Talk:Transport in China

Metro

For reference, cities with underground railway system under construction and to be completed with in a few years:

• Nanjing (http://www.nj-dt.com/)
• Shenzhen
• Chongqing (http://61.128.129.218/) - most sections are above ground.

Bicycle should have its own section

Over half a billion bicycles should rate a mention in this section, as well as the historical policies. As I mentioned in the 'Environment of China' discussion, before (about) 1980 I think you needed a special permit to have a privately-owned vehicle. If someone could substantiate this, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.161.204 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the lack of a substantial discussion of cycling, historical and present, renders this article sub-standard. I hope to get back to it - but please don't wait. Pedalissimo (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The article also lacks any information about REGULATION. I.e: If you drive legally on a bike, where can you drive it? Going by global regulations is non existing, there is no givens existing. Some places sidewalks are legal. Some places(mostly adaption of British law) Sidewalk biking is illegal because its regulated like a Horse carriage. In Japan "illegal in sidewalk except where indicated by shared sidewalk signs" and "unless really in slow pace".

If there is sidewalks on both sides of the way: Are you allowed to ride on the one that goes against the main traffic flow? Etc. Stalkerkun (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Road transportation problems in Beijing

• Shai Oster, August 24, 2010, Beijing: World’s Biggest Parking Lot, Wall Street Journal
  • Beijing will have 7 Million vehicles by 2015 [1]
  • Beijing ranked top in the world for "commuter pain", according to IBM study [2]
  • Study shows Beijing traffic worst in world [3]
  • Example of near worse-case scenario [4]

Might be able to find a relevant place to slide all this information in. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Transport safety

here's not a word on transport or road safety in this article, nor in the articles Expressways of China or China National Highways. I don't know enough about the subject to initiate much, but I believe it is a serious omission. New article, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.21.193.54 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps

The 3 transportation maps used in the article need an update. Currently, a part of PRC - Mailand China, the maps also display territories not under control of the PRC. It's ok if I put Taiwan networks out of the maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.244.188 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Since multiple pages are involved, one multi-request should have been made. Moved this and renamed the destination as a disambiguation. UtherSRG (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Transport in the People's Republic of China → Transport in China

Consistency move in line with the previous PRC->China move. All incoming links to the current Transport in China refer to the country of China (formerly PRC) and not any of the other places on the dab page currently at that title. This would have been nominated as a technical move but there are a small minority of editors who oppose moves of this type because they disagreed with the PRC->China move. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support move on the condition that Transport in Hong Kong, Transport in Macau, Transportation in Taiwan be linked at the beginning of the page either as a disambiguation header or in the lede section. It is important that readers are informed of the scope of the article.--Jiang (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per the consistency principle of WP:CRITERIA. The PRC-to-China move was done following a broad-based community discussion, so it is appropriate to implement the result project-wide. Will Transport in China move to Transport in China (disambiguation)? Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consistency should also applied across articles such as Culture of China, History of China, etc., where the word 'China' covers both Chinas of the divided China. Jeremy (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Present day topic. The scope issue surrounding HK/Macau will not be affected by the move, existing even at the current title. There's definitely scope to be more definitive though. CMD (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. mgeo talk 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consistency should apply. For most topical articles, China means the wider (but divided) China. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This move is to establish consistency. The article titles for every other 'Transport in X' article use the name of the country as X. It was determined in the PRC->China move that 'China' does not mean "the wider (but divided) China", it means the country of China. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 03:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Most topical articles titled "in China" or "of China" are referring to the geographical area of China, of which Taiwan is part of. These include History of China, Culture of China, and Cuisine of China, to name a few. For articles specifically referring to the country, "in the PRC" or "of the PRC" is used. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • What 'most articles' do with China is what's currently being debated. If we had a series of articles on Footopia and the main article on Footopia was moved to Foolandia, your opposition is effectively the same as saying "we shouldn't move all the 'in Footopia' articles to 'in Foolandia' because they're all already at 'in Footopia'". The status quo argument only works when the status quo exists. With the PRC->China move, the status quo was changed. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 04:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal: To rename it as Transport in China (country), and rename other topical articles as Foo in China (geographical region). Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's still no evidence that this supposed concept of a geographical region exists. CMD (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to match the country article at China. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support target page is a dab created as a redirect to this page. No reason to oppose this. I don't oppose summary style paragraphs to any of the current dab targets in this article, now or at the proposed name. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Economic Benefits

I propose adding data on costs and benefits from the Oxford China Study. Please note I am a co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that another editor takes a look at my proposed edit to check and verify that it’s okay and to execute it if it is. If it is not okay, kindly let me know how I can improve it, many thanks. 163.1.94.222 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Note the content was pasted in the article by mistake. I have taken in out here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried to re-enter the content regarding economic benefits of China's transport infrastructure. I believe I have entered this correctly now. My suggestion is to add data on costs and benefits from the Oxford China Study. Please note I am a co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that another editor takes a look at my proposed edit to check and verify that it’s okay and to execute it if it is. If it is not okay, kindly let me know how I can improve it, many thanks.

@Atifansar: Hi there. The content proposed should not be entered into the article itself - I have reverted your edit. Relisting the content here. Do not try and add the content to the article again - it will be reviewed here, and, if it passes, another editor will implement the suggested changes. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the proposed content is quite promotional (such as the "largest dataset of its kind", without anything to back that up), and may give undue weight to some aspects, especially talking about the authors of the study themselves (such information should not be mentioned in the text). Overall, the proposed text provides far too many claims without any other sources to back it up, and should not be implemented in its current form. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

A 2016 study from University of Oxford's Saïd Business School argues that over half of the infrastructure investments in China have destroyed, not generated economic value. The study – authored by Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn – is based on an analysis of 95 large Chinese road and rail transport projects and 806 transport projects built in rich democracies, the largest dataset of its kind. ‘From our sample, the evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it,’ comments Dr Atif Ansar, co-author of the study. References

Ambiguity in introduction

I am referring particularly to this sentence: "Airports, roads, and railway construction will provide a massive employment boost in China over the next decade." When was this even written? Is this based on some kind of official projection? If so, by whom and when? This needs to be made clear in the article. Thanks. Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)