Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

== Stations number count (

Thread retitled from "Milan".) ==

This article says there are 113, but the List of Milan Metro stations adds up to 106. Which number is correct? Mattximus (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's the usual, mundane issue about interchange stations and how to deal with them. Maybe the time has come to eventually settle it once and for all. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is my strong opinion that we should count individual stations as one station. It's very odd to have a single station count as 2 or 3 or 4 "stations" just because they contain an interchange within the structure. Thankfully, this list almost always uses the 1 station = 1 station metric. I will change Milan accordingly, and I can't see any more systems that have discrepancies like this one. Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: as a matter of principle, I agree with you on the issue; and this was also the official guideline for the list, at least from Sept. 2008, when Kildor added a legend to this article for the first time (diff '08) writing “with stations connected by transfer counted as one”. However, in March 2014 it was changed to the current wording - “as quoted by the system's operating company” - by IJBall (diff '14), citing “referencing issues” as grounds; as far as I know, this major change was never discussed on the talk page (or elsewhere). Therefore, for example, the stations number of Vienna U-Bahn you edited Wednesday was indeed “correct” (= compliant with the current guidelines as indicated in the “Legend” section), since 109 is the number stated by Wiener Linien, the system's operating company, which apparently does count interchange stations once for each line calling at.

Despite understanding IJBall's concerns, I still think the rule he set is rather unfit, because:

• it binds us to follows a primary source;
• it requires a data not always available (several operators doesn't explicitly state the system station number) and sometimes in conflict with the listing rules (e.g. when a system incorporates LRTs and the operator counts them altogether in the station number)
• it produces a major inconsistency (not all the operators use the same metric about interchange stations) that in some cases touches the ridiculous - New York City MTA “gains” about 50 stations thanks to their peculiar way of counting; Paris RAPT “loses” about 80 stations because they treat all interchanges as one station.

On the other hand, it's relatively easy, unlike other operational parameters, to assess the actual number, whatever criterion we adopt to treat the interchanges: in most cases, all we need are an official map, a bit of time and goodwill and the basics of elementary arithmetic, and I highly doubt that counting station “with the abacus” exceeds the WP:OR threshold. But while I believe that an unique counting method, to be applied to every system in the list, is needed (and I'm leaning towards the one you suggest), I think that merely ignoring the instructions of the legend, as you're doing with your latest edits, or modifying the legend itself without notice would be wrong: given the significance of this change, this time it should be discuss here in order to seek consensus on which method to adopt and to define in detail how in concrete this data has to be listed (primarily when the official calculation differs). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I agree with your statements, and perhaps I was too quick with my edits. I think what's more important than the method we choose (be it 1 station = 1 station, or 1 station = variable number of stations), is that it is consistent. This matters less on individual metro pages, but having them all in a list that is meant for comparison we really should use apples to apples. I vote for 1 station = 1 station system, but will wait to see if there are any dissenting views. I won't make any more changes. Mattximus (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a long ago now. But yes, I still think that the list should use the same definition on number of stations for all metro systems so that the numbers are comparable. And the definition that makes more sense is the one that counts interchange stations as one. If the specific number of stations is not found in a source, the official system map should do well as a source together with a note. Kildor (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled in upon this while I was looking for something else, and it's obvious that I was wrong: the matter had already been debated, but I didn't find the discussion during my previous check because it dates back over a year after the change of the “Legend” section. Considering what IJBall himself wrote - it might be possible to go back to counting only transfer stations once, but it would involving changing all of the station references to the system map, and someone going through all of the system maps, and counting stations one by one - I think the whole thing can be regarded as settled, restoring without further ado the legend with its original wording. Anyway, the system map should be a "last resort", to be used only when it's reasonably certain that no reference can be provided for the "right" number, and in these cases we should put an explanatory note (like those already placed next to the figure for the bigger systems) with both the map and the official "wrong" count added as sources into the note.

Another point worth to be addressed, IMHO, is: which definition of interchange station should we use? There is indeed a whole range of possible circumstances, from more lines sharing the same tracks and platforms - always counted once by operating companies too - to more "station buildings" that don't even share the same name despite being connected together "inside the fare gates" - a common occurrence in ex-soviet systems, where each line has its own name for the interchange complex. I think the broader the definition is, the better, since an interchange is shown as such on the official map regardless of how it is configured; and, if no objections are raised, I'll boldly adopt this approach in my future edits. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No – we should follow sourcing. Counting 1 exchange = 1 station is pure WP:OR if there is no sourcing provided for that. The most important thing in this list is that every system stat be sourced. Beyond that, the details can be worked out. But if you can't find a source for "1 exchange = 1 station", then you are stuck, basically. So, no – the current wording shouldn't be changed beyond maybe revising it to say "as sourced" rather than "as sourced by the system's operator". One final point – this kind of list is exactly where Primary sources are actually more accurate in many cases than Secondary sources: for example, nobody is going to know the "system length" of a metro system better than its operator. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Counting stations from maps is a routine calculation and in no way constitutes original research. Consistency across quantities is important, as inconsistency makes the ability to sort, and therefore compare, the number of stations column invalid. We, and our readers, are better served by using the same standard for all systems. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And, as I said before – if somebody wants to count stations on station maps for the 100–200+ station metro systems included, have at it! ('Cos I ain't doin' that!!) But, if that is going to be done, then the source for that stations # figure will literally have to be the system map from the operator. And some of those aren't so easy to use! (I remember having this problem with the Mexico City Metro, which is about when I personally gave up the idea of using this method...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with oknazevad and others. Inconsistency makes this a problem. I suggest we use the 1 station = 1 station, and if the official source for some reason counts 1 station as multiple stations, then refer to the station map (so not all metros need to be manually checked, just the few that double or triple count). Agencies may try to do this to inflate the numbers to make it look more impressive (I've seen one agency count 1 physical station as 4 stations!), so it's probably best to just stick with one standard to be as objective as possible. Mattximus (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In truth, it's even less burdensome than Mattximus said: we won't have to refer to the map if the official source for some reason counts one station as multiple stations, but only if every source counts that way. Some examples:

• Munich's operator MVG counts interchanges twice, but they explicitly say it in the source, hence the "1:1" number can be obtained by a routine calculation (I even find unnecessary the current explanatory note, it could be omitted or moved inside the citation itself);
• in the currently provided source, Lyon's transit authority counts interchanges more than once, and adds funiculars too, but I found another their publication where the "1:1" number (40) is stated;
• Prague's operator DPP counts interchanges twice in its official page, but I found another (IMO reliable enough) source that says Prague's underground network has 58 stations (the "1:1" number).

In other cases we may end with the map as the only viable reference alternative, and I suggested to put it as a source along with the official count into an explanatory note not because I think it's a somewhat second-rate source, but because I recognize that it's a little more difficult to handle and in order to avoid possible controversies.

@IJBall, your reply misrepresents my position: I never intended that choosing to use a primary source here is per se worse, but that compelling to use a primary source (as the current legend instruction does), here or elsewhere on-wiki, is wrong and against wiki policies. Anyway, you can't compare a difficult-to-measure figure, like the system length, with almost self-evident ones: anyone can easily note it by rewording your statement this way "nobody is going to know the number of station of a metro system better than its operator" or "nobody is going to know how many lines a metro system has better than its operator"; quite ridiculous, isn't it? Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care, as long as it's sourced to something. But simply linking to List of Milan Metro stations, for example, without a source backing that figure basically violates WP:CIRCULAR. So as long as the figure is sourced to some WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source, it's fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In the last week, with this discussion ongoing, I did "some homework" verifying the actual status of the "Stations" column, finding that it's a huge mess: putting aside all the systems not involved here (made of a single standalone line, more routes sharing a trunk section, etc.), the vast majority of the remaining 110+ table entries isn't properly sourced - reference is missing, isn't about station number, is outdated or doesn't match with the listed figure - or it's plainly inexact, and merely a handful actually follows the legend instructions. Therefore the current counting method not only has all the major flaws thoroughly analyzed in this topic, bat also proved itself ineffective to prevent the problem that IJBall is so concerned about. Since he said the sole thing he care about is having sourced figures, and now they aren't, and given the otherwise unanimous favor accorded to the "1:1" counting rule, I'm going to make a consensus-driven revision of the "Legend" section and later to check & fix the table in this regard.

For those who are willing to help me (Mattximus, maybe?): in the next few hours, I'll publish on my talk page a list of all the systems in need of care - basically, all those having at least one interchange station between distinct lines - in order to simplify the fixing tasks and avoid work duplication. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Stations number count: Madrid

When I was checking the station count on the Madrid Metro system, I noticed that the sourced number is actually too high (if the interchange stations are counted multiple times, the total station count is 292). The figure includes the C-5 commuter line of the Cercanias system and the Metro Ligero (at least that's the only way it would explain the odd figure). Should we keep the sourced number and include a note or fix it? MVH43 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I vote for fixing the number so that the interchange stations are counted only once for each station, just so that it is consistent with the other systems we are comparing it too. Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MVH43: the number of station being 301 is stated in the operator's website too and there's a rather simple way to explain this figure: they count transfer stations multiple times and the figures are referred to their corporate network, hence including metro ligero line 1 (which is held by Metros Ligeros de Madrid, S.A. and it's operated by Metro de Madrid under a contract with the concessionaire) and not the other two lines (which are held by Metro Ligero Oeste S.A.); not surprisingly, the official figures also say "13 + branch" as the number of lines. This way, 301 can be obtained from the sum of each line subtotal (292 for the twelve metro lines and the Ramal Line R shuttle) plus the 9 stations of the ML1. Obviously we can't keep the current number, because it would include the LRT part of the system contrary to what's written in the Considerations, nor can we merely deduct the nine light rail stations, because interchanges are to be counted once: I found this alternative source ([1]) that seems suitable, but I have yet to make a cross-check with the system map. A couple of collateral consideration about the operator's statistics webpage: the inclusion of metro ligero line 1 affects all the data, not only the number of stations and lines, therefore also the system length currently listed here is erroneous. The "number of interchanges" (intercambiadores in the Spanish version) doesn't refer to transfer stations between two or more metro lines, which we have to take into account; instead it is a concept that is roughly analogous to transport hub (UK) or transit center (USA), for example Méndez Álvaro station in an intercambiador despite being served by a single metro line (line 6). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In truth, checking on the official map I found out that things are a little trickier than I thought. Madrid Metro has its share of peculiarities, one of them is the outer section of three lines being operated independently - line 7 east of Estadio Metropolitano (also known as MetroEste section), line 9 southeast of Puerta de Arganda (aka TFM section) and line 10 north of Tres Olivos (aka MetroNorte section) - and passengers who want to go further along the line have to change train. The operator counts twice these three sort of "post" stations too, hence we have 301 - 9 (stations of metro ligero ML1) - 3 (one four-lines interchange) - 18 (nine three-line interchanges) - 27 (simple interchanges) - 3 (train-change stations) = 241 estaciones nominales ("named" stations, as they call them). Besides, in two cases there's a couple of stations connected to each other that works as an interchange, despite having a different name depending on the line: Noviciado (line 2) ↔ Plaza de España (line 3, line 10) and Embajadores (line 3) ↔ Acacias (line 5); but even counting each couple as a single station and deducting 2 more units from the total, we still don't get 238, but 239. My guess is that CRTM (Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid) plain and simply didn't update its website ([2]) after the opening of Paco de Lucía station in March 2015; this hypothesis is supported by older archived versions of the site (here), showing the number 238 even before this last expansion, and by the fact that the length of the network stated in the same page (287 km) seems to lack of 1,5 km, which is just the length of the 2015 Mirasierra - Paco de Lucía extension. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

After some search on the web, I've ascertained that there's no consistency among the sources: putting aside those who follow the operators figure (301) or anyway count multiple times the interchanges (292), some sources treat the two aforementioned “station complexes” (Noviciado/Plaza de España and Embajadores/Acacias) as a unit each - hence the grand total would be 239 - and some others, even from the same publisher, that compute them separately and therefore say 241. At this point, the choice is up to us and IMHO the two best alternative fills for the cell are:

• 239 (option A)
• 241 (option B)

Which one do you prefer? Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I would vote for the latter. Acacias is about 350m away from Embajadores, or about 4 blocks. I think since this is a list of stations, that they should count as two. And second thanks for doing all this research, I'm also fixing the numbers as I go along, especially the "list of stations" list pages so that they are easy to count in the future. Mattximus (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mattximus, it would get confusing to count two seemingly different stations (with unique names) as one. Furthermore, thank you for all the effort, it honestly didn't came up to my mind that the ML1 would be included in the operator's website and the other two wouldn't. I'm just a beginner and I don't have much experience with finding the needed sources, but I'm glad to help. MVH43 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Then, let's go with "option B"! By the way, it's the same approach adopted for the Bank-Monument complex in London. I thank you both in my turn: doing check & correct for the whole column is truly a tough task and any help is more than welcome. @Mattximus: I saw your latest fixing (Nanjing): in this regard, could I ask you to add the cities which you're working on or you already dealt with on my talk page discussion as you proceed, in order to avoid duplications in our combined efforts? If it weren't too big a burden for you, would you mind also trying to search a good reference for the numbers you fix on this article? For example, the current source about Nanjing ([3]) is basically useless, since it refers only to the system length and moreover it seems to be outdated. Sincerely, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Palembang LRT

I think Palembang LRT should be added to this list. Not adding it because it's a medium capacity rail service doesn't make sense as other medium capacity rail services with far less capacity are included in this list, as VAL systems such as Lille, Toulouse, Rennes, Turin (or similar technologies ; Genoa, Brescia, Copenhagen, Lausanne...). Moreover it has similar features as Manilla LRT and MRT which are also included in this list. Some other networks are implicitly included, as Ampang & Sri Petaling LRT Line and Kelena Jaya LRT Line in Kuala Lumpur, as the RapidKL page doesn't say only about the MRT.

You can also check on many sources ; images, satellite views and videos about it, that the system is fully segregated on viaduct and has MRT standard stations. The trains are also fairly high capacity compared to other metro system cited above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt'n London (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm grade separation is convincing but why does it say there are only 6 stations operational and there is no information on frequency? The daily ridership is incredibly low for a metro system, at 96,000 per day. Would it be the lowest on the whole list? Even tiny Toulouse has triple that with 281,000 per day. This might be because the train itself is tiny? What are the exact criteria for inclusion? Mattximus (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

According to [4] 3-car configuration and frequency "Approximately every 30-70 minutes". Maybe there is some potential for the future, but definitely not a metro system at the moment.--Jklamo (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seoul Metro row

It seems Seoul Metro is a bunch of small metros along with the bigger seoul network, it is represented as 3 different rows in this page's table but seems there are more than those as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Metropolitan_Subway#Lines_and_branches, that needs to be fixed Daiyusha (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

They're grouped here by operator, not individual line, which is what that larger group is listing. We have the same set up for Tokyo, New York, and other cities where there is more than one operator of heavy rail rapid transit systems. oknazevad (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Planned construction section

I really don't think there should be a planned construction section as it runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL and is completely unsourced. Many plans never get to construction phase, so this speculation is not encyclopedic. Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a chart has been previously discussed and rejected. The "under construction" chart, which is limited to ones with actual shovels in the ground, and new systems (not extensions of current ones) was the result of those discussions, and all that's needed. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC

I absolutely agree with you: such a chart would be speculative, of little use, unreasonably hard to maintain updated and referenced, and there's a steady, longstanding consensus against it. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree remove the list. Terramorphous (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also agree, per WP:CRYSTAL.Jklamo (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this picture be removed or remaked?

This is a picture in the Legend section of this article, captioned "The locations of all the world's metro systems". There are multiple errors in this picture. To name a few, the Seville Metro is a light metro system, yet there's a dot on Seville. Metrovalencia, a light rail system, is also wrongly referred to as a metro in it. The maker also added systems under construction like Jakarta Mass Rapid Transit. Other than that, the Chinese part is a complete mess, Guiyang and Wuxi are missing, while two dots were placed between Wuhan and Hefei, and between Wuhan and Zhengzhou, both of which stand for nothing. I would suggest a remake of this map. If not, this picture should be deleted until a newer version is made. Akatsuki2018 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wenzhou metro(?)

@Terramorphous:I feel uneasy and a bit reluctant to list Wenzhou here, given what is said about this system in its Wiki page, in the specialized and local press and in these two official descriptions of the project ([5] and [6]). I'll focus on the last one - despite not reading/speaking Chinese (I merely Google-traslated it) and knowing that the technical terms aren't exactly equivalent of the English ones - because it clearly states that Wenzhou's lines are not metro/rapid transit - neither 地铁 (dìtiě) nor 轻轨 (qīngguǐ), the two “modes” under which metros fall following the classification adopted by CAMET - and explaining what distinguishes this system from a metro network, it mentions features that are typically among the differences between metros and commuter/suburban railways (e.g. having higher maximum and commercial speed, serving a wider area outside the city core, being built in compliance to the standard of “national railways” to be interoperable with them, etc.). This is one of those already thoroughly discussed cases (such as some German S-Bahn networks, Hamburg for example) in which a system, although it might seem like rapid transit at glance, is not regarded as such; and it should be treated accordingly. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not an easy case, but my opinion is to not include the system at the moment, as it has more suburban rail characteristics, maybe planned M lines may be considered as metro, but not current S lines.--Jklamo (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am of the opinion to leave it in until S1 trains start actually mixing with mainline trains, no one knows if that will ever be the case. The last document you mentioned was written in 2011 and has a very strict definition. There are lines operating or under construction today in China that are over 50km long, have a commercial operating speed of over 100km/h, wider stop spacing and serve the wider areas outside the city core. (see Shanghai Metro Line 16, Guangzhou Metro Line 3, Dalian Metro Line 3/7, Qingdao Metro Line 11) Hamburg is not a great comparator as it is owned and operated by the national railway, currently shares tracks with mainline trains, has several single track sections and does have intentions from time to time to expand further by utilizing existing mainline tracks. Does the Wenzhou Metro currently have any of that? Nope. Even in the near future, Line S2 of the Wenzhou Metro will also be isolated from the national railway network. I guess the big stumbling block is "built in compliance to the mainline railway standard" which I don't think means anything. Seoul's Korail "metro" lines are "built in compliance to the mainline railway standard". I believe the original plan for Wenzhou was to use a cut down version of the mainline CRH6S train but was changed to metro rolling stock when a new national rapid transit standard was created a few years ago (Type D trains or A+ Trains).Terramorphous (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an article by the WZMTR company itself.

http://www.wzmtr.com/Art/Art_53/Art_53_4322.aspx

And from Wenzhou city government

http://www.wenzhou.gov.cn/art/2019/1/16/art_1217832_29539130.html

It is sure the wikipedia page name is not offical, It should be Wenzhou Rail Transit and Line S1 (Wenzhou Rail Transit). See http://img.zjol.com.cn/mlf/dzw/zjxw/zjnews/wznews/201901/W020190123532559641515.jpeg

Note that if you don't count the Line S1 (Wenzhou Rail Transit) as metro, all other future lines using Type D trains should not be count in future too. They are all a part of existed system: Beijing Subway (New Airport line), Guangzhou Metro (Line 18, Line 22), Chengdu Metro (Line 17, 18, 19).006kubert (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, there are actually other cases beside Wenzhou's that raise a flag - and examining them more in-depth is on my long-term to-do list - but what makes this one notable is that we have actually several sources almost unanimously (and the last two provided by 006kubert don't make excepion) saying, one way or another, the S1 line is “a different kind of transit from a metro/rapid transit line”. In this respect, I find the Hamburg S-Bahn a good comparison term (but also Berlin would do): despite all the good points made in past on this talk page by those who wanted to put it on the list, we always reiterated the choice of excluding it basically because - I'm freely summarizing - sources say it's not a metro, but a suburban train service. Hence, I was focusing on what sources tell us rather than on the specific features that make this system similar/different to others that are classified respectively as metros or suburban rail services - anyway, although Hamburg S-Bahn is less close to a “typical” metro system than Wenzhou S lines in some ways Terramorphous mentioned, the reverse is also true (e.g. the 1200 V DC third rail adopted in most of the S-Bahn network, certainly not a German mainline railways standard).

However, I'll spend some word about one feature: in the last source I provided it's written - if I haven't misinterpreted - that Wenzhou “S” system is a) built under the Chinese mainline railways specifications and b) interoperable with them: this is clearly not limited to the rolling stock (thus, unlike 006kubert said, not counting this line doesn't mean that all the future ones using the same kind of train would be excluded by default); the fact that the sharing currently does not (and maybe never) happen is - from a technical point of view - fairly irrelevant. Terramorphous notes that this source is old, but unless a more recent one denying it is found, we'll have to take what it states as still true despite the later evolutions of the project. In the same web page, we can read:

　　温州市域铁路服务对象主要是都市区范围内中长距离的旅客出行，重点解决大都市区中心城区与外围各组团间的旅客联系，都市区各组团间旅客交流，以及为沿途城市组团之间的客流提供快速、大容量、公交化的公共交通服务，同时兼顾主中心内部部分中、长距离城市客流出行。

assuming the "machine-translation" provided by Google Translate is good respects the spirit of the original text, I think we hardly could find a better definition of the role of a suburban/commuter rail service. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The passage you posted is a terrible definition of commuter rail, because lines like the MTR Tung Chung Line, West Rail Line, Korail Bundang Line, or Taoyuan Airport MRT would be classified as commuter rail using that logic. Also google translate, like all machine translations are missing the nuances of Chinese (or any other language), 市域铁路 ≠ commuter rail. In Chinese and Korean there is a term of regional transit regardless of technology that is untranslatable to English. For example, ko:광역철도 "wide area railway" which lists both what we call subway and commuter railway lines. The only criteria for inclusion as wide area rail? The line serves the "long distance metropolitan travel market between the main city and satellite cities in a region" so... commuter rail? Not always. The equivalent in Chinese would be 市域軌道. Let's do a deep dive. zh:上海市域軌道交通 Lit. Shanghai Cityrail Transit has two maps of existing and planned Cityrail lines:

Existing 市域軌道, note the creator of the image decided Line 17 is "too urban" and omits it.

Approved 市域軌道 note huge variation in the character of each line. Note the creator of the image omits the Chongming Line because it is kind of unclassifiable.

There are five lines, six if they include the Chongming Line which is so strange even they don't know what to do with it, between those six lines:

Line	Stop Spacing	Characteristics	Chinese Definition	Status
Line 16	4.5 kilometres (2.8 mi)	three door per side, Type A subway cars, transverse seating, third rail traction, mostly elevated	subway operated cityrail	Operating
Line 17	2.7 kilometres (1.7 mi)	five door per side, Type A subway cars, longitudinal seating, third rail traction, mostly elevated	subway operated cityrail	Operating
Jinshan railway	6.9 kilometres (4.3 mi)	CRH2 and CRH6A high speed trains, national rail standard, surface running on mainline railways	national railway operated cityrail	Operating
Jiamin line	3 kilometres (1.9 mi)	CRH6F, national rail standard, underground, isolated from mainline railways	some say subway because completely underground	Approved
Airport Connector	7.6 kilometres (4.7 mi)	CRH6F, national rail standard, mostly underground, isolated from mainline railways	some say subway because underground	Approved
Chongming line	5.6 kilometres (3.5 mi)	10 car linear motor trains, elevated	Medium-capacity BART-like rapid transit???	Approved

As you can see 市域铁路 is a complete mess if you use western definitions, a herd of horses running in a tunnel can be 市域铁路 if it fits the definition. Therefore lines will have to be taken on a case by case basis not by the name it's given. Eg. Line 16 is rapid transit, Jinshan Line is not. Subway lines using mainline derived Type D trains will fall under 市域铁路 but that does not mean they can't be rapid transit. That is why I'm for leaving Wenzhou in for now and will see how other lines in China using Type D trains look like.Terramorphous (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Terramorphous, may I please ask you to give us a "real" translation of the excerpt I quoted? Thanks, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course,

　　Wenzhou cityrail services are mainly used for longer distance travel inside the metropolitan area. With the purpose of improving transportation and communication between the city center and its suburbs in the metropolitan area and integrating all districts of the metropolitan area. This is done by providing a high capacity, rapid mass transit service that serves both short trips in the city center and longer trips in the metropolitan area.

Again if you used that as the definition of suburban rail then it is a terrible definition because it is at the same time the definition of rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That reads like a description of BART, to be honest. Or some of the other post-WWII US metros. To that end, I'd say it's a NL edge case that should probably remain as comparable to already-listed systems. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

While I'm thanking Terramorphous most sincerely for their polite and nuanced translation, I've to conclude that, although obviously gross and merely sketched in comparison, the automatic one was enough for me to grasp the meaning of the original; thus I can reaffirm my statement: is an excellent definition of the role commuter/suburban rail services play in the whole transit framework; and no, it doesn't work for rapid transit too: usually, rapid transit systems are focused manly (or solely, in some notable case like Paris or New York) on short to medium distance travel within the urban core of the metropolitan area. Please, note that I said a definition of what them do, and not of what they are: I'm fully aware that there are some metro/rapid transit lines or systems (as the ones you cited, or the well centered example of BART pointed out by oknazevad) that fit in, but they're all borderline cases, included here basically because reliable sources in majority put them together with other metro (APTA with BART, etc.). Secondly, the phrase starts with Wenzhou cityrail services and describes Wenzhou cityrail services purpose: I didn't, and it shouldn’t be, meant as referred to the term cityrail in general, thus a rebuttal based on what cityrails are or do in another city is rather pointless.

Last, but most important: so far, I didn't see any sources supporting the “inclusionary” statements; conversely, the whole reasoning seems to ground - I hope no one will take it to the heart - on the implicit premise that, due to an unbridgeable cultural and lexical divide and the objective lack of non-Chinese sources, the classification of whatever falls outside 地铁 (a term undeniably translatable as subway, but that is a subset of what UITP, for example, regards as metro/rapid transit) - has to be made relying only on OR; and, in Wikipedia, this can't be accepted. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I am of the mind that inclusion should be of what they are more than of a definition of what they do. Defining by what they do is highly subjective to individual interpretation and assume one type of model for urban transportation. of what they are is more fact based and technical. Short, medium, and long distance travel highly relative and up to interpretation, a short trip in one city is considered a long one in another. I am not going to argue what a rapid transit system "usually" should be because clearly no one has the same interpretation of that definition. Secondly, I bring in a large in depth explanation of cityrails are because Yak79 was being tripped up by the lack of the characters 地铁 and 轻轨 which is understandable because he/she does not speak the language. I am merely trying to clear things up and show that 地铁 and 轻轨 are not the only terms that exclusively mean rapid transit and that 市域铁路 can be rapid transit too. Just like systems with the name Subway, Metro, Skytrain or MRT can both be technically rapid transit or just a branding or mistranslation issue of a non rapid transit system.Terramorphous (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what the frequency of the trains is? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Norristown High Speed Line

Norristown High Speed Line violates the definition for metro according to the UITP, which states that: "Metros are high capacity urban rail systems, running on an exclusive right-of-way. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of a minimum of two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers per train". Since it only uses one-car trains, it fails to meet the definition of a metro. In addiion, Urbanrail.com refers to it as a light-rail line. So can we please remove it from SEPTA's figures? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The APTA does include it as a metro, however, and as one of the three main sources of the list list it should remain. oknazevad (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yurikamome

Why was Yurikamome removed? The consensus was that it should be a metro system. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this one needs more discussion. The last discussion in the archives had only two editors. I wouldn't call that strong consensus. The line itself is borderline, though if we are including the NHSL (as it's recognized as heavy rail by an authoritative source), then the Yurikamome Line might be a worthy inclusion. oknazevad (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Operating in urban core, operating 5:45 - 0:30, headway 4 min. peak (10 min off-peak), 6-cars configuration. About ridership, i found only outdated FY2009 - [7] 121,000 per day. In my opinion let's indclude it.--Jklamo (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The ridership figure isn't outdated: the source say FY Heisei 29 that is FY2017 (Japanese years count is based on the reigning Emperor); the headway reach 3' 20" (weekday morning peak) and is 5' off-peak (4' weekend 9:30-19:00).[8] I agree with the inclusion, too. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Rapid KL Monorail

Should KL monorail really be included? Its short length (8.6 km) and short two-car trains makes it more akin to a non-metro monorail, with a capacity and line length similar to a people mover. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have not trouble leaving it for the list of monorail systems article. It's inclusion never sat well with me. oknazevad (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't it get expanded into 4 car trains? Also the line is quite long with quite a bit of stations to be called a people mover. Terramorphous (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That was the plan, but due to safety reasons, the 2 car trains are still being used, which can only accommodate 213 passengers. That's the sort of capacity of a people mover. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Even with 4-car trains, 6400 pphpd ([9]) wouldn't be enough to be listed here; this line seems to be cut from the same cloth as, for example, most of Japanese monorails: longer than the typical people mover - serving an area wider than a district/a facility - but with a tram-like capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yak79 2.0 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maracaibo Metro

Why isn't Maracaibo Metro included? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's completely grade-separated? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not include it. I think you should add it unless there is some objection? Mattximus (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_21#Valparaiso_and_Maracaibo_Metro.--Jklamo (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That discussion was primarily about the Valparaiso metro, not Maracaibo. They mention Maracaibo twice, with one ref as a metro and one as an LRT. However since it is literally called a Metro, it really should be on the list of metro systems. Mattximus (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this system's headway was in its "heyday" (I mean, before the current crisis hit Venezuela)? I'm asking because trains are quite small - three-car EMUs that can carry ~600 passengers (at 6 pass/m² for standing places), according to the features of their Prague's "big brothers" [10] - and would need a tight schedule to achieve reasonable levels of capacity. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

[11] shows it at 6-8 min, which would place it on this list. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So Maracaibo a metro or not ? Bouzinac (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What about the new urban metro in Ethiopia ?.Or South Africa’s Gautrain?

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2015/09/22/sub-saharan-africa-gets-its-first-metro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B96C:3200:C97D:893D:D988:D6A4 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article says light rail, not metro? Also the Addis one has a headway of 20 minutes during off-peak hours, which is much much lower than any on this list. Mattximus (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gautrain is a commuter/suburban railway, Addis Ababa's one is a light rail system (as also the article reported by the IP says): neither is suitable to be listed here; probably, they used the word metro in the broader sense of "urban rail transit". Yak79 2.0 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we delete Montreal's Réseau express métropolitain?

In the "Under Construction" section, it says that "only metro systems under construction are listed where there is no metro systems currently in operation in the same city". Although Montreal's Réseau express métropolitain is currently under construction, there's already another rapid transit system Montreal Metro in the city. So should Montreal be deleted from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akatsuki2018 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done: you were right, I deleted it yesterday. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

System length of Delhi Metro has increased from 343.36km to 373km and the same needs to be updated. Ashrockd (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: the "373 km" figure on the official source used as reference includes also the 29.7 km of Noida's Aqua Line, built and operated by DMRC, that has its own entry in the list. It might be debatable whether Noida Metro - which anyway is managed independently by Noida Metro Rail Corporation (NMRC) - should be listed as a system or annexed to Delhi Metro, and you can discuss it on this talk page, but for sure its stats can't be added as both a separate entry and part of the Delhi's total. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

More about Delhi, Gurgaon and Noida

I'm going to revert the last edit made by Sagnick007 because I feel they aren't quite right: having more rows under a single city means that some independent systems serve together the same urban/metropolitan area; conversely, this case is more like the ones we found with Seoul/Incheon, Guanzhou/Foshan and in future Taipei/New Taipei: a “satellite” city in a wider regional area served by both is own metro system (wich is geographically limited within this city) and by “the offshots” of the system of the “main” city. These cases are customarily not listed together - at least for Incheon, consensus about this arrangement was explicitly achieved on the talk page long ago - and I think we should treat Gurgaon and Noida just the same way. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My two cents? Do what many editors around here have been saying, post what the source says or it's OR. If the DMRC says it's network is 373km then put 373km and remove Noida. I would caution against making such stark distinctions of what is or is not the same urban/metropolitan area or independent systems. For example Taipei/New Taipei are two haves of the same city. 30% of the Taipei Metro is already in New Taipei. The first stage of the Circular line opening this year will be a Taipei Metro line that is entirely inside New Taipei.Terramorphous (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources supporting the "343 km" figure: for example, this one also points out that Noida Metro A) is "owned"/managed by a different subject - they improperly say "operated by NMRC" - B) it isn't part of the same fare system and C) it's not (yet) physically connected with the Delhi network through a proper interchange station. More than enough to spare the current separate listing from an indictment for OR.

The stats written on the DMRC website - which, anyway, isn't an independent/third party source and is about the operating company, not only the system - includes Aqua Line too (explicitly saying it [12]), but this might be merely because they built the line and they'll operate it this year at least: it isn't, per se, sufficient to conclude they form together a single system. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Moscow metro has updated its statistics

Source: Changes: Annual Ridership: 2500,4 millions (2018) Polovnikvozmezdiya (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for the heads up! Terramorphous (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Barcelona Metro number is completely out (and probably a few other totals are too). As of end 2018 there are 187 metro stations in Barcelona (at least). This total is also mentioned in Wikipedia's own Barcelona metro article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Metro MichaelJWilkins (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I just took the list and counted stations, and got 151. If I exclude the funicular there would be 150. There is a note saying that metro lines 6, 7, and 8 are excluded because even though they are metros they share some track. I think this is worth exploring again, since they really are functionally metro lines and are integrated into the metro system (which is what this list is all about). However, I do not know where this 187 number comes from... What 30 stations are missing from the list? Mattximus (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: so obviously there's issues with how the stations are tallied. I've closed the edit request until consensus if found. Feel free to re-open it once that occurs. NiciVampireHeart 21:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Spanish metros - Seville, Palma de Mallorca

I’m surprised Seville Metro hasn’t been included in the list, as Rennes and Toulouse have trainsets just as short of not shorter, and is completely grade separated. As for Palma de Mallorca, Line 1 is totally separated from the rest of Mallorca’s rail network, but I can understand if it isn’t included because of the short headways. Metrovalencia I can understand not being included, but some parts of that function as full metros as well (e.g. Line 5) Jackgill06 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the Sevilla Metro. I've ridden it, and it fits the description of a Metro System far more than many of the others listed here. I vote for inclusion. Mattximus (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tokyo Monorail

@Oknazevad: I have gone over a prior discussion regarding the inclusion of the Tokyo Monorail, the primary argument for its inclusion relies solely on ridership and route length. Should it just be limited to the List of monorail systems article? Cards84664 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would leave it for the monorail list as it's a monorail. That said, it wasn't my intention to remove it, it just got caught in the reversion of the German systems that were added despite prior consensus to omit them as being S-bahns, not metros. But it's removal is, I think, warranted, as it is a different mode, even if it's far more heavily used than most of its type. oknazevad (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Macau light rapid transit?

Despite being called LRT its goingto be fully grade separated, so would this be candidate for inclusion in the systems under construction? Jackgill06 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

City summary for cities with multiple systems?

I propose to introduce a "city summary" entry (maybe with different color background) to sum up the metro systems of cities with multiple entries in the table, so that different cities/metropolitan areas can be more easily compared. There are very few such cities, examples are Seoul, Tokyo, New York City. The summary row can include total system(s) length, total number of stations, etc. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes the way it is now is rather artificial since in many of those places the transfers are seamless, they just have different owners. Can you post an example of what you propose here? Mattximus (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an example of what I have in mind (for the case of Tokyo):

City	Country	Name	Year opened	Year of last expansion	Stations	System length	Annual ridership (millions)
Sendai	Japan	Sendai Subway	1987	2015	29	28.7 km (17.8 mi)	88.4 (2017*)
Tokyo	Japan	Toei Subway	1960	2002	99	109.0 km (67.7 mi)	1004.5 (2017*)
		Tokyo Metro	1927	2008	142	195.1 km (121.2 mi)	2709.1 (2017*)
		Tokyo Monorail	1964	2004	8	17.8 km (11.1 mi)	105.4 (2017*)
		Rinkai Line	1996	2002	8	12.2 km (7.6 mi)	90.7 (2016*)
		Combined systems	1927	2008	257	334.1 km (207.6 mi)	3909.7 (2017*)
Almaty	Kazakhstan	Almaty Metro	2011	2015	9	11.3 km (7.0 mi)	13.8 (2017)

In the case of Tokyo, it could be further combined with Yokohama, since it is also part of the Greater Tokyo Area, giving something like this:

City	Country	Name	Year opened	Year of last expansion	Stations	System length	Annual ridership (millions)
Greater Tokyo Area	Japan	Combined systems	1927	2008	303	391.6 km (243.3 mi)	4225.3 (2017*)

Let me know your thoughts on this! --Ita140188 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK well first thing, this should only be applied if the systems are combined and function as one system. The Yokohama metro doesn't even connect to the Tokyo systems! So combining them would not make any sense. However the total for systems that are nearly fully integrated (Toei subway and Tokyo metro) then totals would make sense. Mattximus (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem with Tokyo in this article. Most of mass transit in Tokyo is not even part of this list. For example, this is how the Yokohama metro could connect to the Tokyo metro [13] The systems are very well-connected, just not trhough things that are called "metro" here (even though in this example the Tōkyū Tōyoko Line is a mass rapid transit line by any definition and has a daily ridership of over a million people for 21 stations). --Ita140188 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• If you have to get off your metro, take a commuter line, then get on the other metro, they are not "one system" and I don't think anybody claims the Tōkyū Tōyoko Line is a metro system and not a commuter rail. If you want to make that claim, you will need a source saying it's a metro system. Mattximus (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not trying to change definitions. I am just saying that the two systems are connected in practice. Actually you don't even have to "change trains" to get to "commuter lines" in Tokyo, as they are literally the same trains continuing after their last station on the metro line. Only the owner and operator changes. To the user, there is literally no difference. But anyway I still think we should at least report the combined data for each city proper.--Ita140188 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jklamo: @Epicgenius: @Ita140188: I reverted the above addition because I feel that it doesn't add any real information to the article. This article is about metro systems, not the metropolitan areas they serve. Cards84664 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it can be argued that that is one system, just with lines operated by different companies. They share stations, ticketing systems, and in general passengers would mostly not even notice which company they are using. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664 and Ita140188: I think it could become quite complex though. Some cities have multiple metro systems, some of which actually extend to other cities. You might get all sorts of complications like double-counting riders, mileage/kilometrage and stations. I personally think it's interesting, but maybe not helpful to the casual reader. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Tourists asking for directions might not know the companies, but people that ride every day would know, no doubt. Cards84664 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

What constitutes an integrated metro system? Does the Brussels Metro count with its underground tram lines? They basically act the same as the metro in the city center, and they're called "premetro". Should there be a separate page for multi-centric commuter rail/metro networks? Is there even a generic name for these meta metros? There are a lot of them off the top of my head: Montréal Métro/RTM, Paris Métro/RER, Shenzhen Metro/Hong Kong MTA (and eventually these will be connected to other metros in Guangzhou using a Pearl River Delta Rapid Transit system - Guangzhou Metro, Dongguan Metro, Foshan Metro), San Francisco/Bay Area (SF MUNI, BART, CalTrain, VTA; maybe even the Capital Corridor to Sacramento), Changsha Metro/Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan intercity railway, Philadelphia SEPTA (2 metro lines and regional rail), Washington DC Metro/MARC, Shanghai/Wuxi/Suzhou Metros (not currently connected but planned to be), Mumbai Metro/Mumbai Suburban Railway/Navi Mumbai Metro, Berlin U-Bahn/S-Bahn/trams, Chicago L/Metra, New York Metro/LIRR... I'm sure there's probably a ton more, like with BRT in São Paulo and Rio.SzurkeEg (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of San Francisco, the BART (which is the listed metro system on this page) is really more of a commuter rail system. The distances are generally pretty large between stops. The wiki for the BART says it has some characteristics of a metro - some cities do have multiple stops I suppose, and it is really metro-like in downtown SF/Oakland/Berkeley. Meanwhile the Muni is actually officially a metro and has much more dense coverage of SF. So it would be nice to have a page with a bigger cutoff. Basically any rail (or BRT perhaps) system that is regularly used for commuting to a defined center or set of centers; maybe which also have some unity in payment (again to use the SF example, they all use the Clipper card in common); up to the edge of a metro area/megalopolis (for SF, that would be SF/East Bay/Peninsula/Silicon Valley). SzurkeEg (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC):

What SzurkeEg suggests is basically a list of integrated metro transit systems, where “metro” stands for “metropolitan area”, whilst in this list of metro systems it is intended as a synonym of “rapid transit”, a specific transportation mode as it's defined by authoritative sources (the main one being the UITP): if someone were brave enough to try, I think adding such a list would be a net positive, but as a separate article. As for the specific case of San Francisco, BART is undoubtedly on the borderline between rapid transit and commuter rail (some could argue that is actually beyond that border), but since it's classified amongst the former group by both UITP and APTA, it's included in this list; conversely, MUNI Metro, despite its name, is clearly a light rail/tramway system with a significant share of street running and simple on-street stops in most of its routes, and under any circumstances could be regarded as rapid transit. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yak79 2.0: Right, I was thinking maybe a separate page would be useful. Definitely it would provide a pretty good idea of the overall metro area. As to the Muni Metro - most of its stops are at grade and street running, but it has its own version/level of the Market St Subway separate from BART and the T Third Line's extension (Central Subway Project) is currently underway to build more Subway; also there are plans to extending the Subway for the M Ocean View. The parts of the Muni Metro that are underground satisfy the definition of rapid transit. There are plenty of systems like this around the world, for both trams and BRT and it would be pretty impossible to separate ridership at least for rapid/non-rapid portions of the service. You can probably sometimes find sources for how much of the system is actually grade separated though. SzurkeEg (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, just because a portion of a light rail line is grade separated that doesn't make that portion a metro line; it still doesn't have the vehicle capacity or scheduling through-put to qualify as a metro. We don't separate a segment of a line and call that metro; ots either the whole line or it's not. That isn't to say there aren't places where rapid transit and light rail share tracks (Cleveland comes to mind), but that doesn't mean we include the light rail lines as rapid transit, even for that portion. And we don't count the underground portion of subway–surface light rail lines as in Boston, Philadelphia, or Frankfurt; they're still light rail, even if grade separated. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yak79 2.0: Made a mockup of a main table for a metro area rail (and maybe BRT?? Or that could be its own page, possibly) table in my sandbox. Here's the most fleshed out part, for SF:

Metropolitan Area	Country	Name	Type	Mode	Service Area	Shared Payment?	Year opened	Year of last expansion	Lines	Stations	System length	Connections	Gauge	Annual ridership (millions)
San Francisco Bay Area	United States	BART	Metro, Commuter Rail	Heavy Rail	San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties Parts of: San Mateo County Planned: Santa Clara County	Clipper card			5	45		Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, Muni Metro, VTA light rail	Indian
		Altamont Corridor Express	Commuter Rail	Heavy Rail	San Joaquin, Alameda and Santa Clara counties				1	10		Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, VTA light rail	Standard
		Caltrain	Commuter Rail	Heavy Rail	San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties	Clipper card			1	32		Altamont Corridor Express, BART, Capitol Corridor, Muni Metro, VTA light rail	Standard
		Capitol Corridor	Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail	Heavy Rail	Santa Clara, Alameda County, Contra Costa, Yolo, Sacramento, and Placer counties				1	17		Altamont Corridor Express, BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, VTA light rail	Standard
		eBART	Commuter Rail	Heavy Rail	Eastern Contra Costa County	Clipper card			1	3		BART	Standard
		Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit	Commuter Rail	Heavy Rail	Marin and Sonoma counties	Clipper card			1	10			Standard
		Muni Metro	Metro, Light Rail	Tram	San Francisco	Clipper card			6	33		BART, Caltrain	Standard
		San Francisco cable car system	Light Rail	Cable Car	San Francisco	Clipper card			3	52		BART, Muni Metro	Standard
		VTA light rail	Light Rail	Light Rail	Santa Clara County	Clipper card			2	32		Altamont Corridor Express, BART (under construction), Capitol Corridor, Caltrain	Standard
		Oakland Airport Connector	People Mover		Oakland International Airport	Clipper card			3	62		BART
		AirTrain (San Francisco International Airport)										BART	Rubber-tired
		Combined systems

SzurkeEg (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If interested, I am preparing an updated table for the article List of urban rail systems in Japan at User:Ita140188/sandbox5. I think this is similar to what was proposed here, except that this table lists each line for each system instead of only the total. Listing all urban rail systems avoids the problem of definition of what is metro and what is not. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Wow, that's a lot of information. I was thinking more of interlinked systems than lines, and what you would need to show connections across a metro area. Agreed that picking all rail systems reduces some ambiguity, but it leaves us in the odd position of including small airport trams which I am kind of lukewarm on. Also, BRT and rubber tire rail definitely blur the lines between rapid transit/rail/bus. So a few use cases for my table I was thinking of: (1) If I'm traveling to the SF Bay Area, how do I get from region to region? Can I see that at a glance from the table or do I need to go to each system/line's wiki page to look up connections? (2) If I'm interested in how multicentric urban areas arrange their (rail) transit, it would be great to have a generic resource. (3) Like (2) but more broadly how do different metropolitan areas arrange their transit? Is there only commuter rail (e.g. Mumbai before 2013), only rapid transit (e.g. Shanghai), a mix, and so on; and which cities have the most ridership? Those seem to be different goals than yours, hence different tables perhaps. Here's my sandbox with a few more examples: User:SzurkeEg/sandbox SzurkeEg (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SzurkeEg: An example for the Tokyo metropolitan area of what you are proposing may be at User:Ita140188/sandbox5#Alt. Note that if you sort by annual ridership, Tokyu and Tobu railways have more ridership the Toei subway. In particular, Tokyu lines have more ridership per km and per station than Toei subway lines. Also, most of the systems in the table (even minor ones) have more ridership than most of the other systems in the List of metro table. I think that at least for Tokyo (the case I know) listing only Tokyo metro and Toei subway lines is incredibly misleading and does not represent at all the practical situation of rapid transit in Tokyo. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Yeah, I like your alt Tokyo table. Really helps to think about all the different systems in the Tokyo metro area. Interesting how some of the systems don't have their own article and are instead folded into the corporate parent article. The thing about the list of metro systems is that to avoid controversy it's a rather limited subset of metro systems - for instance the SF Muni Metro is only rapid transit for a small but important part of its network, so it's not included. I think a broader article would also need to have a similarly strict definition - so just all rail lines? But the major flaw with that is long distance rail lines which may only have one (or a few) stops in the metro area. Again to use the SF Bay example, there is a train called the Capitol Corridor that is often used for commuting within the metro area and has ~12 stops in the metro area - compare to the Coast Starlight with 4, the San Joaquin with 7, and the California Zephyr with 3. Maybe we could exclude trains that require a reservation ahead of time? That would knock out the non-commuting lines for San Francisco at least. SzurkeEg (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the Muni Metro is not rapid transit for any part of its system. Yes, there's underground portions of the system, but that doesn't mean it changes modes. Please keep that in mind when compiling statistics. oknazevad (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Is there a headway cutoff? Muni Metro has a headway of 4 minutes on the N Judah during rush hour, while for comparison BART has broadly similar headways between trains. Agreed that signals are not great though. As for capacity, it's got similar capacity to e.g. the Brussels premetro AFAIK. Combined with the grade separation that seems like rapid transit to me, at least in the subway. I can't find any definitions of rapid transit that say the whole line has to be grade separated. Anyways, I'm more interested in having a table of all the rail (and maybe BRT) transit for a city including trams and commuter rail, and connections thereof. People can argue over what to put in the mode box or it could just be left out. SzurkeEg (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the "at least in the subway" part. If only a portion of a line rises to rapid transit standards, while the rest is light rail, then the line as a whole is not rapid transit. It may be light metro or premetro, but not full rapid transit. It's been an issue here with people trying to add systems where only a portion is in tunnels arguing that the tunnel portion should be listed here when it's literally the same line as the at grade street-running one. For your purposes of creating a table summarizing a metro area's rail systems it's not that big a deal, but just want to make sure we are all clear on definitions here. oknazevad (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Not that I have any, but if you had a statistic for people only using the grade separated portion of the line would that qualify for addition to the list? Also speaking of, the Brussels ridership stat is including premetro trips as best I can tell with my grade school French. And I would imagine a number of other systems have combined figures too. Bringing it back to my proposed table - would you then list the Muni as premetro? SzurkeEg (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if call it "light metro". But it's really not any different from Boston's Green Line of Philly's Subway–Surface Lines, all of which, including Muni Metro, are categorized as light rail by competent bodies such as the APTA and UITP. That's pretty much a "follow the sources" situation. oknazevad (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Melbourne Metro

I am proposing that the Melbourne Metro should be included in the Under Construction category. It started in 2018 and is projected to be completed in 2025. The route being from Sunbury to Dandenong (and the Pakenham and Cranbourne branches).

It will meet the definition of a metro, it will be grade separated following the completion of the Level Crossing Removal Project, and run at high frequencies.

Also potentially included are the proposed Metro 2 for the route from Mernda to Werribee, and Metro 3 from the Airport (and potentially extending to the northern suburbs such as Mickleham) to Doncaster (and potentially an extension to Ringwood).

Additionally, should the Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne be included as being part of the Melbourne Metro? This is soon to commence construction and be completed by 2050.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.65.88 (talk • contribs)

Hi! The Level Crossing Removal Project won't remove all level crossings, just the ones deemed the most important. And even though the Metro Tunnel will improve frequencies, it will still essentially be a commuter rail service, albeit a bit more similar to systems like RER and S-Bahn. In my opinion this doesn't really consistute a metro system. FG42~enwiki (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes the Level Crossing Removal Project won't remove all of the level crossings, but it will for the stretch from Watergardens to Dandenong and Cranbourne, the Dandenong to Cranbourne section carrying the vast majority (if not all) of the services. Also, to what extent would frequencies need to be improved to be classified as metro-style frequencies?--121.214.38.188 (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Daily Ridership Figures for the Seoul Metro

I am doing a project on metro systems across the world, and need ridership data for the Seoul Metro. This article has the ridership figure for Seoul, which only counts "gate-passers, so it only includes Seoul Metro and Seoul Subway Line 9 riders. Other lines that function as separate systems within the greater Seoul urban rail network are excluded." Do any of my fellow editors know how to get the daily ridership figure under the same criteria? Thanks so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Mtattrain:--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

> The Korean Wikipedia articles have some (outdated) ridership counts for lines that opened before 2007. Otherwise this might help [14] Mtattrain (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Annual ridership of Italian systems

About two weeks ago, Ita140188 changed the 2018 ridership data of Milan from 369 to 496 million, and the edit summary says better source, accurate number: I felt compelled to verify due to the huge difference between the two figures and the fact that the same reference was meanwhile used to update other two Italian systems (Rome and Genoa) and, after a bit of investigation, Pendolaria website don’t seem to be reliable at all: they neither specify the year, nor define the system which their data are referred to and it’s unclear where their stats are taken from: for just two out of five cities - putting aside the aforementioned Rome and Genoa, about which we don’t have recent data - their annual ridership actually match with official ones (of 2017, moreover). Conversely, in Milan case, the previous number is backed by the operator’s (ATM) annual financial statement: thus, I’m going to reinstate it and remove other Pendolaria-sourced figures from the list. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

References

@Yak79 2.0: thanks for noticing this and for the correction. I thought the reference was still a newspaper article as in the Milan Metro article. Having the official report from ATM is obviously better. I have no idea why the numbers are so different. Accurate ridership figures for Italian systems are notoriously hard to find. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)