Jump to content

Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom

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

Cardiff

[edit]

It meets all criteria except off-bus paying and busways Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tram like vehicles? Level boarding? Traffic signal linked? It is not BRT, it is merely a high quality route which can now be found in most cities. It would be pointless to list all operations with new vehicles and bus lanes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the case the the Swansea Metro then so we can either remove that or add Cardiff Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Also applies to the Gateshead system. Comments from other editors please? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea uses FTR vehicles, off bus ticketing, traffic signal priority, and 'stations'. Gateshead used a busway (not a bus lane). I have no problem with you calling Cardiff a BRT system without a shred of citation, but then I will Afd this article, because it will merely a list of usage of bus lanes and bendy buses, i.e pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FTR vehicles are nothing more than bendy buses. Yes they use off bus ticketing and Cardiff doesn't but what makes their bus stops stations exactly? Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FTR vehicles are not merely bendy buses, look at the article, you cannot interact with the driver as you do in a conventional bus, as with a tram the driver only drives the vehicle in a separate compartment, also the exterior styling/bodywork is more tram like than conventional bendy buses. Have a look at the Swansea project pages to see the infrastructure work regarding creating station like stops. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ftr

[edit]

Why is only one of the three Ftr schemes, Swansea, mentioned? They're already in place, rather than under construction, in York and Leeds - both larger cities - but neither are mentioned. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough information at FTR (bus) to add material on the York and Leeds schemes, though it lacks references. Perhaps a request for comment could be posted at WP UK Roads to encourage knowledgeable editors to update the page. By the way, on an unrelated point, York isn't larger than Swansea - not that it's particularly relevant. Pondle (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may do it myself soon then. And on the which is the largest point, either the settlement list is wrong or York is I was looking at York's unitary authority area and Swansea's urban population. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pondle (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)==Ftr again== I'm just differentiating the ftr scheme from guided busways. Schemes that are guided busways explain they are so schemes that aren't should explain that they aren't - see Wikipedia:Undue Weight and please discuss rather than reverting and edit warring. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five other systems on the page other than FTR, not including planned, are not guided and run on roads, as I told you twice. Stop quoting irrelevant policies and lecturing about reverting while reverting, and just pay attention to what you are doing. I'll leave you to fix it, I'm done with this page. Unwatching. MickMacNee (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for BRT systems to incorporate guided busways and therefore natural to assume. I am only pointing out that this type of BRT doesn't so it is necessary to point it out. I'm going to go through the article and implement this on every point so it's clear which ones incorporates a guided busway and which ones don't. They are not irreleveant policies and that wasn't a lecture. It was just preliminary advice given your previous edits. You are not one to tell me anything, by the way. If you are still unhappy, I suggest calling for a third opinion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the definitions of BRT, in the US - "a high capacity, lower cost public transit solution... (that) uses buses or specialized vehicles on roadways or dedicated lanes to quickly and efficiently transport passengers to their destinations";[1] and the UK - "a high profile rapid transit mode that combines the speed, image and permanence of light rail with the cost and flexibility of bus";[2] it's obvious that this mode of transport doesn't necessarily have to feature guided busways. BRTuk says that the first schemes in the UK, in Runcorn and Redditch, were non-guided.[3] I'm not against a clarification of which systems are guided and which aren't, as long as we don't single out the FTR ones for special treatment. Pondle (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I haven't singled them out - Ive just elaborated. Other schemes say whether or not they incorporate guided busways but MickMacNee is implying that Ftr deserves some kind of special exception. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, you have 'elaborated' for only some systems, while leaving other listed systems which are also unguided and run on roads, completely untouched. Just stop making up motives on my part and just fix the page when asked to do so, which is now inconsistent due to your edits. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could help point out which ones are inconsistant and I will change them to make them consistant. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article to make it consistant in that it should now be clear which schemes include busways/are segregrated and those that aren't. If you find that there are still any that do not mention this, feel free to point it out and I will ammend. I will not remove or "fix" any material that you demand as there is no case for it except POV or bias, nor are you in a position to demand me do so. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC
Your constant rubbish about POV and other actions/comments don't persuade me that proof reading anything you think you've fixed in the article is going to be a worthwhile and rewarding experience. If it's still crap, and I honestly haven't looked, it can stay that way for all I care, that's the honest effect you have on me. But if you do ever come across a guided ftr system, or you ever notice a wholly unguided brt scheme that doesn't run "on roads" at some point, certainly feel free to note it down in the article, in the interests of preventing 'bias'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does need additional work, because the various systems are not currently being treated equitably. The Thames Gateway and Runcorn systems aren't guided, but haven't received the "not a guided busway" qualification Welsleprechaun applied to FTR. FTR schemes can include stretches of busway, as well as using normal roadspace. Pondle (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to qualify each system but I'm by no means an expert on every single one, so if you see that I haven't added the detail to Runcorn and Thames Gateway, please do add it rather than subtly undermining me. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Subtly undermining?" I was raising a valid point about your recent edits - every system needs to be treated the same. Pondle (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have repetedly said that each system needs to be treated the same and that was what I was aiming to do - and if there are some anomalies, they should be corrected. I meant that in the time you spent telling me how some systems haven't received the "not a guided busway" qualification, you could have edited the article to change this. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're being so spiky - using the talk page is a normal part of building consensus, and as you can see I did indeed edit re: Runcorn, Kent and FTR. You said that you were "going to go through the article and implement this on every point so it's clear which ones incorporates a guided busway and which ones don't", so I was wondering why you hadn't made further revisions as per that comment... you now say you don't have the relevant knowledge, fine. Im thinking more about the structure of the article and will get back with some new ideas. Pondle (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a division of the article - with those incorporating busways under one section and those that don't under another, as this article is a list of busways and BRT systems, it should be clearer which do and which don't - my original intention before MickMacNae kicked off. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean guided vs unguided? A busway could simply mean a bus-only stretch of road, and many of the unguided schemes feature at least some dedicated roadspace.Pondle (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did mean guided vs unguided. Those whose network/lines incorporate some guided strecthes vs those whose don't. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me, although the systems with only short guided sections do occupy a kind of hybrid position.Pondle (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well how long would qualify as short? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call but I was thinking of the Crawley system, for example - 24km but only 1.5km guided. Perhaps a better classification would be: guided busways, hybrid systems and unguided BRT systems. Pondle (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to be against a hybrid subheading as who are we to judge what's short and what isn't? The threshold could only be down to editors' opinion as I don't believe any council or operator would refer to their system as hybrid. As long as the guided stretch isn't a 30 centimetres long, I think we should just stick to what has guided stretched and what doesn't. I can't see any point in an intermediate category. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much which systems are "short" and which aren't, rather which are "pure" guided systems, whuch are partially guided and which are unguided. If virtually all the guided systems have unguided stretches, then a three-fold classification may be pointless; but if there are clearly sufficient examples falling into each category, I think the idea has merit. After all, you can take a number of approaches to this page - no classification at all (which I think would be MickMacNamee's preference), or various degrees of classification - which is open to debate. Perhaps we should request comment to see what other editors think. Pondle (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cowtan (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC) I'm a York resident and have used the FTR bus service along the whole of its route. I can confirm that it contains no guided sections, no dedicated sections, and only uses a few short segments of bus lane which are also used by other non-FTR bus services, including other bendy buses. The only real difference seems to be that the driver does not issue tickets. Ticketing was initially planned to be done using mobile phones, however the system didn't work and so the FTR buses all have a second member of staff collecting fares. The system therefore has as far as I can tell no features which would identify it as either guided or BRT.[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

How should the article be structured and systems classified, if at all? Pondle (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals are as follows:

  • No change to structure - article divided into current, planned and past systems - supported by User:MickMacNee
  • Article divded into two sections - systems that incorporate guided busway and those that don't - supported by User:Welshleprechaun
  • Article divided into three sections - systems that incorporate purely guided busway, hybrid systems that incoporate a both guided and unguided busway, and those that don't incorporate any guided busway - supported by User:Pondle.
Right I see, but are there systems which are 100% guided? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the scheme in Cambridgeshire is, not sure about the planned systems. To be honest MickMacNee seems to be the editor with most knowledge of the specifications of different systems. Pondle (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he seems to be unwilling to cooperate though. I just don't see the point of having a category for one or two systems. Why is there the need to differentiate. It will be made clear how much % is guided. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of not differentiating would ultimately suggest a single list with no categorisation, which is the first option and what we have at present. There is a valid argument for this: after all, BRT schemes can feature many different styles of vehicles, 'station' characteristics, fare collection methods and other features; we are arbitrarily looking at a classification by the type of roadway used. Would a BRT scheme with only 10% of its route guided be 'more appropriately' listed alongside a wholly guided system, even if its vehicles, ticketing arrangements etc. shared more in common with some of the other wholly-unguided networks? My point is, whichever characteristic is chosen to categorise the systems on this page, at the end of the day it's a subjective choice about what is 'important'. Anyway, I think we're going round in circles somewhat and repeating the prior discussion, so maybe we should just wait to see what other editors have to say. Pondle (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider to this discussion I would make the following points. Firstly, we need to settle on the core puropose of this article. It seems to be trying to achive two things at the moment, to guide viewers to a more detailed UK BRT articles and to provide a summary view of the types of BRT within the UK. I would note that other similar pages take different views. For example List of bus rapid transit systems in North America and List of town tramway systems in the United States both use tables to provide a summary view of key details while List of bus rapid transit systems (which includes a link to this article) is really a plain list. IMO I believe you should have a single list with key characteristics listed at the beginning of each list item or to change the format to a single table (to achieve the same end). A key advantage of BRT (guided and unguided) they are usually only form part of the travellers end-to-end bus journey. Unlike Light Rail that must have a LRT corridor the whole length of the service, BRT is usually implemented where needed only and normal roads (with or without bus lanes) are also able to be used by the bus service. Being able to share normal roads is what provides bus services with a reach to users for the PT that is exceeded only by the private car. Unfortuantely, this very flexibility in design means it is hard to clearly categorise specific implementations. Defining BRT isn't a problem we are trying to solve, but a condition we are trying to describe :) Bigglesjames (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

I'm surprised that, unlike the majority of articles relevant to transport, there is no mention of the opposition held towards guided busways in the UK. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway has had a great deal of opposition towards it, as noted on its Wikipedia article, so perhaps it is time to include a criticisms section that details such opposition towards the UK's busways and even the very concept of the guided busway. --Crablogger (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 15:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_guided_busways_and_BRT_systems_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1206813220"