Talk:Rapid transit/Archive 3

WP:RM suggestion
I am just thinking, maybe a separate archive page should be created for all move suggestions and place them there. Simply south (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as they mentioned the timeline of discussions. I've added a circle template above. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the circle template is not appropriate. We should not discourage discussions here. But it might be useful to separate the name discussions. I suggest that we move the Talk:Rapid transit/January 2008 Requested Move (long) to Talk:Rapid transit/Article name instead, and move other article name related discussions there. -- Kildor (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not discourage debate, it points out that the same debate has occured periodically without reaching a conclusion, and hence it would be wise to check these previous discussions before starting new ones. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 22, it is clear that I am not alone with my concerns. If we move the article name discussion to its own page, there will be no problem to discuss other things on this page. And I really don't see the need for the Round In Circles template - there hase been no discussion at all since the move requst was closed. -- Kildor (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not against consolidation of the moves into a separate archive, read my above response. The tag is correct as the talk page stands now, tfd discussions that did not delete the template are irrelevant. The tag refers to all the similar discussions in the archive, please feel free to start new discussions, after thinking about what the template says. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do! But there is clearly no consensus on that the tag should be used at all. It might be useful on pages that see a lot of repeated arguments over and over again. But this is not the case here. The subject has not been discussed at all since the closing of the request move. -- Kildor (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last time, the tag refers to the archives. And it's proposed deletion is not a deletion, the tag exists and is therefore acceptable for use. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag exists because there was no clear consensus for deleting it. And that does not mean that the tag is acceptable for use everywhere. There is clearly no use for it here! -- Kildor (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to an Rfc then if you think it's placement is incorrect, so we can stop going round in circles on the issue of the going round in circles tag, and actually use this page as intended, discussion about the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now moved the talk page to Talk:Rapid transit/Article name. And removed the circle tag since it is not needed. -- Kildor (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. Do not edit war over something so WP:LAME, if necessary, seek a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So why did you revert my edit, if yoy think it is a lame issue? Not much is discussed on these pages, and the tag is not needed (maybe except for us two to think about :) -- Kildor (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added in the others from the other archives now (although not quite in order of date, will sort out later). Simply south (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubber-tyred metro
The lead and definition of rapid transit has been extended to specifically include Rubber-tyred metro. I wonder if it is really necessary - does the text "rail-based transportation system" exclude rubber-tyred metros? -- Kildor (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not by any definition I’ve ever heard. For purposes of classification — let alone actual travel — a rubber-tyred metro is only a minor variation on a steel-wheeled one, and in many cases both technologies are combined in one network. David Arthur (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the statement "rail-based transportation system" can include rubber tyred trams if the rail based aspect only applies to guidance and not traction. MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrase "rail-based transportation system used within urban areas to transport people" can certainly include any light rail system. But the more specific definition takes care of that problem. -- Kildor (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the part about ‘grade separation from other traffic’, which non-metro railways usually do not have, and trams lack more or less by definition. David Arthur (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the potential for confusion for uninitated readers was quite obvious, relying on 'grade separation' to differentiate the two only seems to suppport that, but Kildor is obsessed with this article so I can't be bothered, if they don't understand it straight away neither he or I give a rats ass, goddam noobs. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee... thanks! But to make my point a little bit clearer: Since the definition, as it is written now, does not exclude rubber-tyred metro, it is not necessary to specifically include that in the very defining sentence (for no other reason that it is not included in the dictionary entry being quoted). In the same way we should not need to include the words overhead wire in that first sentence. But these two things could perhaps be worth mentioning in the paragraph dealing with elevated vs underground mode... Would that do the trick? -- Kildor (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Related move
I'm not sure on a title. Anyway, i have proposed to move Rapid transit in the United Kingdom to Metro systems in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisson of urban rail provision compared to population
This is a reply based on my good faith revert on the section "Comparisson of urban rail provision compared to population" and the accompanying table, added by User:Mapmark. This article is a comprehensive article on rapid transit; though there may be room for additions in several fields, it is written in summary style with multiple subarticles, among others history of rapid transit and list of rapid transit systems. The table in question comprehends a very limited aspect of rapid transit, and provides no value to the general topic of rapid transit. Because of the number of rapid transit systems, it has been chosen to include them all in a separate list-article, instead of in this article. The grand total is currently about 160, with additional 25 under construction. This article is a good article, and for it to remain this way, all new content must adhere to the criteria, which requires the article to be focused, and not stray out of the core.

As for the list in itself, I also fear that it is rather biased, since it does not include all systems, nor even a fair and unbiased portion, but instead only European and North American systems. Further, it contains only a limited number of the statistics in the main list of systems, and does not allow the inclusion of multiple systems in cities which have two or more. There are several systems that do not qualify to be rapid transit, such as the Hanover Stadtbahn and Manchester Metrolink, included. Also, if the numbers are from the indicated source, it is copyright violation, and can therefore not be included on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk)  18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arsenikk, except for the part about copyright. It cannot be a copyright violation to quote numbers from a published book. Nevertheless, there is no room for such a list in this article. Even if the list was a selection of rapid transit systems (and other type of systems as well!), the list will undoubtly grow until every system has been added. --Kildor (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for both your considered and clear replies, however I was simply trying to make a comparision between large urban areas with a rapid transit system and those with little or none. This is certainly a valid topic however I fully accept that this may not be the place for that kind of artcile so perhaps either of you or anyone elsle for that matter could point me in the right direction of a suitable home for such an article, if at all on Wikipedia? I would however slightly disagree with you on your interpretation of what is or is not a "rapid transit system" but that is a much wider discussion which more properly belongs elsewhere. Many thanks mapmark 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea to somehow compare urban area and extention of the rapid transit systems is a valid area of interest. If not too long—and at the same time referenced—could go into the article (for instance under "impact"). The list just became too excessive, but a single paragraph is probably excepted. But at the same time it would have to say something general, and not just that some large cities have the system and others don't. I would recommend looking into transport planning and urban planning; perhaps there is a subarticle there that would cover the topic. Concerning the definition of rapid transit, there are quite strict "critera" for what is considered rapid transit, and any system that runs in the city streets (even if only in part) is either a premetro or a light rail. Arsenikk (talk)  13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Using Cervero versus Ovenden.
I found it odd that the entry states that the only "major" metro system in North America is New York's (see Impact section, second paragraph).

Ovenden's book describes metro systens in 6 tiers, depending on the oldest metro systems with the most significant historical material in the first tiers (or "zone" to be similar to a London tube map), and newer or more recent adaptations in the later zones.

Zone 1 includes: Berlin, Chicago, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, Paris and Tokyo.

Zone 2 includes: Barcelona, Boston, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Lisbon, Mexico City, Montreal, Munich, Osaka, San Francisco, Seoul, St. Petersburg, and Washington DC.

Zone 3 includes: Amsterdam, Athens, Beijing, Bilbao, Brussels, Bucharest, Copenhagen, Delhi, Glasgow, Kiev, Kuala Lampur, Los Angeles, Lyon, Nagoya, Newcastle, Oslo, Philadelphia, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Rotterdam, São Paulo, Singapore, Stockholm, Taipei, Toronto, Valenica and Vienna.

Zone 4 includes: Atlanta, Baltimore, Bangkok, Cairo, Guangzhou, Kharkiv, Lille, Marseilles, Milan, Naples, Newark, Nizhny Novgorod, Recife, Santiago, Shanghai and Warsaw.

Zone 5 includes: Bonn/Cologne, Cleveland, Dublin, Frankfurt, Hanover, Jacksonville, Liverpool, Manchester, Melbourne, Miami, Nuremburg, Pittsburgh, Porto, Rhine Ruhr, Stuttgart, Sydney, Tunis amd Zurich.

Zone 6 includess a list of more urban metro systems that are very recent, or under construction.

Now, I can see how this list might seem too long, so the impulse would be to pick from the list in an unbiased way. Using Zones 1 and 2 for example would include the oldest, more established systems by historical precedent. This entry however seems to want to use Cervero, in order to choose metro systems by USE. That would be fine, but Cervero's book states it differently than it is stated here.

Cervero [The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry] states on page 20, "Today, worldwide there are some eighty metro systems, including twenty-seven in Europe, seventeen in Asia, seventeen in the former Soviet Union, twelve in North America, seven in Latin America and one in Africa... On a riders per track kilometer basis, the worlds most intensively used metros are, in order: São Paulo, Moscow, Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Osaka, Hong Kong and Mexico City. Most Western European, Canadian, and US metros have one third to one quarter the passenger throughput per track kilometer of these cities, in large part because more of their residents own cars and the cost of driving is relatively low."

Cervero's book has selected case studies from a list of many possible choices, for research purposes, but he does not state on page 20 that New York's metro system is the only "matching" system of the ones listed. Many residents in Boston, Montreal, Chicago, San Francisco for example, get by largely or completely by rapid transit. Similarly, São Paulo and Mexico City are ignored, although they feature prominently in the list cited, in Cervero.

If Ovenden's lists (zone 1 and 2, or zones 1-5) are too long, then perhaps, Cervero's list, per ridership basis, should be used (São Paulo, Moscow, Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Osaka, Hong Kong and Mexico City) but as is, the list seems to select some and not others on an ad hoc basis, not ezplained by the sources as they are referenced here...


 * Take a look at Metro systems by annual passenger rides and List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership. While New York is in fourth place, no other US cities make the top-21. Also, please note that it states: "In North America the only city matching these is New York." This refers to naming the top-ridership systems, and noting that they are all in Asia and Europe, except New York. No. 2 in the US (and four in North America), Washington, had about a seventh of New York's ridership. In system length, Chicago's L is only a fifth of New York. Even taken New York's size into consideration, it is reasonable to claim New York is in an outstanding position in the US.
 * The problem with Ovenden's book is that it is a book on metro maps, and the zone system is completely unscientific. The top list consists of some of the most famous and extensive networks, not necessarily the ones with the most ridership. Concerning Cervero, I find "ridership per km track" a very strange measure of "size". This would penalize systems with well built-out, extensive networks (such as Paris, Vienna and Oslo), and systems with high sprawl (typical for North America). Arsenikk  (talk)  22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Metro systems by annual passenger rides, Mexico City is fifth, and Mexico city is in fact, in North America... At the very least, this paragraph is conflating North America with US, and that in itself is problematic. Either Mexico city should be included, or "North America" should be changed to read "the United States."

Similarly, Berlin, New Delhi, Taipei and Barcelona are included in the entry, (purportedly because of large ridership statistics) but none of these systems are included in top 21 metro systems ranked in order of ridership!

Wikipedia is not supposed to feature original research or non sourced opinions! The following cities are selected in this entry: Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Barcelona, Moscow, Hong Kong, Singapore, Osaka, Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo, New Delhi, and New York. This list is not found, in Cervero, in Ovenden, or in Metro systems by annual passenger rides. Why not just list the top cities according to the list referenced (aka, Tokyo, Moscow, Seoul, New York, Mexico City, Paris, Hong Kong, Beijing, London)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.87.114 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Choice of images
Please stop adding File:Foldalatti Andrassy.png to the article. The images have been selected based on their quality and their ability to portray variation between different rapid transit systems. Some images are featured, while most are quality images. Note that the image in question is of low quality (compared to the other images) and does not add much, if anything, to the article, since there are already images representing history, side views of cut-and-cover tunnels and station platforms. On the contrary, there is no other image representing the interior of a train, such as the image that has been removed. The most disturbing is the edit summary: "Helsinki metro is a very young metro in a little capital, and less important." The arguments presented are completely irrelevant, and clearly violate our policy on POV, and can at best be described as nationalism. There are way over a hundred rapid transit systems in the world, and most cannot be mentioned in the text, nor be pictured. File:Helsinki Metro train interior.jpg is an excellent shot of the interior of a rapid transit train, and the best that I have been able to locate on the Commons. Arsenikk (talk)  11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, My illiterate friend, you confuse nationalism with sovinism. You are from Norway, wich is close to Finland. Both of Norway or Finland (or Sweden) were poor backward countries before ww1 era. And the young metro represents and remind you of the bacwardness your country/region in pre WW1 era. I undersand your dolorous embarrassments. Please, don't avenge yourself on a picture. --Celebration1981 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Celebration1981, you are being needlessly abusive, please stop it. Arsenikk, I kinda liked that old station in Budapest, but you're right, the resolution is not high.  Further, I agree with you that an image of the interior of a rapid transit system would add to the article. As it stands right now, we have no image of the interior of a train, which is an oversight, i think. I've no problem with using Helsinki metro as an example of this. And if we use that Budapest image, it should probably be placed in the history section.  —fudoreaper (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Metro citation
First: I know from reading the archives that this article has been a focus for the ever-popular UK/US edit wars, involving much argument over the title of the article. Can I ask that such please not be rekindled here, just because of what I'm bringing up? The article title is irrelevant to this particular point. Note also that I'm really uninterested in arguing over what term is best/most/etc, or personal anecdotes to that effect. I'm interested solely in a particular citation. Please, please, for the sake of the wiki, can we avoid that quagmire? :)

Now: In the section Rapid transit, I saw the sentence "The term metro is the most common name for underground rapid transit systems ... although in English speaking countries the terms subway and underground are used more often. " I couldn't quite figure out what that meant. Did it mean that other languages also use the word "metro" for their subways? So I went to the cited source for the "metro" part, which is “Ström, 1998: 58”. I found the Google Books reference, and went there: Direct link to page 58.

I don't see anything on that page discussing the currency of any particular term. The author enumerates a number of usages, but doesn't say anything about what gets used more often. So unless I'm missing something (a distinct possibility), the citation fails verification. Hence, I've tagged it failed verification.

I don't have a remedy, but I wanted to explain in more detail than the edit summary allowed. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose the reference is from the following sentence of the book: "It is called Underground in Britain, Subway in the U.S., the U-Bahn in Germany, T-Bana (T for tunnel) in Sweden, and M, metro, or Metropolitan in other countries.", where "in other countries" perhaps can be seen as the term being more common than the other names mentioned. It is otherwise clear from the list of metro systems. I have added a new footnote - perhaps the reference to Ström should be removed. --Kildor (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot be used a source for Wikipedia articles. See WP:Reliable sources.  Drawing that conclusion ourselves is also prohibited.  See WP:No original research.  I'm removing the invalid self-reference cite and restoring the failed verification tag.  You can remove the cite and leave it unsourced, although it deserves citation needed then.  Better yet, find a source for the claim.  You obviously  believe "metro" is The Truth.  Maybe it is; I'm not interested in arguing that point, just verification.  A bad citation is something worse than an unsourced statement. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a simple conclusion from observing the list. And a similar list is available at World Metro Database. But you have certainly got a point, and I will add a better reference. --Kildor (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple observation it may be, it's still OR. The prohibition on OR exists because it's easy to draw different conclusions from the same source data; interpretation is always subjective.  The new source is much better, thank you.   — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rapid transit (metros) are grade seperated?
Regarding my edit that added the word "typically" to grade separated which was reverted. While "rapid transit" systems are mostly grade separated some do interact with other forms of transportation. For example the Chicago L (which is pictured in the article) has at grade level crossings on some lines and. Does this mean that the Chicago El is not a true rapid transit system? What about this crossing in Tokyo of a metro train? Hopefully some discussion can clear this up. Thanks. Tgv8925 (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources do say that it's always grade-separated, though you're right about that not necessarily being true. (If I'm understanding it correctly, the Tokyo one is only for a non-revenue spur to a yard, though.) Just one more reason we need solid definitions, whatever the name we choose. --NE2 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think the UITP has a good definition of metro:


 * Metro : Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service. Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube.

I have got a copy of Urban Transit - Systems and Technology by Vukan R Vuchic (2007), which have the following definitions (appendix III, p. 580):


 * Rapid transit : A generic class of electrically powered guided transit modes that operate exclusively on ROW category A and have high speed, capacity, reliability and safety. Includes RRT (rail rapid transit), RTRT (rubber-tired rapid transit), LRRT (light rail rapid transit), and most RGR (regional rail) systems.


 * Rail rapid transit : Electrically powered rail vehicles usually operating in 4- to 10-car trains on ROW category A. In many performance features - such as speed, capacity, reliability, safety and operating effiency - superior to all other transit modes. Also called heavy rail and metro.


 * ROW category A : Fully controlled ROW (right-of-way) without (or with fully protected) grade crossings or any legal access by other vehicles or persons; also called "grade-separated", "private", or "exclusive" ROW. It can be a tunnel, aerial or at grade level.

The latter definition seems to allow grade crossings. However, ROW category A is further explained in the book (p. 47) as "In exceptional cases, usually on regional rail systems in suburban areas, the ROW may have widely spaced grade crossings with full signal override and gate protection of the tracks and yet be considered as category A, since such crossings have practically no effect on line performance". --Kildor (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The means of traction, electric or diesel or whatever, is irrelevant. A passenger does not care about the type of propulsion. A surface urban rail network that is 100% at grade, separated, diesel and fast is still rapid-transit. Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the definitions of rapid transit and metro specifically say electric. --Kildor (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? Who defined that it must be electric? Whoever did was wrong. I reiterate, the means of traction do not matter. The title is "rapid-transit", not "rapid-electric-transit".  Some surface rapid-transit systems are diesel. they get around fast - rapid. A definition from above Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.  The article states: The first rapid transit system was the London Underground, which opened in 1863.  The traction was steam.  Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. But by modern terms and defintions (se UITP or Vuchic above), a metro or rapid transit system is electric. The APTA definition of rapid transit that you qoute is clearly something else since it also includes bus services. --Kildor (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your definition which is pretty well wrong. Again...rapid-transit has noting whatsoever to do with the type of traction. It is just rapid.  If people accept yours then London Underground, 1863, has to deleted from the article. "grade separation", is a technical term and the casual reader, what wiki is aimed at, would not know what this is. I reinstated the undo.79.66.27.210 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the post by below. There is clearly no consensus for changing the scope of this article. --Kildor (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Little Help?
Just tried to add some detail to the Montreal pic beside Terminology but it got stuck in one of those edit conflict issues and unfortunatey I seem to have lost the encoding for the image. Sooo sorry for damaging the page, colud someone more expert on Wiki just please tidy up my mess and make the photo re-appear. Sorry about that.--Mapmark (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Parts need re-writing
Rapid transit does not cares what type of traction is used, DMU, EMU, air, steam or whatever, neither does it care if it is a commuter-rail or metro. It is separated from other traffic and is RAPID. It is quite simple. Most tend to be electric, but some are DMUs, some diesel/electric and they are as near rapid as EMUs but most importantly they are faster than any other type of transport. The first rapid-transit was steam. This article is very confusing and misleading and mixes up. 79.66.56.195 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about grade-separated rail transport. Rather than changing the scope of this article, I suggest that we rename this article to Metro (public tranport) or something similar. There are separate articles about Bus rapid transit and Commuter rail. --Kildor (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like 79.66.56.195 has confused rapid transit with something else (probably a variant of urban rail transit or something). The definition of a rapid transit is clear, as the sources agree it has to be both grade-separated and electric (although some rapid transits are based on previously steam-operated systems, which it would probably be wrong to claim were rapid transits until they were electrified). The scope of the article is just fine, although it needs a decent copy edit and could easily be expanded. As for the title, this has been discussed many times before, and no consensus has been reached. 'Rapid transit' is an unambiguous term while 'metro' would need a disambiguation bracket; also, 'rapid transit' is the North American term, causing WP:ENGVAR to come into consideration. Then comes the discussion of what to put in the parenthesis (transport vs. transportation, whether to include the redundant 'public' etc.) So instead of wasting more time on the title, I would say we rather spend time on fixing up the article. I would say the article could easily be 50% longer, and could contain such things as twice to three times the length in the history section, more on impact (particularly urban planning, but also environmental issues), more on variations and technology. I someone wants to add more on the history, listing no. 2s and first in this geographic area is not important. What is important is key figures (the 50th system opened in year X and the 100th in year X, conversely in year Y there were X systems). The other important issue is to discuss the first system to implement key technology (conductor-free trains, ticket machines, zone fares, bogies, third rail, driverless systems etc.) Arsenikk (talk)  13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rapid-transit does not care what energy propels the train. Kildor thinks rapid-transit = electric, and so do you. That is wrong. Maybe you all work for a company making electric trains? Who knows. Rapid-transit is fast urban rail (electric, steam, diesel, clockwork, cable hauled, whatever) - it is as simple as that. Make another article - "Electric rapid-transit trains", if you have a thing about electrics. There are factual inaccuracies, such as the Mersey Railway was the first deep-level railway, which I put right, and Kildor keeps undoing. 79.66.20.138 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TransMilenio is in my view a non-grade separated rapid transit system (and an important one at that. It is certainly rapid and also transit. I suggest that it should be covered here and I would echo the previous comments that this article is either about grade-separated rapid transit in which case the title is confusing or it is about rapid transit in general and should include surface rapid transit. PeterEastern (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TransMilenio is a non-grade separated bus rapid transit system. Interpretating the term rapid transit word for word is not the right way to go. Rapid transit is not equivalent with "any transit system that is rapid". But I agree with you that the term is confusing. In my opinion, metro is a better term to use for this article. But we cannot simply rename this article to Metro since there are other topics with that name. Another option is to rename it Rail rapid transit, which would be less confusing than just rapid transit. But nevertheless, the lead of this article makes it perfectly clear what this article is about. --Kildor (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that this article is really about metros. However, it has taken on its current and entirely incorrect name due to historical forces and stong-arming by a number of editors. There is a need for a "rapid transit" article that is about all forms of rapid transit, but this article should first be renamed to "metro" to make room for it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

Neglect of elevated trains
The inherent understanding in this article is of transit generally operating underground, or with occasional exceptions, on the surface. However, there is a significant history of urban rapid transit operating exclusively elevated, prior to the operation of subways. In North America, New York, Chicago and Boston come to mind in this category.

One would not have awareness of the special distinction of elevated trains by reading this article. Elevated trains need a special subsection in the present article.Dogru144 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

turnstile
add a section about turnstile or link the article to the turnstile article because every subway system uses turnstiles to restrict access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.244.179 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Grade separated ground level tracks?
How is it possible to have grade separated ground level tracks? If they are at ground level, then how could they be grade separated at the same time? Oren Balaban (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Images
This article's image count is ridiculous. It is longer than the text portion and there some are really useless images added. I think we need to think about which ones to keep and which ones to let go. Terramorphous (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite excessive, I have to admit. Is there some purpose in displaying all the images this way? Perhaps to make a comparison on how each station or system is laid out or something? -User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, its just over time people added images of their own system and you need to clean it up every once and awhile. At a glance:

are fairly bland and don't really contribute to the article at all.

Then there is these which marginally contribute (mostly station shots) but they are redundant: could have been said in the moscow metro picture

can't really see the rubber tired tech and followed by a more breathtaking picture on elevated running.

relatively low resolution picture. Although it shows PSD in use the Guangzhou one serves a better purpose as it is also representative of all Chinese and Korean metro system station designs.

2 videos that really don't add much to the article.

Network topology diagrams needed
Conspicuous by its absence among the network topology diagrams is the classic hub-and-spoke layout, as seen in Boston's MBTA, Chicago's Chicago Transit Authority, and many other cities. Could somebody make up an appropriate diagram similar to the existing ones? Reify-tech (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also missing is a "fan" type of topology, as seen in the Hamburg U-Bahn, Boston's Green Line (MBTA), San Francisco's Muni Metro, etc. It can be viewed as a special subtype of a hub-and-spoke topology, and is seen often when geographic constraints (e.g. coastline, steep mountains, nonbuildable wetlands, political boundaries, etc.) impede expansion in some direction


 * I don't think that "fan" warrants its own diagram as it is topologically equivalent to hub-and-spoke (aka radial). No radial diagram is a glaring oversight, though.


 * I did some searching, and it appears that the network topology diagrams probably came from the corresponding German Wikipedia article (U-Bahn). This would also explain the liberal use of hyphens (e.g. rapid-transit, circle-system), which is proper usage in German, in some sections of the English language Rapid transit article.  Liberal use of hyphens is not customary in English language writing, and therefore the superfluous hyphens should be removed during future copyediting. Incidentally, the German article is rated "lesenwert" (read-worthy or "worth reading"), which seems to be their equivalent of "Good Article" (GA).  Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada -> Mexico ?
I'm not from North America, so I'm not sure what that means : https://xkcd.com/1196/ Is it possible to travel these three countries... in subway ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.160.244 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is offbeat humor, the specialty of the comic xkcd. Also, wishful fantasy of direct interconnections among major rapid transit systems of North America.  Reify-tech (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
This has become a truly dreadful article. The first few paragraphs contain a mish-mash of random observations about subway systems. No, nix that: the entire article is a structureless mish-mash of random trivia about subways. It's all good stuff, but there's no story, and no way to navigate around or through it. I arrived here looking for some account of the history of subways, in particular the answer to 'which are the oldest subway systems?', and found nothing. I apologise for being blunt, but this needs someone to give the article a bit of love by killing it and starting again. All the raw materials are there, but this can't be fixed bit by bit. NormanGray (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried to give what you are asking but an another awkward editor keep reverting to the unstructured mess. The oldest "underground" systems are London, Liverpool, Budapest. The oldest rapid transit are: London, New York (elevated), Liverpool. It is debated whether the NY elevated is rapid transit being slow cable hauled which is more mass transit rather than rapid.78.105.233.174 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Major overhaul
I have decided to be WP:BOLD and plunged into a complete overhaul of the article. To start, I moved most of the pictures from the article to a new WP:Gallery section, also trimming some of the article-length captions to their essentials. The only pictures that should be placed in the main body of the article are those which clearly illustrate a concept discussed in the nearby text. All other pictures, no matter how beautiful or striking, should be relegated to the gallery. Some pruning may be needed, but this can be dealt with later.

In addition, I have started on a logical reorganization of the content. I have tried to group related (and in some cases partially overlapping) material together, and replaced generic uninformative titles with more descriptive ones. The goal of the article should be to introduce the topic in a high-level overview, with a focus on patterns and trends best visible when looking at the diversity of rapid transit systems in the world. There should be plenty of Wikilinks and external refs to further in-depth information elsewhere. Reify-tech (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to this, this article remains quite awful. It's a mismash of American terminology, inaccurate term use, conflated subjects with references to other distinct modes of transport jammed in at awkward junctures. The article needs clarifying to refer to type and be more specific to avoid bringing regional rail / commuter rail structures from unspecified countries into the mix (which lead to argumentative edits) and identify what it means by "the technology" in the lede when somehow the London Met somehow turned into the Liverpool / New York overhead...? Ideally it should be far more explicit when defining what qualifies as Rapid Transit by the US definition and commonly accepted terms (such as those listed under characteristics in the commuter rail article). For instance is "having scheduled services (i.e. trains run at specific times rather than at specific intervals)" specifically not a feature of Rapid Transit? If so Rapid Transit should be defined as "trains run at specific intervals, rather than a schedule". etc Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rapid transit is an urban railway that transport people rapidly. It is that simple. 78.105.233.174 (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's not the definition, in fact it just further muddies the waters as to what you mean by urban. Grouping every urban rail as "rapid transit" is not accurate. Koncorde (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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/features/feature1953/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/toulouse/
 * 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 10:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Network topologies: Could someone explain this?
No, I don't mean, "explain what they are," although some of that would be nice on ones like the "complex grid" one. I mean, explain why this is important, the advantages and disadvantages of each system, the reasons that some cities adopt this one and others that one, and so on and so forth. Is that too much to ask? Lockesdonkey (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Transit consultant Jarrett Walker discusses this at some length and depth in his book, Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives, and in his professional blog at . I might add some coverage of this to the article, with references, but any other interested editor is welcome to go ahead and do it first.  Reify-tech (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with (from) U-Bahn
This article basically gives a dictionary definition of a U-Bahn, and all the other content does not really fit! Also, subway and metro have been redirected to this page anyway, so it should be the same for this. Staglit (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Staglit (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds plausible, since most readers are unlikely to search for a German word that isn't widely seen in English, leaving the article an infrequently-visited stub (though with an odd cavalcade of national flags stuck on the end) which seems unlikely to ever be expanded into a full stand-alone article. It's probably better to explain all the different shades of meaning of the different terms in one place, rather than scattering disparate fragmentary descriptions across multiple loosely-connected articles.  The German terminology and conceptual framework do seem to have had some influence on English-language terms and concepts.  Reify-tech (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I will do this within 5 hours if no one else objects.... Staglit (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rapid transit
Will editor Koncorde please leave the article alone until he knows what "rapid transit" is. He thinks Merseyrail is not rapid transit going on that most of the system is overground - most of London Underground is over ground and its sister London Overground is 100% out of tunnels. Being in or out of tunnels is irrelevant to whether system is "rapid transit". Merseyrail Electrics is 100% segregated from other rail traffic. Koncorde please get to understand these things but firstly get some facts right. :-) 94.193.167.128 (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail fails to meet the definition of Rapid Transit at every step. For any number of the reasons given. Your changes have focused on the "underground" element, I therefore rebut by the same argument. Simply being underground does not make it Rapid Transit.
 * Much of the London network does not qualify as rapid transit either - apart from the bits that do. Natch. That the rail is currently used by electric cars is not an argument for Rapid Transit either.
 * There have been numerous calls to make Merseyrail into a "metro" and each have been voted down. Koncorde (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rapid transit can be underground overground or elevated. The Metroploitan Railway (now London Underground) and Merseyrail are rapid transit at every step. Both are true to the definition of rapid transit. The Metropolitan Railway was the world's first and the Mersey Railway (Merseyrail) was third. Both are segregated from other rail traffic with high frequency and both have three and 6 car setups. Both are fast all electric trains with standard 4 sliding doors in each car (introduced by Merseyrail in the 1930s) to enable passengers to enter and exit rapidly. Both are underground/overground, etc, etc. What are these numerous calls, that I have never heard of?
 * Please leave the article alone as your knowledge of these matters is scant, so pleased do some reading. 78.105.233.174 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are true to your definition of Rapid Transit, which is so broad as to basically include anything you wish. Koncorde (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rapid transit is a fast segregated transport system. It is that simple. Meseyrail is a textbook example of a rapid transit system.  If Merseyrail is not rapid transit then all other systems in the world are not rapid transit either.188.222.103.116 (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As usual, you repeatedly claim Merseyrail is a rapid transit system, complete with the typical bold text that singles you out, without explaining why. It's not segregated ('outside' trains share tracks at several points, and freight trains were quite happily running around well into the 90s), it's not operated by bespoke trains, the tracks are not owned separately from the rest of the UK railway. Merseyrail is a classic commuter rail system - which is certainly not rapid transit. As Koncorde says, it fails at every step. L1v3rp00l (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merseyrail Electrics is segregated as it uses 3rd rail. Merseyrail Electrics has 67 stations and over 120km of segregated track. Merseyrail is operated by fast electric urban rapid transit trains, with 4 sliding doors to each car. Commuter rail is a subset of an urban rapid transit system. Koncorde and you are wrong at every step. It is best you find out the definition of rapid transit. 78.105.239.60 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica defines rapid transit as:
 * "Rapid transit, is a system of railways, usually electric, that is used for local transit in a metropolitan area. A rapid transit line may run underground (subway), above street level (elevated transit line), or at street level. Rapid transit is distinguished from other forms of mass transit by its operation on exclusive right-of-way, with no access for other vehicles or for pedestrians."
 * Merseyrail conforms to all points.188.222.103.116 (talk)
 * The above is 100% correct. 94.193.165.138 (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The very fact that Merseyrail's tracks are not segregated, as I have already explained, render your definition above redundant. At several locations on the network (Southport, Hunts Cross, Bidston and Chester) other trains can and do use the same tracks as the Merseyrail trains. The tracks are owned and maintained by Network Rail, the company which runs the rest of the National Rail network. Merseyrail trains do not, nor have they ever, enjoy exclusive right-of-way on any of the network. Simply not a rapid transit system, not even close. L1v3rp00l (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Merseyrail's electric third rail tracks and lines, those run by Serco/Nedrail, are fully segregated. Near some stations some other trains from other companies may run on them for a few yards not using the third rail pickup. Trains from other companies use London Underground lines near stations as well, which is quite common at stations. Merseyrail may be a part of the National Rail ownership, but is clearly run as a separate entity by Serco/Nedrail even with its own branding and operational management. Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive rather than the Department for Transport issue the contract. But who runs it is irrelevant, as it is the physical system that matters, not pedantic ownership matters. 94.193.165.138 (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They aren't fully segregated. The fact that other traffic may utilise the line other than passengers, or that other traffic physically intersects it at level crossings etc means that it isn't fully segregated. In fact freight rail ran on the lines until relatively recently (I think it may still do in some form) over on the Wirral. Koncorde (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail third rail electric lines are fully segregated. NO freight runs on the electric third rail lines. The only other trains that use Merseyrail lines are a few for a few yards at some connection terminal stations while jostling for their platforms. NO other companies trains uses Merseyrail lines and third-rail pickups. London underground even has a level crossings - but the rail, like Merseyrail, has priority, so irrelevant. A level crossing is no different to a bridge in train running. It is best you find out instead of going on hearsay. Merseyrail is a fully segregated third-rail partially underground rapid-transit network. The second oldest in the world. A really nice rapid-transit network with great scope for expansion. Koncorde you appear to hate Merseyrail. What is your beef about the network? 188.223.225.235 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware that London Underground has other traffic, which is why I said over a month ago that not all of the London Underground system would qualify as Rapid Transit, or metro, or any other singular definition. It remains not segregated. The use of the phrase Rapid Transit is being grossly misapplied in many cases, that is my "beef". Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail meets all the criteria for rapid-transit, using very fast electric trains. In the old days the underground Metropolitan line running uninterrupted steam trains was clearly rapid transit to the horse and carts in the streets above. The same with the original Mersey Railway which was rapid-transit and very fast to the horses above and the steam ferry boats. The trains could also shift far more people making them also mass-transit.  If a rail networks gets people along far quicker and in mass than the other urban transport methods then it is rapid-transit.  It is as simple as that. 78.105.239.35 (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Meseyrail is 100% a rapid transit rail network for sure. Anyone stating it is not should not be editing an article like this as they are not capable of basic analytical thought. Merseyrail is also the second oldest underground rapid transit rail network in the world. Only London predates it.78.105.8.113 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Underground
Is this the right name for the underground (rail transport) aka Metro ?. It is not well done in Wikidata the link from Metro to Rapid Transit. --Lagoset (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A metro is not necessarily underground. These articles are mess as what actually is a metro? Manchester call their street running tram system a metro. What is rapid-transit? What is mass-transit? I see in the UK, because of regional rivalries, Glasgow and Tyne & Wear Metro articles omit Liverpool's Merseyrail (the underground section dating from 1886) stating their own systems are older, which is nonsense. 78.105.8.113 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Something to add to "environmental impacts" to keep relevant
It should be added the overall efficiency given electricity use etc. vs modern electric cars. When ridership is low such as during off hours or on not-so-used lines, I would say the energy used to people moved over distance ratio is higher on a subway vs an electric car. B137 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

First underground in NY

 * In 1868, New York opened the elevated West Side and Yonkers Patent Railway, initially a cable-hauled line using static steam engines.

elevated makes it sound above-ground, wondering if anyone knew when the first non-elevated subway in New York was and if it might be worth mentioning in the article.

American Tail is set in 1885 and in American Tail III (which could not be more than a year or two after judging by the lack of aging of Fieval or Tanya or their baby sibling) they interact with an abandoned subway car, so I was curious about the historical accuracy of this. --64.228.89.69 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rapid Transit doesn't have to be underground, so yes the West Side and Yonkers was "above ground" - significantly (like 30'). As for the first New York subway - according to other wikipedia articles and their sources - 1898 was the start for New York, so seems Fievel is exposing an anachronism. Never saw the movie so couldn't comment any more. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
I can't find anything in the cited material that supports the first sentence's equating of rapid transit with subway. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The very first reference mentions it.  Calidum   02:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930211539/http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/a-notrefierte.pdf to http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/a-notrefierte.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013204448/http://sl.se:80/templates/Page.aspx?id=1669 to http://www.sl.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=1669

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove pictures with pixelated faces
Some pictures have pixelated faces and I propose to remove such pictures or replace them with other pictures that don't have pixelation. It is wrong to pixelate people's faces in public places and accept such photos in an encyclopedia, it's anti-journalistic. Mark Urzimo (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Topographies
I wish to add the Vancouver Skytrain to the topographies but I don't know where it fits in. Can anyone help me think of where? Cganuelas (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde's konfusion
"Rapid transit, also known as heavy rail, metro, subway, tube, or underground, is a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas.  Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort, and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways."

The citations that are included above are contradictory. The first is a very vague definition - and comes from a dictionary instead of an expert source. The second is a dead link. The third claims motorbuses can be rapid transit (the article says they can't). The fourth is another dictionary definition that says rapid transit is a "system of railways".

Monorails and maglevs are not conventional railways. This article mostly covers the segregated, urban form of conventional railway technology. But it also briefly mentions quite different technologies and claims they also fall under the same banner. It is entirely appropriate to request citations from reliable sources to show whether these are truly considered rapid transit systems by the public transport industry. The citations provided certainly can't make up their mind. Again, why revert when you acknowledge you don't understand my edits? 202.159.191.219 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't explain your edits, or what should be cited. "Article scope and terminology requires clarification" does not identify what needs to be clarified, and reflects wider issue with wikipedia and the varying definitions (particularly US vs European) of varying rail types. I directed you to WP:CITENEED and in particular the section on "When not to use this tag" is very relevant to what you have typed above. If you know about the subject, then provide additional sources that can expand and improve the page. Just tagging "CN" improves nothing.
 * There is no universal standard for the definition "Rapid transit". It overlaps several other commonly used terms, some of which is listed at Passenger rail terminology, and its US definition often depends on the decade of publishing and source. Indian sources, Asian sources, European sources etc tend to have significant variations - this is usually because the US sources have a very narrow experience and viewpoint of rail and talks from practical examples within its own boundaries.
 * It's most easily/lazily summarised by several encyclopedia / and dictionary as simply "a form of high-speed urban passenger transport" or similar, but that leaves out a lot of the qualifying criteria that other sources believe are fundamental. Some include the term "electric", others state that it is "urban", some say "rail" others include "motorbus" also, then there's the sources that only say elevated or subway, where others such as the University of Nottingham in the UK (where we really don't recognise the US definitions for rail) lists "Mass Rapid Transit" (another overlapping phrase) as a "generic term used to describe modern urban public transport systems; these can range from a painted bus lane to extensive underground train networks." Koncorde (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've copied much of the above into the article lead. Who would have thought that such a wide-ranging article would have such abysmal coverage of all non-metro/subway types of "rapid transit"?202.159.135.8 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes no sense to quote my informal paraphrasing. Koncorde (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not?

You state that the article covers rapid transit in a broader sense than just metros/subways and then object to an edit that seeks to clarify this. Your claim that the edit - to the lead, no less - isn't cited sufficiently is wonderfully ironic!202.159.135.8 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments are not cited by any source anywhere within the document as they are my comments only for the purpose of demonstrating that this article reflects several viewpoints, rather than a singular definition, as a response to you. Koncorde (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And, as pointed out, the coverage of all non-metro/subway types of rapid transit is abysmal. My edit today clarifies that the ”article reflects several viewpoints". The article previously stated "Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways...", yet provided a citation which explicitly stated that rapid transit could encompass motorbuses! 202.159.135.8 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Badly. You can vandalise and introduce dross to your heart's content, I am removing this page from my watch list. Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725153952/http://cfusrug.org/articles/financing_strat.php to http://cfusrug.org/articles/financing_strat.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Rapid transit technology into Rapid transit?
There’s an article called Rapid transit technology. Should it be merged into this article? --Markbrown00 (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Does Australia have one or two rapid transit systems?
Does Australia have one or two rapid transit systems? There is definitely one in Sydney but does the one in Melbourne count? If yes change Metro in the World.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderlam128 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Melbourne does not count. It's a suburban service. Even when the Metro Tunnel opens, I would not count it because it's full of level crossings, indirect connections to Adelaide, regional Victoria etc. Some lines such as the Lilydale and Belgrave Lines have very irregular schedules. Every 10-20 minutes headways are still not considered as rapid ransit. Fork99 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I forgot that lines share tracks everywhere in the city and before Richmond, North Melbourne and South Yarra. Fork99 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"🚇" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🚇. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  15:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Capacity
I just deleted the following "The highest attained capacity is 80,000 people per hour by the MTR Corporation in Hong Kong. " The preceding discussion talks about pphpd and explains how 36k pphpd is derived (1,200 per train, headway of 120 seconds). The figure of 40k pphpd seems to refer to the route capacity but I cannot find the reference or any other source to back up the claim.

This is an important issues for metros as the boarding/unboarding becomes slower as the cars reach their crush loads. Tjej (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)