Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 15

Going into exile
This is the last time you will hear from me on this talk page. After this, and after a few notes that were in my drawer, I will be entering a self-imposed topic ban from metros, and a self-imposed interaction ban from a user, who shall remain nameless.

There are two reasons for this.


 * One, I am getting as sick and tired as you. These discussions felt more and more like a discourse with a combative version of the old ELIZA computer program that spews nothing but canned phrases, and that throws your own words back at you.


 * Two, a few days ago, something happened I thought would never happen in a democratic institution like Wikipedia. Another editor crudely and rudely censored an opinion that was written here. You have to scroll all the way down to “SPA tagging, Decision-making tags” to see what was removed.

What was removed consisted in large part of citations of Wikipedia rules that allow, even recommend, to tag what Wikipedia calls a Single Purpose Account engaged in communal decision making with. WP:SPA has a number of tests for the presence of a SPA. The post in question cited these test, explained how these test were applied, and with what result. Removing other editors' words from talk pages is not allowed. Removing Wikipedia guidelines from talk pages is a scandal.

With the full back-up of Wikipedia rulemaking, and with an administrator who had characterized the account as “obviously a single-purpose account created to prove that Seoul is the longest subway system by whatever criteria you like,” I applied the tag to that SPA account’s posting in that chapter only, and not, as I could have, to the 1000 or so talk page edits this SPA account had made in a two month period. It was there to start a discussion: Do we apply the tag to the SPA, or don't we? This discussion never took place. It was suppressed.

The post notified other editors of their rights at Wikipedia.The censor die not want you to hear your rights. Akin to the actions in a totalitarian state, the notice was ripped off the virtual wall, it was stomped in the dirt, its author was bullied and threatened.

Whether this tag should be consistently applied to the SPA account’s posts of course would have been a consensus matter, and a matter of discussion. Discussion and consensus finding were quashed, in deliberate violation of the Talk page guidelines.

This behavior is shocking, chilling, and if it sets an example, it can bring whole Wikipedia down.

I intentionally stopped writing and posting while I was waiting for how the community would react. Nothing happened. Instead, the SPA account and the censoring account entered into a self-congratulatory discussion. The SPA account forgot that a week earlier, he had complained in big bold letters about CENSORSHIP when two inconsequential sentences of his quickly changing verbiage became victim of an editing conflict. He involved an admin User talk:BsBsBs had to apologize. This account with highly developed sensitivities for censorship had the gumption to thank the censor “for undoing BsBsBs's SPA tagging of everything I wrote.” Whereupon the righteous censor bragged that he has “no qualms about hauling [me] off to WP:ANI for an interaction ban.”

To pervert matters completely, the SPA account then went to the same admin he had originally asked for assistance in his wrongly-perceived censorship case. He had the utter nerve to ask for an interaction ban, while characterizing the egregious case of censorship as “Another editor reverted the SPA tagging.” He did not just “revert” the tagging. He censored a description of your rights as a Wikipedia user.

This perversion is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable behavior. What is even more chilling was that both could high-five about stomping democracy into the mud while nobody said a word. Thugs are thugs, and there will always be thugs. If they take over, then it is our fault, because we let them get away with it. Freedom of opinion is the basis of a democracy, and censorship is the basis of mob rule.

I do not expect an answer to this.

I am gone.

The censor and the SPA get the interaction ban they always wanted. An interaction ban with the SPA is being self-imposed. I had declared a self-imposed interaction ban weeks ago, only to hear complaints that the SPA was being ignored. The SPA will be completely ignored from now on. This interaction ban does not extend to vandalism or revenge edits made by the SPA account to pages commonly edited by this editor, as long as the topic of these pages is something else than metros or rapid transit. If it is metros or rapid transit, the SPA account can fire away.

Furthermore, I am declaring a self-imposed topic ban for anything that has to do with metros or rapid transit. The atmosphere is no longer conducive to productive work. I will not be member of a community that exercises or condones censorship of the most serious kind. This topic ban is in immediate effect as far as the Wikipedia pages of these topics go. It will extend to this talk page once my desk is emptied. Which should not take longer than a few minutes.

Feel free to call it wikidrama. I call it a wikiscandal. BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning my drawer: List of metro systems vs. WP:OR
A lot of the entries in this list have been derived using what is called Original Research at Wikipedia. I know, OR (along with NPOV) has become a swearword at WP. Like a swearword, OR is frequently used and abused.

OR can be boiled down to: Facts are no good unless they can be sourced. Don’t put anything in a source that isn’t there. Don’t come to new conclusions. Especially, don’t combine source A and B to come to conclusion C.

If you have any doubts, ask the WP:ORN. Don’t wait until an edit war, and don’t bring the war to WP:ORN, you won’t like the answers. A request formulated and discussed like WP:ORN did not get an answer at all.

Allow me do direct your attention to WP:ORN. The decisions handed down there EXPLICITLY don’t allow


 * a deduction of non-conforming tracks from a system (whether it is a diesel S-Bahn line, or any others by extension, this ruling also dis-allows an adjustment of stations)


 * a list like Total rapid transit systems statistics by country’

A good rule to live by is User: Dmcq's "if you need to apply judgment, it looks like OR", rendered in WP:ORN. Currently, most aspects of List of metro systems require judgment. Judgment calls are made on a daily basis on this talk page, turning List of metro systems into a massive case of WP:OR.

"Don't list that metro, it's a commuter rail" is a judgment call, and it is OR unless you find a reliable source that says "System XYZ is commuter rail" AND unless you find a reliable source that says "a metro ceases to be a metro when it is called 'Commuter Rail' on Wikipedia." "Don't list that metro, it shares lines with a freight train " is a judgment call, and it is OR unless you find a reliable source that says "a metro ceases to be a metro when it shares tracks with freight trains" AND "System XYZ shares tracks with freight trains." At this point, you MUST delete any listings of systems that do same.

Any counting of our own (for instance to arrive at the number of level crossings, a determination of service frequency, the number of transfer station et al) immediately waves red OR flags.

In WP:ORN, an old hand in the OR business, user: Dougweller, ruled: “Virtually all counting statements should be referenced. Numbers of all types that aren't sourced frequently get changed and are virtually always OR.”

If very borderline cases get shot down in WP:ORN, rest assured that clear-cut cases, such as the sometimes audacious attempts to read into definitions what is not in the definitions, or to pull definitions out of thin air, will be immediately shot down by the WP:ORN – if someone asks the right way. Meaning in this case: Any list items where the listed data cannot immediately be found in the source given can and should be removed.

If we want to write WP articles we can be proud of, then we must write the articles according to the required quality standards. If all we want is a nice battlefield in a multi-player game, then by all means, ignore the standards.BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: Don't worry, I will not start an ORN discussion about metros, The self-imposed topic ban extends to this also.

Cleaning my drawer: Outline of a list definition.
A list lives and dies by its list definition. Lists in Wikipedia and the list part of the WP Style Manual are required reading, understanding, and internalizing for anyone who seriously wants to edit and maintain a high profile list like this one.

As a going-away present, I offer you this very rough outline of a list definition. I had it in my desk for quite while. The format had been tested before on WP. It successfully withstood a few AFDs. Of course, the devil is in the details.

If you suspect a trap: There is one. This outline requires that you come to terms with "metro." The outline asks you to decide from which perspective you want to approach a metro, what to include, and what to exclude. The better this is thought out now, the fewer troubles you will have later. While you work on that part, I recommend to you to sedate any troublesome characters, or editors with a singular goal, as far as this list is concerned. No sedation needed for me, I will not be part of the process.

List of metro systems
A metro system is a rapid transit train system. In some cases, metro systems are referred to as subways or undergrounds. (etc……)

What is a metro?
Across the world, definitions for a “metro” differ widely, sometimes in a contradictory manner. This can and does cause considerable confusion. Here are just a few examples:


 * In America, the American Public Transportation Association views a metro as a form of heavy rail.


 * In Europe, the UITP International Association of Public Transport proposed a standard with a very broad definition. In Europe, heavy rail is generally defined differently than in North America. (ref, ref, ref)


 * In Japan, the Tokyo Metro is just one of two subway systems, which are only a small subset of the city’s vast rapid transit network. (ref, ref)


 * In South Korea, a metro can be the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, a grouping of separate rapid transit systems, operated by separate entities, but joined by a common fare structure. Metro can also refer to the Seoul Metro, run by what was called the Seoul Metropolitan Subway Corporation. In this case, the Seoul Metro is a part of the much larger Seoul Metropolitan Subway. (ref, ref, ref)


 * In Australia, “metro” commonly refers to all rail within a larger metropolitan area, with special consideration of the fact that in Australia, large cities are divided into much smaller local government areas..


 * In Germany, “metro” is used in Berlin to refer to "The 'MetroNetz' - a tram and bus-based core city network not to be confused with the underground system."

Apparently, there is no globally "right" way to define a metro. When compiling a global list, this situation requires to make a few decisions, which will, by their very nature, include, or exclude metros which elsewhere would be excluded, or included. Other methods can be similarly valid, and can result in similarly valid lists that show metros from a different perspective.

List inclusion and exclusion criteria
This list approaches “metro” from a standpoint of ………….

In the context of this list, and for the sole purpose of this list, a metro is defined as a …………….

This list may only include ………….

This list expressly does not include …………..

The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever.

List organization

 * Location: Primary city, or metropolitan area, served by the metro system.


 * Country: Country of the metro system.


 * Name: The most common English name of the system (and the connecting Wiki page for that system).


 * Year opened: The year the system was opened for commercial service at metro standards. In other words, parts of the system may be older, but as parts of a former light rail or commuter rail network, so the year that the system obtained metro standards is the one listed.


 * Stations: The number of stations in the network, with stations connected by transfer counted as one. To preserve verifiability, the underlying math is explained in a footnote wherever necessary


 * System length: The system length of a metro network is the sum of the lengths of all routes in the rail network in kilometers (or miles). Each route is counted only once, regardless of how many lines pass over it, and regardless of whether it is single-track or multi-track, single carriageway or dual carriageway.. To preserve verifiability, the underlying math is explained in a footnote wherever necessary.

This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate owners or operating companies. This list expressly does not aim at representing the size and scope of the total rapid transit network of a certain city or metropolitan area. The data of this list should not be used to infer the size of a city’s, region’s, or country’s rapid transit systems, or to establish a ranking. Doing so would in many cases lead to a gross misrepresentation.

When adding list entries, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, along with the list organization must be strictly observed. All required parameters must be supplied, and must be individually sourced with a inline reference. Entries that do not fulfill this requirement may be immediately removed.

The List
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. Please observe the definition of the list when adding or editing entries.

BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning my drawer: Howe much for the top place on this list?
A rapid transit system is a high profile prestige project for any city. Now, in the era of sustainability, more than ever. Cities like New York, London, Paris have always been proud of their metro, it has become part of their branding and identity. There is immense promotional value in ranking on top of a list in highly recognized and trusted Wikipedia. The value gets even higher when especially when a newcomer displaces established contenders. This triggers a mind change in public, and bestows a status like New York, London, Paris, Tokyo.

Rapid transit systems are some of the biggest investments in a city’s budget. Changes in priorities can cost, or gain, billions.

It is hard to put an exact monetary value on a metro’s ranking on a Wikipedia list. I changed from journalism to much higher paying advertising at a young age before changing back to now nearly non-paying journalism in my old age. In my professional opinion, gained from decades of work for multinationals, some of them title sponsors of Olympic games, I would, given the right circumstances, put the value of a sustained top ranking at at least a few million dollars. Wikipedia is the go-to-point for any journalist writing about a city, and if the city’s entry says that the subway “is the world's largest subway network by length, and considered the world's best subway,” then this factoid is liable to be repeated many times. Also, as we just saw, once the subway has ranked high on this list, other WP pages and media keep repeating it, even if it no longer is true.

Speaking of sponsors and Olympic games, rapid transit systems are as much a matter of money and prestige as getting the Olympics to town. As a matter of fact, rapid transit and Olympics are joined at the hip.


 * The ill-fated 1972 Munich Olympics have birth to both the Munich U-Bahn and the Munich S-Bahn.
 * The 1976 Montreal Olympics triggered an expansion of the Montreal Metro.
 * For the largely boycotted 1980 Moscow Olympics, “Moscow became a different city […] Streets were paved, buildings were painted and shops were stocked with goods not seen for years.”
 * The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics became famous for being the “first Olympics staged in a city without a rapid transit system since 1960,.”
 * The 1988 Seoul Olympics accelerated the development of Seoul’s rapid transit system. Without that, Seoul’s metro, whatever that may be, would not be what it is today. The Seoul Olympics were called a historical turning point for the city and South Korea’s economy.
 * The 2008 Beijing Olympics triggered a metro building-boom in China’s capital. They were likewise cited as an important inflection point.
 * For the 2012 London Olympics “investments in transportation cost a staggering £6.5 billion ($10.1 billion USD).”
 * For the decision to give the 2020 Olympics to Tokyo, the fact that the city has a transportation network that is “one of the most advanced and efficient in the world” weighed heavily.

“As the actions in Sochi came to a close,” writes the International Business Times, “all eyes have now turned to the South Korean town of PyeongChang, the host of the next Winter Games in 2018.” The city is just 180km south of Seoul, which will be its major traffic hub. Seoul’s rapid transit system is about to be connected with PyeongChang. Its $7 billion infrastructure budget “includes the construction of a high-speed rail link between the capital city, Seoul, and Pyeongchang which is 180 kilometers away and near the North Korean border. The rail link would reduce travel time between the two cities to only 50 minutes.”

I am not saying, or even trying to suggest, that the recent frenetic attempts to put Seoul on top of the metro charts were directly influenced by any of this. I am simply trying to explain to you what can be (not what is) at stake. All I am saying is that we need to be aware of the considerable interests and forces at work. We should not allow ourselves to be exploited as cheap providers of immense propaganda value. At the very least, we should scrutinize each contender, especially those on top, for signs of “doping.”

We need to be aware that the Internet is the new battle ground in the world war for the global opinion, a battle that is joined by everyone from large corporations, all the way to the NSA. As you can see from the first example, big corporations sometimes are not all that clever, and even the NSA gets caught, eventually.BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also note that because of its failed bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, New York now has the (as of this writing, incomplete) one-station long 7 Subway Extension.
 * While true what subway expansions were mostly concurrent with the Olympic Games in recent years, the majority of the NYC Subway was built when the city's outer boroughs were less densely populated than a desert. The NYC Subway hasn't had a major expansion since 1989, and before that its most major line opening was back in 1955. Although the NYC Subway is still one of the world's most-patronized metro systems, I think it can be safely removed from the top five of the list. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Systems "Double-Listed" Here and in the 'Light Rail' List
And while we're on the subject, there are about a half-a-dozen systems listed both here, and on the List of tram and light rail transit systems, and they should only be listed on one, or the other (or the Medium-capacity rail transport system page (Worst. Article. Title. Ever...) - I believe each system should only be listed once on one of these three pages...), so at some point I'd like to review the systems that are listed both here and on the Tram & Light Rail list, to figure out which list they truly belong to. --IJBall (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some operators and systems have heavy rail lines mixed with light rail lines, people mover lines, and medium rail lines (under the same brand). In fact, some lines may have different characteristics of these different categories within the same line (e.g. PATCO SEPTA (I got myself mixed up), Tokyo Metro, London Underground, etc.)Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just what Epic said. The MBTA, for example, is on both lists, because the Green Line is light rail, while the Red, Blue and Orange lines are metro. So it belongs on both, as part of the system is heavy rail, and part of the system is light rail. The system is on both lists because it belongs on both lists. Philly, LA, Toronto, and Baltimore as well. (Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.) oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is not what I meant (I get all that). What I mean is: Manila's systems, and I believe at least one of Bangkok's systems, are listed both here and in the List of tram and light rail transit systems. So are both of Manila's lines "heavy rail", is one "heavy" and one "light" rail, or are they both "light rail"? Ditto Bangkok's system listed both places? ... There may be one or two others that are listed both places... I look when I have more time. --IJBall (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they can't exclusively be on one list and one list only because that would be factually incorrect. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying - either Manila's lines ( and the Bangkok one ) are "heavy rail", or they're "light rail" (or, possibly, "light metro"). They can't be both simultaneously. --IJBall (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that in Manila, line 1 is light rail, while the others are heavy rail. Should line 1 be classified as light rail at the expense of the other lines (the latter of which are not light rail), or should these other lines be classified as metro at the expense of line 1 (the latter of which is not heavy rail)? Epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is that case (and I'm not assuming that it is necessarily "light rail" even though it's named that way - we'll have to double-check that...), then we'll just handle Manila the way we handle L.A., Boston, and Philadelphia, etc. - the light rail line will stay in the List of tram and light rail transit systems, and the "heavy rail" part will stay here (and both will be 'Noted' in the respective lists...).
 * That still leaves Bangkok's Kuala Lumpur's double-listed system uncertain, however. --IJBall (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * May I ask which article that is? Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh - it's not Bangkok that I'm worried about: it's Kuala Lumpur. Anyway, it's List of tram and light rail transit systems, under Asia: Manila (both systems) is definitely double-listed, and Kuala Lumpur's Rapid Rail system is effectively listed both places. --IJBall (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a note should be added that only counts the stations of the rapid transit stations in the List of metro systems, and only the stations of the light rail counted in the List of tram and light rail transit systems. That gets rid of double listing. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's one way to go ('Noting' will definitely be advisable, no matter what). The other way would be to list as "[System]: [Lines]" in each table. Either way, I'll try to get to these "double-listed" entries over the coming weekend... --IJBall (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, that can definitely use an additional look. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:World Metro systems.png
Why in File:World Metro systems.png Morocco is marked green? Morocco hasn't been added to this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 March 2014‎ (UTC)
 * It's on Wikimedia Commons, not here. The original creator is . Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The official, universally accepted definition of "Metro System"

 * Matters of trains and metros get discussed with religious fervor. Acolytes scour scriptures for hidden meanings. In the hands of excited fundamentalists, this can lead to holy wars. Lists are especially critical flashpoints. Lists inherently invite ranking. Quite naturally, some don’t want to invest their time and effort into a loser, they want their entry “to win.” This sometimes leads to cases of pettifoggery and hairsplitting over sometimes mis-understood, or simply non-existent rules. Different situations, customs, and definitions around the world add to the confusion. From our own point of view, we inherently perceive the familiar as the rule, and the strange as a breach. Wikipedia is not here to serve the editors, it is here to provide unbiased information to a global readership. This document may trigger TLNR in some, however, careful reading may save a lot of typing further on.

The talk pages here demonstrate that “Metro System” is a fluid term. To a Parisian, Le Metro means the subway. To a Tokyoite, the Tokyo Metro is another word for the Tokyo prefecture. So let’s find some common ground.

The UITP is the international mass transit umbrella organization, “the organisation for public transport authorities and operators, policy decision-makers, scientific institutes and the public transport supply and service industry.” It reflects the input and consensus of members around the world. Its definitions should be accepted as most authoritative. A widely accepted definition for “Metro” can be found in an UITP document that was handed out to the world media in 2008. . It basically defines metros as “urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service.”

A more precise definition can be found in the 2011 version of UITP’s “RECOMMENDED BASIC REFERENCE FOR DEVELOPING A MINIMUM SET OF STANDARDS FOR VOLUNTARY USE IN THE FIELD OF URBAN RAIL ACCORDING TO MANDATE M/486 EN.”. This is a legal document, “presented to European Standardisation Bodies,” and as such, it must be precise. The document defines “Metros” as a subclass of “Urban Guided Transport systems (UGT).” It says:

If you follow the source, you will see that this is all the UITP writes about Metros. You will note that the definition largely resembles what is written in the introduction of the article. However, it does not agree with many unofficial and unsourced practices while editing the list. It also contradicts some older sources, even its own statement 3 years prior. In short, the UITP now appears to accept as "a Metro" pretty much any urban rail system that is a step up from trams.

What is in the definition?

A metro is when a railway is an UGT that is operated on its “own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic. If it is not in its own tunnel, or on its own elevated viaduct, it must have “physical separation.” The definition expressly allows railroads on a “segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways” if “they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.”

What is not in the definition?

Please note that this newer, formal 2011 document was written three years after the informal 2008 media handout. Mass transit systems are seeing a building boom in many parts of the world. Paradigms change.


 * This document no longer mentions “high capacity”, and “high frequency,” which were open to wide interpretation before.


 * The document says nothing about “service intervals,” trains may travel as frequently as necessary.


 * The document does not even mention “electric.” As far as the UITP is concerned, Metros may be powered by anything from caged hamsters to nuclear fission.

Many themes that are often mentioned in these and other discussions, and that sometimes are accepted as mantra, are not in the definition.


 * “Level crossings” or “At-grade intersections,”an old favorite to discredit unfavored railroads, are allowed, as long as there is “physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible.” A closable gate, while not ideal, provides such separation. “Own right of way” does not mean Grade separation.


 * The document says nothing about “commuter rail,” most likely because metros inherently are used for commuting on a massive scale. At least in the highly developed rail markets of Europe and Asia, the common commuter train that takes workers to their “one or two stations in the central business district" in the morning and back home in the evening is as much railroad history as steam locomotion.


 * The document says nothing about track sharing. It requires that a Metro is “segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic.” It would for instance, count the Duesseldorf Stadtbahn as a Metro, but not Duesseldorf’s tram lines when they are not segregated from other traffic. The proposed standard does not require separation from other rail traffic. This allows a Metro to grow organically. As a for instance, at the start of the Munich S-Bahn in 1972, it shared tracks with regular rail. By now, main S lines have their own tracks. The Bahnstrecke München–Augsburg grew from two to six tracks, two for the S-Bahn, four for regular/high speed rail. In developed rail markets on Europe and Asia, the sharing of tracks, even of rolling stock is on the increase. At least at Metros in Europe and Japan, track sharing is more the norm than the exception. Some “railroads” own neither track nor train. The Bayerische Oberlandbahn for instance, a French-owned private railroad that connects Munich with alpine towns, does not own any tracks. It uses metro tracks of the Munich S-Bahn and it is part of the Munich MVV unified tariff system in its territory. The tracks themselves are owned by the DB AG. Reciprocal operation where above-ground and underground lines operate through services with other operators are very common. Both Tokyo Metro, Toei Subway and the JR share tracks under that system. If track sharing would take away Metro status, both Tokyo Metros would not be here.


 * The document likewise does not separate “light” from “heavy” rail, it does not even mention it.


 * The document says nothing about “Multi trip tickets” or “station to station fares.” It does not mention fares at all. Fare structures can be highly different around the world. In many European markets, structures are complex and differ from region to region. Metros are often part of an overall regional unified fare system encompassing Metros, trams, buses, even ferries. Multi-trip tickets, for instance Munich’s Streifenkarte have a firm part in the tariffs of European Metros. Japanese fares likewise are highly complex, and need a computer for easy understanding. An electronic fare card masks the complexity, and presents different railroads as part of a unified system, despite their different tariffs. Without a SUICA card, passengers would have to look up what looks like station-to-station fares from a fare chart. Would “Multi trip tickets” or “station to station fares” be as cast in stone as some claim, most of the world's metros would have to be removed from this list.


 * Lastly, the definition does not mention separation by ownership, which is another highly fluid topic, at least in Europe and parts of Asia. See above at track sharing, which is just scratching the surface. The UITP definition would accept the Tokyo Monorail and treat it as a Metro, “as long as it is designated as part of the urban public transport network.” We can read into this that the UITP takes a holistic approach to ownership, and that being “part of an urban public transport network” is more important to the customer than inscrutable ownership structures.

'''As perplexing as it may be, many “rules and definitions” which we may accept as a given, cannot be backed-up by reliable, authoritative sources. Question them when other editors treat them like handed down by God. Older, or specific national sources, are outdated or superseded by the UITP definition of 2011, at least as far as a global list is concerned. For a global list that attempts to classify Metros according to a global standard, conflicting national standards may not be used. They would only further confuse an already highly complex topic. Metro systems are not built for Wikipedia, they are built for people. Built with limited budgets, they have to adapt to reality. When something does not appear to fit, we may not change facts so that they fit our view, we should report the facts for what they are. If reality is an occasional level crossing, or a lone freight train at night when the Metro trains are in the depot, then it would be highly presumptuous of a Wikipedia editor to ignore this reality. Always keep an open mind. Always be ready to be surprised. Be especially careful in foreign lands where things often are not like at home.

Granted, the UITP definition may appear much too broad to many, but this is the definition that is given by a consensus-driven UITP to consensus-driven Wikipedia editors. As Wikipedia editors, we may not invent new ones. We also may not “adjust” data which we find in and cite from reliable sources.'''

Please discuss this with an open mind. I will not engage in antagonistic disputes. Please also refrain from deleting properly sourced material that adheres to this universally accepted definition. If you want to read some more read this archive. I was an active editor back then. I left like many others who did not want to be killed in a holy war. BsBsBs (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So according to BsBsBs, UITP is our new holy bible and I have listed some controversial rules that were raised by other editors' that will be applied to this article with BsBsBS's new rules if there are no objections from other editors:
 * We will now ignore urbanrail.net, APTA, U.S. Department of Transportation or any other source that is not UITP and they will be removed from this article as a definition.
 * We will also ignore any UITP documents that were published before 2011.
 * Diesel or whatever fueled trains are now metros.
 * Metro tracks can mix with intercity rail and freight traffic or any other rail service.
 * Headway can be 10 min, 20 min, 1 hour or whatever you like.
 * Ghost metros on JR are now metros.
 * Regional rail entering metro and exiting as regional rail (like JR) are now metros.
 * Fare can be specific station to station or whatever you like.
 * Maglev are now metros so long as they are part of a public transportation system.
 * Commuter rails are now metros so long as they have their own ROW and separated from road and people.
 * If all of the above is true, then we will have Wikilawyers claiming Shinkansen, Eurostar, Amtrak, people movers in theme parks or airports or just about any rail service now as metros so long as they have their own ROW and separated from road and people and serve the local/urban/suburban area (the definition of what is urban or local, unfortunately is not made clear by UITP.)
 * Again, I have simply re-listed BsBsBs' new rules that may be potentially controversial, not that I proposed any of this. I would appreciate agreements and criticisms as necessary. Stay objective and neutral as always, gents. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The loss of the original UITP "What is a Metro?" reference is a big blow - that reference was "live" as of just a couple of weeks ago, and was really instrumental in laying out what a Metro was. That reference, in fact, dealt with most of BsBsBs's concerns.
 * If that reference really is gone for good, then as Massypasser says, we're going to have to rely more on UrbanRail, APTA, and the U.S. DOT references.
 * In any case, I believe the changes BsBsBs wants to make will not have consensus support as they seem to be a radical step away from what we have been trying to do with this list for years - he basically wants this to be a broader list of "Rapid transit" systems, and that is not what this list is trying to do at all... --IJBall (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall, I can see good faith thinking inside BsBsBs for the most part but I do have concerns. He's trying to move away from American-centric rules and terms, and move this article forward to an internationally-agreed definition, which is of course the correct way to go. So there's nothing wrong with using UITP's definition, but the 2011 document he showed us is intended for "the European Standardisation Bodies in order to develop standards for voluntary use." So the standards are for the Europeans, excluding Americans or Asians. And the standards haven't been developed yet, and even if they are in the future, it's for voluntary use. So it's not really a holy bible that are going to be followed by all standardization bodies. Some can choose to opt out. We need an UITP definition that is intended for America, Europe, Asia and rest of world. Another concern is that the definition is somewhat too loose and non-specific- Wikilawyers will take advantage of that and try to fit in anything that fits the 2011 UITP's definition, even intercity rail or people movers. And the 2011 document says that a metro should be intended to serve local/urban/suburban areas, for which no definition is given. How would you define airport or theme parks? This creates room for original research. So in my opinion, there are some flaws with the 2011 document that BsBsBs showed us. On a separate note, however, I do agree with BsBsBs that track sharing with other traffic is no longer a criteria for disqualifying a metro in the latest 2011 document. The reason for this is that they specifically mention "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic." So only roads and people, not other rail traffic. APTA and USDT add weight to this consensus by saying the exact same thing" "Separate rights-of-way (ROW) from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded" - Again, no rail traffic mentioned anywhere here. The high frequency of service criteria appears to be dead as well. So the S-Bahn may not be so problematic afterall. I agree with IJBall that we also need to look into APTA and USDT because we don't have an international association of commuter rails and their definition is the most authoritative that we have currently, even if they are from the United States. You need to take the best sources we have to give a weighted consensus. Specific station to station fares are the very characteristic of a commuter rail that distinguishes it from metros according to APTA and USDT, and you can't use a transport card like Suica to hide the truth of specific station to station fares going on in reality by the calculation system. South Korea has this kind of card as well, which can be used to pay for anything from chewing gums to intercity trains. That doesn't make their fare systems the same. Massyparcer (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OR in hyperdrive. BsBsBs (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you need to learn, as we have seen from your 2011 document above, is that no source is perfect. Every one of them has flaws. That's why IJBall mentioned the other sources to give a more weighted consensus. What you have shown us says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. " Yes, commuter rails are explicitly defined by USDT and APTA. So you can't use UITP to claim they don't exist. So, please don't try to portray Wikipedia rules in the way you may have interpreted it. Massyparcer (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask: Doesn't the principle "Urban Guided Transport systems operated on their own right of way" exclude sharing track with inter-city rail traffic? So far there has actually not been much discussion, only a lot of text added by the two supporters of their new definition.--BIL (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask the same question. I would definitely interpret it that way. Seems like the UITP hasn't changed their definition at all, and BsBsBs has in good faith misread the sources. Isolated systems (separate from other freight and inter-city passenger rail) has long been one of the main characteristics of heavy rail/metro/rapit transit is every definition I've ever read, so that's why I was so skeptical of the claims that the UITP had redefined it. 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more precise what I mean: UGT/Urban Guided Transport means passenger trains going within urban areas. And these trains shall go on their own right of way. "Own right of way" should mean related to other trains. BsBsBs has tried to claim that "own right of way" means compared to road traffic and pedestrians, and that "own right of way" allows sharing with inter-city traffic. But I want to interpret the text "Urban Guided Transport systems operated on their own right of way" as "Urban trains going on their own track". --BIL (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly how I'd interpret it, too. In fact, when one looks at the definition in light of the previous definition from the same group, and in light of the definitions from other agencies (which are no less important), then it is really the only accurate way to interpret an unclear phrase used by the UITP. And that they would use such an unclear phrasing is exactly why no single source or agency should be held as a "universal definition", which I have never advocated.oknazevad (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Found a new UITP reference which looks to me to be a lot clearer than the one BsBsBs came up: Quoting: "The birth of the metro, by which we mean an electrically powered train operating on reserved tracks [emphasis mine] in urban areas, dates to 1890, the year which we saw the saw the official opening of the first underground line in London. Since then, some 120 conurbinations in Europe, Asia and America have joined the ranks of cities with their own metro systems." This reference is a little dated, from 2003, but it's better than (or, at least, supplements) the article's current UITP referenced definition. Another problem, though, is that this new reference dates the opening of the London Underground a little differently than this list does, which is actually a separate issue that should probably be discussed further (I believe the first 1863 London Underground line used steam-engine trains which, by definition, isn't "metro"...). But, in any case, I suggest we integrate this new UITP reference into the article's introduction... --IJBall (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Any one of the UITP references supports the same conclusion if read correctly, so go ahead and throw it in. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, will plan on doing that. But I think the 'Considerations' section needs another "go through" now, so I'm going to want to sit on any more changes until I can give some time and thought to how that write-up should be put together now (e.g. which will include going back and looking at what was written before the recent "edit wars" drastically changed it...). But we've at least got some new and better references to work with now... --IJBall (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any provision under UITP's definitions to accommodate situations like Chicago L's level crossings? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really - the "metro" definitions tend to use terminology like "grade-separated", but "grade-separated" itself is not further defined (probably by design, to avoid being "too specific"...). --IJBall (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

System versus operator
The legend currently provides that number of stations in a network is defined as 'as quoted by the system's operating company'. But some systems are operated by more than one company, e.g. Singapore, Shenzhen, Seoul, Beijing (and of course some companies operate more than one systems). Should the legend be amended as 'company/ies' to reflect this? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe metro systems should be listed by operators as a metro system can have multiple operators but is part of the same system. If we list by operators, this list becomes more of a metro system operator list instead of a list of metro systems. In cases where the same line is shared by multiple operators, how are we going to list that? There are also operators that operate metro systems in other cities, so we will have to recompile this list if we are going to make the change to metro operating companies instead of systems. There needs to be a consensus on this. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There already is, and it's to list by operator. --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, change whatever needs to be changed. Cite the new entries, though. --Unown Uzer717 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Where's that list? Do you mean the list of railway companies? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid u might have misunderstood. My suggestion was to amend the sentence 'as quoted by the system's operating company', under the #Legend section of the article, as 'as quoted by the system's operating company/ies'. I didn't propose to change how this list is currently structured by system. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Can a monorail be a metro?
What's the definition of metro? Is it a must for the trains of a metro to be running on conventional tracks? Should the definition be technology-neutral? What about a monorail system with multi-car trains, platform gates, and short headways? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a List of monorail systems. Previous discussions have agreed to leave them out based on the technological differences, as they're radically different in many ways, not just the single rail, but in other engineering aspects, including especially capacity constraints; no monorail system has the throughput of a conventional metro. oknazevad (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the Okinawa Monorail or the Tokyo Monorail, for instance? They probably perform better in terms of passengers throughput than some lesser-used conventional metro lines. And the latter got trains in five-car configuration. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Monorails may be metro in terms of ridership, but they can't easily switch tracks like conventional metro trains do, which limits the number of trains per hour that monorails can operate (unless there are turning loops at each terminal station). Also, monorails are isolated from their respective national railway systems, whereas most conventional metros aren't. Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily turning loops. Say, near Naha-kūkō Station there are crossover tracks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, the tracks temporarily merge into one track for the duration of the crossover, which makes the setup inefficient. Whereas at most other crossovers, the tracks are still two tracks throughout the entire crossover. It may take just a few seconds to flip the crossovers on metro systems, but it takes a little longer on the monorails (from what I have seen, probably up to 30 seconds in some cases).Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 30 seconds is sufficient enough even for conventional metro systems. Is it common for metro lines to have headways as short as or shorter than 30 seconds? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 30 seconds to flip the switches, or 30 seconds between trains? I was talking about the former, as monorails would be delayed 30 seconds to flip the switches. Conventional metros may have as little as 60-second headways. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But there are some metro lines with rather long headways.. that the 30-second delay isn't a problem. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Monorail systems such as Tokyo and Chongqing's are capable of achieving over 30,000 pphpd with puts it in the metro range.Terramorphous (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point. 30,000 pphpd is already well within the range of some metro lines.., not just medium capacity metros. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then monorails can definitely be included, since some metros on this list apparently have only 400 pphpd (like Fortaleza Metro and Catania Metro). But what about recreational monorails like Walt Disney World Monorail System and the ones at Hersheypark and Dutch Wonderland? These probably aren't metros... Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 400 pphpd? Are they financially viable? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about suspended railways (including suspended monorails)? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference? Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two points here: 1) I agree that we should not include monorails here for the simple reason that there is already a separate List of monorail systems and double-listing them would be redundant. 2) I've only been saying for months that Fortaleza Metro and Catania Metro, among others, should not be included in this list: they are "Light metros" and should instead be moved over to the Medium-capacity rail transport system [such a terrible title!!] list. I'd love it if we could get consensus on the second point, as a number of systems currently included in this list do not generate the passenger volumes necessary to qualify for inclusion in this list, whether they call themselves "metros" or not, and should be booted. --IJBall (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On your point (1), if we're going to classify according to technology instead of practical usage, we'd perhaps have separate lists for AC and DC systems, or separate lists for overhead wire and third rail systems. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope - reference definitions for "metros" only mention "electrification" (not current-type, or overhead vs. third-rail delivery) - so no need to specify further on that score... --IJBall (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither is there any definition on trackage matters.. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On your point (2), What about feeder lines that use the same trains with fewer cars than the main lines (e.g., New Beitou Branch Line, Disneyland Resort Line, Xiaobitan Branch Line, or, to some certain extent, the Ma On Shan Line)? Are they medium capacity rail transport system that ought to be moved to a separate list? And what about the Muzha Line, which uses different trains but is integrated to the whole network? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the current consensus is to (generally) include them. I'd like to remove all "Light Metros" from this list, but there's no consensus for this position currently. --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where to draw the line between light and medium, and medium and heavy? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The number that's generally quoted for "metro" passenger volume is 30,000 PPHPD (or higher). Light rail doesn't have a "set" number associated with it, but seems to fall in the 7,000-18,000 (or 20,000) PPHPD passenger volume. Thus, I'd say the best definition for "Light Metro" (or medium-capacity) is a full-grade separated system with reserved trackage with passenger volumes of below, say, 20,000 PPHPD (or possibly in the 10,000-25,000 PPHPD range), but there's no reference currently that specifies this so it's possible that "Light Metros" would have to defined as anything with less than 30,000 PPHPD. --IJBall (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We won't be able to move light metros around if we can't find sources stating that those systems are light metros and not metros or provide the passenger volume. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or shuttle trains. Are they considered "medium capacity"? Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, you're really getting into the weeds by the time you're getting to shuttle lines!... I think my primary concern on this topic, right now, is whether "medium-capacity" systems should get bounced from the list, rather than worrying about "medium-capacity" lines within a larger metro system. The issue to me really is: should Catania Metro, and similar systems, still be included in this list? I don't know how many cars Catania trains run with, but with 15-minute headways even with 6-car trains (and I doubt Catania runs anywhere near that many cars per train), there's simply no way that Catania (and other similar systems) can get anywhere near 30,000 PPDPH passenger volumes, and so they should be cut. (IMHO.) --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so... the headways, the ridership, and the single tracking, all together, disqualify Catania Metro from being a real metro. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. FTR, I am not planning on making any changes along these lines to this list until we get a chance to rework the "Considerations" section again, and I don't plan on attempting that and running it by the Talk page first until at least May... --IJBall (talk)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/tehranmetro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/seoul-metro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/hanoi-metro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vietnammetro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone know how to 'whitelist' Railway-Technology? I really don't think it's a "spam" site, and it looks like it's only listed on the MediaWiki 'blacklist' anyway... --IJBall (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Make a request on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Apparently it was made in this edit by User:Beetstra, as part of a batch blacklisting of URLS added by sockpuppets. Epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And this thread is explaining why. Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, gave that a shot, though based on the long-winded discussion downpage, I'm not very hopeful. I don't really understand the specific issue involved here, but it seems like there will be resistance to getting the site 'whitelisted'. I hope someone can explain why that is at some point... --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, just deleting the refs was the path of least resistance here - they weren't being used for anything vital anyway. --IJBall (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What do we do now?
Many of the edits on this talk page are from the socks of a banned user, whose user page states:"Wikipedia's banning policy states that any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted. By banning an editor, the community has decided that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason."

So, should they be reverted? These edits almost definitely fall under that category. Of course, there's this very slim possibility that it isn't him...

--Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Mattximus already reverted the Hong Kong/Instantnood related stuff (and I will do the same over at List of tram and light rail transit systems soon). (As an aside, I really think we should put the Puerto Rico flag back in for San Juan, but that is a really, really special case...) On the Massyparcer stuff, we are working through a solution on that (I just need some time to go back and "finish" it off... maybe next week - also, I was waiting for RickinAsia to get back to me on a question, but I'm starting to think that's not going to happen anytime soon). On reworking the "Considerations" section, and discussing whether to "cut" the "Light Metros" from the list - that probably's not happening any time before summer... --IJBall (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IZBAN (Izmir, Turkey)
Old (actually historic) commuter line in the city is modernized and converted to a metro system according to UITP's definitions. It became very similar to the S-Bahns of German cities and S-Tog of Copenhagen. So, it should be listed here. Moreover it has won UITP's one of the Grow with Public Transport 2013 Awards. Here is the subject of the award:

'''Best Collaboration

IZBAN Izmir (Izmir, Turkey) – for the project ’IZBAN Collobration between Central Goverment and Local Municipality to upgrade 80 km suburban railway line into metro system‘''

Directly taken from UITP and can be found here: http://growpublictransport.org/awards/2013-edition/regional-awards/

More evidences and supporting ideas can be provided, however this should be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.184.206 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two or three issues to resolve with this system in my mind, in order to qualify it for inclusion:
 * The first is that the system currently has 3 at-grade crossings, which is a metro no-no - but that, in and of itself, is probably not enough to disqualify it.
 * The İZBAN article says nothing about headway or train length. So, question - what is the passenger volume capacity for this system? 10,000 PPHPD? 20,000? 30,000?
 * Lastly (and to my mind most importantly) - does this system share track with any other passenger or freight rail? If the answer is "Yes", then it doesn't qualify, regardless of the answers to the first two questions.
 * But without answers to all of these questions, I would advise against including it. IOW, we need more information. --IJBall (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All questions, of course, will be welcomed.


 * 1. By the time of writing, no at-grade crossings exist. All 50 crossings of the old system were closed.


 * In Turkish, but Google Translate may help (pages 293 and 300): https://www.izmir.bel.tr/YuklenenDosyalar/Dokumanlar/24.12.2013%2014_48_09_Banliy%C3%B6%20ve%20Rayl%C4%B1%20Sistem%20Yat%C4%B1r%C4%B1mlar%C4%B1ndan%20Sorumlu%20Daire%20Ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1.pdf


 * 2. Capacity as PPHPD is now 13.500 and still increasing with arrival of new trains nowadays. Calculated by 2250 CAP * 6 VPH as shown here: https://www.advancedtransit.net/atrawiki/index.php?title=Passengers_Per_Hour_Per_Direction Additionally, annual passanger count has passed 60 million. Again in Turkish but Translator works okay: http://www.haberler.com/izban-da-yolcu-sayisi-yuzde-20-artti-5491298-haberi/ Lastly, planned maximum capacity is 30.000 PPHPD for the end of 2015.


 * 3. Since deployment of the 3rd rail track was done in 2013, conventional trains and IZBAN don't share tracks, only exceptions are 4 underground stations of 32 total stations, which makes around 5 kms of 80 kms total length. And freight trains are even not allowed to operate during IZBAN's hours of operation. They only work on night shift, when IZBAN is not on duty. Operational procedures of IZBAN is very similar to the S-Bahns' described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn#Classification And even the name of IZBAN is derived after S-Bahn, they pronounced very similar. The paragraph below is directly taken from Hamburg S-Bahn (which exists in this list) Wikipedia page and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_S-Bahn#Lines


 * The network covers about 147 kilometres (91 mi), and serves 68 stations.[1][2] It consists of two trunk routes crossing the city in an east-west direction – the northern Hamburg-Altona link line and the southern City S-Bahn – and six connecting routes[1][2] (two in the western part of the city and four in the eastern part). The trunk routes connect at Altona and Hauptbahnhof. 113.2 km are separated from other rail services, 31.9 km are shared with regional and cargo traffic. About 12.5 km is in tunnel, 7.9 km are single track.


 * 4. This wasn't a question but I wanted to add; The system is totally integrated with the other public transportation systems in the city, namely, other metro line, ferries and buses. Same tickets and smart cards are used in all public transport systems and even free transfers are possible between systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.184.206 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, good. I'd like to see comments from other editors, but on my end I'd say keep it out for now, until the passenger volumes get over 20,000 PPHPD (which I bet it will achieve in the next 1-2 years) - when that happens, it sounds like it'll be a true "metro".
 * On the Hamburg S-Bahn thing - I've never seen that before, and I find it disturbing: in light of that, I'm wondering why the Hamburg S-Bahn was ever allowed on to the list, if it shares a full 32 km with other rail... --IJBall (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur's Rapid Rail
Should Kuala Lumpur's Rapid Rail system be listed here? The operator repeatedly refers to the system as "light rail transit". Further, the existence of this, which seems to be an attempt to build a "true" 'heavy rail' system for Kuala Lumpur, would seem to further point in the direction of KL's Rapid Rail not qualifying as a true "heavy rail" system. At best, it would seem to be a "light metro".

This is one of the currently "double-listed" systems - currently, it's actually triple-listed(!) here, at the Medium-capacity rail transport system page, and also at the List of tram and light rail transit systems - so, it needs to be cut from either here, or from the List of tram and light rail transit systems. From what I can gather, it should be cut from here.

Any objections or comments, before I proceed?... --IJBall (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Changsha Metro
Chinese city Changsha began service operation of its first rapid transit system on April 29, 2014 after serveral months trial running. The newly opened Changsha metro line 2 has a total length of 22.26km with 19 stations, and the entire metro line is underground. The metro line 1 is still under construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.86.193.1 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by this. Will commence move between article tables in short order... --IJBall (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --IJBall (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional Metro systems in Mexico
The cities of Monterrey and Guadalajara in Mexico have metro systems that are not in the list. Aescobar100 (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because both systems are considered to be light rail - both are included in the various light rail Wiki lists. --IJBall (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

S-Bahn
Is S-Bahn (Berlin & Hamburg) seriously a metro system? If we include S-Bahn I think we should also include similarly functioning systems, like Liverpool Merseyrail, which is considered to function in a similar way like the S-Bahn systems. Regards Ransewiki (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The key distinctions between those "S-Bahn" type systems included here, and those excluded, is basically, 1) the degree of grade separation, 2) whether the system shares track with other rail (e.g. freight, or other commuter rail), and 3) frequency of service (e.g. let's say better than 15-minute headways at peak hours). The systems included here are pretty much entirely separated from any road crossings, don't share track with other rail, and have high frequencies and headways. The systems not included here essentially fail at least one of the above criteria, or possibly two, or sometimes all three. --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ningbo metro system
The first metro line in Chinese city of Ningbo opened to public service on May 30, 2014. The phase one project of Ningbo metro line one has a total length of 20.88KM with 20 stations, among which 15 are underground and 5 elevated. 116.246.26.28 19:51, May 29, 2014‎
 * I can't find a reference confirming this after a quick internet search. If a reference isn't produced soon, this system may get moved back to the "under construction" section until its opening can be confirmed... --IJBall (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The official web site of Ningbo Rapid Transit Company has announced the inauguration of its first metro line at http://www.nbmetro.com/news_dt.php?info/864 on May 30, 2014 when the metro line began its revenue service. According to Chinese regulation, after the completion of the construction work of a metro line (and railway in general), it must undergo several test phases before it can be officially declared as normal operational, and the last two phases before normal operation are "trial running" (试运行) and "trail operation" (试运营). When a metro line is in trail running phase, the entire metro system will be running on regular time schedule as revenue service, only the train is empty (without public traffic), while in trial operation phase, the service is fully open to public traffic. Normally, the trial running phase will last at least three months, and trial operation phase at least one year.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.237.0.119 (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, found a Chinese-language reference from the Ningbo Rail Transit article: But I can't tell from this whether this is the opening of "revenue service" or just "trial operations"... Hopefully somebody that can read Chinese can help here. --IJBall (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm... the link is to a 2010 article about the construction of line 2. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked another link: http://news.cnnb.com.cn/system/2014/05/30/008075589.shtml, and it says it is a trial service "试运营". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unown Uzer717 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the URL I meant to use. Thanks! (Just fixed that at Ningbo Rail Transit as well...) --IJBall (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed "metropolitan area" designation
As that is redundant (otherwise you have to rename many more cities as "metropolitan area" since the endes of some of their lines also go beyond the official municipal border. —Loginnigol (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Metro systems around the world
This link might be useful in further discussions or as a source: http://www.uitp.org/metros-keeping-pace-21st-century-cities Kildor (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a very useful UITP reference (how I wish they hadn't reorganized their website!!). I'll will look to use this when I re-edit this page's intro soon. Thanks, Kildor! --IJBall (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm this seems like a reputable source! Can we use this list to determine whether a system is a metro or not? This is an institution with professionals deciding what qualifies as a metro system. I trust that over random people from wikipedia arguing in the talk pages! Any opposition to using this as our master list (plus any that have opened since then). What are some negatives to proceeding this way? Mattximus (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone post a synopsis of the differences between the UITP list and this list here?... I should mention that once I finish the referencing project, my next project is to rewrite (again!) the 'Considerations' section (which is when I was planning to take a much closer look at the above UITP reference...). It's at that point that I'd really like to resolve the "full metro" vs. "light metro" issue, and determine which systems are which, once and for all. In general, though, I'm not sure we can consider UITP to be "definitive" (for one thing, they seem to have financial interests in this game...), when there are others, such as APTA and LRTA out there as well. --IJBall (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does APTA or LRTA make a list of all world metro systems? We should decide on a source that can be used to list metro systems, otherwise what we are doing now is original research. Worse, it's all willy nilly and fairly random. I think for this page to be encyclopaedic we need a reference that lists metro systems, and that will be the list. No exceptions. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * LRTA does have a list of world metro (and tram) systems, yes. (APTA is only useful in North America unfortunately, though I still wonder if there are APTA equivalents in Europe and Asia that we just don't know about...). In any case, I think this UITP reference is a good starting point, though the fact that it includes the Palma Metro immediate calls its credibility as a "definitive reference" into question in my mind (just look at the details of the Palma Metro some time, to see what I am getting at...), as does its inclusion of Metrovalencia and Valencia Metro (Venezuela), though I do notice that it doesn't include the Catania Metro which is an encouraging sign... So, useful to us? Definitely, yes. But appropriate to be this article's "primary" reference?... I'm not sold on that, myself. --IJBall (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sydney North West Rail Link
I don't believe Sydney North West Rail Link in Metro Systems Under Construction is a metro system. Any objections to removing it? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked one of our Aussie editors about this. He said this project has gone through several different iterations over the years (i.e. some as "metro", some not). IMO, removing it is OK, until it is definitely shown that it'll operate as a "metro" (e.g. that it won't share track with other commuter rail lines...). --IJBall (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest city train systems
Should there be an article created which covers both underground and above ground city train systems ? .@Photnart. (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Do you mean a list of "commuter rail" (aka. "suburban rail" or "local rail") systems around the world? - Maybe, yeah; it wouldn't be easy to put together, but it would be a worthy topic, IMO. But if you mean a list of Metro+Commuter rail systems by metropolitan area, then I personally think it's a bad idea, as such systems are usually operated (and often owned) by different companies, and putting together such a list would probably lead to massive WP:SYNTH issues (see, also, for example: Total rapid transit systems statistics by country, an article I'm going to nominate for deletion some time this summer, for those very same WP:SYNTH reasons)... --IJBall (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, 'list of "commuter rail" systems around the world' is good enough, thank you. -.@Photnart. (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Note: It turns out, this already exists: List of suburban and commuter rail systems... Just so you know. --IJBall (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Monterrey Metro (Metrorrey)
I noticed that the Monterrey Metro (aka. Metrorrey) is listed in with the 'world metro systems (map)' in Kildor's new UITP metro reference (though, I'll note, however, that Guadalajara's system was not included as well – just Monterrey, and Mexico City)...

Can anyone make a good case why the Monterrey Metro shouldn't be included in the metros list?! It is described in its own Wiki article as "fully-grade separated". It operates up to 4-car trainsets (according to its Spanish Wiki article). And it carries an average of over 475,000 passengers a day (translating into over 175 million passengers per year).

I've essentially been keeping it out of this list by "tradition" (and historical "consensus"). But I've been wondering for a while if it should be included here, and now we've got a reference that's characterizing it as a "metro" system.

So, any objections to adding the Monterrey Metro (aka. Metrorrey) to the metro list? --IJBall (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you think it could go to List of Premetro systems instead? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think so – based on the evidence I am seeing, Metrorrey effectively operates as a "full metro" (i.e. it's a fully grade-separated (though I'd like to see another reference – besides UrbanRail.net – confirming this aspect...) electrified system with relatively high passenger service volumes). Somebody at UITP obviously thinks so too. (Note that UrbanRail.net also considers it a metro, whereas LRTA.org considers it "light rail".) It might be a "light metro", but the ridership volumes that Metrorrey reports carrying actually suggest that it's a full metro system. If the entire system is indeed fully grade-separated, I'd advocate listing it here. --IJBall (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: If no objections are proffered here (and none have been so far...), I'll be adding the Monterrey Metro to this article's table soon. I just have to do some "clean up" at Light rail in North America and List of North American light rail systems by ridership first... --IJBall (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Monterrey Metro added to the list. --IJBall (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wuxi Metro open to public
The first metro line in Chinese city Wuxi opens to public service on July 1, 2014. The newly opened metro line 1 has a total length of 29.42KM with 24 stations, among them, 19 are underground, the rest 5 are elevated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.246.26.28 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi-confirmed by this, though it doesn't give an exact opening date, and the stats vary somewhat from what is given above. I'll try to look around for a better reference, so that I can move it to the main list later today... --IJBall (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)