Talk:List of rapid transit systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Improvement suggestions

Unlike certain Wikipedia editors (and at least one editor . . .), I am NOT willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" when it comes to improving this list.

Now, having said that:

I think there should be - and that we can make, by consensus - reasonable distinctions between the following types of "fixed-track" or "fixed-rail" public passenger transport:

-"Rapid transit" (metro) systems -Light rail transit (LRT) systems -Automated Guideway Transport (AGT) systems -Monorail systems -Suburban and commuter rail (or "regional rail") systems

There also needs to be a distinction between "public" and "intramural" passenger transport. An "airport peoplemover" would be an example of "intramural" transport.

The lists above should not contain duplicate entries. Each system should be listed once, on only one list, with a "reference link" for "borderline" cases. I think we should put our "consensus energy" into deciding what system belongs where, rather than attempting to cobble together "all-inclusive" definitions.

Because this list will remain the "primary" reference for many people whose first language is something other than English, I think that certain "Americanisms" should be avoided (e.g. "defunct").

And, having said "that:"

--This list should probably be titled "List of metro systems" - because "metro" is the most commonly-used term worldwide. I'm aware of the ongoing debate over nomenclature on the main "rapid transit" page. "Rapid transit" was selected for the sake of "neutrality" - but it is nonetheless a rather flagrant "Americanism." It is not really a synonym for "metro" - and its use also opens the door for inclusion of "non-rail" modes (e.g. "bus rapid transit").

(I'll also note that the fact that "Mass Transit" redirects to the "Rapid transit" page suggests significant confusion about public transport terminology.)

Yes, this is an English-language page. But anyone who believes that we can blithely ignore certain "issues" that do not occur in the "English speaking world" would do well to consider the following. We will need to recognize and decide how to categorize something called "light metro." This is not at all the same thing as "small-profile metro." (London and New York have "large-profile" and "small-profile" metro lines; "large-profile" metro stock is "almost" as large as railway stock, while "small-profile" stock is narrower and shorter.) Basically, "light metro" implies tram-type or light-rail type vehicles, relatively short trains (2-4 cars maximum) - but no street track, and full separation (that is, no level crossings). A "light metro" might have several km of tunnels and several underground stations. Stations tend to be more closely-spaced than on a "full-sized" metro - but stations on most U.S. and Canadian metro lines are spaced much farther apart than on most European and Asian ones.

And yes, there is a "light metro" system in the U.S. - although it isn't called that. The St. Louis LRT system had all the characteristics listed above until it was expanded from its "original. The Los Angeles LRT Green Line is another example of a "light metro" (although its stations are "very" widely spaced.)

So: is "light metro" a subset of "metro" or "light rail transit" ?

A good way to answer this question - and also to distinguish between LRT and "other modes" - is to consider whether the vehicles are in theory compatible with operation in streets - today.


--Parsing the headings: Under "year opened, there should be either a year, a year with footnote (e.g. New York) or a very brief comment: "Under consruction," "Construction authorized," "In planning" or "Under discussion."

Or something else, such as "Start of construction postponed" (e.g. Kawasaki)

Or a reference to another list: e.g. "see List of regional rail systems.

--Parsing the systems on the list:

AFRICA SOUTH AFRICA -Johannesburg/Pretoria will be "regional rail." Gautrain will not be a "metro." Good to have a link from this page, however - as with the following.

ASIA CHINA -Hong Kong: Kowloon-Canton Railway should "not" be listed as "metros," but as "regional rail." Yes, there are good reasons why this system might be listed as a "metro" - but to do so would logically require similar listing for a number of Japanese rail systems.

INDIA -Kolkata Suburban Railway, Lucknow MEMU, MMTS Hyderabad and Mumbai Suburban Railway should "not" be listed as "metros," as KCR above.

INDONESIA -Jakarta Monorail should be listed on the "monorail" list.

IRAN: I'll have to check, but I believe that all but Teheran will be "light rail transit," perhaps better described as "light metro."

ISRAEL -Haifa-Carmelit should be listed under "funicular railways."

-Jerusalem and Tel Aviv systems will be "light rail transit;" perhaps better described in the case of Tel Aviv as "light metro."

JAPAN

-Chiba Monorail, Hiroshima (Skyrail Service), Kamakura (Shonan Monorail), Kitakyushu Monorail, Naha (Okinawa Monorail), Tachikawa (Tama Monorail), Tokyo Monorail and Toyonaka (Osaka Monorail) should go to the monorail list.

-Hiroshima (Astram Line), Kobe New Transit, Kobe New Transit, Komaki (Peach Liner), Nagakute (Linimo), Osaka (New Tram), Saitama (New Shuttle), Sakura (Yukarigaoka), Tokorozawa (Seibu Yamaguchi), Tokyo (Yurikamome), Tokyo (Toneri) and Yokohama (Kanazawa Seaside Line) should go on the AGT list.

MALAYSIA

-KL Monorail, JB Maglev Monorail, Penang Monorail and Putrajaya Monorail should go on the monorail list.

PHILLIPINES

-Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System are goods example of "light metro" - should "probably" go to the LRT list.

SINGAPORE

-The so-named "Light Rapid Transit" systems are in fact AGTs.

TAIWAN

I'll have to check, but I believe that "some" of these will be "light metros," others "AGT" and still others LRT - or new tramways.


EUROPE ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN, GEORGIA: Need decisions on "where" they should be located - "Europe" or "Asia." The fact that the people consider themselves as part of Europe does not determine geography. (There are a number of people in Hawaii who consider themselves "American," and Hawaii is an integral part of the U.S. from the political standpoint - but by no stretch of imagination is Hawaii located in "North America.")


AUSTRIA

-Serfaus: "Dorfbahn Serfaus" is very much "urban" (in spite of the small size of the village) and is therefore "legit" - but it needs a footnote.

BELGIUM

-Antwerp Pre-metro should be listed either as "light rail" or (modern) town tramway.

-Charleroi Pre-metro should be listed as "light rail."

DENMARK

-Copenhagen S-Train belongs on the "regional rail" page.

FINLAND

-Helsinki commuter rail belongs on the "regional rail" page.

FRANCE

-Laon: POMA 2000 is a stretch, but it "does" belong because it does serve an "urban transport" function.

-Paris-RER belongs on the "regional rail" page. Otherwise, for the sake of logical consistency, one would have to add huge portions of regional rail systems in . . .

GEORGIA

-New Athos: This is (evidently) an "intramural" operation and therefore does not belong on this list.

GERMANY

Ach . . .

The case for "not" including anything other than Berlin U-Bahn, Frankfurt U-Bahn, Hanburg U-Bahn, Munich U-Bahn and Nuremberg U-Bahn has already been made.

The remainder are variously light rail transit, light metros, modern tramways, or regional rail. The two "classic" S-Bahn systems (Berlin and Hamburg) "might" - or "might not" belong on this list. They do, however, have a distinctly different character than "other" S-Bahn systems.

Further discussion is needed!

One thing is certain: Wuppertal is a monorail, and so belongs on the "monorail" list.


ITALY

-Genova Metro is a very nice example of a "light metro." It even uses a former tramway tunnel . . .

-Milan-FNM: this is a regional rail system.

-St.Christina - Gardena Ronda Express. Here's one I hadn't heard of!

PORTUGAL

-Coimbra - Metro Mondego: This will be light rail (or "tram-train).

-Lisboa - Sul do Tejo Metro: This will be "light rail" (or "light metro").


RUSSIA

-Moscow: Moscow Metro 2 does not belong on this list - except perhaps as a footnote.


SERBIA

-Belgrade - Beovoz: This is a regional rail system.


SPAIN

-The RENFE "Cercanias" services might be "linked" from the "regional rail" list.


TURKEY

-Istanbul-Tunel is a funicular, and does not belong on this list. (Except with a "link" to the "funicular" list.)


UKRAINE

-Kriviy Rih Metrotram belongs on the light rail list.


NORTH AMERICA MEXICO

-Mexico City: The Xochimilco–Tasqueña tren ligero belongs on the light rail list.

-Monterrey: Another good example of a "light metro."


U.S.

-Buffalo does not belong on this list. It has been described as a "heavy rail installation, modified to permit operation of trains on the street downtown" . . . but that does not make it a "metro."

-New York - Staten Island: Historic bit of trivia: this is, or has been considered, a "regional rail" line.

-Philadelphia-Norristown High Speed Line: This line does not belong on this list. It is a suburban railway that serves as a metro feeder. (Yes, I'm well aware that it is classified as "heavy rail" for U.S. federal transit statistical purposes . . . )

-Washington-United States Capitol Subway System: This is an "intramural" transport facility and therefore does not belong on this list.


SOUTH AMERICA ARGENTINA

-Buenos Aires: Trenes de Buenos Aires is a regional rail system - or systems.

BRAZIL

-Sao Paulo-CPTM: This is a regional rail system.

CHILE

-Conception and Valparaiso "should" go on the regional rail page.


OCEANIA AUSTRALIA

-Sydney monorail belongs on the "monorail" page. The rest "should" go on the regional rail page - although "links to" are certainly justified for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

As I stated at the beginning, I am NOT willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" when it comes to improving this list. I'm not planning to make changes other than certain obvious ones (monorails and AGTs) anytime soon. Ldemery 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel that the RER in Paris and at least a few of the German S-Bahns should be included in both regional rail and metro, having ridden on both the RER and the Munich S-Bahn I can say that there is very little difference between the U-Bahn/Metro and the S-Bahn/RER, at least in the city centres, and, in Paris at least, there is a seperate regional rail network, the RER is between the metro and the regional rail system, it should therefore be included in both lists. Kitchenerite 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the title "should" be "List of metro systems"

I'll try, try again to convince others that the term "should" be "metro:"

The world's first "rapid transit" railway was London's "Metropolitan Railway," opened in 1863. The lines on opened in the U.S. were called "elevated railways," "elevateds" or "els." Liverpool called its viaduct line an "overhead railway."

I don't know when the term "Underground" came into use in London. The "honor," so to speak, of being the first city to use the term "underground" for . . . well, an underground railway . . . might well belong to Budapest. The line opened in 1896 was called the "földalatti" . . . and that means "underground."

Vienna called its steam-worked urban railway, opened in 1898, the "Stadtbahn" (or "city railway"). Berlin's first underground railway, opened 1902, was called the "untergrundbahn," or U-Bahn, and this became the "standard" label in German-speaking countries.

However, in 1900, the first line in Paris was opened by an undertaking called "Compagnie du chemin de fer métropolitain de Paris." The "chemin de fer métropolitain" - ("Metropolitan Railway") was borrowed from the name of . . . yes . . . London's Metropolitan Railway. The French company became known as "le métropolitain," or "le métro" for short.

The French term "métropolitain" (or "métro") was borrowed by other Latin-based languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese; "Metrou" in Romanian) - but also by Russian ("Metropoliten") and other Slavic languages. It also became . . . well, "de rigeur" . . . in other countries as well. About the only exception in the 'Latin" world is Argentina, which uses "subte," an abbreviation for "subterraneo."

As noted above, German-speaking countries use "U-bahn." Denmark uses "untergrutbane" in general - but "Metro" for the one in Copenhagen. Sweden uses "T-bana" (short for "Tunnelbana") and Norway uses "T-bane" (short for "Tunnelbane")

As for the "others" . . . virtually every other country using the Latin (or Cyrillic) alphabet uses "metro" (the one exception I could find was Bahasa Indonesia). This will quickly become apparent if you click through "in other languages" on the Rapid transit page. All but the first line in Budapest are called "Metro."

It's "Metro" in Greek . . . but I'll admit that Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese use "underground railway" in those respective languages. So, why not "metro?" Ldemery 09:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The term metro is better. - Kildor 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The page is broken

The notes to the European section seem to have disappeared. The in-table links to notes in the European section therefore jump to N America. And subsequent links jump to the notes after the section the one they should go to.

I don't know how back the reversion needs to go, but could someone look at it.

BTW, this is my first time here and I've got to say: you need to get the nomenclature sorted. You can't keep changing the title and moving things in and out. There seems to be enough international agreement (despite variations) and enough sense being spoken on this talk page to achieve that. Is the problem people who continually revert and tinker *without* discussion?

PS In case anyone is in doubt, imo this page should be List of metro systems. Klippa 08:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should proposed metros be included?

There are now a number of "proposed" metros in the list i.e. Ahmedabad, Dublin, Kochi and Vilnius. Shouldn't these be excluded? Just because a metro is proposed doesn't mean it will necessarily be built. Many cities have proposals for metros which are never realised. Surely we should only include metros which either 1) have been built 2) are under construction 3) have been confirmed by the relevant government as under construction. Either way we need firm guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included. Valenciano 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To put another way, unless anyone has any objections, I propose to remove those metros which are only "proposed." Valenciano 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Remove. In my opinion, only existing systems should be on the list. - Kildor 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I was using an axe and cut all systems that does not exist or are not in operation. A metro system may be in construction for 15-20 years, and there is no reason to keep these in this list. For simplicity, only systems that exist and are currently in operation should be included in the list. -- Kildor 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New table for Europe

I have made a new table for Europe. It has a new layout, which hopefully is more readable. Columns with links to station lists and external websites have been replaced with system length and number of stations. Links to external websites and station lists are easy accessed through the individual system pages, and that information is not useful in a table when comparing different systems. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a link collection.

I have also removed systems that not meet the criteria of being a rapid transit system. There are many borderline entries still in the list, and some of them should perhaps also be removed. In my opinion, the following entries might be questioned:

I intend to make similar changes to the tables for the other continents as well.

-- Kildor 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three criteria listed for rapid transit systems

  • an urban, electric mass transit railway system
  • completely independent from other traffic
  • with high service frequency

Valencia meets all 3 criteria - it doesn't share traffic with any other form of transit, has trains every 7-10 minutes and is an urban,electric mass transit system. Berlin S-Bahn would also meet the criteria. Valenciano 12:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Only parts of the system fulfill those critera. T4 for example seems to be a street tramway! As far I can tell from the article, Valencia Metro seems to be similar to German Stadtbahns and other pre-metro systems. -- Kildor 12:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
T4 is indeed a street tramway but the rest isn't. The problem there as well is that if we start analysing all of them we will be able to find bits of the networks which don't meet the criteria, even the outer parts of the London Underground share track with commuter rail, while some of Barcelona's underground lines become street trams. The vast bulk of Valencia metro meets the criteria above thus it falls under the heading of rapid transit. Also in terms of sources, the usually reliable Urbanrail lists Valencia along with other transit systems [1] Perhaps we'd be better renaming this article list of metro systems? It would seem very bizarre to omit the Berlin S-Bahn from such a list as it difers little from London's District Line which is usually considered a metro/rapid transit system. Valenciano 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Metro bits [2] lists Valencia in its metro section, though only 32 km of the total 136 km. That is less than a quarter of the whole system. According to UrbanRail, only a small part of line 1 can be considered as metro, and the rest as suburban service. UrbanRail also classify line 6 as tramway. And the Valencia Metro article actually refers to the system as a suburban network / commuter train.
I agree on that there might be exceptions to the rapid transit critera. But in the case with Valencia, there seem to be too many exceptions. -- Kildor 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As both Metro bits and Urbanrail cite Valencia as a metro i.e. rapid transit that seems good enough for the article since we have two references stating it. Anything else would be POV if we started getting into arguments over what percentage of the system needs to be underground etc e.g. Bilbao is still in the list but I know from my stay in the village that Plentzia (the last metro station) is 30km from the city. Newcastle and Berlin S-Bahn similarly are referenced in reliable sources. Valenciano 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, being included in the Metro bits list doesn't mean it is a metro. Metro bits lists all systems that have some parts that can be considered as metro. For example, the German Stadtbahns are included. And oddly enough, London DLR and Berlin S-bahn are not counted. When it comes to UrbanRail, Robert Schwandl does distinguish between metro and other systems. And yes, Valencia is in the metro section. Trying to find other sources, I found the LRTA world system list [3], which also lists Valencia with a metro system (together with a light rail and tram system). So regarding external sources, I guess you are right (although I personally think the large portions of tramway and regional rail characteristics "disqualifies" the system as rapid transit).
If kept in the list, the numbers should at least be adjusted not to include the tram lines and non-metro parts. Metro bits lists Valencia with 31.8 km and 37 stations, which seems to include main parts of line 1, 3 and 5.
When it comes to the definition, the distances and amount of underground stations is less important (or not important at all). What matters is if the system shares tracks or have level crossings. For that matter, I believe Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns and Paris RER should be kept, and Tyne&Wear to be removed. Serfaus and Poma 2000 is more like a people mover to me, and should also be removed. -- Kildor 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "What matters is if the system shares tracks or have level crossings."
Doesn't work. The Bakerloo line of the London underground shares tracks with Silverlink trains (which go to Birmingham hundreds of km away) similarly the Metropolitan line of the same network shares tracks with national rail. Nevertheless London is obviously a rapid transit system and that's why we need to be careful with applying rigid criteria. I agree with you that number of stations is not so important. Valenciano 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again - there can be exceptions. But if a system has large parts of shared tracks or level crossings, it shouldn't be considered a rapid transit system.
Anyway, I have now removed Serfaus and Laon (Puma 2000) from the list. None of these are listed as metro/rapid transit in UrbanRail, metrobits or LRTA. -- Kildor 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/laon/laon.htm Sorry that's incorrect : Laon is in Urbanrail... 193.56.37.1 (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is right. But take a look at the main page for Europe: [4]. Laon is listed under the Other networks section, explained as Light rail, tramway or suburban railway systems. --Kildor (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Schwandl web site says :The "Poma 2000" in Laon, northern France, is a cable-driven mini-metro and the line is featured in his book about French metros. I think that Poma 2000 satisfies a lot of criteria, since it is the main transportation line of the city where it is installed, around which the bus network is organized ; it is in no way some kind of auxiliary system. Of course since the city is small, it is indeed small. Hektor (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed urban, completely separated from other traffic, and has high frequency of service. But it has not high capacity. It is not a metro/rapid transit according to the definition in the beginning of this list, and external sources apparently consider this as something else (light rail, people mover, cable monorail (!)). But it is indeed an interesting and special kind of public transport. --Kildor (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monorail systems

There are some monorail systems included in this list (and many that are not). Although some monorail systems meet the rapid transit criteria, I think that monorail systems are quite different and should be on its own list (List of monorail systems). As Ldemery suggested above, I think that each system should be listed only once, either as rapid transit/metro, light rail, people mover, people mover or regional rail/commuter rail. -- Kildor 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to have any objections to this. So, I have removed the remaining 3 monorail systems now. -- Kildor (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New table format

I would like to compliment contributor Kildor on the magnificent job he has done on the "new table format", personally i would have left "under construction systems" perhaps, but it doesn't matter, also the "filtering" of "non complying" rapid transit systems is well done, it all looks very encyclopedic and superb, well done!! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Why is the Santo Domingo Metro which is under construction and set to be finished on Feb 08' not listed?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not completed yet. Add it when it has opened!
Currently, only existing systems are on the list. And I think we should keep it that way. It is difficult to list all systems that are planned or under construction, and it might be difficult to verify if a planned system will be rapid transit or not. And many started projects are never completed. -- Kildor (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay Thanks for telling69.121.170.110 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on opening year

I have removed the note about the MTR opening year. Many systems have a rather complicated history, and it is often difficult to specify a definite date or year when the system was opened or became rapid transit (see the New York diskussion above, for instance). Details about different opening years / merges / conversions are not within the scope of this article/list - those rather belong to the separate articles about each specific metro system. This article would grow too large having all those details here... -- Kildor (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong numbers for Madrid and Barcelona and probably a lot of other.

Is there no source control or what, the madrid network is 281.780 km and the Barcelona one is 102.4 km. Until the extensions UC of line 2,3 and 5 are finnished 2009 the network in Barcelona IS 102.4 km

Please update the numbers if you have a more accurate source. It is not clear from what source the numbers in the Barcelona Metro come from. -- Kildor (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paris RER, Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn, Copenhagen S-Train

Ldemery suggests above that the Paris RER, Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn, and Copenhagen S-Train systems might not belong to this list, or at least that the matter should be discussed.

It seems like all these systems comply with the critera specified in the beginning of the article. But I would rather categorize these systems as commuter/suburban rail networks. The primary reason for this is that these systems are commonly known as commuter/suburban rail. And for all these cities, there is another system that is the metro which have much more local/urban characteristics. Furthermore, some outer parts of the systems (except Copenhagen S-Train) have a daytime train frequency of up to 40-60 minutes, which is not metro-like. The systems also connect with one or more cities that are cities of their own merits rather than being suburbs to the bigger city.

When it comes to external references, UrbanRail only recognize Berlin S-Bahn as a full metro. Metro Bits includes none of these systems.

I suggest that these four systems are removed from this list, and moved to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. And adding a "Systems not included" section to this article, mentioning these systems with an explanation. -- Kildor (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn is not like Berlin S-Bahn and Nuremburg S-Bahn, much of it is in the city not connecting to other cities. About more than 70% length of S-Bahn is in the metropolitan area. Fengzq (talk) 31 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
These are all tricky cases, and the confusion even spreads into matters of operation; on the RER, for example, the trains are driven by an SNCF employee part of the way, who then gets out and is replaced by an RATP employee. I don’t think any of them are really metros, though. As it happens, today I’ve been trying to make a metro-style map of the S-tog network, which has really drawn attention to how un-metro-like the service pattern is; I suspect they, along with many or all of the other such systems, belong with main-line railways as Kildor suggests. David Arthur (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also Staten Island Railroad goes into the same category as S-Bahn/S-train/RER. It was definitely built as a commuter/suburban/freight railroad (but only passenger services today). It is independent from other traffic, but has a service pattern similar to most commuter rail networks. During daytime there is only a train every 30 minutes. More trains operates during rush hours, but some smaller stations still only have trains every 30 minutes in rush hours. The system is not counted for at UrbanRail.net or in World Metro List. And MTA does not include it in the subway system maps. And the system is not really promoted as metro - rather the opposite with railroad in its name. -- Kildor (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why isn't the Staten Island Railway in the list anyway? It's rapid transit" (comment from New York discussion below). I removed Staten Island from the list since no one objected to my proposal above. In addition to my arguments above - nycsubway.org also says it is a commuter rail line ([5]). -- Kildor (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It does appear on the subway map, and uses subway equipment (R44s). It's also planned to become part of "MTA Subways", not "MTA Railroad", if the proposed reorganization ever happens. --NE2 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


The S-Bahns in Munich, Berlin and Hamburg appear on their cities' subway maps and are integrated into the fare systems and line numbering of their respective cities' transport systems. From a passenger's point of view they are fully integrated with the U-Bahns.
The major difference is that German U-Bahns are city owned, whereas S-Bahns are part of the national railway system because they evolved out of mainline services. But the latter is also true for e.g. the London Underground, so a historical connection to mainline rail shouldn't be a criteria for non-inclusion.
I think the same argument is true for RER. Anorak2 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK. I haven't looked at the subway/S-Bahn maps, but I assume they're shown with differently-styled lines? On the NYC Subway map, the only difference is that there's no service label; instead it says "MTA Staten Island Railway" along the line. The other regional rail systems in NYC - Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad, and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations - are shown with thinner lines. All of these, except NJ Transit, are part of the MTA (thanks to an amazing coincidence relating to the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, but read The Power Broker if you want to learn about that). There is also Amtrak, which is essentially the [passenger] "national rail system", and owns several lines in the NYC area. All three regional systems use parts of Amtrak trackage (and Amtrak uses some Metro-North trackage), but the Staten Island Railway is entirely separate. The only connection to the national network is the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge, used only by freight, and I believe the SIRy gets an FRA waiver to allow them to use lighter trains because no freight trains actually use the SIRy. I just realized that this is almost exactly like the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, which is on the list. The only real difference is that a large part of PATH is underground, but the SIRy is almost completely at ground level, since it's in a less built-up area. --NE2 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Berlin S-Bahn/U-Bahn map No S-Bahns and U-Bahns are in the same style, also note the map features logos of both systems. The only difference on the map are the line numbers, Sxy for S-Bahn, Uxy for U-Bahn. (The thin grey lines are mainline.) The user experience is that they are advertised as defacto one system, you change from one to the other like you change between two U-Bahn lines. It would be a bit unfair to omit German S-Bahn systems from the statistics while "counting" e.g. bits of the London Underground like the Metropolitan Line which connects to some very outlying towns, parts of which have switched operator several times between London Underground and British Rail (at times with steam locomotives), and which gives the overall impression of a commuter rail line. I'm in favour of counting this, but then the S-Bahns count to.
I'd also count Staten Island system as part of the New York Subway. It's on the system map, it uses the same fare, it looks like a subway, so it is one. Anorak2 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably count it as a separate system, since the only connection is by the (free) Staten Island Ferry. It uses MetroCard, but so does PATH; the only difference is that PATH has no free transfers and is owned by a different parent authority. --NE2 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

S-Bahns are generally considered suburban/commuter rail networks (although the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns are of higher standards). And I also think they fail to qualify because of having low train service frequency on some parts of the networks. I know that it was me that brought up the map thing; but it should not really matter. A good public transport organisation have system maps with all their transit systems, and also have the same kind of tickets and fares on buses, trams, metros and commuter rail. Staten Island also have low daytime service frequency (every 30 minutes). -- Kildor (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discusion is stupid, as it is focus more on the name of the system, than the actually caracter of the systems. Berlin, Hamburg and Munich S-Bahn is clearly much more urban transport than for instance Osle T-Bane or Amsterdam Metro. Just because they call it metro and T-bane it is included on the list without question, even though the systems are much more suburban than urban and almost plays no role in the transport around the city. While Berlin, Hamburg and Munich S-Bahn is automatic called suburban just because they use the S-Bahn name, even though they are much more urban than a lot of the systems on the list, and plays an important part in the transport of the cities. Copenhagen S-train is both an urban, suburban and regional system, so it can't be completely classified as a metro, but on the other hand, it is as much metro as Oslo T-bane and Amsterdam metro. It is completely seperated from other traffic, with no level crossings, have a higher frequency in all parts and plays a much bigger part in the transport within the city. For instance line F in Copenhagen is only running within the city, have a 5 minutes frequency in the daytime (and 10 minutes late at night), and meets all the definitions of a metro or rapid transit system, but just because it carrys the S-Bahn/S-train name it is not a metro, while the completely suburban line 50 in Amsterdam is, because is have the metro name. It makes no sence. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is about service and technical level, and characteristics. And what other sources say about the system. Even though Copenhagen S-Train and Berlin S-Bahn might be of high technical level, they also spread out far from the city and, for instance, connects with other cities (i.e. Frederikssund and Potsdam). They are more similar with commuter rail systems in other cities, and are often referred to as such. I agree on that the Oslo T-Bane might be a borderline case. But it is certainly used for transport whithin the city (as well as to and from suburbs).
But Berlin S-Bahn (in particular) and also Copenhagen S-Train is used for transport within the city. I would say for Berlin S-Bahn that it is the main purpose! Many metrosystems reach far out - even the metropolitan line of London Undergrouns reach out to Uxbridge, is London Underground then not a metro?

I will say Copenhagen, Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn is used a lot more for transport within the city than Oslo T-Bane, and definately more than Amsterdam Metro that is almost intirely a suburban rail that almost no one use for transport within the city. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As suggested above, each system should only appear once among the lists of commuter rail, metro, monorail, light rail, and tram lists. And I believe that both Copenhagen S-Train and Berlin S-Bahn belong to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. -- Kildor (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; it’s the design and service pattern of a system that decides inclusion here, not its purpose. København’s metro and S-tog lines both serve similar (though not identical) purposes, but they do so through significantly different physical structures, line arrangements, timetables, and organisational strategies. Line F would probably be the easiest of the S-tog services to convert into a metro, but it doesn’t run as one right now. David Arthur (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If Line F is not running as a metro, what it is then? It runs every 5 minutes, only in urban areas within the city and with a large number of short distance passengers. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

These are all tricky cases. They are transit systems with high standards, but still more like commuter/suburban rail systems, in my opinion. Many of these are running paralell to main line tracks and having platforms on main railway stations next to inter city and long distance trains. Yes, I know, for every non-metro feature brought up as objection to these systems, we can find a system already included in the list with the very same feature. London Metropolitan Line has it all - reaching far out of the city, sharing tracks, and have low train frequency on outer parts...

If we add these five systems to list, we might end up with a list with a lot more commuter and suburban rail systems in the world. Currently, this list is almost the same as the one by Robert Schwandl at UrbanRail.net (red-dotted cities on the map), except for that he also count the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns as metro (but not RER, S-Train and SIRR). World Metro List doesn't count any of these (but does count a lot of other suburban and light rail systems that have any kind of tunnel or underground station). I've found a report from Errac (The European Rail Research Advisory Council), Light rail and metro systems in Europe, which not include the RER/S-Train/S-Bahn systems (it does not specifically lists system names, but from the table with data for each country, it is quite clear that the RER/S-train/S-bahns are not included). And I would say that these systems are generally known and described as suburban/commuter rail systems rather than metro systems. -- Kildor (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India Railways

I have removed these entries from the list. They are suburban/commuter rail networks, and has now been moved to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. Dehli Ring Railway is just a link to Dehli Metro that is already present in this list.

The systems above are referred to / known as local trains / suburban rail / commuter rail. UrbanRail does not classify them as metro. Parts of the networks are shared with long-distance trains, and daytime intervals between trains goes up to 60-100 minutes on some outer parts. [6] [7] -- Kildor (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the top of the article, there are only 3 requirements to be included. All of these systems fulfil that requirement. Also, the Delhi Ring Railway is a railway system that is not associated with the Delhi Metro, but the ring railway does not have an article on wiki, so i found that delhi metro was the closest thing, even tho theyre completely diff. Nikkul (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"All of these systems fulfil that requirement". How? They are all referred to as suburban rail / commuter rail in their articles. Some are sharing tracks with long-distance trains and on some stations, the service frequency is up to 60-100 minutes. That does not meet the criteria.
Wikipedia should not include original research (WP:NOR). So if you think these systems should be considered rapid transit / metro instead of commuter rail, there should at least be some references supporting that idea. -- Kildor (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible rapid transit systems in Stockholm

There are three urban/suburban rail systems in Stockholm that, as far as I am concerned, meet the three criteria. However, two of them are not found in the list: Roslagsbanan, 65 km, 39 stations and Saltsjöbanan, 18,5 km, 18 stations. I am not sure of their status so I will not edit the article before any discussion.Nirro (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roslagsbanan and Saltsjöbanan are good examples of suburban railways. They are isolated right-of-way systems, but have many level crossings with road traffic. Thus, not completely independent of other traffic. And 20 minutes train headway, and up to 40-60 minutes between trains at some smaller stations, is not metro standard. (However, during rush hours, Roslagsbanan have a very good service frequency with 16 trains per hour on central parts. But mid-daytime service means 30 min between trains for many stations....) I don't think they qualify to be listed as rapid transit / metro. -- Kildor (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland-Boston disparity

Why is Boston allowed to consider its light rail Green Line as a "rapid transit" and Cleveland's Blue and Green Lines, are not? Boston rapid transit start date is listed as 1897 which is, of course, the start date of the (now) Green Line's famed Tremont subway. And in Boston's 64 mile total is included over 22 miles of Green Lines plus the PCC-trolley operated Mattapan connector. Meanwhile, this list acts as though Cleveland's Blue & Green light rail lines don't exist. Cleveland Rail's start date is listed as 1955 (and not 1913, the date the 1st Blue/Green section went into operation), the start date of the heavy rail Red Line, and the 31km Cleveland rail route mile total only includes the Red Line and doesn't include the 23km+ Blue/Green mileage. All this despite the fact that Blue/Green LRVs literally share the same tracks as the heavy rail Red Line. So why the double standard? Cleveland gets screwed in this analysis and is part of the reason this list is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.226.69 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is good then that we can make improvements to the list. Right? In my opinion, Boston green line should not be counted for (at least not the tram sections of the line). And the same goes for Cleveland blue and green lines. I'm not sure, but it might have been me that added the Boston/Cleveland numbers to the list. And the numbers are the one used in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority article, specifically for rapid transit / subway. But the world metro list uses other numbers. So we should perhaps adjust the numbers in this list.
When it comes to the opening year, it seems to be a "well-established" fact that the Boston Subway is the oldest metro in the United States, and that it was opened 1897. Technically, that was only a tram tunnel? 1901 would perhaps be the more proper year to use for Boston in this list. It has been discussed before (see archive) and that discussion ended up with 1897 being used. World Metro List, UrbanRail and other sources also use 1897, so I guess we will have to live with that disparity.
It is impossible to make this list perfect. But at least, the numbers for Boston should be adjusted. -- Kildor (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So you would adjust Boston's date to the opening of its first elevated, but you won't date New York to the opening of its first rapid transit elevated? You have no consistent logic to your reasoning. -- Cecropia (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Its about what is commonly written about these systems in external sources. -- Kildor (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"Commonly written" in what external sources? Wikipedia policy asks for citations. What are your citations? -- Cecropia (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York date

I have revert reverted Kildor to restore accurate dating of New York City's rapid transit system. The title of the article specifics rapid transit systems, not subway or metro systems. Are you unaware of the history of New York's rapid transit, which was a full-blown system in the 1880s? The 1904 date is for the underground IRT only.

New York's rapid transit system has been operating continuously as rapid transit since 1870, when service on the Greenwich Street/9th Avenue el resumed. If we take a 1904 date for New York, we have to reconsider Boston, whose first subway was a limited access trolley trunk line, and Chicago, which was very similar to New York's system and had no subway until World War II. Using 1904 for NY rapid transit is simply incorrect. -- Cecropia (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided a citation for the 1870 date from the operating company New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority-New York City Transit. -- Cecropia (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue have been discussed before (see archives), and there was no support to change the opening year from 1904 then. Since you started that discussion also, it is suprising that you change the numbers without bringing it up for discussion again. But here we are.
I am not sure that the 9th av el can be considered metro/rapid transit according to the definition used in this article. First of all, it was not electrified. Secondly, what do we know about the service frequency? 1904 has been used since it is a commonly quoted year for the opening of New York City Subway. When it comes to this article, we could either go for what is commonly given by external sources, or we could settle the year when the system can be considered rapid transit / metro according to the definition currently used. If electrification is an important criteria, we might need to change the year for London Underground (1890?).
A couple of weeks ago, someone changed the opening year of Athens Metro to 1869, with the argument that ISAP, that is now part of the metro, was opened in 1869. ISAP was hardly rapid transit at the time beeing, so 1869 is not really a comparable year to use in this list.
Suggestions anyone on how to proceed with this issue? -- Kildor (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What do weknow about the service frequency? I have to ask what do you know about the New York City system. If you knew, I doubt you would ask that question. The service frequency on the 19th century New York elevated was typical higher than on the modern subway, because they operated on visual principles on local tracks, without a block system. Now you are adding electrification as a criterion? Are you making it up as you go along? It was called rapid transit then, and still is. The Chicago L was also steam operated. I have given a hard citation from an official source. Where is your citation of "external sources" that trump both histor and the official site of the system? What is your rationale of the dat for the Chicago L? -- Cecropia (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask questions because I don't know the answer. If you have them, please share them with us. For example, what was the service interval in 1870? It is not me that adds the electrification criteria. It is part of the definitions of rapid transit / metro used in this article, that says it is an electric railway.

I was simply referring to previous discussions when I mentioned that 1904 is the most commonly known opening year of the NY Subway. And I was trying to initiate a discussion here on what principles we should use for the opening year in this article. I am willing to change my mind on this issue, but there should at least be more than two persons to decide this. Especially considering that there was a consensus to use 1904 for NY... -- Kildor (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a trial court of history where opposing sides decide what is correct. You have insisted on a 1904 date though anyone familiar with New York rapid transit history beyond what is published in tourist brochures and "everybody knows" web sites knows that rapid transit in New York long predates the first subway. But I didn't tell you that 1870 is correct because it is "common knowledge" on "external sites," I provided a citation (which is Wikipedia policy) from an official source. This is the way to go. -- Cecropia (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The name of the system is New York City Subway (as it appeared in the list before you changed it). An it is quite clear that the subway was opened in 1904([8]). The only thing you have shown so far is that there was an elevated railway in New York that opened 1870. Now, we need further support on that the elevated railway (as of 1870) actually can be considered rapid transit according to the definition used in the article. And secondly, is it relevant as a fact for the opening year of New York City Subway?
I am not question the fact that you have presented. But I question its relevance to this article. But I believe you have a point, and it is certainly worth discussing, but more as a general principle for the whole article. Because there is no good to change the meaning of opening year of one entry, with the rest unchanged.
Furthermore, I would like to quote some answers from the former discussion that you got the last time you suggested another year for the NY Subway.
Why don't you even consider 1904, which is the most qoted date? Anorak2 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Because it's inaccurate. That is the date of the opening of the first underground line, but a great deal of the system predates that, as rapid transit, and still exists now, including every line in southern Brooklyn. -- Cecropia 15:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Chicago L is dated to 1892, not the date of the opening of the State Street Subway. In that year, several still extent structures and a number of extant routes were already operated in New York. As I said, this is a list of rapid transit systems, not subway lines. -- Cecropia 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki article as it currently stands gives the impression that the New York underground system is older than the Boston underground system, when the reverse is actually true.
Agree. I vote to change to 1904, since this is the first subway line. I mean, we could date back the Boston subway to earlier times if we're just going to throw in any little thing that's a part of its present system.--Loodog 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Further support, from Transportation in New York City article itself:
"It (NY Subway) is the second-oldest subway in the United States after the system in Boston."
--Loodog 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is rehashing the same ignorant arguments. This is a list of RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS, not SUBWAY SYSTEMS. "The only thing [I] have shown so far is that there was an elevated railway in New York that opened 1870." An elevated railway? From 1870 there was continual development of elevateds in New York so that by 1880 there were elevated lines the full length of 2nd Avenue, 3rd Avenue, 6th Avenue (from Central Park south) and 9th Avenue (on 8th Avenue north of 110th Street). Beginning in 1885 and before the IRT subway opened, elevated lines were built in Brooklyn on Park Avenue, Lexington Avenue, Broadway, 5th Avenue, Myrtle Avenue and Fulton Street. The arguments for 1904 impeach themselves by the inclusion of pre-1900 dates for Boston and Chicago. Please educate yourself from readily available sources. -- Cecropia (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Boston's original subway isn't even rapid transit... the problem seems to be that we don't have a consistent definition that we're applying to all the systems. --NE2 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the advocates for New York 1904 apply a different standard for other cities, and refuse to justify it. James Blaine Walker wrote "Fifty Years of Rapid Transit" about New York in 1917, dating his book from the first experimental el in 1867, not "Thirteen years of Rapid Transit" from 1904. -- Cecropia (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There's also a problem with definitions; back in the 1880s or so, the definition of rapid transit was looser, and was applied, at least in Brooklyn, to any steam dummy line that replaced a horse car line. In Manhattan, I believe the only steam dummies were on els, and they were eventually removed from streets (most notably the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Line), so the term came to apply to grade-separated lines. So what we really need to do is hash out an exact definition we're going to use here, and then apply it to every city. It should be noted that we can't be too loose, or the LIRR's Atlantic Avenue Line would still qualify, now that it's fully grade separated. And if we do want to go by the characteristics of an entire system, the Manhattan els do count, but the early Brooklyn els don't, since they had access to surface tracks. (See also the grade crossing on the BMT Canarsie Line, but that's logically an exception rather than a rule.) The Staten Island Railway might be another good test case. So let's first come up with a solid definition, and then apply it. --NE2 05:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the definition was looser, per se. Rapid transit evolved, and the definition evolved with it. The Atlantic Branch of the LIRR did operate a rapid transit service, characterized by frequent stops and (initially) rapid transit locomotives (which were optimized for fast stops and starts as opposed to long-haul ability). When electrified the LIRR bought Gibbs cars which were functionally the same as the IRT Gibbs cars. You cannot apply a 2007 definition of rapid transit, which is a generic term, to the 19th century. Especially we cannot apply it to this article as we need to look more at the continuum then at changing times.
A different issue is your speculation that the Brooklyn els might not be rapid transit because it had access to surface tracks. Well, so did Chicago. Until c.1958, most of the (now) Congress Line was on the surface with grade crossings. So was about 1/2 of Lake Street. And the Douglas and Ravenswood and Linden Lines still have surface running and grade crossings. But I think we need to separate the broad definition of rapid transit from the specific argument here. New York City rapid transit began continual operation in 1870. There was no magic moment that suddenly transformed it vast array of lines from something else into rapid transit. The definition of "subway" has evolved, in terms of NYC. Everything is now called a subway line, even existing lines such as the Broadway L, which is same structure (part upgraded during WWI) as in the 19th century, which produces the common but oxymoronic term "elevated subway line." As to the Staten Island Railway, if that is ever connected to the subway system it will be called a "subway line," too. OTOH if it is connected to HBLR, the very same right-of-way will probably be called a light rail line. That's how language evolves. -- Cecropia (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all - the main focus of this article is not history. For that we have History of rapid transit. This is a list of existing metro/rapid tranist systems, with some additional key facts; opening year being one. About definition - why don't use the one at the top of the article?

We won't be able to achieve a 100% clear and precise list on this subject. And it might be difficult to apply the modern definition of metro to historic systems. I suggest that we move the earliest rapid transit systems section to the History of rapid transit article, where all the different historic aspects can be explained in text. Perhaps it is even better not to have a ranking list at all.

When it comes to the opening year column of this list: It might be confusing to have an opening year other than 1904 for New York City Subway. It is perhaps not "fair" in comparison with other systems - but it makes sense. The other alternative is to find out in what year the New York system (and other) can be considered to meet the definition used at the top of the article (electric, railway, grade-separated, high daytime frequency (10 mins?)). That would be 1890 for London, 1901 for Boston, and something between 1870 and 1904 for New York... The New York City Subway article specifies three different years as opening year: 1863, 1868 and 1904. And the current version of this list have 1870. Something must be done...

BTW, I am going to change the system name in the list, from "MTA New York City Transit" to New York City Subway. Because it is the current name of the system, as well as the current name of the article. -- Kildor (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--

Thinking about this, I realize that I might have been too ambitious when "cleaning up" this list. There was actually a footnote on the New York Subway before, that explained the different views on the opening of the system (see below). My initial idea was that it would be better to have this list clean, and leave the details to the articles for each separate system. But that is perhaps not possible if this is to be a stand-alone article being more than a simple navigation list.

Providing a source or comment for every single number might be quite "ugly" and messes with the layout of the list. But the way Cecropia provided comments and sources for the New York Subway was neat and simple. Instead of having multiple sources/footnotes, we could have a single note for each system that provides the necessary sources and possible comments. Perhaps this is a good solution (example with the current list format and with the former comment on the New York opening year):

Location Name Opened Stations Length
Miami Miami-Dade Metrorail[1] 1984 22 36 km (22 mi)
New York New York City Subway[2] 1904 468 368 km (229 mi)
Port Authority Trans-Hudson[3] 1908 13 22.2 km (14 mi)

Notes

  1. ^ Sources and comments on the Miami system
  2. ^ The oldest right-of-way used by the New York City Subway system opened in 1863 as a typical regional rail line in Brooklyn. The first elevated structure opened in 1868 in downtown Manhattan, but has been torn down. The oldest elevated structure still in use opened in 1885 in Brooklyn. The oldest line in Manhattan that is still in use opened in 1904, and was the first subway line.
  3. ^ Sources and comments on PATH

-- Kildor (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1904 is still wrong. Maybe if we were talking about the "Manhattan Subway" it would be acceptable, but the NYC Subway serves four of the five boroughs. (Why isn't the Staten Island Railway in the list anyway? It's rapid transit.) Stating that the system started in 1904, when earlier construction still exists, is simply incorrect. --NE2 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
MTA says the subway opened in 1904, so it is not completely wrong. But if we are not happy with 1904, what should it be then? 1863, 1868, 1870 or 1885? Or something else? (about Staten Island Railroad, see discussion above) -- Kildor (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's when the subway opened. That's not when the New York City Subway, which is an integrated system of subway and elevated lines, opened. --NE2 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then lets talk about what year to use! And what principles to use for all systems. -- 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it the 9th Avenue Elevated that is the first elevated railroad in NY? Then we can perhaps also consider 1871? ([9]). That is also the year quoted by LRTA. If electrification is a requirement, then it will be 1902? Or were there other electric lines in NY before 1902? UITP says in their metro article that London opened the first metro line in 1890, referring to the electric deep-level City & South London Railway. Then we perhaps have somewhat comparable numbers. -- Kildor (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A rational - and reasonable - way to resolve this matter is to retreat from the needlessly rigid "requirement" of a single date for each city. In "special" cases such as New York, use one date, perhaps 1904, perhaps 1871 - then add a table footnote to give other key dates. For example: open-air segments of the New York "subway" system (in Brooklyn) incorporate alignments dating as far back as 1862. Ldemery (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and this is the solution currently used in the article. A problem with the opening year ambiguity was that it affected the ordering of the sub-list of first opened rapid transit systems. Since that list was removed, I guess it is not as important what year is chosen in the list. --Kildor (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amterdam metro

As far as I know, one of the lines on the Amterdam metro has crosssection and can therefor not be qualified as a Trans Rapid system, since it cannot be considered as completely independent from other traffic. Nirro (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 51 appears to be light rail, lines 50, 53 and 54 are rapid transit. I'll adjust the numbers in the list. -- Kildor (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also just found that many of the Oslo metro-lines has several cross sections like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vindern_T-bane.jpg . According to english wikipedia this network is classified as a rapid transit system. Keeping in mind that most of its network is situated far from the city center and mostly above ground level, one can put this into question. In outer lines the Oslo "metro" runs only four times an hour in rush our. What makes the Oslo metro more rapid transit than e.g the S-train network in Copenhagen (which is removed from the list) which doesn't have cross sections and runs every 10 minutes? Nirro (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oslo’s T-bane system does include some Tyne and Wear-style ‘almost-metro’ lines with level crossings, but its main services are fully-separated metro lines, which are why it needs to be included here. According to the article, too, there are plans for all of the remaining sections and convert to tramways anything that can’t be upgraded. The S-tog network isn’t here simply because it’s a regional railway network rather than a local metro — look at Merseyrail in Liverpool or CityRail in Sydney for parallels in the English-speaking world. David Arthur (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oslo T-bane is as much a regional system as Copenhagen S-train. I think Copenhagen S-train have more stations within the city than Oslo, and Oslo T-bane reaches just as far out in the suburbs and cities away from Oslo than Copenhagen S-train does. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The S-tog network has taken on some metro-like characteristics, mostly because København was without a real metro for so long, and I can imagine it being turned into a metro some day — that’s what happened in Stockholm and, for that matter, how London came to invent the metro in the first place — but for the moment it still follows a fundamentally regional-railway service pattern. Oslo operates both metro and regional services under the T-bane name; it is the metro services that lead to its inclusion here. David Arthur (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the S-train map. You can reach the town of Koge with the S-train network. This town is situated around 40 km from the city center of Copenhagen. The farthest station of the Oslo metro is Kolsås situated 10-15 km from the city center. I think that the farthest station of the Stockholm metro is Norsborg (around 25km from city center). Thus both the Stockholm and Oslo metro runs within the urban area borders, while the Koge and many remote stations of the S-train network runs outside these borders. On the other hand, the Stockholm metro and the S-train systems are fully separated from other traffic while some part of Oslo metro aren't. The interval between S-trains is on all lines (I think) 10 minutes, which would mean that the interval in the city centre would be very short since many lines share the same route (very metro-like). The interval between train departures in Oslo is 15 minutes (not so metro-like).
For the Amsterdam metro some parts of the network is considered as light rail and therefore these parts are not included in this list. Would it possible to include in this list only the fully traffic-separated lines of the Oslo metro and only the lines of the S-trains that runs within the urban area? Regards Nirro (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What lines would that be? Line F has indeed metro-like service and runs within the city. The other lines have at least a couple of stations outside the city. But it doesn't make all the difference. I still believe that the S-tog is better described as commuter rail. And we will be able to find parts of many commuter rail systems that meet the criteria of being metro on the central parts. The central parts of commuter rail systems are often completely separated from other traffic and have high service frequency. And if we include those, how much of the system networks should be counted? But we should perhaps exclude line 1 from the Oslo entry in the list, since it is light rail (although it is not completely consistent to exclude light rail parts of metro systems and not add metro parts of commuter rail systems....)
BTW, I have found an interesting website with railway maps of Europe: [10]. At the Copenhagen map [11], you can clearly see the S-Train network marked with brown lines. -- Kildor (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This means that most part of a rapid transit network should run within the city. In connection with this it would be worth mentioning that the Stockholm metro is mainly suburban. About 75 of a total of 100 stations are actually situated outside the the central parts of the city. Of course, most parts run within the municipality, but this also includes suburbs. Considering the Copenhagen S-train, 20-25 stations out of 85 are situated in the city center: Fully comparable with the Stockholm metro. Oslo: 88 station of which less than 10 are situated in the actual city center. We have to realize that the distinction is not clear cut (btw rapid transit and no rapid transit). There seems to be several criteria but they only have to be fulfilled enough (since both Oslo and Stockholm metros are included). The weighting of each criteria seems to be a subjective judgement. Nirro (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to have a perfect set of critera to make a clear distinction between commuter rail and metro. But since you mentioned Norsborg of Stockholm Metro, lets compare with Køge of Copenhagen S-Train: Both are the farthest station of their network. Norsborg is 17 km from the city center (central station), Køge is 34 km from the city center (central station). Norsborg is 20 stops from the central station, Køge is 17 stops from the central station (although the E line to Køge runs express and only stops at 12 of these). The E line to Køge has trains every 10 minutes until 7 pm weekdays (until 3.30 pm saturdays), line 13 to Norsborg has trains every 10 minutes until 9.30 pm, every day, and every 5 minutes during rush hours. I believe these numbers illustrate the difference in character between these two networks.
Well ... perhaps not "impossible." One could exclude anything from the "metro" category that started out as an upgrading of existing suburban or "commuter" rail services operated by the "state railway administration" (or as part of the "national railway system"). That neatly excludes "S-Bahn" type operations (and also the Copenhagen S-Train system). However, systems that were "purpose-built" as metro systems, or totally separated urban-suburban systems (e.g. Bay Area Rapid Transit), would count as "metros." Systems that started out as "local passenger railways" (e.g. parts of the London Underground, the New York subway system) would also count as "metros." So would systems that began as upgraded tramway or (local) electric light railways (e.g. Oslo). Not a "perfect" scheme, but perhaps something to work with.Ldemery (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach. I am not sure if it "disqualifies" some systems currently on the list. Perhaps Tyne & Wear Metro and Valencia Metro (Spain)? Anyway, I believe it is important how the system is classified by other sources when there is a discussion about inclusion or exclusion to this list. --Kildor (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to external references, I haven't seen Copenhagen S-Train included in any list of metro systems. And the Wikipedia article on S-Train actually begins with the following words: The S-train network is the commuter train network of Metropolitan Copenhagen. -- Kildor (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naples Metro

The stats for Naples Metro was recently changed to include all the lines 1-7. However, only line 1, 2 and 6 seem to be metro, while the other lines are suburban/commuter rail lines, according to UrbanRail.net. The opening year was also set to 1889, making the Naples system among the earliest metro systems in the world. That is not commonly recognized. 1889 is only the opening date for an urban railway tunnel, and I have therefore changed it back to 1993 (opening year of line 1). Another year to consider is 1925, the opening year of a railway tunnel now used by line 2, though shared with intercity trains. It is unclear when metro services began on line 2. World Metro List states 1993 as the opening year of Naples Metro. LRTA says it was 1992. -- Kildor (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have replaced the symbol at the top of the article with a photo. The symbol was not really a symbol specific for rapid transit, so a photo is probably more appropriate. I chose a photo that shows some typical features of a metro system: a train, rails, underground station, and a crowd. And it is from the oldest and longest metro network in the world, so I think it is a good illustration of a metro system. The photo is however not perfect - it could be sharper, and a large portion of the image is an empty wall. Perhaps there is a better image available?

I believe one image is enough - there is certainly no room for pictures from every metro system in the world. The important thing is that the image shows a typical rapid transit sytem. -- Kildor (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid metro

It is difficult to find a reliable source for the length of Madrid Metro. The current quoted article from the Community of Madrid says the network is 322 km including light rail. Subtracting the 28 km for Metro Ligero gives that the metro is 294 km. UrbanRail and MetroBits and the Spanish Wikipedia article says the metro network (excluding light rail) is 282-284 kilometers. But since those pages do not quote any sources, I think we should stick to the official source. There is an official page that lists the line length with centimeter precision ([12]), but that page is from January 1, 2007. Perhaps that page will be updated soon.

The number of stations is 231, according to MetroBits. That is if interchange stations are counted as one station. That number is confirmed by counting the stations of the official map.

I did also remove the Metro Ligero entry from the list, since it is clearly a light rail system. --Kildor (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin S-Bahn

The Berlin S-bahn has to be included. It is not the classic commuter service. The commuter service/ RegionalExpress would be the RE or RB in the Berlin-Brandenburg metro area. The S-Bahn almost exclusively runs on Berlin city territory and fulfills several other conditions to be a rapid transit system. KJohansson (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps not the classic commuter rail service. But it is certainly not the classic metro service. It has evolved from national railroads and still today runs parallell to main lines on many parts. It goes quite far out of the city, and connects with Potsdam for example. Outer parts of the network have 20 minutes between services, with up to 40 minutes between trains on one of the branches. And it is operated by a subsidary company of Deutsche Bahn. --Kildor (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
All of this is true for London Underground (except the Deutsche Bahn bit obviously :)). Anorak2 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but to a much lesser extent. As far as I know, only the Amersham and Cheshamn branches of Metropolitan Line have anything less than a train every 10 minutes. And most of the Underground system is completely separated from national railroads, whereas the S-Bahn runs parallell to national rail at most of its length. --Kildor (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland?

Is there a reason there is no mention of Switzerland? I know Zurich, at least, has a rapid transit system. gren グレン 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Zurich? Do you mean Zurich S-Bahn or Zurich trams? Neither of those are rapid transit as defined in this article. --Kildor (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Muni Metro

I have removed the Muni Metro (and San Diego Trolley) from the list. The Muni is clearly a light rail system with lines that run in-street on some parts and underground on the central parts. Very much like German Stadtbahns. Metro (rapid transit) systems are completely separated from other traffic, which clearly is not true for the Muni. The fact that a part of the system is separated from other traffic does not make it a rapid transit system. In fact, the ability to mix modes (street running and tunnel/right-of-way) is a typical feature for a light rail system. UrbanRail.net and World Metro List do not include the Muni as a metro system. --Kildor (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's listed on urbanrail.net to me.....
It is mentioned on the page about San Franciso, but not as a metro system. It clearly says it is a street-car like system. --Kildor (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no black and white here. BART is a regional commuter rail line, that also partly runs underground in San Francisco. The Muni Metro is a rapid transit subway in part of the system and streetcars for the rest. You really seem to want to pigeon hole all systems as either this or that, but there are some systems that fall into a gray area in between. It is perfectly valid for a system to be listed under more than one category and in more than one list. You would be better off making a list of "Rail based urban transit systems" than trying to make definitive black and white lists of this or that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that there is no black and white regarding this topic. Many systems are in the "gray zone", but the Muni Metro has never been discussed as such. Your rationale for adding the Muni Metro is that part of the system is segregated from other traffic. If that is enough to be included in this list, we should add almost every light rail system in the world. The definition used in this article and other similar lists clearly says that the system should be completely separated from other traffic (with some rare exceptions accepted). But large parts of the muni metro routes are in streets. It is clearly a light rail system and I cannot see why it should be included here. Please provide some source or references if you think it should be regarded as a rapid transit system. Please also note that the Muni Metro is not included in List of urban rail systems by length, Metro systems by number of stations or List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership. --Kildor (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Fine, you want Muni Metro out? Then get rid of BART, as it's a commuter rail system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"rapid transit systems are primarily used for transport within a city" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
BART is definitely in the "gray area". But since other sources regard it as metro/rapid transit, I think it should be included here. But this discussion was about the Muni metro. Do you have anything that support your idea that it should be included in this list? -Kildor (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
BART is not included in teh List of urban rail systems by length either, so why don't you take BART out? You seem to want to pick and choose what's convenient to supporting your personal point of view and leaving out what doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as said before: The BART is in the gray area. But it is listed as rapid transit by UrbanRail, World Metro List and LRTA (see links in the references section). The Muni Metro is not. And the muni metro does not comply with the criteria for inclusion of this article. This is not only my point of view. It is also the view of quoted sources, and is consistent with how the UITP and APTA define metro and heavy rail. If you want the Muni Metro included here, please provide a source or external references that support that point of view. --Kildor (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way, I don't care anymore. I have life, you obviously don't.207.38.163.124 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Staten Island Railway

The Staten Island Railway has been added to the list again. I do not think it should be listed here, since it fails to meet the critera on train frequency (every 30 minutes daytime off-peak). It has a service pattern more similar to commuter rail, and has also developed from being a classic railway shared with freight trains (but it is currently completely separated from other traffic).

UrbanRail.net and World Metro List does not include it (mentioned as "other rail transit"), and nycsubway.org define it as commuter rail ([13]). It is however classified as heavy rail by American authorities.

I guess this one is in the "gray area" too. And currently, the list gives the impression that the SIR is the oldest rapid transit system in the world, which is in my opinion not true. So I suggest that its entry is replaced with a footnote to the New York City Subway entry. SIR is also listed in the List of commuter rail systems. --Kildor (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does this 30-minute figure come from? --NE2 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The timetable [14] --Kildor (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the standard you're using for "rapid transit". --NE2 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
UrbanRail.net has been an important source for this list. And they specify "maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service" [15]. The World Metro List uses the same definition [16]. UITP does not specify, only says "high frequency of service" [17]. --Kildor (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable sources there that give a minimum frequency. --NE2 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is probably true. But Robert Schwandl, author of UrbanRail.net has written many books on the subject, and I would really not say that it is an unreliable source. However, it is of course not a reliable third-party source as recommended by WP:RS. On the other hand, you can include any system (may it be bus, light rail or commuter rail) to this list with the very same argument, that there is no reliable source defining it not to be included. The question remains, should Staten Island Railway be included or not? And why? --Kildor (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no; we can find a definition in a reliable source and apply it.
I think the arguments for not including the SIRy are: it's too infrequent, it's too rural, and it used to be at-grade. Otherwise it's a normal rapid transit line. The latter is the case for a number of systems, and shouldn't be a reason to exclude it. The other arguments, if we are to accept them, need a reliably-sourced cutoff. Are there many systems that are physically rapid transit but don't run frequently, or is this pretty much the sole exception? --NE2 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think so. But there are most certainly some exceptions to minor parts of some systems, as to one of the branches of London Underground, which I think have 30 minutes service intervals. --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I know 30 minutes is twice 15 minutes, but Miami's Metrorail runs every 15 minutes off-peak (and every half hour on weekends)[18], which is still more than 10 minutes. --NE2 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
True. But that is approximately 10 minutes :) --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the frequency argument for excluding the SIR. It's not rural by any stretch, and what it used to be isn't relevant -- it meets the grade separation criterion for rapid transit now. However, I think that if it isn't deemed to meet the criteria for this list, it should simply be removed. The only reason for including it in a footnote to the New York Subway entry would be to prevent someone (like me!) from adding it without thinking in the future. :) --Tkynerd (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that NE2 decided to re-add the SIR with the following explanation: "Restore SIRy; unless you can find a sourced definition that excludes it, it belongs here". What kind of source is required? And why don't you provide a reliable source supporting the inclusion? --Kildor (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to comment on whether the Staten Island Railway belongs here, but Wikipedia:Burden of evidence says that The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. - not vice versa. Hope this helps. --DAJF (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And given that principle, and the list's own definitions and terms of reference, I have reverted NE2's re-addition of SIR. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is [19] good enough? --NE2 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, because the definition on that page differs from the one in our article. I'd have to say, though, that your point about Miami Metrorail is well taken. If 10-minute headways off-peak are our cutoff point, then SIR isn't the only system that needs to be excluded. Further discussion is needed. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the one in our article backed up by any reliable sources? --NE2 15:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Particularly in an area as fraught with pitfalls as this one, I'm not sure list criteria on Wikipedia have to be. If you're creating a list, you can pretty much define the criteria for that list however you want. We do, however, need to reach consensus on the criteria and then apply them consistently. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're calling this a list of rapid transit systems, we should go by what reliable sources have defined rapid transit systems to be. --NE2 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) Reliable sources conflict, which is why I referred to this area as "fraught with pitfalls"; (2) I maintain that if we make a list on here, as long as we clearly define the criteria (with consensus reached on them) and outline them in the introduction to the list, they can be whatever we want them to be. I'd also point out, again, that SIR is at List of suburban and commuter rail systems; since that category and rapid transit are generally considered mutually exclusive, SIR should not be on both lists. How do we decide where it goes?
Additionally, I just looked at the timetable for the first time, and a healthy majority of the stations don't even have service every ten minutes or better in the rush hour. Sorry, that just ain't rapid transit. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, since it meets every standard of rapid transit except for a supposed minimum non-peak frequency. If you want to establish a minimum frequency, you'll have to clearly define it and back it up with a reliable source. Be prepared to remove a lot of lines though; the New York City Subway's Rockaway Park Branch, for example, has rush hour service about every ten minutes (S plus a few A trips). --NE2 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes - every 10 minutes is fine. In contrast to the 30 minutes intervals between trains on some stations on SIR in rush hour. The question is, is service frequency a relevant criteria for this list? I think it is important, and others seem to agree. If we go strict on a 10 minutes limit, we would probably need to remove some systems, or parts of systems, from the list. The same will happen if we are strict with the separation criteria (London Underground metropolitan line). A few and minor exceptions should perhaps be allowed. But the service frequency of SIR is far from what you can expect from a rapid transit system. I believe that SIR is better classified as suburban/commuter rail line. --Kildor (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't go by what we think; we go by what reliable sources say. --NE2 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And what do those say? --Kildor (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the American Public Transportation Association is a reliable source: [20] --NE2 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And the Bureau of Transportation Statistics: [21] --NE2 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. Get back to us when the title of this list is changed to "List of heavy rail transit systems." Neither of those sources refers to "rapid transit." --Tkynerd (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The APTA list actually does refer to rapid transit, and the BTS glossary skirts around it, but where's your source for rapid transit, specifically listing all the systems we have but not the SIRy? --NE2 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The APTA list uses the term "rapid rail" as an alternative term for "heavy rail"; that's as close as it gets, and my guess is that this would be intended as a reference to the Cleveland system rather than as a generic term. The BTS glossary never gets closer than this:
Commuter rail: Urban passenger train service for short-distance travel between a central city and adjacent suburb. Does not include rapid rail transit or light rail transit service.
Thus it does not support your point. Kildor has already given you several sources that support a frequency-of-service criterion for rapid transit; you just don't seem to want to accept them. In any case, the differences illustrate my point that reliable sources differ significantly on this issue, so there is no point in appealing to them to give us the criteria we need for this list. We need to stop wasting time arguing about sources and try to reach consensus on criteria. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kildor gave several personal sites - neither of which uses "rapid transit" either! - that use a minimum frequency of service. Neither is a reliable source. --NE2 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About sources

  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
  • "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources." (Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)).

Now, are there any reliable sources with a global perspective containing a clear definition on what to include in this list? We obviously don't have any scientific reports or similar documents that will help us out here. We have some websites of certain associations and organizations, and a few personal websites (MetroBits, UrbanRail.net). When it comes to definition, I would consider the one of UITP (International Association of Public Transport) to be the most suitable ([22]). APTA is obviously US biased. UITP says that a metro is an urban, electric transport system with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Frequency is obviously a criteria, but unfortunately, a specification of that criteria is not to be found. So we would better discuss (build a consensus) what we think is a reasonable level of frequency for inclusion in this list. --Kildor (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't build a consensus on a reasonable level of frequency; we have to find one in a reliable source. --NE2 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, go find one then! --Kildor (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You want to impose one, not I. --NE2 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition is there. But we need to make an interpretation. What is urban, what is high frequency? When there is no "reliable" source that help us out, we could either discuss it, or we can get some help from other sources (i.e. UrbanRail.net). You don't act very constructive here. What kind of inclusion criteria would you like for this list? --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Electric and fully grade-separated looks like a good start, and is certainly in every definition I've seen. To exclude intercity systems, it should be within a single metro area. Would that include anything problematic? --NE2 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. But everything comes down to a discussion or interpretation of terms. What exactly is the metropolitan/urban area of a city? If a small part of a transit system shares tracks with commuter rail, is the whole system disquilified? Hypothetically, should a fully grade separated urban transit line with one train every two hours be included? It will always end up in a discussion, and it is needed here. Is a 30 minutes headway ok for inclusion? Is it high frequency? --Kildor (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We can probably find well-defined urban area definitions if there are any disputes. If there's one train every two hours (assuming you're talking about rush hour, although the SIRy's rush hour frequency is better than once every 10 minutes), then, assuming the absurd line doesn't qualify as another type, yes, it should be here. I say absurd because I don't see why such a thing would exist, unless it's linked to an intercity train station or something. But that's basically a strawman; I just realized that the only reason the SIRy has such a low frequency is that the Staten Island Ferry only runs every 15-30 minutes, and the majority of passengers are transferring, so it makes more sense for the SIRy to run fewer longer trains than more shorter trains. --NE2 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The SIR's rush-hour frequency is ten minutes or better only at a few stations. The majority of the stations don't have service every ten minutes in the rush. Check the timetable. But that's a side issue from the discussion in this section. --Tkynerd (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And the ferry runs every 15 minutes, so it's not like more frequent trains would help most commuters. --NE2 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is yet another good reason not to regard SIR as rapid transit. If its service is that strongly tied to the vagaries of another form of transport, that doesn't feel like rapid transit to me at all. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the UITP doesn't use "rapid transit" either. --NE2 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. That is why this list and the article rapid transit should be renamed. But that is another discussion. --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, assuming you can ignore a source because it doesn't have a "global perspective" (which I dispute), "UITP has a history of working closely with the two principal public transport associations in North America, the American Public Transport Association (APTA) and the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA)." So the UITP is telling us to use the APTA. --NE2 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is the most relevant for this list? An definition by an American association, or an definition by an international organization? I do not ignore APTA, but in this case I think the international organization is the preferred one. --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Both. --NE2 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So if Spanish authorities think that light rail systems are classified as metro, should Spanish light rail lines be included in this list? I believe that the sources with a global perspective are far more relevant here. --Kildor (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that there the authority would be grouping two types together. --NE2 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of stations

I have corrected the number of stations for some of the systems. It is obvious that different principles are in use regarding how the stations are counted. Some pages count transfer stations for every line/platform, and other counts transfer stations only once. In order to have a comparable value, the same principle should be used for all systems. I would say it is more relevant, and less difficult, to count tranfer stations as one station. London has 269 stations, with transfer stations counted once. New York officially has 468 stations, but transfer stations are counted multiple times (once for every line). If counting transfer stations only once, New York has 422 stations. This is also the number that currently appear in the list. A look at the World Metro List show the difference in station counts. --Kildor (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That logic is wrong! First of all, in places like Kiev all transfer stations are individual, there are no shared platforms for any line, and there are no branches/shared tracks (unlike London and New York) Moreover in Kiev all transfer stations are named separately. All official statistics use the 46 number to count the stations, and 43 is something invented. Neither UrbanRail nor any other Mass-transit site would use 43 as the default listing for Kiev. Hence I am returning the official statistics. If you disagree may I suggest you create a separate column for total number of transfer points etc. --Kuban Cossack 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the MetroBits World Metro list! This is not a specific concern for Kiev metro. It is about what principle to use for the list, in order to have a comparable value. And the current situation does not give a neutral view on the size of the systems. The number of stations for London should be a lot more if using the same principle as for Kiev and many other systems. There are many stations in London that have multiple lines and no shared tracks, but still only counts as one. Stockholm is another example, which clearly has 104 stations (instead of the curren 100) if counting transfer stations multiple times. Berlin, Paris and many others also only count transfer stations once. --Kildor (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Add another column. --Kuban Cossack 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems with that. Having two columns for the number of stations do not necessarily improve the article. I believe most readers show little interest in two different kinds of definition of the number of stations. And extra columns reduce the readability of this article. The second problem is how to define the other value of number of stations. It is easy for Kiev; simply add the number of stations for each line. But for a system like London Underground it is more difficult. Shared tracks and platforms make it difficult to know how to count a transfer station (how many time should Baker Street station be counted?). Therefore, it is much easier to count transfer stations only once. Applying this principle will of course affect the number of stations for some systems. Moscow Metro as example is currently listed with 176 stations, but if transfer stations are counted as one, the number will be 140 instead. Berlin U-Bahn is on the other hand currently listed with 170 stations. But if counted the same way as Moscow Metro, the number will be 196. This is a discrepancy that should be resolved. --Kildor (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil rail systems

Three rail systems have been added to this list: SuperVia, CPTM and Teresina Metro. I cannot find any indications on these being metro/rapid transit systems. There are very few details about these systems in the articles, and they are not listed by LRTA, UrbanRail or MetroBits. Perhaps these are suburban/commuter rail systems? --Kildor (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merseyrail, UK

People seem to be forgetting the Merseyrail system in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Why is this not included? This is the 2nd biggest in the UK. 06 June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.157.206 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Merseyrail is part of the national railway network, not a separate metro; there's even a proposal to run Merseyrail trains all the way to Wrexham. Its equivalents in the capital are be London Overground and other ex-British Rail local services, not London Underground. David Arthur (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total rapid transit systems statistics by country

A list of total rapid transit systems statistics by country has been added to the article. Although it is a nice idea, I think it will be very difficult to keep such list up to date. This article is not stable yet. Many figures are still unsourced, and many systems are being extended. Any change will require an update to this table, and it will be difficult to verify the sum for each country. --Kildor (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, It was me who added this list. As each country has no more than a dozen of systems, I find it pretty easy to calculate two sums to check and update the total statistics anytime you want. The total statistics list is just as dynamic as a main list. --Greyhood —Preceding comment was added at 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)