Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 1

US systems to be included
The article states that it's for cities which "have a rapid transit system, or a light-rail system with some elements of rapid transit". Apparently someone thought Dallas' DART (and Calgary, Edmonton) were light rail systems that should be included. According to the APTA website DART has a quarterly ridership of 4,262K. By that standard the following systems should be included (along with their quarterly riderships):

San Francisco MUNI - 9,613.7 Portland - 8,206.4 St. Louis - 5,119.6 (only 4Q 2006 available) New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LR - 4,566.3 Denver - 4,548.2

source: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q1rep.pdf

However we could go further and include those with a higher ridership than Edmonton's, or a higher ridership than Buffalo's (which is on the list), at which point it would almost feel like the light-rail list is being copied over to this list. DisgruntledWaterlooStudent 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia
I'm not convinced that the correct Australian term is "subway". In Melbourne, the underground railway section is simply known as the "city loop" or "loop", and when referring to systems in other cities they tend to use the indigenous term for that city (using "underground" for the London system and "subway" for New York). --Robert Merkel


 * Australian's do not use the term "subway" to refer to underground train systems. --Tancred 04:53, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)


 * The most commonly-used term internationally is "metro" - and that is what we "should" use here. We should also resist the temptation to include "suburban railway" systems just because they have underground segments. Ldemery 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Title
On another note: Everyone and their brother want their specific name of the "underground tracked mass transit system employed for public transport" to be the article on Wikipedia. That will not happen without a substansial duplication of data. I propose (and will indeed enforce) that we collect all data about theese kind of systems under the Underground article, and redirect from the city/country specific to that article. We are after all discussing the "selben Sache", not waging a nomenclature war. Is this correct ladies and gentlemen? --Anders Törlind


 * Fine by me. I wasn't trying to start a nomenclature war, just querying an assertion about supposedly correct Australian usage. I agree that redirection to a canonical article is totally the way to go, but note should be made of individual local terminology, and in this case I'm not sure the local terminology was accurate -- Robert Merkel


 * Unfortunately, the "canonical article" has gone through several name changes and is now currently called "Rapid transit" (a rather obvious Americanism). I think the article titles should be "Metro" and "List of metro systems" . . . but I'm "not" willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" about this. Ldemery 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Does Newcastle-upon-Tyne's metro count as an undergound system? --Dweir.

Novosibirsk
Novosibirsk article claims that it was only the third city in Russia to get a subway in 1985. This list has several other Russian cities with subways. Was there a spate of subway building in Russia in the late 1980s and 1990s? Or is the Novosibirsk article wrong? --rmhermen


 * UrbanRail.Net gives opening date for first part of Novosibirsk’s subway as 07 January, 1986. Subway of Nizhniy Novgorod was opened on 20 November, 1985. So we can say that Novosibirsk’s subway was forth in Russia. Construction of Russian subways other than Moscow and St Petersburg started at 1980s and beginning of 1990s just before the end of Soviet Union. Before these subways they had to build subways to bigger capitals of other republics of Soviet Union.  --Erki

Underground / metro
I *really* worry about the name of this article, in particular. A large number of these systems are not entirely underground (in fact, only a few ARE entirely underground, such as Montreal). It's one thing to have an article about "the Underground," but quite another to claim that Toronto's subway is an "underground railway" when a large portion of it isn't. - user:Montrealais


 * I also am having a bit of difficulty with this.  For example, San Francisco's Muni is listed, along with the Los Angeles MTA's Gold, Green, and Blue lines, but the San Diego Trolley is absent.  Muni, while having an underground subway portion on all but one of the lines (the subway is referred to as the Muni Metro, although the only people who refer to it that way is Muni itself: I've never heard anybody actually call it that), runs the majority of it's track miles above ground, and at-grade with vehicle traffic.  The LAMTA Gold and Green Lines are almost entirely above ground and would be better defined as light rail, yet it is mentioned.  The San Diego Trolley, however, runs largely grade-seperate (just about everywhere except in the center city), and meets just about every other definition of Metro, yet is above ground and is not listed.  *shrug*  Perhaps the solution is to only list the systems that are popularly called "Metros" (like the Los Angeles and Washington DC "Metros"), and leave the rest for the Light rail and public transport pages, and word the page accordingly so there is no more confusion.   - Feedle 17:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Talking about confusion: The comment of Montrealais was made when the article was called List of underground railway systems ! That is why we changed it to List of metro systems. See the definition in Metro. - Patrick 22:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Heh. But some confusion still remains, in that there seems to still be a very fluid definition of Metro.  Again, taking SF Muni as an example: the vast majority of "Muni Metro" track miles dosen't fit the second definition of "Metro", in that it operates on public street right-of-way (especially the outer portions of the J-Church, L-Taraval, and N-Judah) (side note: and some Muni detractors would probably argue the "frequent service" portion as well).  Similarly, the San Diego Trolley fits two of those requirements (frequent service intervals and urban electric trains), and has about as much shared right-of-way as SF Muni, yet is unlisted.  Systems like the Las Vegas Monorail will only further blur these lines: LVM will meet all three definitions (frequent intervals, grade-seperate, and urban electric), yet probably wouldn't be considered a "Metro" in the classic sense.  Heck, using that definition the Disneyland Monorail System fits.   Not arguing for arguments' sake, just that it seems the current situation is less than optimal. As a stylistic note, I inserted the comment where I did not because I totally saw exactly what was described, but that Montrealais' comment reflected the ambiguity that exists in the use of the word "Metro".  It seemed a logical place to insert my comments.  My commentation was driven by a desire to insert the San Diego Trolley into the list based on the Metro page's definition.  - Feedle 04:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I removed Muni, it was already (and is correctly) in List of light-rail transit systems. In the top I made it "Some systems that are called light rail, but are essentially a metro system, are also included. On the other hand, systems that are called "metro" but are really light rail, are not included here but in List of light-rail transit systems. See also Monorail.". That seems better than having how it is called as criterion. - Patrick 09:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. - Feedle 10:23, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A whole book could be written on the differences between tram, light rail, heavy rail, metro, commuter and underground systems. Part of the difficulty is that different countries have adopted their own terminology.

Since I know most about the United Kingdom, here is a brief rundown on the situation there:

LONDON

London Underground

Immediately we have a problem: the London Underground, whilst under a single management, embraces two different technologies:

- deep-level tube lines with tunnels and rolling stock smaller than standard trains. - cut-and-cover lines with tunnels and stock similar to standard trains

both these types of line connect with standard railways, so it is incorrect IMO to insist that a "metro" system must be fully segregated from other railways,if this means that the oldest Metropolitan Railway in the world is excluded. Most lines are partially or wholly underground.

Clearly this is a METRO system.

Docklands Light Railway

- automated railway. mostly surface or elevated but partially underground: totally segregated: light railway technology: no street running

Croydon Tramlink

- tram technology, running partly on streets and partly on old railway routes

Both the above are,IMO, LIGHT RAIL (though one runs on streets and the other doesn't)

Commuter railways

- conventional electric railways - but some routes elevated or underground. Some routes shared with London Underground. Managed as part of the national rail system, but with a number of different privately-owned operators

Clearly COMMUTER - though some lines could be classified as METRO on grounds of frequency, distance between stops etc

BIRMINGHAM

West Midlands Metro - LIGHT RAIL Commuter services - COMMUTER (though partly underground)

GLASGOW

Glasgow Underground (or Subway) - METRO Commuter Services - COMMUTER - though some routes could qualify as METRO

LIVERPOOL

Commuter Services

- Merseyrail - electric services, frequent and almost totally segregated, and managed separately from the main rail network - so METRO on all counts - other commuter services (diesel powered trains) - COMMUTER

NEWCASTLE

Tyne and Wear Metro - clearly, METRO Also, a very limited set of commuter services

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD and NOTTINGHAM have LIGHT RAIL and COMMUTER systems - though the last two have very limited commuter networks that don't make much contribution to the overall transportation system.

Smaller UK cities tend have stopping services operating on a few lines into the city centre, but whether they have what could fairly be described as a "commuter network" is debatable. Example - Aberdeen has commuter services from Dyce and Portlethen but these are limited to a handful of long-distance trains that call at these stations each day.

For other countries - I note that for German systems S bahns are counted as METRO. Since these are part of the national rail network ie not segregated they fail this part of the metro definition - but I am suggesting this should not matter, since the definition should be more like

- heavy rail technology - frequent service (say every 10 minutes or better across the central zone of the city) - stops close together (say 1km apart or closer) - serving a built-up or metropolitan area rather than connecting physically separate surrounding towns and rural areas to the city - no street running

of course where a system marginally fails one of these tests common sense should apply!

Exile

London - figures
The old figure for London Underground's passenger miles was way off -- what were the sources for the other figures?


 * I misinterpreted http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/facts/ffrank.htm, it is rides, not miles. Patrick 11:56 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Surely this should have remained as underground railway. Numerous countries use different terms; metro, subway, underground. Underground railway is the basic unifying term that all share or understand. I have heard the term metro used to describe a road that is partly underground and partly overground. JtdIrL 03:28 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Metro is also used to describe totally aboveground rail systems. Dublin's new LUAS system is described as as a 'metro' by its European manufacturers. JtdIrL 03:31 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, "underground" is just about the least universal term for this phenomenon. To begin with, as far as I can tell it's used only in the UK, and possibly Australia; for another thing, the great majority of these systems are not entirely underground. But all of these are metropolitan railways. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Don't forget that U-bahn is short for "untergrundbahn"! - Arwel

Liverpool, UK
Merseyrail: Metro or light rail? It should be included on one or other of the lists, but it's hard to classify. Experts? –Hajor 00:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * To my mind it's neither. It's an ordinary heavy rail system with quite an intensive service, which happens to have sections under the River Mersey and in Liverpool city centre which are underground. -- Arwel 01:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Probably Commuter rail, then, only we don't have a list for that. Pity. –Hajor 23:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But the Liverpool Overhead certainly was a Metro, so I have included it. greenpousse 14:19, 8 Apr 05
 * And it closed and was demolished nearly 50 years ago, which is why I've deleted it. This is a list of current metro systems and systems under construction. -- Arwel 13:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Closed metros are thin on the ground, the only other ones being the New York Elevated and the Tandy Center Subway in Fort Worth; including them (perhaps in their own table) isn't going to drown everything out. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest adding closed systems in their own section, similar to the organisation at British funicular railways. Thryduulf 17:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do set up a section, I'd say that the Tandy Subway doesn't merit inclusion -- despite the name, it's a light rail, not a metro in the strict sense of this article. It used PCC cars and had low-floor stations. Rochester also has a defunct system that's closer to metro status but it too used PCCs --- I think it was more comparable to Boston's Green Line. --Jfruh 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems stupid that Liverpool ain't on this list but Manchester Metrolink (a tram system), is included. Also, Newcastle's system is always included without debabte, just because it's called 'Metro', it being no more a metro than Merseyrail and perhaps less so, since it shares tracks with other real services in some parts. Merseyrail is electric, isolated, mostly urban and reasonably frequent. If Merseyrail doesn't qualify, than the two examples I mentioned don't either, nor certain London Underground lines.

Merseyrail fulfils all the criteria defined in the introduction as being an RTS. Yes, it connects to less-frequently-used lines, but then so do certain branches of the London Underground, for example extensions to South Ruislip etc. I will restore Merseyrail unless someone gives a cogent objection based on the definition of an RTS, or suggestes an emendation to the definition. --thesp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.10.139 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Merseyrail, but I cannot find any source where the system is referred to as metro or rapid transit. The Wikipedia article Merseyrail says it is a commuter train network, and Urbanrail says it a metro-like system. So does "metro bits"  -- Kildor 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian systems
None of the Australian systems listed are true metros, rather they are frequent suburban commuter services, similar to services in South London or Liverpool. I think they should be hived off to a seperate list of commuter rail systems, or at the least have footnotes mentioning this. Thoughts, anyone? --Randwicked 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've taken the first step of adding a footnote clarifying the Sydney and Melbourne situation...if no-one has any objections I will remove Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide and start a list of suburban rail systems. --Randwicked 10:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's done...see new List of suburban and commuter rail systems. Sydney and Melbourne kept because of the hybrid thingy. See footnote. --Randwicked 14:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If Melbourne's suburban network isn't counted, Chicago is apparently the 10th biggest real metro by number of stations. Rectifying. --Randwicked 15:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Serfaus
I have removed Serfaus from the list, as it does not meet the first criterion: that of being urban. - Montr&eacute;alais 03:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Is Serfaus the only of such? Perhaps we can have a list for all these unique and special systems. -- 16:48, December 13, 2004, UTC

KCR
The KCR west rail fits into the definitions of metro railways, as it is entire right-of-way, serves the urban territories, has short headways, and is electric. And it doesn't fit into the suburban and commuter railway cateogry that it is segregated from other rail traffic (say, inter-city, freight train) (See also Definition of regional rail). And in fact its capacity (see Regional rail) is much bigger than ordinary commuter railways. I would rather say it's an hybrid if I would have to compromise. Let me know the reasons why if you think it is not a metro. -- 10:15, December 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is common understanding that MTR is the metro system in Hong Kong while the KCR is a suburban system. For the West rail it runs long distance connecting NW New Terrorities and the urban area, going through a long strip of suburban lands, and has long headways in many sections. It is intended to form an integral system with the East Rail and will be extended to Mainland China. Your reason for classifying it as metro in the deleted text doesn't fit into the definition. (should be by Hlaw)


 * What do you mean by common understanding? The way that West Rail operates is de facto a metro.  Some of the elements of the East Rail local passenger service also doesn't like a suburban rail, but a metro too.  West Rail is currently a metro, and East Rail is a hybrid, if we've to stick with those definitions on Wikipedia. -- 11:08, December 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * That is what an average person in the street (who understands English) would get if you say "take the metro". It doesn't follow that train services which doesn't cross regional boundaries are metros. The defining characteristic provides that metros operate with short headways and primarily in urban areas. This is not the case with both East Rail and West Rail, although some sections of the KCR in the urban area have such characteristics.  In such sense, to the reverse, the Tung Chung and Airport express lines are not operating as a metro. Capacity and frequency depend on the population and usage and is not a defining factor - Shinkansen in Japan would not be regarded as metro. -Hlaw 11:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Go ask a non-local in Hong Kong and see if she or he can tell the distinctions between East Rail, West Rail and MTR, and tell whether an East Rail or a West Rail train is a metro train or commuter train. It is ambiguious. And the way that the locals perceive might not coincide with the definitions on Wikipedia, not to mention many other definitions.
 * I guess the way (i.e. listing KCR in the list of metro systems with a special note) that I've used already tells enough information to readers, and has avoided possible confusions. The general definitions do not work for every single situation.
 * One more piece of information, KCRC and MTR participated in both CoMET and NOVA railway benchmarking. The two benchmarking institutions do have definitions for their groupings-- 12:02, December 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * To Hlaw, KCR had been on the list for quite a long time before I added the note to make it more clear. If you've no further comment could you please put back KCR (with the note) for the time being, until there are some new points of view? Thank you. --20:53, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Actually who is talking to who now? We have two anonymous editors?--Huaiwei 21:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably it was Hlaw who've forgotton to sign after one of his messages.

NOVA and CoMET
For information of you guys, on NOVA and CoMET

Indicators htm, pdf

Benchmarking Metros htm, pdf'''

MTR and London, New York, Mexico City, etc. participated in CoMET. KCR and Madrid, Glasgow, Oslo, Singapore, etc. participated in NOVA.

To Huaiwei, Hlaw has stopped responding, and I've shown the evidence why KCR should also be listed. Why didn't he discuss before deleting, but I have to discuss before putting it back? -- 18:11, December 9, 2004, UTC
 * I am not here to justify anyone's actions, but as proper decorum goes, anyone who comes along and wishes to modify something naturally needs more persuasive power in enacting change, compared to reverting it back to its original state. If the topic is under discussion, it makes more sense to revert it to its original state, come up with a settlement, before we decide whether the proposed changes should be enacted or not. At least that is what makes sense to me.
 * KCR has been on the list some time before I added the note. The so-called original state would then be leaving KCR on the list without the note.  She / he deleted KCR from the list together with the note before there was a discussion, not to mention a settlement. -- 21:39, December 9, 2004, UTC
 * I was not even following this debate, and didnt know KCR was originally in the list. But now that I have read the comments and such, and through my own understanding of the rail systems there, he might actually be right! You may call me biased, but I think you ended up shaking some grass which was not disturbed before, and caused a reassessment of listing KCR.--Huaiwei 06:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the sources that I've looked into, KCR is considered metro. Some systems in Europe and Australia listed in the article also contain commuter service or are hybrid systems.  On the contrary Hlaw has never presented any evidence that KCR is not a metro system.  Based on the principle that you've made, that is, to revert to the "original state", could you please add KCR back to the list without the note? Whether to add the note, or to remove KCR depends on the discussion here. --08:36, December 10, 2004, UTC
 * See also the Note 5 of Europe, on RER, Notes 2 and 3 of North America, on Cleveland and Guadalajara, Notes for Australia on Sydney and Melbourne, and the entry at Talk:List of metro systems --10:41, December 10, 2004, UTC


 * On a personal note, when I want to enact drastic or potentially debatable changes in wikipedia, I try to drop a note in the talk page first and wait for responses before proceeding. It is just good manners, and to avoid editing wars later, as what is seemingly happening to the majority of your edits!--Huaiwei 21:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't understand how "potentially debatable" my edits were. It was only several guys who keep chasing after me, and keep disagreeing and challenging, and with little evidence.  For the listing of KCR it was a real joke that even which "original state" is original is debatable.  It's a real pity for a free encyclopaedia to have all these undesirable and meaningless debate. --21:43, December 9, 2004, UTC
 * Actually I was refering to the specific edits you made in this page which I had to revert, and that is with reference to your PRC ==> China (Mainland), removing lists which have HK under the PRC, and fiddling with the way Taiwan is being presented (ROC, Taipei??). These are controversial edits, and what evidence are you looking for? From what I see, we have indeed presented our case.
 * Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, yes, but that dosent mean it is ungoverned, and neither does it mean it has singular authority in defining things without concensus and cross-referencing. That wikipedia allows for open debate over any topic deemed debatable by anyone is already a reflection of just how open and dynamic is it. If anyone can come along an enact changes without concensus, then how "free" is wikipedia to the rest of us other then the person doing the changes?--Huaiwei 06:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've never used "ROC, Taipei", and I've stopped changing PRC or China into China (mainland) or mainland China. -- 08:34, December 10, 2004, UTC
 * Anyway, just discovered that KCR has the dubious honour of being listed not only as a metro here, but also a light rail and a commuter system at the same time! Removed it from this list anyway (again).--Huaiwei 14:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Reason? Can't three different types of systems come under the same company name? Can't a system be hybrid? -- 17:46, December 11, 2004, UTC
 * Oh yes it can of coz, but where is the metro element?--Huaiwei 07:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * See discussion below. -- 05:29, December 13, 2004, UTC

Proof that Huaiwei requested
Referring to

"Huaiwei (rv edits by 202.61.116.181. Refer to talk page, and proof to us the KRC is a metro, a light rail, as well as a commuter at the same time. In addition, please stop listing Hong Kong as a country.)"

KCR has three systems (will be four later this month), namely East Rail, West Rail, Light Rail and Ma On Shan Rail. East Rail, the earliest member, operated since 1910. Local commuting (electrified), inter-city and freight trains share the same pair of tracks from Lo Wu station to Hung Hom station. The sections from Hung Hom station to East Tsim Sha Tsui station, and the branch to Racecourse station that runs parallel to the main route are only for local service. Light Rail (formerly LRT) run since 1988, in the northwestern new towns of Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and Tin Shui Wai. West Rail has been operated for less than a year. It is only for local passenger service currently. Ma On Shan Rail is a branch of East Rail carrying only local passenger service, and will be in service later this month.

A spur line of the East Rail to Lok Ma Chau will be completed by 2006, and will carry only local passenger service.

NOVA included KCR in its studies of metro systems. Please click here and see which systems are in NOVA's study. -- 18:06, December 11, 2004, UTC
 * The above text says nothing about whether the line should be a metro or not. It is not just about the routing, or who is is serving alone. What is the physical configuration of the system, along with the technical specifications? Take note, also, that names of the system alone does not make them worthy of classification into that said type of rail system. For example, I removed the KL "LRT" lines from the LRT page, because although they are called LRT officially by name, the rail system is actually exactly the same as regular and comparable metro systems in other Southeast Asian cities, including its routing, its coverage, as well as technical specifications of the tracks and rolling stock.--Huaiwei 07:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess the one who insisted to remove has also got the responsbility to look up on the relevent articles on Wikipedia.
 * Very briefly
 * Only one of the four systems of KCR, i.e. the East Rail, shares some of its tracks with other trains apart from local passenger trains, the others are solely for local passenger services,
 * For the lines taking only local passengers except Light Rail, they fit into the definitions of metro at the articles List of metro systems and Metro,
 * For the East Rail, it also fit into some of the definitions of metro, for being electrified and has short headway. It is partly urban, and partially separated from other trains, like other hybrid systems such as Sydney's and Melbourne's. The designed capacity of the trains are like metro (with more doors, fewer seats and more standing places, metro-like fare payment method, etc.). In fact over 95% of its traffic is local passenger services.
 * Let me know if you want to have any sorta of additional information. -- 15:39, December 12, 2004, UTC
 * Technical specifications includes stuff like passenger capacities per car, the max number of cars the system is designed to handle (or if the cars can be joined together in the first place), the actual dimensions of each car, the rail gauge, etc. It was based on such data and more that I declared the KL "LRT" system as not an LRT, for example.
 * Ironically, your argument that the system serves the "local community" makes me wonder if you are going to take back your comments that Hong Kong is not one city. If your Hong Kong rail system actually serves more then one city, then hey, its not a local system, and hey, its a commuter system?! :D --Huaiwei 02:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling. The KCR uses standard gauge, i.e. 1435mm.  (FYI, MTR is using 1432mm.)  A East Rail, West Rail or Ma On Shan Rail car is 24 metres long, 3.1 metres wide, has 52 seats and 283 standing places.   There are 12 cars on each East Rail trains, 9 on West Rail, and 4 for Ma On Shan Rail.  The headway can be as frequent as every 2 minutes.  The KCR Light Rail uses also standard gauge.
 * "Local" here refers to Hong Kong, i.e. do not cross the border to Shenzhen. A commuter rail, according to the general definition on Wikipedia, has long headway, scheduled, and share tracks with other trains.  KCR has short headway and run at specific intervals.  KCR West Rail and Ma On Shan Rail do not share tracks with other trains, and most traffic on East Rail are non-border-crossing passenger trains. -- 14:03, December 13, 2004, UTC
 * I'd rather say only the East Rail is a hybrid (second last paragraph of the section), where the other two are metros (tho West Rail may be turned into a hybrid some time in future).-- 14:13, December 13, 2004, UTC
 * To clarify some things. You are saying all lines operated by KCRC runs on 1435mm, including the so-called LRT (or not)? Also, they all use the same car? I need specific stats for each of the varieties operated by KCRC, if any. You might want to just show me where u got the info from too as well. It will be wonderful if you can tell us in more detail about the frequency of services, especially off-peak timeings.
 * But definitions of a "non-metro" system which is classified under commuter etc dosent refer to "local" in terms of staying within an "international" boundary alone. It usually refers to the city boundary, or a very compact and continous urbanised area.--Huaiwei 04:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * East Rail uses two different cars, but they're of the same standard. The West Rail and Ma On Shan Rail cars are the same as the newer East Rail cars.  The Light Rail also runs on 1435mm gauge, but not the same cars of course.  The information are from websites by metrophiles in Hong Kong.  Try look up "&#26481;&#37941;" (or "&#35199;&#37941;", etc.), "&#36554;&#24258;", "&#38263;&#24230;" in Google.  For headway, try look up with "&#29677;&#27425;"  -- 05:26, December 13, 2004, UTC
 * Okay, I used "local" because the trains provide only service within Hong Kong's territory, and are not long distance. -- 05:28, December 13, 2004, UTC

For me, looking just into Hong Kong could not provide the answer to the conflict in terms. The JR suffered a similar problem; Yamanote Line might be an extreme case, but other lines like the Keihin-Tohoku Line, the Saikyō line or the Keiyō Line are quite similar to the KCRER (forget WR for a moment); They are certainly built as a part of a Inter-regional system (and if you consider the KCR in its original form), and they are originaly not intra-urban; but nevertheless the respective cities had absorbed the rail within. --XF95&#65294;&#37034; 05:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China (mainland)
"China (mainland)" or "mainland China" is a more clear and accurate discription, like what I have mentioned in many other articles. Please stop reverting unless a concensus has been made. I don't mind compromising, but not without discussion. -- 10:17, December 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is the anon who changes ALL references of the People's Republic of China to China (mainland), (and other changes) all over wikipedia. Obviously a significant and controversial move, but without any discussion. These should continue be reverted asap. -Hlaw 10:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * discussion continues at User_talk:Hlaw.


 * Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong and Macau) -Hlaw 11:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) -- 10:41, December 10, 2004, UTC

Other top 10s
Would the following top 10s be available?
 * Top 10 in terms of annual passenger rides per unit length
 * Top 10 in terms of annual passenger rides per station
 * Top 10 in terms of number of stations per unit length

-- 10:42, December 10, 2004, UTC

Country listing
Referring to

"Huaiwei (rv edits by 202.61.116.181. Refer to talk page, and proof to us the KRC is a metro, a light rail, as well as a commuter at the same time. In addition, please stop listing Hong Kong as a country.)"

It's a convention, at least in journalism and politics, to refer non-sovereign entities (i.e. dependencies, territories, protectorates, etc.) together with other countries, or more politically correct, under a category called "countries and territories". -- 18:08, December 11, 2004, UTC
 * And who is this speaking?--Huaiwei 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Top tens
At the end of the article three top ten rankings are listed. Where were the information obtained, and when were the information collected? &mdash; Instantnood 16:50, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

How many metro systems are there in Germany?
There is quite a lot of variation in how many sytems are listed on the various versions of this page. All translations have Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Nuremburg; any that did not would be immediatey suspect. All except German have the monorail in Wuppertal; English, French and Dutch list the self-contained suburban railways (S-bahn) in Berlin and Hamburg. English lists the less self-contained (I believe) Munich S-bahn, along with Dusseldorf and Cologne, where (I think) all lines are operated as tramways in the suburbs, which would seem to make them not true metros. The German list has Frankfurt, where Urbanrail.net has line U4 as a true metro, and, also in Frankfurt, the SkyLine, which I confess to pig-ignorance about. No version has Essen or Dortmund, but Urbanrail.net suggest that there are true metro lines in both cities. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The confusion stems from the various definitions of what a "metro system" is supposed to be. For the purpose of this article I suggest that all S-Bahn and "true" U-Bahn systems should be counted. The S-Bahns are listed in S-Bahn quite consistently. Likewhise, U-Bahn systems are correctly listed (only four). The Stadtbahn systems (upconverted tram systems) are not true U-Bahns as long as part of the network is still regular tram (street level, obeying traffic rules). These ought not to be counted. That rules out all Stadtbahns. Many cities have more than one system. Some have a Stadtbahn (which are not metros), but also an S-Bahn (which are). This is true for all cities in the Ruhr conurbation, Düsseldorf, Köln, Bonn, Stuttgart, Hannover and some others.
 * About some of the oddities:
 * * Frankfurt's Stadtbahn is a classical controversy. It is actually a Stadtbahn system (i.e. large parts of the system are regular tram). But Frankfurt locals often claim that one out of its several lines fits the criteria of a "true" U-Bahn, and that Frankfurt's system therefore should "count". But the whole system is a Stadtbahn anyway, so usually it is not counted.
 * * The Wuppertal monorail is a historic oddity and is therefore not normally discussed as a metro system, but for the sake of this article it certainly is one.
 * * The Frankfurt "Skyline" is a monorail connecting different airport terminals. I don't think internal transport systems of airports ought to be regarded as metros.
 * * Karlsruhe is a Stadtbahn, but differing from the others that the "improved" sections run on national rail (Deutsche Bahn) tracks. But some parts of it are still regular tram, so no metro.
 * Anorak2 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Krivoy Rog
I deleted this city since the info is a total nonsense. First of all, Kryvyi Rih is in a permanent disaster of underground flooding because of its mines. So they can't build any metro there even if they found enough money (which is also impossible now). Best wishes, AlexPU


 * Nice to see someone taking somewhere in their own country out instead of putting it in, but... These links may help: in English, in Russian, in German and Russian (follow "Krivoj Rog | &#1050;&#1088;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1081; &#1056;&#1086;&#1075;" link). I am not quite sure if what they are describing counts as a metro or not, but I am inclined to count it as one. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, from the city council site: in Ukrainian andin Russian. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this page
I recently added some systems in the U.S. based on an assumption (which I clarified up top) that any system, be it light rail or rapid transit, with sufficient grade-separated sections should qualify. I made this assumption based on a few things, mainly a few systems that were already in (though I can't remember which) and the 1897 date given for Boston, which only ran streetcars underground until 1901.

I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. It seems like a split could be made here, not just between rapid transit and light rail, but also between modern light rail and streetcars. (Much discussion is at talk:streetcar about this split.) A name is needed for the merged streetcar/tram (also being discussed on talk:streetcar). A few systems would still overlap, but there would be less overlap.

Another issue is airport-only systems. I've added a few of these, but then realized these should probably be in a separate list, only being included here if they also go outside the airport (like AirTrain JFK).

Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 21:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we're back to this crap again. User:Rhallanger deleted a bunch of cities from the list, and added the definition which implies only "heavy rail" systems are "rapid transit". We're back to the argument of what constitutes a "Rapid Transit" system again, apparently. First off, by Rhallanger's edits, he missed a bunch of systems that don't fit his argument (please, if you're going to make changes, make ALL of them). Secondarily, he deleted Portland, which is not totally accurate since TriMet is in late planning stages to build a heavy rail system to open in 2008. Can we at least be consistent here? Feedle 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My definition is the one listed by APTA. Why don't we use that as the standard in the U.S.? They have described Light Rail, Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, Other Rail and have given good examples of the variants. Rhallanger 10:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but the article is a worldwide list so we should have an international definition.

"Underground" doesn't work - and for the same reason, neither does "Subway". "Rapid Transit" could even include buses, as could "Mass Transit". "Heavy Rail" would include commuter and other rail systems as well as metros.

How about this

Metro - the usual suspects eg London, New York, Moscow et al - heavy rail technology, underground or elevated in city centre, grade separated outside

Light Rail - streetcars, trams etc. May be partly or wholly underground, elevated or reserved track, but may include street running sections

There may be a case for splitting this category into the old-style streetcar/tram and the more modern systems that have some "metro" features.

Commuter Rail would include those systems so defined in the USA, plus any high frequency heavy rail system elsewhere not managed separately from the main national rail network.

There are of course grey areas - eg the {Paris RER system is partially owned by RATP, partly by SNCF but is in effect a commuter rail system).

Exile 16:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest Metros
That chapter is inconsistent. It should list according to the date when the system was first a true metro. Some of the cities listed show opening dates of e.g. a tram or regular rail line which just happens to be part of a metro system today (Vienna or Napoli for example), but some others show the opening date of their "regular" metro. I think only the latter should be used. Opinions? Anorak2 11:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

German systems again
I just realised the list completely omits systems in Eastern Germany except Berlin. There are several S-Bahn systems there which are not listed. On the other hand it contains several Stadtbahn systems which should not be listed as metro under strict criteria. Any opinions? Anorak2 15:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As there was no objection, I went forward with the correction. For reference, here's the list of Stadtbahn systems I deleted.
 * Explanation: Stadtbahn systems are what are called "light rail" in the English speaking world, basically upgraded tram networks. These do not fulfill all criteria to classify them as metro systems, therefore they don't belong in the list. Anorak2 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not completely agree to this point, because this article is not about 'Subways' in a strict sense, but about Rapid Transit Systems, and the first sentence reads 'This is an alphabetical list of cities worldwide that have a rapid transit system, or a light-rail system with some elements of rapid transit'. As I understand this includes mixed systems as well. For instance, take a look at the Cologne System, which is a mixed system. It contains more than 44 km of metro-like routes, either underground, elevated or at grade.

Gamgee 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the German community there is a consensus that all the above systems are not U-Bahns (subway, underground) but Stadtbahns (light rail). Germany has four true U-Bahns: Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Nuremberg. All other cities where you may see the blue "U"-logo use it for what are really Stadtbahn systems, which are another category. A special case is Frankfurt/Main, which can be considered "ambiguous", but Cologne is a clear case.
 * What's the consensus for this page? My impression was that light rail systems should not be listed. There are several edits in the history where light rail systems were deleted with that reasoning, so I concluded that they should be deleted from the German portion too. Did I misunderstand something?
 * If we should later come to a conclusion that Stadtbahn systems ought to be included anyway, please let's call them stadtbahn but not U-Bahn anyway.
 * By the way, a "mixed" underground/tram system is exactly what defines a Stadtbahn.
 * Anorak2 11:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's something I can live with, and I didn't try to assert that Cologne has a true Subway in the strict sense of the meaning. So, if there was (or will be) a List_of_Subway_Systems, I don't think that the systems which are listed above should be included there.

Gamgee 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wuppertal
There is a problem with the table format for Wuppertal, which is certainly not a country. I am not good enough with tables to fix it, but if someone knows what to do please correct Wuppertal.208.46.78.226 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Laon
I have added the Poma 2000 to the list. I am perfectly aware that this can be challenged, but I think this is a urban transportation system (not a touristic line), on rubber tyres, with stations and so on. But if you feel it's beyond the boundaries let's talk about it.208.46.78.226 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New York opening date poll
The date of 1904 for New York is certainly inaccurate as this is a list of rapid transit systems, not subway systems. The oldest right-of-way of the New York City Transit Authority system is in continuous use since 1863. Another line has had a significant portion grade-separated (with stations) since 1878, and about 1/2 mile of that line is substantially unchanged in those 128 years. So I would propose one of the below dates. Please vote. I realize these are a lot of choices, but I think we can winnow them down. -- Cecropia 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1863
Reason: The entire West End Line (except for the Coney extension opened in 1864), and has been in continual operation since. Most of the line was elevated during WWI.


 * 1) Cecropia 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1864
Reason: The West End Line was completed to Coney Island. Part of this surface right-of-way is still in use.



1870
Reason: The first non-isolated grade-separated line opened permanently over Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue, New York. This was later connected with the subway system. Now dismantled.



1878
Reason: Brighton Beach Line opens. Portion through the populace part of the Town of Flatbush depressed and still is. 1/2 mile+ still in use as originally built.



1885
Reason: Opening of the "Old Main Line" el in Brooklyn. A substantial portion of this line is still in operation as part of the Broadway-Jamaica J train service.



Other
Please provide your rationale.




 * Why don't you even consider 1904, which is the most qoted date? Anorak2 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's inaccurate. That is the date of the opening of the first underground line, but a great deal of the system predates that, as rapid transit, and still exists now, including every line in southern Brooklyn. -- Cecropia 15:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Chicago L is dated to 1892, not the date of the opening of the State Street Subway. In that year, several still extent structures and a number of extant routes were already operated in New York. As I said, this is a list of rapid transit systems, not subway lines. -- Cecropia 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wiki article as it currently stands gives the impression that the New York underground system is older than the Boston underground system, when the reverse is actually true.
 * Agree. I vote to change to 1904, since this is the first subway line.  I mean, we could date back the Boston subway to earlier times if we're just going to throw in any little thing that's a part of its present system.--Loodog 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further support, from Transportation in New York City article itself:"It (NY Subway) is the second-oldest subway in the United States after the system in Boston."
 * --Loodog 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The current "Notes" number 5 is an excellent "consensus-type" resolution. Ldemery 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Boston subway system clearly dates to 1897. Yes, the technology at the time wasn't precisely the same as later subway systems, but it was hardly some random streetcar terminal that was some little thing that allows the MBTA to claim to be founded then. In fact, it was clearly a departure from contemporary streetcar technology - the point that the Boston Herald published screaming headlines about it when it opened. (You can see pictures of the cover of the Herald that day in posters in the Park Street station.) For instance, when the Cambrige (now Red) line was built a few years later, it was clearly an extention of an existing subway station, not a new technolgy. As such I've changed the date on teh table to 1897. -- HowardW, Dec 8, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardW (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rapid Transit
This article is confusing, there are many articles out there that list different transit systems. An automated people mover would not be rapid transit system but it is not light rail, what do people think of merging a couple pages into one. We could take all the different type of systems and put them on one page. Break them down to look something like this List of rapid transit systems/Country What do people think? If I get no objection in two days I will create the page but will not merge till there is a consensus. --Ben 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounty available
Please note that there is now a bounty available for bringing any of these articles up to featured status. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Planning?
Under Planning - by which I think means "In development stages" - seems to be a status of which some of the metro systems are in. It doesn't make sense in English so I'm going to change it to In planning stages --Luccent 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "In planning" is a convenient shorthand that I've seen used by "non-U.S." sources. Ldemery 06:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
Should the LUAS and DART not be included for the Dublin, Ireland section, as well as the Dublin Metro?


 * The conflicting definitions of the term ‘rapid transit’ confuse the issue, but generally speaking, this article is for metros; Luas, as a tramway, and DART, as a railway, therefore are not included. The Dublin Metro certainly will qualify if it is built. David Arthur 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. Jvlm.123 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia
Ulaanbaatar has a metro since 1994. Can someone add it? I'm still a noob at editing with code and whatnot. http://ulaanbaator.narod.ru/ --Blackfield 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ulaanbaatar (aka Ulan bator) does not have a metro. The website is a hoax - a clever and convincing hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Ldemery 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NEW YORK
Only listed MTA and LIRR, what about NJ Transit, Metro North, PATH, all subterranean rapid-transit.

Planned, Under Construction, and Never Built
This page is supposed to provide a list of cities that HAVE systems. If it was never built or is not completed, it should not be on this page. Alternatively, the page topic could be expanded to include proposed and under constuction systems. Kuvopolis 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe this page should include systems that exist or whose contruction has commenced. Adam J. Sporka 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To that point, then, York Region (Canada) should not have been added (& cross-linked) recently. York does not have a rail rapid transit system.  Its recently-opened VIVA system uses buses only, and as a user I can tell you that it's not "rapid". Service is frequent, but not rapid. PKT 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Santo Domingo
Santo Domingo is planning a metro. I'll see if I can find some information regarding it. Piet 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How slow is un-rapid?
How slow or unreliable do the services have to be to disqualify a rail system from being a rapid transit system? I would argue that CityRail, of Sydney, Australia, does not qualify to be a rapid transit system by reason of having a fictional time table and impossibly slow services - services today are slower, less frequent, and more unreliable than they were in 1930. --Sumple (Talk) 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that timetable accuracy, train speed or frequency of service have much bearing upon which category a system is included in. There are plenty of full, unquestionable, metro systems that have poor service.Kitchenerite 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There really isn’t any authoritative definition of ‘rapid transit’. Local authorities give it whatever meaning suits their purposes, and despite the word ‘rapid’, the actual speed never seems to figure in the deliberations. David Arthur 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Expension request - size
It would be useful to have some measure of size for these systems, such as ridership or revenue figures. -- Beland 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Caucasus
Why is the Caucasus included in Asia in this article when a number of major bodies including the European Union, UEFA and major travel guides like Lonely Planet and the people there consider themselves as part of Europe? Valenciano 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

US Congressional Subway
I'm wondering why the Congressional Subway (connecting the Capitol proper with its various office buildings) is included in this list. The congressional subway covers a very small area and its ridership is highly limited (Members of Congress, Congressional staff and their guests). In contrast, other rapid transit systems listed have much higher (and open) riderships and transport people much longer distances. Dextrosity 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel and Jerusalem
Why is Jerusalem classed as Israel here? Internationally and officially, the status of Jerusalem has yet to be determined pending a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.159.104 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Um, more to the point, the rail project should probably be moved to the light rail transit list. Ldemery 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney World & Disneyland Monorail systems
There are two Monorail systems in the American Disney theme parks. The one in Anaheim CA and the other in Lake Buena Vista FL. I would like to suggest both of them for inclusion into the list. The one at Walt Disney World does operate as a "City" public transportation system, since its inception, Disney World has been run as a city by the Reedy Creek Council. 192.195.66.46 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These are both "intramural" transport facilities, like airport peoplemovers - and are also monorails, which have their own separate list. Ldemery 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy rail vs. Light rail
There are many light rail systems listed under the United States section of this list. They're also included on the List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership. This is redundant. This page only deals with rapid transit (heavy rail), not just any train system. --SameerKhan 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cercanías Madrid (and other Cercanías spanish networks)
I think that if there are listed the U- and S-Bahn in Germany, there must be listed all Cercanías networks in Spain (like Cercanías Madrid).

Thank you! :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.44.222.149 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

funiculaire
Should funiculaire systems be included here? I noticed tha Haifa funiculaire is included and as such several other systems should be too (i.e. Kiev funiculaire, Sochi funiculair etc).--Dojarca 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say "no." Funicular lines are considered a category "other" than rail "metro" lines. Ldemery 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Systems
There are certain systems in Canada which i believe do not qualify as rapid transit. The Viva system in York Region barely qualifies a brt, it does not have its own right-of-way, it just uses articulated buses and priority at intersections. The Niagara system consists of a few minibuses that do not have their own right-of-way. The i-Xpress in Waterloo Region consists of a few specially painted buses on a limited-stop service, they run with regular traffic throughout the route. I would appreciate input on my concerns. 72.142.221.160 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus Rapid Transit
I think we need to clear up whether or not Bus Rapid Transit should be included in this list. I realise that "Rapid Transit" is in its name, but this list appears to be intended for metro-style systems and BRT definitely does not fall into that category. Kitchenerite 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that BRT does not belong here. I don't think the title should be changed - but the first paragraph should state, explicitly, that "only" rail-type systems are listed. Ldemery 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)