Talk:Green Line (Washington Metro)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)

References