Talk:Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Oknazevad in topic Googly eyes

Ridership counts in 2022?

edit

I found this report of ridership confusing: "In 2022, the system had a ridership of 216,329,500, or about 757,000 per weekday as of the second quarter of 2023 ...." Do these rider counts pertain to 2Q23 or to full year 2022? Bookerj (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also found the per-day arithmetic confusing. How many weekdays are included in this calculation? A full year (without holidays) has 260 weekdays (+/- 1). The T has reduced service levels and ridership on holidays, so we might count 250 weekdays of service. But even using 260 days, 216.3 M runs about 832,000 per weekday, about 10% higher than reported. Looks like the calculation used 286 days as the weekday count. If the numbers came from the T, they might reflect a more complicated approach, figuring in some of the weekends/holidays in their weekday counts. Bookerj (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Googly eyes

edit

@Pacamah: While the googly eyes are a fun publicity stunt, they're nothing more than that, and there have been far too many over the MBTA's lifetime to include in these articles. Unless there becomes long-term significance (either culturally like Charlie, or it becomes a permanent system livery), it doesn't need to be included in MBTA articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll admit first and foremost I keep trying to include it half for shits and giggles lol but also, there are quite a few sources that have covered it (AP, NYT, and WaPo among others). It does also seem that the inclusion of it does comply with WP:WWIN (though WP:VNOT lmao oops), but seems to fit pretty well within WP:IPCEXAMPLES. Anyhow, rip googly eye T for now ig. Pacamah (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I say keep it. It received widespread (not simply local) coverage in major news sources and therefore counts as a significant event, even if it's a short-term one.
plus the line mentioning that the Charlie Card is named for the figure in the song is a good addition regardless and a full revert was unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply