Talk:Transport

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Important: concerning navigation support: this subject is outlined in the List of basic transport topics. That page, along with the others in the set of Lists of basic topics, comprise an outline of knowledge, that doubles as a general table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Transport
Transport portal
This article is part of WikiProject Transport, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Transport. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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?

-- 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)

[edit] 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)
Escalator 0.1-0.5 (0.02-1)

[edit] One of Wikipedia's oldest pages

This is one of the oldest pages of Wikipedia (just a stub). Version of 16 Jan 2001, under the camel case name TransporT [1] :

  • AirTransport
  • RailTransport
  • RoadTransport
  • SeaTransport

Note that these were automatic links due to the camel case form.

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links


Motorcycle Auction: Custom & Used Mini choppers

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [2] and this from Autospeed [3].

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Why this article is only about bus?

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

[edit] Reverting SEVERE vandalism

I am reverting vandalism that originally occurred on 6 October 2006 at this edit. [4] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Suggested merger of Shipping into Transport

Shipping is physical process of transporting goods and cargo \approx 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!