Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Again, Hamburg S-Bahn

I believe the Hamburg S-Bahn should be counted as a metro, with the same line of argument as the Berlin S-Bahn. 113.2 km of the network are separated from other rail services, 31.9 km are operated together with regional and cargo traffic. About 12.5 km of the network lie within tunnels, 7.9 km are single-track routes. The 31.9km - operated together with regional traffic/cargo traffic - are actually an intermediate step in the conversion of this trunk from Regional train "R-line" to S-Bahn. This trunk to Stade is run by special trains, which have a dual electrical system, which can be switched from the 1200V DC third rail to 15KV AC overhead catenary outside the city. Previously these R-Lines would end at the endpoint of the "true" S-Bahn system and the passengers would have to change trains, now they can just pull in the pantographs and switch to DC and continue inside the city. Likewise, there are AKN-trains which can switch from Diesel-electric to third rail and run on the S-Bahn System inside the city, and these are also recent additions to make the AKN more compatible. Except these recent additions to spare passengers of R-trains/AKN the switch, the classical S-Bahn is fully separate from the regional network. It is expected, that these branches will later convert to "full" S-Bahn lines. This is how the system was historically growing. We can say that in the status of ca year 2000 or so the S-Bahn (except these "compatibility" additions, which are just a bridge solution), that means the 113km of fully separated lines, is a real metro. The daily use of this metro for Hamburg traffic is the same as with the U-Bahn, sharing stations with the U-Bahn, but not tracks, because they have different DC-voltages and third rail systems etc., but this is unnoticable to the passengers, they just go to the next platform, like when switching from one U-Bahn line to the other. Trust me I'm from Hamburg. 70.137.138.216 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For a diagram showing how U-Bahn, S-Bahn, A-Bahn, R-(regional) trains are connected and related see following diagram

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Bahnlinien_im_HVV.png

of the Hamburg transit authority. You can see there e.g. how the branch of former R-bahn from Neugraben to Stade has been converted to S-Bahn, and how the A-Bahn AKN has been extended into the S-Bahn network to run to Main Station without switching trains by dual system. 70.137.138.216 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 4#Hamburg S-Bahn again.. (sorry), Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 3#Hamburg S-Bahn, Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 2#Paris RER, Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn, Copenhagen S-Train; i do not think that there are new permises since them. Note that rule that systems with only some lines fulfilling requirements are excluded is still enforced. --Jklamo (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read these discussions. They seem to assume that the trunk to Suelldorf is running at level like a lightrail, which is not the case, trust me. Also the "rule" that low frequency trunks make the whole system into a non-metro, non-heavy-rail would exclude Berlin S-Bahn, and even New York subway, which is undisputed as a metro. This "rule" also ignores how metro systems have been historically growing in many places, namely by successive additions of peripheral lines from regional /commuter systems, followed by conversion to full metro. (Including even conversion from steam/diesel to third rail rolling stock. This is completely normal for historically growing systems) This has been the case in London, Berlin, Hamburg and many others. It is the natural way of growing a system in a growing metropolitan area, when the growing transport needs in the periphery ask for the conversion of lines to higher capacity. The usual targets of such conversion are stubs of intercity lines, regional train lines and commuter train lines, which then get converted to third rail and thereby eliminate the need for switching trains on the way into the city. The discussion also ignores, how integrated the Hamburg S-Bahn system is with the U-Bahn, really augmenting the U-Bahn line network and even sharing many stations with it. I would prefer if the editors would make themselves more acquainted with the matter of historical growth before making rules. Please before reverting look at the case of Berlin S-Bahn, which is much more spread out into the surrounding area and which entirely grew from successive conversion of stubs of intercity train lines, which got converted from steam to third rail once the traffic needs made this useful. 70.137.152.219 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I admit that there are systems in the world which have not been growing, but have been set up as systems out of the retort. Many new smaller systems are like that. But the "classical" systems like London, New York, Berlin and Hamburg, in fact among the oldest systems (1908, 1912 etc.) have been growing "organically" along the lines of already existing dense infrastructure, which is typical for the highly populated and industrialized old metropolitan areas, by integrating existing multiple systems (3 separate systems in New York, more in London) and successively adding with growing traffic needs. This is clearly not the case if you build a traffic system on the green lawn or somewhere in the jungle. Besides the NYC subway has at grade crossings too. So this is a completely useless criterion. 70.137.152.219 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The NYC Subway does not have any grade crossings; the last was removed south of the East 105th Street station in the late 1960s. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly correct, that was the one I thought about.(closed '73 according to Wiki ref from NYT) But it was a metro then, that is undisputed. So the criterion is faulty. The Berlin S-Bahn also has grade crossings. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It should be noted that what was the criterion 40-50 years ago may not be applicable today. Many modern rail systems have eliminated level crossings as cities have developed. -Multivariable (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but last they do it in some peripheral trunks with low train frequency , which are present in e.g. NYC. Berlin, London, Hamburg. And the removal of the last grade crossing somewhere close the end of a trunk line doesn't suddenly turn the whole system from non-metro into metro. That is obvious nonsense and nitpicking. A more useful criterion is really if the bulk of the system has typical metro characteristics. I believe this is dictated by the way metro systems are typically historically growing, see above. And (grin) what are 40-50 years in the history of so old systems, which date back to 1890 or 1910? Young people are sometimes really too modernistic, everything has to be invented new with every generation. Everything the old daddies once have built, their criteria, their terminolgy, that all is now outdated trash. We are young... You don't want to claim that the NYC metro of 1970 wouldn't be a metro with today's criteria, right? I would think that goes too far. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The same argument, only the other way around, applies to Hamburg S-Bahn. You don't want to claim, that the recent addition of a trunk of regional train line at the end of the then existing metro system, for future extension of the metro system, suddenly turns the existing metro system into a non-metro? This is the same kind of nonsense and nitpicking. In fact the metro system stays what it was, but it grows in the periphery with the growing needs of the growing metropolitan area. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Besides, your modern rail systems, you are likely thinking about, are in today's world mostly Chinese systems, which have been planned from scratch, almost on a green lawn or in the jungle, to serve these huge developing cities and metroplexes, which are almost growing like an explosion out of a few small industrial cities within decades. That is a different case and not typical for the slowly developing age old metropolitan areas/ metroplexes of the old industrial world. We cannot IMO set this as a standard how a real metro has to look like in the world, that is too narrow as a definition. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think borderline cases should in general be included, as far more new editors argue for adding slightly borderline content rather than removing it. Obviously anything that is really not just borderline should be argued down, but I think if we accepted the borderline cases should be in the article we'd have less of an issue with people continually bringing up new systems.

The inclusionist position is backed up further by the fact that actually strictly the London Underground doesn't meet the criteria, both sharing track on the Metropolitan line north of Harrow on the Hill, and the Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, and having a handful of stations without a service every 10 minutes, as required by the criteria.

Spending lots of time arguing against everything people try to add, or not giving their points justice is a waste of everyone's time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I too tend to be fairly inclusionist for this list (such as arguing for the Staten Island Railway above), and overly strict interpretation of the considerations is not a good idea. That said, I've also argued against some additions before. Here I'd be willing to let it stand, but I would like more info. Does the shared trackage constitute a significant portion of the system? Is it really shared trackage (i.e., the trains run on the exact same rails), or do they just run adjacent to each other in the same right-of-way? These haven't really been made clear in the previous discussions. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a recent addition (from Neugraben to Stade) to the end of a trunk line (formerly ending in Neugraben), which is not shared. The recent addition is a conversion from R-Train (regional train), which extends the reach of the S-Bahn by a few stations to Stade. This recent addition to the S-Bahn system is served by special trains, which can switch from third rail DC to overhead catenary AC on this extension. Later they will convert the extension to DC. This is how the system has been growing historically, in Hamburg, Berlin, London, NY, by addition to the periphery. Regarding the significant portion, it is about 20% of the track length, but only added to one line at the endpoint. More important, it is only a tiny fraction of the passenger volume and thereby usage and utility of the system. So it does not substantially change the character of the system as a metro. It just extends the reach of one line of the metro system to the next suburb, without the previous need to switch trains at the former end of the metro system. Previously the passengers would have to switch over to a R-train, now the S-Bahn can provide trains which run through to the new end point. I believe such additions do not turn the metro system into non-metro, it is just an elegant method (by dual electrical system trains) to serve further stations without switching trains. In principle it is a method of sweeping system extension by successive additions of more and more distant stations as the traffic needs in the periphery are growing, as the metropolitan area is growing. Indeed, even London Underground has the same methods, with additions running on shared tracks. This is the point I wanted to make, that it is a completely normal mode of "organic" growth of the old systems. So a too purist set of criteria does exclude the classical systems and allows only the recent small new systems which have been started from scratch on the green lawn and have not yet seen this slow organic growth. Look at them in 30-40 years, when a need for growth or extension arises, and you will see that they will likely convert what is there in infrastructure to arrive at a cost effective solution. They will just steal a track from the main regional rail system and add compatible electrification. Later, with increasing train frequency, they will need to exclude regional trains from this new stretch of the metro. Besides, currently the train frequency on the questionable new stretch of Hamburg S-Bahn is every 10 minutes in the traffic hours, 20 minutes outside the traffic hours. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if with increasing train frequency they have already segregated S-Bahn traffic from regional trains on the new addition, by running S-bahn only on rail #3 during hours of service, regional on rail #4 and #5. Previously rail #3 was shared. It is clear that with increasing train frequency you have to do that because you cannot shuttle in the regional or cargo traffic in a raster of 10 minutes or less, that is too tight. But maybe they are still running other trains in the night, outside service hours of the S-Bahn. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So they took a track that used to be part of the R-Bahn commuter line (and it's stations), and grafted it on to the S-Bahn (which is temporarily using the old overhead wire in the segment until the third rail is extended). So now the R-Bahn trains, no longer needing to stop at those inner stations (as they're now served by the S-Bahn) bypasses them on adjacent tracks. Sounds similar to portions of the Orange Line (MBTA), Yellow Line (CTA).

I do have one last question, about grade crossings. Does the new extension have any, and if so how many? oknazevad (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know exactly, fellow rail fan, see yourself the train running on the new extension, from Stade to Neugraben, where it switches to DC third rail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3a59MeNn9U

This gives at least the answer, what kind of train and rail system the new addition is. You see it is not a light rail system and is running in its own right of way. Yes, they grafted a stretch of commuter line on it, they are running it with modified S-bahn trains, which have a transformer, rectifier and pantograph added to alternately run DC third rail and 15kV AC overhead catenary, that is another graft too. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here another video in 4 parts, showing the Hamburg S-Bahn 1988 (shown trains built ca. 1938-1950)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsASVHWzJ0E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDHXpHcnufQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILGHMsfCKIU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPD6RDZ_scY&feature=related

Shows IMO clearly Hamburg S-Bahn being a metro. Notice shared stations with U-Bahn (passing, also U-station signs). The systems are integrated in the hamburg transport Authority HVV. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The first video (which is a nifty cab ride video) is certainly suburban/commuter in character, with the station spacing, numerous grade crossings, and almost rural and tree-lined right-of-way. The others are more metro like, certainly, but are also reminiscent of parts of the Long Island Rail Road. So I'd like to see what others think. Anyone else with an opinion?

(I should probably also mention the need for reliable sources, not just out opinions, but that goes without saying.) oknazevad (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is like the Berlin S-Bahn in this respect. Also the suburban impression may be caused by the character of the city itself, which almost looks like a suburb of itself. See here, this is the city center:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alsterblick.jpg

Don't you think, "what city,where is the city"? Hamburg (look at the pictures) is unusually spread out, green and park-like overall. No high rise buildings higher than approx 20 stories, to keep the historical character of the city, by ordinance. Practically all streets of Hamburg are tree-lined traditionally!

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Osterstrasse.jpg&filetimestamp=20070618153818

It was heavily bombed in WW2 and the rebuilt parts as well as many old parts look like a park. This is why quarters of the city near center are highly priced living quarters, you can still live there and it looks like park with old 1890 buildings. see here, near center.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Rotherbaum

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindel_%28Hamburg%29

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinenviertel

Not like the hell hole of some modern cities. However, some buildings from the '40ies tend to have a sturdy robust look and are 9/11-safe! That is less idyllic. This is how you should build in the US.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Flakt%C3%BCrme

I agree with you that the added portion of the trunk line in the first video is commuter rail. The rest is suburb like, because Hamburg is its own suburb in character. The most authoritative source will be a geographic railroad map, showing the system being with exception of the new addition and the old Wedel trunk inside city limits. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Take a look with google map "Hamburg Germany", set to satellite view. The stations you think are commuter stations (which exceptions see above) are inside the city area. You can also see that the S-bahn stations in the center are close to each other and pretty dense. google map shows S-Bahn and U-Bahn stations at high magnification. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to LIRR shows, LIRR is much more spread out, longer rail network, much less passengers than Hamburg S-bahn. Hamburg S-bahn has 221 Mio passengers per year on 144km of rail, almost all traffic volume within city limits. LIRR approx 80 Mio, on a 1100km network. So Hamburg S-bahn is much denser and localized traffic, its traffic is 21 times more dense and localized than LIRR traffic. (namely factor 221/80 * 1100/144, comparing passengers per km per year) LIRR is more comparable to the added branch to Stade, the commuter train conversion. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For a comparative study of the growth of this system, look at the historical development of the hamburg U-bahn system since 1912 here, you see a geographical map with U and S stations. Note that the U-Bahn also grew by successive additions over time, that may be interesting. But from this geographical map (only inner city shown) you can also see how the S-bahn network (pale green) fills the gaps between the U-bahn lines. The S-bahn grew just like that, by successive additions, I have to find a map of the time line.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Hamburger_Hochbahn_-_Entwicklungsgeschichte.png

70.137.157.164 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

About borderline cases: I don't think that inclusion of more and more borderline cases will end the numerous discussions here. If we move the "borders", there will always be new borderline cases up for discussion. As for reliable sources: In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology, the S-Bahn in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo, Paris RER, and Sydney City Rail are explicitly given as typical examples of regional rail (pp. 551-552). --Kildor (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that there will always be borderline cases, however if the border is slightly beyond the criteria, then it becomes much easier to argue against their inclusion, and by common sense people also won't bring them up/add them so you won't have to discuss them.

Sydney's City Rail for example shares a lot of track with other trains, as do the JR lines in Tokyo (other than the Yamanote line). So that doesn't really leave a big group. I'm not sure whether the RER shares track, but it does spread significantly outside the city of Paris (though how much that means is a little debatable).

Additionally its pretty difficult to argue against this logically when the London Underground fails to meet the letter of the criteria on the page as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are probably right! And I am really not that interested in discussing every borderline case every one or two months. --Kildor (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm only pushing this as I've just been involved in that borderline discussion on another page, and I realise how much time you waste on those discussions :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I may remind of the discussion of historical growth and extension patterns above. In this discussion it will become apparent that undisputed historical metro systems like the NY subway, London underground, Berlin and Hamburg U-Bahn have been growing organically, just like e.g. the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn. Above link to the Hamburg U-Bahn development timeline will prove that. So the mentioned S-bahn systems show a parallel development to the U-bahn systems in the same place. Also I would propose to look at a criterion of traffic density and localization, I have done this above with a calculation of passengers per year and km of track length (passengers/(year*km)) Hamburg S-Bahn vs. figures of LIRR. The difference is obvious, a factor 20. Of course for a thorough analysis of systems we would resort to a statistic of rides per localization, showing the percentage of commuter traffic to outside city limits vs. local traffic within city limits. I would propose a criterion for a metro which is based on high local traffic volume with these mentioned definitions of local traffic and with a high volume defined as one which is magnitudes higher than typical light rail service. Please, mathematically interested rail friends take a look at this approach and comment. 70.137.161.53 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate passengers/(year*km) as a measure of traffic localization and density see following example figures:

Paris metro 7 Mio

Peking metro 5.3 Mio

Shanghai metro 4.7 Mio

London underground 4 Mio

NY subway -route length 4.74 Mio

NY subway -track length 1.6 Mio

Hamburg U-bahn 2 Mio

Hamburg S-bahn excl Stade 1.9 Mio

Hamburg S-bahn incl Stade 1.53 Mio

Berlin U-bahn 3 Mio

Berlin S-bahn 1.2 Mio

LIRR 0.075 Mio

I think this is a criterion to distinguish metros from commuter rail. Please try out more examples!

70.137.161.53 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the U-Bahn and S-Bahn of Hamburg and many other cities in Germany must be viewed as parts of an integrated metro system. Public transport in large German cities is often organized in a "Verkehrsverbund", a corporation that manages the underlying lines and routes. S and U are integral parts of these systems. Hamburg was the first Verkehrsverbund in Germany. These systems share common tickets, tariffs, stations and sometimes tracks. The owners of rail and other traffic systems now take on the role of subcontractors that supply services for the Verkehrsverbund. The S-Bahn is missing on this list for Frankfurt and Munich. Without the S-Bahn, traffic would completely collapse. As long as we talk metro systems, the S-Bahn must be included, as an integral part. BsBsBs (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not add the fractional bits that meet the criteria? E.g., at least 100km of the Munich S-Bahn (out of 442km) meet all of criteria for a metro; for commuters these combined 200km (U+S Bahn) are treated as one system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.6.241 (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The big argument about whether S-Bahn in Hamburg and Berlin count as metro or regional rail services should be easily ended by the fact that there are separate regional rail services (named Regionalbahn) with a totally separate character, purpose, and function. Of course, there are some RB tunnels and closely-spaced stations in Berlin, but no one is arguing for its inclusion, as its purpose is to bring people from outside the city in, not move people within the city, as is the case with S- and U-Bahn. LIRR, as an example, exhibits total RB-like characteristics, despite, as the RB does, having city tunnels and so forth. 92.225.45.180 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the East Rail of Hong Kong's KCR Corporation? In 2007 the KCRC leased all its operations to the MTR Corporation Limited, the other railway operator in the territory that operates chiefly the rapid transit system in the cities. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn

If Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn networks are counted here, why is the Munich one not? it also has consistent parts of it inside the city borders serving several quarters with high frequencies including 8 tunnel stations mainly in the city centre. It can be very much compared to the hamburg S-bahn, though it stretches further out. Its total length is 442 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.250.44 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a metro system?

References are key to Wikipedia. The definition of what should go in a list and what not is essential to a list. This list references two sources for the definition of "metro system."

UITP defines metropolitan railways as "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." Schwandl basically adopts the same definition. We should not add additional capricious criteria that are not in the source.

• Neither the UITP nor the cited Schwandl have a level crossing as a knock-out criterion.
• The criterion that the system needs to be "primarily used within a city " is likewise unreferenced. "Urban" is not the same as "within a city." (If understood as the same city.) A metropolitan area can consist of several cities. Many metro systems, especially in Europe and Japan, provide services to several cities, located in one metropolis.
• The two references do not exclude "light rail," Schwandl expressly includes light rail.
• The exclusion of monorail contradicts the cited Schwandl, who says "It's also irrelevant whether the metro runs on steel wheels or rubber tyres, is monorail or conventional double rail, uses third rail power supply or overhead wire, is fully automated or has a driver, has standard, narrow or broad gauge." For instance, the monorail from downtown Tokyo to Tokyo's Haneda airport is very much a part of the metropolitan transport system. And where does the Maglev train in Shanghai fit in? It is understood that monorails at Disneyworld don't count.
• None of the sources mention or exclude "commuter rail." Trying to separate a metro system from commuter rail often turs into a painful exercise. In the mornings and evenings, most metro systems turn into massive commuter rails.

I have the feeling that a lot of this stems from an American worldview where there is a subway, and then you head to Penn and catch the LIRR commuter rail. In railroad-heavy Europe or Japan, it is not as clear-cut, the systems are much more integrated, the transitions are flowing.

Schwandl takes a holistic view of the situation, which reflects the developments in more rail-centric continents: "There are many mixed forms nowadays and probably there will be even more in the future. In Europe (especially Germany and the Benelux) light rail systems (Stadtbahn, Premetro) have been bridging the gap between metros and trams for some decades now and provide, in most cases, a perfect service in their city."

I understand that there must be limitations for a list. Both the cited UITP and Schwandl provide workable definitions. Unreferenced definitions are against Wikipedia rules. I also understand that the above does not make the work of editors easier, the editing now demands a knowledge of true metro systems, as apart from listing stats of subways. But this is what makes Wikipedia exciting. BsBsBs (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to define what to include in this list. There are many different definitions of metro, and there are no totally precise and unambigous critera that can be used to make a reasonable good list of metros. But there are references supporting the critera used here, and this metro list is fairly equal to to the few other metro lists available on the internet. In response to your points above:

• According to both UITP and Schwandl, a metro is totally independant from other traffic. A system with level crossings is not totally independant from other traffic.
• The Schwandl defiintion clearly says that "it is primarily used to move within the city".
• Schwandl *do* distinguish cities with metro systems and cities with light rail systems by using different colors and comments. UITP has separate definitions for metro and light rail.
• According to Schwandl, a monorail is a metro. The UITP definition is not clear regarding this aspect. The LRTA list clearly separates metro systems from monorail systems. Whether to include or not include monorail systems in this list can of course be discussed. Even some people movers and funiculars might fit in the metro definition. To me, these are different types of public transportation, and should be listed seperately.
• UITP defines "regional and suburban railways". Schwandl doesn't define "commuter rail", but refer to many systems as commuter rail or suburban railways. Separating metros from commuter rail systems might be painful. But if we don't, we would end up with a list of metro and commuter rail systems.

I am not sure what you suggest we should do. Would you prefer a list with a bigger scope, including some light rail and suburban rail systems? Or do you think we should make the "considerations" section clearer? And how? --Kildor (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Level crossings: I think we are reading too much into the “Totally independent from other traffic, rail or street traffic.” This is a sensible requirement to set “metro” apart from trolleys. However, none of the sources mention level crossings, and for good reason: When the crossing gate is down, the train is totally independent from other traffic, and when the gate is up, there is no train. I could name you some rail lines in the middle of Tokyo which are separated by high fences, steel barriers, and which have level crossings, simply because the buildings are so dense that there is no room for a tunnel or bridge. They would love to get rid of the crossings, but they can’t. The gates are a big nuisance on a line that has a train in each direction every 5 minutes. Anyway, if the driver of the train would have to watch out for cars, pedestrians or other trains, the train would be dependent. Whether tunnel, bridge or gate, there is a clear separation of traffic. As sensibly mentioned many times, a level crossing somewhere should not knock hundreds of kilometers of line off the list.

Within the city: “City” is ambiguous. Depending how one looks at it, “city” can mean what is within the administrative boundaries, or it means the whole metropolitan area. Cities in the U.S., Japan and Europe have narrow boundaries, and their metro systems reach into neighboring cities. Cities in China are bigger than some countries. If this rule would be enforced, many big city metros on this list would be gone. The PATH train does not only connect two cities, but two states. Shall we lose the BART, because it reaches beyond SF? The “within the city” rule is sensible to set a metro system apart from inter-city trains, but it needs to be applied within reason. After all, "metro" comes from "chemin de fer métropolitain" or metropolitan railroad. A metropolis disregards corporate boundaries of cities, and metropolitan transport usually does likewise.

What do I suggest? I suggest we follow the UITP definition and look at metro systems as a whole. For instance, the metro system in Tokyo is much larger than the two subway systems listed. The U-Bahn and S-Bahn of many cities of Germany need to be looked at as a whole. The other alternative is to simply list subways. I think this is how this list got started. BsBsBs (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with swapping the word "city" with "conurbation". The point is that the lines are used primarily to travel within the dense, urban core of the area, not to connect outlying, suburban points with the city center. (Many suburban commuter systems actually have a large gap between their "downtown" terminal and the first outlying station.The metro or light rail fills that gap.) It can be difficult to define this where the entire metropolitan area is densely urban.

I would be wary, though, of confusing light rail and metro; the technical aspects (especially construction costs) and capacity limits make them fill differing niches.

I think you may touch on something with your last comment, though. This list isn't just about listing systems that fill comparable niches in their respective conurbations, but also systems that are technologically comparable. That is an important purpose, one that shouldn't be ignored. oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC) (PS, sorry about the Wein/Wien reversion, it got caught up it the reversion (once again!) of PoV-pushing edits by the IP sock of a banned user. He is a recurring problem here.)

What is a subway? --Kildor (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is exactly why S-Bahn in some cities applies and doesn't in others. In Berlin and Hamburg (and maybe other cities which I have no experience with) S-Bahn functions like the express services on the New York subway - simply as a faster train to move within the city. The function of moving people from outlying areas into the city daily, who then transfer to S- and U-Bahns to move within the city, is the task of Regionalbahn. 92.225.45.180 (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting comparison, and may be an apt one. I'm still not entirely convinced that S-Bahnen can really be easily categorized as metros (previous discussions included videos of the Hamburg system that were decidedly suburban rail, with frequent grade crossings and far too many trees to really be called "urban"), but they are strongly more robust than other suburban systems.

What about Tokyo's Rinkai Monorail or Naha's Yui Monorail? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be Rinkai Guideway. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say, isn't the Rinkai Line already included (as Tokyo Waterfront Rapid Transit)? As for the monorails, there's a separate List of monorail systems; this list is as much about technological similarities, and monorails use very different technology. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the Yurikamome guideway, not the Rinkai subway line. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian ones

Following are some of the largest in the world, but not mentioned.

Sydney: http://www.cityrail.info/stations/network_map (Except the grey lines which are out of sydney metropolitan lines)

Melbourne: http://www.metrotrains.com.au/Maps-Stations/Overview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photnart (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will check on Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Perth ones later.

Those are commuter systems, and feature extensive connections to the national rail netwrok. Its pretty well established that Australia actually has no metro systems.oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I still don't understand the huge inconsistencies between various cities. Toronto has one entry for the Skytrain and Subway. But Bangkok has 2 entries for their Skytrain and Subway? Tokyo has several entries for different operating companies; but Seoul has one entry for different operating companies. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Algiers has since 31. 10. 2011 a Metro ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.6.236 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Before another edit war erupts: I think it is perfectly o.k. to list HK as another country. It's another country, owned by China. It has its own currency, it's own country code, its own government, people drive on the other side of the road, it is separated from China by a hefty border, Chinese need a visa, which is hard to get. BsBsBs (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the status quo here Talk:China seems a good place to start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No thank you. I have better things to do with my time. This is a list about metro systems, and politics should be left at the turnstile. I am sorry, but the status quo is that China, I mean, the People's Republic Of China treats Hong Kong as a separate entity by issuing separate passports, citizenships, currencies, postage stamps, drivers licenses, it treats investments from Hong Kong in China as "foreign offshore investments." To dial Hong Kong, you dial 852 instead of 86. The population of Hong Kong is not even included in the PRC's total. At the bottom of the "Communiqué of the National Bureau of Statistics of People's Republic of China on Major Figures of the 2010 Population Census[1 (No. 2)" it says: "National total in this table do not include population of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region or Taiwan Area." With that much separation, we can list it separate. One country two sets of metro systems, so to speak. Last I looked, I had to exit the Shenzhen subway, hike through a crowded border crossing, and then I could board the Hong Kong MTR in Lo Wu.BsBsBs (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a place for discussion about metro systems. Not politics or geography. In order to avoid several discussions about if X is a country or part of Y, we should base this list on a existing list of countries. Currently, the countries in this list corresponds with the common english name of states in list of sovereign states, and I think we should keep it that way. Or we can choose another list of countries as a reference. But list of countries is a redirect to list of sovereign states, which is why I believe that is a good list to use as a reference here. I see absolutely no point in having a discussion about a single country here. --Kildor (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Hong Kong may feel like a separate country to a traveler, but it's a Special Administrative Region of China, not a sovereign state, which is the most common definition of a country. Hong Kong has its own passport, currency, stamps, border control, etc. only because China lets it, and it's quite different from true sovereign states whose decisions on those matters cannot be overruled by anyone else. Zanhe (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask anyone from the United Kingdom or Canada and they can debate the meaning of "country" with you for days. Usually in country-based lists I insist that Hong Kong be listed separately from China, but with Puerto Rico listed under the USA and so on, I think consistency is more important. Deryck C. 12:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

HK is part of China. Or it is "Hong Komg, China" if it listed separately from China in a group of nations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's just dumping common sense and readability to serve political correctness in the eye of the PRC government, which according to WP:Use English most users on this Wikipedia won't agree with ;) Deryck C. 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of China. End of story. Its not like Singapore which is an independent state with its own government. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

HK vs China is very controversial issue, but it is totally out of scope of this article (this is list of metro systems, not list of countries or sovereign states). We have long consensus (years) to list it under China, so another endless discussion is not needed (also for similar controversial out of scope issues - listing Glasgow under UK, Taiwan separately). --Jklamo (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus isn't "long-standing" for "years". Until 2009 Hong Kong was listed separately from China. The change was made in 2009 with little discussion, and miraculously a "consensus" was established because a major opponent of the proposal happened to be a sockpuppet. The large amount of related disruptions afterwards simply suggest that the change isn't widely accepted, and the archives of this talk page will tell you it hasn't really ever been properly discussed. Deryck C. 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think there is consensus to list HK as an independent country the talk page of a single list is not the place to propose it. You need a centralized discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Precisely because I don't think there should be a centralised rule about whether Hong Kong should be listed under China or separately that I'm raising talk page comments at various locations. Sometimes (like education and civil transport) they should be separate; other times (like sovereignty and military affairs) Hong Kong should be under China. I apologise if you've misinterpreted my intentions. Deryck C. 15:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Education? The PRC flag flies over HK schools. Civil transport? The systems link at the boundary, the high speed train is regional, and through trains go straight to Beijing. Your taking a political issue and trying to finding piecemeal support. It's not workable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Have you ever actually been to a school in Hong Kong? Each school in Hong Kong chooses whether to fly the PRC flag themselves. Indeed the civil transport systems link at the boundary, because there is border control. Passengers either get off the train and go through border control at the border interchange station, or go through border control at the departure and arrival stations for through trains. I find it awkward that we happily list European cross-border trains as international when there is no border control, but insist that Hong Kong-Beijing trains are domestic even though there's border control at both stations. You're taking a political issue and attempting to use political correctness to trump over reality, which isn't workable either. Deryck C. 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's so controversial specifically about Hong Kong and the People's Republic, Jklamo? Hong Kong is just another dependent territory. It's a matter of convention and common sense, that dependent territories are countries in listings of countries. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the main arguments for keeping Hong Kong within the China listing is that it's been that way since 2009, and that Hong Kong isn't a sovereign country, neither of which are actually relevant to this list. If I don't see a new argument within a day or so, I'll go and make the actual edit. Deryck C. 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a policy about how this sort of stuff should be arranged. We can all assert our opinions until the cows go home, but some policy should be quoted here - especially given China naming is controversial. If you want to change this I think you should find some relevant policies/guidelines. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of MOS:LIST, WP:NC-ZH or WP:ZH give any relevant specific advice. The closest is from MOS:LIST, which recommends editors to refer to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV when determining the presentation of listed items. Taking these principles, we should look for relevant reliable sources and their take on the matter. MTR's self-description on their website clearly treats Hong Kong as a separate entity from "China" or "Mainland China" [1], so I think we should follow suit. Deryck C. 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is true that it treats Hong Kong as a separate entity from "mainland China" but that's generally what the term "mainland China" is generally understood to mean i.e. PRC except Hong Kong and Macau. The BBC use it for example: "A 3D erotic comedy has taken the Hong Kong box office by storm, beating the first-day record set by Hollywood blockbuster Avatar. ... Takings have been boosted by an influx of viewers travelling from mainland China where it is not being screened." - the title "China and International Business" is more ambiguous however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's this "we aren't part of them, but they aren't completely foreign to us either" attitude that's causing problems for Wikipedia lists. Most companies simply choose not to take a stand, unless they must, because either way they'll enrage loads of people. Deryck C. 22:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think an RFC on whether Hong Kong should be treated as separate from China sounds like the way forward here. In the meantime I think we should probably leave it as is - but the matter has attracted lots of discussion here and so a clear guideline sounds like the way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A related one is already going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. However, as I said before, I don't agree with setting up a blanket policy about the listing of Hong Kong and Macau in "country-order" lists, so please do start another RFC. Deryck C. 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't apply to the whole of Wikipedia what would the scope be? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just this article, or alternatively any railway list on Wikipedia involving list items in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 13:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

May I know what'd happened back in 2009? Was there a discussion by then? Or was it changed right away and no one noticed? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are only two external lists of metros that clearly specify a country for each system. These are World Metro Database and LRTA World System List. Both these specify China as country for the MTR system. --Kildor (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I haven't taken the RFC forward is that I don't really see the value in doing a full RFC on this issue just for this article - there would be value in doing it for the whole project, but otherwise I think we should follow our sources. The MTR is ambiguous but if the other metro sources say the MTR is in China then we should go with that unless other sources are found which differ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you have ommited Urbanrail.net. And while LRTA specific China as the country for MTR, I don't think Metrobits' World Metro Database is going the same way. Both Urbanrail and Metrobits are having separate entries for Hong Kong. (And, interesting, LRTA got Puerto Rico separately.) 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from HK the only other dependent territory on this list currently is Puerto Rico. The website that was cited above, LRTA, has the US unincorporated territory listed separately. Shall we proceed to do likewise? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall proceed with Puerto Rico if there is no objection. (Although I don't agree that Wikipedia has to rely solely on external sources, let's do so in the meantime as far as Puerto Rico is concerned within this list.) 119.237.156.46 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency and in order to avoid future discussions about single entries, I would prefer using one list of countries as a reference. Currently, this list uses countries as listed and defined in List of sovereign states. Therefore, I don't think we should list Puerto Rico or Hong Kong separately. --Kildor (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what I've been against since the beginning of this discussion. No original research means that Wikipedia shouldn't develop our house-style just for the sake of being consistent. Each topic on Wikipedia should be consistent with its relevant external reliable sources, rather than other topics on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is no dispute concerning the fact that Hong Kong belongs to China. Secondly, the list of sovereign states has plenty of reliable external sources. This is simply a matter on how to organize this article. By applying a principle for the whole list, we can arrange this list consistently, using the common names and order of countries as they appear in the list of soveregin states. There is no need for political discussions regarding single entries. --Kildor (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

hong kong will continue to be a territory of china until july of 2047. it has a 50 year period of autonomus statsus since 1997 before it becomes integrated into the surounding province. other former SAR regions had already be re-intregrated after world war 2. but hong kong will continue to have a territory status for the next 35 years after that it will be out right annexed. so i am in agreement with the User BsBsBs its not offically part of the PRC yet not until 35 years from now. 69.221.168.185 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

|- | Porto | Porto Metro | style="text-align:right" | 2002 | style="text-align:right" | 81 | style="text-align:right;"|70 |style="text-align:right;"|43 |- class="sortbottom" ! style="text-align:left" colspan=6 | Tecnicaz (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Denied It's a light rail system, as it says right on the Porto Metro article. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

my compromise

this is my compromise to the several pages worth of discussion above. obviusly funiculars and people movers cannot be included. and we also cannot include regional rail. but the catch is i define regional as interstate rail system here in the US the system would be called amtrack. in the chicagoland region theres a certain train system called the metra and it connects chicago to the nearby states of Indiana and wisconsin. i would consider this a suburban type and it might not be aloud to be included but heres my compromise if the actual system by its charter lets you travel outside of the city limits but stays within the county area it can still be included becasue its the same system. even bus routes go by this system and a regional bus network usally only operates in one county unless its a large city in population and can aford to send its public transit into neighboring county's like say san franciso with its bart system. im not sure but i think that there still adding to the system and the bart system may even continue on outbound beyond oakland city. BART (bay area rapid tranist ) under this difinition can be included. also under my difinition the train network does not all have to be under ground some parts are alound to be above ground at least if its part of the core system such as you get with chicago's CTA but under this difinition we would have to exclude chicago's METRA regional/commuter trains which im fine with. and as for tokyo ,japan we can include differnt train companies just as long as there both acessible on the same fare. for instance you purchace a one day pass and they let you transfer from one train system to the other with out having to spend more money. under my difinition all subway systems of the world can be included unless there some kind of funicular or people mover. under my difinition a train network thats mostly above ground such as cleveland ,ohio including its undergound part called tower city. im not sure if Newyork areas PATH can or cannot be included becasue im not sure if a separte fare has to be leved on the customer or not if it does require a separate fare then PATH should be excluded from Newyork city's totals. as for the person going in lenth about hamburg ,germany all that sounds fine to me for inclusion into being a metro rail. and by its difinition metro should not have to have this completly within city limits criteria becasue by using that it breaks city areas into two parts the core part known as city limits and then a second part known as the inner suburbs but still in the central county. 69.221.168.185 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suburban commuter systems already have their own list. And there's no way they're technically comparable to metro systems. Your personal definition constitutes OR and isn't a good basis for a list. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem though, especially for Tokyo and Osaka..the above ground rail systems are not simply "commuter rail" for all intents and purposes they ARE rapid transit/metro systems. For example the Yamanote line or the Chuo line, these lines have higher frequencies than most of the "metro" lines in the world and are clearly for urban passengers..these japanese systems should definitely be included in this list in my opinion. I also looked through the archives and it seems like there was a consensus to add the yamanote line at the very least and there is a check mark saying "done" and yet it does not appear on the list? TheRationalDude (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tokyos public transportation system is very difficult to classify. Many lines of the Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway have through-services that extend beyond the "borders" of the metro systems and go far out from the city centre, and some of them would definitely be classified as suburban rail. In other words, metro lines and suburban lines are mixed in many parts of Tokyo. But the lines are clearly branded either as metro/subway lines, or as railway lines. Yamanote Line is considered part of the railway network (read the opening paragraph of the article), and it is also an extremely busy line with high frequency of service in an very densely populated urban area. I would say it is impossible for us to clearly divide all JR/Metro/Subway/Private railway lines in Tokyo in the two categories "metro" or "suburban/urban/commuter rail". And I think it would be inappropriate. We should instead consider what external sources say about this. According to Urbanrail.net, the Yamanote Line belongs to "Other Metro-like Systems in Greater Tokyo". The World Metro Database only includes Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway. --Kildor (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources are using a questionable definition. In other words most of the Tokyo and Osaka's above ground rail meet the definition of a "metro" better than many of the North American systems on here. Japanese systems do not classify their systems into "metro" and "non metro" so those sources are basically "making it up" to be frank (at the very least they have not given any reason why it's not included). The 2nd source in particular on the other page classified the yamanote line as a metro loop, so it's inconsistent. The definition of a metro that we are using on this site (so we should be consistent) is: a passenger railway system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency. The yamanote line does not have through services, has a high frequency and is 100% urban..it is basically in the center of Tokyo. Pretty much every station it connects to is a major business district, not a suburban housing area. Indeed the same can be said for many of Tokyo's private railways. In other words there is no reason to not include them. By the way I have lived in Tokyo for 2 years and NYC for 1 year and it honestly doesn't make any sense to me how much of Tokyo's rapid transit system is omitted from our list when they are much faster with much higher frequencies..and much more urban (indeed it is actually difficult to even define urban because even Tokyo's suburbs are substantially more urban than the majority of the cities on this list). TheRationalDude (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alow me to go into more detail using japanese terminology to show our list is inaccurate. When talking about trains in metropolitan areas, terminology in Japan tends to focus on the term 通勤電車 tsūkin densha. Tsūkin densha is frequently used when referring to a train that has been designed to handle a high volume of passengers, such as that observed during the commute periods. Typical design is 18-meter to 20-meter long cars, with longitudinal (parallel to the aisle) or mixed transverse (perpendicular to the aisle)–longitudinal seating and multiple doors (usually three or four per side per car). If we take Tōkyō as an example, Tōkyō Metro, Toei Subway, as well as JR and all the major private railways all operate tsūkin densha (although of course, JR and the private railways also operate other types of trains). From a basic design standpoint, tsūkin densha would usually be operated as part of “subway” or “metro” lines outside of Japan. Part of the problem is that tsūkin densha frequently gets translated into English as “commuter rail” , which makes sense if you pick apart the jukugo (linguistic compound), but not as a technical term. Japan’s tsūkin densha looks absolutely nothing like U.S. commuter rail. I just looked at the Yamanote line article on wikipedia and it says it is a "commuter rail" which is very inaccurate. The definition on wikipedia of a commuter rail is entirely the opposite of what the Yamanote line is, it is not a suburban rail line. And once again I point to the many american "metro" systems in the list as well as the S-bahn that are included, while many of Tokyo's systems meet the criteria of rapid transit/metro even more so. TheRationalDude (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Metro systems are much about separation (see the UITP definition of metro as an example). The Yamanote line is probably one of the most busy and urban rail services in the world. Even at 9 o'clock in the evening, the trains are ridiculously crowded considering the high capacity trains and frequency of service. Nevertheless, it is part of the railway network (with dedicated tracks, but with a grade crossing (if that makes any difference). Even though you think it is a metro system, few sources consider it a metro system. But I agree with you that the Yamanote Line is more like a metro than the Copenhagen S-Train, Berlin S-Bahn and Hamburg S-Bahn (and in my opinion, all of them should be excluded from the list). --Kildor (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are basing this off of the UITP, the UITP doesn't specifically state anywhere that the Yamanote Line is not considered a metro. Japan's members are Tōkyō Metro and JR East. If the UITP didn't consider JR East to be a metropolitan railways (i.e., "metro") operator, they wouldn't have bothered putting someone from there on the committee. The yamanote line is mostly elevated and completely separated from other modes of transportation (as is the chuo line and many others), it is simply a loop in the heart of the city connecting urban districts (so by the strict definition it can't be considered anything else but rapid transit). Several of the "metros" on this list are part of the same network (company if you will) that have suburban services, light rail, monorails etc. And once again it doesn't quite matter what your one source about it says when the japanese sources themself consider the high capacity lines as the same as the Tokyo subways. Just because they mistranslate it when they convert it to english shouldn't matter..or when they use an odd term like "metro-like" without defining what that is. Also I am still confused since the archives show that the Yamanote line should have been added, and yet it appears it was either removed or they forgot to add it. Also it is your opinion the S-Bahn should be removed, but the consensus was that it should be included...and the yamanote and several other japanese lines meet the criteria of a "metro" far more than not only the S-Bahn but most of the north american "metros" here as well.

Let's look at this article's criteria itself.. The yamanote meets all of them (and so do other lines in Tokyo/Osaka) A metro system is defined as:

1. an urban, electric passenger transport system - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
2. with high capacity and high frequency of service - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
3. which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrian - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
4. And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems are primarily used for transport within a city - The Yamanote line meets this criteria
5. and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service - The Yamanote line meets this criteria

Also: The Yamanote Line is about as perfect a match as possible to the descriptions at Rapid transit:

1. a railway system
2. in an urban area
3. with high capacity and frequency
4. with large trains
5. total or near total grade separation from other traffic
6. electric
7. totally independent from other traffic

TheRationalDude (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not totally independant from other traffic. And you haven't yet provided a source that support your point of view. Kildor (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right..it is elevated and separated from other traffic for the entire 34.5km except for one one way street...but then again many of the systems on this list have several road crossings, not just one. As you can see above the Yamanote line essentially *completely* meets everysingle criteria. I can show you sources in Japanese, which you might dismiss or mistranslated said terms since japanese do not distinguish much between the terms because of how vast and urban it is. The facts are your own source of the UITP even has JR represented as a metro...and your only source against it uses the words "metro like" which is not a very good argument nor does it give a definition of what "metro like" even is. For example the US BART system is much less of a metro/rapid transit than most of the JR East lines are..it connects several other cities in the East Bay outside of San Francisco and suburbs in San Mateo County it also has much poorer service frequencies and cars are designed to maximize seated passenger...The yamanote line (and the Chuo-Sobu line) line run entirely in the heart of the biggest city in the world and not a single station is located in the suburbs. I am still confused as to why the previous consensus in the archives has been overturned with no mention of it. By the way there is even a book published called Rapid Transit in Japan: Yamanote Line http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rapid-transit-in-japan-books-llc/1027023364 TheRationalDude (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Elevated? It runs in railway corridords along with many other trains and lines. It is not a separated system - it is part of a huge railway network, but with dedicated tracks. Compared with the BART which is a completely separated system. The book you are referring to is nothing more than a compiled document consisting of articles from Wikipedia based on Category:Rapid transit in Japan. In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology by prof. Vukan R Vuchic, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes", there are sections about light rail, rail rapid transit/metro, commuter rail, regional rail and more. From the section Regional rail: "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." --Kildor (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

“It runs in railway corridords along with many other trains and lines. It is not a separated system - it is part of a huge railway network, but with dedicated tracks." I don't think you understand what "separated" really means. If you go to the original source of this criteria (Passenger rail terminology), the definition is referring primarily to grade-separation. Alternatively, there is also the concept of “separation” from freight trains or other non-urban rapid transit. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with either interpretation of “separation”.

Now to get to the meat of the argument…

First, to summarize your objections to including the Yamanote Line in this article, of the five criteria that TheRationalDude has cited from the article, you've found fault with one (#5), which is really a technicality—the Yamanote Line has one grade crossing, but it's rarely used by people and all trains have priority through it. This isn’t a streetcar where the trains have to stop at traffic signals and compete with cars, bikes, and pedestrians for roadspace. In other words, the real impetus for Criteria #5 is to exclude systems that operate on city streets in mixed traffic. The Yamanote Line doesn’t operate on city streets in mixed traffic. I suggest you reread What is a metro system? submitted by BsBsBs in Archive 5 of this Talk Page. Our points are exactly the same. Furthermore, this list even says: “a metro system runs, almost always, on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way”. I would think one rarely-used grade crossing where trains always have priority on a 34.5 km line is sufficiently within the margins granted by “almost always”.

Second, TheRationalDude does have another point... You have been trying to argue that the UITP doesn't recognize the Yamanote Line as a metro, but it doesn't say that anywhere on the UITP website. You submit the UITP definition as a “source”, but if they didn't consider JR East a "metropolitan railway" operator (i.e., a "metro"), they certainly wouldn't be having JR East representing Japan on the Metropolitan Railway Assembly: http://www.uitp.org/Public-Transport/metro/members.cfm. If the Yamanote Line doesn't qualify JR East to hold this position with UITP, what does? And no, for your information, I don’t think the Yamanote Line is the only thing that qualifies JR East to hold this position, as it is only one line in a vast metropolitan railway network that functions, for all intents and purposes, identically to newer systems being listed here as “metros”.

Third, regarding your sources… I’ve already debunked your “interpretation” of the UITP definition. You also provided MetroBits, which is not by any means an authoritative source... It’s a fan-created database where one man, doing original research, has decided what to include in each city’s page: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=85876136&postcount=58. If you read the rest of that thread, you will see that there is plentiful debate on the veracity of the data. The same holds true for Robert Schwandl and his UrbanRail.net, where he expressly states that he is “simply a metro fan and not related to any metro operator nor the rail industry in any way”, although he is at least willing to call the Yamanote Line “metro-like”. Your source from Vuchic is debatable… Yes, he includes the JR in Tōkyō under his definition of “regional rail”, but his definition of “rail rapid transit/metro” does not preclude the Yamanote Line as qualifying for a metro.

So where does that leave us? Out of four sources you submitted, you only have two sources (Vuchic and UITP) that may or may not support your claim. The other two are non-authoritative sources which may potentially contain errors. As a corollary, your insistence that TheRationalDude provide sources is a bit misguided (even after submitting that two of your sources could go either way for the Yamanote Line). There is a definition provided on this Wiki page as to what constitutes a “metro” system, and if it can be shown that a line or system meets those criteria, then I do not see why we need to provide a source. This is exactly how other Wiki editors have added systems to this list… Why would this situation need to be any different?

Fourth, regarding the comparison with BART, you do realize that I can cite similar "technicalities" to discredit BART from being on this page as well, right? Of the five-criteria list summarized by TheRationalDude from this article, it fails (2), (4), and (5). Of the seven-criteria list summarized by TheRationalDude from Rapid transit, it fails (3). So in reality, BART is soundly less-deserving to be in the list than the Yamanote Line. And I know several other systems listed here will also fail some of these criteria.

So, what does this indicate?

• The criteria cited on the page are not a good reflection of what is actually being used to “screen” which systems are included. The lines are much more blurred than you think.
• There is confusion as to what the word “metro” really means. And I am not surprised by this… Even Rapid transit says “metros” are “underground rapid transit systems”, but in reality, many of the systems listed on List of metro systems would not qualify for this, and nowhere in the article does it state that the system must be “underground”. This is complicated by railway operators adopting the term “metro” as branding even though their services bear no resemblance.
• Some systems failing to meet some criteria are included, while others, even though they may actually meet more of the criteria, are excluded.

I would think none of these arguments are really new… The five archives of Talk Pages, together with the points I cited above, should be an indication that this article needs quite a bit of improvement. This issue hasn’t just been raised with the Yamanote Line… It’s been discussed for a multitude of systems. 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that few consider the Yamanote Line to be a metro system. There was a similar discussion some time ago when someone wanted to include the Paris RER. The RER fulfill most critera used here. But if included, this article would say that the RER is the world longest metro system. That would be own research, since there is no source claiming the RER having that record. And when looking at other lists of metro systems, Yamanote, RER, S-Bahn, S-Train etc. are never included. This article certainly needs improvements. I would be happy if we could find a way to have more clearly defined inclusion critera, but I really don't know how... The list also needs to be consistent, but for the moment, it is rather strange to have Hamburg S-Bahn included while Yamanote Line is not. I would prefer the more narrow scope, with RER/S-Bahn/S-Train/Yamanote excluded, which also is what most other sources do. But with the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn and Copenhagen S-Train included, we should definitely include Yamanote Line as well. And that would of course also apply to a bunch of other Japan railway lines as well.... --Kildor (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The RER *is* a metro system (a huge one but a metro system nevertheless). The only reason no ones calls it a metro in France is that in Paris, 'metro' is the brand of the underground system operated by the RATP, while the RER is a joint-venture between the RATP and the SNCF (neither of them liking it much, and both wishing the government hadn't forced them to make that bastard child). And the waters are being muddied even more by the new 'Grand Paris' extension project, that is being managed by a third organisation (though they are careful to call all the new lines metro, since it has a better public image than the RER) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.142.27 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, good, we’re making progress here because you’ve admitted that the article is flawed and in need of improvement.

Let me first rebut some of your points:

“My point is that few consider the Yamanote Line to be a metro system.”

—I don’t think that’s necessarily true… I’ve already provided my rebuttals above when you made this claim previously, but let me further expand that a little bit… Let’s try not to be to fixated on the word “metro”, which is not a universally-accepted word and is itself quite ambiguous. Please remind yourself that Metro (rapid transit) redirects to Rapid transit (I know you were quite involved in the debate over the page title there, so you should remember this). In fact, you should be able to find at least a few references to the Yamanote Line as “rapid transit” or “metropolitan railway”, and as stated by TheRationalDude, Yamanote Line describes the line as “rapid transit”. So I don’t think this point really holds much water. Just to close off this line of argument for good, here’s some other sources for Yamanote Line as “rapid transit”, “metro”, or whatever you wish to call it.

The highest capacity double-track rail rapid transit is believed to be the Yamanote line in Tokyo reaching 100,000 passengers per peak-hour direction.

— Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity

This presentation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), a ministry of the Japanese government, also uses the terminology 都市鉄道 to refer to JR. This would be “metropolitan railway” translated into English.

Moving onto this statement:

“But if included, this article would say that the RER is the world longest metro system. That would be own research, since there is no source claiming the RER having that record.”

—Firstly, this page isn’t a contest to show who’s the longest, although perhaps some editors feel the need to make it so. If the title of this page were “List of metro systems by length,” then I might agree with you, but the title is “List of metro systems”. The primary purpose of this page is to serve as a list of in-service metro systems, not to rank them by length. In fact, if you look at the table on the page, you’ll notice there isn’t a column for “rank”. Users can sort the data as they wish, and one of those options is by length, but simply including the RER in the list does not, in and of itself, make the article say that the RER is the world’s longest metro system. There’s simple ways around this… It’s nothing a few text changes can’t resolve. We’ve recognized that the article in its current state has issues and needs improvements, but let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to find solutions.

Secondly, when making the claim that inclusion of the RER is “original research”, you should keep in mind that much of this table in its current form already relies on original research. Look at the table notes and references, and remind yourself that I just showed that both MetroBits and UrbanRail.net are fan-based websites based on their own “original research” and prone to error, yet for some reason, these websites litter both the table notes and references. Quoting third-party sources may be able to get us around the issue of presenting original research, but our third-party sources must still be reliable—at the moment, that is questionable.

Thirdly, reading the table notes, it should also be quite obvious that Wikipedia editors have already been making conscious, independent decisions about what qualifies as a metro and what doesn’t when choosing to add entries into the table. Inclusion of the RER in the table, if done intelligently and creatively, need not constitute original research any more than these other “harmless” additions to the table, and certainly would not constitute original research any more than quoting, as fact, material from unreliable third-party sources disseminating their own original research.

Now, let me summarize some Wikipedia-related issues concerning this topic:

• Metro (rapid transit) redirects to Rapid transit.
• List of metro systems is intended to be a list of systems that qualify under Rapid transit.
• List of rapid transit systems is actually a disambiguation page that has redirects to List of metro systems, List of suburban and commuter rail systems, List of tram and light-rail transit systems, List of monorail systems, and List of bus rapid transit systems. These types of systems are not even covered under Rapid transit.
• List of urban rail systems by length directs to List of metro systems, despite that fact that Urban rail transit contains the full spectrum of system types and is more consistent with List of rapid transit systems in terms of coverage.

I think we can all agree that this is a mess, but no one seems to want to fix it.

So, my proposed solution is as follows:

1. Modify Rapid transit to include systems which generally meet the defined criteria, including the Yamanote Line, RER, et al. Hopefully, I’ve shown that this is a no-brainer by now.
2. Convert this page to a “List of rapid transit systems” and include these other lines and systems. A corollary that follows from (1) that also improves consistency in terminology and page titles.
3. Rename List of rapid transit systems to List of urban rail systems and re-format it into a proper disambiguation page. An alternative would be to eliminate it altogether and just include links in Urban rail transit.

Again, I think you’ve already agreed with me that there are issues with the article… We can now take some action to improve the article. I think I’ve provided enough verifiable third-party sources to make changes, but seeing that some editors view this as a controversial topic, it would be nice to reach some measure of agreement before making any edits. Changes to the other articles would have to be vetted at the respective pages, of course. 江戸っ子 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the articles doesn't fix the problems. What definition do you want to use for this list? Currently, there are four definitions quoted in this article. These either use the term metro or heavy rail. And there are three lists used as reference in this article. All of them use the term metro. --Kildor (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, this process has played itself out multiple times on this Talk Page for other systems which are now included in the list. There is enough evidence to justify inclusion of Yamanote Line et al. provided by me and others. While I respect your choice to espouse an exclusionist screening method, the rest of the editors here, by keeping these other systems in the table, seem to agree that there needs to be a more inclusionist screening method. You have been involved in a good number of those discussions yourself, so you should remember.

All the points have already been made a long time ago, and systems have been added to the table as a result, albeit one by one. It’s time to trickle those changes down to all the other systems that should be in the table, but for which no one has taken proactive measures to include. Or do you wish to repeat this process every time someone wants to add a system? Surely you don’t suggest we should now revert the additions of Hamburg S-Bahn, Berlin S-Bahn, et al. which have remained untouched by yourself and other editors for some time now? Frankly, the people who have posted on the Talk Page concerning this topic are simply being polite and courteous in pointing out that systems have been left out. The precedents have already been set, and there is nothing preventing me, or anyone else, from adding new systems based on the precedents.

Anyways, please remember my proposed solution is simply a holistic approach that attempts to maintain consistency in nomenclature across the multiple pages relating to this topic. Whether you prefer the term metro to rapid transit is irrelevant, because the article name is Rapid transit. Let’s not bring that debate here.

Also, please be aware that objections to my proposed article name changes have no bearing on the addition of the Yamanote Line et al. based on the precedents described above. 江戸っ子 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for bringing the discussion back to the left :). Very good points 江戸っ子, I am also confused why this page is based off of the Rapid transit page and yet we use the term metro for the page. Not that I personally have a problem with this but not everyone who reads wikipedia are train fans like we are and may get confused by the change in names. I think consistency is very important. Also thank you for the sources from MLIT and the TCRP which show yamanote is rapid transit/metro. I believe we should include the yamanote line, chuo-sobu line and possibly other lines in the greater Tokyo region. This is not a competition as you said, I am not even japanese I have just realized after several months of editing and fixing japanese articles (I am a fan of japanese rail systems) and reading more in depth about the definitions here of "rapid transit/Metro" that it is very odd that systems like BART, Washington Metro, Docklands Light Railway, S-Bahn and many others were included while JR and others are not. We have some dedicated japanese rail fans on wikipedia who can edit and add the appropriate lines while not including ones that clearly do not meet the definitions. It will not be as difficult as it seems, especially since the MLIT releases good figures on passengers for individual lines. I also think we should seriously consider creating a separate page named "List of Urban Rail" (which includes urban/suburban, light rail to tram) to complement the urban rail transit page which would be very interesting and informative for rail fans. Many systems in Japan and Europe have not only rapid transit but extensive suburban, trams in the center of the city etc and it would be nice to have a page with the entire urban rail systems together. TheRationalDude (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The List of tram and light-rail transit systems and List of suburban and commuter rail systems certainly need improvements. But I don't think a merged list with all transport modes is a good idea. That list would be too long. Concerning the naming, I am still convinced that metro is the better name to use, since it is the most widely recognized term on this subject. Rapid transit was a North American term that is now replaced with heavy rail.

I accept that there are people here with an inclusionist point-of-view. And I agree that the Yamanote Line should be included if Hamburg S-Bahn, Berlin S-Bahn and Copenhagen S-Train are included. But in my exclusionist point-of-view, I think all these should be omitted. It would be more consistent with other sources and lists we use as references. And these systems are all, together with JR East, already present in the List of suburban and commuter rail systems.

But if there is no one else supporting my exclusionist point-of-view, I will certainly accept having the Yamanote Line added to the list. --Kildor (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what I mean by an Urban Rail list..is a list by "cities"...which link to the rail transportation articles of said cities..than we can create a list of "urban rail systems by annual passengers" etc. I am just thinking of a long term plan, don't take it too seriously at the moment. As for JR..again other than the non authoritative source, and one source that uses the term "metro like" (and UITP which actually gives a case for JR being metro) I am not sure there really are any authoritative sources saying yamanote is NOT a metro/rapid transit. On the contrary, the japanese source as provided by 江戸っ子 show it as a metro..as well as the TCRP. I believe the japanese sources themself should be the most authoritative as to what kind of lines/systems they are running? As of yet I have not seen any non fan made source in english that says it is NOT a metro other than "metro like"..or one lumping the entire JR as "suburban" even though as I believe I have demonstrated several times now that american metro systems like BART or the Washington Metro meet the criteria even less so. So it simply does not make sense. I will edit the article later if there are no further objections. TheRationalDude (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese source lumps the whole of JR together in a japanese term for which we don't know its definition. Make a google books search on "Yamanote Line" and you will find several examples where Yamanote line is presented as commuter/suburban rail or simply a railway line. LRTA doesn't include Yamanote as metro (which is clear from the opening year), and the Urbanrail.net is not just simply a fan-page. It is made by an author of many public transportation-related books. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have different opinions on this matter. --Kildor (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

江戸っ子 explained the definition above. And technically yes, the entire JR network is more of a "metro" as we have said many times..than some of the "metros" listed on this page. In other words I can make just as much of a case to remove the BART and Washington Metro systems since they fail several of the criteria (while the Yamanote and others don't really fail any). Though I do not advocate adding the entire JR system, only the clearly rapid transit lines. I looked through google book search and in the top page I only found one book using "commuter rail"...then it proceeds to define the yamanote line as rapid transit (service, frequency, connects only urban centers etc) so it seems they have the wrong definition or are using it differently than we are. It seems like many north american authors in particular are confused by above ground rail. It appears they think anything below ground is a "metro" and anything about ground is "commuter". All the other books simply regarded it as a "rail line" which doesn't really tell us anything. Regardless of that we have plenty of authoritative sources now from UITP, TCRP and MLIT. I don't think we really have different opinions since you yourself said the Yamanote line meets the criteria even more so than the S-bahn and even though you haven't acknowledged it I am sure you can see that indeed the BART, Washington Metro and several others when you take a second look actually do not meet all the criteria. TheRationalDude (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Under construction

• Changsha - Changsha Metro
• Chelyabinsk - Chelyabinsk Metro
• Chennai - Chennai Metro
• Dongguan - Dongguan Metro
• Fuzhou - Fuzhou Metro
• Guiyang - Guiyang Urban Rail Transit
• Gurgaon - Rapid Metro Rail Gurgaon
• Hangzhou - Hangzhou Metro
• Hanoi - Hanoi Metro
• Harbin - Harbin Metro
• Hefei - Hefei Metro
• Hyderabad, India - Hyderabad Metro
• Jaipur - Jaipur Metro
• Krasnoyarsk - Krasnoyarsk Metro
• Kunming - Kunming Metro
• Mumbai - Navi Mumbai Metro
• Mumbai - Mumbai Metro
• Nanchang - Nanchang Rail Transit
• Ningbo - Ningbo Rail Transit
• Omsk - Omsk Metro
• Perth, Western Australia - New MetroRail
• Qingdao - Qingdao Metro
• Sochi - Sochi Light Metro
• Suzhou - Suzhou Subway
• Wuxi - Wuxi Metro
• Zhengzhou - Zhengzhou Metro
• Thessaloniki - Thessaloniki Metro

I removed this list from the article. I believe there are several problems with including systems under construction. First of all: there are few sources regarding an uncompleted system. And we cannot tell if a transit system will meet the inclusion critera before it is completed. A metro system can be in "construction" stages for many years, and some are never completed. --Kildor (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a list is also going to be inherently incomplete, missing proposed/planned/under-construction systems entirely and therefore of limited value. It's well established in the archives that the list should only include opening, operational systems. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kryvyi Rih Metrotram system and Volgograd Metrotram system.

So my question is: "why the first one is included, but the second is not?" Since 01.12.2011 Volgograd Metrotram system has 6 underground(or partially underground) stations(length of underground part is 7,1km), while Kryvyi Rih Metrotram system has only 5 underground stations(length of underground part is 6,8km). I think Volgograd Metrotram system should be added.

Rylov Kirill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.18.121.65 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The system of Volgograd is not grade-separated, therefore it isn't considered a metro system. Vcohen (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Opened" dates

It seems to me that the "opened" dates are rather arbitrary. Specifically in the case of New York and Chicago, both had fully (or nearly-so) grade-separated elevated lines operating at a metro standard for decades before they had subways. New York had elevated lines starting in the late 1860s and Chicago was the first rail line in the U.S. to use third-rail electrification in 1895. Certainly a train system using third-rail electrification and running fully grade-separated can be considered a "metro" system, so that puts Chicago's "opened" date nearly 50 years earlier than the date currently listed, which simply corresponds to the first tunnel to open. However prior to the tunnel, Chicago's "L" had been running fine at a metro standard for 2-3 generations.

I have changed Chicago's date from the one user Eleventh1 arbitrarily chose to a date that makes much more sense within the context of the overall article - the date of the full completion of the "Union Loop," now simply called "The Loop," which is the defining feature of the Chicago "L" and as such makes a much more logical "opened" date than the date of a subway section that simply augmented the "Loop" does. Since the system is primarily an elevated one and always has been, using a subway section opening as the "opened" date would be silly. Using the opening date for the "Union Loop," however, is a notable distinction because it marks the date that the system changed from being a collection of unlinked lines with terminals in the central area, to a system of linked lines with same-platform transfers and easy, fast connections between different crosstown parts of the city - all while done via an electrified, mostly-grade-seperated system meeting all the other criteria of a metro. Emathias (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro means "underground" (it comes from the systems of Paris and London which are both underground). You can't just choose a new meaning for a word like that. With your definition, electric trams would also be metros and then the dates for Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Tokyo, etc would all be false. If your view of what a metro is is the right one then you have to change the opening dates of half of the list. Eleventh1 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in this list it doesn't. Underground is part of a definition of "rapid transit", which is what this list uses. Trams and trolleys have their own list, List of tram and light-rail transit systems. Paris and London have metros, but so do New York City, Chicago and Boston. All of those American cities have significant portions of their metros aboveground. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't we change the name of the list? Because anyone outside of Chicago who reads metro will think underground, no? Why not use "list of rapid transit systems"? Wouldn't that avoid mistakes like mine? Eleventh1 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside of Montreal and Los Angeles, I cannot think of a system which is entirely underground in North America. In fact, some systems listed here are not underground at all, like SIR. On the same topic, SIR has an absurd opening date- Why should total grade separation be the opening date when such clearly isn't the criterion used elsewhere? Would initial electrification be a good standard to use?128.122.97.220 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Because anyone outside of Chicago who reads metro will think underground, no? No. "Metro" is internationally recognized as a word for rapid transit, not necessarily underground rapid transit. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleventh1 - you seem to be intentionally ignoring the "grade-separated" aspect which would obviously disqualify nearly every tram line in the world. Grade-separation is the key component, not being underground. Functionally, there is no real difference between a "metro" run underground below traffic and one run elevated above traffic. Neither conflict with traffic. Neither have to wait for non-rail traffic. In fact, elevated rail has some operational advantages over subways - when is the last time you ever heard of an elevated line having to shut down due to flooding? As an example, Portland, Oregon's MAX lightrail system operates a lot like a metro system in some respects and even has one underground segment. But in the center of town it runs on the street. Not underground and not elevated. So it clearly doesn't qualify. Chicago's rail runs entirely grade-seperated in the city except for the tail ends of two lines that run at grade (but still not even in the street) for less than a mile each. Emathias (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reading this may also be interested to know that the French-language Wikipedia page about the Chicago 'L' system is entitled "Métro de Chicago", which I would take to indicate that the French themselves consider it a metro system regardless of elevation. 205.178.8.215 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does the London Underground having its opening date in 1890? The first underground line was opened already in 1863, some other train lines being even earlier. Where is 1890 on based? It seems to me no precisely year. The first deep level "tube" line was opened in that year, but if that is the reason, many metro systems would have no right to stand here, which is curious to me. OPolkruikenz (talk) 11:00, 11 february 2012 (UTC)