Talk:Paris Métro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

building of the metro[edit]

The building of the metro was finally started for the Exposition Universelle (1900), IIRC -- need to look it up. -- Tarquin 23:58, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

second image[edit]

The second image Image:Paris.metro.abbesses.jpg is very dark, what do you think User:MykReeve to adjust the brightness ? if it still have dark i can redo the picture since i live just right this metro station. -- Chmouel Boudjnah 02:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have increased brightness a touch. I have to say that the original image looked fine on my monitor, but Apple monitors have quite a low gamma setting. - MykReeve 23:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

something interesting[edit]

Here's something interesting I found:

"The PMP proposal was inspired by the Paris Metro system. Until about 15 years ago, when the rules were modified, the Paris Metro operated in a simple fashion, with 1st and 2nd class cars that were identical in number and quality of seats. The only difference was that 1st class tickets cost twice as much as 2nd class ones. (The Paris regional RER lines still operate on this basis.) The result was that 1st class cars were less congested, since only people who cared about being able to get a seat, etc., paid for 1st class. The system was self-regulating, in that whenever 1st class cars became too popular, some people decided they were not worth the extra cost, and traveled 2nd class, reducing congestion in 1st class and restoring the differential in quality of service between 1st and 2nd class cars."

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/paris.metro.minimal.txt

This is a neat economics anecdote. But is it true? Perhaps someone who knows could say more about how it actually worked in practice, and why it was abandoned?

It is perfectly true. It was logically abandoned partly because of the evolution of the society but mostly because it was too expensive (too many checks necessary to ensure that people riding in first class actually have first class tickets). Especially since that checks are now fully automatic at the entrance of the stations, with a very limited number of people doing random checks, to reduce the costs.
Of related interest, a story about the same contact lenses being sold at different grades/prices [1], and something similar happening at Starbucks [2] (Click this link only if you have the half hour available that the unrealated adverts take to load - your browser is locked while this happens).

Number of Stations[edit]

Is there any other more recent source for the number of stations? I did several counting based on the wikipedia list of stations and the RATP list of stations and I always arrive to the figure of 299 stations. Is the Funiculaire de Montmartre taken in to account? I have listed all the 299 stations and I can post it here for cheking for completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G Furtado (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of the name Metro?[edit]

Section seems contradictory in stating that it was the origin of the word "metro" but then mentions an earlier train of the same name. Also questionable whether "metro" is the most common phrase used... at the very least citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.195.76 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this paragraph does not make sense, the name metropolitan was first used in London. This section need to be restructured, but once it's done will it really need to be a section? I need a non-French perspective...--Anneyh (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

The article is a mess: there are too many pictures and very poor editing to put them in the right place. I'd offer to do the job of tidying up the article myself but I don't have the expertise, so I'm putting a Wikify request up.

Bonjour! The tables are mixed with the fotos. I would try to fix the format, but I don't know how. Au revoir --Starionwolf 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be alright in MSIE but awful in Mozilla. It needs the photos to be repositioned in the text to prevent them from being told to be in the same place as the table. An easy job in theory, but with the multitude of Screen resolutions people will be using, it is difficult to check it for everyone. - Superbfc 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the photos mentions an "automatic piloting carpet," but the article does not state what such a thing is. BlueH2O (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions[edit]

  • Okay, it seems that articles related to Paris public transportation are extremely messy. It probably may be interesting to create an article about Paris public transportations in general, which would explain how are organized the different networks between themselves (Metro, RER, Transilien, Tramway, RATP bus, Optile Bus, Noctilien, etc...).
  • On a side note, I think we should probably erase all the current articles to Paris Metro stations which redirect to the list of Paris Metro stations. Because of those redirects, we don't see which stations have actually an article and as such we can't reach them. This should really change.
  • However, what bothers me the most is the difference in the naming of the stations, they could have the same status and still be named in a lot of different ways. My opinion is that we should re-organize this in putting conventions which will have to be respected by all users. As it seems there's still a dominating way of naming those, here's what are the conventions which would seem the most natural to me :
    • Paris Metro stations : "###### (Paris Metro)"
    • Paris RER stations : "###### (Paris RER)"
    • Transilien stations : "###### (Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting both metro and RER : "###### (Paris Metro and RER)"
    • Stations hosting both metro and Transilien : "###### (Paris Metro and Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting both RER and Transilien : "###### (Paris RER and Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting all the three : "##### (Paris Metro, RER and Transilien)"

Of course, in case there are several different networks in the same station, we shouldn't forget redirections. For instance Invalides (Paris Metro) and Invalides (Paris RER) should both redirect to Invalides (Paris Metro and RER). It works already for that specific station but it should work the same way for all stations. This way, people could easily create a link to a station without having to worry about the exact name of its article. This rule should normally apply to all rail stations in Ile-de-France, outside of course the national rails stations which should keep their proper article as they don't relate to public transportation. As for the articles in themselves, I wonder if it's really necessary to create different article for stations which have different names but are connected to one another. For instance, I don't see any reason to have an article standing for Porte Maillot (Paris Metro) and another one standing for Neuilly - Porte Maillot (Paris RER). Probably a redirect of both of them to an article called Porte Maillot (Paris Metro and RER) would be clearer, even if we could of course create two different chapters for the line 1 station and the RER C station, mentioning their specific names and explaining the difference between both. In other words, I think the hub in itself is more important than the proper denomination of stations. Not only this would be clearer, but an article about a hub would certainly be also more interesting than two independent stubs. Metropolitan 12:35 6 April 2005 (UTC)

Concur. The above universal naming scheme suggested by Metropolitan is utterly logical. Rollo 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For simplicity, why not adapt the example of the British station articles, and use ‘##### (Paris station)’ for any station served by more than one system? David Arthur 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You have a point here. Otherwise, rationally we are going to end up with Station (Paris Metro, RER, Transilien and SNCF), which would clearly be silly. Yes, I'm converted to this plan. The implications? Most Metro and RER ones would remain unchanged in name, but a few central hubs and a good number of suburban stations (the RER-Transilien ones) would need to become Station (Paris station) (or Station (Paris rail station)?) If a given station contains interesting discrete parts (for example, the RER station at Nation (Paris Metro and RER)), a dedicated linked page can always be created. Opinions? --Rollo 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that there are numerous people who would consider that metro or RER stations which would be located out of the city proper couldn't be considered as "Paris" station. Maybe the solution is to simply rename them "##### (station)", with for instance "Reuilly-Diderot (station)" or "La Défense - Grande Arche (station)". That would be even simpler. Metropolitan 19:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, didn't think of that problem. But new difficulties then come up. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rename all the Métro stations (like Reuilly-Diderot): the Métro identity is closely associated with these stations. Same for the dedicated RER stations. And if we specify "Paris" in those article names (necessary to distinguish them from other metros), geography should surely also feature in the suburban articles. If it can't be Paris, then I am going with Issy (French rail). Issy (French station) sounds strange (what sort of station?).--Rollo 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think we would lose in clarity if we name public transport stations in the same way as national rail stations ? Issy is an RER C station used daily by thousands of people to transit in the Paris area. In considering it as a national rail station, we lose the very identity of that station. But anyway, there are multiple editors which have as purpose to make the unity of the Paris area as invisible as possible both on French and English Wikipedia. They do so for reasons I fail to understand.
After all, let's continue with the hypocrisy and ignore completely the fact that the 5 lines of the Paris RER generate an annual trafic which is comparable to the one of the 12 lines of the London underground. Metropolitan 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Please write "métro" not "metro". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:80AA:B5E8:9384:CBAF (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion request[edit]

It's a shame this article has no information on how you use the Metro etc. Davidbod 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed - La Defense station now open[edit]

Now that the La Défense (Paris Metro, RER, and Transilien) station is connected and in use, the article should be updated accordingly. --John Nagle 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image display on Explorer and on Firefox[edit]

Obviously, the page doesn't appear the same on both browsers. Superbfc obviously use Firefox when I use Explorer, and in continuing to reorganize each of our changes so that they could fit our own brower without considering other ones. Obviously with Firefox, we can't put images on the left because it gets superimposed with the text. Furthermore, we can't either put images beside a table because both also get superimposed. On the other side, the main issue on Explorer comes from the fact that we get blank space on the text so that the first line of an article wouldn't be above an image which is coded above. Okay, I'll try once again to harmonize the display so that it would appear properly on both browsers. Metropolitan 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use both MSIE and Mozilla, so I've tried the best to get them good on both browsers. — Superbfc 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singular system or double system?[edit]

Hi, I post my question here rather than at Paris Metro Line 14 because I am afraid there would be less visitor. Anyway here's my question, does the rubber-tyred train on Line 14 still keep running on both rubber tyres and steel wheels as line 1/4/6/11? Have they omitted the conventional steel wheel part? -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They still use the rail as backup system, please see commons:Category:Paris Metro Ligne 14.
Same as any rubber tyred metro in Paris...
Gonioul 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thx a lot -- Sameboat - 同舟 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry the traffic doubled in 2003 with the extention at Saint Lazare Before december 2003 175,000 passengers per average workdays after december 2003 350,000 at 400,000 passengers per average workdays a new extention will open in the first six-month period of 2007 It is the station Olympiade located in Paris biggest chinatown near the business district "Paris Rive Gauche" Minato ku 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Minato Ku[reply]

Merging stops into this article, or create a list article[edit]

How do the maintainers of this article feel about merging the stop articles into this article? It would seem to me that articles such as Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) do not contain much further information than could be listed in a table on this page. The other option may be created one article that is a list of all the stops on this subway system. Alan.ca 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is long enough as it is. If the stations were to be merged, it would make more sense to do so by line Arrondissement rather than for the whole system — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I changed the merge proposal for the station to the article on the line. Alan.ca 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, stations on connecting lines might prove problematic. As I've said in the AfD discussion, perhaps Arrondissement would be the best divisor — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, those stops (stations) article should be expanded with further informations like platform type, other transport connection and utility rate. -- Sameboat - 同舟 09:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Sameboat. Also, Alan.ca, there already is a list: List of Paris metro stations. -- hibou 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Review[edit]

I've just finished converting an old university project and made it live. It's MétEX, my virtual tour to the Paris Métro. I created it for my final-year project at university, and it took about 9 months to take pictures and sounds, research information, and create the website. I think it would be a valuable link to list here because it contains photos of all stations on Lines 3, 3bis, 6, 7bis, 10, 12 and 14, along with info I haven't seen in the articles.

Of course, since this is my own website I feel it's better to see what the rest of the editors think about this. Also, in case you were wondering, RATP gave me a photo permit and full permission to publish the website, on condition it remains non-commercial.

MétEX's URL is: http://metex.sblorgh.org/ - please let me know what you think. --PkerUNO 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great - just the kind of thing people like me want to find in Wikipedia.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! However, nobody else seems to have voiced their opinions on this... I don't really want to add it until there's a clear concensus. --PkerUNO 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could argue that because nobody has come out to vociferously oppose it, then it can't be so odious as to not merit inclusion. I think it is a suitable link because it is not commercial and adds knowledge and content. What Wikipedia doesn't want is 1000s of links to sites which add little value to the overall understanding of the topic. On the basis that if nobody is opposed to it enough to voice there opinions here, then I shall add it. As a comparison, I work in Local Government, and we have to work on the assumption that if we propose to do something and tell the public about it and have heard nothing back from them, they can't be against it if they haven't bothered to make that representation. So, I will use that parallel logic here and include it until someone thinks otherwise.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not an edited author and your offering linking to a personal, for those reasons it is unappropriate to link. If it cannot be used as reference or source for prose content then it should not be added. Although it is a very interesting website it cannot be used as reference and should not feature in the external links. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bis suffix[edit]

What is the English translation of "bis" in 3bis and 7bis?? Georgia guy 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly "the second", indicating it's an offshoot of the main line 3 or 7. --PkerUNO 02:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's latin, bis = 2, ter = 3, etc...
You can also see this in « itinéraire bis », alternate travel path.
Gonioul (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RER[edit]

I think this article talk too much about RER. This mislead people into thinking RER and metro are the same, this is not the case, they are completely different networks, and different widths, sharing only 1 connection near Vincennes maintenance facility.

For example, RER figures and pictures have nothing to do here.

RER should be strictly limited to a small history/interaction section and provide a link to the dedicated article.

Gonioul (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RER is a commuter rail network, while the Metro is a metro network. The distinction must be made.79.66.5.73 (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Average Train Speed[edit]

Does the average train speed of 35 km/h include the time the trains are stopped on stations?

I think it is relevant to clarify this, because if this is not the case, the actual travel speed is much lower due to the frequent stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.242.141 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually average speed refers to the relation between both line ends divided by the time needed to get thru the whole line, including stops, while commercial speed neglects the time trains are stopped at stations. 10:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.152.145 (talk)

English References that could be used[edit]

The world beneath Paris and London, 1800-1945 by David L Pike - Publisher Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 2005. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/185179364. I could just check the snippet view and it sound interresting. --Anneyh (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual and per-day ridership[edit]

The article states the following:

It carries 4.5 million passengers a day, and an annual total of 1.388 billion (2007)

These figures are inconsistent, as 4.5 * 365 = 1642,5. Either it should state that "It carries up to 4.5 million passengers a day" so it clarifies that this daily ridership is not equally distributed or either use the more appropiate 3.8 million passengers a day.

Also, if 4.5 is the peak ridership, it should include a reference on the source providing that figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.152.145 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 million is not the peak ridership but the average weekday ridership. Minato ku (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distance to nearest station can exceed 400 meters[edit]

The following statement is incorrect: "there is no point in the city situated more than 400 meters away from a metro station".

(1) The statement should apply to buildings, not points; the Bois de Boulogne is not included. (2) The statement applies only within the inner city (department 75). (3) The intersection of Rue de Bagnolet and Rue de Pyrenees is at least 600 meters from the nearest station.

The statement should be: "almost all buildings in the city are within 600 meters of a metro station". David Fairthorne (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research perchance? A citation would be required. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper sentence construction in "Nord-Sud: the competing network"[edit]

The last paragraph of this section does not make much sense ("still worked as this" is unclear). The last sentence ("Motors = Westinghouse v/s (?).") is not a complete sentence and should be rectified. Shubhayu Chatterjee (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the sentence, but I need to find a source to clarify the date, motor brands etc. --Anneyh (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stock[edit]

The full first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro#Rolling_stock looks unfounded and like personal opinion to me. A button or lever is a fairly standard way to open a door in most metro systems around Europe (if not the world). I am pretty sure I have opened subway doors manually in these cities: Budapest, Copenhagen, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Madrid, Munich 134.171.38.53 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 134.171.38.53 above. That whole paragraph is also entirely unsourced. If no source is provided, I will remove it after a period of time. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris metro3 - anatole france - entrance.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Paris metro3 - anatole france - entrance.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miles[edit]

What's the point in offering the conversion between km and miles? According to the manual of style that's just needed in us- or uk-related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.83.52 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The MOS gives the primary units to use with conversion. Sw2nd (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Métro → Paris Metro –

  • Use English. ibicdlcod (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Commonly seen with the acute in English-speaking countries. Contrary to the beliefs of some "use English" does not necessarily mean "get rid of all accents". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per WP:FRMOS, and per Cheryl A. Pientka Paris For Dummies 2009 Page 69 "Because the Paris métro is one of the world's best urban transportation systems," Frommers Paris 2013, Rick Steves' Best of Europe 2011, Anna Fritzsche Subterranean Railways of London and Paris: Comparative History 2010, Michael Brein's Guide to Paris by the Metro Page 24 "This map of the Paris Métro shows the locations of Paris's top 50 visitor attractions in close proximity to major métro stops." ...and so on and so on... In ictu oculi (talk)
  • Oppose. Simply an uninformed nomination. "This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English." Sw2nd (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New article for history?[edit]

I think this article's "History" section needs to be its own article. It's quite long. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Paris Métro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using translated texts from the French article[edit]

I think that everybody will agree that English version Paris metro article is lacking of informations.
Many details are outdated and even wrong by now.
Big changes need to be done, I am working on restructuring this article and any help would be welcome.
I think using the French article as base is not a bad idea although we must not just make a copy paste. Minato ku (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original financing arrangements[edit]

"Such a large project required a private-public arrangement right from the outset."

True, but there's more to the story than this.

"PRIVATE VERSUS MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION.-The subways of Paris included in the Metropolitan system are built and owned by the city and leased, equipped and operated by a private company. This confirms to the practice provided by the first general law for the construction of railroads in France, of June 11, 1842. This law provided for the construction of the roadbed at public expense and for equipment with tracks and rolling stock by the operating company. Subsequently the policy of granting aid to new railroads through a government guarantee of a minimum profit became quite general and is still much used.

"The city had a choice between these two systems: (1) municipal construction and ownership and (2) guarantee of a minimum profit to a private company. If the city built the subway the term of the concession could be much shortened. It is a universal custom in France to require that a railway structure shall revert without payment to the city or state at the expiration of the term of the concession. To provide for the amortization of invested capital it was estimated that a 75-year term would be necessary if the company should construct the subways, while a 35-year term would be sufficient with municipal construction. The city could borrow money at 3.3%, including amortization, while the capial secured by a private company would average 5.5 %, including amortization.* It was estimated that the city's financial risk would be less if it should build and lease the subways than if it should guarantee a minimum interest on the investment of a private company. In addition, the terms of the concession would be less than half as long as would be required under private construction, and the city would be able to exert a more continuous and effective control over the development and operation of the subway system.

  • footnote, "Révérard, Des Conditions d'Exploitation du Chemin de fer Métropolitain, p. 164.

"But while the city assumed the building of the subway proper, including the tunnels and viaducts, the entire equipment of the roadbed thus furnished was left to the operating company. The company provides the track, power plant, electrical equipment, shops, cars, station entrances, ticket booths and in fact the entire station excepting the platforms. This division of responsibility seems logical. It does not seem desirable for the city to supply the operating company with equipment that is subject to rapid depreciation. This would seem to be a rule applicable generally to relations between lessor and lessee. It is desirable that the lessee should have a direct financial interest in the permanent upkeep of all equipment subject to rapid depreciation.

"PRIVATE VERSUS MUNICIPAL OPERATION.- Though there was a very considerable sentiment in favor of municipal operation of the subway system, private operation was decided on. The vote in the special commission of the city council was 14 to 10 in favor of private operation. It was urged that this was a new and untried system of transportation and that the city ought not to undertake it until the success of the system had been demonstrated and its principles established. But the principal reason for the choice of private operation was the fact that under the existing decisions of the Council of State and the attitude of the State Department of Public Works and of Parliament, it was thought that a proposal for municipal operation would be vetoed.*"

  • footnote, "Révérard, op. cit., pp. 174-76.

Reference: Whitten, Robert H. 1911. The Paris Subway System - With Special Reference to Franchise Terms and Conditions. Engineering News, 65,3:70-75, (January 19, 1911), page 70

Obviously, this is too long for insertion into the article; hope that other editors will read this over and provide feedback as to what should go in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.114.12 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

There are map of the Paris Metro on Commons which is used (in two place) in the WikiPedia Français article. It seems to me that it would be sensible to include it somewhere in this article as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your note after I added a map - there could be more added since maps are such a distinctive part of the metro.. Timtempleton (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest Paris Métro stations[edit]

Hello, fellow wikipedians!
Preliminary warning : English is not my mother tongue ; I'm afraid I have a terrible writing style.
An article is requested on Project France : List of busiest Paris Métro stations
I can't write on the English main page, however I may help.
On the French wikipedia, the "Métro de Paris" includes a section about it.
Here are the 10 busiest stations (million users entering a station) in 2016 :
En 2016, les dix stations les plus fréquentées sont (en millions de voyageurs entrants) : Gare du Nord (50,872), Saint-Lazare (45,879), Gare de Lyon (36,352), Montparnasse - Bienvenüe (30,359), Gare de l'Est (20,373), République (18,340), Bibliothèque François-Mitterrand (17,491), Les Halles (16,128), La Défense (Grande Arche) (15,031), Châtelet (13,466).[1].
Regards, --Bédévore 12:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Open Data RATP — Trafic annuel entrant par station du réseau ferré 2016, sur le site data.ratp.fr. Consulté le 5 janvier 2018.

List of lines[edit]

The list of lines should include a column that indicates whether a given line uses tires or steel wheels. 2604:2000:1304:4BDD:850:4A2:B1D7:72D2 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paris_Métro&oldid=1194062886"