Talk:Transport/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Moved from subject page

(STILL NEEDS MUCH WORK)

What are our priorities for writing in this area? To help develop a list of the most basic topics in transport, please see transport basic topics.

Thought the first paragraph was a really good start and dividing the whole thing into network/vehicles/operations seems a good idea. Especially if sustainability can go under operations. Personally only have good knowledge of logistics, energy and environment so will help with those when they appear. (talk)--BozMo 22:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Some ideas: Land use planning vs. transport policy: The approach to steer the housing and private transport is discussible. Boundary conditions like regional economy, fuel prices and absence of emission based pricing play a big role and may support excursions of distances for shopping and commuting. --Gerfriedc 08:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The table

Is there any source for the table or is it an original research?--Nixer 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What is 'The Big Giant Head' meant to be? Vandalism, or some new transportation method? Seriously though, you can't compare a lift with an Maglev, or a bicycle with a boat. I'm not so sure whether, colourful as it is, that table works very well. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, Big Giant Head? A little Third Rock humor? ha, but i'm gonna remove it. Fresheneesz 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually i'll put it right here (unless anyone doesn't have a sense of humor):

Mode Single journey range (km) / optimal (feasible) Speed of journey within optimal range Cost Mass transport capacity Reach/ Coverage Safety On-demand Infrastructure investment Comfort Customer Acceptance Fuel Efficiency Environmental, aesthetic and social impacts Land Use The Big Giant Head 10-4500 (0-3000)

Seriously speaking, one thing missing is a comparison of the fuel efficiency of all transport modes. There's a good source for North America on this official website, in a PDF document pages 17 to 19. Would allow a per capita fuel consumption of different modes, plus a per kilometer average consumption of each mode. I wonder if the Transport page is the best place, or a new environmental oriented Transport page...? Josce 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

42 Volt Automotive Technology

There has been an initiative underway for several years now looking at a possible increase in the standard automobile voltage from 12 V to 42 V technology. Expected benefits include reduced wire sizes for increasing electrical loads, lighter weight cars, thus higher mileage cars, limited-hybrid ability that might be possible with any vehicle through a dual-use 42 V starter motor that could also be a low-speed hybrid drive, etc. Examples from Google include this from MIT [1] and this from Autospeed [2].

My question: where is this, or should this, be covered in an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. I cannot find it anywhere. Thanks. N2e 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Road Train and Road train

The two all but duplicate each other and most, if not all of the former should be deleted from this article. There also appears to be a lot of duplication(s) in the rest of the Transportation article. Peter Horn 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Share Taxi and Share taxi

More of the same unnecessary (?) duplication, and there is no doubt more yet. Peter Horn 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why this article is only about bus?

--Nixer 08:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting SEVERE vandalism

I am reverting vandalism that originally occurred on 6 October 2006 at this edit. [3] It was by anonymous IP 85.133.137.31, who apparently copied the entire contents of several other articles into this article. MER-C caught the first two instances of vandalism that day, but not the third! And everyone with this article on their watch list has apparently been too busy fighting vandalism on other articles (that would include me) to catch this incident of vandalism for almost TWO MONTHS!!! I am reverting back to the last good version on 22 September 2006 by Peter Horn. If anyone disagrees, please explain here. --Coolcaesar 08:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Water Trasnport

When this category/subject reaches its main article some earlier editor has chosen to divert it to 'ship transport' I have left a message on the talk there and there has been no response - I am wondering how well watched/populated this article is for the idea of trying to revert to water transport in the article and a few other locatio0ns/ anyone? SatuSuro 13:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rail picture

I think it would be more appropriate to replace the image of the steam engine with a modern train... Does anybody have any objections to this? --Shadowlink1014 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Electrification of transportation

What is electrification of transportation?. --193.145.201.52 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on who you ask, for those in the Battery electric vehicle and Plug-in hybrid whelm it's the use of electricity as an alternate fuel source, using electricity as a fuel makes a vehicle "Electric". So the current generation of Hybrid vehicles are not electric and do not constitute the electrification of transportation. The impression I get from some recent GM statements surrounding the Volt is that they would like it to simply mean any vehicle which employs electric motors and related systems but not necessarily electricity as a fuel source, Fuel Cells for example, in essence they may be attempting to redefine electrification, IMHO. --D0li0 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Fuel source? Electricity is rarely a fuel source, and rarely ought to be. Electric motors, on the other hand, are widely used, and ought to be more so. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merger of Shipping into Transport

Shipping is physical process of transporting goods and cargo Transport or transportation is the movement of people and goods from one place to another.

vapmachado talk.cw 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I disagree with this merger. Shipping is deserving of a separate article. Why create a single mega-article on transportation anyway? I see no reason for that. Manxruler (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for essentially the same reason as Manxruler. This is a portmanteau article on the general concept of transportation. Specific modes and purposes, such as shipping, should be treated in detail in separate articles. Deor (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Shipping is not approximately the same as transport; it is only concerned of cargo transport, and shipping also spans beyond the mere transport, to handle such aspects as risk and payment (neither covered in the transport article, and there would not be room for more than a few lines on either matter). At current there is not even a subsection of shipping in the transport article, but perhaps it may be added. Arsenikk (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Before writing any opinion, make sure your brain is engaged. It would be wise to research the topics at hand in greater depth prior to stating any opinions.

"Shipping is deserving of a separate article." I couldn't agree more. Have you ever run into the ship transport article. Pretty nifty isn't it?

The only person who wrote about creating "a single-mega article on transportation" was you. What an obtuse thought that would be, wouldn't it?

You "see no reason for that"? Neither do I. Who would have such an absurd idea?

"This is a portmanteau article on the general concept of transportation." You must be referring to the transportation article aren’t you?

Do you really know what a portmanteau is? Have you ever seen one? Was it in a movie? Which one?

"Specific modes and purposes [of transportation], such as shipping, should be treated in detail in separate articles." Right on! That's whack! Ship transport! Wicked!

vapmachado talk.cw 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore your snotty attitude. Perhaps one thing you haven't considered is that, in English, "shipping" is not synonymous with "ship transport," as you'll discover if you read the article Shipping. And yes, I was "referring to the transportation article"; it's on the talk page of that article that this discussion is taking place. Deor (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my original statements. vapmachado, please look up Wikipedia:Civility. Manxruler (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Omission

I found a glaring omission on the Transport page: electrical distribution. Transportation is about moving an object from Point A to Point B. While electricity may not be considered a physical object, the electrical distribution system is akin to the pipleline system in purpose and structure. It needs to be listed here as a mode of transportation, rather than minor things like aerial tramways; after all, our civilization is impossible without electricity, and aerial tramways are a very minor component of the total transporation system anywhere.

Jimwelch4 Jimwelch4 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Transportation Infrastructure source

Does anyone know the source for the definition of transportation infrastructure found under the infrastructure section of this page?--[[User:Star Trek enthusiast|''STAR TREK'' enthusiast]] [[User talk: Star Trek enthusiast|Open channel]] (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


The NFA-LD collegiate debate topic revolves around transportation infrastructure reform this year (2009-2010); this article may need extra policing during such time, lest college debaters edit the definition of transportation in a way favorable to their arguments. As an extra note, any college debaters viewing this discussion ought to recognize this article as a starting point for further research into the topic rather than an all-inclusive source or as a means to exclude other literature in the field. 161.6.240.84 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Road transportation

"The most common road vehicle is the automobile; a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor. Other users of roads include buses, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians. As of 2002, there were 590 million automobiles worldwide."

This seems to be very incorrect. At the car-article, we read "There are approximately 600 million passenger cars worldwide (roughly one car per eleven people)." However, that ratio is not uniform, in countries like the United Arab Emirates, ... the number is allot higher (more than 1 car per person), so we logically determine that in many other countries (say Central African republic) the number allot smaller (then even 1 car per 11 people). Logically, that assumes that the car isn't the most common road vehicle there.

Personally, I believe in many countries, the cultivator (a self-propelled agricultural tool) is much more common as a road vehicle. In many countries it is used to propell a cart (a bit like a horse). However, it is nowhere mentioned at Wikipedia, and there isn't even an article made on the transportation vehicle.

91.182.21.28 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We work by cited sources here, not personal opinions, fabrication and nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ITC external link to trade in services data

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the data held by ITC related to the trade of transportation services worldwide. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the database referring to the specific service traded 5) The addition of a link to reliable trade in services data can provide an appropriate contribution to the article Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you post here the link you want to include? In an admittedly hasty look over the ITC site, I'm not seeing a page with data specifically related to transport. Deor (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Table

qwe I couldn't find a table comparing transport modes anywhere on Wikipedia. Where else should it go if not here?

What is highly subjective about it? Physical and statistical quantities like capacity, cost, infrastructure cost, deaths per passenger mile, land use, etc. are fairly straight forward to measure and well-documented. And some of it is simply a summary of what is says in the text. The only column that some may find subjective is the environmental impact column, so remove it if you don't like it.

Butt ugly and disruptive? That's the way MediaWiki displays a standard table. Well, if you think so then why don't you make it look nicer instead of deleting it? Nice, nice comments, --190.162.142.164 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)arriendo de buses

-- Klafubra 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The table needs to cite sources. Also should it present the situation in the most populous country on earth, the one on top in the Human Development Index, some sort of average or as it is now, present ideas from the country that has the strongest history of car favouritism  :-) --Mokgand 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the table here, it is original research and not appropriate without citation of sources. dml 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now an article Mode of transport. Should this table ever get resurrected, it should be moved to that article instead of this article. Ae-a 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of different modes of passenger transport



Mode Single journey range (km) / optimal (feasible) Speed of journey within optimal range Cost Mass transport capacity Reach/ Coverage Safety On-demand Infrastructure investment Comfort Customer Acceptance Fuel Efficiency Environmental, aesthetic and social impacts Land Use
Walking 0-2 (0-6)
Bicycle 0-6 (0-30)
Motorized bicycle 0-6 (0-30)
Car 3-300 (0-1500) (urban) (other)
Motorcycle 3-100 (0-1500)
Bus (urban) 0.2-20 (0.2-50)
Coach (long distance) 1-300 (1-3000)
Urban Rail/ Metro 1-20 (0.3-50)
Conventional Rail 10-300 (0.3-5000)
High Speed Rail/ Maglev 100-800 (10-10,000)
Boat 1-200 (0.2-20,000)
Aeroplane 600-20,000 (100-20,000)
Helicopter 10-500 (0-3000)
Airship 300-2000 (50-20,000) ?
Cable Car 0.3-10 (0.3-50)
PRT 1-100 (0.3-500) ?
Elevator/Lift 0.1-0.5 (0.02-0.5) File:Greend ot.png
Escalator 0.1-0.5 (0.02-1)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Transport/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Weknesses== I'm missing a sencence or a paragraph about land transport compared to water and air/space transport. Scriberius 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Women in Transport

This page have no mention to the contribution of women to the transport industry. Under the heading "History", between this two paragraphs

(With the development of the combustion engine and the automobile at the turn into the 20th century, road transport became more viable, allowing the introduction of mechanical private transport. The first highways were constructed during the 19th century with macadam. Later, tarmac and concrete became the dominant paving material. In 1903, the first controllable airplane was demonstrated, and after World War I, it became a fast way to transport people and express goods over long distances.[24]

After World War II, the automobile and airlines took higher shares of transport, reducing rail and water to freight and short-haul passenger.[25] Scientific spaceflight was launched in the 1950s, with rapid growth until the 1970s, when interest dwindled. In the 1950s, the introduction of containerization gave massive efficiency gains in freight transport, permitting globalization.[22] International air travel became much more accessible in the 1960s, with the commercialization of the jet engine. Along with the growth in automobiles and motorways, this introduced a decline for rail and water transport. After the introduction of the Shinkansen in 1964, high-speed rail in Asia and Europe started taking passengers on long-haul routes from airlines.[25]),

I inserted the following paragraph: The First World War was also a change enabler for women in the transport industry. As large numbers of men enlisted for military service, 100,000 women entered the sector[1]. This significant point in history has been celebrated through the 100 years of women in transport campaign in 2014 - 2015[2][3].

One user keeps reverting my changes. He said it is too specific. It is a historical fact and it is relevant to the topic. What can I do to be able to maintain my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaFerreira (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/nov/08/world-war-women-workplace-public-services
  2. ^ https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/100-years-of-women-in-transport
  3. ^ http://www.wes.org.uk/100yowit
I must admit, when I saw your edit I too was tempted, if not simply to revert the material, then at least to find some other article to move it to, where the information would be more appropriate. This is an article on a very, very broad topic, and the "History" section gives only the most general outline of the development of transport; specific details are treated in more-specific articles. (I spent a couple of minutes looking for an appropriate article but didn't immediately find one, so I was planning to come back to the matter later.)
That said, you and Mean as custard are engaging in an edit war. You did the right thing by raising the matter on this talk page, but you should have done so sooner, since MAC has already reverted you four times (leaving himself vulnerable to a block for violating the three-revert rule), and you have reverted him thrice. If no consensus regarding the suitability of the information to this article develops in this talk-page thread, you should, rather than continuing to revert-war, try one of the options discussed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. But, both of you, please stop warring now, or I'll be obliged to block the two of you and perhaps protect the article from all edits. Deor (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about the 'edit war' thing as I am new to Wikipedia. Still think the contribution of women to transport should be a separate topic with a heading within the transport page. It is part of the history of transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaFerreira (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 November 2015 AnaFerreira (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@AnaFerreira: How about trying to work the information into Women in the workforce#History? That article seems more appropriate, since this article focuses more on the means (i.e., technology) that people have used to move themselves and stuff from one place to another than on the social aspects of the transportation industry. Deor (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transport. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 15:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transport. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transport. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Canadian use of Transport

Where I come from, in Canada, we refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck#North_America as a transport or maybe a "transport trailer". I'm unsure what can be done to assist, but when I was trying to find a reference (specifically a picture) I found it difficult (not knowing what specifically to search for.) Perhaps, somewhere, a reference could be added that mentions this and makes the link between transport [trailer] and a semi-trailer truck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.225.215 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Transport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Transport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

transport policy

We are dearly in need of a proper section (better yet: article) on transport and traffic policy and politics. A relevant template can be found in the German articel de:Verkehrspolitik. The current redirect transport policy to the overly concise (and naively phrased) section in here doesn't help at all. -- Kku (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

commerce

O K Thanks 

I like it 154.72.169.1 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

commerce

Ok 154.72.169.1 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transport/Archive_1&oldid=1208952076"