Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 1

message: I'm surprised there isn't any information on the proposed purple line to service the suburbs and create the wagon wheel to support the spoke structure.  Of course, this is supported by hippies, and while it is on hold due to the political ramifications of a republican governor and a prior democratic governor who was not frugal with his budget, it is a matter of hot debate for long term residents.  Here's the Sierra Club's take: Purple Line :: DC Metro Sprawl
--ojin 05:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't actually a well-known proposal, believe it or not.  Despite all the complaining they do, DC-area commuters don't necessarily keep themselves informed about current projects to ease congestion.  Those who have heard of the purple line, in my experience, have no idea that it's anything more than a rumor.  ("My experience" consists of water cooler chatter, for the most part.) -Etoile 05:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Line 

message: To explain for a moment why I removed the stub markers for the individual station pages...
I cross-checked the pages marked as stubs with the information on both nycsubway.org as well as what I wrote on my own site, The Schumin Web Transit Center.  All the pages that were marked as stubs contained the same or more information than those pages' introductions, indicating to me at least that there's not much more to say about those stations, thus while the article is short, it is for the most part complete, thus by definition, no longer a stub.  Schuminweb 10:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-stubification of individual station pages 

message: I'd like to point out a few issues I'm having with the section on the individual car series' sections.  Most of these are minor "tweak" kind of issues, and one is more significant.
* One disagreement of facts.  On the 4000-series cars, it lists the motors as made by Westinghouse.  Previous information I'd received on this from Oren H. (who really knows his technical stuff) stated that it was Gupta-Permold who made the Bredas' original DC motors, not Westinghouse.
* On kind of that same note, we do need references on the car stats in general.
* I can see the question now: If the car numbers only go up to 3289, why did I get a car numbered 3290 (or 3291)?  There is a set numbered 3290-3291   , and the pair is a "mismatched" set, created from the mates of the two cars that collided in the 1996 accident at Shady Grove.  We need to put a footnote or something in there, but I'm not quite sure how we want to do this.  I can get the original car numbers from the report on the accident later.
* We need to include information about the Rohrs' and 2000 and 3000 Bredas' information before rehab.  The last one (the unrehabbed 3000 Bredas) still has many cars running on the railroad.  My understanding is that the 2000 Series cars had somewhat different equipment than the other two series of Breda cars (something to do with cams, but I'm not the one to ask to elaborate on that), and were incompatible with the Rohrs or other Breda series.
* New Alstom order: My understanding is that the car bodies are being manufactured in Spain, and then finished off in Hornell.
* Maximum train length and minimum train length in general: The minimum train length (two cars) is related to the rolling stock (due to married pairs), but the maximum length isn't specifically related to the rail cars.  That's due to the station design, since any train longer than eight cars will be unable to put all of its cars on the platform.  In addition, trains longer than eight cars do run, but not in revenue service.  This is done when two trains are coupled together in order to push a disabled train back to the yard, etc.
Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling stock facts/figures section (the numbers) 

message: Regarding the following text from the article:
In December 2005, Metro announced that on weekday mornings, the gates to the parking lot would be open.
I have searched and searched through the December press releases at wmata.com and through the December chats at forums-wmata.com, and I have found nothing to substantiate this statement, and this is why I've marked it with the  tag.  Can someone provide the source for this statement?
The most recent documentation that I've found regarding parking hours is from a press release dated June 24, 2004 stating that parking hours will be expanded from 9 AM until closing.  Additionally, my own experience in using Metro's parking facilities, primarily at Vienna, leads me to believe that nothing has changed on this front.  When I arrive at Vienna in the morning around 9:30, the parking gates are already down, and thus a SmarTrip is required to exit at that time.
Again, a source for this statement would be appreciated.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parking lot gates open in mornings? 

message: *A (Rockville Route) Metro Center - Shady Grove (red)
*B (Glenmont Route) Metro Center - Glenmont (red)
*C (Huntington Route) Metro Center - Huntington (blue/orange-blue-blue/yellow-yellow)
*D (New Carrollton Route) Metro Center - New Carrollton (blue/orange-orange)
*E (Branch Avenue Route) Gallery Place - Branch Avenue (green/yellow-green)
*F (Greenbelt Route) Gallery Place - Greenbelt (green/yellow-green)
*G (Addison Road Route) D junction - Largo Town Center (blue)
*J (Franconia-Springfield Route) C junction - Franconia-Springfield (blue)
*K (Vienna Route) C junction - Vienna (orange)
*L (? Route - Charles R. Fenwick Bridge) F junction - C junction (yellow)
Any idea what H and I were to be? Dulles and Columbia Pike branches? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the best way to refer to the L Route is as the bridge route, since its main feature is the bridge over the Potomac River.  As for what H and I were to be, John Cambron has a description of what those were here.  Seems that Columbia Pike was J originally, and when that got cancelled, the J designation got assigned to the line to Springfield (originally H).  Then I was never used.  The Dulles line is to be the N Route.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - thanks. Do you think it would make sense to have separate articles about the routes? Otherwise we have a problem with duplication - which article, Blue or Orange, talks about the details of the Rosslyn-Stadium section? Obviously, as the Red Line is separate from the others, those route sections can redirect to it. Maybe cover Greenbelt and Branch Avenue on Green, Vienna and New Carrollton on Orange, and Addison Road and Franconia-Springfield on Blue, but the Huntington Route doesn't even have a single color. We also get a problem then in that Stadium-Metro Center is covered on the Orange Line article, as is Rosslyn-Vienna, but details of Metro Center-Rosslyn would be on a different article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually let's have this discussion on the WikiProject talk page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Routes

message: In a word: Great!  I love the new Metrobus section.  I see that as a strong area for serious expansion, and ultimately forking off to its own article, since it's got a storied history of its own, and was saved from extinction during Dick White's tenure as general manager.
Thought I'd throw that out there.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with quailty of the bus section. Personaly i think we ought to be proactive now, and fork the section off into its own article. The term Washington Metro is more assoicated with the rail system rather then with the bus (Metrobus). Considering that we aslo have a seperate article on the WMATA, i think it would be a good idea. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forked.  Metrobus is now located at Metrobus (Washington, D.C.).  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with forking into a separate article. However, I think there should still be a brief paragraph here about Metrobus... maybe as a section between "Metrorail network" and "Intermodal transportation".  Metrobus is a super important way that many people get to metro rail stations, moreso than all the other intermodal forms of transportation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A seperate Metrobus article is a good idea, but then shouldn't this article be called "Metrorail"? "Washington Metro" is a overarching term for the whole transportation network: bus & subway (& presumably light rail when that happens). It's basically synonymous with Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority which already has its own article. -- D.M. (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the justification for making Washington Metro about the rail system is that the term "Metro" in Washington usually refers to the rail system exclusively.  I also see the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority article as more related to the "back end" organization.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lived in D.C. for 20 years. "The Metro" usually refers to the subway, but "Metro" by itself - ie, "I got here with Metro" or "I took Metro to a friend's house" can mean the bus system, the subway system, or any combination thereof. In Montgomery County, it also refers to the Ride On system. --Nugneant 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - I believe something under "Intermodal transport" would be a wise idea, with a "Main article" template in there.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit about Metrobus back into the main article from the Metrobus article into Intermodal transport".  I also slightly restructured that section.  Comments...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrobus 

message: I've cut the section on Metro Transit Police down to a stub tag because the text was a copyright violation, lifted directly from http://www.wmata.com/about/mtpd.cfm.  I do think more discussion in the article on Metro Transit Police would be worthwhile, but we of do of course need to write our own text for it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transit Police section reduced to section stub 

message: I just created a new infobox Template:Infobox Public transit for the St. Louis Metrolink page that I believe is better suited to describing public transit systems than the currently used Template:Infobox SG rail infobox and I thought that it would be a useful addition here.  I would appreciate any comments regarding my new template. --Millbrooky 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks nice, if no one has any problems with it, i might just add it to the article over the weekend, need to find a good metro logo though. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System infobox suggestion 

message: The article on the 1996 Gaithersburg Metrorail Accident should be merged into this one.  It meets the suggested guidelines given in Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages.  The accident is already commented on in the Washington Metro article.  If there is a desire to expand the entry on the accident then the accident article should be merged in.  If not, then the accident article should be deleted entirely.  There is very little room, if any, for expansion on the accident article.  --Strothra 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Two short paragraphs hardly warrants a full article.  Should be easy enough to merge in.  Now, I could see consolidating this, the Woodley Park crash, and some of the yard incidents into a general Washington Metro accidents article. --StuffOfInterest 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The base for such an article would be the NTSB report that describes the accident in detail and analyzes possible causation.  This is available online at the NTSB's Web site in PDF form, and I have a copy of it.  That was my thought for the article, but I've not had the chance to do it.  Ah, well.  We can always fork it out again later.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more efficient to simply put a link to the NTSB report into the Washington Metro article as a citation for a brief paragraph on the accident.  It is not an event which merits substantial attention.  --Strothra 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Perhaps we can start a category listing the location and status of public restrooms along the Metro.  I know there's one at Metro Center, for example, but I'd like to know if anyone else has found some somewhere else.
:Every station has restrooms, but they are behind a locked door.  Station managers are supposed to let you use them if you ask, but not all will do that.  There are some exceptions to this, as restrooms are not available at Pentagon, Vienna, Addison Road, and I think a couple of others.  Then there's the automatic toilet by Exeloo at Huntington, which is discussed at Huntington (Washington Metro).  Is discussion of Metro's restroom policy worthwhile in the article?  Possibly, as it has been in the news before.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general answer is "no".  There are no public restrooms in stations.  They are employee restrooms, and if you ask they will most likely say no . They may make exceptions to the policy for those with small children, are elderly, or disabled . -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added mention of this policy to the "Rules and regulations" section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that is wrong-take a visit to the Metro Center Station, go to the red line-level exit without the ticket booth (I forget which side it is, but probably the Shady Grove-bound side), and behind the 'Fire Equipment' door on the left there are two doors, one labled 'Employee Restrooms', which is locked, and one labled 'Customer Restrooms'.  It is outside the gates, and you have to ask an employee to let you out, but it is clearly labled for customers and the door isn't locked. -rmeskill (talk | contribs) 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Restrooms? 

message: I change the running voltage from 700 volts to 750 volts.  The warning label above the third rail reads: "750 volts."  WMATA's website says that 750 volts of power is in the third rail.  Also, the article third_rail also mentions a 750 volt power rail.  I hope nobody minds the change.  I can help clean up the rest of the article when I have time.  Keep up the good work everyone! --Starionwolf 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the change.  Didn't realize that it was incorrect on the article.  But 750 is indeed correct.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change to Signaling and operation 

message: Does anyone know if you can park overnight at a parking lot?  If the gates are open in the morning, it seems reasonable to presume that you could stay there all night, but WMATA thinks differently.  I called them and they said that you were not allowed, but does anyone know if this is enforced.  I'm specifically interested in Vienna or W Falls Church. --Rmeskill 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, the gates at Vienna close at 10:30 AM, and reopen at 11:00 PM.  Signage in Vienna's North Garage indicates that parking is limited to 24 hours.  You get towed for parking at the wrong time, however, that's your problem.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parking overnight? 

message: I think it is noteworthy to point out the relative ranking of certain days in 2006 in comparison to the days mentioned for high ridership in the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-04-23-lede-mass-transit-usat_x.htm
JVittes 17:40, 03 May 2006 (EDT)
After thinking about it, it may be better to wait until the April numbers are released, that way the article may not have to be rewritten much. JVittes 15:23, 06 May 2006 (EDT)
Both articles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901738.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002235_2.html
Mention April's average weekday daily ridership was 739,525, which is higher than March at 719,861 riders per weekday. JVittes 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite your sources in the article? I noticed the same number in one of those articles and was trying to see if there was an official press release with the same numbers (I was just looking for general ridership information).  The USA Today remark needs citation too. 192.52.57.33 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site http://www.wmata.com/riding/viewReportList_update.cfm gives links to the day data for an entire month, the press release giving the numbers for March gives the weekday numbers too. I rounded each weekday in April to a multiple of 1000 and then took the average and it was close enough to the WP number that I figured not to question it any further. I also looked at the data for the last year to see if I was wrong about the weekday data. I'm have not the slightest idea how one makes a citation, as I don't remember ever reading about it, though I may have, I'll look it up, and list the sites. JVittes 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Metro just released a new press release saying as much http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/story.cfm?ID=729. --JVittes 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New press release concerning last week: http://www.wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1265.  Friday set the record for 7th highest day therby pushing all subsequent numbers down 1. -- Mecaterpillar 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wednesday moved into 10th position at 769,641 riders. On July 8th we should have one year of data so new averages can be posted, since weather and holidays, and vacations affect ridership it is best to pick an entire year to average it out. The good thing is that saying 7 out of the 10 highest ridership days would probably stay true for a long time, since 6 more days above 804k would be needed otherwise, though June has 22 workdays so that might bring in a new record for ridership. --JVittes 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I didn't notice Friday was not in your list, Wednesday is 11th position. --JVittes 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that would make it the 12th highest day.  Notice that 10th up there is June 8th with 774,255 trips.  June 8th is now the 11th highest ridership day. Mecaterpillar 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, I guess I wasn't paying much attention, regardless one thing that needs to be thought about is that if ridership increases become consistent we may end up having to change the page too often just to keep up, I think as it is now it is not a problem as the numbers would probably only need to be checked monthly, but explicitly saying the rankings of the days or listing the top 20 might be more of an issue. --JVittes 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking of just listing X of top 10 or Y of top 15 (only 10 or 15 days appear on WMATA press releases) and which could be easily ascertained from looking at 1 or 2 WMATA press releases or news articles.  (i.e. using at most 2 sources limited to press releases and news articles).  I think any more information than there is right now is unnecessary.  I think the general point (record breaking ridership on those 3 recent months) come across just fine as it is.  Mecaterpillar 07:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridership Numbers 

message: As ridiculous as Wikipedia edit wars are, it is pretty much "common knowledge" for any Metro rider that Metro received a LOT of bad word-of-mouth over the 12 year old girl's arrest. However, I can't well cite a source when that source is literally a two minute conversation, on the system, along the lines of "can you BELIEVE what Metro did?" "Hah... next thing you know they'll be locking up four year olds for temper tantrums". 
Rather than the old edit, which was "supporters argue blahblah (link to some third rate C.J. Studies paper) - detractors conuter-argue with (bla bla bla)", how about leave off the supporters AND detractors comments, and let the facts stand for what they are? 
Thanks - --Nugneant 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the "supporters argue", as it is a substantiated, verifiable fact (not POV opinion) with proper citation.  The point about the detractors can also be included if proper citation is found.  I don't think it should be too hard to find something, given the amount that is written about Metro in the local newspapers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure that one paper means something is "fact". If so then orgone accumulators would be "fact". --Nugneant 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is already discussed anyway, the addition of pov opinion to end it is unnecessary. Nugneant, if you have such distane for metro, as you stated on my talk page , how about you refrain from editing the article, as you stated you don't want an edit war. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bloo bloo bloo. Learn to read. --Nugneant 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know, thats why i removed your edits. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro's Zero Tolerance eating policy 

message: is there a difference? For example, it says that Metrobus is operated by Metro. Isn't it operated by WMATA? -- Awiseman 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that? I see it saying "The Metrorail (subway) system, as well as Metrobus (bus) services, are owned and operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)". --Golbez 21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is it, under the Metrobus section: "Metrobus is a bus service operated by Metro, consisting of 182 bus lines serving 12,435 stops, including 2,038 bus shelters and nearly every Metrorail station." --Awiseman 20:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  Basically, "WMATA" and "Metro" are synonymous when "Metro" is used to refer to the organization as a whole.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Without looking at the article, I can see where the confusion comes, as "Metro" is used to refer to the rail system exclusively, as well as the organization as a whole, e.g. "Take Metro to New Carrollton," and "Metro officials announced a fare hike," are both common uses.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between WMATA and Metro 

message: I think we should have just one citation format for newspaper articles.  I've noticed that the date format varies, as does whether the author, the page number, and the date the webpage was access are included.  I personally think the author and the page number should be included if known.  I don't think the date accessed should be put since the articles that were published in the paper are unlikely to change at all (although if they are very recent they could be subject to revisions, I suppose).  I don't have a preference on the date format.  At this time I'm going to pick one format and change all citations of nespaper articles to match it (I'm going with Day 3-letter-month Year format for now).
Mecaterpillar 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that this is a US based topic is should probably use the standard US date format (Mmm dd, yyyy).  That is how you will usually see the date formatted in the newspaper article. --StuffOfInterest 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, Template:Cite news states the following: "ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format recommended. May be wikilinked to enable date user preferences."  I personally just went with the style for dates used in the MLA format.  As I stated, I personally have no preference, so if somebody wishes to go and change them all, they're welcome to do it (though you may want to say here that you'll do it). Mecaterpillar 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper Article Citation Format 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro for discussion.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{toobig}}</nowiki> tagging 

message: Accidentally hit enter before I could enter a summary... just so you know, I changed it to "use" because "to go to to" just sounded really weird.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about that before and somehow changing "to go to to" to "to use to" didn't come to mind.  I guess "to go through to" would have worked too.  I simply noticed that "to go to", which was what it was change to before I edited it, didn't work.  Thanks for the rewording.  Mecaterpillar 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My summaryless edit 

message: I was just looking to see if I could cite this source for some of the Trivia info that is not sourced (I thought it was before, though), and I saw that the PDF is different than before.  That means it's time to change some of the information on this page to match (such as the annual ridership).  I'll try to update some things and hope not to miss anything.  Mecaterpillar 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that WMATA shortened this PDF in addition to updating the numbers.  This appears to have left some of the information on this page without a source.  It also gives a shorter length for the escalator in Wheaton (to 508 feet, I haven't changed the article since I doubt the escalator was shorterned) and reduces the number of elevators in stations.  Could someone please check what the length of that escalor is?  And could someone also look for sources for the rest of this info?  I could not find a link to the old document or determine if it's still up somewhere. Mecaterpillar 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WMATA Facts page 

message: Unless anyone has any strong objections, I'm going to go ahead and archive this talk page and start a fresh one.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm going to archive the talk page