Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Brisbane

I'm surprised that Brisbane's Cross River Rail is on here. Isn't the Cross River Rail just an extension to Brisbane's existing suburban rail network? Steelkamp (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the same as the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, even though people claim Metro Tunnel is a part of Melbourne's existing suburban Rail network, it is a metro system as it has true metro origins and meets criteria, so therefore, if that is on the list, the Cross River Rail should too, these two systems belongs on the list, the case for Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it belongs here Metrosfan (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What does "true metro origins" mean? What are these "criteria"? Steelkamp (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned by a user, I've looked up reliable sources for both, including project pages for both of them.

For the Metro Tunnel, this project page here does mention a 'metro-style rail network ... similar to major cities such as London, New York and Singapore.' This does not mean however, that it automatically is and becomes a metro system. Just because it has the characteristics of one, doesn't make it one, so as long as it is only part of larger suburban railway network, which covers a significant larger distance than a conventional metro system, and thus does NOT constitute a metro/rapid transit system by itself.

The Cross River Rail is even less so of a metro system as

• The new underground section is shared between multiple different commuter rail (explicitly) lines, that all connect up to different QR railway services.
• The project page emphasises on its supposedly 'metro-style characteristics', even less so than the Metro Tunnel. 'Cross River Rail is a second river crossing at the core of the rail network with capacity to run as many as 24 trains in each direction.' Note that despite it's high capacity...
• ...at the end of the day, the Cross River Rail is too, only a part of a larger suburban network, and thus can NOT be classified as a metro system by itself.

Even if this article were to be named 'List of urban rail systems', I would still disqualify the Cross River Rail at least, as it's even less of a 'metro system' than the Metro Tunnel.

And honestly? This article is too cluttered with unnecessary and excess information that would really cater to a minority, like the planned metro systems section, some of the planned metros having been canned for decades, and yet included in this article as if it's of any useful information to anyone. The point of this article to be a list of metro systems, not a "list of metro systems, including those that are under planning and have 0 concrete plans and or cancelled". Some of these sections look arbitrarily placed just for the sake of filling up the article and even look fake without a proper source at all! The quality of this article has really gone down the drain since last year...

I'll not revert any edits for the time being, but I will do so if it affects the overall quality of the article.

CCL-DTL (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To add on to this, should the Kryvyi Rih Metrotram be considered a metro system? Despite the rolling stock, it has separate, right of way underground sections and have stations built to rapid transit standards (typical from the Soviet era). And if level crossings are an issue with this, then why are the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Oslo metro included, as the both of them have it too? CCL-DTL (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

the Tyne and Wear Metro and Oslo Metro have true metro origin, there's one talk section above for the Oslo Metro and you will see why it cannot be removed, the Tyne and Wear Metro has heavier rolling stocks than actual light rail systems,the Amsterdam Metro have literal light rail rolling stocks running on the system and its still counted as one Metrosfan (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For the Cross River Rail, I guess fair enough, but the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it qualifies here so therefore you shouldn't removed them Metrosfan (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

List on planned metro systems should have a column for status

Add new column to indicate status of the project. Anttipng (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted, will be added soon Metrosfan (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

List by continent removal

@Nonusme@Rckania@Qazzy52@Ymblanter@Oknazevad @Laggingcomputer@OrewaTel@Matthewmayer I propose this plan: Should we remove the list by continent section? It seems to be useless and only makes this page's quality goes down as it contains unnecessary information that we already have, since we have list by country section, we should probably remove the List by continent to remove some unnecessary information Metrosfan (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems a bit unnecessary. Rckania (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it gives a nice overview but I do not have a strong opinion and if consensus is to remove let it be. Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see now that it is indeed redundant with the list by country, so that it can go. We might want to add an extra column in the list by country listing the continent. Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

agree, add a continent column to the countries list and remove the continent lists Matthewmayer (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

i don't think a column to show the continent the country belongs to is necessary Metrosfan (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of having a sortable list is that we don't need redundant charts in the first place. Why are the country and continent lists even a thing? Remove them both. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Mecca Metro Line 1

@Matthewmayer@Nonusme@Ymblanter@OknazevadTo be honest, does Mecca Metro actually belong to the operational list, I know Mecca Metro Line 1 is using Monorail rolling stock but the trains look like they do have true metro origin, the Mecca Metro Line 1 is similar towards the Beijing Subway Line S1 and maybe Beijing Subway Capital Airport Express Line, so since these lines are included for Beijing Subway, I would say Mecca Metro qualifies and should be moved to Operational List Metrosfan (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

irs not a Monorail. You can tell just from looking at a picture of it. However, it runs 7 days a year. It's not an urban rail system used for transporting people for day to day activities. It's a shuttle train that is used for Pilgrims once a year. It's not a metro. Rckania (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that fails the "frequent service" consideration. It may be metro technology, but it's not metro service. oknazevad (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Metro Tunnel and Cross River Rail

Consensus needs to be established in order to add these systems. At present, there is not consensus, and the only "discussion" involved one editor.

@CCL-DTL: @Metrosfan: @Ymblanter: @Oknazevad: @Epicgenius: Please discuss. Cards84664 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the latter to really comment, but as for the former, I do not think it should be included. It's more akin to SEPTA's Center City Commuter Connection than a true metro. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed in July and August 2023, so I don't get why they have to remove it and not allow people to re add it Metrosfan (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking back through that discussion, there isn't a clear consensus to include. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Steelkamp as they initiated the Talk:List of metro systems#Brisbane discussion earlier. Fork99 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've participated in the previous discussions about this topic. However, I will note that the Cross River Rail article describes it as a "commuter rail line" that is part of the local commuter rail network. Similarly, Metro Tunnel's article describes that project as being for a suburban rail line. Neither of these seem to be true metros, but rather an underground segment of a mainline railway line, akin to the underground portions of the Elizabeth line or the Réseau Express Régional. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. Related, I am concerned that each system is being judged on a case-by-case basis by Wikipedia editors, which practically amounts to original research. We need to be using a database from somewhere else rather than making the decisions on what is a metro ourselves. Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @SHB2000 since he's also involved in readding them in the past few weeks Metrosfan (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It was agreed upon last year to include Metro Tunnel for the reasons mentioned by Gracchus. No comment on CRR. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Gracchus250 as I remember off the top of my head that they were involved in previous discussions on this talk page and were just mentioned by SHB2000 above. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will say, though: SEPTA's w:Center City Commuter Connection is more akin to Sydney's w:City Circle, ESR or Airport Line or Melbourne's w:City Loop rather than the Metro Tunnel which on its own has all the standalone features of a metro (signalling, grade-separation, platform screen doors, semi-automation, station distancing, etc) – the real question arises because of the rest of the line. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's the thing. The rest of the line. Having a metro-like section in the city center doesn't make a line a metro if the rest of it is just an ordinary part of the suburban commuter rail network. A metro line is a metro line from end to end of its not a metro line at all. This idea that just because a tunnel section meets some metro design standard that means the city now suddenly has a metro system for that tunnel portion only is wrong. This is an issue we've discussed in the past. It's why some of the systems we left out were left out in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

^ Agree. Calling a part of a suburban railway network a 'metro system' is wrong, just because it has the typical shebang of a typical metro line doesn't automatically grant it 'metro system status'. CCL-DTL (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@CCL-DTLDid you even see the invisible note? The Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it qualifies here, so you shouldn't have removed it before discussing first, you can't just remove something that's ALREADY been DISCUSSED and not allow people to re-add it without discussing when it's already discussed it qualifies here Metrosfan (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, no clear consensus to keep/add them. CCL-DTL (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That's only for the Cross River Rail Metrosfan (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, CCL-DTL, but Metrosfan is right here. It was quite widely agreed upon after its addition and no one contested it until now. Only CRR is at issue here. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

exactly, however it might be unfortunate that he's still not gonna allow us to re-add it even after that, he keeps thinking there's no clear consensus to add it Metrosfan (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I concede - after reading a bit I will agree to keep the Metro Tunnel in here, as the entire section the Metro Tunnel is built upon will be converted into a rapid transit service (if I'm reading it correctly).

The Cross River Rail should still NOT be added back though, that's a whole different thing CCL-DTL (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding CRR. Apparently some of the line still has level crossings further south (which will be removed eventually but not upon opening). --SHB2000 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What is "the rest of the line", really?

I could use a similar argument to say that Tokyo only has 3 metro lines (Marunouchi, Ginza, and Ōedo) since all the other lines through-run with other suburban rail lines and are therefore essentially just metro "core" of a larger, suburban rail system.

If you want to argue that the "core" section has to be expansive, well, just how expansive? 9 km is already longer than some of the extremely short metro lines, including the Waterloo and City Line.

I have already talked about this in my comment for "Proposed merge: 'List of Electric Urban Rail Systems'"; it is often not clear where a line ends and begins.

If you try to use percentage, you encounter the issue where an extension of a system causes the system to lose a metro line.

If you use a strict length (for example, that at least 10 km of the thing should qualify as being a metro), we are using arbitrary definitions that would qualify and disqualify some lines from being metros just based on what we think.

If you go off of how it's branded and displayed on a map, well, that's another arbitrary distinction that ultimately hinges on the municipality's whims. We have already agreed that "it's a metro because the municipality says it is" is not acceptable. Laggingcomputer (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I literally put it as already discussed and not to remove without discussing however CCL-DTL keeps on removing them and claiming it's part of Melbourne and Brisbane's suburban railway network, he even saw the invisible note itself but yet he still removes them and don't allow people to re-add it, I re-added it the third time it get removed by someone else again and he just expected us to just start this new discussion about Metro Tunnel and Cross River Rail when it's already discussed Metrosfan (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the previous discussion didn't have consensus to add them. They don't qualify. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is he already saw the note, if he dosent approve this he should have left those systems there and discuss first, then only remove after discussion ended Metrosfan (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

How does it not? For the CRR, ok maybe, but for Metro Tunnel, Gracchuss has already showed the reason why it qualifies, as mentioned by SHB2000 Metrosfan (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

After Gracchuss thoroughly explained what made it a metro system, no one successfully rebutted their statement. It was agreed upon to leave Metro Tunnel as-is and add or remove it once it opens as per w:WP:CRYSTALBALL. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that Melbourne Metro should be considered a rapid transit standard since

- Despite the claim to have full grade separation, there will still be pedestrian crossings

- Never in any plans that the using Metro Tunnel was intended to be a separate metro system

- Cranbourne and Pakenham lines already completely used high-capacity trains (they would be metro standards if using this argument)

- Regional and freight trains still will use the line

Yes, there are exceptions where they may breach some metro criteria (London Metropolitan line with the London Underground, Hong Kong East Rail Line with MTR, Oslo Metro Line 1 etc.) but they tend to be part of a wider metro network which have other lines that don't break any of the metro criteria and have true metro origin so they are given a pass compare to Melbourne which does not have other true metro lines in the rail network until Suburban Rail Loop. Mhaot (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, They're a lot different to the existing Melbourne Suburban Railway Metrosfan (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The are only slightly different with the overhead voltage already but High Capacity Metro Trains were actually tested on other rail lines ,and Cranbourne and Pakenham lines will still be on a Main line railways since VLine service and Freight already and will continue to use the line. Tell me any similar metro standard line that will be similar to service of a Metro Tunnel. Mhaot (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cranbourne + Pakenham do not use advanced metro signalling unlike Metro Tunnel, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Two systems missing in Venezuela

The systems of Valencia and Maracaibo (both operating since 2006) are missing. 2806:106E:19:3EE4:F4FB:996D:CC13:64EA (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They're listed at medium-capacity rail system. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge: "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems"

Given how un-useful the current definitions of "metro" and "rapid transit" are, I and a couple other users have proposed expanding this list and making it more inclusive. In my opinion, it's more useful to make this list more inclusive, not less. This will allow for the inclusion of systems like Merseyrail, Metrovelencia, and the Elizabeth line, the latter of which has become especially divisive. Here is a sample of what proposed list could look like:

City	Country/ region	Name	Type	Service opened	Last expanded	Stations	Lines	System length	Annual ridership (millions)
Newcastle	United Kingdom	Tyne and Wear Metro	Light Metro	1980	2008	60	2	77.5 km (48.2 mi)	29.3 (2022*)
London	United Kingdom	London Underground	Rapid Transit	1863	2021	272	11	402 km (250 mi)	1,026 (2022*)
		Docklands Light Railway	Light Metro	1987	2011	45	7	34 km (21 mi)	92.3 (2022*)
		Elizabeth Line	Frequent Commuter Rail	2022	2023	41	1	117 km (73 mi)
Liverpool	United Kingdom	Merseyrail	Frequent Commuter Rail	1903	2023
Valencia	Spain	Metrovalencia	Frequent Commuter Rail	1988
Calgary	Canada	O Train	Light Metro	2019

Rckania (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are clear and authoritative sources for what constitutes a metro, and whether a system meets those qualifications such as the UITP, the APTA, and expert authors like Robert Schwandl. And this article used to be heavily based on those. The problem is every local comes along and tries to add their city's new train because of some local pride thing, and that has watered down the list and its definitions. We've got folks trying to add commuter systems, light rail, and even street trams that happen to have a tunnel section in the city center as a metro, when they clearly don't fix metro characteristics end-to-end. Instead of watering down the title and bloating the list by putting different categories into one article, we should remove these systems that aren't listed in the authoritative sources.

oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

that is what I'm trying to say before, but the Elizabeth Line people won't budge and will not allow it to be removed. Rckania (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove it anyway. There's clearly no consensus for inclusion, nor is it sourced as a metro. "Metro-like" does not mean "is a metro". oknazevad (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I just did. If metrosfan adds it again, we might need to enlist the dispute resolution team. Rckania (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There are clear and authoritative sources for what constitutes a metro, but we are not using those sources for some reason? Steelkamp (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad You seem to be under the impression that "metros" and "not metros" is very clear, but I can assure you that is not true.

And really, it shouldn't take much reading on this very website to realize that metros and not-metros have a very fuzzy, if not inexistent boundary. The boundary is perceived differently by each and every person, and it is influenced heavily by the person's background. Take AREX in Seoul for example, which I have listed as a metro line in this article and I truly believe that it is unambiguously a metro line. It has metro-like infrastructure, it connects the city to its two airports, serving the city's own interests, and some people even use it for commuting. However, per regulation, this is not a metro line, this is a mainline rail line, and it even has a history of high speed trains being operated on it. A lot of people would refuse to consider this to be a metro line, but I assure you these people will also quickly change their mind once they have a single ride on the AREX.

Another example I can cite from my personal experience is the example of Shinbundang Line vs Suin-Bundang Line. Both lines serve the purpose of connecting Seoul to its southern suburbs, and actually the Suin-Bundang line has higher within-Seoul ridership (i.e. people that use it for moving between two points within Seoul instead of using it to go to and from the suburbs). I'd actually go as far as to say that the Shinbundang is impractical for transportation within Seoul due to its higher fares. Despite this, a lot of Western transit advocates I've talked to, including some transit YouTubers, tend to believe the Shinbundang line to be a metro, but the Suin-Bundang line to be a not-metro, because the Suin-Bundang line is much longer, venturing far from the city.

I can cite at least 5 more examples of this, all with claims that the line is "unambiguously a metro" while the other side claims it to be "not a metro at all!"

In short, there is no such thing as a single, unambiguous, infallible definition of metro. It's like trying to color a map only using 3 colors. Common sense is defenseless against such blasphemous edge cases like the Keishin Line and regulations are always bound to have weird quirks. There is simply no way to include the Metropolitan Line -- the first and least-metro-like metro line -- while excluding the Yamanote Line -- the most metro-like line that isn't -- without coming up with completely arbitrary, made-up distinctions.

I think there is some practicality to be had in reorganizing this entire family of lists (including suburban, regional, light metro, whatever) into "List of Urban Rail systems in {continent name}", since the current list already suffers from being too big. North American metros generally tend to be similar to each other, and same goes for most of Europe and East Asia. That way, the different regions' different approaches to "metro" and the different connotations of the name can be implemented by having different inclusion standards per region.

I think it's useful for the North American and European lists to specify that "metro" lines should be mostly separated from the rest of the mainline system. If I recall correctly, the US government strictly bans "metro" systems from sharing tracks with other systems, while European systems just tend to be more isolated, with the notable exception of some London Underground lines. However, in Japan and South Korea, this isolation is simply not a thing. The European definition could include the grade-separation clause, both because European metro systems tend to be better grade-separated but also because of the pure abundance of tram systems in Europe. However, I think the Asian list could probably get away without including the grade-separation clause, as there are fewer tram systems in operation in the present day, and "metro" systems that fail to attain grade-separation is much more common. Laggingcomputer (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally I think we could add a column e.g. "Sources" which shows which reliable sources state that the system is a metro. For example [U] could indicate that the UITP says its a metro, [A] could indicate that the APTA says its a metro, and [S] could say that Robert Schwandal says its a metro. Coming up with our "own" definition of what is a metro is original research. Unfortunately the UITP dataset seems to be behind a paywall - https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Statistics-Brief-Metro-Figures-2021-web.pdf - perhaps we could ask them if they'd provide a least a list of what they consider to be metros according to their definitions to help the Wikipedia article?

Matthewmayer (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What are we gonna do when these sources disagree? For massive, interconnected systems like Seoul and Incheon Metros, some sources will inevitably cite them as single systems, while others list them separately? What is this list gonna do? Include both of them?

There is no single, trustworthy authority on what a metro is in the same way there is no one global standard for what a country is, or what a bus is. Different authorities are gonna disagree and then it's gonna be the same problem of arguments over and over again.

Further, consider my point that a lot of these "definitions" of metros are seldom useful. We need to consider what information we wish to convey from this list. Do we wish to convey a gospel, "this is the list of metros" situation that includes some very not-metrolike metros while excluding some very metrolike not-metros? Or do we want this list to be a useful list for people to look up urban transportation systems in different cities? Most English sources say that South Korea has 6 metro systems, but are we conveying a useful, practical information to the reader by separating Incheon metro from Seoul metro, despite the unified fare schemes, through-running schemes, and the interconnected nature of Incheon Metro, Seoul Metro, and some of the more metrolike suburban rail lines operated by Korail? Laggingcomputer (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I am suggesting to just completely abolish this list is because of this ambiguity in its definition. A "list of metro systems" is never gonna be as clear-cut as a "list of commercial passenger airplanes" or even "list of hotels in London," because the standard for a metro is fundamentally subjective. When asked for the criterion, most sources cite something like "good frequency", "high speed (compared to trams or buses)", "large capacity," well, exactly how "good" and how "high speed" and how "large"? The sources themselves have to draw a line somewhere and even these seemingly-robust, reliable lists will be filled with inconsistencies and disagreements between each other. And all of this is even before we get into the argument of what really counts as a "system" as I have questioned in my previous reply.

There is no comprehensive, unambiguous, infallible standard for what a metro is, because asking for a list of metros is like asking for a "list of good hotels in London" instead of a "list of hotels in London", how are you gonna define "good"? Laggingcomputer (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So, you are in favor of the merge, but want to split it by continent, right? Rckania (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. For The Americas, it can just be left as "Metro Systems", as frequent urban rail systems that use mainline tracks just don't exist there. For Europe, I do think it should be "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe", because there are lots of situations like Merseyrail and Metrovalencia that function the same as a metro, but technically aren't metro systems. This list should include those. Rckania (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but it might be better to call it "urban rail systems of North America" just for the sake of consistency with other lists. Some readers might wonder "why is there a metro list for NA but no other continent?" and we would have to explain it to them and all... Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think combined, North and South Don't have too many metros that won't fit on one list Rckania (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but I still think we should just leave it as "Urban Rail Systems" for consistency, that was the main point. Laggingcomputer (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough Rckania (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: Oh, how would we handle Australia and Africa? They don't have enough metro systems to warrant their own list. Rckania (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"What are we gonna do when these sources disagree?"

"Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Matthewmayer (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the issue that most sources have a very vague definition anyways. Further, my point isn't that the sources disagreeing is a fundamental issue with using sources; instead, specifically in this list, there could be arguments (just like the ones we are having now) about which sources to believe. We already have tons of issues with arguments, and this proposal exists to attempt to solve these disputes. "Just use credible sources like" doesn't fix anything. Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that APTA (one of the sources you suggested) doesn’t have a separate standard for metros either. They are split into buses, rail transit, and commuter/intercity rail. Laggingcomputer (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The APTA most certainly has separate categories for light rail and heavy rail (metro). See this 3rd quarter 2023 ridership report, which is what we already use as the ridership source in the List of United States rapid transit systems and List of United States light rail systems articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I just had some time to look at the linked UITP PDF, and I don't think that that source can be trusted. It lists Seoul Metro as having a total length of 527 km, and honestly I have no idea how one would even get such a figure. Seoul Metro + Incheon Metro as per the strict, "owned by Seoul" and "owned by Incheon" definitions are only around 420 kilometers, and even adding the other feeder light metro systems brings us nowhere near 500 km so where they magicked 100 km is lost for me. It also lists Tokyo as having 381 km of metro, which is awfully too high, once again. The conventional definition of Tokyo Metro yields 318 km, and even including several other lines that could be considered metro lines, I got nowhere near the required 63 km of extra length.

As per the definition cited at the bottom of the PDF, it says "Metros are high capacity urban rail systems, running on an exclusive right-of-way. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of a minimum of two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers per train." Which is awfully loose, what is "urban", what is "high capacity"? It is technically possible to use the Shinkansen to go between several stations within the Tokyo Metropolis, is that urban? Does the "exclusive right-of-way" allow for level crossings or not? Why on earth would they exclude Japanese urban private rail companies when they fit most of these definitions? (And no, they didn't include private railways to get to the 381 km figure, if I included all private rail lines that fit this definition, it would be way, wayyy over 381 km.)

As I have already said, these definitions are in no way sufficient, and I stand in my belief that trying to rigorously define what a "metro" is a futile effort that will culminate in nothing. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The UITP is the main international body. The fact that their definitions may be loose already allows for that fuzziness you mention. But most importantly, they're a reliable third party source, not original research. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fuzziness is the entire problem. That's why there are arguments about this certain systems being included in here at all.

The Elizabeth line, in my eyes, perfectly fits those definitions, at least the core section that is. "Elizabeth Line Core" would be a valid entry in my eyes, as it is high-capacity, urban, and has exclusive ROW in the core, but I know many people would disagree with this.

The entire point of this proposed merge is to get rid of this potential for argument, and what your argument does is just adding onto this argument, instead of refuting it. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a merge for the reasons given by Laggingcomputer and the point made by Steelkamp, which I 100% agree with, which is that, despite there being sources in the article, editors are often entirely ignoring what those sources say and making their own calls on what is or isn't a metro. That's the very definition of WP:OR. A unified list would solve that. Valenciano (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, given that quite a few people are in support of the merge, I created a draft for the Europe list. This does not mean a merge will happen, but it gives us a place to discuss this topic further and hopefully improve.

Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe - Wikipedia Rckania (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I also made one for all systems: Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems - Wikipedia

We don't know if it will be by continent or all systems. Rckania (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the above section, though, you can't do "core". It's either the whole line or not at all. That's always been the inclusion criteria. See entries for Boston or Philadelphia, for example. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to come here and give my support to the oppose team. I think the concept of a "Metro" is extremly subjective. But I think a metro should feel like one. I use this logic inspired by Justice Potter Steward: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["Metro"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and urban railways like Metrovalencia o the Elizabeth line are not that." They don´t feel like metros.

I do like the idea of a List of Urban railways. Then we can include them as well as the Biotren from Chile and the S-Bahn from Berlin. Theonoentiendo (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice to just have a list of "metro" that includes everything that "feels like metro" if there were a clear line.

But there isn't a clear line. There's all sorts of edge cases and disputes about what is and is not a metro. Perfectly rational and logical people look at these edge cases and make completely different conclusions from each other. Sure, you might look at the Elizabeth line and think that that's not a metro but to me that quite obviously is. And even if you chalk this example up to me being irrational, there are tons and tons of other edge cases like a bunch of Tokyo metro lines with private rail or even JR through-running.

Further, as described by @Matthewmayer, Wikipedia lists are supposed to have pretty rigid definitions. I don't think it needs to be said that "it should feel like a metro" is much worse than possible original research from defining "Urban Railway." If people start adding things that "feel like metro," we might as well reach the urban railway list without even changing the title. Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Theres already a article on fandom that shows the list of every urban rail systems, it included a lot of light rail and commuter rail systems that may have aspects of metros Metrosfan (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, Thanks for the explanation :) Theonoentiendo (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

i believe that Istanbul, Tbilisi, Yerevan and Baku should be included aswell, since Tbilisi, Yerevan and Baku are kinda also in Europe and are similar towards the other Soviet Systems in Russia and Ukraine, while Istanbul Metro M1 kind of looks similar to the Tyne and Wear Metro Metrosfan (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

i debated whether or not to include Istanbul, but I decided against it because the rest of the Turkish metros won't be listed Rckania (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support this idea. This list is clearly OR, the UITP definition is very broad and simply does not support the very narrow definition of metro applied in these decisions/discussions. I believe it is misleading in its portrayal of whether something can be easily determined to be a metro or not, it's also a narrowly European definition, which is why American/Australasian/Asian systems where both cities and rail cultures are different so often don't neatly fit into it. I think the term "List of urban rail systems" would suffice and electric can be specified in the text. Or they can be broken up by continent. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: @Valenciano: @Metrosfan: @OrewaTel: I created one of the drafts for a potential merge just in case. This does not mean anything will happen, but it's probably a good idea to a draft going, if anything, just to compare the two lists. Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe - Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckania (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes a "whole line"? Where do you draw the boundary of a "whole line?" the whole through-running? the whole designation? the legal scopes of a single "line?" Sure, "Elizabeth Line Core" might not be a valid line, but Crossrail is, and it only encompasses the Paddington - Stratford/Abbey Woods section, while Elizabeth Line encompasses the entire service. These two things --while related -- are distinct and separate.

Most people would agree that the Tokyo Metro Tozai Line is a metro, even though this line features through-running services to the JR network that may potentially not count as a metro, and this applies to several other Tokyo Metro lines, so if it is branded separately, it is not a single line? Contrast that to the example of Seoul Line 1, Line 3, and Line 4 which many people are reluctant to consider to be metro lines. Until 2000, the Seoul Metro "core" sections of these lines and the Korail sections were displayed and designated as separate lines that simply through-operate, much like the Tokyo Metro example. In 2000, they simply started designating the entire thing as a single line, while changing nothing in terms of operations. Does that really mean that Seoul "lost" 3 metro lines in 2000? Does that not sound a bit silly?

And don't even try to argue that the Tokyo Metro lines with through-running shouldn't count, you'd leave Tokyo with a mere 3 metro lines.

Vagueness is the whole issue, and I, for one, am particularly against "whole line" definitions. Even without these through-running examples, it's easy to demonstrate this "whole-line" definitions' silliness. If a metro line fits all the definitions as-is, but the city builds an extension that violates some condition, "whole line" definitions rule that the city "lost" a metro line.

Further, a lot of this hinges on the branding, if Toei Tozai Line can be a metro but Crossrail can't, that seems to signify to me that once again, this definition would be beholden by the arbitrary designations given by the local transportation agency. We have already reached a consensus that "the city calls it a metro so it's a metro" is complete bogus; by the same token, "it is several different interconnected lines because the city says it is" should not be accepted either.

Even considering other modes of rail transport, this kind of "whole line" justification is rarely applied. Consider HSRs, some HSR networks operate services that operate high-speeds in some "core" or "trunk" section, while operating slower speeds on some other sections to provide HSR access to places that are not directly on the HSR. The KTX does this on several occasions, and even the Shinkansen does this on Akita Shinkansen and Yamagata Shinkansen services. These services are still considered HSR services. The fact that "metro" requires such arbitrary and counterintuitive definitions -- to me -- signifies that "metro" is not really a useful and practical category. Laggingcomputer (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A merged list just changes the argument to "what is an electric urban rail system" instead of "what is a metro". Wikipedia:Verifiability says

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. ... Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies."

Again, I'd argue that trying to come up with our own unique definitions is against these core content policies. Our own opinions of "what is a metro" are not important. We should be trying to agree on which secondary sources to rely on instead. Matthewmayer (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what is an "electric urban rail" is pretty clear, be electrified and function as a part of the urban transportation, be able to be boarded with the use of a transit card, etc. Compared to what a metro is, it is much less of a headache.

"Original research" argument could be refuted by saying that "electric urban rail" is a common sense term, like "bread" or "chair" and that we don't need credible sources, but I know this is a bit sketchy. Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As a potential reliable source for Europe for example, https://projects.shift2rail.org/download.aspx?id=2977dbc6-c401-4b23-8c0f-5b4c908cbb81 sec 4.9.1 which is EU-funded research based on UITP data lists the following cities as having metros as of 2019. This could be cross-referenced against the current list Matthewmayer (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Vienna	Austria
Brussels	Belgium
Sofia	Bulgaria
Prague	Czech Republic
Copenhagen	Denmark
Helsinki	Finland
Lille	France
Lyon	France
Marseille	France
Paris	France
Rennes	France
Toulouse	France
Berlin	Germany
Hamburg	Germany
Munich	Germany
Nuremberg	Germany
Athens	Greece
Budapest	Hungary
Brescia	Italy
Catania	Italy
Genoa	Italy
Milan	Italy
Naples	Italy
Rome	Italy
Turin	Italy
Amsterdam	Netherlands
Rotterdam	Netherlands
Oslo	Norway
Warsaw	Poland
Lisbon	Portugal
Bucharest	Romania
Barcelona	Spain
Bilbao	Spain
Madrid	Spain
Palma	Spain
Sevilla	Spain
Valencia	Spain
Stockholm	Sweden
Lausanne	Switzerland
Adana	Turkey
Ankara	Turkey
Bürsa	Turkey
Istanbul	Turkey
Izmir	Turkey
Glasgow	UK
London	UK

Matthewmayer (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Given how arguments have been made back and forth umptillion times here before (as there is no single clear definition), I think it makes sense to finally avoid any ambiguities by merging them together. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Would you like to contribute to the drafts? Rckania (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Support this endeavor given the well-established difficulties with defining metros in one specific way. Thanks for taking it on! I'd like to share two comments: (1) I'm not in favor of splitting the lists by continent as that would help introduce inconsistencies and would be somewhat duplicative of already existing country-specific articles like Urban rail transit in China and List of United States rapid transit systems and (2) There might not be a need to specify "electric" in the title of the proposed article as the overwhelming majority of urban rail systems are electric and since the specific power source is (arguably) not the defining feature of urban rail. Pyzirikov (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are currently tow drafts going, but it's taking awhile. The Europe list is nearly complete, while the list for the whole earth is untouched. I don't know if it will be by continent or not, so I'm working on both, to see which one people like better. I would love to see more people work on these drafts as articles that are written by just one person usually end up pretty crappy or have glaring oversights. Rckania (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Splitting it into continents is just a suggestive compromise for those who think that the combined list will be too big, and frankly I kinda agree with them. The list right now is already extremely large, and if we expand the definition it will become even larger, perhaps borderline impractical.

  I do see how it will be somewhat duplicative of some lists like the US list, but I'm not sure how the China list plays into this as even within just "East Asia", there are Japan and Korea to make the list different enough in my views, and within the whole of Asia (as it would be split into) resides India, another country with quite a lot of urban rail systems.

  Even with the US list, I think Canada and Mexico have enough transportation systems to justify a separate list, and we could always just merge it into "Americas" and include South America as well. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  How will be handle Africa and Australia? Those continents don't have enough systems to justify their own lists. Rckania (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can do Americas, Europe, Asia, and "Other Continents" Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Merge Australia into Asia Metrosfan (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, Asia already has way too many metro systems as-is, I feel. And Australia doesn't really fit along with Asia. Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

and here is another good source for the Middle East:

https://uclg-mewa.org/uploads/file/921e80d14cd24d8a8db14e7c757376d6/UITP_UCLG-MEWA_Urban_Mobility_%20Report_2020.pdf Matthewmayer (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: @Valenciano: @Metrosfan: @OrewaTel: @Pyzirikov: @SHB2000: The Europe list is done. The draft is not even close to finished, but I belive I got all the systems listed. I am now moving onto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Electric_Urban_Rail_Systems_in_The_Americas Rckania (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, as most reliable sources agree on three criteria.
  • Being completely grade separate (with FEW exceptions: Chicago, Oslo and Rotterdam)
  • Having high capacity (leaving out light metros),
  • Serving only urban areas (leaving out long commuter lines with downtown metro-style sections).

Adding some of the sources: here (page 18) which also defines "light metro" and here (page 80). Agreeing with Matthewmayer largely on this. --KatVanHuis (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How can we decide whether an exception is valid or not? Why those ones count, but systems with identical infrastructure don't? Rckania (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We decide (as in every case at Wikipedia) based on reliable sources; it's a policy since the birth of Wikipedia. If one (preferably two or more) sources state that Chicago has a true metro system, then it can be added to the list. Systems are highly complicated and will never have identical infrastructure (or history). The Rotterdam system for instance, was newly built as a full metro system. In later years the Dutchies decided to add infrastructure with level-crossings, likely to cut on investment costs. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, there are still several problems

1. the question of what constitutes a line or a system.

As for lines, if you do "whole through-running" you leave Tokyo with 3 metro lines, if you do "single line" you have to admit "Crossrail" (aka Elizabeth Line Core) and "Jongno Line" (aka Seoul Line 1 core) as metros. And it appears a lot of people disagree on what "grade separation" really means. Some people take this to mean "no level crossings," some people take this to mean "exclusive right-of-way," most seem to take it to mean both. (My objection applies to both cases)

As for grade crossings, I have further objections. Korea has done extensive level crossing removal projects throughout the years, completely eliminating level crossings on several "national rail" sections of Seoul Line 1. Level crossing condition would say that the lines somehow magically turned into a metro line upon the removal of the last level crossing, which is frankly ridiculous!

2. what is "high capacity," anyways? Does this leave out MTA's shuttle lines and Seoul Line 2 depot shuttles because they use trains that are too short to be "high capacity"? If two metro-ish lines use the same model of trains and have similar infrastructure but one has more cars per train, does that really mean that one of them is somehow more metro-like?

3. what is "urban"? People argue about the extent of metropolises and cities all the time, and the last thing we need in here is more argument. Seoul Line 4, being built in the 80s, used to have very rural sections, which were developed over time. Does this mean that the line 4 magically turned into a metro when they developed around the stations despite nothing changing about the service itself? Mind you, similar examples exist all over China as well, so this isn't just a one-off case.

There are a few more issues I would like to bring up, such as my consistent objection (that gets never addressed) that extensions should not disqualify lines from being metros. If there was a perfectly good metro line, but the city extended it with either some non-grade separated sections or some non-urban sections, that shouldn't mean that the city "lost" a metro line. Laggingcomputer (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Auto people movers

@Rckania@Nonusme@Matthewmayer@Ymblanter@Oknazevad@OrewaTel@Fork99@Laggingcomputer Should there be a notice about which auto people movers (urban only) qualifies and dosent qualifies for this list, some apm systems like the Macau LRT and Bangkok BTS Gold Line (included in BTS Skytrain's data) were on this list, while some like Detroit People's Mover and Serfaus U-Bahn aren't, it will cause some confusion so therefore, there should be a consensus on which Urban APM is included Metrosfan (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

i'm actually not sure where the line is drawn. The Detroit people moved us not included but the French mini metros are. I think it just comes down to the length Rckania (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say most people movers and AGT (except VAL and Innovia Metro) should not belong on this list. Also, Macau and Gold Line were not originally on this list, so I would remove them as well. Even for VAL and Innovia Metro some enties would not qualify because of their purpose. Nonusme (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Gold Line was included in BTS SkyTrain data, also I think the Macau LRT qualifies because despite of it's rolling stock its length is gonna be longer than many APM systems because it has a lot of extensions planned, the Singapore LRT kinda qualifies too Metrosfan (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Gold line data was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_metro_systems&diff=1187918905&oldid=1187849292, but I see there was previous consensus to keep Macau on the list. Also, the VAL and Innovia systems have higher frequencies (for example, 40-55 trains per hour in Lille, but Gold Line usually has 10 trains per hour) Nonusme (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

i wouldn't really call the VAL systems are apm systems because despite of not having connections between both coaches the back of the coach doesn't have the same front as the front Metrosfan (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

My point is that I think that people movers (as in every entry on the people movers article) don't belong on this list. Also, the rolling stock of a system is considered when designating a metro, which is why metro-like systems in Seville and Malaga are also excluded, as they have light rail rolling stock. Nonusme (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

hang on but why the Orlyval cannot be on this list even though it's pretty much the same as the Lille Metro, Toulose Metro and Rennes Metro Line A Metrosfan (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Because Orlyval (and CDGval, which is also uses VAL) are airport people movers. Their purpose is to connect different terminals of their respective airports, but they also provide service to the RER. Nonusme (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they are a problem to qualify for the list, the rolling stock is the same as the Lille Metro, Toulouse Metro, and Rennes Metro Line A, their length is longer than some other metro systems,plus it is listed on the light metro systems list and a different language version of this article, so therefore it does belong here Metrosfan (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Orlyval fails to meet the criteria (1) connecting urban areas (it's an airport related people mover and (2) lacks a higher capacity. The only thing in common with a full metro system is the grade-separated infrastructure. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

how does it even lack a higher capacity? Metrosfan (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not only because of the lower frequency, but also the very limited amount of stations for people to get on and off the VAL-trains. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

the frequency is higher than the Chicago L and the Oslo Metro, and those are listed here, and since they completely belong here I believe the Orlyval is the same Metrosfan (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The capacity is build up by (1) frequency, (2) size of each train and (3) the length of a line, as a longer line can employ more trains. Orlyval only delivers at #1.

Also, and as I said before: Orlyval is not urban transit. Like a line that gets you to school, work, hospitals (or other services) and entertainment like cinemas. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not a general-purpose line. It exists solely for people to connect to and within the airport. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although both CDGVal and Orlyval have the same rolling stock as some metro lines, they don't provide frequent enough service (12tph for Orlyval and 15tph for CDGVal, compared to 33-55 tph for the other VAL lines). This, along with the points that KatVanHuis mentioned, is why Orlyval and CDGVal are not on this list. Nonusme (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

but it is listed on the medium capacity rail systems list and a different language version of this article Metrosfan (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It probably should be removed from the medium-capacity list. And even if it isn't, medium-capacity systems are just that, a category of systems below metro capacity and therefore not metros. That's why they're not on this list. oknazevad (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, to add, what other language Wikipedias do is irrelevant. oknazevad (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I can only agree it should be removed from the medium-capacity list. If other language Wikipedia list it as such, either no source or an irrelevant one is used. It should be removed from that list too. Wikipedia works with reliable external resources. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)