Talk:Busway

Should we convert this page from disambiguation into an article

I am considering developing this into an article about highways used exclusively, or primarily for buses. It is clearer a used term, and the only use of busway given on this page relates to thoroughfares used primarily for buses. It will certainly be useful to have an short article on the subject. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is Bus lane, Bus priority, Shoulder (road)#Bus bypass shoulder and Guided busway. Perhaps an article on segregated busways is missing and could be created, but I don't think usurping a disambiguation page would help. Instead, perhaps create the new Bus-only road article, and link it into the existing uses and terms which seem to be T-way ("bus-only road"), Fastrack ("dedicated busway"), South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit ("unguided busway"), SEPTA Route 103 ("private busway"/"private road") and so forth. —Sladen (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. To be clear, the common terms across all of the examples you give is 'busway'. This term is also used in the TransMilenio article, and in many other bus rapid transit articles which is what prompted me to think about this. Is a disamguation page needed at all actually, given that all the links are to roads used by buses - is it more a case of categories? This page would of course still include a nice long list of notably examples of busway use around the world. PeterEastern (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia splits articles by topic, with disambiguation pages to sort between them. From the present list on this disambiguation page, the common part is that they are bus-related—but some of bus routes, some of priority schemes, some are guided busways and so forth. I think what you're wanting to write an article about is the topic of bus-only roads (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would be a topic rather than a disambiguation page. —Sladen (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I think there should be an article about busways (being highways used exclusively or primariy by buses), as distinct from bus lanes (lanes for buses within roads for general traffic) and bus rapid transit systems (which require both busways and BRT stations). A section of this article would include general information about guided-busways (as distinct from Guided bus). Currently Guided busway redirects to Guided bus, I suggest it should redirect to this proposed article about busways. There is a load of information about busways in the bus rapid transit article which has more general applicability and would move here. Busway seems to be the correct article title and I would suggest that a the contents can either be dealt with in a 'about' banner or in a separate disambiguation page, for example 'Busway (disambiguation)'. Thoughts?PeterEastern (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with having a dedicated "Busway" Article covering unguided busways to separate the dedicated bus corridor element of BRT from a description of BRT as a public transport solution that has several different elements integrated together (the busway being one) and to complement the Guided Bus article. We definitately need a separate Disambiguation Page if only to cater for people looking for information on their local busway which they may just know as "the busway" irrespective of its formal name. I am concerned that we do not spread the BRT information across to many articles as the importance of combining these elements to make a solution can be lost (especially describing the costs and benefits of BRT).
In respect to having separate Guided Bus and Guided Busway articles, I think this would be a bad idea as the whole point is that the corridor and the guided bus are linked. As there are a relatively few examples of guided busways and several guidance methods are used, it is important to keep the desciptions of the guided busway, the guided bus and the overall guided elements of the BRT system together. Trying to describe them separately would be difficult and could be confusing.
I would also highlight that a key advantage of BRT is that the busway (guided and/or unguided) commonly only forms part of the bus route. Unlike Light Rail that must have "rail-way" the entire length of its route, busways can be implemented only on critical congestion corridors. It is buses on normal roads (with or without bus lanes) that gives bus based PT a service catchment that is exceeded only by the private car. It is also common a busway to be used by high capacity BRT buses, Express Buses and/or local "all-stops" buses. IMO we need to remember the very flexibility in BRT design means it is hard to clearly categorise specific implementations and different BRT systems can be successfull without needing all BRT elements. This isn't a problem we are trying to solve, but a condition we are trying to describe :)

-- Bigglesjames (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you BigglesJames, in particular that it makes sense to keep all the stuff about guidance in the [[Guided bus][ article, ie wire following, concrete rails etc etc. The bit that can usefully be covered in busway is stuff about land take, average speed, capacity etc, which is common to guided and unguided busways and to BRT and other bus rapid transit system. The busway artcile can also talk about accommodating express/normal services on one track etc. PeterEastern (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]