Talk:Green Line (Washington Metro)

Let's turn this list around

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.

green line shortcut

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.

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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? :)
4. 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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

usage of "the" before WMATA (correction questioned)

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)

External links modified

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated Crime Section

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)

Requested move 22 January 2024

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

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

---

Green Line (Washington Metro) → Template:No redirect – Lowercase the word “line” per WP:NCCAPS. The word “line is a generic descriptor. 2600:1700:1960:F100:A882:B52C:C11A:62E9 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2024 (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.

Move discussion in progress

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 2

— Assignment last updated by Knguyen 69 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)