Talk:List of United States commuter rail systems

Article name?

Do we really need the "by ridership" in the article title? We don't have any other list of US commuter systems as far as I can tell, and the statistics here include much more than that. Yes, the chart is listed by ridership, but I don't think that needs to be in the title. oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This article really is just 'by ridership'. Ought to be another article out there (perhaps 'Commuter Rail in North America') with short descriptions of each of the lines...and there is: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail_in_North_America>. This page is just ridership for US Commuter rail. Theblindsage (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not my point. My point is that saying it's "by ridership" when the table is sortable is unneeded.

Then again, with that other article almost completely duplicating this chart, my real question becomes: "why does this article even exist?!?". It's an unneeded, duplicative fork that only doubles the maintenance headaches. Maybe just merging it is a better idea? oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, an article focused on just U.S. commuter rail systems is justified (e.g. Light rail in North America vs. Light rail in the United States...). Now, whether it should be moved to just List of United States commuter rail systems (or even, simply, Commuter rail in the United States, with a commensurate change in WP:SCOPE?...), I have no opinion on, outside of believing that that question is properly settled with a WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Listing of San Jose and SF in Caltrain table

San Jose is the larger of the two cities: both of which are equally influential in the region for different industries and aspects. And it is not close. San Jose has a population of over 1 million. SF has 800k. The main Caltrain article lists San Jose before San Francisco. You would not list New York after Washington, or Houston after Dallas. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

While San Jose may be slightly larger in population, Caltrain is (and always has been) a San Francisco-centric service. You can see that in the passenger counts - San Francisco has over three times San Jose's ridership. In fact, Palo Alto has 50% higher ridership than San Jose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

^ THIS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ridership at stations is not a metric used to determine a list of cities. It is cultural importance, population, job centers. This topic has been discussed numerous times on Bay Area-centric Wikipedia pages, and is why San Francisco's own page no longer denotes it as "the" cultural center of NorCal, but just a cultural center. Unlike other metropolitan regions, the Bay Area is vast and dispersed, with different cultural and business centers. This can be seen in commute patterns across the East Bay, Silicon Valley, and the Peninsula-- none of which centers exclusively around San Francisco as it does for New York, Chicago, and other major American cities. If you don't want to list San Jose first, I don't think it's proper to list San Francisco first either for the same reasons. Neither city centers the region. I would go with "San Francisco Bay Area" broadly, instead of a specific ordering of cities. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's about consensus at the article. Which you don't have. Please stop edit warring over this, and self-revert (as per WP:STATUSQUO among other things). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus, of what, 2 people? I won't further the numerous amount of revisions already. But there's no consensus that exists here, at all, until other editors weigh in. I'm a fan of the idea of just listing "San Francisco Bay Area" instead of having a specific ordering of two cities. That's my vote. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The ridership figures show what needs to be said. People ride to San Francisco, mostly. Plus, when a change is disputed, the previous version remains until discussion happens. oknazevad (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't dispute that at all, which is why I haven't reverted any edits since my last post to this talk page. Ridership is not a sole arbiter, especially when ridership to SF does not make up anywhere near a majority of rides on the entire system. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Needs more recent numbers

2019 was four years ago. I know that 2020-2021 numbers would be skewed due to the pandemic, but 2022 numbers (if available) would be a better representation. Most systems have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels; it's important to have up to date numbers instead of giving the impression ridership is higher than it actually is. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

See this related discussion – we're waiting for Q4 2022 figures, which should be available from APTA any day now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) HouseBlaster^talk 17:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

---

• List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership → List of United States commuter rail systems
• List of United States local bus agencies by ridership → List of United States local bus agencies
• List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership → List of United States rapid transit systems
• List of United States light rail systems by ridership → List of United States light rail systems

– Since these lists have statistics other than ridership and there aren't any other lists of US transit systems, I don't see why "by ridership" has to be in the title. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense. I'd say the moves should be done. Piemadd (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.