Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Brescia and Genoa

User:Oknazevad wrote "light metros" have their own list. This does not belong here. Ok. I can read "Brescia-Brescia Metro-Trains: 3-car config, 39 metres length." on Medium-capacity rail transport system; I can read also "Genoa-Genoa Metro-Generally considered to be a "light metro" considering its low frequency, limited hours of operation and reduced transport capacity. It is actually categorized as "light rail" by LRTA." in the article. Ok?--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, the UITP classifies both these systems as metros, that is why they were in the list. I think they should probably remain in the list because a reliable sources claims them to be metros, and that is pretty much what WP:V says we should do, but, similarly agree that they are probably light metros not full metros. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can read "The Genoa Metro (Italian: Metropolitana di Genova) is a light metro consisting of a single line that connects [...]". Just here: Genoa Metro. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I read: "The Turin Metro (Italian: Metropolitana di Torino) is the VAL metro system serving Turin". Here: Turin Metro. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there are quite a few that are considered a metro by one source and a light metro by another, this discussion has arisen multiple times (look through the archives of this talk page) and it has generally been the rule that if a highly reliable source such as the UITP consider a system a metro, it is included. As I've said before, I don't know that I agree with the UITP on some of there calls, but WP:V kinda dictates that these systems should be included. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ehm... Catania is included in the UITP list (now). It wasn't on the map only for distraction :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Where? Provide a link to support your claim. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• > http://oi64.tinypic.com/2wpp2l1.jpg or consult de Uitp 2014 data.

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2wpp2l1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.107.177 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your E-mail leads one to here: http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/UITP-Statistic%20Brief-Metro-A4-WEB_0.pdf and page 4 of that document is very interesting, as it points a way out of this mess: either excluding the "low capacity" systems from our list, or pulling them out into a separate list. (Note: This list in the above source is exclusive to Automatic train operation systems, unfortunately, which is why it's not all inclusive.) For example, Toulouse, Rennes and Lille are all indicated as "low capacity (ATO) lines", and all three of these are probably best categorized as "light metros". (However, I'll note that Copenhagen, Brecia and Turin are categorized as "medium capacity lines" which is a point against them being considered just "light metros"...) Anyway, this is starting to make some sense – if there was a UITP document looking at the broader metro system category in this context of "passenger capacities", it would help a lot... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think capacity is one of the feature that make a metro be “a metro” (such as guided drive, “railway signalling” operation, segregated and mostly grade-separated ROW, capacious train, low headway, independent route, commercial speed, urban service, line length), but rather it's the purpose for which these characteristics are aimed. Not surprisingly, metros have the highest capacity among urban transit system - suburban/commuter railways (“S-bahn” system) serve a broader area and urban-only users are generally a minority of their patronage. Therefore a metro system with a very low capacity is a real oddity, but it's nevertheless a metro as long as it boasts those listed features, or at least a good share of them; not all the abovementioned features have the same relevance: having guided drive and signalling, serving an urban area and not sharing “tracks” between a lot of multiple lines or with other services are mandatory since they constitute the difference between metros and other mass transit system (buses, tramways, suburban/commuter railways, people movers), while others are defined less strictly and can be evaluated more liberally.

Since capacity is the most significant aspect in transport engineering, and in mass transit too, an informal distinction - conventional to a large extent, since capacity is almost continuously and it's really tricky to draw a clear line - within the whole metro class between low-capacity system (light metro) and high-capacity ones (conventional metro) can be useful, but it doesn't make a new separate category: if it works “like a metro”, it's a metro. Rennes VAL line, with its 5˙700 ppd/h, belongs to metro class together with heavyweight over-40˙000 ppd/h lines, just like chiwawas and English mastiffs are all dogs. Maybe you can mock some systems, but I think it's more correct and useful counting them in a single metro list (unless you can find another big category in which they fit better): from a technical (and rational) point of view, this choice is by far more sensible than creating a separate class, and therefore a separate list, for a handful of systems that don't belong anywhere and and moreover are quite difficult to isolate from the rest and relatively different from each other. 93.57.251.133 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• No, "high passenger capacities" is one of the defining characteristics of a metro system. I don't have time to pull out a source for that right now, but I think one can be found at Passenger rail terminology if one looks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

About Genova we could repeat some of the remarks made speaking for Catania, but here the infrastructure building specifications meet the “light metro” standard: reduced max train length (80 m), smaller loading gauge (width 2,45 m), tighter minimum curves radius, etc.; besides, there the current service pattern fits better into metro standard. It,s true that LRTA lists this line as “light rail”, however there's a public evidence (that famous map) it's in the UITP metro list.

Metro Brescia is a normal Ansaldobreda light metro (just like Copenhagen, Milan M4 and M5, and Ryad, Salonicco and Honolulu in the future); it's also similar to those which adopt VAL technology (Lille, Toulouse, Rennes, Torino and Taipei) and there's absolutely no plausible reason to expunge it from the Wikipedia list.93.57.250.62 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Catania metro

I've seen there was a discussion about the Catania metro in the past and at the end it was decided to cut it from the list although there were several reasons and opinions to leave it in the list. I absolutely would like to reintegrate it in the list, simply because it is a real metro. Maybe it's still small, but it's a normal, typical metro, with the "heavy rail" typical characteristics. The single track is just a very small part (1,8 km) of the whole system and next year the full length will be 8,9 km, all in the urban area, all underground and with double-track. This will also allows trains passing every 4-8 minutes (actually they start to run every 15 minutes simply because the line is still to short and it would be not convenient to use more trains). There are eight Firema M88 trains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a very simple reason we don't include it – the UITP reference that this article relies on doesn't include it in its list of world metro systems. On Wikipedia, we follow sources, and UITP not including it is definitive. There are other reasons that it shouldn't be included here, but the UITP issue is the most important factor. Note, of course, that Catania is included at the Light metro article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find the UITP world metro systems list, please? Reporting the Brescia metro (for example) and not the Catania one seems a nonsense.

It's this: [1]. Unfortunately, the map used to be "clickable" so a larger version could be viewed, and it doesn't seem to be any longer, but it can still be seen that no system in Sicily is listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, someone has just to notice Uitp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We can finally add Catania, as UITP replied me they were actually missing it. The mistake has been corrected as UITP added Catania to the 2014 data, published a couple of weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed this as it clearly falls short of the criteria for being a metro, and there is still not RS to support the claim of it being a full metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I add it again because I've taken it and it's a real metro, now also included in the UITP list as a metro. It's absurd and unreasonable not to put it. Also because there are other systems like the Brescia and Turin ones that are not considered real metros in Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitana_in_Italia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.66.57 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They use automated rolling stock from AnsaldoBreda; they're used on the Copenhagen and Rome metros, as well as several others in the future, so I don't see how Brescia or Turin would be considered exceptions to this, that being considered (if that were case, then Bilbao ought to be excluded as well). 74.94.48.153 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no reference currently that confirms UITP intends to include this system among its list of world metro systems. (A "personal communication" is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia policies go.) So I still maintain it should be excluded, at least until such time as such a reference is provided.

Now, there is a larger issue in that some of the systems included by both UITP and LRTA do not objectively meet the full metro criteria (I'm thinking of a number of the French, Italian, and Spanish systems, including especially both Catania and Palma, as well as Rennes), which is unfortunate as it puts us editors in a real bind. But in Catania's case, the single-tracking, as well as the 15 minute headways and small vehicle sizes, really should rule it out from inclusion here, objectively. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Consult the 2014 Uitp data, it is possible to buy it and there's the Catania metro. The single track line is just for 1,8 km (3,8 it's the total at the right moment, fortunately in 2016 there will be almost 9 kms, the extensions are all double track). There are 8 Firema trains, usually they are used in the basic combination of two cars, that has a capacity of 442 passengers, but all the 4 (10 since 2016) underground stations can host a double train of 4 cars (the Brescia vehicle has a minor capacity). The frequency will pass from 15' to 4'. I also agree to leave Turin and Brescia, although for the Italian technical criteria they are light metro, while the Rome, Naples, Catania and Milan ones are typical "heavy" metros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've actually said nothing about whether Catania will qualify after the extension – that's a discussion we can have at that time. I'm just saying that, right now, it doesn't appear to qualify. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but a small line that is single track for over half its length and is restricted to four services an hour is simply not a metro. I have again removed it from the list as there is no consensus for it to be added (indeed, the majority opinion is clearly that it should not be included). If you wish to deliver a source which clearly states it for be a metro (I suspect one may be able to be found after the extensions), but until then, do not re-add it, it will simply be removed again. Regarding your contentions that other Italian systems do not qualify: I agree, however, there are reliable sources that claim them to be a metro, and we repeat what reliable sources say, this is why you need a reliable source. I know you have said the UITP now say it's a metro, and if that is the case, provide a link. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"a small line that is single track for over half its length and is restricted to four services an hour is simply not a metro". This is only your opinion. WP:NPOV. Next time found an excuse smarter of it.--79.13.0.179 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• It may be my opinion, but what you are proposing is WP:OR, at least my opinion is consistent with [[WP:V]. Want it added? Find a source. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I added three sources and I adjusted the formatting, that you deleted. All in english. I think they are very clear. Ok, you think they are not verifiable? Why? The list of UITP include Catania also, only the image do not. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so delete Milan Metro, becouse it isn't in the UITP list. Delete Bresca Metro, it isn't on the list. Delete Porto Alegre Metro, that it no resulte in the UITP list. And so on...--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• But Milan, Bresca, and Port Alegre are listed as metros by the UITP, that is why they are included. I may not agree with the UITP on that, but, our policies regarding WP:V kinda force our hands on it. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But what sense does it pretend to Catania sources inclusion in UITP (which by the way is only an observer, not valid as a primary source ...), but only and exclusively for this city? I mean, no one ever asked for a source on the UITP regarding the other services in the metropolitan world. Why? I can see that all of metropolitan services Italian does not refer to the UITP, but note overs exclusively or almost exclusively to the official website, I think. And so in other parts of Europe. Require the source UITP exclusively on Catania it has something embarrassing. If it requires for all other meter, then we can discuss it.
Ah, I do not accept judgments on writing in Italian on wp.eng, considering that in the past I have received several calls for collaboration on wp.it by admin of this wiki, strictly in English. I would also tired to have to write in a language not mine, when the other side there is no reciprocity. Thank you for understanding [USED GOOGLE TRANSLATE - bofatinculu]--82.51.35.241 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think the Catania metro is? It is just a metro. Nowadays it's underutilized, no doubt about this aspect (looking forward summer 2016), but even so it's a metro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have again removed this entry from the list, please do not read add it without first gaining consensus to do so, also be aware that edit warring is verboten and can lead to a block. All entries in this list have reliable sources claiming them to be metros, with most listed as such by the UIPT, this is consistent with Wikipedia's variability policy, and to make additions without a reliable source supporting is original research or synthesis. However, I will engage in some OR to support why I do not think Catania should be included. The UIPT define a metro as (with this article containing a similar definition): "Metros are high capacity urban guided transport systems, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short headways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows, and as such constitute the backbone of many public transport systems. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of minimum two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers." On this criteria Catania fails badly in headway with only four trains per hour and therefore cannot sustain "the carriage of high passenger flows", having a maximum throughput of less than 2000 people per hour. If, however, a source can be found and provided that claims Catania to be a metro, it will need to be included, and the upcoming extension may provide that. Until that happens, or there is local consensus for it to be added, it should remain omitted from the list. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello; I repeat that is possible to buy the Uitp 2014 Data including the Catania metro, actually a demonstration it satisfies their criteria. If you can't have a look, you can note that the 2013 Uitp data report 45 european cities having a metro system and the 2014 one reports 46; at the same time there were no new metros inaugurated. The difference is due to the Uitp update. If I could, I would attach the communication I've received from Uitp. I also inform you that each two-cars train has a capacity of 442 passengers (Uitp asks at least 100) and there are 8 trains per hour (in both directions). Anyway, as the sources about the upcoming extensions may provide that Catania is a metro, I report some hoping they can be useful. :) https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WXSgOMZ75exXVc0NQawkQWg3HmAK4O8szWSbuqtrSPoDLpX4d5mIOCOXz2SLtyix9hqoRrnyeo-tQ80PMuf5ed-wJ17yEA_axotnKL8KE804ETDz3xWCXzGpOmbYXhM0Bpko4decjjGRhOhFpulCw0ooUdpv6veDZzuiWAda_3tFNuaPglzFBG_TiJg0xW5CIyXwmKoEIz3F9F-RwX_PchJp2eY8RMKAaWdAUbLwXDSYszjbim5l7GtjRN6AcAW1lb0Es03WCWBBL0bApiX6ZHmin2BdxfNFlb11QxLzJEvC3Yl5F1wb2LabiUHsC-CEm0Gmd8tiJxI1GDUaokUDld9y1Ijoq4N6PnLRxw3GQNZ7RLLJGFsxVWhmparerwpRWenZJ_nmmzNR3kI4GoShPPsAr2dMRBOe7y_Q48VaRxkB-B_ucdlNdvTSUc8rCAa_7tETslfVK_tvvT_JNeZANBOYmClyhXFicnbsdLFg8g-skyyyJ-p2yaQaOR9JBUuKXuc9zoaSi1Y-OCf7OXjcHdCZs3eJZne5bpnwjFCZbAjDZplZt2j4QNQQbkpDdjrbqDkn=w720-h769-no — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC) http://www.ravennanotizie.it/articoli/2015/07/25/il-ministro-delrio-visita-il-cantiere-cmc-della-metropolitana-di-catania.html http://catania.gds.it/2015/11/28/metropolitana-di-catania-i-lavori-proseguiranno-regolarmente_442447/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/12/09/metropolitana-i-lavori-procedono-spediti-rispettato-il-cronoprogramma/ http://catania.blogsicilia.it/caso-tecnis-garanzie-per-lavoratoristipendi-salvi-per-cantiere-metropolitana/317643/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/05/09/metropolitana-il-cronoprogramma-ufficiale/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuBz1jisTw http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/08/04/video-dentro-la-stazione-milo-della-metropolitana/ http://www.lurlo.info/it/metropolitana-di-catania-la-promessa-e-che-arrivi-a-meta-2016/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/11/20/metropolitana-da-lunedi-ingresso-con-abbonamento-solo-attraverso-titoli-elettronici/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neLDO5wjd-U http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/09/09/metro-stazione-stesicoro-piccoli-passi-avanti/ OFFICIAL PRESS CONFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikAFjN_hGc http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/07/27/fotometropolitana-stazione-di-via-milo-mancano-solo-i-lavori-di-completamento/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ShwoX9vaRM — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Google link doesn't work, can you try again (a link to the actual page rather than a Google redirect would be much better)? I have no doubt that the system is often called a metro, but that doesn't make it a metro. In my state the capital city's (Melbourne's) commuter system is called metro, a new tunnel called Melbourne Metro is being built, and the state government has just announced a 'Bendigo Metro', however, none of these qualify as actual metros, just as Catania may call itself a metro, but isn't one (yet). ColonialGrid (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Try this: http://oi64.tinypic.com/2wpp2l1.jpg

Not a metro, short and simple. With 4 trains per hour the Catania system has a capacity of 1768 people per hour per direction. A tram line has a larger capacity. When the southern expansion of the line opens and frequencies ramp up then we could look at adding it.Terramorphous (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly classifying a public transport network has become somewhat a “slippery subject”, due to tireless marketing efforts from both planners/manufacturers, who has to sell their product to municipal authorities, and political deciders, who has to “sell” their project to voters; hence the need to rely upon reliable, authoritative and unbiased sources. Sure UITP does have these features, and checking in its list is indubitably the best way to corroborate some network claims to be a metro; but unfortunately UITP list isn't free of charge, on-line available and this is a big issue from Wikipedia perspective: the only thing we can provide with a public link (an annual report synthesis: here the 2015 one, referring to 2014 data) is how many system they acknowledge as metro (numbers are aggregated by geographical area). The aforementioned “UITP metro world map” that is being repeatedly quoted in this talk and stated as a source for the article is an una tantum graphical work, drown in 2014 merely for an UITP seminar (as you can easily realize once you read the “news” page from which the image is taken); therefore, referring to this map as the definitive criterion to consider when you decide whether a system is actually a metro or not is rather inappropriate: since the image may not (and likely won't) be updated and might never show new items and later addenda or corrections, this way no more system could be added to the Wikipedia list. At the most, we can usefully employ UITP references that can be found on internet as a necessary condition: even if we aren't able to find a proof that a city is among the UITP list, we can't tell for sure it isn’t there. Consequently, the Wikipedia list need other sources upon which to base the judgment: I humbly suggest to use, alongside UITP and LRTA, the R. Schwandl (a well known and recognized author) site www.urbanrail.net and another qualified source just like a sort of electoral college: if at least three out of four of these sources agree in classifying a certain system as “a metro”, that system can be add to this Wikipedia list. I think the “fourth elector” could be the metrobits.org “World Metro Database”; although the main list is rather liberal (the site criteria page states “The Metrobits database includes full metro systems completely. But it also includes cities with metro-like sections ...”), clicking on and opening each city page you can see there's a record named System type which clearly indicate whether is counted as a real metro or not (by database authors): two example, one (Paris) that both the database and everyone thinks is actuality a metro; ad one (Haifa Carmelit) that hardly anyone could think it is a metro, and neither the database does.

Speaking about the latest controversy about Italian systems, it's undeniable that from an infrastructural point of view Catania doesn't lack anything: the line is built under heavy metro standard and everything allows real metro operations (line geometry, loading gauge, platform length, signalization, power supply, railway equipment, etc.). So this city case has nothing to do with those, like the Melbourne commuter rail network mentioned by ColonialGrid, where the infrastructure is per se inadequate to host a full-fledged metro service. It's true that, by now, the Catania line is blatantly short (3,8 km), but this was, officially and from the start, only a first phase of a wider project: issues, mistakes and misfortune have lead to an humungous delay, leaving the line in this temporary startup condition. Even the single track section is a pretend issue, amplified by the incomplete status of this metro: although rather unusual, single track outer portions (e.g. Bilbao L1 between Urduliz stop and Pletzia terminus) or short spur branches are not unseen. Contrariwise, the current service can be objectively deemed not enough to get the lower “metro” threshold in a lot of aspect (headway, global capacity, length, patronage, etc.) and is conceivable that someone object about it, but I think this situation could, very openhanded, be equated with service disruptions that can follow a major harmful occurrence: with the difference that in this case the “previous state of good repair” was only on paper (literally) and “restoration work” are progressing with a lazy snail pace. While there isn't a linkable support about UITP has actually added it now to its list, however you can find an indirect clue that this is really happened comparing their latest annual report synthesis with the previous one: in Europe area, metro systems have grown by one (from 45 to 46), notwithstanding no new metro was opened there during 2014. According to this foregoing considerations, and since LRTA, Urbanrail.net(note the red square and the bold letters for Catania) and Metrobits.org count Catania as a metro, an acceptable compromise could be to put Catania again in the Wikipedia list, adding an Nb note that clearly explain the situation. Otherwise (but personally I don't endorse this choice), at least put Catania in the “under construction” list, adding an Nb note that explain how a short section is already opened, but the current service isn't enough to satisfy “real metro” parameters. Excluding this city at all from the page in spite of a lot of positive circumstances, only because it was missed in a not up-to-date map or because someone think so, would be arbitrary and unfair. (93.57.250.62 talk 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

• I agree with the comment of the user 93.57.250.62 (above). ColonialGrid, you wrote (I quote from your text): "As I said earlier, the UITP classifies both these systems as metros, that is why they were in the list. I think they should probably remain in the list because a reliable sources claims them to be metros". So I assume that if proof is provided that UITP classifies Catania system as metro, you will agree to keep it in the list, am I right? Drunkpiper (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is the "bind" we're in that I mentioned upthread. It's clear that a number of the French, Italian and Spanish systems are in fact not "full metros", but are instead "light metros", because they don't meet the metro criteria of "high passenger capacities". (The same, incidentally, is likely true of Copenhagen too...) Despite this, as the IP points out, UITP especially, but also even LRTA sometimes, ignores this, and categorizes many of these systems as "metros" anyway. That is basically a joke in the cases of Rennes, Palma (serves 1.2 million passengers annually! heck! – there are streetcar systems that carry many times that number of passengers per year!), and Catania. However, this then gets tricky as to how to handle it... The "easiest" solution is probably ColonialGrid's – if you're listed as a "metro" by both UITP and LRTA, then "you're in!" And while it's "simple", and I probably won't object to it, going this route isn't necessarily accurate. The other route would be to list systems excluded from the list, along with supporting sourcing (e.g. there's at least one source that categories Palma as "light rail", etc.). At this point, I'm not sure I care what we do, as long as there is clear consensus behind whatever we choose to go with... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know whether Palma system should be in the list or not, but I'm quite sure it can't be classified as a "light rail" aka LRT. Palma de Majorca has two lines: the second one (M2) is a metro only by name, since it share tracks (not only the route) and alternate its departures with regional trains to Inca, Sa Pobla and Manacor; the other one (M1) has its own track and route in a completely segregated right-of-way, on which CAF trains (technical specifications by the manufacturer's official site, which groups them in “metro rolling stock”) run relying entirely on signalling: no street running, no interaction with road vehicles, no intersection with traffic lights, no line-of-sight operation; nothing you can regard to as LRT-ish (LRTs originate from tramways and belong to the same class) as you can see from this cab ride youtube video, which clearly show also how oversized is this infrastructure, even with its current ultra-high headway (15' during rush ours, 30' otherwise) and tiny supplied capacity (600 ppd/h off peak). At least, if someone strongly opposes to consider this line a metro, he can perhaps label the whole system as commuter/suburban railway; Palma urban area is not very wide and both line outer sections runs through low-density or even rural (M1 beyond Camí dels Reis stop, as you can seen in the video) otskirts. 93.57.251.133 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, both LRTA and UITP include the Catania metro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• IJBall, if, as you wrote, the most practical solution, and the one upon which there is more consensus, is to include a system in the list when: 1) Both LRTA and UITP list it as a metro; 2) There is no other conflicting source listing it as a "light metro"; then we should add Catania metro in the list, because it ticks both boxes. It would be discriminating not to do so. The User AndreaTartaglia posted a link ( http://oi64.tinypic.com/2wpp2l1.jpg ) providing proof that UITP includes it in their list. Moreover, as the User 93.57.250.62 pointed out, I reckon that there is a slight semantic misunderstanding about the criterion of "high passenger capacity". The word capacity denotes how much a system can carry, not how much it actually carries at the moment: i.e. it relates to the capacity of the infrastructure, which Catania's metro indeed has. Drunkpiper (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but passenger capacity is explicitly calculated using two factors: train capacity, and headways. That's why there's so much resistance to including Catania here (and note that it's not just me resisting including Catania: other editors are objecting to its inclusion in the list too): its 15 minute headways (due to the single-track section) pretty much rule it out as a metro. In general, systems with only 15 minute headways are considered to be "light rail" – all "full" metro systems have at least 10 minute headways during peak service (and many have headways with a lot higher frequencies than that!). But, until I can see that UITP does actually include Catania, I'm inclined to oppose including it. (Note: I am thinking about plunking down the €10 in order to get access to UITP's full metro database, to try and solve this issue long-term...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• So, what about this? --> http://oi64.tinypic.com/2wpp2l1.jpg --Drunkpiper (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Personal communications" are not considered a "reliable source" under Wikipedia policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• The reliable source is, obviously, the UITP database itself. It's the same with printed books: they are worth as a source, even if other users have to buy them (or make other money and time consuming efforts) in order to verify the content; Wikipedia allows to add an information based on a printed book, so it should be ok also for on-line pay published official sources as well. This official communications from UITP is merely the evidence that Catania actually is in the database: a not necessary, kind attempt to overcome the doubts of some skeptical editors here in the talk page, just like some printed book page scan could be the proof that a certain phrase is really written there. 93.57.251.133 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• But the sender of the e.mail is Uitp, is not a communication by anonymous people! If you don't believe that, buy the Uitp data.
• IJBall, I do not agree with your definition. A formal communication in proper layout, with UITP logo and footer, cannot be described as "Personal communication". The fact that it is addressed to a single recipient (the one who prompted it) doesn't make it less authoritative, and surely not "personal". Formal letters from Universities or workplaces are commonly used as proof of residency, for example. Of course, you could always argue that the jpeg in question is forged, but that would be assuming that the user that posted it is not acting bona fide. To other users: please sign your posts. --Drunkpiper (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2015: Updates on Metro Systems

Qingdao Metro Line 3 North Section has opened in December 2015, suggest that we move Qingdao Metro to the category of Metros in Service. Total number of stations: 10. Total length: 12 kilometers. Refernce: http://pic.gmw.cn/cameramanplay/253003/3710392/0/1.html , http://www.qd-metro.com/ . Shanghai Metro Line 11 Extension, Line 12 Extension and Line 13 Extension has opened on December 19th, 2015, recommend update the total length, total number of stations of Shanghai Metro. Total length: 617 kilometers, total number of stations: 366. Reference: http://www.shmetro.com/node49/201512/con114518.htm Jzhong0 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Terramorphous, as he's kind of this list's "Chinese metro systems" expert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Based on what I have read and seen the Qingdao Metro is indeed in operation. Line 2 and the rest of Line 3 will open next year.

N The website you posted citing 617km as the length of the Shanghai Metro includes the Maglev length. If you read further it says 617km is 588km of subway + 29km of Maglev.

Thank you, Jzhong0 for being civil and asking first before making edits. I hope this clears things up.Terramorphous (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Qingdao Metro moved from 'Under construction' list to the main list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nanchang Metro Line 1

Nanchang Metro Line 1 (Phase one) began its revenue service on Decemeber 26 2015, which make Nanchang the latest Chinese city to hava a rapid mass transit system. Nanchang Metro Line 1 covers a distance of 28.8km with 24 stations, the entire line goes underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.237.8.36 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging Seoul Metropolitan Subway lines

Seoul Metropolitan Subway is currently divided into 4 lines - Incheon Subway Line 1 - Seoul Subway (line 1-9), while in fact the operators for line 1-4, 5-8, and 9 are different - Korail lines - Shinbundang Line This list makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, when clicking on "Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9), you are redirected to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway with its 18 lines, so for a user perspective, this is deceptive. I understand the premise of different operators having separate lines, but in this case, here is how it should be spread out for Seoul : - Seoul Metro (Lines 1-4) - Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation (Lines 5-8) - Seoul Metro Line 9 Corporation (Line 9) And it's not even that simple, part of Line 9 is operated by Seoul Metro. Even though, you could say that they are the "numbered lines", and should be treated as one under the tag "Seoul Subway (Lines 1-9)". But then, you'd have to exclude parts of lines 1, 3 and 4 which are operated by Korail, so this already gets out of hands. And finally, a new line Ui LRT, opening this year in Seoul city proper will also be operated by a new operator : UiTrans. So, should you create yet another category for this line, operated by a private company and not numbered like the other subway lines?

Then you have the so called "Korail lines". Back in the days, these were mostly on ground-level tracks with little connections to the subway (line 1-9), but now, these Korail lines are mostly underground, and some are now vital to central Seoul (Bundang Line and Gyeongui–Jungang Line). And on top of that you would have to take into considerations parts of lines 1, 3 and 4 operated by Korail.

Then, there is a separate post for Incheon Subway Line 1 (which is of course part of Seoul Metropolitan Subway). But if there must be specific distinctions between cities, you would have to create a separate line for Everline (operated by Yongin Rapid Transit Corporation) in Yongin, and [[U Line] (operated by Uijeongbu LRT Corporation) in Uijeongbu.

Then you have Shinbundang Line, operated by NeoTrans Co. Ltd.. But NeoTrans Co. Ltd. will also operate the Everline starting this summer. So should we count them together as one once NeoTrans becomes the operator (even though the lines don't connect at any point?), or keep it city specific ?

And finally, the AREX, operated by yet another company, Korea Airport Railroad.

There is only one thing sure, the entire system is about 1000km, and there is no single way to divide it be it by city, operator,... but with the existing way of calculating it, there are only 502.8km accounted for. The most important thing is to be comprehensive and take into consideration these 497 or so missing kilometers. If you want to go operator or city-specific, you'll end up with even more lines on the table, and it will be impossible for anyone to understand anything about the size of the subway system.

Finally, there is the usual Paris Metro / Reseau Express Regional dichotomy (Paris) or the Toei Subway / Tokyo Metro (Tokyo) one. Seoul does NOT have Paris's dichotomy. There is no RER-like rail line in Seoul, they are all true subways. There is actually a RER-like project for Seoul (GTX), further reinforcing the fact that the existing subway is NOT a regional rapid transit or commuter rail line (unlike GTX). For Tokyo, the systems are separate, with their own maps, their own pricing system, the unability to transfer between systems (at least for single fare passengers), so it does make sense to separate them. In Seoul, no one even knows who the operator is as the transition is seamless between lines and operators.

So, given the fact that the entire system is operated by many operators, it seems impossible to account for all 999.5km of subway by dividing it into 7 or 8 operators, rendering the information overly complex and useless for wiki users. Kimahrikku (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How is Line 1 and Gyeongui–Jungang Line not RER-like line they are high frequency crosstown surface commuter rail lines feeding into a central city tunnel they even have express stopping patterns. In addition most Korail lines are not even underground the Gyeongchun Line runs overground for its entire 80km with trains coming every 20-30min in the other sections. The same can be said for Gyeongui Line, Jungang Line, Gyeongbu Line etc. which are overground and carry significant intercity regional, high speed and freight traffic.Terramorphous (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We're back to this again? How boring... The quickest answer is this: look at the UITP source that lists the "10 largest metro systems in the world", and then look at the quoted length for Seoul's "metro" system – for Seoul, it's about 400–450km of system length NOT 1000km. Also note that the other UITP source we use specifically excludes including suburban "RER" or "S-Bahn" type systems in the "metro" definition. So, not only is the consensus on this article clear on this subject, it's actually fully supported by sourcing. So, no – we're not going to change this because the Seoul posters have their feelings hurt that Seoul isn't universally acknowledged as "the biggest and the bestest metro in the world". (Consider this my one and only comment I'm going to make on this topic...) P.S. No, Incheon is not truly "part" of the Seoul metro system: it's not owned by Seoul, but by Incheon city – we've already been over this: check the Talk archives. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, way to start a conversation "We're back to this again? How boring...", and implying I was a crybaby who just wanted to see Seoul be #1. I thought senior members were supposed to show good faith and be welcoming... I actually respect Terramorphous's point because it's actually a point, taking into consideration the reality of the network rather than an answer like yours, that doesn't dive into the subject matter but just mentions the existing "consensus" in a dogmatic way (a consensus that went back and forth for months, that has been challenged, and that is further challenged by the integration of U Line and Everline into the main price scheme with actual transfer stations starting from 2014). Terramorphous is right, Gyeongui-Jungang Line is a bit like a RER line, so is the Gyeongchun line. But that's going down the rabbit hole. Line 1 mostly serve the same purpose (mostly overground, extends the farthest out of Seoul), and Line 4 is overground for about half its length... So, should they be excluded to ? Line 9 also has an Express Service that is more popular than the regular service ? Should we exclude it too because express service points to a RER-type line ? On the other hand, the Suin line is included in your calculation for Korail lines. It's probably the least "subway-like" lines of all : fully overground, not actually running in Seoul proper, with a headway of about 10 minutes. It will change by late 2017 once it's integrated with Bundang line, but not yet, so following you reasoning, I would be on the fence about including it or not... And inconsistencies don't end there. I don't have a problem with Everline being left out, it can qualify as an MCS and be listed as such. But the U-Line is pretty much the same system as the Toulouse metro, listed here. So either U-Line has to be in, or Toulouse has to go away. And again, while the "consensus" was reached, the line functioned out of the main system, which isn't the case anymore, it's now fully integrated. So I don't see why it should be exlcuded. Also, let's admit that the lines you want excluded from the system are indeed excluded (AREX, Gyeonggui-Jungang, Gyeongchun...), why are they not included in the List of suburban and commuter rail systems either ? I'm not saying you have authority on the other page, but what if I go over there and add these lines and they get deleted because they consider it subway ? I'm not dogmatic, I'm not advocating for Seoul to be #1, but I believe the current classification is arbitrary, not comprehensive (with Korail lines being in neither lists), and overall doesn't reflect the reality of the network. And please don't just mention the consensus. It hadn't always been this way, and you were actually one of the people advocating for the split. It's your right and you made good arguments, but that doesn't "settle it once and for all" because there were quite a few people not sharing your point of view. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimahrikku (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the reply you got from IJBall, he is a very good editor that is really devoted to the Wikipedia project. However, these past years have there have been a handful really tenacious editors with very strong South Korean POV pushing agenda trying to game the system and hijack the current consensus to say the Seoul Metro is the largest and busiest subway in the world. This has really worn out a lot of good editors around here. I would gladly add those lines into the list of commuter rail systems. I just assumed they are already there. I mean the the commuter rail page already has pictures of the korail commuter train.Terramorphous (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read your posts on the Talk archives and although our opinions might differ, you always seem to make reasonable and well thought out plans. As you can see, I'm not trying to push an agenda. I'm okay with Everline not being including, and I can live with KORAIL lines being listed as List of suburban and commuter rail systems. That's not the decision I would make, but it does have some grounds. However, I must say I still find IJBall's answer slightly condescending, swooping away my arguments just saying WP:Original research and not actually explaining his reasoning. I understand that being an editor can be a burden at times, but I'd appreciate a more collaborative reaction Kimahrikku (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything you seem to be advocating above is basically WP:Original research. That's why we try to follow sourcing as much as possible here, and at Medium-capacity rail transport system. Otherwise, this is just going to turn into a mess, as it was for several years at this article not very long ago. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please also see my reaction to Terramorphous's post just above. I don't really get the WP:Original research argument. If you look at the logic behind my post, I'm pointing out at what I believe are inconsistencies in the reasoning behind including/excluding certain lines, only using well known facts. And then I'm asking questions about how to solve this, with forcing onto people the way I would divide or amalgamate lines. So, you said I used WP:Original research. All of my points are facts : Line 1 is underground between City Hall and Cheongnyanni (so that's about 7km out of 200). It goes the farthest away from Seoul because it leaves Gyeonggi-do and goes all the way to Chungcheong-do. Now on to my point about Line 4 : it's only underground between Beomgye and Suyu, so that's about 40% of the line aboveground. Seoul Subway Line 9 having Express Service is also absolutely true. I also mentioned the Suin Line. It is completely aboveground, is not within Seoul city proper (runs through Incheon, Siheung and will extend to Ansan, Hwaseong and Suwon once completed). And the final fact that I raised is that U-Line uses the Véhicule Automatique Léger that runs on the Toulouse Metro (as well as the Lille Metro and Rennes Metro, all included in this list of metro systems). You might disagree with my interrogations and conclusions, but please don't slap/discard my premises as WP:Original research while they are actual facts that can't be sourced easily.Kimahrikku (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, I will be editing the Shinbundang Line information, because the line was extended on January 30th

PS: so one of the Korean POV pushers just blanked out Seoul's entries from the List of suburban and commuter rail systems to further his all Seoul rail lines are subway lines narrative. I will be putting them back.Terramorphous (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Until the situation is completely settled on what's in and what's not on the List of metro systems, this seems like the right thing to do. Thank you for volunteering to put them back.Kimahrikku (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Including Daegu Subway Line 3

Daegu Subway Line 3 does use monorail technology. But it is an integral part of the Daegu Subway system. While most monorail lines stand alone (amusement park, airport link...) or are separated from the rest of the subway grid, Daegu Subway Line 3, has hinted by its name, is part of the subway, with two transfer stations. The only similar example that I can think of is Chongqing Rail Transit, with 4 total lines : 2 underground subway lines and 2 monorail lines that are fully integrated (transfer, price, subway maps...). And the 2 monorail lines of Chongqing Rail Transit are included in the total for the number of stations and length of the entire system, so it should be the same for Daegu Subway Line 3 Kimahrikku (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter – it's long-standing practice here to only include lines that are "definitionally metro" (for obvious reasons). There a number of city rail systems that are a "mix" of metro & monorail, or metro & light rail – we only include the lines that meet the definition of "metro" in the stats here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Also, if monorails are being included for the total for Chongqing Rail Transit, they need to be removed – I generally leave the checking of the Chinese systems to other editors. But if it's true that monorails are being included in Chonqqing, they need to be taken out from here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• What is your definition of "definitely subway" ? Chicago L is mostly elevated and so is Dubai Metro (13km underground out of 75 kilometers total, most is elevated), yet they are "definitionally metro" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimahrikku (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• UITP Definition I found : A metro is an urban guided transport system, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short headways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows. Besides the above criteria, lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of minimum two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers. [...] Systems that are based on light rail, monorail or magnetic levitation technology are included if they meet all other criteria(http://metroautomation.org/daegu-line-3-a-new-automated-line-for-south-korea/). Daegu subway line 3 is grade-separated, with exclusive right of way, has two tracks, trains have 3 cars, for a capacity ranging between 265 and 398 people, with a headway ranging from 3 to 5.5 minutes. Trains run from 5:30 to midnight. So it fits the UITP definition perfectly... Kimahrikku (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, you are going to have to convince all of the other editors of this article on this to change the consensus. The current consensus is to not to include monorails – there is a separate list for those anyway: List of monorail systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not advocating for merging all monorails here. I'm fully aware of the existence of the list. And I believe other Seoul area monorails Incheon Airport Maglev and Wolmido Monorail (still unopened) deserve to be monorails, I'm not biased. But just look at the List of monorail systems, and sort it out by number of stations or by total length or analyze their connectivity with other lines. Most monorails have less than 10 stations, short trains, low frequency, and are either used as the sole rail-based public transport system in medium-sized cities or people movers (airport connectivity, amusement parks, expos). But, there are two major exceptions, Daegu and Chongjing. They represent a new generation of monorail that doesn't function like a monorail, but serves the functions of an elevated subway. First of all, they are pretty much the only two lines classified as Monorails but have a numbered subway line denomination. Then, they are longer than other lines by a wide margin, with more stops, short headways and higher capacity. Comparing these to other monorails is like comparing apples to oranges. These two monorails are, for all intents and purposes, elevated subways. They only differ from elevated subways from a technology point of view. This is pretty much the same technological difference as (for underground subways) rubber-tyred metro and regular metros. I strongly believe that there is no consensus here because the consensus was reached before people realized that there were new breeds of monorails in Daegu and Chongjing that didn't conform with the image of monorails that people had then. So I would like to open up the debate. Because I believe that this new mode of transportation (monorails-technologically, functionality of elevated railways, integration into the rest of the subway infrastructure) will become more prevalent in the future. In any case, even if the idea of putting Daegu Subway Line 3 on this list is rejected, there would then be no valid ground for including Line 2, Chongqing Rail Transit and Line 3, Chongqing Rail Transit in the list. So this matter has to be settled one way or the other Kimahrikku (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right – List of monorail systems is kind of a mess. I am not promising that I'll tackle it, but someone needs to: the very first entry in that table from Australia should almost certainly be taken out. In short, the main list at List of monorail system needs to be pruned down to just monorail systems used for true public transit, like Chongqing's two lines. Supplementary lists for non-public transit monorails can be kept at that page too, if so desired. But the main list needs to focus on true public transit monorails. But the distinction in transit modes between monorails and metros is not trivial, and should not be ignored (at least, not without wide consensus here first, and not without supporting sourcing). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answer. I'm not saying the distinction is trivial and it should indeed be considered attentively, as you mentioned. There is one thing that is absolutely sure. Daegu and Chongjing monorail lines have to be treated equally. Does that mean excluding both of them from this list, including them in both list or only including them in this list, I don't know. I would be on the side of including these two systems in List of metro systems. As I mentioned, UITP considers it as such (http://metroautomation.org/daegu-line-3-a-new-automated-line-for-south-korea/), and be it Daegu Subway or Chongqing Rail Transit, excluding them shatters what is actually an ubiquitous and integrated system. I'm not an authority on all subway / elevated subway / monorail lines, but consider the Chicago "L". You would agree that the system is fully integrated. However, Green Line (CTA) is fully elevated, yet for obvious reasons, it is included in the List of Metro Systems (I'm sure there are other examples of fully elevated lines being included in metro systems on this page as well, but you probably know that better than I do). Well, the Daegu Subway and Chongqing Rail Transit would fall under the same categorization. Whether the line is underground, elevated, or monorail-elevated, the service is similar on all lines in Daegu, Chongqing and Chicago. Excluding Daegu Subway and Chongqing Rail Transit while including Green Line (CTA) because the track consists of one rail/beam instead of one on each side of the train is I believe arbitrary. It was okay to think of monorails separately when they were single cars getting people from the airport to an other station 5km away every 15 minutes, but not anymore when we have these 30kh-long, 30 stations, 4-minute headways monorails that offer multiple transfer stations with the other stations on the subway network. Best regards, Kimahrikku (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• The distinction isn't "underground" vs. "elevated" – fully elevated lines are "metro" if they run on two rails, are fully grade-separated, and have high passenger capacities. That is just a difference in line "character". The distinction is "metro" vs. "monorail" – they're actually different transit modes. Chicago's Green Line is the former, but Daegu and Chongqinq are the latter. FWIW, I intend to take the monorail lines out from Chongqinq's stats, if no one here objects, as that's exactly what we do with Daegu and Kuala Lumpur, etc. Also, I know you found one UITP document that states that they "count" monorails, etc. in with metros internally in the case of UITP's counting of some systems, but I've found other UITP docs that make no mention of this, and for example LRTA counts them separately, as does APTA, and the consensus here has always been that we should treat them as distinct transportation modes and not include monorails here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree here with Kimahrikku. Specifically because the Daegu Metro System includes all three lines. This is a list of metro systems, therefore it would be original research to split the system into 2 categories. The definition you cited above said "mostly on rails", so this would still qualify, as most of the Daegu Metro System is on rails. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I too am tempted to agree, there seems to be an explosion of Metro grade rapid transit systems that are based on the Hitachi and Bombardier Monorail platforms. For example Chongqing's monorail is capable of carrying 32,000 people per hour per direction. I have also heard São Paulo's Monorail is also capable of some impressive numbers.Terramorphous (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm of the same mind with Mattximus and Terramorphous on this regard. Moreover, I strongly disagree whit IJBall last statement: “monorail” isn't stricto sensu a transit mode, but rather a technology related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. It's indeed true that, for decades after its second appearance (in the late 1950s, with ALWEG and SAFEGE systems), monorail technology occupied a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but lower capacity and a less wide serviced area (a connector, from point-to-point to district/facility service) - and therefore tends to be associated with these characteristics, but during the last few years things are changed a lot, and now there are several monorail lines (existing and U/C) that not only match UITP definition of metro/rapid transit, but their technical specifications are also closer to lines/networks listed here than to those monorails I spoke before (saving, of course, the guidance/support subsystems). Being a fairly recent trend, lack of consistency about how to deal with these systems among international organizations and transportation experts is not strange at all.

Quite frankly, I'm not a huge monorail supporter, and IMHO all this spreading diffusion of monorails in some Countries is only a transient hype, since both suspended and straddle-beam monorails have some major disadvantages compared to conventional rail systems, and only local circumstances can overcome this; nevertheless, I think that whenever a monorail line has typical metro aspects (in term of capacity, commercial speed, serviced area, etc.), it should be counted into the metro/rapid transit class (and therefore in this list), in the same way of rubber-tired systems, as a technical variant of the more common RRT (rail rapid transit) mode. Yak79 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, if people want to include Monorails in the list here, then an official RfC should be held at this Talk page to establish the consensus for that. It will need to run for 30 days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not “monorails” in general, only those lines/networks that adopt a monorail technology (one of several which are available) and

- comply with UITP definition, by having overall metro features (primarily in terms of capacity, serviced area and type of service);

- are perceived/regarded in their city's metro network as as a proper part of an integrated system (when this criterion is applicable).

Exploring consensus from a wider audience is usually the right thing to do; but “monorails” topic is well known to be highly divisive, with large mob of pugnacious zealots in both “lovers” side and “haters” side: I'm afraid that drawing attention on our urbane debate will lead to a large commotion and then to achieving nothing at all. However, since it seems our divergence of opinion can't be composed otherwise, there’s nothing else to do than launching this official RfC and keeping our fingers crossed. Yak79 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Yak79, and also echo sentiments from Terramorphous, Kimahrikku. It's not that every monorail needs to be included on this list, just ones that are part of or make up a metro system. Metros have different technologies, but function as rapid transit systems in similar ways, which is what this list is all about. This list should not exclude a technological choice (Montreal Metro uses rubber tires!), if it fulfils the roll of a metro system. It seems we have a general consensus here, would an RfC be necessary? Mattximus (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fine if that's the consensus. But I strongly think an RfC needs to held on this to establish that "officially" (no one can really argue against this change down the line if an official RfC was closed with the result to include monorails). This is a pretty big change from the current (consensus) practice at this list, so it really requires an RfC IMO. Whoever drafts the RfC will need to be careful with the wording of the question – it either needs to include all monorail lines that are attached to current metro systems, or the question should include the list of specific monorail lines and systems that are to be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but the wording isn't that important. It's quite simple. Any monorail line that is an integral part of the metro system should be included on the list of metro systems. An example to cite would be Daegu Subway Line 3, which should absolutely be included in this list. Mattximus (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Include Newark City Subway in Newark, NJ, USA

As mentioned on another Wiki page for the Newark Light Rail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Light_Rail

"The Newark City Subway service is the longer and older of the two segments.[7] The line is a "subway-surface" light rail line which runs underground downtown and above-ground in outlying areas. Before becoming a part of the Newark Light Rail service, it was also known as the #7-City Subway line, an NJT Bus Operations route number that still applies internally (during system closures, buses would also bear the number "7 City Subway")."

Since this subway was created in 1935, it has historical significance. Also, it allows commuters to reach Penn Station in Newark, which is the largest station in New Jersey and provides rail and bus service to Manhattan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.10.121.5 (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That system is very much an example of a subway-surface light rail. Yes, the portion downtown is in tunnels, but the other end is at grade, and has multiple grade crossings. Plus it's in no way sufficiently high-capacity, as it uses light rail rolling stock in single car trains. Newark Light Rail is on the light rail list where isn't belongs. (Disclosure, I've ridden this system extensively.) oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Metro Vienna

The opening of the Vienna metro system is indicated in this list in 1976. This is true for the "U-Bahn". But in fact, the "Stadtbahn" already had metro standards long before. Several lines of the "Stadtbahn" was opened in 1898 as a steam line. After WW1 taken over by the City of Vienna, electrified and operated by metro standards from 1925 (exclusive right of way, no shared tracks with other trains; although some hybrid metro-tramway-traffic until 1945). From 1976 to 1989, the Stadtbahn-System was integrated into the U-Bahn. See the Wikipedia-Article for Sources: Wiener Stadtbahn. Therefore I would ask for changing the opening year of the Vienna Metro System to 1925 --Daniel-tbs (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A potential problem here is that the operator did not consider the system a "metro." It used tramway-type cars - so that if ever the Austrian federal railway system decided to take back the "Stadtbahn" system (which the municipal system operated under lease for the first several years of operation post-WWI), the cars could be used on the "surface" lines. Also, statistics (route length, passengers) were included with "tramway" statistics. "Metro standards" are generally understood to include "high" (car-floor-level) platforms, and this the Stadtbahn did not have until integration into the U-Ban system. One part of the former stadtbahn system continues to use overhead current collection and low-floor cars. So 1925 as the opening year of the U-Bahn would be going out on a limb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.114.13 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridership statistics

"There is a major discrepancy between the ridership figures: some metro systems count transferring between lines as multiple journeys, but others do not."

This is an Americanism - the sort of thing that Wikipedia editors might do well to avoid.

"Most" metro systems outside the U.S. count "passenger journeys" (also known as "originating passengers," "fare passengers," "revenue passengers," "paid passengers" and so forth). This was once the practice in the U.S. as well - but not since the 1970s. This system makes sense - "most" passenger rail systems outside the U.S. do this as well. There are probably exceptions outside the U.S., but not many.

The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that all U.S. transit systems count "boardings." In other words, a person gets counted each time s/he boards a vehicle. This makes good sense given the practical problem of accounting for pass use - in the American context.

Transit systems outside of the U.S. do issue passes, and do share the problem of accounting for use of passes. But many, if not most, large European operators conduct comprehensive annual (or biennial) passenger surveys that American systems do not. It is easier - and cheaper - to count "boardings" than it is to conduct European-style passenger surveys to determine (among other things) the "annual average" number of passenger journeys per weekly pass, monthly pass and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.114.16 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Seville

There is a metro line in Seville, Spain... Grijalvo (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

There is a metro being built in Tel Aviv. See Tel Aviv Light Rail should be added to the list of projects under construction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.241.1 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The system is light rail, not a metro. Valenciano (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Palma Metro

Should this be included? One of the lines shares tracks with commuter rail services. Valenciano (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, as per previous discussions – 1.2 million annual passengers isn't even close to qualifying as a "metro"-level system, and the M1 line's trains are tiny. AFAICT, Palma's system is basically a glorified people mover (even more than Rennes' is...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

| style="text-align:left" | 203 | 340 km (210 mi) | 2451 (2014)

Hackmac27 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NgYShung ^huh? 10:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016

I noticed a little bug was left after the last revision of "DocKlands Light Railway" row, made by Oknazevad a week ago (17 Sept.): he miss to add |rowspan=2| to both "london" and "flag|UK" cells, damaging the table formatting.

93.32.79.93 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tyne & Wear missing from the list

Hi there, I noticed that the T&W Metro is missing from the list, but is one of the three UK metro systems - it is pointed out on the World Map. Anyone able to add this in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidesix (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"three" UK systems ?

• London
• Liverpool
• Glasgow

Tyne & Wear makes 4.

It's been discussed, ad nauseum. See the archives as to why it's not included. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NYC, Shanghai, Beijing, and Mexico City

Apparently all the above cities' metro systems have given two different statistics for each respective system (the totals counting interchange stations as one station, as well as the totals counting all platform sets in a interchange station separately). So I've gone with the highest number in these four cases. epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Earliest underground passenger railway

The article states that the London underground as being the earliest (2 places) but it wasn't as the Metropolitan Underground Railway was - which is now part of LU. Please remedy this factual error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.0.189 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a factual error. It's the same system, just grown in size and scope. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hefei Metro Line 1 open to public

Chinese city Hefei became the lastest Chinese city to have a rapid transit system when its first metro line began public service on December 26, 2016. Phase one and two of Heifei Metro Line 1, which is open to public now, have a total length of 24.58KM with 23 underground stations and the entire system goes underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.246.26.29 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yamanote/Overground/MKZhD/Docklands

Why Docklands is listed? Technically it's rapid tram system, just like Moscow Metro Line 13. It's not listed for that reason. While Overground is a pure metro system. Just like Yamanote Line or Moscow Metro Line 14. They all should be listed. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Docklands is a Light Metro system its pretty much similar to the Vancouver Skytrain or Copenhagen metro. From what I understand the Moscow Metro Line 13 is just a low capacity monorail that just got re-branded as part of the Moscow Metro. Overground is not a metro system but a commuter or rail system. It has diesel trains and shares track with national rail passenger and freight trains. The Yamanote Line and Moscow Metro line 14 seem to be high end / metropolitan railway lines. I am not very familiar with the Moscow Metro Line 14 but it does seem to be a frequent commuter rail line built from recovered old railways not a metro line.Terramorphous (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Docklands is NOT a light metro. It's like rail. Light metro is heavy rail. That is Moscow metro line 12. Docklands is a class of rapid tram (light rail) similar to Moscow monorail. Yamanote and MCC are full metropolitan, not commuter, railways those should be listed. Most of LO as well. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Docklands is at worst a light metro, which is not heavy rail rapid transit. London Overground is a diesel-powered commuter rail system. Period. The others are simply put commuter rail systems tied into the national rail network and sharing tracks with other intercity and commuter lines. You really don't know what you're talking about. Such easily verified errors as these have no place in this list. Repeating an error doesn't make it any more correct. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Light metro is heavy rail, light rail is not. The term stands for financially light metro - elevated, rather than expensive tunneling, with shorter, but still conventional heavy rail trains. Most Paris Metro is light metro. Docklands is light rail. It's either shouldn't be listed then. And doesn't matter whatever it diesel power or electrical. This is a list of metropolitan railways. Those are not commuter railways. Rapid transit is an american term that doesn't have to do anything with this article. It's about metro systems. Elk Salmon (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what "light metro" means. Again, not correct. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if so - Yamanote and Encircle lines do not share tracks with commuter lines. Yamanote goes alongside some commuter lines, but it's completely by its own. Both goes far deep inside the city, so they are not commuter. Elk Salmon (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Moscow Central Circle doesn't share tracks with freight/other rail during working hours (there's also 3rd set of tracks for a part of route for freight) It never leaves urban core. It doesn't have anything resembling a terminal. It's underground/overground for a large part of its route. It doesn't have level crossings with anything. How is it not a Metro? Ilyak (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note - The London Overground is large-majority Electric, only one section (Gospel Oak - Barking) uses Diesel trains, and they are in the process of electrifying the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidesix (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

But it sti shares tracks with National Rail. That's why it's commuter, not metro. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro

This isn't on here, is the UK's other metro system in and around the city of Newcastle194.60.38.217 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro is a light rail.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As is the Docklands Light Railway.JoeyofScotia (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

London Overground

How come London Overground isn't included on this list? Surely it counts as a metro system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.202.58 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's commuter rail. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Please update the following data on the Lisbon metro with the latest data for 2016:

Year of last expansion - 2016

Stations - 56

System length - 44.1 km

Ridership - 153.2 million (2016) Jindungo (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated. /FG42~enwiki (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Moscow Metro has expended in line length with the new Moscow Central Circle, or line 14 of the Metro.

Moscow Central Circle Московское центральное кольцо Circle 2016 (1907)[Note 7] 2016 54km 31 Stations

Current ( metro length is 346.2km and 206 Stations (old metro infrastructure). New lines should add 54km and 6 stations (for line 14), and 4.7km and 6km in new stations for Monorail/Metro line 13. The total metro length is now 404.9km, and 253 Stations. Building started after 2004 and completely in 2016. 24.68.144.119 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Moscow Metro Circle Line, know as line 14 is part of the Moscow Metro system, it is included in all the official metro maps and it runs as a metro service, it DOES NOT run as a S-Bahn/Suburban rail system but as a dedicate metro line. My earlier edit was strangely deleted. I would prefer if you didn't even bother citing to old length of 346.1km and 206 stations, just re-edit it to 400.2km and 246 Stations with the Monorail, and ensure the monorail is counted in the line length, if you decide not to include the Monorail for some strange reason the station number is 237. You must include ALL metro's in your system length and stations, you cannot exclude line 14. Please fix this. Note to editor, my editing skill in coding is poor, I will leave it up to you to fix it and include the proper Metro stats, if you have any questions email me at slovak420@gmail.com .

Change MEtro 346.1km to 400.2km, change 206 stations to 237, or 243 provided you also count the Monorail in the total metro km's.

Change this: 24.68.144.119 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The monorail is omitted because it appears at List of monorails. The Circle Line is omitted (as it always has been) because it shares tracks with other mainline services and is not listed as a metro line by reliable sources (the Yamanote Line in Tokyo, which is quite comparable, is also not listed for the same reasons.) oknazevad (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818051401/http://metro.gov.az/en/page/two.html to http://www.metro.gov.az/en/page/two.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925131035/http://www.metro.df.gov.br/sobre-o-metro/memoria.html to http://www.metro.df.gov.br/sobre-o-metro/memoria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110164657/http://www.cbtu-sturec.gov.br/?page_id=172 to http://www.cbtu-sturec.gov.br/?page_id=172
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926181613/http://www.france.fr/en/paris-and-its-surroundings/brief-history-paris-metro to http://www.france.fr/en/paris-and-its-surroundings/brief-history-paris-metro
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021153320/http://www.hochbahn.de/wps/portal/de/home/hochbahn/unternehmen/historie/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_QI5C5I930GON002FVCDEUT00A7000000_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnect%2Fde%2Fhome%2Fhochbahn%2Funternehmen%2Fhistorie%2F to http://www.hochbahn.de/wps/portal/de/home/hochbahn/unternehmen/historie/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_QI5C5I930GON002FVCDEUT00A7000000_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnect%2Fde%2Fhome%2Fhochbahn%2Funternehmen%2Fhistorie%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021154907/http://www.hochbahn.de/wps/portal/de/home/hochbahn/unternehmen/die_hochbahn/unternehmen_auf_einen_blick?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_QI5C5I930GON002FVCDEUT00Q4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnect%2Fde%2Fhome%2Fhochbahn%2Funternehmen%2Fdie_hochbahn%2Funternehmen_auf_einen_blick to http://www.hochbahn.de/wps/portal/de/home/hochbahn/unternehmen/die_hochbahn/unternehmen_auf_einen_blick?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_QI5C5I930GON002FVCDEUT00Q4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnect%2Fde%2Fhome%2Fhochbahn%2Funternehmen%2Fdie_hochbahn%2Funternehmen_auf_einen_blick
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012211621/http://www.bresciamobilita.it/news/parte-la-metro-2-marzo-2013 to http://www.bresciamobilita.it/news/parte-la-metro-2-marzo-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511103205/http://www.anm.it/default.php?ids=3& to http://www.anm.it/default.php?ids=3&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014104236/http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/operacion/cifrasoperacion.html to http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/operacion/cifrasoperacion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503195921/http://www.elmetrodepanama.com/linea1.php to http://www.elmetrodepanama.com/linea1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001130512/http://bmcl.listedcompany.com/misc/ar/20150305-bmcl-ar2014-en.pdf to http://bmcl.listedcompany.com/misc/ar/20150305-bmcl-ar2014-en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329085911/http://www.adana.bel.tr/rayli-sistem-projesi-sayfa.html to http://www.adana.bel.tr/rayli-sistem-projesi-sayfa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524014002/http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/route-statistics.pdf to http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/route-statistics.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716045856/http://www.metrodecaracas.com.ve/mapa_rutas/mapa_met_mbus.html to http://www.metrodecaracas.com.ve/mapa_rutas/mapa_met_mbus.html

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) 05:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

please add gautrain

The article is not allowed to be edited, but it is wanting...

Please note that the Gautrain is not included, and it should be. It meets the criteria as set out in your article:

The International Association of Public Transport (L'Union Internationale des Transports Publics, or UITP) defines metro systems as urban passenger transport systems, "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic".[6][7]

Details as follows:

Primary City = Johannesburg

System Name = Gautrain

Route Length = 80km

Stations = 10

Opened = 2010

Annual Passengers = 31.7 million

Last Extension/Expansion = 2012

The Gautrain also extends to Pretoria, which makes the article on Algiers being Africa's second capital city to have a metro after Cairo inaccurate. The Rosebank to Hatfield north-south commuter line opened in August 2011 - a full 3 months before Algiers, making that city the third capital city in Africa - after Cairo and Pretoria - to have a metro.

Can an administrator please make the necessary changes to the list and the map?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.122.161 (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been discussed before, and the conclusion was that it falls under commuter rail. Please see the talk page archives. oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be wrong, and I would suggest that it needs further discussion (again). Prasa's Metrorail service functions as commuter rail. Which group made that determination, and what was it based on other than a casual discussion? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia lacks the academic rigours to be a reliable source. Pity, as the info is usually so good – except in this case:

1. Assuming that you are an administrator, I reiterate, your own article shows the criteria for inclusion, and I repeat: The International Association of Public Transport (L'Union Internationale des Transports Publics, or UITP) defines metro systems as urban passenger transport systems, "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic".[6][7]

2. Opening line of Gautrain article on Wikipedia: Gautrain is an 80-kilometre (50 mi) mass rapid transit railway system in Gauteng, South Africa, which links Johannesburg, Pretoria, Ekhuruleni and O. R. Tambo International Airport.

3. Definition of mass transit railway system on Wikipedia as it links from Gautrain article: Rapid transit, also known as heavy rail, metro, subway, tube, or underground, is a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas.[1][2][3] Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort,[4] and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways. Your own articles contradict themselves. And finally, impassioned pleas from Wikipedia:

4. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The article clearly needs improvement.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.122.161 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Admins actually have no more formal say in content than any other user, they're just trusted with certain tools to ensure the smooth running of the place. That said, as the one seeking to add the system, please find a reliable source (not a Wikipedia article) specifically calling it a metro and I will drop any objection (heck, I'll add it myself.). oknazevad (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

http://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/mashhad-metro-line-2-opens.html http://www.metro-report.com/news/metro/single-view/view/mashhad-airport-metro-link-open.html www.raillynews.com/2016/extension-of-mashhad-airport-metro-link-opens/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

Add "(BART)" next to SF's Bay Area Rapid Transit Miratamara (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Done None of the other systems listed have parenthesized abbreviations, but since MARTA and SEPTA are listed without spelling them out, I just piped the link to read "BART". – Train2104 (t • c) 23:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chongqing monorail

Why Chongqing metro including monorail? Ok, its part of Chongqing Rail Transit, but Line 2 and line 3 is not a metro, like line 13 in Moscow or line 15 San Paulo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.232.47.236 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)