Talk:Public transport in Auckland

message: this article needs a separate section on History, too much historical context is mixed in the current sections, needs to be drawn out into a separate section. Michellecrisp 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Like the Auckland article, I feel this entry is echoing someone's personal gripes at planning transport in Auckland and the failings of Government. Please remember WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Michellecrisp 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not call me by name, Michelle? As for undue weight, you are welcome to add other content. Tagging stuff is nice and fine, but I'd be happy to see you do some research too. MadMaxDog 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't live in Auckland, and tagging and identifying NPOV is the first step in improving articles. Michellecrisp 05:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admitted. In fact, I do feel (just seeing from the progress on Britomart), that your 'forcing' of this issue is actually doing a lot of good for the article (damn you! ;-). But I am only one person myself, and suddenly having hundreds of fact tags to worry about - there's a bit more work involved in taking them out than in placing them. However, I am fully intending to do so, even if it takes some weeks, so I'd ask you to at least err on the side of tagging rather than deleting. MadMaxDog 07:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, I acknowledge than the improvement of the article may take weeks. My only goal is trying to make the article more encyclopaedic and less POV. I only delete material where it is clearly irrelevant or erroneous. funny that, today I was asked in Calgary to delete material rather than tag! Michellecrisp 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NPOV]]

message: This text:
Cox views in general have been called into question. He is well-known as being a polarising voice critical of 'rationing' of land (zoning restrictions) as well as of the 'waste' he feels is involved in many public transport schemes
should be in his own entry not a public transport in Auckland. Cox is not controversy free but don't discuss him in this article. Michellecrisp 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind adding something criticising Cox's specific views on NZ. but putting general criticism that should really be in the Wendell Cox entry. As I said above I totally agree he's not controversy free, but you have to see his point that Auckland may never get the densities to achieve real good public transport use. Cox has said similar things about Sydney and many other cities too. In fact, he argues that in some cities increasing densities only resulted in more congestion and not the same rate of public transport use. Michellecrisp 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with all of this http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12350 but he makes some points that apply to Auckland and its plans. Michellecrisp 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have moved the criticism. MadMaxDog 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wendell Cox

message: Well, I did quite a bit. The focus is still on PT, and there is clearly a focus on pro-PT initiatives, but I think I have cited enough research and political opinions to show that PT-favouring views are quite strong in Auckland at the moment. I have also done some changes in phrasing to remove contentious wordings, and moved the Cox criticsm over to his article. MadMaxDog 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Michellecrisp 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further work

message: The train of thought is all wrong, the article reads like a loco-hauled western line service getting through Newmarket. I propose the following re-marshalling:
Contents
[hide]
    * 1 Buses
          o 3.1 Urban services
                + 3.1.1 User statistics
                + 3.1.2 Priority measures
          o 3.2 Intercity Service
    * 2 Trains
          o 4.1 Rail services
          o 4.2 Future developments
                + 4.2.1 Initial Network Upgrade
                + 4.2.2 Core Network Upgrade
                + 4.2.3 Underground city loop
    * 3 Ferries
          o 5.1 Ferry services
          o 5.2 Ferry Terminals
    * 4 Britomart Transport Centre
    * 5 Long-term trends
          o 1.1 Historical
          o 1.2 New Emphasis
          o 1.3 Critical views
          o 1.4 Public advocacy
    * 6 Second Harbour Crossing
    * 7 See also
    * 8 References
    * 9 External links
All in favour please say "Aye". Nankai 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say "Meh", as in "I don't see that much need for it". But if you feel that this will improve readability and consistency compared to other articles, you are welcome to re-arrange it as suggested. Cheers. Ingolfson 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested re-jig 

message: The Link bus picture was because I thought it was more up-to-date than a Stagecoach bus as NZBus is phasing out that brand. Happy to let those closer to Auckland review that.
The reference to the 2004 local elections is looking a bit old (under Britomart). Nankai (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent tweaks 

message: Moved the below, very much up-in-the-air proposals from the main articlespace. While I would not really object to them being in, having refs should be a requirement.
<quote>
*a south-eastern rapid transit link for the Howick/Botany area. This would link the Eastern Rail Line in the vicinity of Panmure Station to Manukau City Centre and the Southern Rail Line, with a possible link further westward to Auckland International Airport.
*recent upgrades of Queen Street have allowed space ("Future-proofed") for the addition of trams/streetcars/light rail at some stage in the future.
*A new light rail link is proposed from Britomart in the CBD to the Wynyard (Western Reclamation) area, via a new bridge in the Viaduct Harbour.
*an Upper Harbour transit link is occasionally mentioned, linking West Auckland to the North Shore along the alignment of the Upper Harbour Motorway.
<unquote>
Ingolfson (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further proposals 

message: Updated patronage data to Jun 08 (from ARTA Annual Report 2007/08)--Travelplanner (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated data 

message: The article mentions increases in mode share, but doesn't actually say what the % usage of public transport is. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mode share 

message: I've deleted Westfield station and the dots at fare stage stations from the map, because nobody else seemed inclined to do it and an attempt to get the file's originator User:Vardion to do it has not been successful. If anyone has better skills than I had with Paint, or has the appropriate program, please go ahead and do it properly. Akld guy (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: A while back, I added Murphy Buses in this edit. I recall that Murphy ran some (perhaps additional) routes to take up some of the extra demand at the time of the 2017 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand in June and July 2017. The company may have continued to run some services long after the tour finished, as part of a deal to make the contract worthwhile. I haven't seen any regular Murphy Bus services since earlier this year, so the company has been removed. Akld guy (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murphy Buses 

message: I have gone circles in finding out the auckland metro page. Shouldn't the name change to 'auckland metro' instead of 'public transport in auckland'?
(Sufyanxtreme (talk) Search Results
Local Time 11:01 , 15 June 2020 (UTC))
:Disagree. Officially there is no "Auckland Metro." There is, however, a separate page for AT Metro. This page is about Auckland public transport in general, not all of which is operated by AT (e.g Long distance services). MangoMan11 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Article Title