Jump to content

Talk:List of United States light rail systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rapid Transit != Heavy Rail; Light Rail Rapid Transit == Light Rail

[edit]

I'm still not happy with excluding ridership on rapid transit portions of light rail systems. Light rail is light rail because (generally) the rail is of lighter weight (lbs/yd) than "real" railroads, including heavy rail systems, and because (generally) light rail equipment is smaller than other services and can (often) run in the street in mixed traffic.

Rapid transit, OTOH, is about right-of-way. Ask Prof Vuchic if you don't believe me. The tunnels on the T's Green Line, SEPTA's subway-surface lines, and wherever other light rail systems have segregated rights-of-way, are certainly rapid transit but they are not "heavy rail".

Yet "note 1" says "heavy rail rapid transit/metro" - NOT THE SAME!

Yes, I see the weasel words in the first paragraph because I wrote them, and yes, we could go on allllllllllllll decade about the proper taxonomy of the different modes (there is, well was, a USENET discussion about this that went on from 1992 until 2007 when the last of the participants finally died - I believe it was an offshoot of the LOOT RAIL thread which I think is still going) but this isn't that. This is recognizing that whether you get on or get off a Green Line trolley somewhere out on Beacon St or at Park St in the subway, you're on a light rail system. When the extensions up to Summavil and Meffa are completed, are you seriously going to suggest that we will count people that get on at Union Square and get off at Park St but not count them on the way home because they boarded in the subway? Of course not. --plaws (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I think peoples' problems with this is with APTA. We can only go off how APTA, and the various systems' operators, categorize these systems. So, while the Green Line may have "rapid transit" portions, and L.A.'s Green Line might technically qualify as a "light metro" line, that's not how either APTA or the system's operator categorize these lines, and we really are required to follow what they do... --IJBall (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the stats on this page do not exclude "rapid transit portions of light rail systems", as you put it. For instance, all Green Line ridership is included in these APTA numbers. The "rapid transit" numbers that are excluded are heavy rail lines in the same system (orange/red/blue, in Boston's case). --Jfruh (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia uses the IMO ridiculous term "rapid transit" specifically to mean heavy rail systems. I believe this was a compromise in classic Wikipedia fashion between mutually hostile factions who supported "metro" or "subway". The problem of course is that "rapid transit" is used in everyday Englisht to refer to a wide variety of public transit systems, not even all of which are even necessarily rail systems.
To me, the clearest distinction to make is between systems that use technology and techniques derived from streetcar systems, generally lumped under "light rail", and those that use technology and techniques derived back in the early 20th century from mainline rail systems, generally lumped under "heavy rail." Even that isn't so hard and fast, of course. I agree that APTA's categorization scheme is probably the best we can get from a secondary source, though even there there are quirks (why is Detroit's system a "people mover"?) --Jfruh (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And part of this problem is that the rapid transit article is pretty wretched. It's on my long-term "To Do" list to go through that article and try to make some sense out of it, but it seems like a pretty big project, and I haven't had a lot of time lately... --IJBall (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modern transit comes from two historic lineages: Steam railroads, and horse-cart street railways. To operate in an urban environment, steam railroads underwent a number of modifications. To reduce conflicts with street level traffic, were either elevated or under-grounded. At some point, they were also electrified, typically use a third-rail system. Once that occurred, expansion required the continued use of grade separated, exclusive guideway, so no one touched the third rail and died. In contrast, street railways were electrified as trolleys, using a pantograph. (Cable-cars can be thought of as a 'dead branch' alternative to electrification). The converging modes of electrified heavy rail and street railways were hybridized as the "Inter-urban". Electrified the whole-way, using a pantograph, and running in a mix of at-grade and tunnels. After the second World War, almost all pure street running 'trolley' systems were 'bus-tituted' out of existence, while some inter-urban systems survived. The survivors all had some off-street running-way, viz: RTA Streetcars, San Francisco cable car, MBTA Green Line & Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, SEPTA Subway–Surface Lines: Suburban Trolley Lines & Girard Ave Trolley, RTA Rapid Transit: Blue and Green Lines, Newark Light Rail, Muni Metro. Between ~1930-1972 is sort of a 'Dark Age' for urban rail--almost nothing new is built. Then there is a resurgence of heavy-rail systems to deal with traffic congestion: BART (1972), Washington Metro (1976), MARTA (1979), Baltimore Subway (1983), and Miami-Dade (1984). All run at-grade in the suburbs, and in tunnels in the city center. About 1980, America adopts the Stadtbahn/'City Rail' concept from Germany, and APTA coins it 'Light Rail'. It runs at-grade in the suburbs, and at-grade in the city-center, like the inter-urbans. Being regulated as 'light' rail, it is allowed to operate in mixed-traffic with cars, making it easier/cheaper to build. Over time, the surviving inter-urbans are rebuilt/revitalized, making use of the same vehicles as the new 'Light Rail' systems. Circa 2001, Portland reinvents the 'streetcar', which runs at-grade, in mixed traffic, with smaller vehicles, and making extensive use of single-track. Now, to get back to what is 'Rapid' transit: Rapid transit is something that has it's own (unshared) guideway. Subways, elevated rail, commuter rail all clearly meet this standard, as do most of the 'Metro' systems of the 1970's heavy-rail revival. But the surviving inter-urbans and new light rail systems are a confusing mix: They have portions of exclusive guideway, so they have rapid transit portions. But LRT means 'Light Rail Transit' rather than 'Light RAPID Transit'. This gets confusion in the context of BRT, which actually means 'Bus RAPID Transit'. BRT gets developed in Latin America as a sort of bus version of a heavy rail system--buses with unshared guideway. But that's another topic. In summary: HeavyRail = Rapid, Streetcar !=Rapid, LRT !=Rapid.(Cable-cars get lumped in with LRT largely on the basis of Cable-car != heavy-rail.) And finally: Metro!=Heavy-rail, but Metro ⊂ Heavy-rail. Freight, Metro, Subway, Elevated, Commuter Rail ⊂ Heavy-rail. Theblindsage (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Metro

[edit]

The Muni Metro agency was created in 1980. But the rail system began operating (as the San Francisco Municipal Railway) in 1912. Claiming that the system began in 1980 (with the creation of the agency) is a bit like claiming the founding date of SEPTA (1963) for the founding date of the Subway-Surface lines, which began operations in 1892. http://www.streetcar.org/brief-history/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muni_Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPTA_Subway%E2%80%93Surface_Trolley_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblindsage (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco's rail system was "converted to light rail" (well, sorta) in 1980 – that's when the Market Street Subway opened for the Muni Metro. The system previous to that was pure streetcar and was quite different. For the record, Pittsburgh Light Rail is treated exactly the same way at these articles (i.e. the streetcar portion of Pittsburgh's system goes back to the early 20th century, but the "modern" renovated "light rail" version of the system opened in the 1980s). The "full" explanation for this is found not at this article (where the details on this wouldn't be appropriate), but at Light rail in the United States and Streetcars in North America. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if the San Francisco cable car system started operation in 1878, then Muni (in its current form with the current light rail lines) started service in 1912. "Also included are those urban streetcar/trolley systems that are providing regular public transit service (i.e. operating year-round and at least five days/week)." --Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read above. Also the 1980 date was sourced, to Muni. The current (light rail) system was opened in 1980. For this list article, the fact that there was a streetcar system that operated previous to 1980 is not relevant. See, also: Pittsburgh Light Rail. Again, the details of this are covered at the appropriate articles els::::ewhere. This article is simply the overview of ridership on light rail systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's not "a streetcar system" - it's the same system routed differently. go change the cable car line to say 1950 and the MBTA green line to when they got light rail cars or whatever if you want that kind of consistency --Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not going to belabor this point, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get anywhere with you on this, seeing as you're willing to edit war your view on this. But the addition to the Market Street Subway to the Muni system fundamentally changed it into a different system. I frankly find it mildly inexplicable that you think you know more of the particulars on this than Muni itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor, I observe that the Market Street Subway is a dual Muni/BART subway tunnel that is underground and has many subway-like characteristics. Now, the question is, is Muni a light rail, streetcar, or tram? The heritage cable car system is definitely a streetcar/tram, for reasons that are explained directly after this. However, I found a blog post that clarifies the difference between LRT and streetcar/tram (not the most reliable source, but still...). It seems that light rail stops tend to be spread out and LRT vehicles have its own right-of-way for much of its route, but streetcar/tram stops are more closely spaced and the streetcars/trams share road space with automotive traffic for much of its route. So, while the Muni system has a downtown subway and has some of its own rights-of-way like LRTs, it also has closely-spaced stops and street-running segments like trams and streetcars. I'd say the Muni Metro is a hybrid, more like the tram systems. epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think trams are included in this list, only LRTs. Am I correct in this observation? Finally, I'd like to say that Muni, in its current branding, seems to have opened in 1980 with the opening of some LRT-characteristic segments. The previous incarnation was streetcars, which, if my theory is correct, does not qualify the 1912 streetcar for this list. epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's issues of sourcing and I don't support edit warring, but I've always thought it was pretty off that Pittsburgh and Muni are list as having started operation in the 1980s. Yes, both systems saw major revamps at that point, but most of that took place in downtowns. Over a significant portion, perhaps even a majority, of the route miles of both systems, they follow the original streetcar and interurban routes. Plus both were in continuous operation since the days of the originals streetcar system.
You could also make the argument that using MUNI's own dating is using a primary source, which as a rule Wikipedia tends to avoid. This document at Publictransit.us, in contract, which compiles data on all rail transit in the US, has opening dates in the 1910's for SF and Pittsburg: [1] --Jfruh (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But in the table, we can clarify between "Streetcar opening" and "Light rail opening", or between "original" and "renovation" openings. epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this list uses the "broad" definition of "light rail" (which, to be clear, is the one APTA is also using) – it includes both modern LRT systems, and the various "streetcar" systems as well. I don't think we need to get into those kinds of details here – again, that's what the Light rail in the United States and Streetcars in North America articles are for. This article is just a straight list of ridership stats for the various systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "This article is just a straight list of ridership stats for the various systems," why include the opening dates at all? It's just going to bog down into this kind of argument when there isn't any clear right answer. I'd argue the only stats needed are the ridership, route miles, and ridership per mile figures. --Jfruh (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All 5 lists like this that track ridership stats for U.S. and North American systems all include basic system info such as opening date, date of most recent extension, system length, # of stations, etc. I personally would oppose removing such info, as it's informative. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the distinction between streetcars/trams and modern-built light rail is fuzzy, especially when the system under discussion is one that was formed from by modernizing existing streetcar systems, often bit by bit, such as the Muni Metro and Pittsburgh (and Philly and Boston, for that matter). So that does not disqualify anything. Especially with the APTA counting them. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so include both dates (1980 for LRT Muni, and 1912 for its streetcar predecessor). epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably live with this – that's basically what's already done at Light rail in the United States. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I guess we don't need to change anything. ~~The article is basically sorted that way right now. epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somebody just needs to change Pittsburgh to match the way San Fran. is handled. (I would do it, but I'm beat for the day!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Except I don't know what I should add. I'll take a shot at formatting it later, though. epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New LRTs to add?

[edit]

Some potential LRT systems, all of which are rather new and are not on this table. JCKotrba (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Streetcar - Opened in December 2014 and ridership statistics have presumably been released, although I don't actually KNOW that they have for any of these, I am merely making suggestions. Wikipedia page - Atlanta Streetcar

Charlotte CityLYNX Gold Line- Streetcars in Charlotte which just opened in 2015. In this article, the "Charlotte Area Transit System: Blue Line" is listed. Could the CityLYNX gold line be added to this or would it be preferred to have separate entries in the table and statistics for them? Wikipedia page - CityLynx Gold Line

Dallas Streetcar - New streetcars which are operated separately from the DART system. They are owned by the city and operated by DART, as far as I know. Opened in April of 2015 and the line is 1.6 miles. Wikipedia page - Dallas Streetcar

Salt Lake City S-Line Streetcar - opened in 2013. Unsure if this would be considered part of TRAX or get its own entry into the table. Wikipedia page - S Line (UTA)

The main issue is whether APTA includes these systems in their Ridership Reports or not – APTA includes Seattle Streetcar in its figures, but not Portland Streetcar. If these new streetcar systems don't get included in APTA's report, it makes it more complicated to get ridership figures for them... In the meantime, let's wait until APTA's Q4 2015 figures come out before trying to update this table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Streetcar lines: Fort Smith, Dallas McKinney Milwaukee Oklahoma City, Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle. Also missing: Airtrain JFK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.155.141 (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note, confusion over downtown APMs

[edit]

People movers that are in downtown areas are very similar to a light rail system, they're just elevated. The Miami Metromover, interestingly enough, now hitting about 35,000 daily riders, and being only 4.4 miles, which is a generous measurement given the amount of overlap, would come out to 8,000 riders per mile, which would be the highest of any system on this list. The Detroit People Mover is mentioned on the talk page, regarding it's not being included. That and the Jacksonville Skyway, are basically the three downtown people movers in the country, but the latter two are highly underutilized. B137 (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte/Utah

[edit]

I am really quite sure that the S-Line numbers are are included in APTA's numbers for TRAX, because APTA breaks down its data by operating agency and TRAX and the S-Line are both light rail (by APTA's definitions) operated by the UTA. I think that by putting a separate S-Line entry in the table we're duplicating some riders.

Similarly, the CityLynx Gold Line is operated by CATS just like the Blue Line, so I don't see why we have the Charlotte entry specify that the numbers are only for the Blue Line. (We don't have a separate Gold Line entry, at least).

I'm going to make these changes in the next few days unless someone objects to them. --Jfruh (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object, but if we could get ridership numbers for each segment of these systems, I think it would be worth doing. It's easier to do in the case of Portland and Seattle because ridership numbers for the light rail vs. streetcar segments are available. If they're not available for Salt Lake or Charlotte, then we'll have to bundle them together. But I'd prefer to have separate ridership figures for the streetcar vs. light rail for these two systems as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The S-Line in particular is operated very much a part of the UTA Trax system, it seems to me -- same vehicles, same ticketing, same operating agency, etc. This makes it a little different from, say, Seattle and Portland, where the operations of those streetcar systems is much more distinct from the light rail. The same could be said to an extent about the Charlotte Gold Line (it uses replica cars for now but will apparently be switching to the S70s on the Blue Line once Phase 2 is built.)
In general the dividing line between light rail and streetcar is often not particularly bright and clear. The S-Line for instance has more frequent stops than TRAX, like a streetcar, but unlike most other "streetcar"-branded systems doesn't operate in mixed traffic at all. Meanwhile the "legacy" streetcar systems in Philly, San Francisco, etc. ~do~ operated in mixed traffic, but we treat them generally as "light rail". I think in particular where there's a strong unity in branding and operations, breaking apart "light rail" and "streetcar" lines on this list can give a false impression that something that's a fairly unified system in practice is really two entirely separate systems. Just my take, anyway. --Jfruh (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different "branding" implies different modes/segments/etc. It's not the "Yellow Line", it's the "S-Line" – that implies that TRAX views it as something a little different than the other three light rail lines. Now the difference isn't quite as clear cut in the case of Charlotte, where the "branding" differences are more subtle. Again, if ridership figures for the different "segments" of the Salt Lake and Charlotte systems are available, I would advocate leaving them split, using the unique ridership figures for each. But if separate figures are not available, then bundling them together as one system is fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfruh: You wouldn't happen to know if this also applies to DART and Dallas Streetcar, would you?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's operated by DART, I would assume so? Same for the McKinney Ave. streetcar. --Jfruh (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
McKinney Ave. streetcar is a weird little deal, operated by McKinney Avenue Transit Authority, and I wouldn't assume it's counted with DART. If I think of it, I'll try to poke around the DART website and see if separate figures are available for Dallas Streetcar. But I'm assuming its numbers are included with DART. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Seattle and Tacoma

[edit]

We had previously discussed splitting the Seattle and Tacoma numbers if we could find good data. Despite the fact that the two systems have the same operator & the shared "Link" branding, I think it's appropriate to split them because they're two separate lines 25 miles apart and use different vehicles.

Anyway, I found this info on the Sound Transit site:

http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2016-Q4%20Service%20Delivery%20Performance%20Report.pdf

This document counts ridership in terms of "Boardings." Does this represent the same thing being counted as "Unlinked passenger trips" in the APTA numbers? My understanding is so -- an unlinked passenger trip is one person getting on one vehicle, and that fairly intuitively is what boarding means. The fact that these are both one-line systems means we wouldn't have to worry about possible differing interpretations of transferring lines. Anyway, I'm inclined to use these numbers but I wanted to post them there first in case there's something I'm missing. --Jfruh (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be – if you add the two separate totals for Tacoma Link and "Link" in your source, it seems to add up to the total for the "bundled" listing for them we currently have in the list. That implies they're either the same thing, or the numbers are close enough to each other that they can be treated as the same thing. Therefore, I support splitting them, provided we cite this specific source for both of the "split" figures. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I was just coming back here to say exactly this. I'll come back and split this up later today when I get a few minutes. --Jfruh (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of United States light rail systems by ridership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of United States light rail systems by ridership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

eBART

[edit]

I was just peeking at the Q3 APTA numbers because I was curious about how the ridership for the eBART extension to BART was doing. Weirdly, eBART isn't included in the main lists at the beginning of the report; but in the section where there are lists for different modes for each participating agency, there's a commuter rail mode listed under the San Francisco Bay Area RTD, which is BART's operating agency. There's nothing this could be other than eBART, but Wikipedia generally follows media reports by referring to the eBART extension as light rail. Admittedly it's an edge case, similar to the SPRINTER (which APTA lists under light rail) and the Austin MetroRail (which APTA lists under commuter rail). My instinct is to still list its ridership numbers here rather than on List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership, but I thought I'd pose the question here so we can get a consensus before the Q4 numbers come out. --Jfruh (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of leaving eBART here (though we'd maybe have to do a separate source for its ridership value, as it's on a different page of the APTA report). These systems are generally categorized as "diesel light rail". It is weird that APTA stuck eBART under "commuter rail", but leaves the Oceanside Sprinter under "light rail", though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q4 2018 update

[edit]

Hi all! I've updated this page with the Q4 2018 numbers, mostly from APTA except where marked. A few notes:

  • I listed eBART here, despite the weird way it's categorized in the APTA report (see previous section of this talk page above)
  • I couldn't find any consolidated official numbers for either the Cincinnati Bell Connector or the Dallas Streetcar, so I left those with last year's numbers for now. Annoyingly, Cincinnati breaks down daily ridership but doesn't aggregate them into monthly or annual counts on its official site! If anyone wants to dig in and do the math, be my guest.
  • Re: Dallas: Since the Dallas Streetcar is operated by DART, its ridership may actually be rolled into the numbers for the DART light rail system. Something to investigate.
  • Oklahoma City and Milwaukee both opened streetcar lines in 2018, but they weren't in the APTA report so I didn't include them -- unlike El Paso, whose streetcar was also new in 2018 and which I added here just because the numbers were easy to get. Would be worth adding them to this list if we can find good numbers for them, though maybe we should wait until next year when we'd have a full year of data for comparison purposes.
  • Similarly, St. Louis added a heritage streetcar in late 2018; probably not worth figuring out if it's rolled into the St. Louis Metrolink APTA numbers until next year, as it wouldn't move the needle much.

--Jfruh (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership § 2021 Ridership

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership § 2021 Ridership. Discussion about when to update to more current ridership figures is directly relevant to this article, and related articles like it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q4 2022 figures

[edit]

APTA's Q4 2022 figures are apparently out now, if anyone wants to update this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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

Loop Trolley?

[edit]

Should this be listed? NE2 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Oklahoma City Streetcar NE2 00:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems&oldid=1219310550"