Talk:Muni Metro

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Should the F line be included

[edit]

Was it a deliberate decision not to include the F (Historic Streetcar) line in this article? It's not just for the tourists going to Fisherman's Wharf; it is used by many commuters debarking from the Ferry Building and heading up the Embarcadero or down Market.

Atlant 16:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I followed Muni's own guidelines in this case; the F Line is not considered a Metro line, since the Metro designation itself dates from the building of the Market Street tunnel, where the PCCs and other historic streetcars of the F Line cannot go. I debated when writing the article whether or not to include the F line, which is sort of an orphan within the system (it's not a bus, it's not a cable car, it has a letter route designation like the Metro lines but isn't included in the official Muni Metro system map (http://transit.511.org/providers/maps/SF_923200345557.pdf)). I ended up just creating a link to a (nonexistant) F Line page in the hopes that someone would flesh it out. It probably wouldn't hurt to discuss it in more detail in the Muni Metro article, but I think we should be clear that it isn't part of the Muni Metro system proper. In fact, I think I'll add that verbiage right now. --Jfruh 18:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I kind's figured that was the rationale, and it sounds good to me. :-) I also saw the non-existant F-line link and, time permitting, I'll write something about that based on Muni's brochure.
Thanks!
Atlant 18:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Muni Metro

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Muni Metro's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "chronology":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light rail or semi-metro

[edit]

There has been a debate recently whether the system is a "semi-metro" or a "light rail" system. I am of the accord that the system was a "semi-metro" from 1980 to November 2022 when the Central Subway was opened, thus creating a full "light rail" corridor (Sunnydale-Chinatown) in addition to the hybrid/upgraded lines. I maintain, however, that although currently absent from the American vernacular, "semi-metro" has a history in writing, and given that the majority (5/6) of lines fall better into the "semi-metro" category, it should be an accepted name alongside "light rail". Therefore, I have added a note to the introduction mentioning "semi-metro" as a historic/international alternative classification. This is up for debate, but let's talk here rather than make any rash edits. CallumC.Gurney (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CallumC.Gurney for your suggestions. Though I think it's not the question: light rail or semi-metro?, it can be both. As much as a "trolleybus" is a type of "bus"; equally a "semi-metro" is a type of "light rail". And in addition to that, the opening of the Central Subway makes the Muni Metro light rail system even more a "semi-metro". KatVanHuis (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that the system falls into many categories, that's why I even included 'premetro' as the system is a mix of level-boarding underground/overground high level stations and streetside low-floor stops slowly being converted. I personally believe the hierarchy goes: light rail>semi-metro/premetro>Muni Metro. I personally love the oddities and diversity of the Muni system, buses, trolleybuses, trams/streetcars, cable cars, semi-metro, all with different propulsion systems, gauges, direction names and collection systems.
I still would rather Muni Metro be classified as a semi-metro, but I believe that this is a neutral and more accurate compromise. CallumC.Gurney (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply CallumC.Gurney. Indeed the Muni Metro could categorised as "premetro", but I think only the Market Street subway as (correct me if I'm wrong), only the Muni part of that subway can easily be upgraded to rapid transit.
About the hierarchy: when composing any encyclopedia, we need to look at the context. Two examples:
Then the SF trolleybus falls into the "trolleybus" category and all categories above, the Muni Metro (MM) falls into the "semi-metro" category and all categories above and the Market Street subway into the "premetro" category and all categories above.
Classifying MM as "semi-metro" is neutral and the most accurate, because it's the most narrow category that applies. But sure, since "semi-metro" isn't a widely known term it is best to be explained immediately that it's a type of light rail. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question to me is not "does the MM fall into the category of semi-metro" but "do reliable sources routinely describe MM as a semi-metro" and "is semi-metro a term that reliable sources commonly use in discussing US rail transit systems." In my experience, this is not a common term used in discussing US rail transit. APTA, the main public transit professional association here, generally only uses commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail as its three categorization buckets, with MM falling into the later category. Getting into the specifics of categories beyond that only gives rise to philosophical categorization arguments of exactly the sort we're having now, without any authoritative source we can turn to in order to confirm or deny it.
MM is indisputably a light rail system. If people want more details than that, the article describes at some length the nature of the system. Ultimately I do not see what additional value readers would get from the addition of a little-used term without an official definition to the article, particularly to the lede of the article. --Jfruh (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full agreement with Jfruh here. "Semi-metro" is not a term commonly used by reliable US sources to describe this system, and should not be used in the lede. Additionally, "premetro" is absolutely not correct for any portion of the Muni Metro system. While there was debate in the 1960s about a full conversion, the Market Street Subway was ultimately built with the expectation that it would always be fed by surface light rail lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pi.1415926535, thanks for your reply.
  1. Again, whether a term is commonly used is not relevant. Wikipedia can include all subjects that are notable.
  2. Technically the Market Street Subway is a "premetro" as it was built to rapid transit standards: BART would own the subway and designed Muni’s level to be convertible to BART trains in the future if needed. On top of that, plans existed to turn the Muni level into true rapid transit lines: Muni and City officials knew that its recommended approach would be to scrap the existing streetcar system in favor of a completely grade-separated subway system, like New York’s. Source
  3. Per MOS:COMMONALITY: For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Which means, not the American English "subway-surface line" nor the British English "tram subway" should be used, but the international term "semi-metro".
KatVanHuis (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the entirety of the article you linked. While the original plans in the 1960s were for some surface streetcar lines to be turned into subways and others bustituted, and for the Muni Metro level to be convertible to BART, that's not actually what ended up being chosen. As actually built, the Muni Metro portion of the subway was intended for light rail vehicles coming in from surface lines, and was not intended to ever be converted to BART rolling stock. Your continued pushing of terms that are not used in the US, and misrepresentation of history, is bordering on disruptive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pi.1415926535,
  • I had read that the 1966 ballot did not support the purchase of rapid transit trains for Muni. However, since Muni and the city council seriously proposed (because of expected light rail "traffic jams") to use rapid transit trains, the infrastructure had to be designed to accommodate these trains.
  • Vuchic used (and even defined) "premetro" in most of his reports. And his reports were written for an U.S. audience specifically, therefore "premetro" is used in the U.S., despite not being a popular term.
Question: if the subway was not intended to ever be converted to BART rolling stock, then why were the high platforms installed? It requires folding steps which are expensive and difficult to maintain. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High-level platforms permit much faster boarding and alighting, and improve accessibility, both of which were considered big improvements that brought the system up to more modern standards. A combination of high-level platforms on underground or grade-separated segments and lower-level platforms for existing streetcar stops is also present in some other light rail systems that were built or converted in this era, like the Pittsburgh Light Rail and Buffalo Metro Rail. As you note the downside was that such trains were more mechanically complicated, and the invention of low-floor light rail vehicles in the early '90s allowed systems to get the benefits of stair-free access without needing to build high platforms, so you don't see newer systems doing this, but those that are already built around them are pretty much locked in at this point.
I will also note that BART has a broader gauge than Muni Metro, so the Muni level of the Central Subway couldn't be converted to BART in any case. Jfruh (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of internal debate in the mid-to-late 1960s; at the same time the PUC was planning a two-line grade-separated system, Muni was planning to run PCCs in the subway. (The People's Railway (1981) indicates that the 1967-issued BART contracts actually specified low platforms for the Muni level.) It also indicates that the high-level platforms were chosen for speedier subway boarding, based on European designs, after the decision was made to maintain a 5-line subway-surface network. As you note, low-floor LRVs did not exist at that time. Accessibility wasn't a major consideration; there weren't even any accessible platforms on the surface until the 1990s. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed yet concise explanation Jfruh, I guess in large part that's the reason. Still, we are dealing with rather long platforms as well, indicating that the stations were build to accommodate rapid transit trains in the far future. Building underground infrastructure is vastly more expensive than elevated infrastructure, so spending extra (tax) money on overly long platform underground, should have had a solid justification.
The Antwerp Premetro has metre gauge track, but most sections are prepared to allow normal gauge tracks, relaying tracks is often part of preparing projects for conversion. KatVanHuis (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jfruh, thanks for your involvement here.
  1. A reliable source is Light Rail Transit: A State of the Art Review. (Google Books writes about the source: This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.) This book has a whole chapter about the Muni Metro, stating at the end: "The San Francisco Muni Metro system, when completed in 1979, will be an excellent example of a straightforward semi-metro system. It is conceptually very similar to the Boston LRT, constructed almost 80 years before. It is also similar to European LRT systems which are constructing extensive grade separations but which do not intend to convert to rail rapid transit at some future date. ... The new Edmonton system is conceptually similar to the Muni Metro, except that neither mixed traffic operations nor low level platforms are planned."
  2. Agreed with your statement: APTA, the main public transit professional association here, generally only uses commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail as its three categorization buckets, with MM falling into the later category. These three buckets are correct for APTA, but fail to mention more precise categories, like tram-train, hybrid rail and (indeed) semi-metro. These more precise categorization boxes (cups if you like to stick to the bucket analogy) are defined by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The TRB is the authoritative source for narrow boxes (or cups), the three APTA boxes are way to broad for an encyclopedia.
  3. MM is indisputably a light rail system. Also fully agree with you here, however the category "semi-metro" is a subtype of "light rail", and so these categorise don't bite each other. Whether a term is little or widely used, is irrelevant, because Wikipedia can include all notable subjects. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.
KatVanHuis (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TRB source uses the term “semi-metro” twice. Once as a “also known as”, the other time in the glossary. Considering this is an 800 page report with extensive details on the concepts of transit… and they barely use the term in the report… doesn’t make a great case for this term being in common use. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney has answered point 2, but to further reply to @KatVanHuis's points:
1. I don't think relying a book so old that it literally refers to the system under question in future tense is a good measure as to whether a term is in wide use today.
3. Wikipedia is not a venue for imposing order on the world where it does not exist. It may seem logical to us railfans to establish a number of subcategories in rail transit, but just because it's logical, that doesn't mean that's actually how professionals and the public at large categorize these systems. Wikipedia's job is to document the world outside Wikipedia. Jfruh (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is also to follow common names and language. So even if the terms pre-metro and semi-metro are in use in academic reports, that doesn’t establish that it’s in common use. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jfruh, thanks for replying to the individual points.
1. The book was published in 1976, while the Twin Peaks Tunnel opened decades before. The same book also has a chapter about Boston's Green line, calling it: the world's first semi-metro. Besides that: most (if not all) of the Market Street subway was finished by 1976. Besides that: books don't magically lose their value, and again: Google Books values the contents of this book particularly high.
3. Fully agree that "Wikipedia's job is to document the world outside Wikipedia." But these subcategories in rail transit have been established by professionals; like Vuchic, Lehner, Kim and others. KatVanHuis (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RickyCourtney, thank you for checking the TRB report. I have an engineering background yet I'm lucky to get the opportunity to talk to people in other fields: sometimes doctors, musicians, architects etc. mention terms that are completely unknown to me and describe a niche subject. Still, most of these terms have their own page on Wikipedia. Indeed "semi-metro" isn't a popular term (neither is its synonym "subway-surface network" that is mentioned elsewhere on this talk page) but as long as it's a notable subject, it should be possible to use it elsewhere on Wikipedia, at least when sources mention it. And indeed "Wikipedia policy is also to follow common names and language." but then a common name should be available in the first place. Does Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of lesser known academic terms? KatVanHuis (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jfruh and Pi.1415926535. "Semi-metro" is not a term commonly found in reliable or current U.S. transit literature, nor is it used by the general public (MOS:ENGVAR). There’s no formal taxonomy for transit modes, and classifications vary by context.
As noted, major sources like APTA classify Muni Metro as light rail. "Semi-metro" functions largely as a neologism (MOS:NEO), and nearly all its uses on English Wikipedia appear to stem from a single editor. This suggests the term lacks broad recognition or notability. Including it, especially in the lead, risks confusing readers and gives undue weight to a fringe term (WP:UNDUE). Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KatVanHuis: I want to preface this by saying that I truly mean this in the most respectful and collegial spirit possible, though I recognize there’s no entirely gentle way to raise this. You’ve made a strong and persistent case for including the term semi-metro, and it’s clear that you’re passionate and thoughtful about the issue. That said, the continued advocacy across multiple talk pages is starting to resemble what might be seen as civil POV pushing. Several editors have provided counterarguments, and from where I stand, it seems a consensus has formed against the proposal. When the discussion keeps resurfacing despite that, it begins to feel less like a dialogue and more like an effort to outlast disagreement. With all due respect, when it comes to this issue, I’d encourage you to drop the stick and get over it. Wikipedia benefits greatly from the energy and dedication of editors like you, and I’m confident your efforts could make an even greater impact elsewhere on the project. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RickyCourtney, I've read the essay "Civil POV pushing" and if one looks at the examples given, then one can see that most of them are about conflicts and all of them are about subjects with very strong opposite opinions. Is this the case too for transit?
The proposal to include "semi-metro" to the "Muni-Metro" is still backed up by CallumC.Gurney, so calling it a consensus... And I'm always eager to learn, so I read all additions on the talk pages carefully in order to keep the dialogue flowing. Unfortunately, so far the main counter-argument is something along the line of: "it's not a common term"; and yet the subject is popping up frequently in Reddit and YouTube etc., although under different terms like "subway-surface network", "CityTrains", "demi-metro", "metro-tram" and several others. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

[edit]

Since the above discussion is stale for nearly two months now, I will summarize the main reasons to include the term "semi-metro":

  1. The subject covered by the semi-metro article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.
  2. The term semi-metro was found in use in U.S. publications as early as 1966; was then formalised in 1976 (first published by: U.S. Government Printing Office) and part of every single edition of the U.S. TRB's Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.
  3. The guideline MOS:COMMONALITY points out that WP is for an international audience: For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Therefore "semi-metro" is preferred over the American English "subway-surface network" or the British English "tram subway".
  4. "Semi-metro" is a subclass of the broad term "light rail": one doesn't exclude the other. KatVanHuis (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move forward

[edit]

Hello RickyCourtney, simply claiming consensus, doesn't automatically make it true. May 23rd I've made great efforts to reply to all concerns, yet nothing arrived in return: meaning no consensus. As far as I know, Wikipedia is a cooperative project, so we need to work together to find an agreeable solution.

Left: subway-alignement. Right: surface-alignement.

Background

[edit]

We aren't talking about rocket science, but about one definition: light rail that's partly grade-separated. Even in the article's own infobox, there are two photos showing that Muni Metro has both a subway and a surface alignement. This is in U.S English termed "subway-surface" rail (for over a century), however per MOS:COMMONALITY the international term "semi-metro" is preferred.

Policies and guidelines

[edit]

I always prefer talks to be about common sense, however one administrator advised me earlier this month to improve the quality of arguments using policies and guidelines.

  • Per WP:V: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Both sources that were given, meet these three qualifications.
  • Per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Hiding one POV in a note doesn't do justice to that POV.

Proposal

[edit]

To move forward, I'm proposing the following:

  1. Moving away the "semi-metro" statement out of the first sentence.
  2. Providing more context in the Infrastructure section.

I'm hoping to see some thoughts and/or suggestions, that can help us find consensus. KatVanHuis (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:ENGVAR, not MOS:COMMONALITY. There is an extremely strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation, so that variety of English should be used, not the international term. And per the actual reading of WP:DUE, the more widespread term in reliable sources should be used; this is very much not the case for semi-metro, which only appears in very niche technical settings and rarely is used by American sources to describe American systems. SounderBruce 00:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SounderBruce, thank you for your reply here as well.
  • Indeed, the relevant policy is WP:ENGVAR, which means that when there's no international term available, the right local variant should be chosen. An example would be: "streetcar" versus "tram". But MOS:COMMONALITY is clear about cases when there is actually an international term available.
  • The term "semi-metro" belongs to a subject that has many synonyms. Like the NYC Subway, London Underground or Washington Metro, are still referred to as "rapid transit" in those city tied articles. Wikipedia is not based on terms (except for disambiguation pages), but on subjects/topics.
  • Per WP:NONENG: for verification even other language sources can be used, there's no need this should be American sources.
KatVanHuis (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, there’s no consensus… to make the changes you propose. Therefore, the status quo, prior to the disputed changes should stay if and until a new consensus forms. That’s the consensus. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RickyCourtney, the status quo was to include "semi-metro", from 28 August 2023 till 31 March 2025, when someone changed it with the explanation the Muni Metro is a unicorn of sorts as it combines features of streetcars, modern light rail, and rapid transit. The "combines features of streetcars, modern light rail, and rapid transit" part, is exactly the definition of the topic that is covered in the semi-metro article. It's common sense to provide a wikilink to that article. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Bruce and Ricky here. There is clearly not a consensus to include "semi-metro" in this article, especially not in the lede. Please drop the stick and stop pushing this issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pi.1415926535, I took a WikiBreak from 11 April 2025 till 15 May 2025 in order to prevent any possibility of bludgeoning from my side. But when CallumC.Gurney re-added the term "semi-metro", I felt the need to support this. Moreover: I'm not preventing other to share their opinions, I'm inviting others to share their opinions. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]