Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Osaka's figure

Original figure was 957million without source, and I wonder where it comes from. From the following two sources, I could only add up the figure to 880million and I amended it. If anyone have support to the other 100million passenger, feel free to reverse my changes.

Osaka subway statistics

Osaka monorail patronage

--Jeremy1897 05 May 2005

Objection to deletion

I object to the proposed deletion, for two reasons:

1. In spite of the fact that this article was not created by me, I was trying to improve the citation in past few days (see history, 61.10.12.41 and 222.166.160.89 are from my computer). Please have patience while amateurs are putting effort.
2. And secondly, information without verification is not entirely meaningless. Readers are warned of the lack of source, so they should be aware of it when reading or using it. This article at least gives readers general idea about which city's subway system got most passengers (and true figures would not be too far away), which should be important as far as a comprehensive encyclopedia is concerned.

To say the least, I could show to you whether the ranking is correct or not. But to verify whether the figures are correct or not, again, takes time. --Jeremy1897 07 May 2005

No reason to delete. Disagreements are not a reason for deletion. For the ones where the accuracy is doubted, simply put {fact} or add your own source and include the year. Many, if not all of these entities should have official websites, with press releases and ridership information. As I don't speak Russian, Japanese, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, French, Cantonese, this might be difficult for awhile, until we get help from some Wikipedian polyglots. I'm trying to add some sources myself; help would be appreciated. User:129.7.152.56 14 May 2005

Rail systems

Rail systems? What about national rail systems? Places like India, Japan, France would have thousands of stations. I don't think it's the best term to use. - Randwicked 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Source

What is the source for this? Marskell 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Lastest revise by Metropolitan

At 21:38, 14 May 2006, someone added some 500 million patronage (from KCRC, a so-called "suburban rail") to HK's system as a whole, and Metropolitan reverted it at 14:41, 23 May 2006, for the figures imply strictly metro services and nothing else. I have to say it depends on how to see the definition, which i inclinded to include the 500 million.

According to wikipedia, "A rapid transit, underground, subway, elevated, or metro system is a railway system, usually in an urban area, with a high capacity and frequency of service, and grade separation from other traffic." Most of the train services of KCRC (East Rail+West Rail) are absolutely of high capacity and frequency and grade separated. Train headway during peak hrs is around 3 min, and is operated in a manner similar to urban metro. It might be argued that KCRC does not serve urban area. This might be true in some sense, because it runs along "new towns" that are less close to the city centre. But I assure you that the population density of those New towns are way higher than most of the urban centres in other cities. Also those areas and population are always considered to be part of Hong Kong as a whole (Like, we never have any statistics that say the urban population is xxx and suburban is xxx, we juz say there are 6.9million in HK). And at last, after the merger of KCRC and MTR in 2 years time (which is going-on at this moment), it is not possible to seperate patronage figures of MTR and KCRC anyway.

For the same reason I didn't revert the revise by someone to include mumbai's suburban rail. I think whether the rail is situated in "urban area", which in itself is a vague concept, is only indicative but not conclusive in determining whether it is a rapid transit according to the definition of Wiki.

--Jeremy1897 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in such a case, you would have to include the RER annual passenger rides to the figure for Paris. Indeed, the RER is also a railway system, in an urban area, with a high capacity and frequency of service and most are grade separated (either underground, on viaduct, or dug at open air). RER lines are actually busier and have a higher train frequency in their central part than Paris metro lines. At rush hours, the train frequency on line A is of one train every 90 seconds, the lowest frequency during daytime is of a train every 5 minutes. The thing is that the 5 lines of the RER network have an annual passenger ride of 782.9 million people altogether. That would raise Paris figure to 2,118.6 million journeys a year.

For a confirmation of those figures, you should go visit RER wikipedia pages, you will find the annual passenger rides of each of the 5 RER lines on their dedicated pages : RER A, B, C, D and E. You can also find an insightful story about the Paris metro History in which is also explained how the RER has been created. Metropolitan 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I get your point. Actually right after my last update i was thinking that that would include many suburban rail into calculation. What I did was simply following the definition that was available. But it seems following the rules would create a result that we do not desire. I suppose most people who click into this page are interested in knowing the patronage of cities' subway system. I am not saying that subway+suburban rail info is not useful, nor am i having bias towards results that favour my hometown Hong Kong. I have no complaint if there is a seperate page that publish subway+suburban list, but for the benefit of most users a useful subway list is vital, and such a list requires a definition differs from the one originally in Wiki. Agree? If there is no objection why don't we discuss a definition here?

--Jeremy1897 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The RER system in Paris is not the suburban trains network. Paris Suburban trains are organized in 5 different networks consisting in 31 lines altogether. The RER is a different network which is a kind of hybdrid between being an express metro service in the center and a suburban service in the suburbs, all this being served at a high frequency. If I've talked about the RER, it's simply because you've mentionned high capacity and high frequency, and that's exactly what the RER is about. Now I don't mind adding the high frequency urban rail services into the list, but I think it should be written as a second list. The first one could be strictly about metro services, the second one could also add other high frequency urban rails. This way, everyone is happy. What do you think ? I'll make a try and you'll tell me afterwards. :) Metropolitan 17:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay i heard of that in middle school. Actually KCRC is sth of that kind, except that the length is much shorter (around 30km) and they are strictly within the territory of HK. I support that we make a primary list of metro. But what amounts to metro? How about say, the underground network by which the city centre is principally served? But for the secondary list, i have doubt. The list for some cities, say Tokyo, is never complete (http://photoimg.enjoyjapan.naver.com/view/47/43/enjoyjapan_12/41000/40967.jpg). Perhaps we juz add any additional available info for reference only? --Jeremy1897 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My recent edit

I have deleted the "rapid transit" section because it was a copy of the metro section, but with Mumbai added, for which the commuter rail was compared with metro of other cities.--Nixer 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It contains figures for non-metro rapid transit users in other cities (Paris, London, etc). As such, I've reverted your edits. --Dtcdthingy 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why then the digits are exactly the same with digits for metro? Look for example on Moscow and St.Petersburg.Nixer 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an info: commuter trains ridership for Moscow last av. year is in exceed of 550 million. How many of those rides are inside the Moscow City limits or how many passengers change to/from the "normal" Metro I don't know.—Sascha. 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo/Moscow metro comparison

For Tokyo the numbers for different operators are added. So if a passenger transfers from a line belonging to one operator to a line belonging to another operator he counted twice. This is wrong, dont you think so?--Nixer 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

to Dtcdthingy — you have removed the note:

The figure is derived from ridership of two operators in Tokyo <…>
thus passengers, transferred from one system to another are counted twice.  
(added 08:39, 4 June 2006; removes 00:19, 6 June 2006)

without discussing this removal or stating your opinion on the Talk page (that is — here:) Do you disagree with it? Maybe those two systems in Tokyo are thoroughly separated and passengers just never transfer from one to the other? Any other reasons for that not being mentioned? —Sascha. 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Passengers transferring from one line to another on any system may be counted twice, so I don't think it's particularly notable. We don't know how any of these figures were worked out. --Dtcdthingy 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point — they are not in Moscow (I mean,passengers not counted twice in Moscow Metro). On the other hand, from a look at the map of the Tokyo Metro it is clear that it's two systems are highly integrated and possible transfer points are multiple. That's why it seems to be only fair to mention that those two figures (for TM and MM) could have been arrived at differently. —Sascha. 09:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Toronto

I've just edited the name of Toronto Metro to Toronto Subway, as that is the name it's known as. Torontonians don't use the term "Metro" to refer to the Subway; until 1998, the term "Metro" was used to refer to what is now the City of Toronto (as in "Metropolitan Toronto"). -Kain 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I cam across this article which basically has the same info as the other article. Simply south 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected the other article here and removed the merge tag. —CComMack (t–c) 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Budapest's BKV

The page on Budapest's BKV lists an annual ridership of 1.4 billion. This figure, if correct, places it well into the top 5, but right now it's not listed at all. I glanced through BKV's 2005 annual report but could not find confirmation of the figure. Should it be added -- unsourced though it is -- to the list? 218.225.111.205 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is presumable number for whole transport system. Sourced figure for Budapest Metro only is welcomed. --Jklamo 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In 2005 Annual Report [1] is number 1.3 billion for whole system, and that metro share is 22%. That mean 286 million. --Jklamo 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New York City Subway 1.850 billion

According the source [2] this figure is the all MTA system and the PATH but MTA it is not only subway, it is also suburban trains and buses. so 1.850 billion is wrong. It should be only MTA subway and PATH Minato ku 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The source specifically says that it is counting only riders of "heavy rail" on "MTA New York City Transit". This is the same as the New York Subway. Buses would not be included in "heavy rail", and the suburban trains are run by the Metro North and Long Island Railroad divisions of MTA, which are separate from the NYC Transit division.

But according the official site New York subway [3] Ridership in 2006 is 1.499 billion passengers. Minato ku 06:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of the counting convention being used. You can see for yourself at the APTA site that MTA buses and suburban trains are counted separately under the Bus and Commuter Rail reports. I think the issue may be that the APTA counts "unlinked" passenger trips, which means that a trip with a transfer between lines (even without leaving the system) is counted as 2 trips. I'd guess that the lower number at the MTA site counts a trip with a transfer as only 1 trip. Of course, this also brings up the issue that the NY subway site includes differing counts for many other agencies (especially St. Petersburg). And also, who knows what definitions the various other sources are using?

Tokyo figures — source?

Anyone knows where the data for Tokyo are coming from? I've looked up the news article given as a source, but there are no such figures there. There are daily figures, but those could well be for working days only as well mean average for the whole year. Clarification anyone? --Sascha. 14:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me who updated those figures. The source contains daily mean average numbers. Obviously, if we multiply that by 365, we'll get the annual figures. As discussed above, it counts those who change from Tokyo Metro to Toei twice. (They also pay twice.) I also found two official statements: from Toei and from Tokyo Metro. Yury Petrachenko 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean — nowhere in the article is said that those figures are in fact mean average on a year basis. It could as easily be an average figure for the work days. It may be ok for PR but for an encyclopedia entry is a little to vague. Well, I mean Japan is a major country, there must be some more direct statistics somewhere? Of course it may happen to be in Japanese --Sascha. 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese (yet:) but I think the sources above are pretty clear. They say, "The average daily number of passengers reached 2.09 million in fiscal 2005" (for Toei), "Each day our trains carry 5.76 million passengers" (for Metro). These are from official websites above and are supported by a bunch of other sources. If these were working days only, there would have been other figures, for weekends. I can ask about this on the Japan portal though. Yury Petrachenko 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great if you could, cause sure is sure. As it is it doesn't seem sure to me. "Each day" can mean different things to different people.--Sascha. 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New figures for Tokyo are there again: "more than 2.5 billion". Has anyone any idea where these are coming from?--Sascha. 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've calculated them from average daily rides given in the source (i.e. "On an average day, the Tokyo subway system transports 7.25 million passengers.", see under the photo).--Dojarca 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, same as above — a lot of people would argue (me including) that say Sunday is not an average day and that an average day is a working day and therefore overall figure for the year is incorrect that way. But for the lack of better, more direct statistics...--Sascha. 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found two reliable sources that say the average daily number of passengers is 5.8-5.9 million[4][5]. Sbw01f (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Subway

Toronto Subway was added to the list, quoting a source with daily ridership statistics from 2006-2007. The daily ridership is defined as number of trips made on an average weekday. It sums up to about 1,21 million trips per weekday for all the four subway lines. It is obvious that the number for Toronto in this article has been calculated by taking 1,21 millions * 365 days (=442 millions). That would be a too high estimate for the annual ridership, since travelling on weekends is far less than on weekdays. With that in mind, it is not likely that the Toronto Subway has more passenger rides than the Vienna U-Bahn (427 millions). --Kildor (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all you have no proof for your claims of how they calculated the number, don't make assumptions. They could have just taken the yearly total and divided it by 365. Can you prove they didn't? Second, how do you know the other ones don't calculate their numbers the same way? Look at Tokyo for example. Saying "it's not likely that.." does not give you justified reason to remove it from the list. Sbw01f (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot prove anything. But if they calculated the daily ridership by dividing the annual ridership with 365, I am pretty sure they would have written "average day" instead of "average weekday". An example from the Stockholm Metro: The daily ridership (typical weekday) is 1,071 millions. The annual ridership is 297 millions. The ratio is 278, which is far from 365. I don't know what the annual ridership of Toronto Subway is, and neither do you, as it seems. But we should not quote a source for a fact which does not appear in the quoted report. Looking at SkyscraperCity Forum, I have found a post with annual ridership statistics from metro systems worldwide. In their list, Toronto is 32nd with 253 millions. Unfortunately, there is no source, but I would say that this is a good indication on that Vienna has a higher ridership than Toronto. In either way, I believe you will need to find a better source to justify your claim to put Toronto on this list ahead of Vienna. --Kildor (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

First Note

The first note says that two of the lines in Tokyo represent only a small fraction, when in fact they constitute about 30% and 40%, respectively. I could simply change the wording, but I think it changes the way the statistics would be listed. Could someone with more expertise chime in? ~ Amory (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get figures on that. If we could find a source saying that Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway are 38%, then we could just use that number instead of vague words like 'small fraction', which is terribly imprecise. I think that would be the best, to get accurate fraction info. —fudoreaper (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another article has different figures

I came across the article List of largest subway systems in the world which seems to have different ridership figures. Which is correct? Patche99z (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected that article here after discussion - its figures were out of date and incomplete. Patche99z (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tramline removed

This was removed because it's a tramline:

1. Zürich trams 197 million (2007)

Thought it'd be nice to keep the ref around somewhere though. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal. I am also suspicious about Carmelit, its only underground funicular railway and has two stations, too little to call it system. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Singapore to be listed?

According to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), in 2005 average daily ridership was about 1.338 million. That works out for about 488.37 million (= 1.338 x 365) in a year. 488 million should make the Singapore MRT be listed in top 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florian fang (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, statistics about daily ridership are made for average workdays. As a result, we can't obtain the annual ridership simply in multiplying it by 365. I've checked the source for Singapore MRT and it seems quite unclear on the topic. In doubt, I would be more inclined not to add Singapore MRT simply because I've never seen before a daily ridership consisting in the division of the annual ridership by 365. Metropolitan 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

It would be interesting to see how many of these numbers are based on weekday ridership x 365. This seems to be the case for BART. BART in 2007 had an annual ridership of 101.7 million, but the number quoted in this list is 140 million. This is weekday ridership x 365 based on the reference given. One reference for the 101.7 million number is http://www.bart.gov/docs/FINAL_FY08_SRTP_CIP.pdf . There are several others that could be referenced as well. Tuyvan (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a huge list and could use a significant amount of fact-checking. I've updated BART with the doc you provided, thanks! Please feel free to clean up any of the rest as well. This thing can be improved, one edit at a time. Perhaps it would be worth noting which estimates are derived and which are explicitly stated in the source as annual ridership. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Berlin S Bahn

Why the S Bahn of Berlin is included if Paris RER is not include Please someone can remove the S Bahn of Berlin figure Minato ku 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. If no on will oppose it, i will remove S Banhs tomorrow. --Jklamo 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The S Bahn systems of Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart and Copenhagen (named S-tog in Danish) are included again. Either they should not be included, or they should be summed with the underground (U-bahn) into one line, and then Hamburg be included (which is separate from the railway like Berlin). Munich, Stuttgart, Paris and more are doubtful since these systems are partially integrated with the railway system, with partially shared track.

In my opinion the S-bahn systems shall not be included, since they are outside the scope of the list. Otherwise we could include those regional rail systems in Germany that use the same tickets as U-bahn and S-bahn. The reason some want to include S-bahn could be that the same tickets are used so that the riders can treat them as almost the same. --BIL (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Update ridership - Monterrey metro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

In this page you have listed the most used metro systems in terms of transported passengers per year. It has been ranked in 81 place the Monterrey metro with a ridership of 88.1 million (2008). This data needs to be updated to the latest figure of 136.6 million (2009).

You already have the reference for this change, just click in the Monterrey metro and you will be linked to its Wikipedia page whichs shows the latest ridership of 136.6 million.

Once this change has been made, please update as well the ranked position.

Alreyes2 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tōkyo and Moscow Figure

Following the terrorist attacks on the Moscow Metro, a news report on BBC Radio 4 said that Moscow Metro was the busiest metro system in the world. I noticed that Tōkyo is in top spot in the article. Is it possible that the references might need replacing by newer ones, since the current ones are from 2008 and 2009. I also notice, as mentioned above, that there is a real problem with incorrect data from the Tōkyo Metro. This is something that we need to look at urgently. •• Fly by Night (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It may depend on what they mean by "system". Separately, the Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway are smaller than the Moscow Metro, but combined they are obviously larger (possibly due to ridership overlap). Updated Tokyo Metro numbers should be up soon, since it seems those are calculated through the end of March (for each year). The sources and numbers for those seem reliable (from the operator). The Moscow Metro numbers were recently updated in January, so those should be up-to-date. -Multivariable (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

porto metro portugal should be in the list with 41 millions in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.160.80 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Paris metro figure

According to the STIF, the authority managing developments of public transportation in Paris region, the annual passengers traffic of Paris metro network was of 1,335.7 million journeys in 2004. This figure is strictly for the Paris metro and does not include the RER network (which was approximately of 800 million journeys in 2004) or Transilien suburban trains (trains de banlieue). Here is the official source for that figure :

• Figures of public transports in Ile-de-France, see page 14.
  

Metropolitan 03:15, 19 may 2004 (UTC).

I do not understand why the RER is left out of the official count; given that when I lived in Paris by Port-Royal station I know firsthand that the RER system serves first and foremost as an express subway system in central Paris, I don't see why New York's express subway trains would be counted but Paris' express services would not. They run on different tracks and the RER system extends far into the suburbs, true, but most of the ridership is in central Paris and serves as urban transport. These aren't commuter-rail trains pulling suburbanites into the city in the morning and out in the evening; they run very frequent service (especially the A and B lines) between stations in the city. Clearly the trains de banlieue don't make the cut, but the RER looks more like a central subway system than many entire American systems. Talindsay (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai

The mumbai (bombay) suburban railway system carries 6.3 million passengers everyday! That should make it the top in terms of annual passenger rides

Its suburban railway. For Moscow and St.Petersburg for example, suburban rail is not counted at all--Nixer 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respects, that is a ridiculously sophist argument. Bombay's local-train system has ridership levels similar to those in Tokyo; not listing it would give a very very warped picture on urban transportation worldwide. Besides, most of the so-called suburban rail falls within the muncipal corporation's city-limits; it's only the newer stations that actually fall outside.

It is time the editors decided whether they want the defination of metro system by some dictionary defination or practical defination. Many of the so called metros have upto 70% above ground services. This article is not doing its job of giving knowledge. I encourgae you to read about public transportation in Mumbai, which is among the best in the world (perhpas the most crowded as well). 75.111.197.176 06:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mumbai's ridership on its surburban rail system may be similar to Tokyo's, but Tokyo's number doesn't include its suburban/commuter rail lines either. Many of Tokyo's rail lines operate like the metro, but they're excluded because this article is centered around metro systems. As for Mumbai having public transportation "among the best in the world", many of my Indian friends would wholeheartedly disagree (see overcrowding and fatalities). Multivariable (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there is a bit of mis-understanding with what "suburban" means in respect to the city of Mumbai. I think this list is misleading because of the disambiguity between metro, suburban and what constitutes city transport. Eg. Sydney is listed as 3.5 million which would include the whole of Sydney (CBD + adjoining areas). These adjoining areas to the CBD are referred to as the suburbs in Mumbai. If you consider Sydney's CBD alone..it will never reach 3.5 million ridership. Ninadhardikar (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What "suburban" means here is most likely commuter rail (the rail system itself). I think the biggest differences with the Mumbai suburban rail system are 1) the number of stations and distances between stations (~110 stations spread over several hundred kilometers), 2) level crossings (not grade separated), and 3) lower frequency of services (see timetables). -Multivariable (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is partly correct. The system does extend upto a distance (it's not several hundred kilometres though). I mean the system length is some 420 kms. But the system doesn't extend from Mumbai to a distance of 420 kms. That's the addition of all the tracks. Level crossings do not indicate whether a system should be considered suburban or commuter. There are few level crossings in the city systems in Brisbane as well as in Sydney. That's based on economics, traffic besides other things. Even if you do not consider the longest distance routes of the Mumbai railway system, and just consider the routes inside the city, the numbers will easily add up to about 5 million a day. However there might not be a way to accurately know this number. I have only been to Sydney on that list and I can tell you, the Sydney system reaches out far into the suburbs and even into adjacent city councils. This dis-ambiguity about where the city ends, what's the meaning of suburban etc is going to exist, but it's crucial not to omit a record which could well be in the top 5. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have drawn the boundary of Mumbai city in this picture. You can see that the system extends further than the city. Within the city, the frequency of services is much higher than when you travel further from the city. http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5176/mumbai.jpg Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean by Sydney, and I've removed it (and another system) since it's not actually a metro system. Although level crossings do not necessarily indicate whether it's suburban/commuter rail, it is one of the defining characteristics of a metro system (see List of metro systems#Considerations). There's considerably more discussion over on the List of metro systems page on what constitutes a metro system (this page doesn't appear to be updated that frequently). You might be able to get more response from there; the system was discussed very briefly (in the archives). Regarding ridership, as mentioned before, the same can be said for the Tokyo system (the commuter rail systems, though essentially metro systems within the city, are not included). What constitutes a metro system or suburban/commuter rail system isn't based on what area it covers (though it may affect how the system is designed), it's how the system operates. -Multivariable (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos to use for article

I thought I'd bring this up now, before it becomes another photopalooza (like List of most expensive cities for expatriate employees). How many photos and which photos should be used for this page? As recently as mid-November 2010, there was only one photo for the article ([6]). Now there are six and growing. Thoughts?

Personally, I think only ones that mean something (e.g. Tokyo because it is the most used system) should be used, since that is what the article is about. Adding in regional systems might be a slippery slope, considering someone added in the Tehran Metro by justifying it as the busiest in the Middle East (neither a continent nor a defined geographical area). And the London Underground is only the busiest in the United Kingdom (just a country). Where do we draw the line? -Multivariable (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to clean-up these photos. As far as I know there is no guidline about pictures in listst. My opinion is, that there can be multiple photos, as list itself is narrow, so no problems even in lower resolutions. About choose of photos, my opinion is just use same sequence as in list (top 10 for exapmle). --Jklamo (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think photos for the top 10 would be most logical for this page (considering it is a ranked list based on ridership). (On a side note, seems like someone is already calling it vandalism/racism for removing images...) -Multivariable (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing photos with prior note here (as you already did) can nobody call vandalism. --Jklamo (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that we should limit the amount of photos on the page to the top 10 most used metro systems. Geo0910 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine even 10, or even three would be too much. Just one? This is more of a list. :P Anyway, what we probably need is a good map which reflects some of the date graphically. At least, cities marked on the world map rather than countries, as it is currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.62 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to add Tehran metro since it is the busiest in western Asia (middle east) and south Asia. Asia is a large continent. Also Cairo metro is the largest one on African continent. Stop your racism and stop deleting the photos just because these two countries are not white enough for you. --119.153.86.109 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the concerns that were brought up above. Allegations of racism aren't helping your case either. Now that I look at it, I would agree with the point made by the IP user (66.87.4.62); even 10 seems like a lot, especially for a list that's supposed to focus on annual ridership rather than photos of stations. That being said, the consensus here seems to be to limit the number of photos to, at the very most, the top ten systems. Adding other photos based strictly on geographical boundaries seems kind of pointless for the scope of this article. -Multivariable (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Middle East and South Asia aren't even mutually exclusive regions. -Multivariable (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is about race. Just because some one says it should be ten does not mean it should be that way. Cairo metro is the only large metro system on African continent. Tehran metro is the largest in south Asia with a region with population of over 1.5 billion. I say to put 22 photos here. So the problem is solved. Zero tolerance for fascism. Zero tolerance for xenophobia.--119.153.12.86 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you're the only one bringing race into the discussion here. And this clearly has nothing to do with neither xenophobia nor fascism. The original post was concerned with the cluttering of the page with photos, which are are neither integral to the article nor illustrate the intent of the article (i.e. a sorted list of metro systems by annual ridership). I also brought up some concerns on adding photos based strictly on geographical regions, which you have failed to address in your continuing insertion of Tehran Metro and Cairo Metro photos. As I mentioned before, the Middle East and South Asia are not mutually exclusive areas, and your attempt to include both metro systems (according to their descriptions) seems, at best, contrived. To be honest, since the Middle East lacks many metro systems to begin with, being the first and second busiest systems there don't hold as much weight, especially when they end up being 14th and 25th on the list.

I would also disagree with putting 22 photos, since it would indeed clutter up most of the page with photos when the focus should be on the list. Wikipedia is based on consensus (see WP:CON), hence the purpose of a talk page. A set number of representative photos, such as those from the top-ranked systems, would be more suitable for the article. -Multivariable (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Merseyrail listed?

MerseyRail is a suburban National Rail service in North West England not a 'metro' service! If this is listed then CityRail in Sydney and First Capital Connect in London should also be listed! Likelife (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It isn't included in the List of metro systems article either. It is, however, included in the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. I will remove it from this list. -Multivariable (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball numbers (projections)

I wanted to make a note of the usage of new (recent) daily ridership numbers to project a yearly ridership. While that maybe be true in a year, this list relies on hard data from the previous year (i.e. on January 1, 2011, you can only rely on data from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 for the most up-to-date ridership count). Determining annual ridership from "daily ridership" numbers isn't accurate, since it hasn't occurred yet. Likewise, daily ridership reports aren't necessarily standardized either, with some systems reporting them as weekday ridership only, unlinked trips, etc. -Multivariable (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sync with List of metro systems

I synchronized systems with List of metro systems. I think it is good idea, as both are listing metro systems and it is better to discuss inclusion/exclusion matter on one place - Talk:List of metro systems. As side effect, we have listo of systems that are missing in our list (some of them opened just in 2010):
Adana Metro, Bursa Metro, Catania Metro, Dalian Metro, Foshan Metro, Genoa Metro, Chengdu Metro, Chennai Metro, Kryvyi Rih Metrotram, Lima Metro, Los Teques Metro, Maracaibo Metro, Mecca Metro, Shenyang Metro, Valencia Metro (Venezuela). --Jklamo (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Delhi's ridership

Delhi's annual ridership has been a bit tricky, since most press releases by the organization running it (DMRC) and news articles in media mention only daily ridership. Recently, someone (;) tried to extrapolate latest daily ridership to get ridership for 2010. Multivariable was rightly skeptical about this, since Delhi Metro's ridership is far from stable and every month there are new figures of "average" daily ridership.

Luckily, on two occasions recently and 9-months apart, exact numbers and dates of ridership from start date of the metro have been released (when ridership crossed 1 bn and 1.25 bn mark). Not ideal, but still a reasonable compromise till someone finds a better reference. 66.87.4.62 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just surprised that yearly ridership isn't published anywhere! My main problem with the initial (daily) extrapolation is that this list isn't about how many people will ride it in the next year based on current numbers; it's based on how many people actually rode it last year. I think it was smart to use ridership benchmarks to extrapolate, which I'm fine with since it covers ~75% of the year. Until DMRC releases yearly data, this will probably be the best bet for an accurate count.

I looked through their annual report ([7]), but couldn't find anything. -Multivariable (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BALL i am against any future extrapolation of any kind. Also extrapolation from from day ridership is sometimes very tricky, as media are frequently reffering about average daily ridership, but in fact showing workweek day ridership. In that case exptrapolation is producing misleading results. --Jklamo (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

@Multivariate: very surprising indeed, even though they are keeping track and have precise numbers. I have gone through the 60MB document too!

@Jklamo: Please read the comments again, we aren't using the daily ridership. In fact, this is what had been done earlier (including that 306 million figure you have reverted to - presumably extrapolation from daily figures).

As for WP:BALL, I think one should read the policy in context and not just see the work 'extrapolation' to quote it. We are not trying to do any crystal ball stuff -- i.e. speculation or extrapolation into future.

As I see, we have the following options: 1) leave it at figure of 306 which no one knows where it came from, 2) use a more logical 12-month estimate from the 9-month figures till better references available, 3) quote the 9-month figure and mention that in parentheses, 4) Remove the entry till better references available. In my opinion, 3 somewhat defeats the purpose of the list (comparison), and so would prefer 2 or 4 (equally). 66.87.8.213 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

These data can be found in your links - rough estimate of 900,000 ridership in 2009, rough estimate of 1,150,000 in 2010, exact number of 278,000,000 ridership for 269 days in 2009 and 2010 (that is app. 1,000,000 average per day). That is not exact 2009 annual ridership, but still better than nothing or current unreferenced number. I am for option 3.

Also from your links it is clear, that DMRC has exact annual ridership numbers, but unfortunately did not publish it. If you are familiar with request handling system in DMRC you can also contact them and request to publish these numbers for exapmle somewhere on their website. That is on the edge of WP:OR, but if they will publish it on their website it will be still OK. --Jklamo (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Several recent newspaper reports have indicated that the Delhi Metro carries around 1.5 million passengers a day. The annual figure should therefore be close to 545 million passengers, even if exact data is not available. The figure 306 million quoted here is abysmally low, by all available counts. I strongly urge that it be revised. Someone had indeed changed it to 548 million a few days back, and had also cited a link, from the DMRC's site, but the figure was reversed to 306 million in a few days. I cannot however find the link now, but it appeared fairly credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmalik2010 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of a metro system

I think the article should list exactly what it means by a metro system, and why it thinks so-called 'suburban' rail wouldn't count. Bombay, Moscow, Paris RER and HK being prime-examples of why they _aren't_ listed.

Yet Tokyo's sort of *is* listed. Funny, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo's suburban rail lines aren't counted though... The figure is strictly for its two metro systems. Multivariable (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The original compiler of this list appears not to have fully thought through the difference between "metro," which I would define as a network of commuter trains serving a metropolitan area, and "subway," (called "underground" or "tube" in London). Surely only the first definition conveys anything meaningful. Many cities (Tokyo, London, New York, Osaka, Mumbai, Sydney and Hong Kong for example) have frequent (every three minutes in some cases) surface-line passenger train services speeding workers from inner and outer suburbs to the city center or other places of employment. In some cases (Chicago, Paris, Bangkok, Manila), these lines may be elevated above the street. There seems little point in listing only the trains that run in tunnels bored or dug under roads. Besides, almost all underground subways (Washington D.C., London, New York) have portions of the track network that run at ground level and some (Tokyo's Shibuya) even at an elevated level.

Take Tokyo as the example. There are (as the original compiler noted) two underground metro systems, one with about nine lines (I'm relying on memory here, but it would be easy to check) and the other with four lines. But the former national railway, privatized in the 1990s as JR East, carries more daily passengers than all of these underground ones put together. JR East does not merely bring people in from outlying populated areas, but ferries them short distances around the heart of the metropolis. In addition to these are the private passenger railroad companies (about eight in all; again, easy to check) that have been bringing commuters into town for 100 years or more. Among these are Tobu, Seibu, Tokyu, Odakyu, Keio. The number of commuter stations (I counted them once years ago) for all systems exceeds 1,000).

Anyone patient enough to go to all the relevant websites would come up with a figure for Tokyo at least four times higher than the 3.174 billion passengers quoted. It is well known that the busiest of the 1,000 stations (Shinjuku) processes 2 million passengers per day (counting those who merely pass through and adding together JR, subway and three private commuter lines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New York City calls its system a "subway", although several parts of this "subway" are actually elevated tracks. It has one line that I would call an "el" or elevated - the John F. Kennedy Airport Airtrain - but that's not in the MTA's subway network. 198.151.130.44 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the title or re-doing the entire page

As the discussion below talks about, the definition of a metro doesn't match the page at all. I believe wikipedia should be consistent! Wikipedia's own definition of a metro is as follows: "Metro (rapid transit), a passenger railway system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency". In other words it is not exclusive to subways, however this page is only showing subway systems and not the entire rapid transit systems. So either we change the title to "Subway Systems by annual passenger rides" or we define metro or change the title to "rapid transit systems by.." to be consistent with wikipedia's definition itself. For example Tokyo has several lines above ground that are not included in the figure simply because they are above ground, which doesn't make sense. The chuo or Yamanote line for example run at frequencies higher than most metros around the world and clearly match wikipedia's definition. Having a real list using the real definition will be much more informative than this current list with a misleading title.

Any thoughts? TheRationalDude (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See previous discussion, we simply use metro systems from List of metro systems to avoid dobule discussion of inclusion/exclusion.--Jklamo (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So if I edit that article to include Japan's and others systems that meet the criteria of wikipedia's definition of a "metro" than this page will be edited as well? I noticed Chicago's L is there despite it not being a subway, so basically almost the entire above ground rail system in the japanese metropolitan areas should be included as well. Wikipedia has agreed that this is the definition correct? "a passenger railway system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency". To be frank, I think it would make more sense if we rename both pages "subway system" so we don't have to worry so much about the definition of a "metro". Perhaps we could create another 2 pages that encompass the entire rail network of cities, as well as 2 pages for the subways only? TheRationalDude (talk)

Considering every system that goes in that article has much, much more discussion about what constitutes a "metro system" than this one (see Talk:List of metro systems), if a system is approved there, then it makes sense to add it here. That being said, it's not as easy as just editing that article to add systems; you'll be reverted pretty quickly. Almost every relevant system has been discussed there or in the archives, so I would recommend that you take a look at those to see what the consensus was. The problem with defining metros to only subways neglects the fact that most systems are a hybrid of the two. There's already been some splitting of rail systems (List of metro systems#See also) already, and it doesn't make much sense to split them based solely on underground or not, since almost anything can be underground. Just my 2 cents. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly my point though, this page is basically subways, so we should remove the non subway systems like Chicago's L and just change the title...or we can update the entire list especially the japanese ones. Anyway I will take the discussion to the other page and see what they have to say. Thanks for the input. TheRationalDude (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing I want to say here, I just read through all the archives and the later archives seemed to agree that Tokyo's above ground rail does indeed fit the definition of a metro better than even many of the north american systems listed but they never did anything about it..Not only that one of the archives says "yes add the yamanote line" and there is a check saying "done"...but then there is no mention of anyone removing the yamanote line, so I wonder what is up with that. If the archives say it should be included and it was "done" then can I re-add it? I posted a note in the other page too but this one seems to have faster replies and they are both related anyways. TheRationalDude (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus was to add it and it hasn't changed since then, then there's no reason not to add it. :) Those archives are daunting, though the systems in Tokyo, Berlin, etc. have been discussed quite a bit. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

List systems, not cities

There is still discrepancy between this and List of metro systems. We have grouped some systems into one city entry. So i propose split these (independently listed on list of metro systems). Any objections? --Jklamo (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this is the right way to go. It should be by system and not cities. We could create a second list underneath that does it by city perhaps (which easy since just need to add the figures). SkyTree90 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? SkyTree90 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Barcelona ridership and edition war

User:Ermengol Patalín insists on bumping the Barcelona metro ridership using inadequate figures. I reverted twice his edits, but he re-reverted them, causing an edit war.

The reasons why the figures given by Ermengol Patalín are inadequate follow:

• Mixed sources from different years used: ATM 2011 report and FGC 2010 report
• For FGC data he adds all Metro del Baix Llobregat users which go as far as Olesa and Esparreguera, way beyond what should be considered a Metro service. The Metro name is simply a trademark used by FGC, Esparreguera is more than 35km away from Barcelona.
• People using both TMB and FGC metro services are counted twice. As L8 is peripherical, most of its users are already counted users from the main TMB network.
• Most of L6, L7 and L8 stations are also served by other non-metro commuter services, and neither ATM nor FGC data makes a clear distinction of them.
• Data which should be similar between the two sources present some inconsistencies.

Although the real figures for Barcelona metro ridership may be higher than the originally stated, they are for sure lower than Ermengol Patalín insists to put in the article.

Last but not least, this bumping is motivated by a survey in a forum where the Barcelona metro was left out because it was ranked 31st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.219.240 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

moscow should be number one and not soul or tokio

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://mosmetro.ru/about/general/numeral/

this obviously shows moscow has a daily 9.2 million people while tokio has only 8.7 million and soul has only 7 million. How can tokio and soul have more their cities are poor.--Shokioto22 (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the link, the 9.2 million number is a daily ridership record for 2011, not an average daily ridership. -Multivariable (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Toronto deleted

I deleted Toronto from the list and moved it to the hidden comments. As somebody noted the 444M figure is for the entire system, not just the subway. According to the APTA the subway ridership is 265M, plus I believe 13M for the Scarborough RT. Actually, their total ridership stats contradicts with the Toronto TTC's report. But I think it's safe to assume that the subway/RT ridership is much less than 444M. I've added Vienna's U-Bahn system back to the #20 spot; its page calls it "Vienna" rather than "Wien". Hypertall (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the figures are only for the subway system. [8] They just split the numbers up for different regions. I've re-added Toronto to the list. And I don't know what APTA is, but the official TTC site obviously knows more than them about their own subway.Sbw01f (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

APTA = American Public Transportation Association. Official website Useddenim (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The TTC's 470M figure is for the subway and RT alone, which carries, on average, 1.4-1.6M people on a weekday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.0.143 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Again someone set Toronto's ridership to an incorrect figure that includes bus and streetcar ridership. I'm putting Toronto as hidden until we can find a actual correct figure. Like the figures stated above the 444M, 470M, and the recently added 500M is not the annual ridership of strictly the subway, its the ridership of the entire network (Subway, Bus and Streetcar). The subway alone has a daily ridership of about 1 million. Terramorphous (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers, cologne to be added

Cologne does have a vast subway system and may be added here. According to their website, the 2012 anual ridership for the Kölner Verkehrsbetriebe was 275. However, this may inculde, like in boston, some bus lines and over- ground lines. http://www.kvb-koeln.de/german/nachrichten/view.html?action=shownews&page=&id=1587 --77.180.32.42 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

cologne is a LRT or stadbahn network so by definition it is not rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)