Talk:Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit

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

Travel times[edit]

Bus freaks cannot face the fact that this venture is double the time train took in 1969. Nobody in their right mind would commute by this means. Many still prefer to drive to and park at Atherton or Daisy Hill or even Newton le Willows stations. On the bus, taking tickets must count for at least 10 minutes of the journey. Legroom is terrible on a bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.133.60 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice reverted a contribution by an anonymous editor; with reference to the cited claim from a TfGM spokesman that the journey between Leigh and Manchester city centre is timed at 50 minutes at peak. Note that this is a peak period maximum; off-peak and evening journeys are timetabled (between Leigh bus station and John Dalton Street, Manchester) at 42 minutes; and in actuality have been faster still (though that is original research). TomHennell (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, for some reason I keep getting logged out. As you said OR and there is an early morning conventional service, 34, that takes 44 minutes, also OR. Much hype from TfGM countering a lot of local opposition because well-used night services and others have been discontinued. All too recent, needs time to see if the claims are proved preferably from a third-party reliable source. J3Mrs (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certainly not best practice to rely on citing an unnamed TfGM 'spokesman'; but in the absence of anything better (and when all sorts of claims and counter-claimes are flying around the blogosphere) an 'official' pronouncement is likely the best we will get for the next week or so. There will be a TfGM Capital Projects Committee meeting next week - which will no doubt have a report on the busway commissioning - but since we already know that was an unqualified success in its own terms, it is unlikely to be informative. Which seems to be part of the problem; as the Leigh local media appear so far to have ignored all 'good news' on the busway opening. I am hoping that (as with the trams) a regular BRT performance report will go to the Bus Network Committee (wihch meets the week after). For the purposes of this article; Committee reports should generally represent 'authoritative' references; in my view. TomHennell (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Leigh local media seems to represent local views pretty closely and TfGM represents its own spin. This needs to settle down, the performance can only be judged when there is sufficient data, ie several months not two weeks, and is reported on by a third party. This is not a newspaper and doesn't require a weekly update. J3Mrs (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funding[edit]

well done for tracking down the reference. The funding isssue is tricky, as the busway funding is not the same as the funding for the full cross-city bus strategy, or the Oxford Road bus priority funding. My understanding is that the £68m published figure covered the Leigh bus station, Spinning Jenny Way, Tyldesley road routing and guided busway works; while the £54m covered the A580 works west of Boothstown to Irlams o'th' Height; (and including the Park & Ride site). As here http://www.tfgm.com/buses/Busway/Documents/Improving-bus-connections-between-Leigh-Salford-and-Manchester.pdf. In practice, the awarded contracts split the work differently. But the full BRT route also includes bus lane investment along Salford Crescent and Chapel Street, plus a whole lot of works in central Manchester. TomHennell (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was vague. J3Mrs (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, checking in the Committer reports, everything west of Walkden Road was within the £68m; while from Walkden Road to Frederick Road fell within the £54m. Though the contracts split the work differently TomHennell (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is only an encyclopedia article, minute detail isn't required :) J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Article really needs a photo of the busway in action - with bus and stop. Does any Wikisnapper have one that they could donate please? Most grateful if you can. TomHennell (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Spsmiler. May I suggest that the piccie of the busway in action goes up to the box at the head of the article, demoting that upper construction piccie to replace the lower one (which we can discard)? TomHennell (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! there's more. Changed the piccie of the old route through the city centre for one of the new.TomHennell (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X39 BRT service[edit]

We seem to be going backwards and forwards along this. The point is well made that all the new rapid bus services along the A580 use the new BRT lanes and stops; whereas only the the guided buses, V1 and V2, get to use those on the Leigh - Ellenbrook busway. While there are also some stopping bus services that join the A580 bus lanes for part of their route. But that does, surely, require the article to make clear which the limited stop BRT services are: i.e. V1, V2, 34/X34, X39? Otherwise how can the reader distinguish these from the standard stopping services they are replacing; or which may be using the non BRT stops along the same corridor? TomHennell (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, it's straying into the off-topic. The article has a list of BRT stops, that's good enough. This article is about the BRT not other services. It shouldn't be describing every bus route in the area. Have you looked at the routes, there's nothing rapid about any of them. TfGM is the place to look for detailed information, not an encyclopedia. J3Mrs (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about it, the 34/X34, X39 are not BRT services, you have got that wrong, their routes wander about all over the place. J3Mrs (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not once they join the BRT route, they don't. What makes the X39, 34/X34 and V1/V2 'bus-based rapid transit' services in TfGM's definition, is both their use of the restricted stop list along the BRT lanes on the A580/A6; as also their serving continous rapid routes 'longer that 6 km'. This distinguishes them from the stopping services (such as the 35) that may also run along A580/A6 bus lanes for part of their routes; but which use all stops along the way, and whose access to the 'rapid' buslanes are for less than 6 km. As the article is about the entirety of BRT servies along ths corridor, it has to specifiy which they are; I think we are agreed on that. What I think you are missing, is that half of the BRT investment along this corridor is directed (as was always intended) to improving previous 'express' bus services into Salford and Manchester up to the emerging TfGM BRT standard, of which the 34/X34 and 39 are specific examples. TomHennell (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are not agreed, nobody is coming to this article looking for bus stops. More services join in Salford, I expect you'll want them in next. There is a list of BRT stops, that suffices. J3Mrs (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key point, for this article, is to distinguish the bus-based rapid transit services along this corridor, from the stopping bus services. Which is which, should be clearer when the TfGM draft 2040 Transport Strategy gets released for consultaion in the summer. This will have a section on rapid transit developments; with a specific definition of 'Bus-based rapid transit'. It should then be more readily apparent which bus services along this route (other than the V1 and V2 guided buses) fall within the operative TfGM definition of BRT - which we should be able to cite in authority for their inclusion in the article. TomHennell (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So there is presently no definition of a BRT service, I have looked, and I can't find anything that describes the Stagecoach or any other service than First's Vantage as BRT. The list of stops distinguishes one from the other, nothing more is required. I don't have a crystal ball and can only go on what I can find and I still think too much is TfGM marketing. Perhaps it should be renamed the Leigh to Ellenbrook guided busway and do away with all the bus stop minutiae.J3Mrs (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a definition in draft, in a paper that went to the GMCA in March (and is consequently published with the agenda papers). That defines 'rapid transit' (including specifically 'bus-based rapid transit' by two conditions; - firstly that it is significantly faster than a stopping bus along the same corridor; and secondly that it should provide predominantly for trips of between 6km and 50km. In addition, in respect of rail-based rapid transit, they specify a aspiration to deliver at a frequency of 4 tph or better. Under this definition, if adopted, bus services that are stopping within outer suburbs to collect passengers but run in limited stop mode for more than 6km along the BRT route to get into Salford or Manchester, would be 'bus-based rapid transit'; whereas services that join the BRT route for less than 6km, or which run along it in part but calling at all the stops, would be considered a 'stopping bus' service. In practice, the point at issue would chiefly relate to the X39, as TfGM has always discussed the maintainance/enhancement of the 34/X34 service as being included in its BRT aspirations for this corridor, and as an intended outcome of its BRT investment. But in any case, how TfGM define 'bus-base rapid transit' for the purpose of this corridor is very much germane to the content of the article; especially in so far as this may differ from other 'BRT' definitions. Once the strategy is published, we can edit the article accordingly. TomHennell (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Facebook[edit]

As a general rule Wikipedia articles should not link to Facebook pages. See; Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedai is not a directory. I have therefore reverted a Facebook link to a group opposing the busway scheme. However, should such a group produce a newsletter or other equivalent publication, it would be good to have a link to their webpage. Maybe a counterpart to this site: http://noguidedbus.com/. The problem is with links to social networks sites; especially those like Facebook that require registration to access some of their content. TomHennell (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Incidents better as prose ... really?[edit]

The use of a table seemed an appropriate use of the feature and maintained the spirt of "prose". It fitted the style guide better than pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_by_airline_(A%E2%80%93C) . It has only been open a few weeks and 3 incidents have been in the news, even if it slows down to 1 a month there could be dozens of incidents, a table is most suited for this amount of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrish222 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really much better as prose. An encyclopedia is not the place to record all minor incidents in a list or otherwise. The Metrolink article lists only fatal accidents, these minor events are trivial in comparison. And to answer the question below, a facebook report, even from the GMP, about a double decker bus on the East Lancs Road in the middle of the night has no place here at all. J3Mrs (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guideway section or whole route[edit]

I am confessed. Is this wiki page for just the guided section or the whole route? To me it seems like it is for the whole route but my entry about the RTA on the east lancs has been removed. Chrish222 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and reported 'incidents' as such should not be included in articles "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". The time to take note of continuing events in the article. is when they become 'notable'; which none of these are so far. Cars driving onto the busway, or buses being derailed, are not notable; where death or serious injury to passengers or pedestrians probably would be - see the counterpart article on Manchester Metrolink.

  • Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
  • Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

TomHennell (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much better solution, Thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Notability is designed to cover the question "should an event have its own page?". As such all the points raised quoting that page are simply not applicable.

I also can not understand how one is applying the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" as

  • None of the information is "first hand reporting". The section was compiling documented incidents in a structured way
  • It was not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as I wound consider the following routine news
    • minor adjustment the timetable
    • punctuality information
    • launch of a seasonal promotion
  • No emphasis was given to *breaking news*
  • No individuals where named
  • It was not a diary of the day to day running of the service as it only included clear exceptions to the normal running
  • It did not included minor stories (e.g. gran worried that there is no street lighting on path x off guideway)

Chrish222 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this page is a deemed "Start Class" of the Greater Manchester quality assessment. It says "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." Incidents gives the article "something more" and I'm of an opinion that a "grow and prune" approach would be wise. Collate the incidents over a period of time then agree the relevant threshold further down the line. Chrish222 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chrish222, the Wikipedia criteria are quite clear; 'Routine kinds of news events' can only be included in articles if "something further gives them additional enduring significance". 'Notability' applies specifically to article contents, as much as to new articles, and the key term in the test for notability is 'enduring'. None of the LSM BRT events so far proposed satisfy that criterion in my view. You may argue differently, but you do need to state here which further enduring aspect, other than being newsworthy, tragic or widely reported is being demonstrated. "Grow and prune" is nowhere supported as a Wikipedia policy; on the contrary, it is always a good principle to ask yourself whether the content you propose to add will still have significance in a couple of years time - and hold your hand if it does not. TomHennell (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leigh-Salford-Manchester_Bus_Rapid_Transit&oldid=1201210296"