Green Line was originally scheduled to open in 1976.<ref name="Branching">"Metrorail, Now 7, Branching Out." ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]].'' December 17, 1983.</ref>If this language is acceptable to you and you don't see any copyright problems with the change, please approve it.
My major problem with that is the "two stations".  For the entire line?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Currently, we have three stations — 	Georgia Avenue – Petworth, Columbia Heights, and U Street / Cardozo — on the Mid-City segment that is further west on 14th Street.  The original plan would have only two stations and they would be on 13th Street.  This should be made more clear.  As late as 1981, DC was still fighting internally over the route alignment (Schrag at 215.) Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved the paragraph into the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
" Instead of opening in 1976, the first Green Line stations opened in 1991.[18]"  I would delete this sentence entirely.  Also, try in the next few paragraphs of doing a better job explaining the timeline.  I'm not sure, also, that you answer the questions:  Why didn't they open what Green Line stations they had for what track they had built?
Deleted sentence. The finished stations opened on April 30, 1983 as "Yellow only." There was no need for two colors on that track until the trains went to two different termini.
" originally projected to open in September 1977"  This appears to contradict the previous paragraph.
The NY Times article is behind a pay wall, but I did verify that the Schrag reference does say September 1977.
I can access it, and if you send me an email, I will send you back an attachment with screenshots.  a png OK?  I haven't figured out how to save screenshots in any other format.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear contradiction. NYT says 1976 and Schrag says September 1977, perhaps they were looking at different planning documents.  Clearly, an early goal for opening the entire system was originally the bicentennial, and the blue line met that goal. Your call. Racepacket (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You know far more about the subject than I.  If you are not sure, possibly avoid the point?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hedged with "portions of". I am having trouble finding the 4th Circuit opinion.
Give me a case name, if it is a published opinion I should be able to access it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sending email.
" inability of local governments" perhaps better "unwillingness"
No. The local governments supported Metro but were dependent on the state legislatures for authority to raise revenues for transit.  If the local government wanted to borrow money for its share of construction costs, it would have to gain voter approval to issue bonds and would also need a revenue stream to pay down those bonds.
yet to extend the Green Line into Anacostia.  You need to make it clear we are only talking about expanding the plans.  After all, there was no Green Line yet to "extend".
used "construct"
"median of Interstate 95"  I would go back to calling it the Northeast Expressway and mention that it was supposed to be the alignment of I-95 (you might want to check a road article for proper phrasing there).
addressed
"centered on"  Involved?
changed. Racepacket (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Resuming:

Legal battles

"deadline for completion" unless there was a consequence such as loss of funding if the line was not finished by that date, I suggest avoiding the term deadline and instead say that Metro did not expect the Line to open until 1987.
done
"pushed the construction"  I would avoid this phrasing as a bit informal.  I find it hard to tell whether a good thing happened because of the release of federal money or a bad thing.  It's a bit confusing.
done
"construction deadlines"  See first note, if there was no actual consequence (other than people still having to take the bus and so forth), I would say "construction schedule".
done
"Green Line terminus in Prince George's County"  I would throw in a "at Rosecroft" instead of "in Prince George's County", after all, aren't both termini in PG County?
The article is behind a paywall. The summary said that they were accelerating the schedule.  It is not clear to me that they are talking about building the line to Rosecroft. Racepacket (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"line's completion date"  Including the northern stretch?
"The District of Columbia government retaliated"  As the last action spoken of is the filing of suit, and the action taken by DC was against Metro, I would change "retaliated" to "responded".
Done.
You should probably consolidate the two references to Metro being sued in Federal Court if they are the same incident.
" Although Metro had advertised the hearings, Judge Ramsey said, the advertisements contained the same wording flaws that had precipitated the Maryland lawsuit."  Are we referring to a second set of hearings being knocked down, or is Judge Ramsey still working on the first ones?
There were two sets of hearings knocked down. Schrag does not cover the ligitation, but here is the summary from the Schumin Web site:The court ruled in February 1981 that the 1977 hearings were invalid, as insufficient public notice had been given, and issued an injunction halting construction below the Waterfront station. New hearings were held in June 1982, but the court again ruled against WMATA in October 1983. A third set of hearings in July 1984 selected the present route, allowing constructon to commence. Service to the station began on December 28, 1991, with the extension of the Green Line to Anacostia. I will try to find a cite to the 4th Circuit opinion. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"line would not cross the Anacostia River until late 1989 at the earliest."  Clarify whether you're talking about construction or actual service.
Done.
"proposed federal contribution"  If this was the amount in the enacted budget, I would strike the word "proposed".
Done.
That is it for this section.  I am going to post a section at a time, so that your unhappily limited time, so it seems, is not limited.  Note that's not a comment on the merits of the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


### Arbitrary break
Constructing

I would move the mention that Waterfront was used for storage back to where you discuss its construction.  Something like "Once complete, the station was used for storage."  A mention of whether the station was underground or above ground would not hurt.
Done.
"and said the station "  I would avoid the word "said".
"just $184.5 million a year"  The word "just" is POV and unneeded.
Done.
" In April 1987"  Move to previous sentence.
Done.
"Metro asked Congress " Divide into two sentences.
"(which would complete the Green Line) I would delete this, you address how it was completed shortly afterwards.
Done
" Funding for the remaining seven Green Line stations in the District and Prince George's remained in doubt as of August 1991, with District officials saying that it made sense to build the Georgia Avenue – Petworth and Columbia Heights stations and Prince George's representatives demanding that the three stations in their county be completed" But you just said that the Green Line was fully funded!
Don't call the same organization both "Metro" and "WMATA" in the same paragraph.
Fixed
It seems odd that Metro would hire one of the companies involved in the joint venture, after firing the joint venture.
Correct. They needed the expertise and wanted to get rid of the problem.
"Construction of the Green Line near Berwyn Heights, Maryland .." as this involved events in 1976, suggest moving it there.  Unless that date is a typo, if it is, just correct that and disregard my suggestion.
I understand your point.  The lake was developed over a number of years, so I wanted to keep the discussion with the discussion of building the line to Greenbelt. We are talking about a lake next to the tracks between the College Park and Greenbelt stations.
"Two major controversies, " Omit this sentence entirely.  You do not need to introduce the subsections like that.
Done.
"Like all Metrorail stations," Unless all Metrorail stations are served by Metrobus service (Arlington Cemetery?), suggest "many".
I believe it is all stations (unless there has been a very recent change.) Arl Cem is served by the 7Y, 13F and 13G bus routes.
Shows what I know!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"currently enjoyed"  Suggest "then enjoyed".
Done.
" were designed to terminate " simplify as "terminated"
Done.
" The compromise led residents to call off their boycott of Metrobus."  I don't understand, what compromise?
Fixed.
"The cost of operating the bus routes totaled $2.5 million." As the monthly cost is stated just over a paragraph later, I think you can safely strike this.
Moved compromise to paragraph above. I believe the $2.5 million operating cost does not include the lost metrorail fares.  It is not redundant.
Perhaps mention that the two car trains are the shortest run by Metro.
Done
Rail car shortage

Delete the introductory sentence.
Done.
In the second paragraph, the third sentence uses the word "construction" in two different senses.  I would change one of those.
Used "quality."
You might want to say the reason why they didn't order, no doubt money.
You should say when they ordered the rail cars which were due for delivery in 2001.
You need to say how the problems with overcrowding were addressed.  Even if you say it later, mention it here now.
Added 8 car trains.
Service

"Service on the Green Line"  As they were not Green Line trains, I would say "Service on the Green Line's tracks".
Done.
As someone who frequently rode Metro at the time, I am not certain that those stations bore those multibarrel names then.
"The mid-city line"  Perhaps, "The two segments were connected ..."
Done.
"re-extending"  Unless Yellow Line trains had ever gone to Fort Totten, the "re" should be deleted.  Trains on paper don't count.
The offically-approved routes and all of the publicly posted maps showed both the yellow and green lines going all the way to Greenbelt.  The yellow line was cut back to the Convention Center stop as an economy move and to operate the system with fewer trains.
" RTU code is F01"  Can you tell what RTU stands for?
Added.
Do we know how the pilot program concluded on the Yellow Line extension?  At least say whether it is still in force.
Fixed.
More coming.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Crime

"one of the highest crime rates in the District of Columbia (albeit not in all crimes)."  Perhaps the source will justify "one of highest violent crime rates of any area in the District of Columbia"?
"Crime on Metro as a whole was rising in the late 2000s. Historically, Metro has had a significantly lower crime rate than any comparable transit system in the United States."  I would start with an Although, then the second sentence, then the first, but combined into one sentence.
Done.
" juvenile crime (assault and robbery) "  Suggest "crime by juveniles (generally robbery, or assault).
Done.
Route--looks fine.
Future plans.  I would cite the last bit.  Just the MTA web site that shows they have a station at the airport would be fine.

Added ref to Light Rail map. Racepacket (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And that's it!  I see you busily at work.  Drop me a note on my talk when you're done, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything that isn't done?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
With the recommended changes done, and being familiar with WP:WIAGA, it is my view it satisfies those criteria, and accordingly I pass it as a good article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This little bit bothered me enough to try and find something online that can back the word "the" being used before the acronym WMATA.
I came across this link quickly that noted as follows:

Don't use the before acronyms pronounced as words instead of letter by letter: OSHA, CAD. With other abbreviations, apply the same rules for the full name and the shortened version: the ESA, the state DOT, IBM. When placing either a or an before an abbreviation or acronym, determine how it would sound when spoken; see a, an, the entry above.
Thus being, isn't "the WMATA" correct?
I welcome anothers spin on this. I was converted regarding the "composed/comprised" argument way back...with proper references why not to.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be if "WMATA" were pronounced W-M-A-T-A, i.e. as individual letters. Most common usage is pronouncing the acronym as a single three-syllable word, rhyming with "cantata". Thus you would say "Richard Sarles is the head of WMATA" and not "Richard Sarles is the head of the WMATA". If it were pronounced as initials, then the latter usage would be correct. But it's because it gets pronounced as a word. Make sense? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Not understanding, likely because I'm not a local to DC. Locally, in Buffalo NY, I refer to the NFTA as the N-F-T-A, not "nifta" or whatever clever wording people come up with. But, really? People call it wah-mah-ta? I'd say to hell with it and call it Washington Metro.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I lived in DC for ten years and never heard "W-mah-tah"; on the other hand, I never heard "the WMATA" either, since it's not exactly an entity that gets brought up often in discussion. :P I've always said "the WMATA". And allamericanbear, that's incorrect; "WMATA" is not the Washington Metro. It's the umbrella organization. That would be like saying "to hell with calling it FBI, call it the Department of Justice." --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked into that. According to the article Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, it's listed as saying:
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (often abbreviated as WMATA and commonly referred to as Metro). I'd believe that, however, a lot faster than it being called "wuh-ma-ta". Can someone actually source that, please??
As for my earlier question, can someone SOURCE the reason for the change in grammar so that this can be put to rest? I, when changing most grammatical errors, VERIFY so that it can be handled in as few comments as possible? My earlier comment stated "with proper references why not to". I'm not accusing anyone of being an English major (not that it's a bad thing), but it would be appropriate to have it backed from a reliable source, instead of someone's gut feeling that it's wrong. What I read on the source I provided, I'm understanding it differently than you may.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've lived in D.C. since 1988, and it's always been pronounced "wuh-MAT-uh" as far as I can tell. Local television news does so, as does the local press. For example, in a report on today's bomb threat at the Rockville station, NBC-4 did not use the article "the" before WMATA. In a WUSA-9 report on subway cars without air conditioning on June 8, that TV station did not use the "the" either. Nor did The Washingtonian in a June 3 article about manual operation of subway cars, nor did the Washington Post in a May 26 article on a Metro police assault on a handicapped man or a May 20 article on rising WMATA parking fees. Zachary M. Schrag, in his The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro, uses it without the "the" unless it is used adjectivally. The article "the" would only be used with WMATA when referring to a noun in which WMATA would be an adjective. For example: "the WMATA board" or "the open WMATA General Manager position," "the WMATA system map," or "the WMATA press release." As for a source for this, I do not have access to WMATA's style guide. The Chicago Manual of Style (which Wikipedia's own Manual of Style cites) at 15.9 says "Acronyms are read as words and, except when used adjectivally, are rarely proeceded by a, an, or the ('member of nations NATO'). Initialisms are read as a series of letters and are often preceded by an article ('member nations of the EU')." I've never heard of WMATA referred to as anything but an acronym. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I would say, absent a video or source of a WMATA official saying "W-ma-tah", we should go with the avenue of least confusion, which in this case appears to be "the WMATA". They might do it that way, but we can only report on verifiable things, and it does appear that omitting "the" without a sourced reason is confusing to readers. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

^^^ awesome timing. :P Given that sourcing, I suppose I'm forced to agree with omitting 'the' where it can be read out. --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You can hear members of Congress (including D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton) and WMATA chairman Jim Graham and WMATA General Manager John Catoe calling it "wuh-MAH-tuh" in this Congressional hearing. (As all YouTube sites are now blocked by Wikipedia, do a search on YouTube for "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Hearing Panel 1" or "4-29-09 OGR Federal Workforce Subcommittee".) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the video, and it actually surprised me that they call WMATA as if the acronym is a word, but isn't the point of this also that a local or regional depiction of what it's called does not make it appropriate? I'm looking at the general public as a whole. Hearing "Wuh-ma-ta" in someone's conversation does not immediately send me to think that it's meant to be the WMATA. I'm looking at the population that reads it from other places (since this is a world accessible wiki). In that case, I suggest as I provided (with citation):
With other abbreviations, apply the same rules for the full name and the shortened version, the ESA, the state DOT, IBM.
I'm looking at it as the same as not calling the ESA "esa" or IBM "ibbum". Local jargon should be avoided, and if it's mentioned, it should be noted that "also referred to as "Wuh-mah-ta by locals".
Chicago Manual of Style, which is far more authoritative, makes a clear distinction between initialism and acronyms. WMATA is not an initialism. This is not a matter of local usage. National political leaders call it WMATA. Just as it's "NAY-toh" and not "En-ay-tee-oh" nor "the NATO." Your rationale, it seems, would have us ignore the distinction between acronyms and initialisms, which are highly dependent on usage. Usage nationally and locally favors "WUH-mah-ta" and without the article "the". - Tim1965 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You're saying "locally" and "nationally" favoring. Is this proper English though?
--Allamericanbear (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the comparison to NATO. Excellent point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The way I've described is also the way The Great Society Subway refers to WMATA. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If ya's insist on it, let it be then. I just think that comparing NATO and WMATA is like apples and oranges. It's clearly not in the general public's common language.
Just, PLEASE don't "niftay" the NFTA!!! It's far from that. Cheers.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930170828/http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1187 to http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1187
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) 07:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Green 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203023349/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/FY2009_Approved_Budget.pdf to http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/FY2009_Approved_Budget.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615184927/http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=2546 to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=2546
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113080825/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/media_guide_2009.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/media_guide_2009.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227224335/http://wmata.com/community_outreach/lunchtalk_online_chats/transcript.cfm?ChatID=184 to http://www.wmata.com/community_outreach/lunchtalk_online_chats/transcript.cfm?ChatID=184
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718074753/http://wmata.com/pdfs/rail/weekday_evenings.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/rail/weekday_evenings.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131065428/http://wmata.com/rail/parking/parking_detail.cfm?station=85 to http://www.wmata.com/rail/parking/parking_detail.cfm?station=85
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110160451/http://mta.maryland.gov/services/bus/schedule/LRMAP209.pdf to http://mta.maryland.gov/services/bus/schedule/LRMAP209.pdf
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) 11:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious if others think having a dedicated crime section on this page is warranted, given that none of the other WMATA line pages have a similar section. There have been acts of violence throughout the system, so it would seem better to have this information on the Metro page itself, rather than called out here. Shouldn't there be some consistency among the pages for the different lines? As noted by the "needs updating" tag, the data also is stale, and the section frequently mentions stations served by lines other than the Green, and in some cases, are not Green line stations at all.--RCSpengler (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2025 and 13 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knguyen 69 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Knguyen 69 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)