Talk:List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership

message: There are a number of systems on here that don't belong, including the Houston METERO Rail, San Francisco Muni Metro, Portland MAX, St. Louis Metrolink, Dallas DART, Utah TRAX ... basically, anything that's on List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership shouldn't be here, as the categories are mutually exclusive. --Jfruh (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some systems shouldn't be here

message: Just curious why PATH and PATCO don't get the "integrated with light rail" asterisk.  Both have shared stations with not one but two light rail systems (PATH with the Newark Subway and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, PATCO with the Philly subway-surface lines and the River Line).  On the other hand, there isn't a single fare regime shared by these systems, so perhaps they're not truly integrated?
Also, would anyone object to adding San Juan Tren Urbano to the list?  I'm actually kind of surprised it's not in the APTA report, but surely some stats could be dug up... --Jfruh (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It is a rapid transit system in the United States.  The only reason I haven't added it is lack of data.--Loodog 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not including light rail boardings for LA.--Loodog (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, because it's not heavy rail transit.  These are only heavy rail numbers here. --Jfruh (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It depends on what you mean by "integrated."  There's full fare integration between Balitmore's subway and light rail, for instance, though it's not as integrated as in Boston or LA, where there is a common line-color branding scheme.  All the numbers you see here and on the corresponding light rail wikipedia list are for the appropriate modes, though that may not be true of numbers you'd see elsewhere.  I think  asterisk is mostly to make it absolutely clear that these numbers are for heavy rail only, by acknowledging that there are other lines in the city that we aren't discussing, if that makes sense. --Jfruh (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrated with light rail? and the Tren Urbano

message: Should the Detroit People Mover be included on a list of rapid transit systems?  It doesn't seem to me fit with the definition of rapid transit (see APTA's definition here).  Maybe there should be another list of people mover systems in the United States with Detroit, Miami, Morgantown, etc.--Hillrhpc 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really an automated guide system, but since its trains appear with high frequency and with complete grade separation from traffic, it also qualifies as rapid transit.--Loodog 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur and the Vancouver SkyTrain are built with the exact same technology, but both appear on the global List of rapid transit systems.  It's true that due to its short length, the People Mover is definitely an outlier among the systems listed here, but I think it's more like one of these systems than the others. --Jfruh (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Detroit People Mover is included, it seems like the Miami Metromover should also be included.  Using numbers from the Wikipedia page, the Metromover has 6,432 riders per mile per weekday. Misterfranklin (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not how many riders or riders per mile the systems get, but of what the mode of the system is -- heavy rail (metro/subway/what have you --- in a local transit context, Wikipedia gives this category the unfortunately squishy term "rapid transit"), light rail, or people mover.  This list is for the first category, while the Miami Metromover is in the last.  The Bombardier system that the Detroit People Mover uses is an intermediate-level system, but it generally is considered a true heavy reail metro-type system, despite the fact that the specific version in Detroit happens to have "people mover" in its brand name. --Jfruh (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Detroit People Mover

message: 1971 seems like a misleading opening date for the SIR -- that's just the date the MTA took over its operations, which remained otherwise essentially unchanged.  Passenger rail has been run along that line since 1860.  Maybe a good starting date would be 1925, which was when the line was electricified and rapid-transit rolling stock began to be used? --Jfruh (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Staten Island opening date

message: I moved the page back.  Most links went here and merely calling it a list of United States RT systems ignores the primary ranking: ridership.--Loodog 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move back

message: How do we determine the opening dates for Boston and New York City? It appears to use the first IRT Subway for NYC and the Main Line El for Boston, but New York had Els that predate the subway that are still in use, and none of the Main Line El is used by rapid transit anymore- the subway section was replaced in 1905 as I recall and the last elevateds were removed in 1987. (It's the axe paradox, I suppose, as the Orange Line is the direct continuation of the Main Line El, but it has been entirely relocated over time) --71.124.173.134 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the classic 1904 date for NYC.  None of the Manhattan and Bronx electric el trackage has been in existence since 1973, and the original steam el service in Brooklyn was arguably more like interurban rail at the time -- Coney Island was essentially rural in the 19th century. In any case, the last previous date of 1868 makes little sense, as Ely Beach's system was never in revenue service.  --John Cowan (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This still makes no sense, Wikipeople of the Distant Past.  If you put Chicago at 1892 (the first rapid transit predecessor of the CTA, an elevated), then you have to do the same for NYC which goes back to what?  1870?  If you insist upon the 1904 IRT subway date for NYC, then you have to put the Chicago date at 1944 or whenever the first of the two subway lines opened (State St?  Dearborn St?  Don't remember.)  Can't have it both ways. Rapid Transit is Rapid Transit regardless of distance from the surface of the earth or technology.  OTOH, I think Boston's date is right - the Tremont St Subway was certainly rapid transit even if it was (and is) run with streetcars.  The Main Line El used that tunnel for a while starting in 1901 until its own tunnel under Washington St was completed, but that's not really relevant - Boston's rapid transit system goes back to 1897. --plaws (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening date for Boston and NYC

message: Data is up for third quarer 2007.  If someone has the time, the page (and the graph) needs updating.--Loodog (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, looks like the Tren Urbano is finally on the list! I might have time to update in the next day or two ...--Jfruh (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third quarter

message: Can someone please add the Minneapolis Hiawatha line to the list? I don't know how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.188.237 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the Hiawatha Line is light rail, not rapid transit, meaning it will be found under List of United States light rail systems by ridership.--Loodog (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minneapolis

message: For instance: NYC has 229 route miles, not 656, which is it's track miles. The MBTA has 38 route miles, not 66 track miles. If we are going to compare route miles, we need to make sure all of these figures are route miles, not track miles, and then change the page accordingly please.
Ofsevit (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Many of these figures are wrong

message: I realize that the Detroit People Mover is a borderline case, especially because its route is so small.  However, it is built with the exact same trains and technology as the Vancouver Skytrain and the Scarborough RT, which are generally considered heavy-rail rapid transit systems.
The Miami Metromover, in contrast, has smaller vehicles and a lower carrying capacity.  It's firmly in the "people mover" category. --Jfruh (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that Detroit's a marginal case, but I think the type of train matters quite a bit.  The train type and the tracks are what define the type of system, to my view, rather than the particular branding the city has chosen.  It should be added that the capacity of the Detroit system is significantly higher than its actual usage.  I'd like to hear other people who have contributed to this article offer their opinon on the subject.  As a rubber-tired system with tiny vehicles, the Miami Metromover cannot be considered to be like the other systems here; but if Detroit were taken off, I could see the logic to it. --Jfruh (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the Miami Metromover not being listed here since this is a list for rapid transit, even though it is like an extended part to the Miami Metrorail since they both work together, but if the Detroit People Mover is listed here than by default, the Miami Metromover needs to be on here too. --Comayagua99 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Integration has nothing to do with it.  Many of these systems are integrated with light rail transit systems whose numbers aren't counted here.  The placement on the list should be determined solely on one question: what is the mode of the system.  Is it heavy rail rapid transit or not?  The Metromover isn't; Detroit is a borderline case.  The two systems are quite different. --Jfruh (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both systems are exactly the same under my eyes: people movers. You can put whatever you want on this list though. --Comayagua99 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Detroit People Mover vs. Miami Metromover

message: There are two columns the sortable table fails to sort: route miles and ridership.  I'm sure that it's the footnotes that are causing the problem. So, what to do with them? --Millbrooky (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.  Try seeing what the List of tallest buildings by U.S. state does differently that lets it sort with footnotes.--Loodog (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No footnotes in a column with numbers. --Millbrooky (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could add another column for the footnotes and call it "sources".--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This entire list can be found on each transit system's own page.--Loodog (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridership numbers, yes; APTA ridership numbers, no. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was just that this list exists for a reason, and the listing of track mileage helps serve that reason.--Loodog (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, keep the miles; I was simply suggesting moving/deleting the footnotes so that the table could be sorted by mileage. PRRfan (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding another column to the right for all the refs like in Governor of Missouri? --Millbrooky (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List sort

message: I would like to suggest switching this and related lists to using yearly ridership statistics instead of the quarterly statistics currently employed.  I have two reasons for suggesting the change: 1) it would significantly reduce the required quarterly maintenance of the list, and 2) it would eliminate seasonal variability from the numbers.  --Millbrooky (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per above. -epicAdam(talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Support makes sense to me. --Jfruh (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Support I agree as well. This should be changed. The Interloafer (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While as noted above I support this proposal, one thing does occur to me, which is that there will now be significant lags in getting numbers for new and/or expanded systems.  We wouldn't be able to get annual Seattle Link numbers for another six months, or numbers for Dallas and Portland that reflect new lines for longer, for instance. --Jfruh (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest using yearly ridership statistics, instead

message: There's been a slow trend on this page and the corresonding Light Rail page to remove the little asterisk denoting integration between a light and heavy rail system unless the two are very strongly integrated (i.e., same agency, fare union, etc.).  While I understand this impulse, I think that it's removing data that is interesting and relevant.  PATCO and the River Line may be operated by different agencies and not share a fare structure, but they do share a station and people transfer from one to the other (in fact, the River Line was designed as it was with the intention that PATCO would be its passengers route into Philly) which generates network effects.  Muni and BART in particular are complementary systems in SF, even though they're separately operated.
I'm wondering if there is a different way to phrase this footnote other than "integrated" that would allow for a broader definition.  Perhaps "Transfer available to other transit rail mode"? Or we could break it down to "Transfer available to light rail," "Transfer available to commuter rail," and "Transfer available to people mover" (for Miami)? --Jfruh (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration with other modes (again)

message: I just reverted an attempt to change BART's city served from San Francisco to "Bay Area," but I wonder if this column isn't ripe for a rename to "region served" or something like that.  There's already a bit of weirdness with PATH being identified with NY and PATCO with Philly, even though that's not quite right -- they serve to link the NJ suburbs with those cities, rather than to get around the cities themselves.  And once (if) the BART extension to San Jose opens, we'll be honor-bound to put San Jose as the largest city served by the system, which also doesn't sit well with what I think most people would think of as the focus of that system. --Jfruh (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that those are bizarre cases.  I am not sure how you'd do them, however.  If you did "Bay Area" that's overly broad since it doens't include any of the South Peninsula.  If you did "Philly-South Jersey" that's also fairly broad but "Philly-Camden" would be too narrow.  I think the best pay to do it might be "major area served" and for lines that are meant to connect another area (state/county) to a big hub like PATCO or BART then maybe we should just list the largest cities?  Not fully sure... the nice thing about the current system is not having to use our judgment :) --gren グレン 06:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Largest city served"

message: I apologize if I am not that well-informed, but I noticed a discrepancy in the ridership #'s for the NYC Subway between two sources. While the APTA source indicates that the NYC Subway achieves a weekday ridership of 7,791,000 for Q4 2009, the figures from the MTA itself indicates that the average weekday subway ridership is only 5,086,833 for 2009 . I don't think the subway usage would change enough in the other 9 months to create such a difference, s is there another reason for the discrepancy? Thanks. -Multivariable (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: APTA (and this Wikipedia article) uses unlinked trips for their data versus the linked trips likely published by the MTA. For example, a transit rider that uses 3 subway lines to get to their destination would generate 1 linked trip and 3 unlinked trips. The discrepancy is most pronounced on multi-line systems like New York versus single line systems like Miami. --Millbrooky (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NYC Discrepancy?

message: On some of the lines the Asterisk is misleading.  BART for example is in no way integrated with the MUNI system, if one wishes to ride BART as well as MUNI then one would need to purchase a separate ticket to ride each system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.87.7 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Asterisks

message: I was wondering if there was a reason the list currently uses only weekday ridership instead of overall daily ridership. The APTA quarterly reports also include the total ridership for each quarter. The average daily ridership can be easily computed by dividing the total ridership by the number of days in the quarter. This is one of the few lists I've seen that compares systems based strictly on weekday ridership; do weekends just not count as "real" days? -Multivariable (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of weekday ridership vs. daily ridership

message: The citation URL does not appear to be working, but the link to the first quarter APTA numbers is just fine. Also, how is it that the numbers were so wrong from first quarter? Ridership on the MBTA didn't shoot up by 200k overnight like that. -epicAdam(talk) 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the link. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Quarter Numbers 

message: I see that this page seems to be using the definition of rapid transit on Wikipedia.  However, I think this is a confusing definition of rapid transit.  Why should only rail services be defined as rapid transit?  For example, some bus rapid transit systems are grade-separated.  Aaron Antrim (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This list uses American Public Transportation Association data to define rapid transit, which they call "heavy rail". In order to maintain consistency and comparable statistics, we stick to that definition and exclude other types of transit systems from this list. Best, epicAdam(talk) 03:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the page title should be changed to say "heavy rail systems by ridership" to clear up this confusion? As it currently stands, the title implies that medium rail technologies would show up here too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.18.10 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about defining rapid transit 

message: I'm not sure how/where the APTA gets their statistics, but they are no where near accurate.  For example, the latest report states the NYC Subway's weekday ridership is 8.4 million, while the MTA's website reports last year it was less than 5.3 million.  And this is the only one that is way off.  All the data needs to be updated with stats from the individual transit agencies, since the APTA data just doesn't make sense. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: APTA uses a metric that it calls "unlinked passenger trips," and I believe that people who change lines count as two trips?  At any rate, using agency numbers seems like a recipie for a list that will be completely useless, as differen agencies will use differen metrics measured in different ways. --Jfruh (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Completely agree with Jfruh. Every agency has a different way of counting trips/passengers. The APTA provides a very specific and reasonable standard to measure transit usage across all different types of systems. The page note(s/d) that the data are from the APTA and count unlink passenger trips. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  APTA ridership data is way off 

message: Hi All. I think we should include the annual ridership numbers either in addition to or instead of the average weekday numbers. This suggestion came up a few years ago and there was support for a change, but nothing happened. The APTA provides the data and it seems silly not to include it if someone is looking for total number of trips instead of just a weekday average. Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 14:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, let's add a second chart for total riders.--Comayagua99 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual Ridership vs. Average Weekday 

message: Would the green line be rapid transit or light rail? Cjfgl (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Green Line is light rail. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's not only a classic example of "subway-surface" light rail, it's actually the world's first. oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

text: It should be included. To not include the Green Line is dumb. You go underground on the Green line and are able to connect to the other lines without having to reneter. For that matter the Siverline should be considered as well since it uses exclusive tunnels for its buses for much of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.40.118 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBTA Lines 

message: The total route length for the Chicago 'L' is 102.8 miles.  This is taken from the CTA's website which lists (separately) lists the length of the infrastructure for elevated sections (35.8 mi), grade level (35.0 mi), embankments (20.6 mi), and subway (11.4 mi).  The total of those values equal 102.8 miles, which is not the same as the rail track miles, which calculates the length of all the physical track in the system (e.g. 1 route mile with four tracks is equal to 4 miles of track). –Dream out loud (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK, I'll go ahead a revert the edit I just made then. Still, I'd feel better if there was a reference that could be found that confirms this figure. Because the 224 mile track length figure does divide in half to 112 miles... --IJBall (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note from years later: The L has the four-track North Side Main Line which probably accounts for most of the difference. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago 'L' route length 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912053503/http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edition.pdf to http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edition.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524014002/http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/route-statistics.pdf to http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/route-statistics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just edited the table to include the 2017 numbers from APTA. However, there were a few places where what seemed like obvious errors jumped out at me when comparing the number for the full year's ridership and the "Average Daily Ridership" figures APTA gave. For Baltimore and San Juan, the weekday ridership is off from what you would roughly expect from the full year ridership by a factor of ten (Baltimore too high, San Juan too low; the latter might be related to time the system was shut down due to Hurricane Maria). For Boston, the weekday ridership was low by maybe 20-30 percent. In all three cases, I did what we've been doing for Cleveland, which for whatever reason doesn't report weekday average ridership: divide the annual ridership by 365 and add a footnote that this is daily ridership, not weekday ridership. --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There have definitely been issues with the APTA reports before. Some years, an entire system (e.g. Calgary or Edmonton, can't remember which...) were just plum missing from the whole report! I think I've also seen typos in some of the figures themselves before too. The only solution is to just wait until the next year, or in this case maybe to "correct" the errant figures but add a 'note' to them so it's clear what's been done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeming errors in APTA 2017 numbers 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Metro systems in the United States. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.   ~~  OxonAlex  - talk 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Metro systems in the United States" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I'd like to discuss updating this page to 2021 ridership using my new template, Template:American transit ridership. I recently made this change, but it was reverted by @IJBall, a user for who I have great respect for. I understood the logic for ignoring the 2020 numbers because of the COVID impact on transportation (many systems were closed for most or part of the year). That said, in many places, ridership has bounced back in 2021, so I feel that they are valid for posting and usage. At this point, keeping the 2019 vs. 2021 numbers seems like an editorial judgement on our part. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait to use the (Q4) 2022 figures. It wasn't just 2020 figures that were greatly impacted by COVID – 2021 ridership was still way down too. It's only been in 2022 where we've had some "bounce back" to something closer to "normal" ridership levels. I suggest we "wait" to use those figures for an update. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen, thanks. Will keep other articles' ranking as per 2019 for consistency with this list. --Brandon5485 03:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Just a note, I've updated the figures with Q4 2022 ridership numbers. Interesting changes, such as the CTA taking WMATA's place as the 2nd busiest system in the US. Piemadd (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Means the other three articles in this suite – e.g. List of United States light rail systems by ridership – will need to be updated with Q4 2022 figures now as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give those a shot later today. Totally looking forward to that one /s Piemadd (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 Ridership 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress