Fort Towson

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Maryland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington Metro Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia - Washington Metro (assessed as Mid-importance). Trains: Washington Metro Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Washington Metro. This article lacks references.

Many thanks to Skabat169 for his assistance with my large-scale edit of this article. --Thisisbossi 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "Purple Line" is now officially named the "Bi-County Transitway" (BCT). This is because the rail will not be Metro rail, but rather light rail. The name was changed in an attempt to prevent misunderstandings from people whom may be expecting Metro rail. It's my opinion that a BCT page should be created as the main page, then have Purple Line redirect to it. --Thisisbossi 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not seen any arguments against the above transfer, I am currently transferring this article to Bi-County Transitway and will reiterate my reasoning on the Talk page for the Washington Metro WikiProject. If you disagree with this move, please post there. --Thisisbossi 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the redirect to Bi-County Transitway for now, since the end effect was a page move. Cut-and-paste moves aren't good because they don't preserve the page history. A proper page move should be done to change the title to Bi-County Transitway. I'm going to list this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves so that we can get this done. For now, let's edit Purple Line (Washington Metro) like it was Bi-County Transitway, and the move will be done by an administrator when it gets done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do. I was actually editing the BCT page in the interim between starting it and you switching back. I will modify Purple Line with the changes; but note that my changes effectively create a whole new article. --Thisisbossi 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the GNU Free Documentation License, we still have to preserve the edit history, thus the need to properly do the page move. But thank you for re-making your other contributions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I wasn't aware that there was a formal admin process apart from those really iffy issues of, say, "Masons" or "Freemasons". Didn't even occur to me that the Edit history would be lost via my method... thanks for catching that! --Thisisbossi 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we'd just done the page move directly in the first place, we'd need no admin intervention. We'd just move it using the "move" tab. However, since the destination page already exists, an admin needs to remove it to clear the way for the proper move to be made. Not to worry, though - it's an easy fix. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. —Nightstallion (?) 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Promoters of the Bi-County Transitway are now pinning their hopes on the gubernatorial candidacy of Martin O'Malley." Sounds like partisan campaigning to me personally, but I am open to discussion and opinions for re-insertion. Skabat169 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "informally" back to "incorrectly" since the project is no longer called "The Purple Line." It once was, but is no more. Yes, informally is technically correct, but incorrectly better suits the situation. Sorry if I'm nit-picking. Skabat169 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the recent edits by 208.58.196.174. The first statement read "In 2006, a popular position taken by politicians is to support a covered purple line. Folks like Ike Leggett, Chris Van Hollen and Mayor Martin O'Malley are trying to get by with this assertion." I am not aware of any recent attempts to cover the entire length of the BCT nor a portion such as the former Purple Line alignment. The most recent that I am aware was several years ago. If you can provide a reference, I'd be fine with working this back into the article.

The other statement read "However, it is commonly known, that a vote to bury the Purple line is a vote to bury the Purple line. As the election of 2006 approaches, this issue remains "up in the air."" This consists of awkward wording, akin to saying that it is commonly known that an apple is an apple. Perhaps you meant to phrase this in another manner? If so, please feel free to add it back in and provide any relevant sources/references.

--Thisisbossi 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. nadav 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They would be helpful --AW 16:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the one which was previously used has been deleted based on fair use rules. In the image notes there was mention of a free version of the base image being available and that should serve as a starting point for creating a new map. hopefully someone with some graphics ability will take it on. --StuffOfInterest 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you need a base, my map is dual-licensed under GFDL and CC, and you're welcome to mark it up. Even if you don't have the patience to actually do a full job in, if someone can mark it up to provide the proper route and stations, I can take it the rest of the way, and "ink up" a proper map. Plus I have the original PSP file with all the layers, and thus can take out things like the non-relevant station names and such with ease. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One trick is that there are still multiple alignments that are being considered, especially since LRT vs. BRT is still up for debate as well as what grading, tunneling, and bridgework will be necessary. We likely won't have a definite alignment until well into O'Malley's term, and even then we have yet to see what commitment he will truly put forth. I may be able to convince a friend to lend me some plans that I could transfer over to the WMATA map, but that won't happen until December or January, if I indeed find the time to do it at all. If someone beats me to it, great; but otherwise I'll see if I can get something within the next month or two. --Thisisbossi 05:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. If we can provide maps showing the different alignments, great deal. If it takes a little bit of time to complete, you know what they say... "haste makes waste", and "good things come to he who waits". SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to translate design drawings into Google Earth so that I could share the placemark with Wikipedian mapmakers, but due to the current variety in alignments and mode types, this became an exceedingly difficult task considering the detail that Google Earth demands. There are still the two vastly different modes each with several major alignments under consideration, and for each alignment there are still numerous minor "sub-alignments", so to speak, where the path can be modified slightly. At the moment, I have now given up on my Google Earth idea until the options get narrowed down more. The Inner Purple Line group has a decent markup of the WMATA map that you could copy over into your version: see image. If I can do anything more specific, just let me know; but at the moment I'm going to hold off and see where O'Malley intends for this to go. --Thisisbossi 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has the information for the potential stations, I may be able to make a map... 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)P&M510

It is now official: the O'Malley administration has renamed to project from BCT to the Purple Line, which encompasses the entire span of the former-BCT rather than the partial span of the original Purple Line. Unless someone beats me to it or raises some objection, as soon as I return from work/school I will modify the article accordingly, move the article back to Purple Line, and repair any links & redirects.[1] --Thisisbossi 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is written like a WP:TRIVIA section. It should probably be incorporated into some existing article or a new one, say linking line. nadav (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A map of the proposed routes would make this clearer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.144 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised we haven't mentioned MTA's ridership figures yet. The estimates have been revised to 48k/day [2]. Perhaps I'll see about adding this in, but I welcome others to beat me to it since this article has changed considerably since I last did any significant work to it (plus I have other tasks occupying my time). Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Line, Anacostia Streetcar, and other projects are getting lumped in with Metro, even though they're MTA and DDOT projects, respectively. I'm planning to do a new template for DC transportation and proposed transportation that is cross-system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah29 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This project may actually end up being a part of the Metro, but that hasn't been determined yet. Please see this latest discussion about who would operate the Purple Line (page 35). It is for this reason that I removed MTA from the infobox. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After adding, replacing and improving references, I removed "refimprove" from the top of the article. There remains just one "citation needed" tag in the article, for what I think is a relatively minor issue in the for/against arguments list.

If you feel there's something important missing from the current references, you should restore the "refimprove" box. But please leave a note here explaining what's needed, or add a "citation needed" tag somewhere in the article. Folklore1 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source supporting that last minor item in the arguments for and against the Purple Line LRT. So I've removed my last "citation needed" tag from the article. Folklore1 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed, ", and only differs for contrived apples-to-oranges comparisons" from the last anti-rail statement as it seems to me too judgmental and argumentative. The fact can stand on its own without the additional emotion. Vygramul 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purple Line (Maryland). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sierraclub.org/DC/Sprawl/purple-line/index.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox in the article lists the track gauge as the same slightly nonstandard gauge of 4' 8 1/4" as Metro. Is there a reference for that, otherwise it's more likely the gauge will be the standard 4' 8 1/2" Hgrosser (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find my referance, but I did find unverifiable sources that say otherwise, so I removed it Zr2d2 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also couldn't find anything - added a {{cn}} as it does seem unlikely. -MJDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kay i found it: https://www.purplelinemd.com/component/jdownloads/send/18-public-private-partnership-p3/57-technical-provisions-book-2-part-2 page 2-203 "Standard track gauge of 4’ 8 ½” shall be used." -MJDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the decision has been made and the line is under construction, I think we should significantly pare down the elaborate lists of pros and cons. It's noteworthy to bring up a summary of the opposition's points, especially as that opposition managed to delay the beginning of construction for years and that context is necessary to understanding the history. But as structured now, fairly early in the article, it reads like this is still a live debate. Any objections? --Jfruh (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Jfruh. Is there a map showing where the line is street running and where it is elevated? I am curious about this aspect, as I saw some photos of elevated construction at Silver Spring this week. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]