Talk:Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority/Archive 2

Criticism and concerns
"MARTA's history of poor financial performance has led MARTA to cut services, resulting in further complaints about the inconvenience of MARTA services. Weekend rail service can be especially limited; track work and single tracking may result in 30 minute train intervals." This seems to imply that track work and single tracking is the result of poor financial performance or budget issues when it is due to the normal need for track to be replaced after its useful lifespan has been reached. I think we need a new section dedicated to performance metrics. That would be the proper place for information about weekend service levels. AubieTurtle 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, perhaps I put the weekend comment in the wrong place (feel free to move it whever it fits better). But it is a serious issue with MARTA that the weekend level of service is much lower than that of the weekday (particularly at the northern stations after the Lindberg split), and that it is further hampered by the weekend work that is peroidically done on the system.  Some other larger train systems have more rail lines and can avoid single tracking during rail work.  AubieTurtle, I really like the performance data section.  One thing I am not sure about is what the customer satisfaction percentage means.  I looked at the MARTA report referenced and didn't see any explanation of this customer satisfaction data.  Also, does anyone know how do the ontime performance and service failure data compare to other transit systems?  It is definately my POV that MARTA's busses break down a lot, but I don't have any other systems' data to compare it to (be it local like CCT or another city's system).  Biomedeng 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the bus comments did not adhere to the NPOV rules. It might be true, but we have no data that I know of.  I tried to change the tone a little bit, but Id like to see some studies.  Earlopogous 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that my bus comments as they stand might not follow the NPOV rules. (If you would like to remove them for the time being until we get some data to back it up that's fine with me.)  Long-term, what I would like to do is to compare MARTA's performance statistics (mean distance between failure) to those of other systems.  Do you have suggestions for which systems to compare MARTA to?  I can find data for NYC (worse than MARTA), Chicago (better than MARTA).  Also Long Island Rail has a slightly better MDBF than MARTA rail, and Montreal Metro has more than a ten-fold higher MDBF than MARTA's rail cars!  I can pick and choose statistics to show MARTA looking good or bad, so I am looking for some guidance as to what systems are appropriate comparisons.  Should they be the same size as MARTA?  Is a non US system (Montreal) an unfair comparison?  I very much appreciate the constructive criticism.  Biomedeng 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Every city is unique as is every transit system. I don't think we'll ever get an apples to apple comparison but it could still be useful.  I have a whole lot of data in the form of spreadsheets from the Federal Transit Administration that could be used as the source of the performance comparison data.  However, Wikipedia rules don't allow for the publication of original research.  Given the current form the data is in, compiling and analyizing the data would likely be considered research.  I would like to pass the information on to an organization such as Citizens for Progressive Transit to publish.  When that happens, we could use their publication of the data as a source.  Also, as you mentioned, information can be cherry picked to show the good or the bad.  I think the best solution is going to be to have those interested peer review what is important and what is not.  The cost per passenger mile in my view is very important whereas a stat such as average train length is not.  At some point, a subjective decision has to be made as to what objective data is informative and what is not. AubieTurtle 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to say that some people feel that MARTA is unreliable. Then explain that marta is more reliable than some systems, but better than others and give an example for a better system, and a worse system. This may help us follow the NPOV rules without doing any original research Earlopogous 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been pouring over transit statistics trying to find useful service statitics to compare MARTA to other systems to truely asess MARTA's reliability. Cost per passenger mile is a useful statistic when we are trying to find out if MARTA is "wasting" money (do they try to spend money to maximize ridership?).  However, I would argue that data on reliabilty, mechanical failure, and on time arrivals are more important to asess if MARTA is an effective and reliable transit system (more important to the end user).  MARTA could run one bus every three hours and would have a very low cost per passenger mile (since the bus would be presumably packed full).  So far the best I have been able to find is a 1996 comparison of bus miles per road call and maintenance cost/vehicle hour US Motorbus Maintenance and Performance Ratings.  This is definately too outdated to use; has anyone else run across any other published performance data?  The National Transit Database doesn't seem to publish this kind of data.  Biomedeng 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the article could use more performance metrics. Sadly, those numbers are difficult to come by.  You can get lots of raw numbers from the Federal Transit Administration database but there are few places that compiles and produces analysis of the data.  The few that do are not very good at keeping up to date.  I say keep looking and if you find anything from the past couple of years, then it would be great to add it. Anything more than a couple of years old isn't really relivent unless recent numbers are paired with it to establish trends. AubieTurtle 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a new AJC article which deals with the frequent MARTA train breakdowns & overcrowded trains that have been a big issue this summer. This is the first that I have heard that heat plays such a big role in train car failure.  Biomedeng 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One more AJC article which is actually an AJC opinion piece which cites recent MARTA statistics which show that customer satisfaction has actually decreasted from last year. Does anyone have access to all of these statistics?  Biomedeng 01:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a discussion of the recent heat related breakdowns to the criticism and concerns website, referencing the above two articles. Again I would like to develop some sort of formal performance based metrics for measuring MARTA's service.  Please post if you find any useful data. Biomedeng 03:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the section on Nathan Ford's corporate card misuse be deleted. Most of what's suggested there can't be verified. The previous AJC link is blocked and not GDFL. In fact anything referring to AJC should be considered highly questionable. Kokayi 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the AJC is a highly questionable publication? Or that we shouldn't use AJC links since they requrie free registration and sometimes expire?  While I can't comment on the accuracy of the AJC, this article wouldn't be much without the AJC links since very few other news organizations cover MARTA.  The Nat Ford story was a big scandal, and was covered in the AJC, TV stations, and other national newspapers.  Given the fact that MARTA is frequently accused of mismanaging its money this story is very relevant.  Here are several links about the story (not from the AJC):
 * http://www.11alive.com/money/money_article.aspx?storyid=83608 (11 Alive)
 * http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/08/21/story3.html (Atlanta business chronicle)
 * http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/08/21/daily1.html?jst=s_cn_hl (san franciso business chronicle)
 * Many of the AJC stories have expired for free online access that reference other sections of the article. How come you aren't as concerned about these sections?  Are you concerned that the credit card scandal did not happen, or are you concerned that some of the details listed are inaccurate?  Biomedeng 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that sources be GFDL or available for free online. The AJC meets the requirements of a published, reliable source that is [WP:V|verifiable]]. As to the AJC's credibility, I know of no serious criticism of it - just the overtly political mutterings of the state's current Governor. AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

None of those issues addresses my editorial concerns.

Yes, AJC may be a credible source but the article is not verifiable. The name of the article is not even cited. Even if a researcher went to a library or the AJC itself they would have a hard time researching the specific story being referred to.

But come on we're talking about 0.06667 - 4% of the total amount charged. That's hardly a scandel IMHO. I don't believe that merits an Encyclopedic entry for a matter that has been resolved. If a researcher can't achieve a good faith effort to read the story for themselves I think it fails the reliability test. If the editor had provided a byline, date, and headline with their citation, I would be more than satisfied.

I would like to recommend that this be the policy for sources like AJC. Even if the story is not online a researcher could at least visit a public library and be certain they are referencing the article being cited. It's the 'reliability' factor that draws my concern. Not the information presented.

Until I can read the entire article myself I don't feel comfortable with it. Because AJC is the source of the original report. Which was followed up by other media outlets. Who did the audit? Who authorized the audit? Isn't MARTA's board responsible for this transgression as well. Have previous MARTA GMs had these cards? I think there need to be a section critiquing the AJC's and Cox's persistant negative bias toward MARTA. Kokayi 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment was refering only to your attack on the AJC as a reliable source. Biomedeng offered you alternative articles (freely available online) that confirm the information. For your benefit, I have add the Business Chronicle article as the cite in the section. As to the alleged AJC bias you percieve, Wikipedia is not in the business of critiquing a well-established journalistic outlet. AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Autiger The more and more I review the Ford section it appears that these are your biases. You misquoted the article you cited. Clean it up. Kokayi 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your accusation is groundless on its face as I did not write that section. Nor did I even know of the issue before noticing this talk page discussion and the attack on the use of AJC as a source. My long edit history at Wikipedia on a myriad of topics, some of which are quite controversial and many of which I care infinitely more about than MARTA, supports my ability to edit without bias, whereas your edit history is confined to this single article. You need to consider your credibility before you attempt to discredit others. Tell us, Kokayi, are you a MARTA employee? Or are you a coworker, friend or family member of Nat Ford?  AU Tiger  ʃ talk /work 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the entry reads "a credit card" and the citation you attach to it is a source that lists two credit cards were used. It's wrong. It's obvious what you attempted to do was support the entry with a reference that was different than the one that was originally used. It also shows you didn't read the entire article. As for the rest of your Bill (I-won-a-Peabody)O'reily inspried blathering the fact remain you didn't write the section and it shows. Nor do you appear astute enough to defend it's factuality. Regarding this matter you input is not relevant and your NPOV is questionable. Game over. Thanks for playing. Please try again. Kokayi 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to break down this into two main issues that Kokayi has raised. I would like to address each individually, since they are distinct concerns.

1. The credit card fraud section is unreliable/inaccurate/unverifiable because the AJC link has expired

'''2. The credit card fraud section is irrelevant/inconsequential/not a scandal. '''

Addressing concern #1: First of all I apologize for not citing the AJC article with the date and section. It appears that the AJC is not keeping articles online longer than a month or two, so it is a very good idea for all of us to start listing the date and section of the article so someone could go to the library to look at the article. Since Kokayi wanted a byline, date, and headline, here is the article summary which is availabe free to everyone in the AJC archives:

Date: August 18, 2006 Publication: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA) Page Number: D7 Word Count: 372 Former MARTA general manager Nathaniel Ford used his official credit card to pay for gas, meals, and other inappropriate expenses totaling about $1,000 during the five years he ran the transit system, officials said. One of Ford's executive assistants, Stephanie Smart, racked up $6,000 in improper charges between 2003 and 2005, using an official credit card to pay phone and cable bills as well as numerous gas and food expenses, MARTA officials said. Ford, now in charge of San

For the record, I did read the entire article in the AJC back when I wrote the credit card scandal.

If you read the business chronicle article (or if you can access the original AJC article) you can see that there was an internal MARTA audit as well as an external audit. State Rep Harry Geisinger who sits on MARTOC asked for Ford's credit card records in February. I also think that if you compare the ATL business chronicle article you will find it is much lengthier and more indepth, suggesting to me that the author did a somewhat independent report of the AJC. I seriously doubt that the AJC, state represntatives, MARTA, and other news sources fabricated the story.

To address your many questions: The article does point out that the MARTA board was unaware of the credit cards, which infact does appear to reflect somewhat poorly on the board and/or MARTA organization that such spending would go unnoticed. If you read the entire business chronicle article you would have seen that the previous GM had the credit cards as well, but his spending wasn't an issue.

Please feel free to develop a section critiquing the "AJC and Cox's persistant negative bias towards MARTA." (I am not sure who Cox is though.)


 * Not being sure of what the Coxopoly is is down right pitiful. Google it! I don't have time to explain.


 * Make the section on Ford work or just remove it. The story is far more complex than what Ford spent. Stop assuming you're addressing my concerns and focus the factuality of the content. If you wrote the original piece and it was "a credit card" in the AJC why does the bizjournal report there were two credit cards? Even the headline states "Credit Cards" This the kind of factual inaccuracy and verifiability I'm talking about. Why didn't you or AuTiger catch that? Even within the commentary above you flip-flop between singular and plural credit cards. Was Ms Smart a secretary or an executive assistant? So I wish you two would cease with these silly rhetorical debates and just get the story right.


 * And as for developing my own section I certainly do not need your premission to do so. I can develop, administrate, author and host my own wiki regarding MARTA. I thought I might be able to use some of Wikipedia's content on MARTA but it's so full of errors, omissions, and Coxopoly gossip it's editorially unusable. Kudos on the good effort But honestly don't see what anyone is to supposed to gain from reading it. Kokayi 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the Cox company and I know that the Atlanta Business Chronicle is not affiliated with it. Are you going to attack the credibility of the Chronicle next? And attacking the semantics of singular/plural construction and whether a secretary is the same thing as an "executive assistant" is pathetic when the heart of the issue is about inappropriate use of funds/credit instruments by the CEO of a publicly funded transit agency. You do not deny that it happened, do you? AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you obtuse? Ford's title was General Manager--NOT CEO! The inappropriate use corporate funds is called embezzlement. It's a crime. If that's what being suggested of Ford then MARTA's board also failed in its fiduciary duties to manage the public funds we entrusted to them. To imply that Ford committed a crime then MARTA's board members are as equally at fault as he is. I think the guy is being scapegoated and board is not being held accountable for its lack of oversight.  See High-tech lynching. At this point I'm becoming convinced you're not qualified to discuss this issue in a constructive manner with resorting to personal attacks. You will either address your comments to me in an appropriate tone or I will cease responding to you. Kokayi 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point I think that this issue isn't going to be resolved through discussion. I personally do not have any additional information to contribute to my position.  Do you think we should ask for a third opinion, or can we make a formal request for mediation regarding this issue?  Biomedeng 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Biomedeng I want to be clear that I'm not attacking you, your integrity or what you attempted present about what Ford did. The undercurrent of my objection is why MARTA's board isn't being held more accountable for its lack of oversight? The bizjournal hints that the board was indeed aware of Ford's expenses. A request for mediation sounds like a great idea and I would welcome experience. But the bizjournal article already cites two third party opinions of Ford's purchases. His new boss at MUNI reviewed the matter and a MUNI spokesperson summarized MUNI's opinion of the bizjournal's report. Kokayi 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the section. I withdraw my request for mediation. I believe readers may now be able to obtain a better understanding of what actually happened at MARTA. Kokayi 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not satisfied with the re-write. While I agree with the factual content, I am concerned that the section is heavily pariphrased from the article and might be a copyright violation.  Biomedeng 10:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon my careful review of the following Wikipedia entries: Wikipedia:Citing_sources, paraphrase, Plagiarism and Fair_use I am confident no copyrights were violated. I doubt an actual copyright holder would an issue with what I've presented here. Kokayi 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agreee with biomedeng, its exactly like the articles that were written on the piece and all it does is restate what was in four lines of text that got the point across before hand. I have no bone to pick with you, Im just find it crazy that you are created such a hub-bub about this. If you didnt like it before hand why didnt you just do the re-write then instead of causing all this mess. Amazingracer 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the copyright holder would have an issue with your ideas, you have "summarized" the business chronicle article by lifiting many of the exact same phrasings.
 * you said:MARTA internal auditor, Jonnie Keith, determined Mr. Ford had reimbursed the authority for about $10,500 in personal expenses charged to the cards during his tenure.
 * article says:Jonnie Keith, MARTA's internal auditor, determined Ford had reimbursed the authority for about $10,500 in personal expenses charged to the cards during his tenure.
 * you said:MTA spokeswoman Maggie Lynch said she felt the audits were intended to tear down Ford's accomplishments at MARTA's helm.
 * article says:MTA spokeswoman Maggie Lynch said she felt the audits were intended to tear down Ford's accomplishments at MARTA's helm.
 * Because the discussion here seems to be drifting toward personal attacks of editors rather than constructive discussion on the topic I filed a request for Mediation from the Mediation Cabal Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-27_Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority Biomedeng 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Biomedeng, youve done more work on this article then any one here and for that I thank you a ton. I hope you get this resolved some how.Amazingracer 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing concern #2: MARTA has always complained that they do not have enough money. During Ford's tenure routes were cut, jobs eliminated to save money. All the while he spent excessive amounts of money on lavish trips and dinners (see the same business chronicle article). While this may be inconsequential percentage wise to the entire MARTA budget, the point was that he was spending too much at a time where the organization was struggling. This all was going on while he was working there. After he leaves it comes out he put personal charges on his corporate card which was paid by MARTA. It doesn't matter if it is 0.000001% of all of his charges; it is still agaist MARTA policy and represents receiving payment for something he was not supposed to receive. I didn't use the word scandal in the article. It is a big deal because of the very fact he was the GM of the organization, an organization which is often characterized by MARTOC for being financially irresponsible. Biomedeng 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are now four soruces cited in a four line section, more than any other part of the article. Does that make you happy now Kokayi, or should we go back and cite the entire article sentence by sentence, with non-AJC citations??? Amazingracer 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to re-cite new sources to old content were as lame as the previous editor which attempted to do the same. I completely re-wrote the section to cite the references BioMedEng provided earlier. In the future I'd prefer if you didn't direct your idiotic blatherrings to me. I can review your changes via diff. Your insecurities regarding my happiness do not concern me. Kokayi 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See this I find funny because the information came from the 11alive.com artivle. Which makes sense under the general rules of citing, obviously you have your own. Like I said before I could care less about this and if you wont to fight everyone on here have it. Im not here to fight with you or other users. Amazingracer 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to article
I've been adding little bits to this article over the past month, but I was wondering what can be done to improve the article on the quality scale. I've been looking at several of the other US rail transit articles trying to get a better idea of what can be added to the article. Here are some ideas I had:
 * Moving the rail line & bus information from the bottom of the article to the first or second section of the article, since it is probably the most important information about MARTA
 * Move the breeze card subsection out of history and into a new "fare" section, which details breeze and also the prices of one-way, weekly, and montly fares.
 * Add a subsection on the hours of operation
 * The history section should really be expanded beyond just a few dates. Because I have only lived in Atlanta a short while, I really don't know much about the MARTA history.  I'm not really sure if there are any books or good online references on the construction history, initial expansion plans, history of logos, fares, old maps, old pictures, etc.  Does anyone have any good leads on sources?
 * Should we add info on any of the following:
 * Rail yard info
 * Paratransit info
 * Marta oversight committe (MARTOC)
 * MARTA police
 * Automatic rail control system

I can pretty much handle most of this (except the history section) if everyone is in agreement, but I wanted to post here first to get any feedback. --Biomedeng 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your listed changes all sound reasonable. As far as available history, little is online. We're still relying on books and studies at various libraries. Guess that's better than nothing! --Jolomo 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with those changes. It should help the article out to get it out of B-rating. I favor inclusion of those last items as well. Marta seems to be very bad about keeping their site update (example, last Breeze press release was in May). Search the AJC, Ive learned more about MARTA from the AJC than Marta itself. Some where in the AJC we might people able to find the citiation needed for the fare evasion figure. Amazingracer 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reading "Sprawl City: Race, Politics, and Planning in Atlanta" for some historic background on MARTA and its place in Metro Atlanta. Amazon.com has the search inside feature turned on for this book so you can read some of the pages related to MARTA before deciding to buy the book or hunt for it in the library.  Thanks for all the work you and everyone has been putting into making this an accurate article instead of a dumping ground for pro and con opinions about MARTA. AubieTurtle 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added an inuse template to the main article and am currently restructuring the article to make the discussed changes. I appreciate everyone's patience while I work on the article over the next 1-2 hours.  Biomedeng 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restructure the article. I moved the MARTA Network (rail and bus) up to the top.  I wasn't sure if it should come before history (it is mixed across other major US rail/public transit articles) but the history section is kind of weak and the current system reach is maybe of interest to more users.  Overall I did not change much of the existing text, but I regrouped some subsections into different sections, and adding subsections on fares, hours, police, paratransit, and MARTOC.  Please help me to expand these new sections (some are just placeholders now).  I did not add any information on rail yards, and also wondered if we should have a section on safety (rail accidents, crime, etc.)?  I can try to get a copy of that book suggested by AubieTurtle.  I thik if we all keep working on this article over the next 1-2 weeks we could maybe re-submit it for review to see if we have improved the B-rating.  Biomedeng 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thing the changes look great. One of the main things would probably be to get everything cited. I have started citing some of the things that need citing, but I don't know what else needs citing, so if some one marks stuff, I don't mind googling out some sources. Biomegdeng you may have fixed this with the changes but some who his good with grammar should rethrough and see what needs to be fixed. Ive noticed a few grammatical errors here and there, but I'm horrible at proof-reading to do any major checking. Biomedeng is right within a few weeks we could have this article ready for review. Also after looking at some of the other transit articles, should we add a section for accidents? Just a thought. Amazingracer 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I came across these historical images while googling MARTA. Does anyone have access to the full images, in particular the initial proposed rail lines?  I have a sneaking suspicion that the user who posted these images actively edits this article.  It might be interesting to spin the MARTA history off into a seperate article since the current system is quite abbreviated/changed compared to the original plans.  I am not sure if these images are copyrighted, but probably aren't if they are part of a government study. Biomedeng 03:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How-to Use MARTA
On MARTA's how to use website (http://www.itsmarta.com/howto/howto.htm), it makes no mention of the Breeze System at all. Quite odd. Just goes to show why much of this article is uncited or came from different sources other than MARTA. Thought that was interesting and figured I would share.Amazingracer 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the MARTA website is not always properly updated. Probably the how-to page was created before the rollout of Breeze and hasn't been updated to reflect the change.  You could e-mail MARTA customer service to ask that the website be updated.  I had a similar situation for one of the rail station pages (Garnett) which listed the DMV as being accessible from the station, but that DMV office had been moved years ago.  It took 3 emails and about 2 months to get the site updated.  Biomedeng 14:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Attractions section on individual station pages
The individual pages for each rail station are mostly stubs. Some station pages have had sections for nearby attractions added. I would like to suggest that we use half a mile as the standard distance for what can be included in the attractions section. We may also want to establish standards for minimum size of a retail shopping attraction for inclusion. I added the Edgewood Retail District to the Inman Park/Reynoldstown station because it is large and close to the station but I would like to avoid a situation where ever video store and QT gets listed. I would also like to know what others think of adding a section to the station pages for nearby large housing developments. AubieTurtle 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea and likely we can do better than MARTAs own website. I also think we should add parking info (number of spaces, and cost of long term parking) as applicable.  Thoughts?  Biomedeng 03:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest a half-mile as a guide. But include up to one mile could be included based on the station's geographical centroid. If it's beyond a half-mile indicate it or list attractions by distance in m/km, steps, calories etc.. Please see Walk There! Attractions, Shopping, Destinations (pdf 637 K) published by Central Atlanta Progress, Atlanta Downtown Improvement District. Thoughts? Kokayi 23:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MARTA HQ Ridestore
Kokayi seems to want the Lindbergh Ridestore removed from the MARTA page. I believe it is a useful piece of information, even if the location of the ridestore is not inside of the station. Amazingracer clarified the location of the ridestore (saying it was in the MARTA headquarters building). Although I am sure it would be of more benefit to patrons if the ridestore could be located directly at the station, the ridestore is very close to the north entrance of Lindbergh station and it is resonable to believe that some users would walk the 200 feet to the store. I don't agree that we should be removing information that may be confusing; if the location of the ridestore is confusing then work on editing the article to make it less confusing. Biomedeng 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The information you two are attempting to provide is factually wrong. Therefor a consensus can not formed if the data is false. So stop referring to as the Lindbergh Ridestore. The RS not located anywhere near Lindbergh Drive. It's not even located at the 2424 Piedmont HQ address either. It's located on Morosgo Dr. Although, experienced MARTA partons may know where MARTA HQ is actually located, the vast majority of WP users if they used the information would find it dead wrong. We have to think globally. Look at where Google Maps locates MARTA HQ! Given its map location a parton could exit the south end of the station expecting to find MARTA HQ. So the 200 ft can not be geographically verified.


 * The HQ Ridestore is also very different from the rest of the other Ridestores MARTA operates and less convenient. It's not only its location that's confusing. Its hours of operation are also. Unlike other RS it's open 9am-5pm M-F. I do not believe it is wise to direct a patron to the HQ RS when one station north is much preferable ridestore open at least 7am-7pm, Mon-Sat that doesn't require exiting the station. What RS are and their hours of operations needs to be enhanced within its own section.


 * Kokayi 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have got to be freaking kidding me. You would rather it say that no RideStore exists at Lindbergh Center Station, than telling people that one exists at Lindbergh Center. Per the MARTA System map, it says next to Lindbergh Center (RS located in Martas HQ). Now what the problem with posting factual and verifiable information is, is beyond me. Im reverting your edits, and if you continue this further action will be taken. There is no sense even arguing over something so stupid, it was posted fact, but you have tohave it your way. Amazingracer 17:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Read my rebuttal. You either have to address the facts I listed my rebuttal or drop the matter.


 * Kokayi 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kokayi 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, you're kidding right? You would rather scew the truth to your own liking, that state facts. If you seem so intent on desribing where the RideStore is, why are you trying to shove down our throats on the talk page? Shouldnt you desribe it on the main article. Im reverting your edits, if you change it back the matter will be taken to mediation and possible reporting of vandalism. Oh and one more fun fact, things found through original discovery cna't be added to the article, which is basically your entire arguement here. So I see your rebuttal is totally pointless in the whole scheme of things. Amazingracer 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation requested here: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-30_MARTA_RideStores Amazingracer 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears we have an ongoing edit war, everyone please be aware of the three revert rule which basically means you cannot revert an article back to a prior state more than three times in a 24 hour period. Biomedeng 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the subject is under mediation now, I have no intentions of continuing giving this guy what he wants. But thanks for the heads up Biomedeng. Amazingracer 02:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead biomedeng. Follow through with your 3RR threat. Whatever action taken against me will also have to apply to AmazingRacer. We need a a third party to look into this matter, ASAP! You two have refused to compromise on ONE RIDESTORE out of FOUR. Do your realize how immature and petty you two will appear?  Kokayi 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not in violation of the Revert Rule, you are therefore Biomedeng has no right nor need to report me. Im actually still trying to wrap my head around this entire thing as well. You are calling Biomedeng and I petty because we are saying that a building exists at the Lindbergh Center Station that houses a RideStore? Im leaving this to mediation because this arguing is stupid. Amazingracer 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just silly. In Google Earth I measured the distance from the Lindberg MARTA station to the front doot of MARTA Headquarters in which the RideStore is located. The distance is 0.04 miles. Even if one measures from the faregates to the HQ building, the distance is still less than one tenth of a mile. AubieTurtle 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll for the Inclusion of the Lindbergh RideStore
Since the mediation cabal is experiencing heavy backlog and would probably be slightly upset for wasting their time on such a silly matter. Let's use a simple poll to determine if it should be noted that there is a Lindbergh Center RideStore, with the inclusion of the fact that it is in the MARTA HQ. As seen here: 17:22, 30 October 2006. Im still not eligible to peform a revert, so when an appropriate number of votes has been casted, please do the honors of reverting, and I will withdraw the Mediation request. Amazingracer 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the appropriate section below:

Support

 * Amazingracer 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AubieTurtle 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Biomedeng 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally
Today I noticed on my way out Arts Center that the BVMs did not show the little red line of text on the home screen saying "No Debit/Credit Cards Accepted". Just to make sure I acted like I was buying a fare and sure enough the BVm asked me to insert cash or a debit/credit card. I havent found anything on MARTA's website saying this is live so that it maybe posted here since right now its just original reasearch. So keep yours eyes peeled for a press release. Amazingracer 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that you should wait until MARTA release a statement or changes their website to reflect the ability of BVMs to accept credit/debit cards, especially since we don't know how many of the stations have BVMs that have been updated and also to deal with the possibility that this might be a trial release of the upgrade to the machines. Since the main article currently does not mention the ability of the BVMs to accept credit/debit cards but the Breeze Card article does, I suggest that this discussion be discontinued here and resumed on the talk page for the Breeze Card. AubieTurtle 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a new AJC article which talks about BVMs now accepting credit cards. AmazingRacer, do you want to do the honors of updating?  Biomedeng 04:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

rail line colors
Kitch updated the Heavy rail section to state: "MARTA is separating the orange and blue lines into four total lines, which are described below.  Maps on this article still reflect the previous two-color line system."

First of all I have seen the new maps which use a red for the North Springs-Airport line, orange for Doraville-Airport, green for Bankhead-King, and blue for H. E. Holmes-Indian Creek, which are only present on *some* of the rehabilitiated MARTA cars.

However, without additional citations beyond personal observation (which is original research), you cannot make the claim on the article that the lines are being "separated" and that the colors are being changed. Please provide some proof that this is a formal change of the rail line designations and not simply just a change on the map for illustrative purposes only. Biomedeng 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MARTA has put the new rail map online, so I think it is now safe to break the rail lines out into red, orange, blue and green. http://www.itsmarta.com/getthere/schedules/index-rail.htm  AubieTurtle 05:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will bring on a picture of the new system map tomorrow (late 24 November UTC), when I have a broadband connection again. It does not have to be mentioned as an official color system.  It can be said simply to be an enhancement to the map to better illustrate where and when trains run differently.  But it should be noted that the system maps seen on the various MARTA trains (and even in stations) vary widely in being up-to-date.  Some don't even have differentiation as to what trains serve what line portions at what times.  It's not like Washington Metro, which is much better in information consistency.  That's not intended to be a rip, it's just my own observation. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As stupid as it is, please keep in mind that taking photographs on MARTA without the express permission of MARTA is a crime. I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for it, but do be careful.  Since the new maps were put up after MARTA restrictive photography policy was implemented, the photo itself could be used as evidence against you. 24.99.132.238 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How is me posting a photo evidence that I took the picture? Probably marta could charge you with a crime if they catch you taking the photo.  But are we committing a crime by posting a picture of MARTA online?  Biomedeng 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have remodified the heavy rail section. The new maps are merely an aside, but the general information is restored to reflecting a two-color system. Personally, I hope the four-color system is fully rolled-out and implemented in the future. But until then, the two-color system will be reflected. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for clarifying the heavy rail section. I think you made some things even clearer than they were originally.  Biomedeng 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the new maps... I don't very much like the new colour scheme... and it affects me b/c i have a tattoo of the "old" 2-colour system (looks much nicer IMO) i just got 2! months ago... :( so i'm sort of hoping they don't change... De Ka lb 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If they go to the new color scheme, you'll just be "retro" and be able to tell everyone you were into MARTA way back when. 24.99.132.238 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Racial concern section
Recently 76.17.92.32 deleted the following paragraph: "Georgia transportation policies and race have been compared to a two-tiered transportation apartheid. Billions are spent by the state to aid commutes of mostly Caucasian residents of the suburbs, while service cuts at MARTA have hurt mostly African Americans." The only edit summary give was "Billions of dollars?". I reverted back the article to include the above paragraph. I did not write this section, but I do think it is fair to point out the descrepancies in funding between highways and public transit. The reference for this section does mention that the DOT spends billions a year on improving car commuting. I am not sure if this is the statewide budget or numbers just for Atlanta. I would be willing to research DOT numbers further if needed, or we could simply just state that the state spends a significant amount of money on car based trasnit, whereas they do not contribute money to MARTA. Although I do however not agree with the use of apartheid to describe the system (it's too extreme to me), it was used in the reference by someone who is an expert in Atlanta transit, so I think it is fair to state that it has been compared to a transportation apartheid. I am not looking to start another edit war, but felt the deletion was unwarranted without discussion. Feel free to add your thoughts and hopefully we can reach a consensus. Biomedeng 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

burning questions
I've got two burning questions about MARTA that I thought maybe some people could answer: Thanks. Biomedeng 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This photo makes it look like MARTA is transporting the old train cars for rehab by trucking. I guess I had just assumed they would be transported using commercial rail.  Does anyone know what else this image could be?
 * What does it mean when the MARTA bus says Tripper instead of the bus route?


 * The flickr photo is kind of interesting as i had assumed they just throw the cars on a freight train and haul them to New York (or where ever they go) as well. Never seen the Tripper sign so I cant be much help there. Amazingracer 05:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The tripper sign is for school shuttles. MARTA uses them whenever the route usually serving a school would be overloaded or is not timed to arrive right after school starts. On some schedules, MARTA actually does build in runs then only exist on school days (denoted by an asterisk) that aren't tripper shuttles, just the normal route. This only really happens in the morning, when more people ride in a shorter period anyway. This system is actually quite helpful, especially when you have a ton of kids that need to ride the 45 to Midtown at 3:50, but the next bus is scheduled to get to them at 4:06. Hope this helps. --Useless.miscellany 11:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

MARTA derailment
Should we be incorporating this morning's derailment into a safety section in the artice? Here is the latest AJC article on the incident. Or is this kind of thing better suited for wikinews? Biomedeng 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable: nobody hurt, some delays. This kind of thing would add a lot of clutter to the article I think. --Jolomo 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be something sais about MARTA's accidents, but they same time it might be perceived as cluttering. Definitely should be a safety section though in some form. Amazingracer 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arts Center Parking
I have modified the page to show parking at Arts Center. I mention it here because MARTA maps do not show that there is a parking lot there. This is probably because the lot is small (33 spaces) but that doesn't change the fact that it does exist. MARTA's page for the Arts Center station does state that the parking lot exists so this is not original research. http://itsmarta.com/getthere/stations/artscenter.htm AubieTurtle 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine. One quesiton I have about the parking spaces are there any unrestricted parking spaces at the station?  For example Midtown has 14 spaces, but all of them are somehow restricted (kiss-ride, maintenance, police, flexcar, and handicapped).  Is arts center the same way?  Biomedeng 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I don't know how many are unrestricted. There are some restricted spots and even one FlexCar spot. I certainly wouldn't drive over there expecting to find a spot but if you're lucky, you can find one. AubieTurtle 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The parking lot is also closed on the weekends. Didnt know if that should be mentioned or not. Most parking lots are 7 days a week arent they? Amazingracer 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all of the other lots are a 24/7 kind of deal. I wonder why they close it on the weekends?  I don't think it should be mentioned beyond the station page unless there are definately some unrestricted spaces.  Biomedeng 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I double checked the parking lot at Arts Center and almost all of the space are unrestricted. However, this brings up a problem.  As editors, we are not suppose to do original research but rather rely on the sources that we can cite.  Keeping that in mind, we would have to make stations such as Midtown that have parking that is all restricted the same way we mark Arts Center, even though it has primarily unrestricted parking.  Because MARTA doesn't specify on their site how many spaces are unrestricted (if any), it puts us in a situation where in order to be accurate, we must either 1) do original research, 2) petition MARTA to update their pages to reflect the split between restricted/unrestricted parking, or 3) Use another criteria when deciding which stations to make as having parking versus no parking.  The first option goes against Wikipedia guidelines, the second would be the best solution provided MARTA will actually do it, and the third option could be that we change the key to be something like "stations with fifty or more parking spaces", which is information easily obtained from MARTA's website.  AubieTurtle 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)