Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Number disagreement

The source I've added to the lead finds 148 cities with metro systems, and is up to date. This list has 160. Are there possibly light rail/commuter rail systems included in error? There is a breakdown by continent in the source as well. Mattximus (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First, there's no question that a straight-up list of systems would be enormously helpful here. At least LRTA provides something like that; unfortunately, UITP does not. Second, your provided reference does say "148 cities have metro systems", which is not the same thing as saying there are "148 metro systems" throughout the world, as some cities New York City, Seoul, Tokyo, etc. have more than one metro system. Third, we still have the quandary as to where to "draw the line" – for example, UITP includes Copenhagen (and some others) as "metro" systems, even though they are technically light metros, and should perhaps not be included here... Bottom line, though: this list has been "cleaned up" a lot over the past few months, as there are many fewer "questionable" systems included than there were a year ago, as pretty much all of the "commuter rail metro-like" systems have been culled from the list, for example. P.S. I'll change the number in the lede to 160, though – I'm guessing the "168" figure is old and out-of-date. --IJBall (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa Confederation Line

It would seem that the Confederation Line which is under construction in Ottawa would meet the criteria for a metro system under construction, both in the part currently under construction and in the planned extension (fully grade separated, frequencies under 10 minutes throughout the day, and high capacity trains). It is referred to as LRT by the city and the consortium constructing the line, but as the article notes, that does not mean that it is not a metro. Jamincan (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not the unsigned editor who attempted to add it yesterday. I do, however, feel that IJBall's rationale for reverting the edit is contrary to this very page which explicitly states that the branding of the system is not a consideration for whether it should be included.

As the article notes, the distinctions between light rail and metro systems is not always completely clear, however, if the criteria for the list are clearly not being applied consistently (reviewing the talk page here suggests that may sometimes be the case), it does raise the question of the notability of the content since it is essentially just a curated list. Jamincan (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow outside sources. That is why I was very clear in my edit summary yesterday when I removed the Confederation Line the first time – to wit: the official Confederation Line webpage categorizes it as "light rail", as do several news articles I saw yesterday. Calling a "metro" in spite of that would be a textbook case of original research. In a situation like this, I think we have to defer to the builder/future operator in how they categorize the line. Now, having said all that, if it's fully grade-separated, it might technically qualify as a "metro" or "light metro" system. But that doesn't matter – no outside source is calling it that. The truth is, there are some grade-separated systems that are still categorized as "light rail" by various sources for various reasons (and probably one to two dozen more that are categorized as "light metros" rather than full "metros") – when that happens we have to defer to the outside sources. P.S. Note that there is a previous discussion on the Confederation Line which I think has now been moved to this Talk page's archives: at that time I asked for a source to confirm the Confederation Line will be fully grade-separated – I don't remember such a reference being produced... So the criteria outlined at that page is being consistently applied – it's being applied how outside sources are telling us it should be applied. --IJBall (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, every item on the list constitutes original research. The article itself states that whether it is referred to as LRT or a metro is not sufficient criteria for inclusion on the list, which means that we can only assess each system by the criteria set out in this page independently in lieu of an authoritative source for the list as a whole. I'm personally off the opinion that the entire article should probably be deleted - the terminology for mass transit systems is far too muddy and mass transit far too diverse to be able to produce a meaningful list - but for the time being, it should at the very least reflect what it claims to represent. Jamincan (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't – the UITP and LRTA references at the bottom of the page are our primary references for what goes in to the list. Other sources supplement that. There's no original research going on here, outside of possibly the "Under construction" list, which is controversial (several editors think it should be cut from the article – I'm probably in that camp, as I think it's usefulness is limited, and it's poorly sourced and divisive...) I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your post... --IJBall (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents here, being from the country. Phase 1 of the Ottawa LRT is fully grade-separated. Platforms are metro sized @ 120-150m long so in the future 4 LRVs can be strung together to form a train. Looking at the planning docs it does look like a very metro standard project.[1] That being said, the fact that they use low floor LRVs and branded it as an LRT irks me a little. There are 3 systems that have LFLRVs and are called metros (Vienna U6, Budapest Metro M1, and the Seville Metro). All of them are branded as metros by their owners this shows willingness to keep the line at a metro standard in the event of service changes and extensions. In addition these lines stayed with LFLRVs due to legacy engineering constraints; Unlike Ottawa where an LFLRV is chosen even though it is new construction. This could mean that Ottawa's final 40km long system might have road crossings in the next phases and is actually an LRT system with a very high standard central corridor. IMHO I would leave it out until the system is complete and professional organizations have opinions on it.Terramorphous (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the concern on my end – that this system is going to end up looking more like Edmonton, or San Francisco, or Philadelphia, or Newark: a (true) central city "subway", but with LRT outer portions. But I really think it can't just be ignored that the operator calls it LRT. If the operator is calling LRT, our only choice is to demand an equally authoritative reference (e.g. UITP) calling it a "metro" before including it here... --IJBall (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Poll: Metro systems under construction section

OK, I'm getting quite tired of the controversy and just general errors this section is generating. I know its original inclusion in this article generated some opposition back in the day.

Can anyone make a good case why it should be kept?! (P.S. If you agree with me that the section should go, please indicate below with a "Support" response, or something...)

Bottom line: It is very poorly sourced, subject to many revisions (i.e. opening dates often get pushed back more than once, which becomes an editing hassle), and contains at least two systems (the Russian ones) for which there is a substantial chance that they may never open for service. Even were it sourced, the whole section is vaguely-CRYSTALBALLish.

So, unless someone can make a compelling case for keeping it, I'm going to be BOLD in the near future, and delete the whole dang section. --IJBall (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Against It really is not that hard to maintain a small U/C List. Perhaps we can make editors that really want to include a system to create a page for the under construction metro system with all the sources and information on it like most of the U/C Chinese Metros.Terramorphous (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is proving to be a lot of work to maintain, what with people wanting to add either light rail systems, or systems not even under construction yet. This section is the single-remaining most controversial part of this page (and maybe my personal biggest "time sink" as I'm constantly having to check to verify whether newly added systems really belong or not...). Considering how little cited it is, the section should just be junked. At the least, all of the unreferenced entries should just be deleted. But I'd like to see comments from the editors who opposed adding this section in the first place, to see if they still feel the same way on this issue or not. --IJBall (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not against keeping the section, but can see IJBall's perspective. What if we only included systems that are physically under construction, and are called metros by a reliable authority such as the UITP, or we can find a recent article about it in a publication such as Railway Gazette or International Railway Journal? ColonialGrid (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the next best solution. You probably won't find a UITP reference for these under construction systems. But articles in either Railway Gazette or IRJ, etc. should be possible to find for a lot of these. Those for which no reference like that can be found should be cut. At the least, totally unreferenced entries should be cut from here. But, what I'm really saying is – I'm likely not going to go out of my way to dig up references for the u/c systems myself, so someone is going to have to find references for them, or I'm just going to cut all the unreferenced entries in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Against The list should should be kept, as it is simply useful for readers and not that hard to maintain. For poor sourcing there is , not deleting whole section. I can feel "crystalballity" in a cases of proposed systems, but we have only under constrution ones in the list. --Jklamo (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The unsourced systems have been in the list for months. At this point, I'm going to skip the {{citation needed}} step. Look, if people don't want to see a bunch of those system deleted, editors need only follow ColonialGrid's suggestion, and head to Railway Gazette, et al. and quickly find a reference for them. But, this time, I ain't doing that on my end... --IJBall (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Under construction metros that appear to be light not heavy

Macau appears to be a light metro system, not a full metro [2], it should be moved to Medium-capacity rail transport system. However, there is no 'under construction' section in that article, so I have left it for the time being. Should it be removed from this article without being placed in Medium-capacity rail transport system, or should be wait for an 'under construction' section to be added to Medium-capacity rail transport system? ColonialGrid (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the Omsk metro is now to be built as a light metro [3], and therefore should be treated the same as Macau. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Omsk construction is frozen, but in any case it will not be a heavy metro.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd advise cutting both Russian systems as, IIRC, both systems constructions are currently "frozen". --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Chelyabinsk may go as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Light metros are tricky... But if you have references categorizing both systems as such, I'd probably be inclined to cut them from this U/C list for now. If another reference shows up in the future calling them truly "heavy", we can always add them back later. But let me make a strange request – can you add references for these "light metro" systems to the table first, before you remove them? – That way, if I decide to add an "under construction" section to the Medium-capacity rail transport system article, I'll be all set (including references) to do that. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. I'll leave it up to you to decide when, and if, to remove Macau and the two Russian systems. I'm having a bit of a hard time finding sources to support the remaining systems under construction, but most are now cited and I'll keep looking. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seattle ULink

Just out of curiosity, where do we stand on the University Link/Northgate Link. Despite its builders branding it as light rail, absolutely nothing that Sound Transit has made public about this line could lead one to believe it is anything other than light metro. Not only does it lack grade crossings from Downtown Seattle to its planned terminus at Lynnwood transit center, wikipedia's own page on the ULink contains the phrase "University Link is actually a subway." Every possible extension of ULink/North Link all the way up to Everett has been shown to be completely grade-separated by the animations provided by sound transit (all of which can be found on youtube if you take that to be a suitable reference). The only think I can think of that would place it comfortably in the light-rail category is if its route is combined with Central link (an actual light rail) into one continuous trip, which I have not heard about one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.116.1.11 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know enough about this specific project to comment, however, under either interpretation it is not appropriate to be placed in this list which is exclusively for heavy rail metro systems. At a cursory glace though, as Northgate Link Extension is an extension of the existing Central Link in Seattle I would think it should be listed as part of that system at List of tram and light rail transit systems. You do bring up a perennial issue though, of at what point is a tram a light rail, a light rail a light metro, and a light metro a heavy metro. If it is deemed to be a light metro it should be included at Medium-capacity rail transport system (which I'm not yet convinced it is, as my reading is it will operate as part of the existing light rail system). ColonialGrid (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My take: We should defer to how the owner/operator/builder categorizes such systems in cases like these. This is pretty similar to the Confederation Line instance – while it may be fully grade-separated, it's hard to argue when the operator self-categorizes it as "light rail". But the Seattle case is even more clearly light rail, as this is simply a fully grade-separated extension of a line that is currently fully light rail. San Diego's coming Mid-Coast Trolley extension is the same thing (fully-grade separated), but that won't suddenly make the San Diego Trolley (or even that part of it) "metro". --IJBall (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

One more recent thought on Seoul...

In looking at our newest UITP reference – UITP's Statistics Brief World Metro Figures (pdf) – I'm noticing that UITP considers Seoul Metropolitan Subway's "rapid transit" system to total approximately 410 kilometres (250 mi) in length. That means we're still including something in our Seoul's rapid transit system total that UITP isn't, as our current combined tally for Seoul's metro systems is 468.9 kilometres (291.4 mi). The most likely scenario here is that UITP doesn't consider the Bundang Line (52.9 km, 36 stations) to be true "rapid transit" either, as removing the Bundang Line from our currect count produces a revised total rapid transit system length for Seoul of 416 kilometres (258 mi), which seems to match UITP's Seoul tally pretty well.

So, does anyone object to me 'paring' the Bundang Line out of Seoul's Korail entry? If there are no objections, I'll make that revision in the near future... --IJBall (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to look closer into this before we do anything. The Bundang line is AFAIK separated for all forms of traffic. What about the Sinbundang Line?Terramorphous (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One point to remember is that UITP doesn't count "suburban rail" systems (like RER and S-Bahns), even if they meet the other criteria. I wonder if they are excluding Bundang Line on that basis? As for the Sinbundang Line, it's too short – on its own, just removing that one from our total doesn't get it down to ~410km... --IJBall (talk)

I don't even know if you have been in Seoul, but Bundang Line is part of Seoul Subway's rapid transit. The official maps in the sites of Seoul Metro, SMRT, Korail, and Metro9 all states that Bundang Line (along with Jungang and Gyeongchun and etc) are all incorporated into Seoul Subway. In fact, even Incheon Subway Line 1 is considered part of Seoul Subway rapid transit, but I think this list has split it off due to the extreme name difference. Bundang is, for sure, in. To check the official map, go to this link.HanSangYoon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a page that lists all the subway LINES?

I thought about creating a new page that lists all the subway lines independently. It would be great if there was one. HanSangYoon (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and decided on that it is not a good idea. The biggest issue is the definition of a Line which is very fluid. Some systems count branches as a separate line some don't. There are a lot of inconsistencies here.Terramorphous (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't get it, though. I think picking out lines from subway maps aren't that hard, and it's easy to get citations to them (the citations here on the metro system list page could help lead us to the citations to the metro lines), so inconsistiencies isn't much of an issue. Especially with the Wikipedia pages of the seperate systems already made, just take the link of their description, and head on to the area where lines are well-explained, which shouldn't be that hard to do. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Line 11 of the Shanghai Metro has a 2 branches but it is counted as a single line

If this same line was in the Munich U-Bahn It would be counted as 2 Lines; one for each branch. See, there is no standard. Terramorphous (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

For Shanghai Metro, the Y-shaped line is under one identity of Line 11, so yes, it is a single line. For Belin U-Bahn, check their lines. It consists of lines like U1, U2, U3...all the way to U8. Now if you look, the colors for U7 and U8 are mixed, but this format shows that rather than colors, the lines U7 and U8 is the way to go. So a y-shaped line in Berlin would just go by with it's Line name; not so hard to so, right?

(I have planned this page idea years ago, and so I know how to categorize lines like these) I understand that they're confusing, but if you go in deeply, there's actually a standard. HanSangYoon (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realized you mean a page that lists all the subway lines not # of lines. Disregard what I said earlier. However that list would be too big, maybe one for each country is better like what is done in Urban rail transit in China or Rapid transit in South Korea Terramorphous (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the idea of an article listing all lines would incredibly large (too large), be problematic from a maintenance perspective, not overly useful from an educational perspective, and breach WP:NOTDIR from a Wikipedia policy/guideline perspective. Therefore, I oppose it. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Terramorphous: @ColonialGrid: I had actually created a prototype of the site previously, and it really didn't go too far...eitherways, just let me have a chance. I believe it would fill in information that's unknown yet. Have you noticed that there's nowhere that states of the longest (or the shortest) subway line in the world? And Colonial Grid, I agree Wikipedia is not a directory, but that doesn't strike the concept of a metro line page; you have a subway system page, both pages are doing the same function. HanSangYoon (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why did you bother asking if it's a good idea if you're going to ignore what others say and do it anyway? This isn't collegial or consensus based decision making. For the record, lists of buses lines have previously been deleted per WP:NOTDIR, so there is precedent that lists of lines are deleted for being encyclopaedic. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Buses? Honestly I wouldn't mind, but it seems a lot more local than subway lines. I would understand if people get stunned when it comes to bus lines, since like there's probably gonna be more than a million of them around this world. Subway...I bet it's less than a thousand. If that guy was gonna create a bus line page, why not subway line pages?

And also, please don't escalate this matter, @ColonialGrid:. I was trying to ask if the people were going to be dramatically against the issue (as they did in Los Angeles Metro placard image incident). I was also trying to show these enthusiasts the alert that I'm onto a page project, so that this situation wouldn't be a reactive one. If I heard something like "Dear God, no" or "It is illegal to do so", then I would've thought twice. But seeing that the only worry here is encyclopaedic and length issues, I see it as long as I make sure these two issues are solved, then I'm fine (encyclopaedic issue, by your definition, means this page and other metro system page is not appropriate). HanSangYoon (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK then. "Dear God, no" The individual systems adequately contain that information, without it being duplicated here. This is not a "List of everything about every metro system in the world". Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: I'm not gonna heavily defend this, but then 1) Lots of information won't be known (ex. "What is the longest subway line in the world? What is the most used subway line in the world (ridership)? Shortest? Least used? Oldest line?), and 2) I never said to add onto this page of the list. I said make a new one (like a spin-off)... HanSangYoon (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is guided by consensus, not laws, all other editors being opposed to an idea means there is no consensus - end of story. If you can't prosecute a decent argument and convince others, then you need to accept there is no consensus walk away. In this case you have had a number of editors (well, those you haven't chilled away) tell you they are opposed and why. Are you not listening to anything other editors are saying? ColonialGrid (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." - WP:IDHT

THIS is what you have proved to me....another backfiring action right there, ColonialGrid. And with the consensus, nowhere does it state that a consensus request from a single person is fine to be ignored. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• No ones ignoring your suggestion (to the contrary, people are responding), it's just that I (and others) disagree. You have suggested an idea and there is not a consensus (a general understanding) amongst editors that it should be carried out. This falls firmly into the purview of the bits of WP:IDHT which you glossed over: "[i]n some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive... Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." ColonialGrid (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

user:ColonialGrid As I told you, I do not have much feelings for this idea, and I don't feel any unfairness in the disagreeing. Is it possible to invite people into their own sandbox by using ping? Cause you could see it, then confirm if it's a good or a bad idea. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tables

IJBall, I've reverted your fixed width additions to the tables as I don't think it helped with the layout. I think the table seems cramped and could have an improved layout, but don't see how forcing it to render differently will solve the aesthetic issue (it looks far too sparse at higher resolutions with fixed width). To me, the easiest way to make the table less cramped would be to remove superfluous citations (sometimes we have two cites where one would suffice); contract the [note x] style, possible just to [Nb x] with ridership notes becoming [R Nb x] and under construction becoming [UC Nb x]; and contracting terms or locations such as "Year of last extension" to "Year last extended", "Seoul Capital Area" to "Seoul" (we don't make explicit reference to other systems covering a metro area, which they do); and replacing FY in the ridership column with a dagger and note at the bottom of the table. These are all very small changes visually, but could help reduce the cramped or cluttered appearance of the table, improving its aesthetics and layout. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No opinion. Which I guess means I won't object if someone wants to give this a go... --IJBall (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Weakly opposed. Seoul Metro has a massive amount of areas such as Incheon, Gyeonggido, Gimpo, Uijeongbu, and even as far as Cheonan, which are all not considered the city of Seoul; it's like LA Metro extending to places like San Diego, Bakersfield, and even as far as Las Vegas. So really, wouldn't it not make sense to call the area as 'Seoul' when they're actually considered 'Sugokwon' (수도권), or 'Capital Area'? HanSangYoon (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Metropolitan areas are often very large, and yes, the Seoul metro area is very large. The opening line of Seoul Capital Area is: "The Seoul Capital Area (SCA) is the metropolitan area of Seoul" further listing the area as 11,704km2 with 25million people. This is comparable to other large metro areas such as New York, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, London, or Paris all of which are just listed by their city name in the table. Even medium sized cities such as Sydney and Melbourne in Australia have statistical areas of 12,367.7km2 and 9,990.5km2 respectively. We're also only talking about this in the context of the metro system, as defined by the table, which counts only Seoul Subway lines 1-9 and Korail's metro lines, which are far more contained within Seoul (although still serving the metro area to an extent). Your comparisons aren't fair or accurate either the distances are as follows from Seoul to Incheon (27km); to Gyeonggi-do (50.6km); to Gimpo (33.39 km - airport to airport); to Uijeongbu (19.7km); and to Cheonan (84.4km). The distances from Los Angeles to San Diego (193.6km); Bakersfield (179.4km); and Las Vegas (433.7km) aren't comparable. Also note that Incheon's metro is counted separately in this table. And that the UITP simply calls it Seoul. However, this issue notwithstanding, are there objections to the other proposals? ColonialGrid (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, really. I believe the capital area is what it's really called (as experience with traveling to Seoul and their surrounding areas), but really, I guess it doesn't matter too much. Still feel strange about the change, but how can I not care less. HanSangYoon (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've done the changes to the notes and FY, but left the rest. I still think that Seoul Capital Area should be contracted to simply Seoul, but want go against consensus. However, what are feelings on combining notes? For example, Toronto, Seoul Capital Area, and Los Angeles have two notes for the same 'fact', is there opposition to combining then to just one note? ColonialGrid (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's wrong with the Los Angeles Metro- 16 Stations?

Metro is celebrating their 80th station with the Expo Line completed. However, here it says there's 16 stations. I presume they're talking about the heavy-rail stations, but to note: isn't this the page "List of Metro System", and the category "Station"? Something's really misleading there. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read any of the notes and references? It is all clearly explained. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but then this page is called "Lists of metro systems", not "Lists of metro systems with heavy rail". I think something doesn't compat there. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you did not read the LA reference which gives that number 16, and defines the other lines as "light rail". Go ahead - read the linked reference. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I told you I already read that. My question's the same still. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The terms Heavy rail (mainly in North America) and heavy urban rail are essentially synonymous with the term "metro" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

^^THIS. Which anyone can discover for themselves if they read the rapid transit and the passenger rail terminology articles. --IJBall (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Or even, I don't know, this article... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Metros are by definition heavy rail, that is why we also have the term 'light metro'. UITP define a metro as "an urban guided transport system, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short head-ways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows."[4] Light metros simply aren't capable of meeting these criteria, specifically the "high capacity trains" condition. This is why light metros have been removed from this list, and only the high capacity heavy rail sections of metro systems are included. Also, the street running of LA's light rail lines would automatically preclude them from inclusion, they are light rail lines not metro lines. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea metro referred to specifically heavy rail.HanSangYoon (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, "in theory" light metros have been removed from the list. But because UITP themselves are rather 'loose' about including "light metros" in with the "full metros", some "light metros" (e.g. Copenhagen, most of the Italian systems, etc.) are still included here. --IJBall (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

For Busan Subway Line 4, I can't tell if it's a light rail or a heavy rail. According to the website, they say it's a heavy rail, but with it having a rubber tire and the size of a light rail, I am super confused. What's more, I don't think there's a Seoul section for the light rail page? I know there's Everline Light Rail, Suin Line, and Uijeonbu Light Rail that doesn't seem to be recognized... HanSangYoon (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Korean systems are instead listed at the Medium-capacity rail transport system ("light metros") article. --IJBall (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Metro System's Graph Function is Failing to Work

I tried clicking on the length tab, which is supposed to activate the organizing of the table in order of the longest to the shortest route, but right now, I see someone edited the graph that blocks the function. Please fix it. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what the problem is, but I probably can't get to it over the next 24 hours or so... --IJBall (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for fixing it IJBall. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Berlin is third longest (missing part of the system). Hamburg has similar "problem"

Part of Berlin metro system is the S-Bahn system. System length is 332 km (wiki). Other cities also include "different-type" of metro system. The S-Bahn system only differs in that it also serves "regular" stations and also connects some suburban areas, but operates mainly in Berlin itself. Combined size of Berlin's systems: 332 + 151 = 483 which is the third longest.

Note: U-Bahn (also Bus and Tram) is operated by BVG, S-Bahn by Deutsche Bahn (Usually in Germany S-Bahn = Deutsche Bahn operated metro-, suburban-train) . Tickets are interchangeable throughout the system.

Please adjust the list or give statement why S-Bahn system is not a metro system.

Similar problem with Hamburg (U-, S- and A-Bahn) and maybe other cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:9CA:1D00:69C3:A98A:354F:A912 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• This has been discussed a number of times (search though the archived talk pages), and consensus has formed that this page will follow the UITP's in explicitly excluding commuter services such as S-Bahns as they pose a grey area. You are correct though, this should be included more obviously in the body text of this list. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on my "To Do" list to revise the lede and text to this article (it was changed pretty radically in 2014 in ways that I don't think necessarily improved it), but actually revising it keeps getting pushed down my priority list... I still intend to do that, but that certainly doesn't prevent anyone else from improving it in the meantime! --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Berlin S-Bahn is by all means, even by all "considerations" mentioned in this article a Metro System. It was a stable consensus for many years to include this important information. The removal is bland vandalism. It can be considered even more a vandalism act as this article does not even explain this type of urban transport anymore. A user doing researching via the list is therefore clearly misinformed or misguided. The versions including the S-Bahn system were more helpful and provided more comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.16.10 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF and WP:Civility before you go tossing around words like "vandalism", thanks. --IJBall (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that "civil" motives are behind the removal of long-lasting and well supported content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.16.10 (talk) 22:43, March 13, 2015‎ (UTC)

Merseyrail

Why isn't Merseyrail in this list? It is clearly a metro with metro frequencies in the centre of Liverpool and Birkenhead and runs underground the in centre's of Liverpool and Birkenhead. It is 100% segregated. Only London Underground is older than it. 93.96.78.114 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a commuter rail system. A look at the archives at Talk:Merseyrail should no doubt be illuminating... --IJBall (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul Metro

The latest extension of Istanbul Metro on the Asian side is a LRT, actually. --31.33.60.75 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean Line M6, it's actually light metro not light rail. --IJBall (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the S-Bahn Metro system ?

The inclusion of the S-Bahn Metro systems were a vital part of this list. For many years. The arguments for an inclusion were striking and often discussed. The Re-Introduction should become reality as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.16.10 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see above for the reasoning for their excision – the basic reason they are no longer included is that UITP does not "include" them in its count of "metro" systems, and we follow references from major sources here. --IJBall (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should a single source/ organization dominate a complex list like this ? It is incorrect and misleading to claim that this article is based on sources alone. The section "Consideration" exactly portrays the features of the S-Bahn system. The removal of the S-Bahn entries dimished the credibility of the article and misinforms the reader on existing Metro Systems. There is no way to find credible arguments supporting a removal unless of course you aim to deliberately try keep up a non-comprehensive list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.16.10 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What you want to do here is what's known as Original research. We follow references from authoritative sources on Wikipedia – the "credible arguments" for their exclusion come from UITP. --IJBall (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The source "International Association of Public Transport" is wrong. It claims (quote): Suburban railways (such as the Paris RER, the Berlin S-Bahn and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport express line) are not included. This statement is wrong, the Berlin S-Bahn is a Metropolitan Rail System. There is no expert who seriously questions it. When will the entry on the S-Bahn be re-introduced ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.16.10 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Provide some links here to sources as reliable as the UITP that classify S-Bahns as metros and then we can discuss re-inclusion. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not named "List of metro systems based on UITP". Hence, the criteria mentioned in the introduction and "Considerations" are enough to justify an inclusion like many years in the past. Even more important is the question: Does the article/list has improved the issue of metro systems by Not mentioning the S-Bahn. Clearly not. Coming along this list a user expects a competent overview of existing urban metro systems. Today its worse and insufficient. If nobody re-introduces the specific entries I´m going to provide the infos myself. Have a nice weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.242.41 (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was, but as an encyclopaedia we simply report what other reliable sources say, and currently we have a reliable source saying S-Bahns aren't metros. Cross checking systems against criteria (against what a reliable sources says) is original research and therefore verboten. This is why I asked you for reliable sources that repudiate the UIPT's position, then we can discuss re-inclusion. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia based solely on references ? Who do you want to fool ? Sources are required for "Good article"-Rated pieces this here is a non-rated list. There are several choices: a) Removing the section "Considerations" because otherwise the S-Bahn HAS to be included. b) The article has to be renamed Metro "List of metro systems based on UITP" c) Simply re-establish long existing content + written text that explains why the S-Bahn is considered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.242.41 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that further discussion on this will go absolutely nowhere here, but I will point out that all of your discussions have conveniently ignored this in the "Considerations" section: "Certain transit networks match the technical level and service standards of metro systems, but reach far out of the city and are sometimes known as S-Bahn, suburban, regional or commuter rail. These are not included." What this list will include, and why, is spelled out right there in the "Considerations". Unless you can produce references that should cause the consensus at this article to be seriously reevaluated, you aren't going to get anywhere pushing a "Because I say so" POV... --IJBall (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:V is policy here, and is quite blunt; if you want S-Bahns included, find a source. You have said that "There is no expert who seriously questions it", awesome, you shouldn't have much trouble finding great quality sources then! ColonialGrid (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are not a problem here. There are lots of sources online and offline that describe the status and technicalities of German S-Bahn systems. The problem is a definition of what constitutes a metro system, what should be the purpose of this list to begin with, and the fact that criteria are being applied inconsistently. For example certain S-Bahn systems are very much comparable to the London Underground in most respects. So if one is included, so should be the others. Or vice versa, if the S-Bahns are excluded so should be the London Underground.

That said it's worth remembering that "S-Bahn" is foremost a marketing term. It's applied to a wide variety of systems with different technicalities, different histories, and different levels of service. Some of those cannot meaningfully be categorized as a metro, while some others can. Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn, Munich S-Bahn and a couple of others certainly fit the bill. Anorak2 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn has lots of track sharing. Hamburg S-Bahn has some track sharing. Its really only Berlin.Terramorphous (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So does the London Underground. So delete that as well? Anorak2 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because London is listed by UITP (among others). We follow sources around here, not Original research. --IJBall (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That remains to be shown. The choice of sources and their evaluation is a decision made by wiki authors and coult potentially be OR or POV.

Please link to the list you refer to, and explain why UITP is considered authoritative, while other sources are not. Anorak2 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• No one has said other sources aren't authoritative. At the start of this section I asked for editors to support their suppositions that S-Bahns were metros with reliable sources; that still has not happened. If you desire S-Bahns to be included, provide reputable scholarly sources that unequivocally state that S-Bahns are metros, then we can discuss the issue. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Seoul Metro Combination

What I find odd about the Seoul metro listing is that the table lists three different Seoul metro systems, yet when clicking on the first link (Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9)), it brings me to one complete list of the Seoul subway, which includes the second and third links (they are actually subsets of the first link). The listing for the Seoul subway system should be combined into one listing. Mr. Nushmutt (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it's three different companies. The table lists metros by company or system, not by city. Epic Genius (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Merseyrail Tyne and Wear metro systems

The table "List" has two omissions(in the UK). One is Merseyrail and the other is Tyne and Wear Metro. The links blow are: 1st link to a site covering both, 2nd Liverpool‘s Merseyrail and 3rd Tyne and Wear Metro.

• http://www.anglotopia.net/countries/england/britains-other-underground-train-tube-metro-rail-systems-and-networks/
• http://www.merseyrail.org/
• http://www.nexus.org.uk/metro

Cobhamman (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)David

These have been discussed before. Please see the talk page archives for why they have been intentionally omitted. oknazevad (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are transfer stations considered one station as a whole, or two or more stations as different identity?

I've noticed certain sections seem a bit strange...especially with the sections for # of stations. How is the rule for the transfer stations like? How are stations with different infrastructure (ex. North Hollywood Station, Red and Orange Line), different infrastructure with connection (ex. Union Station, Red/Purple and Gold Line), merged transfer stations (ex. 7th Street/Metro Center Station, Red/Purple and Blue/Expo Line), and transfer stations that share platforms and tracks (ex. Wilshire/Vermont Station, Red and Purple Line) considered? One or two stations?
ＨａｎＳａｎｇＹｏｏｎＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Generally it's what the system operator claims, with a note if there needs to be elaboration (have a look at the notes for Beijing, Shanghai, and Munich for examples). However, in the case of LA only the heavy rail metro stations are counted, so the light rail interchanges don't matter. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, originally it was desired to only count transfer stations once in this list. But when I started referencing the systems here, I soon realized that sticking to that was going to be impossible, as some operators only count transfer stations once, while other operators count them multiple times. So now the number of stations listed is just based off what the operator says. It might be possible to go back to counting only transfer stations once, but it would involving changing all of the station references to the system map, and someone going through all of the system maps, and counting stations one by one – for many of the larger systems, such a project would pretty much be a nightmare, and I'm not doin' it!! --IJBall (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid: Indeed, it's better to make the page of metro systems rather than lists of transfer stations, as that would bring in WP:REL and WP:ROC as a problem. By the way, is there a page that lists the entire train transit system that consists of all metro, medium, and light rail?
ＨＳＹＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, especially considering most stations would have some form of transfer (when considering buses). No, a page that lists all rapid rail systems would be enormous and very very hard to maintain; it would also be redundant to the various topic or regional lists. Also, your signature has a couple of bad links in it, using this code should fix it: [[User:HanSangYoon|{{fontcolor|gray|ＨＳＹ}}{{fontcolor|#0066CC|ＵＳＡ}}]] {{fontcolor|gray|[}} [[User_talk:HanSangYoon|{{fontcolor|gray|Discussion}}]] {{fontcolor|gray|] [}} [[Special:Contributions/HanSangYoon|{{fontcolor|gray|History}}]] {{fontcolor|gray|]}}. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid:  Question: What's a bad link? How is a link considered bad?
ＨＳＹＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• The links to [Discussion] and [History] in your signature were bad as in they did not work as you wanted them to; maybe broken would have been a better way to describe them. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• As a side note, the links in the original, bad signatures were fixed. Epic Genius (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: It varies; in the New York City Subway, for example, they are considered separate stations by the operator, while they are considered the same station by other sources. Epic Genius (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I understand that, but aren't there like an official New York City Subway page where they specify information about the transfer stations, if they're separately considered or not? And as experience, I think American subways as a whole consider a transfer station that uses one platform as a single station while any station that has two different platforms, connected or not connected, are two different stations.
ＨＳＹＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 21:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The MTA website says "468 stations" (with each different set of platforms counted as its own station) despite there being 421 stations (platforms on different lines that are connected to each other are counted as one station). Epic Genius (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: But there is something you should consider. Whatever the officials consider a transfer station as two different ones or a single station, if the officials of a metro system all considers it differently, then physically and in a realistic vision, the counts could get severely flawed. Let's say there's A Metro, which has 50 normal stations, and 5 transfer stations. The same goes with B Metro. Now if A Metro considers transfer stations as one identity, and B Metro considering them as two, then statistics would show that A Metro has 55 stations, while B Metro has 60 stations, but in fact, they're the exactly same transit system. So probably there should be a separate rule here in the metro chart of how a transfer station should be considered as. I'm willing to help with this process if it's too hard? What do you guys think?
ＨＳＹＵＳＡ [ Discussion ] [ History ] 21:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: Yeah, maybe that number, if applicable, could be placed in a new column. Epic Genius (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nagpur metro in 'under construction'

Someone has added the Nagpur metro to the under construction section, however, only soil testing has started. It seems premature to include a system as under construction when only pre-construction is being undertaken, but I thought I'd ask for the opinions of others rather than remove it. What are the thoughts of others? Do pre-construction works like soil testing count, or should we only count a system when actual construction work building physical infrastructure has commenced? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Things like soil testing and utility relocation are generally considered pre-construction activities, and should not be the basis of listing something here. Only systems that are under "heavy construction" should be included here. (Addendum: In fact, I think I had earlier added the words "heavy construction" to the preamble of the UC section, to restrict it to just those systems that were under "heavy construction", but somebody must have removed it later... We might want to add that back.) And I can find nothing to say that the Nagpur Metro is under heavy construction yet. Indeed, for what it's worth, the {{Rapid transit in India}} template lists this system under "Planned" systems, not "Under construction" ones. I would advise removing it from the list. (Note: In the case of the also recently-added Kanpur Metro, I have already removed it from the UC list, as the reference used to show that the Kanpur system was "under construction" was actually in regards to the separate Lucknow Metro!!) --IJBall (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Valencia, Venezuela ?

Is it a metro ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Metro_(Venezuela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.33.60.75 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends who you ask! – UITP does think it's a metro; but LRTA thinks it's "light rail". The disagreement between the two is why it hasn't been included here. Personally, I don't think I'd count it myself – while it's fully grade-separated apparently, it runs true LRVs (the same ones used in St. Louis) in just two-car transets; that feels very "light rail-y" to me... --IJBall (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• If a reliable source calls it a metro, I think it's fair to include. It's probably no different to Budapest metro line one which uses articulated vehicles, or Glasgow Subway which uses rather small three-car consists (both of which if built now would probably be called a light metro, but for historical reasons are still considered full metros). We can always put a note up indicating that it is considered a metro by some, and a light-metro/light rail by others. Doing it this way would mean we remain editorially impartial, while showing contesting views. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, when UITP includes a system, and LRTA calls it at least a "Light metro", such systems have been included. But when LRTA calls the system "Light rail", I think it's hard to justify a system's inclusion. Another thing to remember is that one of the defining characteristic of "metro" is "high passenger volume capacity", and there's no way something like Valencia, Venezuela's system can achieve that. --IJBall (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• It uses coupled Siemens SD-460 giving each service a capacity of 356; that's more than either Glasgow (277) or Budapest Line 1 (161-189), and not that far off the capacity of Chicago's metro trains when used in a four-car consist (336-536 theoretical/404-432 observed, depending on series). Similar sized vehicles are also used by Rennes Metro, Toulouse Metro, and Turin Metro (to name a few), while the terms can also be rather elastic, for example, DLR sometimes refer to themselves as light rail, and Bombardier call the trains light rail vehicles. Although in a way I agree it probably doesn't count, the fact is that a reliable source says it does; it's OR to discount that source, especially if it's the UITP which we rely on heavily, and go with only the sources that fit our view. Even though it does seem a little light to me, I think the best thing to do is to add it and have a note next to the system page link explaining that some consider it a metro, while others consider it a light rail or light metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We rely on UITP primarily, but not exclusively – LRTA is used too. I don't think it's "OR" not to include systems that our two main sources disagree on. And that's the thing – LRTA categorizes all of Glasgow, Rennes and Turin as "Light Metros" (Budapest and Toulouse are categorized as "Metro"); so our two main sources agree on these systems. But in the case of the two Venezuelan systems, LRTA calls them "Light rail". As a result, I don't think we should include those, as there's now a discrepancy between our two primary sources... --IJBall (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can you provide your links? I can't find many LRTA sources, and those that I can are conflicting: this calls it a light rail (but also calls DLR light rail), but this calls it a metro; while others are from before the system opened ([5]) or discussing Valencia, Spain ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). Either way, I think it's cherry picking to ignore sources or systems entirely because sources disagree, we should include and acknowledge the disagreements, not pretend they don't exist; that's why I call it OR. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The LRTA source is at the bottom of the list article, in the Online resources section – it's "A world of trams and urban transit"; then just click on whichever country you're looking for. As to your other point, being as "inclusionist" as you're suggesting is going to cause problems, as the list was like that before we starting using both UITP and LRTA together, and all that ended up leading to was a lot of conflicts. --IJBall (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• The link you provide calls DLR light rail, yet it's still included here. Although I agree an inclusionist approach may be problematic, at least it's neutral and complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (first line of WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.") Fact is, if a reliable source calls a system a metro, we have to report it, purposefully omitting it because we don't agree with it breeches policy. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can tell you is that will lead to a mess, as there are many editors itching to list their (light rail-ish) favorite systems here. And, once again – I will just point out that "high passenger volumes" is a defining criteria for "metros", and systems like Valencia's absolutely do not objectively qualify using that criteria (and therefore should not be included). But I'm not going to stop you (in fact, lately I've been thinking of taking this one off my Watchlist...), though I can't promise other editors around here won't object to adding a bunch of marginal systems... --IJBall (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really feel strongly enough about it to include it myself, but I wouldn't oppose someone else including it as long as it is properly referenced. I've been wondering for a while if things may be simpler if we merged the table from Medium-capacity rail transport system#List of MCS/light metro systems into this list as a separate table. IJBall, do you think that's worth doing (keeping in mind that may just be a new Pandora's box of trouble)? ColonialGrid (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think merging the Medium-capacity rail transport system list here is a very bad idea, indeed! I've worked on that list a lot, for the very reason that it's a perfect place to specifically note those "borderline" systems (or those systems that have little "imperfections" that make them less than fully "metro") that fall into the cracks between "heavy rail/metro" and "light rail". In fact, that list includes a number of systems, like the Tyne and Wear Metro that should absolutely not be included here, but are still "heavier" systems than just straight-forward "light rail". --IJBall (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did mean as a separate table; the same as how we have a table for metros, and a table for "Metro systems under construction". I do not in anyway advocate placing all metros, heavy or light, into the one table. As I said, just a thought, and it may reduce the occurrences of people asking why "such and such" metro is missing. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think I would still oppose that. But, it might not be a bad idea to include more clear links to Medium-capacity rail transport system article (and list) from this article... It's still on my 'To do' list to revise the written part of this article (and I may actually get to that in the next few weeks, finally!) – now that you're reminded me about this, I'll be sure to add something on "light metros", etc. to whatever changes I eventually end up making... --IJBall (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote pointing people to light metro systems, but still think it's worth considering moving the table into this article (after all they are still metro systems, just lighter metro systems). Think over it, and if you drop your opposition, I'll put up the templates and start a discussion (no point doing that if there's not even consensus for a discussion about a merger). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The same problem as before exists – a good number of the systems listed at Medium-capacity rail transport system have one or more references that refer to the systems as "light rail". I think we should not be in the practice of including any systems here with even a whiff of referencing indicating that they're "light rail". Again, that's what the Medium-capacity rail article is for – systems that don't fall neatly into either the "metro" or the "light rail" categories. --IJBall (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

DELHI METROS

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/asia/single-view/view/delhi-metro-line-6-opens-extension.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.33.60.75 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lille Metro

Should Lille Metro be in the list? More like the system is a light metro, judging from its description: Trains are 2 metres (79 in) wide and 26 metres (85 ft) long (composed of permanently coupled two-car sets), and are rubber-tyred. Platforms are 52 metres (171 ft) in length, long enough for two units. Each unit can carry 156 passengers.gogo3o 07:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's included in UITP's list of world metro systems; and LRTA lists it as a "light metro" not "light rail". So I think it pretty much has to be included due to our sources (i.e. similar to Copenhagen Metro). I will note, though, that this is one of the systems that's double-listed here and at Medium-capacity rail transport system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. IMO a more clear definition of the different types of systems should be elaborated. As for Lille Metro, I've noticed that UrbanRail, although an unofficial source, also defines it as a metro. gogo3o 11:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

How does Staten Island Railway constitute its own metro system?

It's under the same authority as NYC Subway (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), so shouldn't it be technically considered part of the NYC Subway for purposes of this list? Just wondering. 208.84.253.254 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, separate operating companies (NYCT vs SIRTOA). Never mind. 208.84.253.254 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That, and there's absolutely no track link between them at all. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Metro Report International

In the June 2015 edition of Metro Report International, there is an article "Top of the metro world" that includes a list of the top 25 metros ranked by route-km (page 48). Being a magazine targeted directly to the relevant industry, it is interesting to see that the list in the Metro Report article is similar to this Wikipedia list when it comes to ranking and inclusion of systems (i.e. includes BART but not RER and S-Bahn), and with roughly the same numbers for route kilometers. But there are some differences worth considering (i.e. includes Valencia, but only one system in New York, London and Seoul).

The original numbers for the article is from "Railway Directory 2015". Here is the list (I have added a column for the corresponding length from this WP article as of today 2015-07-26):

Top 25 metros ranked by route-km

Rank	City	Route-Km	WP-Km
1	Shanghai	577	548
2	Beijing	527	527
3	London	402	402 +34
4	New York	370	373 +23+22
5	Seoul	326	332 +125+17
6	Moscow	326	328
7	Tokyo	305	304 (195+109)
8	Madrid	293	294
9	Guangzhou	261	240
10	Mexico City	226	227
11	Paris	212	214
12	Chongqing	207	202
13	Delhi	193	194
14	Hong Kong	182	175
15	Nanjing	179	224
16	Shenzen	178	178
17	San Francisco	167	167
18	Washington	165	188
19	Chicago	164	165
20	Singapore	162	153
?	Tehran	?	152
21	Berlin	146	152
22	Valencia	140	-
23	Tianjin	135	137
?	Taipei	?	131
24	Busan	131	130
25	Osaka	130	130

Kildor (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of the Railway Directory 2015's numbers are "dated" (e.g. they're roughly "2014" numbers), which explains some of the discrepancies – e.g. Seoul had one or two expansions in 2015, which explains their "old" number of 326km (we used to have that number here...) vs. our current 332km figure; ditto New Delhi and Washington DC and Nanjing(?) (and possibly Taipei). I literally cannot explain the NYC Subway difference, as our number is pulled directly from the NYC Subway website! In the case of the Chinese systems, I'd probably defer to the Railway Directory in some of those cases, because I'd bet their numbers are more "current" than ours (the Chinese systems are the one set of systems I have deliberately chosen not to try and reference, relying instead on our Chinese-language editors, as there are too many Chinese metro systems, and I wouldn't even know where to start to go looking for their system lengths most of the time...).

Valenica is the one system that continues to "vex" me... I have come to the conclusion that probably one of its routes (basically the one corresponding to "Line 5") can be considered truly "metro". But the rest of its system is absolutely not, and the details about this are being ignored by nearly everyone, including UITP, LRTA, and now this Railway Directory... No matter how you slice it, though – Valencia does NOT have 140km of "true metro" system! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article. To comment on the NYC numbers alone, I don't know what happened to the three missing kilometers, but it's within a reasonable rounding error (being that the NYC Subway is officially measured in miles). It's also not surprising that the other two NYC figures don't appear. Taking the PATH and SIR as separate systems (as we do here as well), they're off the bottom of this list because they're well below the 130 km of Osaka.

If anything, that they are apparently separate on that list makes me think we've been keeping this list the right way, following the same standards the industry professionals do.same thing with Seoul. We have three separate entries, with the longest one almost the same as theirs (due to the slightly dated figure they're using, as IJ noted), while the second and third Seoul entries are below the 130 km line established by Osaka. So clearly were on the same track (pardon the pun).

On the other hand, why they left out Tehran and Taipei, I have no idea. And I too am vexed by Valencia. By any reasonable cursory glance, there's no way it is a metro. It's subway-surface light rail, with more grade crossings and even street running that could ever be considered metro. The underground portions are definitely well-built, but when it's the exact same vehicles passing through both portions on the same trip, it's not a metro. Makes me think that maybe the Valencia transit authority has some really good marketers (lol). Anyway, not a metro, nope. oknazevad (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the Valencia system is not a metro. Still interesting to see it's included, while all other decisions for inclusions/exclusion appears right on target. For Tehran and Taipei, I guess the reason for being left out is simply that the directory's length is slightly less than the number we have here, making it below the top 25. The list also has opening year and ridership values. But I am too lazy qouting those numbers right now (perhaps another time!). Kildor (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kildor: In the case of Tehran's metro, I'm nearly sure our current system length total includes Line 5 which is a 42km commuter rail line (I've even left a 'comment code' note about this in the article code!), so it's basically wrong: the correct figure is actually more like 110km for Tehran. On Taipei, I have absolutely no idea what's going on, as our figure is direct from the Taipei Metro website, and I don't think Taipei Metro has any "light rail" lines hiding within its system like Valencia does. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Year of opening of London metro

London metro was opened in 1868 not 1890 as the list shows. This needs some correction. I think some jealous American has prepared that list. 122.176.113.112 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the lede (and the references cited there), or the 'Note' that goes along with the opening date? You might want to do that before assuming bad faith... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely what is a metro?

This article, and the Rapid Transit article, don't give enough weight to the type of job done by a rapid transit system. The term metro should be reserved for inner-city systems. Suburban systems that mainly bring people from outer suburbs (like, for example, London's above-ground railways although they don't have to be above-ground) are quite different. Metro systems tend to have closely-spaced stations (typically below 1.5 kilometres), limited seating (each seated passenger takes the same floor space as two standing passengers) and enough doorways that the train can empty very quickly and refill almost as quickly.

I have calculated the average inter-station spacing for the metro systems in the large table in this article. Look at http://exigent.aptnsw.org.au/metro_systems.html and you will see that about 95% of the systems in the table have average spacing of 2 kilometres or less. This tends to confirm my suggestion that metro systems have closely-spaced stations. The conspicuous outlier is BART. Should BART be in a table of metro systems? I don't think so although BART is certainly rapid transit. Its operations go well beyond San Francisco's limits and include other cities such as Oakland and Richmond.

The article does not comment on average station spacing. I think the second paragraph of Considerations should discuss average inter-station spacing among the other factors. I'll look around for something to refer to in the discussion. I also think the list of metro systems would benefit from an added column showing the average inter-station spacing however I don't have the resources to add a column to such a large table. Jswd (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a vexed, and rather discussed issue. As you have stated, the problem is that what a metro system is is ill defined, but WP policy forbids original research, as such we report what others write. Inclusion really comes down to what reliable sources say; if reliable sources like UITP or APTA call a system a metro, so do we.

I'm also unsure of the usefulness of adding an additional column, especially given the generalised nature of average spacing over an entire system, it would also be hard to maintain. And, how would we deal with the fact that some systems count interchange stations as one station, while others count them as two? ColonialGrid (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that ColonialGrid. Forget the additional column then. UITC do lists of metro systems so let's see how they decide eligibility. On page 4 of http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/Metro%20report%20Stat%20brief-web_oct2014.pdf it says:

• A metro is an urban guided transport system, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short headways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows.

• Besides the above criteria, lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of minimum two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers. Suburban railways (such as the Paris RER, the Berlin S-Bahn and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport express line) are not included. Systems that are based on light rail, monorail or magnetic levitation technology are included if they meet all other criteria. Suspended systems are not included.

Now let's look at Human Transit by Jarrett Walker which is already cited in the article. On page 64, he separates transit systems into express, rapid and local. Don't think that "express" means fast; it simply means that it only stops at the places mentioned and not anywhere else. Walker's rapid systems are essentially the same thing as metro systems.

Finally look at APTA. At http://www.apta.com/about/generalinfo/Pages/default.aspx it says "APTA members are public organizations that are engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne passenger services, and high-speed rail." Walker's three types would appear to be high-speed rail, commuter rail and subways.

So let's put the essence of those definitions into the Considerations paragraph. Do you have a better suggestion? Jswd (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to improving the considerations section, @IJBall: has been discussing an overhaul for a while, so I'd suggest being bold and make some edits. However, the UITP do consider BART a metro, so I oppose removing it from the list. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The criteria for "metro" status is pretty much already spelled out in the 'Considerations' section, so I have no idea what Jswd thinks is missing. The issue here is that while the definitional characteristics of "metro" are pretty much already defined, the same people (e.g. UITP) behind these definitions then sometimes go ahead and ignore that a few systems don't quite meet all of the criteria and include them anyway... The bottom line is that you can't simply look at one criteria (e.g. inter-station distances), and use that to exclude a system – you have to look holistically at all of the criteria, and if a system meets the large majority of them (e.g. BART) then it will be considered a "metro", even if it falls short on a single criteria here and there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, and one more thing: APTA absolutely, positively includes BART in its list of United States "rapid transit" systems (e.g. see the APTA Ridership Reports). So, basically, there's no one that doesn't count BART as a "metro" system. And, indeed, in downtown San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, BART does effectively operate as one, in all the ways a traditional "metro" would. In any case, "metro" and "rapid transit" are considered synonymous terms. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I became interested in the definition when the CEO of an organisation set up to build a metro in my city said a metro network means a stand-alone network that is fully integrated with other modes of transport such as buses ... and trains. Stand-alone grates against integrated and apart from that the definition says little. I think the WP Considerations paragraph is too long, especially for what it says. Light rail (which this WP article doesn't cover however explaining the difference here is convenient) has trams or short trains (the world's longest are only about 70 metres) running on tracks which people are allowed to walk across. Heavy rail comes in three versions which Walker calls express, rapid and local. Walker's local trains are obviously the same as metro. Metro trains serve short-distance travel using cars designed to let passengers board and alight quickly. In peak hour, many metro passengers have to stand because seats are minimised in favour of open floor space. Metro stations are rarely much more than 1km apart.

Turning to the references 5, 6 and 7 in the WP article:

• Schwandl says a metro is primarily used to move within the city.
• The APTA Fact Book is plainly talking about both Walker's local trains and rapid trains in its definition of heavy rail. For reasons best known to its authors it does not discuss metro systems separately.
• The National Transit Database Glossary does not contain the word Metro so is irrelevant.

If UITP and/or APTA think that BART is a metro system, that is their problem. The overwhelming evidence from the list in the WP article is that literally 95% of metro systems have 2km or less between stations, simply because they operate within their city and carry people relatively short distances.

I think that Considerations needs re-writing to make it shorter and more relevant to what metro systems are and do. Jswd (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you want to donwplay APTA's and UITP's definitions in favor of one specific source? Somehow that doesn't strike me as a particularly good application of sourcing... Again, interstation spacing is simply one consideration among several. Bottom line: This debate has been going on in this article for years, and nobody is ever going to be 100% satisfied by what's included and what isn't. But the sources we currently use do the best job of covering all of the bases. If you try to rewrite the 'Considerations' section in a way that is a radical departure from what it currently says, there's no guarantee that another editor around here won't object. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would vociferously object, actually. Two major standards bodies, including the main international one, are the current main sources for this list, and the considerations section. That easily trumps any anonymous source. And if they both include BART, the problem is yours for not following g the most reliable sources we have. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Against. Station spacing is at best an extremely weak argument for exclusion of a system. Also regarding your points:

• City in "is primarily used to move within the city" is extremely subjective, it could mean the city proper of San Francisco or the entire Bay Area. So saying system X is a Metro because it is used to move within the "city" is problematic.
• National Transit Database Glossary uses the term Heavy Rail (HR) for its definition of Metro Terramorphous (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of the the characteristics of most metro systems, what you are suggesting is WP:OR, and against policy. We relay what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say BART is a metro, so we also say BART is a metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Then how about we find out how UITP defines metro systems and replace Considerations with that. Or simply a single sentence saying that heavy rail systems in cities are metro if and only if UITP says they are? Jswd (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's overly reductive. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we don't synth info ourselves, but relay research of others. The consideration section should represent that, and should list considerations that a variety of organisations and experts consider inherent to metros. Similarly, the list should be (and is) broader that what one organisation lists, but still needs to be based on reliable sources. Pretty much every inclusion is considered a metro by a reliable publication, and the considerations section should represent the views of those publications. If you can find a reliable source that states tight station spacing to be a feature of metros, add it. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Station spacing is definitely one criteria that I've seen mentioned (don't really remember where...) – it's the criteria that's most supposed to show the differential in terms of metro/light rail vs. commuter/suburban rail. It's just not an "exclusively defining" criteria in its own right... Anyway, I am still planning to go through the 'Considerations' section on my end, and try to improve it (so any sourcing that Jswd finds can be added) – it's just that that is not going to happen until one of my two summer jobs ends, so we're talking a couple of weeks from now, at the earliest... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've obtained UITP's definition and discussed it with a UITP official. He said "I tend to agree with you that BART is a commuter railway system. You will find attached a detailed note that I prepared some months ago." The note discusses the classification question and sets out guidelines which include distance between stations but not the job that a metro system does in its city. It refers to Vuchic's trilogy. I'll try to get to the library later this month and see what Vuchic says about the job that a metro system does. Jswd (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not how "reliable sources" work. Regardless, even if UITP stopped listing BART, APTA will never not list BART as "rapid transit", so this discussion is moot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I got to the library and consulted by Vukan R Vuchic. I quote from section 4.7.3 page 253: Spacings between stations ... are usually selected as a compromise between good area coverage (short spacings) and high operating speed (long spacings). Therefore, longer lines tend to have longer spacings: regional rail networks, such as San Francisco BART and the Munich S-Bahn, have average spacings of 1000-2500 m, compared with the spacings of 500-800 m on typical urban metro systems such as those in Paris, Philadelphia, and Mexico. Now I'll run that past APTA and UITP. As stated above, I want Considerations simplified and more relevant to the functions performed by metro systems as distinct from regional rail. Jswd (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Tehran Metro

The Tehran Metro editing is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to revert this time and get trapped into a backdoor edit war. But somebody needs to restore some halfway decent stats there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)