Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 1

message: The article states that it's for cities which "have a rapid transit system, or a light-rail system with some elements of rapid transit". Apparently someone thought Dallas' DART (and Calgary, Edmonton) were light rail systems that should be included. According to the APTA website DART has a quarterly ridership of 4,262K. By that standard the following systems should be included (along with their quarterly riderships):
San Francisco MUNI - 9,613.7
Portland - 8,206.4
St. Louis - 5,119.6 (only 4Q 2006 available)
New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LR - 4,566.3
Denver - 4,548.2
source: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q1rep.pdf
However we could go further and include those with a higher ridership than Edmonton's, or a higher ridership than Buffalo's (which is on the list), at which point it would almost feel like the light-rail list is being copied over to this list.
DisgruntledWaterlooStudent 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US systems to be included

message: I'm not convinced that the correct Australian term is "subway".  In Melbourne, the underground railway section is simply known as the "city loop" or "loop", and when referring to systems in other cities they tend to use the indigenous term for that city (using "underground" for the London system and "subway" for New York). --Robert Merkel
** Australian's do not use the term "subway" to refer to underground train systems. --Tancred 04:53, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
:The most commonly-used term internationally is "metro" - and that is what we "should" use here. We should also resist the temptation to include "suburban railway" systems just because they have underground segments. Ldemery 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: On another note: Everyone and their brother want their specific name of the "underground tracked mass transit system employed for public transport" to be the article on Wikipedia. That will not happen without a substansial duplication of data. I propose (and will indeed enforce) that we collect all data about theese kind of systems under the Underground article, and redirect from the city/country specific to that article. We are after all discussing the "selben Sache", not waging a nomenclature war. Is this correct ladies and gentlemen? --Anders Törlind
:Fine by me. I wasn't trying to start a nomenclature war, just querying an assertion about supposedly correct Australian usage. I agree that redirection to a canonical article is totally the way to go, but note should be made of individual local terminology, and in this case I'm not sure the local terminology was accurate -- Robert Merkel
::Unfortunately, the "canonical article" has gone through several name changes and is now currently called "Rapid transit" (a rather obvious Americanism). I think the article titles should be "Metro" and "List of metro systems" . . . but I'm "not" willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" about this. Ldemery 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I *really* worry about the name of this article, in particular. A large number of these systems are not entirely underground (in fact, only a few ARE entirely underground, such as Montreal). It's one thing to have an article about "the Underground," but quite another to claim that Toronto's subway is an "underground railway" when a large portion of it isn't. - user:Montrealais
:I also am having a bit of difficulty with  this.  For example, San Francisco's Muni is listed, along with the Los Angeles MTA's Gold, Green, and Blue lines, but the San Diego Trolley is absent.  Muni, while having an underground subway portion on all but one of the lines (the subway is referred to as the Muni Metro, although the only people who refer to it that way is Muni itself: I've never heard anybody actually call it that), runs the majority of it's track miles above ground, and at-grade with vehicle traffic.  The LAMTA Gold and Green Lines are almost entirely above ground and would be better defined as light rail, yet it is mentioned.  The San Diego Trolley, however, runs largely grade-seperate (just about everywhere except in the center city), and meets just about every other definition of Metro, yet is above ground and is not listed.  *shrug*  Perhaps the solution is to only list the systems that are popularly called "Metros" (like the Los Angeles and Washington DC "Metros"), and leave the rest for the Light rail and public transport pages, and word the page accordingly so there is no more confusion.   - Feedle 17:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  But some confusion still remains, in that there seems to still be a very fluid definition of Metro.  Again, taking SF Muni as an example: the vast majority of "Muni Metro" track miles dosen't fit the second definition of "Metro", in that it operates on public street right-of-way (especially the outer portions of the J-Church, L-Taraval, and N-Judah) (side note: and some Muni detractors would probably argue the "frequent service" portion as well).  Similarly, the San Diego Trolley fits two of those requirements (frequent service intervals and urban electric trains), and has about as much shared right-of-way as SF Muni, yet is unlisted.  Systems like the Las Vegas Monorail will only further blur these lines: LVM will meet all three definitions (frequent intervals, grade-seperate, and urban electric), yet probably wouldn't be considered a "Metro" in the classic sense.  Heck, using that definition the Disneyland Monorail System fits.   Not arguing for arguments' sake, just that it seems the current situation is less than optimal. As a stylistic note, I inserted the comment where I did not because I totally saw exactly what was described, but that Montrealais' comment reflected the ambiguity that exists in the use of the word "Metro".  It seemed a logical place to insert my comments.  My commentation was driven by a desire to insert the San Diego Trolley into the list based on the Metro page's definition.  - Feedle 04:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Muni, it was already (and is correctly) in List of light-rail transit systems. In the top I made it "Some systems that are called light rail, but are essentially a metro system, are also included. On the other hand, systems that are called "metro" but are really light rail, are not included here but in List of light-rail transit systems. See also Monorail.". That seems better than having how it is called as criterion. - Patrick 09:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. - Feedle 10:23, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Underground / metro

message: Merseyrail: Metro or light rail? It should be included on one or other of the lists, but it's hard to classify. Experts? –Hajor 00:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind it's neither. It's an ordinary heavy rail system with quite an intensive service, which happens to have sections under the River Mersey and in Liverpool city centre which are underground. -- Arwel 01:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: And it closed and was demolished nearly 50 years ago, which is why I've deleted it. This is a list of current metro systems and systems under construction. -- Arwel 13:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed metros are thin on the ground, the only other ones being the New York Elevated and the Tandy Center Subway in Fort Worth; including them (perhaps in their own table)  isn't going to drown everything out. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest adding closed systems in their own section, similar to the organisation at British funicular railways. Thryduulf 17:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: If you do set up a section, I'd say that the Tandy Subway doesn't merit inclusion -- despite the name, it's a light rail, not a metro in the strict sense of this article. It used PCC cars and had low-floor stations. Rochester also has a defunct system that's closer to metro status but it too used PCCs --- I think it was more comparable to Boston's Green Line. --Jfruh 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with Merseyrail, but I cannot find any source where the system is referred to as metro or rapid transit. The Wikipedia article Merseyrail says it is a commuter train network, and Urbanrail  says it a metro-like system. So does "metro bits"  -- Kildor 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liverpool, UK

message: None of the Australian systems listed are true metros, rather they are frequent suburban commuter services, similar to services in South London or Liverpool. I think they should be hived off to a seperate list of commuter rail systems, or at the least have footnotes mentioning this. Thoughts, anyone? --Randwicked 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the first step of adding a footnote clarifying the Sydney and Melbourne situation...if no-one has any objections I will remove Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide and start a list of suburban rail systems. --Randwicked 10:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It's done...see new List of suburban and commuter rail systems. Sydney and Melbourne kept because of the hybrid thingy. See footnote. --Randwicked 14:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: If Melbourne's suburban network isn't counted, Chicago is apparently the 10th biggest real metro by number of stations. Rectifying. --Randwicked 15:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian systems

message: Referring to
"Huaiwei (rv edits by 202.61.116.181. Refer to talk page, and proof to us the KRC is a metro, a light rail, as well as a commuter at the same time. In addition, please stop listing Hong Kong as a country.)"
It's a convention, at least in journalism and politics, to refer non-sovereign entities (i.e. dependencies, territories, protectorates, etc.) together with other countries, or more politically correct, under a category called "countries and territories". -- 18:08, December 11, 2004, UTC
::And who is this speaking?--Huaiwei 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Country listing

message: I deleted this city since the info is a total nonsense. First of all, Kryvyi Rih is in a permanent disaster of underground flooding because of its mines. So they can't build any metro there even if they found enough money (which is also impossible now). Best wishes, AlexPU
:Nice to see someone taking somewhere in their own country out instead of putting it in, but... These links may help: in English, in Russian, in German and Russian (follow "Krivoj Rog | Кривой Рог" link). I am not quite sure if what they are describing counts as a metro or not, but I am inclined to count it as one. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, from the city council site: in Ukrainian andin Russian. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krivoy Rog 

message: I recently added some systems in the U.S. based on an assumption (which I clarified up top) that any system, be it light rail or rapid transit, with sufficient grade-separated sections should qualify. I made this assumption based on a few things, mainly a few systems that were already in (though I can't remember which) and the 1897 date given for Boston, which only ran streetcars underground until 1901.
I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. It seems like a split could be made here, not just between rapid transit and light rail, but also between modern light rail and streetcars. (Much discussion is at talk:streetcar about this split.) A name is needed for the merged streetcar/tram (also being discussed on talk:streetcar). A few systems would still overlap, but there would be less overlap.
Another issue is airport-only systems. I've added a few of these, but then realized these should probably be in a separate list, only being included here if they also go outside the airport (like AirTrain JFK).
Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 21:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of this page

message: That chapter is inconsistent. It should list according to the date when the system was first a true metro. Some of the cities listed show opening dates of e.g. a tram or regular rail line which just happens to be part of a metro system today (Vienna or Napoli for example), but some others show the opening date of their "regular" metro. I think only the latter should be used. Opinions? Anorak2 11:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Metros 

message: There is a problem with the table format for Wuppertal, which is certainly not a country. I am not good enough with tables to fix it, but if someone knows what to do please correct Wuppertal.208.46.78.226 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wuppertal

message: I have added the Poma 2000 to the list. I am perfectly aware that this can be challenged, but I think this is a urban transportation system (not a touristic line), on rubber tyres, with stations and so on. But if you feel it's beyond the boundaries let's talk about it.208.46.78.226 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laon

message: Reason: The entire West End Line (except for the Coney extension opened in 1864), and has been in continual operation since. Most of the line was elevated during WWI.
# Cecropia 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1863 

message: This article is confusing, there are many articles out there that list different transit systems. An automated people mover would not be rapid transit system but it is not light rail, what do people think of merging a couple pages into one. We could take all the different type of systems and put them on one page. Break them down to look something like this List of rapid transit systems/Country
What do people think? If I get no objection in two days I will create the page but will not merge till there is a consensus. --Ben 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid Transit 

message: Please note that there is now a bounty available for bringing any of these articles up to featured status. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bounty available

message: Under Planning - by which I think means "In development stages" - seems to be a status of which some of the metro systems are in. It doesn't make sense in English so I'm going to change it to In planning stages --Luccent 13:52, 20 
March 2006 (UTC)
::"In planning" is a convenient shorthand that I've seen used by "non-U.S." sources. Ldemery 06:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Planning?

message: Should the LUAS and DART not be included for the Dublin, Ireland section, as well as the Dublin Metro?
:The conflicting definitions of the term ‘rapid transit’ confuse the issue, but generally speaking, this article is for metros; Luas, as a tramway, and DART, as a railway, therefore are not included. The Dublin Metro certainly will qualify if it is built. David Arthur 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Jvlm.123 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: Ulaanbaatar has a metro since 1994. Can someone add it? I'm still a noob at editing with code and whatnot. http://ulaanbaator.narod.ru/ --Blackfield 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ulaanbaatar (aka Ulan bator) does not have a metro. The website is a hoax - a clever and convincing hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Ldemery 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: This page is supposed to provide a list of cities that HAVE systems. If it was never built or is not completed, it should not be on this page. Alternatively, the page topic could be expanded to include proposed and under constuction systems. Kuvopolis 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this page should include systems that exist or whose contruction has commenced. Adam J. Sporka 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To that point, then, York Region (Canada) should not have been added (& cross-linked) recently.  York does not have a rail rapid transit system.  Its recently-opened VIVA system uses buses only, and as a user I can tell you that it's not "rapid". Service is frequent, but not rapid. PKT 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned, Under Construction, and Never Built 

message: Santo Domingo is planning a metro. I'll see if I can find some information regarding it. Piet 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santo Domingo 

message: Can somebody justify the presence of all the external links in the main tabulation of this list please. I find it difficult to see how these are not in clear contravention of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files in WP:NOT. -- Chris j wood 10:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: How slow or unreliable do the services have to be to disqualify a rail system from being a rapid transit system? I would argue that CityRail, of Sydney, Australia, does not qualify to be a rapid transit system by reason of having a fictional time table and impossibly slow services - services today are slower, less frequent, and more unreliable than they were in 1930. --Sumple (Talk) 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There really isn’t any authoritative definition of ‘rapid transit’. Local authorities give it whatever meaning suits their purposes, and despite the word ‘rapid’, the actual speed never seems to figure in the deliberations. David Arthur 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How slow is un-rapid? 

message: It would be useful to have some measure of size for these systems, such as ridership or revenue figures. -- Beland 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expension request - size 

message: Why is the Caucasus included in Asia in this article when a number of major bodies including the European Union, UEFA and major travel guides like Lonely Planet and the people there consider themselves as part of Europe? Valenciano 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasus 

message: I'm wondering why the Congressional Subway (connecting the Capitol proper with its various office buildings) is included in this list. The congressional subway covers a very small area and its ridership is highly limited (Members of Congress, Congressional staff and their guests). In contrast, other rapid transit systems listed have much higher (and open) riderships and transport people much longer distances. Dextrosity 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Congressional Subway 

message: Why is Jerusalem classed as Israel here?  Internationally and officially, the status of Jerusalem has yet to be determined pending a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.159.104 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, more to the point, the rail project should probably be moved to the light rail transit list. Ldemery 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel and Jerusalem 

message: There are two Monorail systems in the American Disney theme parks. The one in Anaheim CA and the other in Lake Buena Vista FL. I would like to suggest both of them for inclusion into the list. The one at Walt Disney World does operate as a "City" public transportation system, since its inception, Disney World has been run as a city by the Reedy Creek Council. 192.195.66.46 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are both "intramural" transport facilities, like airport peoplemovers - and are also monorails, which have their own separate list. Ldemery 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Walt Disney World & Disneyland Monorail systems

message: There are many light rail systems listed under the United States section of this list. They're also included on the List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership. This is redundant. This page only deals with rapid transit (heavy rail), not just any train system. --SameerKhan 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy rail vs. Light rail 

message: I think that if there are listed the U- and S-Bahn in Germany, there must be listed all Cercanías networks in Spain (like Cercanías Madrid).
Thank you! :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.44.222.149 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cercanías Madrid (and other Cercanías spanish networks) 

message: Should funiculaire systems be included here? I noticed tha Haifa funiculaire is included and as such several other systems should be too (i.e. Kiev funiculaire, Sochi funiculair etc).--Dojarca 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  funiculaire 

message: There are certain systems in Canada which i believe do not qualify as rapid transit. The Viva system in York Region barely qualifies a brt, it does not have its own right-of-way, it just uses articulated buses and priority at intersections. The Niagara system consists of a few minibuses that do not have their own right-of-way. The i-Xpress in Waterloo Region consists of a few specially painted buses on a limited-stop service, they run with regular traffic throughout the route. I would appreciate input on my concerns. 72.142.221.160 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Systems 

message: I think we need to clear up whether or not Bus Rapid Transit should be included in this list. I realise that "Rapid Transit" is in its name, but this list appears to be intended for metro-style systems and BRT definitely does not fall into that category. Kitchenerite 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Rapid Transit