The largest and most extensive metro systems

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

The wikipedia statistic is erroneous when used to extrapolate annual ridership. As I said, most transit systems worldwide either report by mean daily usage (inclusive of weekends) or mean annual usage.

I suppose it's a philosophical difference more than anything... Personally, I think having weekday and weekend ridership separate is more useful than having a single number that can be multiplied by 365 to get annual ridership. The latter waters down the statistic too much and doesn't tell you much about how many actually ride day-to-day.

[nemu]

In Japan, the metro or 'subway' they call it refers only to subway companies that run fully underground and are generally confined to CBD (downtown) areas.

However, If you apply standards used by NYC or the Tube to define 'metro' then i think JR and the private rail in Japan should also be included.


Osaka subway map



Osaka rail map

[Longershanks]

does anyone have a rank of cities for journeys taken per day? Isn't the purpose of a metro system to have people use it? Moscow is a big system but is it a s busy as Shanghai?

[jarbury]

There's a whole thread about that: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=655976

1) Tokyo (metro & toei)
2) Moscow
3) Seoul
4) NYC
5) Mexico City

Annualised figures...

[espada89]

why?u mean its bcz some JR and private line passes under the ground like metro?
ya thay do.but technicaly and only between few stations.example from i see,like soubu-kaisoku line of JR in tokyo is passing under the ground for like 5 stations(around tokyo station)right? with distance,almost from kinshicho to shinagawa.ya maybe its quite long distance for this line which is not even being called subway.and it also goes under ground at narita for going to airport.but if u consider the longest distance from start to end of soubu-kaisoku line,its servicing bitween yokosuka to narita airport(not at all though).so the part which its passing under the ground is not even 5% of all long of this line.so finaly its not defined as metro or subway in japan.but how is it in other country?

[sotavento]

Originally Posted by Minato ku

Actually only 5 lines out 16 run with rubber tired train.
(56.1 km of 214 km)
This is about 1/4 of the system, hardly the majority.

What city would not include these as metro ?

Mexico city (largest rubber tired system) ?
Montreal ?
Santiago ?
Sapporo ?
Lyon ?

Please show me a city that exclude these as a metro.

You read me wrong then ...

Paris "tire trains" are considered to be a "valid" part of the Paris Metor ... so everyone else that runs tire trains gets thrown in also ... otherwise who knows if those other Metro systems would be called a metro without someone claiming that they were not.

Originally Posted by Justme

though I certainly agree the Metro North and Long Island networks are commuter rail and not metro, Path does look to me as a proper metro system. If I understand correctly, due to historical reasons it's still viewed officially as a normal railway but it effectively operates as a metro system.

NY "Metro" companies are pure suburban rail.

[sotavento]

Originally Posted by espada89

why?u mean its bcz some JR and private line passes under the ground like metro?
ya thay do.but technicaly and only between few stations.example from i see,like soubu-kaisoku line of JR in tokyo is passing under the ground for like 5 stations(around tokyo station)right? with distance,almost from kinshicho to shinagawa.ya maybe its quite long distance for this line which is not even being called subway.and it also goes under ground at narita for going to airport.but if u consider the longest distance from start to end of soubu-kaisoku line,its servicing bitween yokosuka to narita airport(not at all though).so the part which its passing under the ground is not even 5% of all long of this line.so finaly its not defined as metro or subway in japan.but how is it in other country?

If JR East were to be "named" Metro Tolyo tomorrow it would still be a fully prototipical metro on some routes ... the only thing that would change is your (and some others) bias towards it.

[sotavento]

[iampuking]

Originally Posted by sotavento

The station looks like a rural station because when it was built it was rural. It is in an urban area these days, what's your point?

[Bitxofo]

His point is to consider Porto tramway as a full metro system...

[coth]

strange point. it looks more like is LU a real metro or city railway. in any way LU is heavy rail, Porto tramway is light rail.

[Justme]

Hey, that's a lovely station there in Kew. Wish our local station was as nice as that.

[quashlo]

I've found this list does a better job of attempting to compare networks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tems_by_length

It definitely needs refinement, though... It's got some people-mover / automated guideway stuff in there and some of the cities are probably undercounted (e.g., Moscow, Seoul) or overcounted (e.g., Los Angeles).

[Bitxofo]

Originally Posted by quashlo

I've found this list does a better job of attempting to compare networks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tems_by_length

It definitely needs refinement, though... It's got some people-mover / automated guideway stuff in there and some of the cities are probably undercounted (e.g., Moscow, Seoul) or overcounted (e.g., Los Angeles).

It has too many mistakes...

For Europe, this one is more accurated:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=65822

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by sotavento

Hé! what's wrong with my old metro stop?!? I see that its British Rail Buffet has been trashed (good); the trees haven't grown (period ); somebody out there still likes it enough to be photographing it on a bright day...gotta wonder, though, who's pricily leasing the frond-some veg...

[sotavento]

Originally Posted by Bitxofo

His point is to consider Porto tramway as a full metro system...

"Metro do Porto" is the NAME of a company wich runns in FULL METRO INFRAESTRUCTURE (or something of that sort) inside Porto City (the 13km indide Porto are actualy as much "metro" as LondonU) and runs as a suburban/comuter or as a tram on the neighbouring municipalities

Actualy IT IS a TRAM/LightRail/Metro/Suburban/Comuter network (at least the current vehicle is a 100% light rail) and nobody has ever claimed anything else (since it has everything mixed together already)... but one undeniable fact is that (just like tokyo and some other networks) inside the city proper it meets every one of the "qualifiyng" atributes to be a Metro(and nobody ever claims that it's a metro).

But neglecting that you are just ABUSING (as usual in everyplace in SSC a portuguese has made any comment about something or adds some info then a flammer cames posting CRAP about some "hidden pseudo-intent of bragging about something" that was never said by the flammed portuguese guy ... special favorites are posts bashing something about portugal (in this case Porto Metro)).

Here we discuss (at least I am) the "shortcomings" and "qualities" of the London Metro/Subway system (not only of London Underground) and not the "light rail"/"Stadtbahn" of Porto and it's surrounding areas ... If you want to go jogular on Metro do Porto then we can discuss about Barcelona , valencia or Madrid Metros ... I think we can find some pretty scary details that would alow us to stop calling those as "full metro" (whatever white pristine horse drawn carts that might be).

As an aditional notice ... railways in portugal were never segregated ... only Lisboa Metropolitan , Porto Metro (inside porto city) and the "upgraded" railway sections are "segregated".

Originally Posted by coth

strange point. it looks more like is LU a real metro or city railway. in any way LU is heavy rail, Porto tramway is light rail.

Porto Tramway IS NOT Porto Metro ... 2 different networks ... Porto tramways are operated by STCP (state owned company that also runs the Porto Buses) ... Metro do Porto is the old narrow gauge suburban heavy rail network of Porto ... with some added metro tunels in the city centre ... but it also runs some light rail routes in neighbouring cities(Metropolitan Areas in portugal are not a reality yet).

Actualy Porto Metro IS Heavy rail ... since it is converted/upgraded narrow gauge heavy rail and you can as easily put metro stile cars there tomorow.

As usual ... people see the eurotram and misunderstood the rest ...

Comparing LUL (take KEW station for example) to MdoP is completely erroneous since KEW is 10km from the city centre and is inside london ... Porto Municipality doesn't even stretch 10km from one side to the other.

And inside Porto's 13km of trackage theres only 1 (one) level crossing between MdoP and local roads (near S.joão Hospital) ... wich is an example of bad planning) not to be repeated anywhere else (hopefully).

Outside porto municipality theres some tram stile routes in matosinhos (should be a segregated tram there), maia (they made a variant to the old railway so they could pass tru city centre) and the airport link and in gaia (across th eDouro river) they just cut the upper level of the bridge and made a tram route in the main street ... the rest (half the lenght of the network actualy) is pure suburban/comuter rail (quite funny to take a 1h trip in a eurotram ... not!).

Originally Posted by iampuking

The station looks like a rural station because when it was built it was rural. It is in an urban area these days, what's your point?

Actualy IT IS a rural station ... as most of London metro area is RURAL (in USA they would call it "suburbia" do to the low density housing) ... but nonetheless it is a (sort of) Metro station (I would call comuter/urban trains in London area as METRO anyday).

In fact it's a SHARED Station since both LU and Network rail use that station (in the same tracks/platforms), and soon London Overground will take the place of the urban/comuter trains.

Originally Posted by trainrover

Hé! what's wrong with my old metro stop?!? I see that its British Rail Buffet has been trashed (good); the trees haven't grown (period ); somebody out there still likes it enough to be photographing it on a bright day...gotta wonder, though, who's pricily leasing the frond-some veg...

What's wrong ??? beats the hell out of me !!!


If you want to get some free flammes for your local tube station go talk to bitxofo or someone else like him used to abuse/flame people in SSC ...

We are discussing about metro/subway networks here ... so I'm adding info about some networks ... and having a hard time managing to knock some sence out of everyone's biased/hard-brainwash-impressed view of what a metro is in reality.

For example ... LUL is not a segregated network ... so if LUL is counted then we should consider to add the DLR and the LO(london overground) to the London mileage (just ADD ALL the networks and then put a discriminated listing of each one).

It would make a much better listing in the end.

To my acount we get (using the biased asumptions wich seem consensuous here):

Originally Posted by Bitxofo

Nowadays, by length:

1. London ...................0km.(not segregated)
2. New York................398.00km.
3. Tokyo......................0km.(not segregated)
4. Moscow...................292.00km.
5. Seoul.......................286.90km.
6. Madrid.....................281.58km.
7. Paris.........................213.00km.
8. Mexico City...............201.70km.
9. Washington..............171.20km.
10. San Francisco.........0km.(light rail + comuter)
11. Chicago..................166.00km.
12. Berlin.....................144.10km.
13. Osaka.....................137.80km.
14. Beijing…….........……..114.00km.
15. Singapore...............109.00km.
16. Barcelona...............0km.(some oddities there)
17. Stockholm..............105.70km.
18. Saint Petersburg…...105.50km.
19. Shanghai…...……......103.50km.
20. Hamburg.................100.70km.

Using the actual definition I get this ... most of the systems NOT cut were not fully inspected yet ...

[notice: this rant was only BECAUSE of bitxofo's free flamming at me]

[coth]

Light rails using same gauges as heavy rails.

this is the light rail. it's just several underground stations, which means nothing. it's also uses tram cars.

[jarbury]

I think we can get a little fussy about what is and isn't a metro. As has been explained in this thread about a million times, it's a grey issue. There isn't a set in concrete definition of what makes a metro, there are lots and lots of hybrid systems that appear to be somewhat metro-like. There are also lots of systems that are 98% compliant with what we'd think a metro to be, but have one little thing that is a bit unusual. I don't think we should exclude them on that basis.

I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to push through sotavento. It seems like you become incredibly defensive whenever anyone else questions what you're saying. You keep bringing up Porto's transport networks saying they're metro-like but you're not sure if they're proper metros, then you say it's more like a tram, then you point out parts of London's system that are more "commuter rail" like. What are you trying to achieve? What's your point?

I've been relatively convinced that much of JR East should/could be considered to be a metro. But it's generally the Japanese themselves that separate it off from Toei and the Tokyo Metro. If you think that Porto's trams are well and truly a metro, then make an argument for it - stop sitting on the fence saying "oh yes they are, but actually they're not".

And most of all, have a bit of common sense and calm down somewhat. Nobody's saying your city sucks because its metro might not be a real metro. Nobody's saying London has the best rail transportation system in the world (in fact many Londoners would say quite the opposite I would think) just because it happens to end up at the top of this particular list.

Finally, I don't have an agenda to push. I live in a city without anything that could possible resemble a metro. If we're arguing over which city in the world has the worst rail system Auckland might be on that list.

[Bitxofo]

Originally Posted by sotavento

...

[notice: this rant was only BECAUSE of bitxofo's free flamming at me]

I have nothing against you or Portugal (country that I love), do NOT invent personal attacks.

Porto does not have a "full metro" system, that's all.

[iampuking]

Originally Posted by sotavento

Actualy IT IS a rural station ... as most of London metro area is RURAL (in USA they would call it "suburbia" do to the low density housing) ... but nonetheless it is a (sort of) Metro station (I would call comuter/urban trains in London area as METRO anyday).

In fact it's a SHARED Station since both LU and Network rail use that station (in the same tracks/platforms), and soon London Overground will take the place of the urban/comuter trains.

Rural is a village or something. Suburbia is not rural. In fact this is inner suburbia.

We can argue until the fat lady sings, but your arguments are just a load of bollocks. Go ahead, re-write the list, do whatever you want and watch Porto "win". I doubt anyone will read it anyway, as they'll probably have given up because of the relentless diarrhoeia you keep posting.