Talk:Crawley Fastway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article has had several additions by IP addresses used only for those additions e.g.

  • 84.66.43.80
  • 81.76.105.104
  • 194.203.128.61

Some of these may have violated the NPOV rule, or at least should be looked at for bias. There may be a number of parties who do not wish to see this project represented honestly fo whatever reason. It is certainly a cause of controvesy and resentment in the Crawley area. I too may be biased since I live in Crawley and have witnessed first hand the work required for this scheme. Please take the above into account when editing the article, and try to keep it NPOV. akaDruid 08:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Akadruid, using such emotive language (in particular excessive use of the word 'destruction'), is clearly on a anti-Fastway rant - and I can't see how he can seriously criticize for me for not being neutral. Whenever I've made edits where I've tried to add a positive remark, I usually include a negative remark as well.

Any reader would think there was no reason at all for the Fastway scheme except to annoy residents and local businesses. Whenever any large scale scheme is constructed, there is always disruption and it is naive to think otherwise.

P.S. I live in Crawley and have also been affected by construction works, and I don't live on the main Fastway sections, although I have benefitted from the Haslett Avenue bus lane which doesn't directly serve Fastway. I have no vested interest in Fastway, other than an occassional user.

OK, that's pretty reasonable. I doubt I have a NPOV since I also live in Crawley. The scheme is having a very negative effect on me and those around me, and we can never use any of it since it doesn't cover our area. The sheer waste of it frustrates me - I'm used to local authorites wasting thousands on trivia such as silk flags and rusty statues but spending so many millions and disrupting so many for a service that will benifit very few, even if successful, seems to me to be a criminal abuse of trust.
Given my position, I'll leave the article alone for now to allow people to reestablish a NPOV. akaDruid

Is there any evidence that the bus involved in the crash in Bewbush was travelling at "well over the posted speed limit"? I understood that investigations were on-going into this matter. 82.43.216.156 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I want to agree that this page appears to have serious NPOV issues. I live in Horsham, the neighbouring town to Crawley. From my perspective I have not come across any great controversy other than would be expected for a large scheme of this nature.

The opening paragraph:

"Crawley Fastway is a controversial project to provide a new guided bus service linking some areas of Crawley in southern England with the nearby Gatwick Airport. The project has required the destruction of large sections of the existing road infrastructure, and has run into heavy local opposition."

would be better phrased along the lines of:

"Crawley Fastway is a guided bus service linking suburbs of Crawley with the nearby Gatwick Airport. The service utilises a mixture of on-road, bus-lane and dedicated guided bus sections."

It may be boring, but it is NPOV.

jodastephen 15:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The intro sentance needs some work. I don't know whether your proposal fits though, since it makes it sound as if the project is complete, or nearly so. 'guided bus service' is inaccurate, since it only uses a few yards of guideway.
I don't know that there is anyone who considers it uncontroversial though. The bus drivers hate it, the people who use have nothing good to say about it, CBC go to some lengths to distance themselves from it, business groups have condemned it and other road users naturally despise it. The only people I know who have openly supported it are the 'Go-Ahead' group, who own the bus company and partly funded it, and the West Sussex 'Transport Planning Group' or whatever they call themselves down in Chichester.
Anyhow, I don't really think I can make it NPOV, so someone else Be Bold and edit please! [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 09:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Well, the request was to be bold, so I was. The page is basically completely rewritten. I have tried to take a fact based approach, and exclude all emotive language and issues. If you feel that something is factually incorrect, please comment, or if you feel something is materially missed out, thus resulting in a bias, please say. I am hoping that with a few more edits we can get this NPOV resolved. (I need to research how NPOV is officially 'resolved'). I also started a process of unifying the page names of the Crawley suburbs. --jodastephen 00:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the article may now have its NPOV marking removed. I will do that in a week or so if no one objects. Also, I propose to rename this article 'Fastway'. Currently, 'Fastway' links to 'Crawley Fastway'. I believe this to be appropriate because:

'Fastway' is the name used in nearly all promotion and discussion about the project even outside the local area - the term 'Crawley Fastway' has only been used here in Wikipedia and;

Fastway is planned to serve Horley, which is considered to be distinct from Crawley.

Some sources use the term 'Gatwick Fastway' which could have a link to 'Fastway'.

-User:Radamfi 13:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Akadruid hasn't learned his lesson - after swearing off editing the page he has ruined the hard work done by others by his continuing ranting.

-User:Radamfi 15:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for looking at the article, and I accept your point, although I feel the language is too strong. I'm all for making a good article, so I'll keep off the page, and limit myself to adding comments here. Would it be rude to ask if you are an advocate of bus systems like these? Your edit history implies an interest in the area.
Perhaps someone would like to look at the history of the article and re-add some of the objections to the system in a NPOV fashion. They have been published in the media, and I believe they are commonly held objections.
If it helps anyone to make a judgement on my edits, my involvement is this: I am a Crawley resident, but outside of area served by this project. I witness first hand the problems and costs for those who don't use the service, which I understand to be over 95% of the local population. As you can imagine, it is somewhat painful to watch this, given the cost to us tax payers and the only real benefit is going to the bus company.
Anyway, that's the end of my little rant, hope I haven't caused offense, and I hope someone can help create an article that conveys the views of the bus company, the council, and the local residents. I'll go and work on some articles I can edit better! akaDruid 11:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Accidents on Fastway

Two major accidents within six weeks have involved fastway.

Accidents appear to of happened through kerb clipping, on normal road sections. You can also review Scandia's accident report inspectors comments, 'that there was nothing wrong with the bus'. That's because it is doing what it's designed to do. TURN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION WHEN A GUIDE WHEEL HITS THE KERB!.

It's the whole design in Crawley that's wrong, and when WSCC realise this it's going to cost a lot more to rectify than the £6m overspend already.

If you look at a report on http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/OBahn.htm the very first chapter reads

'Kerb guidance is an off road technology which involves the creating of private rights of way (for buses) using a special trackway physically removed from the public highway.' Yes OFF Road and further down the report when they investigate Japan's system which utilises the road  'guide wheels can be retracted when the vehicle is operating on the normal road'. Fastways do not retract!. Finally in the same report under the section about Britain's buses 'the special driving techniques required (how to enter and use the bus way and the importance of not hitting the kerb with the guide-wheels when driving on the normal highway) the British government has made it a criminal offence for untrained drivers to drive guide-wheel equipped buses, whether on the bus way or ordinary road.'   The potential danger has already been raised.

A very good study has been done in Cambridge where a feasibility study for a new system is being looked into, produced the following report: http://www.noguidedbus.com/CI-SoC.pdf#search='guided%20bus%20safety

Section 13 raises plenty of safety issues that seem to have been ignored in Crawley, and in one part of section 13 they even give Crawley's fastway a mention because of kerb clipping by drivers.

A railtrack report pointed out the dangers of one of the first guided systems in Adelaide Australia, and some of the accidents that have occurred. see http://www.railwatch.org.uk/backtrack/rw75/rip.html which states "There are major doubts concerning operational viability and safety for guided busways. This may explain why there are very few major schemes operating around the world.

In Adelaide, there have been serious rear-end collisions, and vehicles are now fitted with rear-end stripes and flashing beacons for use if a vehicle has to stop. This illustrates the problems of pretending that a bus way can be the equivalent of a train running without signals. In the UK there are two short sections currently operating, in Leeds ( a mile and a quarter) and in Ipswich (200 yards).

There have been several accidents involving guide wheels. All of the above busways are of the kerb-guided type.


Since Bradford had a kerb guided system there has been several major accidents which I located in there local newspaper :

Three accidents have happenred where people have crossed over the safety railings and been hit by a bus.

So we need all these safety aspects looked into, Railings along the length of the guided sections, retractable wheels when on normal roads, strictly adhered to speed limits, and complete stops at all junctions.


Obviously many of these kerb clipping problems are a direct result of the traffic calming schemes that came earlier than fastway, especially road narrowing, where it makes it very easy for a car to clip the kerb, let alone a bus.


Other gripes regarding the Crawley Fastway system is that it doesn't pass any houses, which is no help for elderly or disabled people having to walk out of their neighborhoodd just to catch a bus. In the old days buses would run through estates linking people with shops and train stations.

Another strange thing, there is a bus lane marked on Southgate avenue at the junction of Telford Place on the wrong side of the road, as all buses and Fastway services turn left into Station Way and onto the bus station. A section of road, no one uses.

Further up Southgate Avenue and the junction of Tilgate Way, if a car coming from the town centre wants to turn left into Tilgate Way, a collision is inevitable, as the fastway drivers leaving the guided section feel they have the right of way and can just plough straight ahead stopping for no car.

Most of the congestion before Fastway, was created by the Council, closing certain roads, and forcing traffic to use the main roads of Southgate Avenue, Breezehurst Drive, London Road, Haslett Avenue, Hazelwick Avenue and Gatwick Road. These then became congested and Fastway was the idea of the traffic buster. A cheaper easier way would of been to open some of the roads we couldn't use, reducing the congestion on these main arterial roads. Furthermore the amount of congestion and pollution caused by cars over the past 3 years while it has been built, has made matters worst. Southgate drive had to be re-laid due to the wear from excessive traffic.

Most of the Fastway drivers dislike using the guided systems, they might not admit it when being asked, but you only have to stand along Southgate Avenue, and watch fastway transport not in service using the main road, rather than the off road section.

None of the buses are environmentally friendly, no alternative fuels, carry less passengers than a double decker or a tram, so what good are they?

A report on costing and environment impact can be found on http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/test/d1_exsu.html. Maybe the Council should of looked at this before deciding on this option.

Bus lanes are cheaper and light rail and trams move more passengers, are environment friendly, cheaper to build and last longer, what more could you ask of a transport system, Croydons proved that!


The second accident took place on a road, Fastway transport should not be on, more proof that the drivers don't like using the system, and how did the driver get onto a route he shouldn't of been on, taking other wrong roads?


Furthermore if in London they can paint a white line down a road, write on it bus lane between the hours of 7am and 7pm, penalty £100. Why couldn't we of just done that in Crawley. Emergency vehicles could of had full access to those areas of road, for speed, other drivers could use them outside these times to reduce congestion, and camera's imposing £100 fines would of help finance the operation, and then help keep transport costs down in Crawley.

And this is the only thing that would get the public out of their cars and onto buses, is by reducing prices. Glossing over buses to make them look like some fancy tram network doesn't work.

[edit] Factual errors

There are major factual errors in the article.

E.g. the results of the enquiry were not that. here is the actual published enquiry: http://www.maidenbower.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4933&highlight=fastway

and a lot of important, well sourced info that exists in the history of the article was stripped out and timetables and other junk added.

People accused me of POV editing so I promised not to edit this article, well, if no-one else is prepared to fix the errors then I will.

I think the tags must stay at the top until the stuff that was taken out is put back in. This article looks the like the Fastway promotional site right now.

akaDruid 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

and look at this diff to get some idea of just how much has been deleted recently.

akaDruid 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the accident bit - I deleted it in error - apologies.

  • Thanks for warning us, but in the future, if there's an obvious error that you think can be fixed in a well-sourced, NPOV way, don't listen to the complainers. If you're honest about it and you can back up your claims, there's rarely a situation where it's not best to act quickly to fix the article. --M@rēino 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)