:These are valid concerns. Allow me to address them one at a time. 
 :Firstly, between this talk page and the reversion of these additions by multiple different editors, it's clear to me that there is not yet consensus for these addition. To continue to add them despite the objections is poor editing behvaior. That's what WP:TE is about. But that's neither here not there, as they are good faith edits.  
 :My mention of "not metro scheduling" is likely poor phrasing, but the underlying concern is true. The question about how a rider uses the line/system. Does one check a schedule to know when the next train arrives, or do they simply show up and take the next train, which is only a few minutes away. Also, do all train make the same stops, or does one need to check the stops for the train. The former are metro patterns, the latter are commuter rail. From what I've seen of the lines, they fit the latter better.  
 :As for the outskirts-to-center comment, I agree that, in heavily, densely settles areas the distinction is quite difficult. However, if there's a central station (or a few) where the majority of the passengers embark/disembark, that's a commuter rail pattern.  
 :Monorails aren't listed here because they have their own list: List of monorail systems. Check the archives for this talk page; prior discussion was to exclude them as a different technology too dissimilar to standard electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail metros. It's not just service patterns that qualify a system as a metro, it's also a level of technological similarity that makes for a meaning comparison.  
 :Glad to elucidate my reasoning.