Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Transport in Sydney

Are there subways in the city?

I wanted know is there a subway in Sydney, if so, how big is it.

regards, Movie-lover93 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for a second that this isn't a facetious question from a sockpuppet, the answer is that it depends on how you define a "subway". Some people interested in subways consider the underground sections of the CityRail network to be subways, but there is no separate subway system. The nature of Sydney's railway system is described in this article from the point of view of someone interested in transport in Sydney, not someone interested in subways, so there is no need for a separate section. What this article does need is more about the road system. JPD (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming for a second that this isn't a facetious question from a sockpuppet" Not everyone has visited Sydney. This is a global encyclopaedia. Cut out the attitude.—An Sealgair (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I don't really understand this page move. The page did cover transport in Sydney, although a roads section was desperately needed. The only non-Sydney parts were (and are) the taxis section and the recent strange inclusion of Newcastle ferries. There may be a reason for a page on public tranport in the metropolitan area, given the MoT's plans, but I'm not convinced that that is a reason/enough, to lose the standard "Transport in City X" page, with info on private and public commuter transport and long distance connections. JPD (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking my cues from Sydney's reglatory framework. NSW public transport is managed on the basis of a metropolitan/regional divide. It makes no sense to discuss public transport in Sydney without discussing public transport in Newcastle and Wollongong—they are in many ways part of one continuous city. The railway network (including freight and CountryLink) is discussed on a state level page. The taxi system is effectively statewide: what applies to Sydney applies outside it. Coverage of Sydney's roads is patchy, but I would suggest the state-wide RTA as the best entry-point for articles on that subject.
Transport in city X makes sense in places such as Brisbane and Canberra where the region constitutes a distinct administrative unit. For Sydney, no such region exists. Joestella 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We manage to write articles about other topics in Sydney, despite the lack of a signle administrative unit, or even a regulatory divide. Your points about taxis are valid, trains less so, but either way, not enough to kill the Transport in Sydney article. As you say, the regulatory framework does suggest an article on public transport in the metropolitan area, but "Transport in Sydney" was not simply about public transport, and should not be reduced to the regulatory aspects. JPD (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that the Transport in New South Wales page should reach its practical limits before we went back to editing Transport in Sydney. Remember that, in essence, the old Transport in Sydney page was about public transport, with links to the Roads and Traffic Authority and Sydney Airport. Given that the airports and seaports are of state or national significance, and Sydney's freight railways integrate fully with the statewide network, all that leaves is roads. A comprehensive Roads in Sydney article would be most welcome, perhaps based around the content already written for these roads. Joestella 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was slightly more than links to the RTA and KS articles, and most of the information that was there has been completely removed, but the real point is that it wasn't intended to be about public transport, so the solution was to expand those sections, not remove them. Yes, writing Transport in New South Wales might be a good reason not to start a Transport in Sydney article, but it's not a reason to something that has been started. Besides, you have created Transport in New South Wales as an overly regulatory-focussed article, too. JPD (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The regulatory framework is key to these overview articles because specific operational matters are dealt with downstream, eg Transport in New South Wales > Rail transport in New South Wales > CityRail > Illawarra railway line, Sydney > Bondi Junction railway station, Sydney. Detailed material belongs at one place in the chain, summaries elsewhere. Regulatory material is higher, operation material is lower. Thoughts? Joestella 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operational material isn't necessarily lower. A summary of this sort of material should contain more than simply regulatory details. JPD (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with JPD here - we need a page on Sydney itself, and the operational stuff is extremely important. JROBBO 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That such-and-such is extremely important is not reason to put it on any particular page, it's reason to include it in Wikipedia. This is a discussion about structure, not importance. Joestella 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a reason to include a summary of it in overview articles such as the ones we are discussing. Summary style is not an excuse to not describe properly anything that is covered in detail in another article. JPD (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attacks on buses at Willmot

Violence has increased from rocks and slug guns to what was reported on radio news (NOVA 96.9)as being a home-made rocket launcher. It was on the radio news at both 8:00 and 8:30 am while I was stuck in the rain. At 8:00 it included a quote from I think John Watkins (Australian politician). Don't know who Nova source their news from? Was suprised that it isn't on the smh.com.au website but thought I should add it while I could accurately remember source and details for a radio broadcast.

I have added similar text to Public transport in metropolitan New South Wales Willmot, New South Wales Westbus (well, the section in what that link redirects to).

I think it is relevent in each of these articles. Is there anywhere else worth mentioning this? This is very significant in the local area. I think now that it has reached the level of people using an IED to attack Public transport - even privately operated - then somebody is going to end up in pretty serious time for this whole situation.Garrie 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it's relevant, Garrie - but it hasn't been the only problem facing public transport. We could add a section on transport issues, including vandalism, graffiti, poor management, etc. JRG 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this section could actually just go onto the Buses in Sydney page. In fact the whole buses section could be pared back and moved. Nomadtales (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I think it's time to move this page back to where it was - as a Sydney-based page. Newcastle and Wollongong can have their own Public Transport pages. JRG 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to where it should be. - Aucitypops (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I was just wondering if there was a page similar to this for Victoria? thanks Rusty_surfer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Central Coast Ferries

Our article Sydney defines Sydney as being bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the East, the Blue Mountains to the West, the Hawkesbury River to the North and the Royal National Park to the South. According to the article Central Coast Ferries, all the points served by that ferry company are to the north of the Hawkesbury River. It therefore does not belong in this article. -- Starbois (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-Card

I was just wondering, should we remove the reference to the failed T-Card system in the 'reforms' section? It was scrapped over two years ago, and as far as I know, there are no plans for a new system.

Antonyh3 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public transport in Sydney. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transport_in_Sydney