Talk:Cardiff Bus

An Australian company?

"Cardiff Bus is an Australian bus company."

I removed the above previous content, as a through google search failed to reveal any evidence of their being a company called 'Cardiff Bus' operating in Australia.

Proposed merge in of Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff

Support

1. Support - it is arguable whether this is a rapid transit system. In any case, there is no need for a separate article from Cardiff Bus where this content would fit nicely. BlueValour (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - with no reference to rapid transit, as per Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support for a merge and I've checked the article, though I have not seen the transit system in person but generally rapid transit would exclusive transit corridors for example the Transitway in Ottawa or the future Rapibus in Gatineau (local examples of rapid transits). I agree it is debatable whether we should mention the term rapid transit even. Yes, some transit companies have right of way, bus lanes and bus only streets but don't necessary called it rapid transit (i.e the STO in my region) although in Ottawa, one planned route that included right of way, bus lanes and bus signal priority measures would have been called a BRT route - although not sure if it will be still called a BRT in the future. Not sure if the bus-only streets in Cardiff are synonymous of rapid transit (if they are high-speed roadways like 50 miles per hour or so, maybe someone can reply on this.--JForget 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Regardless of the disputed rapid transit status. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support NO need for 2 articles, rapid transit system? Hardly call crawling through canton on the 17/18 rapid! (I live on the 17/18/102 route) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.16.210 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support This is basically a Cardiff Bus article, which when merged will improve that article too. Seth Whales (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I have now carried out the merge since it was unopposed. BlueValour (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bus Rapid Transit"?

Under this heading, four features are identified, but with no indication of provenance:

• Level boarding, low floor access and adapted bus stops — I'm fairly sure that on any new builds (such as the Bay area) or renewal work (such as the city centre) this is required by law under the Disability Discrimination Act. Any evidence to the contrary? Answers should include a reference to "bus rapid transit" somewhere.
• High frequency of up to every five minutes throughout the day — Services 27, 28 and 29 have provided a composite service frequency of 10 per hour during daytime for a number of years. Certainly was the case when I was working afternoons in Llanishen. I did have some printed timetables for those routes from 2004-2005 somewhere, though I suspect I've thrown them out.
• Right of way, bus lanes and bus only streets — From what I heard, St. Mary Street was closed for reasons of safety and congestion, with a view to improving the punctuality of all bus services operating that way, rather than for any specific "bus rapid transit" scheme.
• Tram-like low emission vehicles — Low-emission vehicles have been operating in the area for a few years. I suspect they were first used on service 30 to Newport. I challenge the notion that the new fleet (especially the Capital Green buses) are somehow "tram-like".

All of this leads me to the conclusion that other editors above have reached, namely that this isn't really "bus rapid transit". I'm willing to change my mind if presented with some reliable sources to back this up. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that refers to this as bus rapid transit. It's been discussed before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cardiff Bus HQ, Cardiff.jpg

I have put the image of the Headquarters back into the article as Wikipedians should not be interested in "...best represent(ing) the company (Cardiff Bus)". From WP:SOAP, "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style."...this would include images too. The headquarters of Cardiff Bus is the only property that the company owns itself, therefore it is important to have it in the article. The company has its own website for them to "best represent the company".

Please comment below, I propose Include. Seth Whales (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a seriously poor picture, and adds absolutely nothing to the article, therefore should be removed per the image policy. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. Airline pages show images of their aircraft rather than their head office or a hangar. Bus companies should follow suit. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So how do you pay?

This article is missing information on how they calculate how much you pay. Is it a set price to go anywhere in the system? Do they calculate how far you've gone and make you pay for the exact distance? Do they make you pay extra when crossing certain boundaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.155.231 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'll get the info Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cardiff Bus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007204320/http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml to http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010044719/http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm to http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)