Talk:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Misguided bus nickname
Just go to the Cambridge Evening News Website,search for Misguided bus and see how many hits you get. Rich257 is right this is how the scheme is known locally. The issue of it being approved and under contruction is not relevant to this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTBalding (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is known locally as the misguided bus. What sources will you accept to prove this? There are unlikely to be any official sources, and blogs are not usually considered reliable sources, though there are several that use this nickname. Rich257 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does't publish perjorative nicknames without reliable sources, per neutral point of view, and certainly not from political pamphlets, which would violate WP:SOAPBOX. Fell free to add any critical commentary you can find in reliable sources, that is more than acceptable, however, as the scheme is approved and actually under construction, I realy can't see the point myself. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- With respect, the argument that "its approved and under construction" is quite irrelevant to the point that the scheme is very unpopular in the area, a point which merits reference in this article and for which there are plenty of "reliable" sources. It's not POV as the article is simply reporting the "facts" as they exist and have appeared in the media. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If it makes you happy. I still can't see the point, even less so after you've forced me to read the DoT report support case in detail. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't know that the scheme is "very unpopular in the area". There certainly is some vocal opposition, but that's far from the same. Without proper survey results, we shouldn't slip from one into the other.
-
-
-
- However, the "misguided bus" nickname does seem to have caught on to some extent, and my feeling is that we should report it briefly (e.g., something as short as "Some opponents have nicknamed the scheme the misguided bus"). There aren't going to be any reliable sources in the strictest sense, but maybe we can cite a few examples from prominent local politicians, or a Google search, or something.
-
-
-
- Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think you'll find from almost anywhere where the project is discussed on the internet, e.g. [2], [3] and [4], that the vast majority of local residents are against the project. Reflecting this fact, the media refer to it as "controversial" and "contentious"[5]. Yes, there's no official survey, but would you really expect there to be one? This article omits to mention much of the criticism which has been levelled against the busway. In particular, the Inspector's Report has been cherry-picked for positive comments, and no mention is made of how the Council actually arrived at the busway decision or the environmental impact. Also, I seem to recall that there's an interview somewhere with the inventor of the busway concept saying that it was never intended for long distances, advising against the project. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Are you saying that the article cherry picks positive comments from the inspector's report? That wasn't my intention. I think the article states facts from the report and it's up to the reader to draw his conclusion, for example spending £116m+ for a 2.5% fall in traffic (predicted) — is that value for money? Yes the inventor of the concept says it's not suitable, while an "expert" on the Essen scheme says it is — how do you balance these views? As per MickMacNee's comments, to what extent is it worth rehashing the inquiry? I felt detailing the level of objections to the inquiry gave a sense of the opposition and the references are there to follow for more information. I did add a statement, from CAST.IRON's appearance at the inquiry, that it was argued that most of the benefits could be achieved without the guideway but that was removed as a POV — well of course it was, but so is CCC's predictions and estimates!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The section on the public enquiry should be beefed up, not rehashing what has been said, but just a neutral summary of the key aspects considered. There should also be a separate section on criticism/controversy. I'm going to have a bash in the next couple of days. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok, good luck with that. It might be an idea to post your content on the talk page first so that a concensus can be reached before it is added to the article page. I have a paper copy of CCC's Statement of Case if you need any facts checking or details referencing. Rich257 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Route diagram
I'm not sure how to show the non-guided sections on the route diagram, and there are limits with the template too. It seems odd to show the section north of St Ives since it's just a bus route with bus stops, not a guideway. Furthermore with no services announced it's aspirational that the services will run as CCC think they should. An alternative might be to stop the route diagram at St Ives and at either side of Cambridge city centre. Any comments? Rich257 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say that we should cover the busway as physical infrastructure. So, the diagram should show the actual guided busway, rather than try to depict all of the bus routes which might use it. Therefore, I'd use a dotted line wherever the busway is interrupted in the middle, and end the diagram at the end of the busway. David Arthur (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not use a LUECKE, as you would with a railway that leaves the area under discussion to move into the Rest of the World, and give it a line to say where the bus goes that can be easily updated should it change? Britmax (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
