Talk:Transport in Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Transport in Melbourne is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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)

[edit] This bit is POV

"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)

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)

Another problem is that many of the claims made in these articles are unsourced. invincible 11:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Proposed policy on public transport

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

[edit] Taxis

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)

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)