Talk:Transport in Melbourne

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

A bit odd that this article's sole image is of a ferry on the Yarra, however there is no mention of these in the text. I'm not sure whether the image is misplaced or whether the article is just short on information. Also, perhaps some mention of Melbourne's extensive (compared to other Australian cities, at least) bicycle path network might be worthwhile. Just some random thoughts. --ozzmosis 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bit is POV[edit]

"The decades of under-investment has meant that very large new suburbs have no rail lines, and that the existing system has been unable to boost services to effectively capitalise upon the clearly increased demand caused by the rise in fuel prices - a missed golden opportunity as commuters struggle with inadequate services in uncomfortably packed carriages, with their small seats and lack of legroom. The lack of new express tracks also means that the far flung outer suburbs have slow services into the inner areas, causing far more to use the parallel freeway-tollway systems than would otherwise occur."

Perhaps this could be reworked.--Pellet 06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article and almost every other article about Melbourne's public transport contains a lot of stuff written by what seems to be disgruntled customers. I'm rewriting the whole bit in a more neutral tone. It seems like the only people who come to do edits here are those that are unhappy and want to do some whinging. "This is despite frequencies on many lines being less than they were earlier in the lines' histories." is debatable as well - I can't speak for all lines, but the Dandenong line formerly had a lot of trains terminating at Oakleigh.
I think it might be a good idea to just nuke most of the content because this article should be a description of transport and not an evaluation of how well services are provided. I'm going to flesh out these articles with some information and then move most of the current content to a Criticism section. (pardon the incoherence of this post) invincible 11:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that many of the claims made in these articles are unsourced. invincible 11:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed: At the substantive level, the railway network was assessed by a secret report commissioned by the Department of Infrastructure, in April 2004, as effectively at 100 percent capacity during peak periods due to serious "bottlenecks" around and in the city, leaving the system inadequate for meeting present, let alone future demands. This is despite frequencies on many lines being less than they were earlier in the lines' histories. It's unsourced, feel free to add it back (preferably in a more neutral tone) if a source is found. invincible 11:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy on public transport[edit]

Please see User:Mangoe/Wikipedia_is_not_a_timetable for a proposed policy on public transport. Josh Parris#: 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxis[edit]

Amid the recent controversy surrounding taxis in Melbourne I think it is necessary to mention it somewhere. Is this the right place to mention it - its just that I dont see any other outright controversies in this article? While I'm on the subject, I think a whole separate Transport controversies in Melbourne article should be created to cover all forms of transport. Davido321 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recentism might be worth taking into consideration. Dunno about any consensus about controversies though - pretty much anything and everything these days has at least some people complaining about it in the newspaper. Wongm (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Melbourne City Council Stats[edit]

One of the tables has data based on a Melbourne City Council survey. I don't think that this is a real representation because it is not official figures. --Biatch (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne 2030 section is a mess[edit]

It needs to be completely deleted and started again. Who ever wrote this obviously can't speak proper English. Besides, it doesn't really need to be that extensive. Most of the information contained within the section belongs in the main article about Melbourne 2030 and not in the transport in Melbourne article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.33.121 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire section. To me, it seemed unclear as to what it was trying to convey, readed like an essay and took attention away from the more informative sections on the various transport modes by pushing them way down the page. invincible (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I'm not sure if this article and its position at the top of the page is an appropriate location for a timeline of the history of Transport in Melbourne. That aside, it suffers from a huge problem in that it lacks sources and is heavily weighted towards recent events. I think all the information inside that section could be integrated with their relevant subsections in this article or on their own articles but that is quite a task and I'm not too sure what to do at the moment. I'll move it to the bottom because I definitely don't think that someone coming to this article wants to read a lengthy history of all transport in Melbourne (with some points going down to the level of trivia) ahead of the summaries of the various types of transport. There's also a fair chance that such a lengthy compilation of events might be a copyright violation, since it would take quite some time to gather all those facts. invincible (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Transport Pricing section update[edit]

The Public Transport Pricing Section needs to be updated. It still lists the old standard fares from before the 29th of December 2012 (Metcard Fares) Maybe copy the fares table from the Wikipedia page for Myki? WU00110154 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transport in Melbourne. 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 07:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Transport in Melbourne. 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 11:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transport_in_Melbourne&oldid=1204522958"