Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Untitled

Regarding linguistic features:

1. Is this section truly pertinent?

2. Is it accurate? People occasionally refer to to Metrorail as the subway; I would change "never" to something like "seldom." Also, what is the source for rhyming "WMATA" with "Ramada"? I have been in this area longer than WMATA has been in existence, and I have never heard that usage.

I've always pronounced it that way myself, as do many other people I know. I'm not sure that I've ever heard anybody on the news pronounce it that way, but I'd say it's at least in common usage. I'm not too sure about that sample sentence for using Metro as a verb, though. I don't typically use it as a verb myself - and I don't know many people who do - but if I did it wouldn't be in such a generic sentence. -Etoile 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I pronounce it WMATA all the time. Schuminweb 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a short time, announcements over the public address system would prounounce "WMATA" to sound like "Ramada," and then only when referring to the website, wmata.com. This practice stopped -- thankfully -- when they obtained the metroopensdoors.com domain. Perhaps this happened because unless you knew that Metro was operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, you'd have no idea how to spell "WMATA." (Womatta? Wamada?) (Fredo 29 June 2005 21:07 (UTC))

The customer service phone system recordings also referred to the website as "www.wmata.com" even after MetroOpensDoors.com was registered. It now reflects the new address, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.80.167 (talk • contribs)

Web Links

As Metroopensdoors.com shows a short introduction and then redirects to WMATA.com, I feel it is redundant to have both links on the Wikipedia page. Schuminweb 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Names

I have trimmed and copyedited the "names" section in the article to make it more concise, and removed the part that talks about why the "metropolitan" in WMATA.

The reason for the term "Metropolitan" instead of "city" in the names of many Washington, D.C. organizations (such as the Washington D.C. police, the Metropolitan Police Department, or MPD) is that Washington, D.C. is technically not a city, for obvious political reasons.

I'm not entirely sure the reason given below for "metropolitan" in WMATA. I actually think it has more to do with how WMATA funding is spread across the regional jurisdictions, and that for political reasons "washington metropolitan" was preferred over "national". I don't have a citation for this off the top of my head, but can look for one. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Purple Line

The Purple Line is not intended to go around the beltway-it will actually cut very close to the border of DC at parts (just after Silver Spring it will be less than a mile from the border), and will connect (as directly as possible) Bethesda > Silver Spring > New Carrolton, which will keep it many miles from the beltway. That, and the Purple Line isn't even being discussed as an actual Metro extension (they're leaning towards BRT, but the best we'd get is Light Rail). Does anyone object to these changes? -Rmeskill 18:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:WMATA Metro Logo.svg

File: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)

The use of the mark is "fair use" because it is a reference to the owner of the mark or the owner’s services. The trademark (more likely a service mark, but "trademark" is a good descriptor) is not using the term for purposes of source identification and the use does not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the service mark owner. In this case, the reader is likely to be aware that reader is probably looking at a Wikipedia page and that it is possible that Wikipedia is not really an operating division of WMATA. ( :

Unitacx 14-May-2018 —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Impacts of the 2008 financial crisis

Can somebody please explain the leaseback scheme in more detail? (Also, today the judge will be issuing a ruling.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Metro and Belgian bank, KBC Group, reached a settlement on November 15, 2009 to end a long-term leasing deal after nearly three days of talks in federal court.

The agreement benefits the riders of our system and taxpayers of this region,” said Metro General Manager John Catoe outside of U.S. District Court. “Metro no longer faces the immediate threat of cuts to our capital budget and a downgrading of our credit rating.” All parties agreed not to discuss the terms of the settlement. KBC Group was seeking an immediate $43 million payment from Metro after the credit rating of insurer, American Insurance Group, was recently downgraded. The downgrade put the deal in a technical default and allowed the bank to seek payment because AIG had guaranteed the agreement between KBC and Metro. Metro had asked a federal judge to temporarily bar the bank from collecting payment. The judge urged a compromise after hearing arguments at a Wednesday court hearing. “It sends a strong message to other banks that they cannot make a financial windfall at the expense of transit riders,” Catoe said. The case was being closely watched by financial institutions and other transit agencies that have received similar demands from other banks. Metro has 14 similar lease agreements with financial institutions. Several banks have threatened to put the agency into default under the agreements unless Metro finds additional high-rated insurance coverage of the deals now that AIG’s credit rating has been downgraded. Metro and a group of 30 other transit agencies have asked the Treasury Department or Federal Reserve to back the insurers’ guarantees of the deals. “We’re asking the federal government to guarantee the insurer’s credit rating,” Catoe said. “This would be at little to no cost to the federal government, and the transit agencies would no longer be in technical default of the contracts.” The chief executives of several major transit agencies will join Metro on Capitol Hill Tuesday urging Congress to legislate a provision in the economic stimulus bill to require the Treasury Department to back AIG and other insurers’ credit ratings. 72ChevyNova (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you and resolving any concerns or questions. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article which I enjoyed reading, especially since I took the Metro a few years back. My main concern about this article is related to scope. Overall, the article under-focuses on the network and services and the history between the establishment and recent events. At the same time, it tends to over-focus on governance and recent events. The best article within the scope of a transit agency seems to be Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and although I'm sure it isn't perfect, it may be a very good place to gather inspiration.

Comments related to prose and style

• The article has US bias. For instance, 'Congress' is mentioned before the mention of the area it serves. In addition, there is no mention wheresoever of what country it is in. - US added
• Specifically, I would suggest that the segment "created by an interstate compact, authorized by Congress," be moved to later in the lead. - it is an essential element of describing the institution.
• Infoboxes are not appropriate places for external links (beyond official sites). The "key documents" should be moved to an external link section, if they are even appropriate there (which I am uncertain of). - the charter is hosted on the official site, but is very central to understanding the organization, which is otherwise very misunderstood. Since infoboxes are not required by the GA criteria, isn't this a matter of discretion?
• Avoid repeating links in {{main}} later in the paragraph. For instance, a reader may very well not understand that 'Washington Metro' and 'Metrorail' are the same. - done
• The information on coordination issues should be converted from bulletpoints to prose, and mention more on with whom the agency cooperates. - done
• "Interstate compact" is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. - fixed
• Link the defunct bus companies, even if they are red. -ok
• Terms like "Board of Directors" and "City Administrator" are not capitalized, as they are common nouns, unless used as a title in front of the name.

WP:MOS says, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns (The British Prime Minister is David Cameron; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."

Please read the whole section: "use lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference)." So only when a title is unique (a title which can only be held by one person at a time) or when it is immediately in front of the name, is it capitalized. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't say "currently", instead say "as of [year]". - searching and fixing
• 'BWI Airport' needs to be de-acronymized, although the full name is not necessarily necessary.
• What is 'BRAC'? - fixed
• Areas, such as sq mi, need to be converted to km². {{convert}} makes this easy.
• If you are going to include the list of board members, I would encourage a table, which would make it much easier to read. - done
• There is a link to 'Metrobus', which is a disambiguation page. - done
• There is one recursive link to 'WMATA'. - done

Comments related to content and scope

• The lead is far too short, and doesn't summarize the article. It should perhaps be three full paragraphs (or so) and summarize all major aspects of the article. As a rule of thumb (but not a strict rule), try to include key information from all main sections. - done
• The "services" is very short. I would expect a comprehensive summary of the operations of both systems. There is hardly any information at all here, it even fails to mention "key facts" such as network length, no. of stations, no. of lines (metro and bus), etc. I would also like to see a short summary of the police force. Just because there are sub-articles is not an excuse to write near-to-nothing about what is covered in the sub-article. - done
• I would expect a section on fares.

The fare structure is very complicated and changed three times in 2010. I have added sentences that explain that it varies with time of day and distance.

• The history section jumps straight from 1973 to 2004. Was there nothing of importance which happened then? Surely the agency, among other things, built the rapid transit and must also have somehow developed the bus system. Even though the bulk of history of the metro can lay within that article, the summary of the activities must be made in this article. - trying to expand
• The mentioning of the parking lot issues is fine, but it seems disproportionate to the rest of the article. Personally I now usually place the history section late in the article, so the system can be presented before the history section, as it eases reader understanding. Simiarly, there should be a mentioning of SmarTrip in the services section. - cut way back and moved out of history
• Why is there only mention of the directors from 2006 and onwards in the history, while older directors are listed under governance? A bit confusing for readers. - moved to history
• I find it odd that the future of the metro network is discussed, while the current and past is not. - past is in history
• I would expect the history of leadership to be interwoven into the history section, so it could be understood in relations to the operational history of the agency. - done
• I would have said there is too much about current leadership, although I will with doubt let it pass. It would be nice if it was somehow made slightly compact, as Wikipedia in general should not be a listing of board members and other management positions in companies and agencies.
• All US-formatted dates need a comma or period after the year.

Referencing

• Not all parts of the article are referenced.
• Please avoid page numbers after inline references. Almost all readers don't want to check the references, and while technically possible, such referencing inhibits the readability. If you want to refer to specific pages, you can use a "bibliography" section at the end or similar.

I agree that we want to be reader friendly, but Citing sources says, "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). " So, the question is whether to use the common named source with individual page numbers or create a separate footnote for each page that is cited. Do you have a preference?

• External links check out good
• Ref four (Virginia v. Tennessee) makes a statement and then refers in part to a WP article and in part to a primary source. This needs to be cited from a secondary source. - fixed
• Ref 18 is oddly formated (probably some sort of typo) - line break in source prevented it from displaying correctly.
• Ref 20 lacks accessdate, as do a few other refs - all references to the internet have access dates. All references to hard copy sources do not.
• Ref 23 (adding another color) needs a publisher or author - removed
• It would be better if the WMATA Compact was under "bibliography" or similar, and simply referred to that.

Please explain your idea.

Other comments

• Image licenses check out good. However, avoid forcing image sizes. See WP:IMGSIZE; note that this is policy, not just a guideline.
• Feel free to add more image [not a GA criteria, just advice].

I am placing the article on hold. I have asked for quite some changes, so we'll just see how it develops. Don't hesitate to ask if there is anything you're wondering about. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful review. I am starting to work on your items, but I am also working on another GA review as well. Racepacket (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although work has progressed, the nominator has now been indefinitely blocked, so I am failing the article. Should article work be taken up by another author, I would encourage the task-list to be completed before a renomination. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is fine

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   While the main body is almost entirely about the organisational structure - there is very little such information in the lead. There look to be some minor layout issues as well which I will try and fix now.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I do want to have a check over some of the sources myself. Now done.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No comparisons are made with the structure of urban transport organisations - I would be interested in how the structure of the urban transportation in Washington DC compares to New York, and ideally cities like London and Singapore. I would still be interested in more on this but I don't think the request is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There is a huge amount of coverage on the company structure, prehaps this could be trimmed and more could be added on the trains and bus services themselves. Like for example how frequent they are. I would also say that the history section needs more content between the 1970's and 1990's. I also think there is too much coverage of the recent stuff, the financial crisis stuff is overdone, as is the content on the political wrangling over the airport name.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There is very little criticism in the article, I would have thought there would be some issues with how the metro system in Washington DC operates. Personally I found there to be not really enough trains outside of peak hours - for example only one service on each line every 15 minutes to the airport, and there are decent areas of the city centre without a nearby metro station (e.g. the Washington monument). Additionally pointing out that its the least subsidised metro in the US (which I believe is true) would be good too. Also somebody must have complained about the Silver line not being built as an express service as they have in London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Delhi etc. etc.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great :)

I appreciate your comments about scope and focus. The intended scope was to cover the details of train service in Washington Metro, the buses in Metrobus (Washington, D.C.), the paratransit in MetroAccess, and so on, but to also have an overarching article covering the government agency which is notable for its funding struggles and governance challenges. I will make whatever changes you think are necessary, but I hope that criticism of the trains, buses, and paratransit would be placed in their respective articles. For example, there was a notable, multi-year dispute over a battle with Congress over whether to re-sign the rail system for $400,000 after Congress renamed the local airport. That issue is primarily covered in the article on the National Airport station. If necessary, we could copy some of the material from the daughter articles back into this article.

I will start researching the other major systems. As for subsidy, I am not sure how to measure that. Northern Virginia had no independent taxing authority, so they had the Virginia General assembly approve a 3 cent/gallon additinal gasoline sales tax. That tax funds a Northern Virginia Transportation Commission which makes an annual contribution to Metro. The tolls on the Dulles Toll Road have been raised $1 per trip to help fund the Silver Line. The amount of money therefore depends on the actual tolls and gas sales during the year. The NYC subway is subsidized by the bridge and tunnel tolls.

I will get to work and see what I can find in the literature. Racepacket (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly some criticism of the structure of the organisation would be appropriate, as well as any key bits of criticism for the sub-services. Those sections do need some more expansion. While the subsidy may not be fixed, you should be able to find some figures for an individual year - I doubt it varies that much and a ballpark figure adds a lot of value. With regards to the airport renaming, I think its reasonable to include, but I just think the content could do with trimming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Its also worth pointing out that criticism of the organisational structure would be valid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket as your RFC has gone to Arbcom, and as I wish to get involved with that so that it isn't just one group of people making statements I'm not sure what to do with this review. Racepacket if you want to withdraw the review, and re-nominate later that's fine with me, and if you want me to review it later then drop me a note on my talk page.

Otherwise if your happy for me to continue I'm OK with that, and I'll do my best to be impartial, if I feel I am unable to do so I'll ask for a second opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with you continuing. Thank you for asking. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a safety section and expanded the rail, bus and funding sections. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Racepacket/WMATA looks much better. The lead still needs expanding a little, and I want to check some of the sources out, but if you expand the lead a little more then the ball will be very firmly in my court to check the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have expanded the lead at your suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets get those changes into the live article, and then I'll look at the sources as best I can - this should be passing in the next few days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I see its in the article now. Great :). I'll pass it formally over the easter weekend after looking at the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 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/20100113082838/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 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/20080227001651/http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/Dulles-Fact-Sheet.pdf to http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/Dulles-Fact-Sheet.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

“Controversy” section

The NTSB report on the June 2009 Washington Metro train collision mentions a lack of a “safety culture” at Metro. This is often summarized in the media as a lack of prioritization of safety concerns at the agency; however, I think that is incorrect. Although the actual report does not say this in so many words, what I think it is referring to is an overemphasis on punitive discipline as the primary means to enforce safety and an underemphasis on system engineering improvement – but I have no sources for my interpretation. Any input? 97.34.217.59 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Involvement in DC Circulator

I can’t find a source confirming that WMATA is involved in the development or operation of the DC Circulator. (This question came up in a work context for me.) Can anyone else? Richmintz (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, Circulator says WMATA was involved in the origination. They don’t seem to have any involvement now in either operation or governance, but i don’t think it rises to the level of needing an edit. Richmintz (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist - while some inappropriate information inferring discrimination has been deleted, no signs of people tackling the wider issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Article is quite a bit out of date, has unsourced content, contains trivia about who was in its leadership when, and contains quite a few weird sentences:

• The committee will draft new bylaws (2011 source)
• A gallery of photos of the art works is shown here, on the WMATA web site
• is to be funded by a special taxing district that will cover commercial properties (2010 source). Femke (alt) (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I hate the Discrimination section. It gives a vague statement that there have been claims of discrimination within WMATA and then provides a table of gender and race as if readers are supposed to draw the implied conclusions on their own. Only after the table does it state what the nature of this discrimination is. I object to the Christine Townsend paragraph; it is so vague as to what the alleged sexual discrimination is. I also think a better source for that statement is. The advocacy advertising paragraph has an unfinished conclusion. Did the advocacy advertising ban hold up? Without a source linking the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority court challenge to the WMATA, I don't think that sentence even belongs in the article. The aforementioned problems of unsourced content and out of date information applies to this section as well. I think this article should be delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the table as it was both 18 years out of date and asking the reader to infer there is discrimination without actually linking to a source which makes that connection. In other words, it was original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have removed the claim about the MTA, which is a non-sequitur. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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