text:
Universal C*-algebra

In mathematics, a universal C*-algebra is a C*-algebra described in terms of generators and relations. In contrast to rings or algebras, where one can consider quotients by free rings to construct universal objects, C*-algebras must be realizable as algebras of bounded operators on a Hilbert space by the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction and the relations must prescribe a uniform bound on the norm of each generator. This means that depending on the generators and relations, a universal C*-algebra may not exist. In particular, free C*-algebras do not exist.

C*-Algebra Relations
There are several problems with defining relations for C*-algebras. One is, as previously mentioned, due to the non-existence of free C*-algebras, not every set of relations defines a C*-algebra. Another problem is that one would often want to include order relations, formulas involving continuous functional calculus, and spectral data as relations. For that reason, we use a relatively roundabout way of defining C*-algebra relations. The basic motivation behind the following definitions is that we will define relations as the category of their representations.

Given a set X, the null C*-relation on X is the category $$\mathcal{F}_{X}$$ with objects consisting of pairs (j, A), where A is a C*-algebra and j is a function from X to A and with morphisms from (j, A) to (k, B) consisting of *-homomorphisms φ from A to B satisfying φ ∘ j = k. A C*-relation on X is a full subcategory of $$\mathcal{F}_{X}$$ satisfying:
 * 1) the unique function X to {0} is an object;
 * 2) given an injective *-homomorphism φ from A to B and a function f from X to A, if φ ∘ f is an object, then f is an object;
 * 3) given a *-homomorphism φ from A to B and a function f from X to A, if f is an object, then φ ∘ f is an object;
 * 4) if fi is an object for i=1,2,...,n, then $$\prod_{i=1}^{n} f_i: X\to \prod_{i=1}^{n} A_i$$ is also an object. Furthermore, if fi is an object for i in an nonempty index set I implies the product $$\prod_{i\in I} f_i : X \to \prod A_i$$ is also an object, then the C*-relation is compact.

Given a C*-relation R on a set X. then a function ι from X to a C*-algebra U is called a universal representation for R if
 * 1) given a C*-algebra A and a *-homomorphism φ from U to A, φ ∘ ι is an object of R;
 * 2) given a C*-algebra A and an object (f, A) in R, there exists a unique *-homomorphism φ from U to A such that f = φ ∘ ι. Notice that ι and U are unique up to isomorphism and U is called the universal C*-algebra for R.

A C*-relation R has a universal representation if and only if R is compact.

Given a *-polynomial p on a set X, we can define a full subcategory of $$\mathcal{F}_{X}$$ with objects (j, A) such that p ∘ j = 0. For convenience, we can call p a relation, and we can recover the classical concept of relations. Unfortunately, not every *-polynomial will define a compact C*-relation.

Alternative Approach
Alternatively, one can use a more concrete characterization of universal C*-algebras that more closely resembles the construction in abstract algebra. Unfortunately, this restricts the types of relations that are possible. Given a set G, a relation on G is a set R consisting of pairs (p, η) where p is a *-polynomial on X and η is a non-negative real number. A representation of (G, R) on a Hilbert space H is a function ρ from X to the algebra of bounded operators on H such that $$\lVert p\circ \rho(X) \rVert \leq \eta$$ for all (p, η) in R. The pair (G, R) is called admissible if a representation exists and the direct sum of representations is also a representation. Then
 * $$\lVert z \rVert_{u} = \sup\{ \lVert \rho(z)\rVert \colon \rho \text{ is a representation of } (G,R)\}$$

is finite and defines a seminorm satisfying the C*-norm condition on the free algebra on X. The completion of the quotient of the free algebra by the ideal $$\{ z \colon \lVert z \rVert_{u} = 0\}$$ is called the universal C*-algebra of (G,R).

Examples

 * The noncommutative torus can be defined as a universal C*-algebra generated by two unitaries with a commutation relation.
 * The Cuntz algebras, graph C*-algebras and k-graph C*-algebras are universal C*-algebras generated by partial isometries.
 * The universal C*-algebra generated by a unitary element u has presentation $$\langle u \mid u^*u = uu^* = 1\rangle$$. By continuous functional calculus, this C*-algebra is the algebra of continuous functions on the unit circle in the complex plane. Any C*-algebra generated by a unitary element is isomorphic to a quotient of this universal C*-algebra.

title: Universal C*-algebra


text:
Talk:Origins of baseball

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikebannon11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Other related games
I added the mention about oina since it is unfair not to mention this sport in the history of the game of baseball. Oina is a very old pastoral game. It would be interesting to know how much influence had this game to the actual baseball game. It is a long overdue trend to identify the history  of everything which is  nowadays American  to the old British/colonial customs. Let's not forget that America was formed by immigrants and they brought good and bad when they came. To return to the oina game, a big Transylvanian community immigrated in the begining of the 19th century in America. I am not arguing in any ways that they had any influence at all, but the amazing similitudes of those two games require a further investigation into this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.44.28 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Real tennis, its descendant lawn tennis and croquet are also related to baseball, but more distantly than cat, rounders or cricket. Grassynoel (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs Better Research
Roman kids played #Baseball in the street - Year 1669 (lower right: pitcher, batter, and catcher) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Willem_Reuter_-_A_Roman_Market.jpg DrWJK (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Palant
British historian Norman Davis in his book "God's playground" says: "More certainly, in October 1608, an emigrant ship, the Mary and Margaret, carried among its passengers the first Polish settlers into Jamestown, Virginia. [list of names and their origins]. Ten years later the Polish artisans of Jamestown were said to be responsible for the continent's first industrial strike and, in their game of http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palant, for the invention of Baseball." This is page 205, http://books.google.com/books?id=9Tbed6iMNLEC&lpg=PA205&ots=h-pgExnT22&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q=palant&f=false.

Whether or not Palant can be taken as an early form of base-ball, as opposed to (e.g.) deutsche Ballspiel, Jamestown's Poles had no lasting influence since they departed the following year. There are no other mentions of bat-and-ball games other than cricket and barn-ball in the colonial South. Solicitr (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Origins of baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016132738/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/sport/othersports/baseball/2799671/Major-League-Baseball-told-Your-sport-is-British-not-American.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/baseball/2799671/Major-League-Baseball-told-Your-sport-is-British-not-American.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Miss Mitford's sketch
If nobody objects, I'm going to move "Miss Mitford's" A Village Sketch from the American to the British section, since the author was in fact the English writer Mary Russell Mitford, who published a very popular series of "Village Sketches" in the English Ladies' Magazine from 1821 onward (later collected and published as Our Village) and the Maryland paper simply reprinted the introductory section of her story "Jack Hatch." (It's noteworthy that Mitford, in keeping with other early-19th century English sources, suggests that "base-ball" was a game played by little girls.) Solicitr (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)17:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Every country in Britain
Is it necessary to say that examples of early Britain are "England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales?" I feel like that is redundant. 80.150.65.186 (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where in the article are you referencing? Ckruschke (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

 * The second sentence in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.194.250 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

 * Thanks! 2601:184:4980:DBAD:D87D:D8B8:5A80:AA6 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Origins of baseball. 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/20100725094852/http://vbba.org/ed-interp/dedhamgame.html to http://vbba.org/ed-interp/dedhamgame.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206023550/http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/about/history.htm to http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/about/history.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Rounders
A lot of original research and unsubstantiated speculation in the Rounders section.

Whilst rounders might not have been Tudor in origin, it certain dated from 1744. This article seems fixated on the name, but the 1744 publication described the game is much closer to modern rounders than it was to modern baseball.

Mauls (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 * So what is your suggested change? Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

New source
User:Human Taxonomist has been adding baseball as an English invention to English people. Besides the fact that his source, David Block, mentions Wales as an early source of precursors {as does The Prehistories of Baseball, I'm not sure we can state that as a fact. I've found another source, Sport Histories: Figurational Studies in the Development of Modern Sports with a chapter by Daniel Bloyce, Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Sport and Exercise and Co-Director of the Chester Centre for Research into Sport and Society at the University of Chester, UK. The chapter is called "Baseball:Myths and modernization" - some excerpts "It is impossible to be as exact about the origins of baseball as, for instance, Seymour would suggest; indeed to embark on a search for such precision would be misguided. Rather, a more adequate explanation would suggest that baseball, in its ‘modern’ form, was derived from a number of interdependent sources and from an amalgamation of a number of different folk bat-and-ball games." "and, while the primacy of rounders in this process is not certain, it does seem likely that British people, developing closer ties with the USA on a broad range of fronts, introduced the game, along with a variety of other, similar, bat-and-ball games to America. At this time, however, these bat-and-ball games remained very basic. Rules were not yet standardized or codified and, as Foster notes, ‘informality prevailed’ (1995: 45). Indeed, it was not until the 1830s that we see the emergence of more explicitly codified bat-and-ball games in the USA, particularly in the northeastern states; it is impossible to date the beginnings of this process more precisely. However, what we can say with some certainty is that during the 1830s, the rules for a variety of bat-and-ball games became more formalized, began to be committed to written form and that the games themselves became more organized." "Guttmann 1978; Tyrrell 1979), the first remnants of organized baseball can be traced to 1840s America. In other words, this period and this place saw the ‘incipient modernization’ of the game." Doug Weller  talk 11:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller - forgive my stupidity, but I don't see any of his edits on this page. What specifically are you referring to? The section on "British Baseball" on this page is one para and the later sections about the origins of American ball only mentions it in passing. Ckruschke (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * sorry, see User talk:Human Taxonomist and . Doug Weller  talk 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In reply to Doug further above, I would say that yes, the codified, modern rules were further put in place in the 1840s, but the invention and origin of the game itself comes from much earlier, in the colonial days of America. Its precursor is specifically said to have been brought by English colonists. Its development was also specifically in English America or Anglo-America by Anglo-Americans. I am not doubting that the modern game developed in an independent United States, but this still does not negate its earlier English invention and cultural origins (which are the cultural origins of early America in general). Perhaps a caveat can be noted in the form of "the precursor or earliest form of baseball", which was without a doubt invented by the English and later the English colonists, rather than the codified modern form. I would again note that even the codified form was done so by Anglo-Americans in the colonial heartland of English (Yankee) America in the northeast (New England and New York). Human Taxonomist (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Doug Weller's analysis. This is analogous to the situation with Ice hockey, which was formalized in Canada but had precursor stick games (on and off ice) elsewhere. Meters (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not Doug Weller's analysis, and the situation is not analogous at all to ice hockey. Canada was British at the time ice hockey was formalized, but it is distinct. Baseball was a game already existing when brought over to the English colonies. Ice hockey was invented in British North America, mostly by Scots in Nova Scotia who were playing shinty (Canadians call informal hockey still as 'shinny'), before Canada even existed in anyway as an independent nation. Being invented in Canada did not make it any less British or Scottish. Baseball was an English game invented by Englishmen in England and in the English colonies. It wasn't invented by the French, native peoples, Spanish, etc. It was a game of English America. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in discussing semantics with you. I agree with the sentiments Doug Weller was expressing above. And I think this is very much analogous. Both sports were formalized in North America, and both sports had precursor informal athletic activities in Britain. We edit by consensus, and there is no consensus for your repeated addition that baseball should simply be described as an English invention. Meters (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Baseball was not formalized or invented in North America like ice hockey was. But 'formalization' is not even what is being discussed here, but invention. The game was invented before it was brought by Englishmen to the English colonies in America. At the time it was being developed further in America, it was still done so in English colonies and by English men, in the English cultural area of the Thirteen Colonies. Lacrosse was invented in America too, but that does not mean it wasn't specifically an invention by the aboriginal cultures (Iroquois, Ojibwe, Cherokee, etc.). No one simply says lacrosse is 'American', and always mention it as an invention by indigenous American peoples/nations. Separating baseball from its English origins and heritage is like separating pizza from its Italian origins, despite it too being further developed by ethnic Italians in America. The best thing you can say for your case was that baseball was further developed or formalized by English-Americans or Anglo-Americans, but this in no way denies the fact the game was originally an English invention. Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Origins of baseball


text:
HMS Arab (1901)

HMS Arab (1896 to 1897 Programme) was a B-class destroyer torpedo boat destroyer of the British Royal Navy. She was laid down by J & G Thomson at Clydebank and completed by John Brown & Company who took over the yard.

Construction and design
As part of the 1896–1897 construction programme for the Royal Navy, the British Admiralty placed orders for thirty torpedo boat destroyers. Of these ships, 17 were required to meet the standard contract speed of 30 kn, while the remaining three destroyers, with one each ordered from Laird, Thornycroft and J & G Thomson, were required to reach higher speeds, with Thomson's and Thornycroft's designs (built as Arab and HMS Albatross (1898)) contracted for 32 kn while Laird's ship, HMS Express (1896), had a speed of 33 kn specified.

Arab was 232 ft long overall, with a beam of 22 ft and a draught of 9 ft. She displaced 470 LT light and 530 LT full load. Four coal-fed Normand boilers, with four funnels, fed two triple expansion steam engines rated at 8600 ihp which drove two propeller shafts. Sufficient coal was carried to give a range of 1620 nmi at 11 kn.

She carried the specified armament for the thirty-knotters of a QF 12-pounder 12 cwt (3 in calibre) gun on a platform on the ship's conning tower (in practice the platform was also used as the ship's bridge), with a secondary armament of five 6-pounder guns, and two 18-inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes. While the ship carried the same armament as normal thirty-knotter destroyers, the more powerful engines needed more coal and hence more stokers were needed to feed the coal to the engines, with Arab's crew being 69 officers and men, compared to 63 for thirty-knotters built by Thomsons.

Construction work on Arab was delayed owing to problems during the sea trials of the thirty-knotter destroyers built by Thomsons under the 1895–1896 programme, which required significant modification to reach the required speed. Arab was finally laid down on 5 March 1900 and launched on 9 February 1901. Arab ran 9 trials between 11 March and 27 May 1901, but like the other two high-speed destroyers ordered under the 1896–1897 programme, failed to meet the contracted speed, with the maximum speed reached only 30.769 kn. She was delivered to the Royal Navy on 20 October 1902, with the Admiralty imposing a £3000 penalty owing to the ships failure to meet contract speed, the final price paid being £63,642.

Service
Arab served in home waters for the whole of her career. She was commissioned at Portsmouth by Commander Hubert Brand on 12 January 1903, to relieve the HMS Success as senior officer′s ship in the Portsmouth Instructional Flotilla. Arab was refitted in 1908, having her boilers retubed. In 1910, Arab was part of the Fifth Destroyer Flotilla at Devonport, serving as part of that flotilla until 1912. On 30 August 1912 the Admiralty directed all destroyers were to be grouped into classes designated by letters based on contract speed and appearance. Four-funneled, 30-knotter destroyers were grouped as the B-class destroyer, and Arab was assigned to this class. By March 1913, Arab, still based at Devonport, was part of the Seventh Destroyer Flotilla, one of four flotillas equipped with old destroyers and torpedo boats for patrol purposes.

Following the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, the Seventh Flotilla moved to the East coast of England. In November 1914 Arab was transferred to Scapa Flow as one of a force of 29 destroyers used for local patrols of this vital naval base. In April 1917, the German submarine SMU U-30 (Germany) carried a series of attacks on shipping between Bergen in Norway and Lerwick in Shetland. U-30 sank five ships on 13 April, and sank another, SS Fjeldi by gunfire on the morning of 14 April. The crew of the Norwegian merchant ship SS Rondane, sailing astern of Fjeldi, abandoned ship on seeing the attack, but Arab managed to force U-30 to submerge before the submarine could attack Rondane, allowing the Norwegian ship's crew to reboard her. On 7 July 1917, Arab was part of the escort of a Norway-bound convoy when a submarine was spotted. The yacht Amalthaea and whaler Pilot Whale opened fire on the submarine, while Arab attacked with depth charges, driving the submarine away from the convoy. On 19 July 1917, Arab and the destroyer HMS Sarpedon (1916) were escorting an east-bound convoy on the Scandinavian (Lerwick–Norway) route, when the convoy came under attack by the German submarine SMU U-67, which sank the Danish steamer SS Harrildsborg (1907). Arab successfully rescued the 19-strong crew of the merchant ship.

Arab remained based at Scapa until January 1918, but then transferred to the Firth of Forth as part of the Methil Convoy Flotilla. By May 1918, Arab transferred to the Seventh Flotilla, based on the Humber, remaining there until the end of the war.

Arab was sold for scrap on 23 July 1919.

title: HMS Arab (1901)


text:
Talk:Bus rapid transit

Reference #8
Shorten the quote please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ozebus
Hi all, just a quick note to say thanks for starting the BRT page, could someone please add a link from this page to our website?

It's a portal to the Australian Bus Industry, and contains some really useful BRT resources and links. The links to Monash Institute of Public Transport, Professor Graham Currie's work in BRT v LRT, and numerous conference presentations would add depth to this page. Cheers!

[mailto:admin@bic.asn.au Emily] 125.168.104.190 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Emily. I've added a follow-up about how to usefully add content to Wikipedia (rather than just website links) at the User_talk:Ozebus page. Hope it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Split
It seens that the lists of the current systems should be separate. This currently reads as 1/3 article and 2/3 lists. I think it is about time each of those lists in different countries or continents should be separate pages. So where it says multiple is right. Really this article should only have exampls where appropriate, not all the systems in the world. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Seeing as nobody has objected after over two weeks i am going to try to split this but i could really do with some help splitting this . Simply south (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality question - Ottawa's claim of 10,000 pass/hr/direction
"Ottawa, Ontario operates one of the largest BRT systems in North America, with over 200,000 daily riders on the Ottawa Transitway, achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction."

This sentence contains two statements which are, at best, questionable. However, I've decided not to place a "neutrality questioned" flag for the moment, in the belief that consensus can be worked out.

"... over 200,000 daily riders on the Ottawa Transitway ..."

The operator has acknowledged (to an associate) that this figure includes "all" bus lines and passengers using the downtown reserved lanes (on Albert and Slater streets). Thus, passengers traveling "only" within downtown Ottawa, and those using bus lines which do not operate on the "transitway" system proper, get counted. This practice is misleading.

"... achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction ..."

This does not occur, and has never occurred.

To be blunt: if there is a place along the Ottawa transitways where one may stand and count 10,000 passengers riding past a fixed point during a clock hour, then that location is a closely guarded secret.

(Together with certain other details, such as time of day, season of year, and so forth.)

I have attempted to obtain clarification from the operator for more than a decade. This has been promised - multiple times - but has not been provided.

Conclusion: "Five-minute flows" of perhaps 700 - 900 passengers do occur on the Ottawa Transitway, and at multiple locations.

In other words, there are are multiple locations where one may stand and count 700-900 passengers riding past a fixed point during a five-minute interval. But nowhere is this sustained for a 60-minute interval.

The maximum hourly volume on the Ottawa transitway system is on the order of 5,000 - 6,000 passengers per hour per direction. That's impressive, but way short of the figure claimed.

Whether briefly or not, these issues need to be addressed in the article for the sake of NPOV. Ldemery (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * To reiterate this point again, while your individual observation may or may not be true, you need to cite the factual based evidence to support your assertion before your point can be accepted. The reason is simple, in addition to OC Transpo's continued claim of supporting both 200,000 weekday passengers/day and 10,000 per hour per direction, this claim is also cited by independent studies by research organisations such as the Transportation Research Board in their report TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, TRB, Washington, DC (2003).

 * Repeating a big lie, more often, does not make it true.Eregli bob (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * If you have some additional factual information to add to this discussion on this topic then you are free to provide it . . . along (of course) with it's independent reference source as required by the Wikipedia policies of Verifiability. If you just want to vent then feel free to do so on any appropriate social media site . . . but Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing opinions. Bigglesjames (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * And even accepting what you say could well be true, but this is not unique to the Transitway. "There is little doubt" that your claim could, and is, made of many transit systems, bus and rail.  We have to at least be consistant and perhaps it is better to make changes to Wikipedia based on evidence (even disputed evidence) rather than an individual's opinion. Bigglesjames (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The Transportation Research Board didn't do an independent study but just quoted OC Transit's numbers without auditing them. Here's an independent source that actually counted the number of passengers on the Ottawa Transitway and describes the claim of 10,000 passengers per hour as "A Legend": Ottawa Transitways: The Legend of 10,000 Per Hour.

 * Their independent assessment was that it actually carries between 3,500 and 5,000 passengers per hour, and that the OC Transit folks are just blowing smoke. By contrast they personally counted 8,000 passengers per hour on the Calgary C-Train, and thought the Calgary estimate of 10,000 phd was highly believable. (Calgary Transit's numbers are somewhat inaccurate, but mostly because the system is growing like Topsy and they are more concerned with getting the doors closed on the trains than with counting the passengers)

 * I wouldn't count on getting credible numbers out of OC Transit for the following reasons:
 * They went about 450% over budget on building the Transitway, which suggests they're mathematically challenged.
 * They ran out of capacity immediately after finishing it, which suggests their forward planning isn't all that good.
 * The city is facing several hundred million $$$ in lawsuits over their recently canceled LRT system.
 * The mayor has been indited on criminal charges for allegedly trying to bribe an opponent.
 * So you can make of that what you will, but I would tend to believe the chances of getting a believable answer out of the city government (or their lawyers) range from slim to none, and Slim just left town. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Oops. I just checked the author of the aforementioned article, and it appears to be one Leroy W. Demery, Jr. who may well the same ldemery who made the original post under this heading. So, it may be the same person who has counted the passengers and wrote the article who is questioning OC Transpo's numbers. Well, it's a small world. However, if I had counted the numbers and come up with a completely different total, I would question it too. I've only counted the people on the Calgary C-Train, which is relatively simple. With buses its tougher - when overloaded they don't come on regular schedule, they come in bunches, and they don't consistently get packed full. However it would be really difficult to get up to 10,000 phd using ordinary transit buses. London double-deckers, maybe. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Bigglesjames: Mr. Demery has already explained that he has attempted to get clarification from OC Transpo on this issue for over a decade and failed. As his study (linked by RockyMtnGuy) shows, he has measured this on several occasions. Moreover, in 2003, the Rapid Transit Expansion Study listed then-current ridership levels and the maximum was 7,000, not 10,000, yet the 10,000 number has been quoted for well over a decade. D P J (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Three comments in response. Firstly, I must commend RockyMtnGuy for the checking and coming back to note the point on what he thought was a potential authoritative source . . . there are many who would have kept this to themselves, so thanks.

 * Secondly, if the actual commuter bus usage for Ottawa Rapid Transit is such an issue, why not sort the issue out on that article rather than this one ?

 * Finally, (and more importantly), Wikipedia has a range of policies including a policies of Verifiability and No original research that define what does, and does not align with Wiki's Five pillars. As the first article states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.  'Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.  Have a read and I hope you understand my issues with the above :) Bigglesjames (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is yet the mathematical aspect which readers here have deliberately (mis)interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is passengers per hour to mean "count for 60 minutes". Not less justified is to take that as a flow unit, similar to speed miles/hour, m/s, mathematically defined as the limit of a difference ratio. The words peak flow strongly hint towards the latter usage. Of course it is not written for how many minutes this flow is sustained. "... achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction ..." This does not occur, and has never occurred. Sorry to be blunt: it helps to read carefully and have a grasp of maths. Because [...] a place along the Ottawa transitways where one may stand and count 10,000 passengers riding past a fixed point during a clock hour [...] is a different quantity. Mathematics (mean value theorem) tells you (first quantity)>=(second quantity).

My question: what is the point in sourcing reliable sources when one does not get the maths right? -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Essen tunnel buses
re: The use of buses underground in Essen my information comes from various sources, including my own visits and German Wikipedia.

When I addeed a link to my own website I received a 'spam' warning - I hope that the editors of this page will accept that link as being 'on topic' for this page!

Citytransport.info (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Essen buses from the "In Tunnels" section, because it doesn't seem related to the environmental issue discussed in this section. The paragraph seems to focus entirely on Essen, so I'm not sure it's relevant to any other section of the article. Folklore1 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 * While I understand and agree with your sentiments in relation to the Essen Bus tunnels, I am concerned that this information is being lost to the Wikipedia as it is not replicated elsewhere. In fact, with the development of Hybrid buses and Dual-mode buses, buses are tunnels is likely to become more viable and hence an important advance in Bus Rapid Transit based solutions.  Essen does not have an article dedicated it's special forms of bus services.  I will propose readding this information into the Guided Bus as it is more closely related to this topic. Bigglesjames (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Guided buses seems a more appropriate place for the Essen Bus tunnels, as an example of guided bus systems. Folklore1 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the Essen article, I now think the best place for info about the Essen bus tunnels would be a section within the Essen article or, with additional material, a stand alone article with a link inside the transportation section of the Essen article. Folklore1 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really 'pioneering'?
"Pioneering research has been conducted by two American researchers about how Bus Rapid Transit brands are applied, and how BRT systems are visually identified."

This sounds a lot like sock puppetry, in fact, so does the section. Is there a specific award that distinguishes this paper? Fooburger (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikification
I've rearranged this article and revised the wording somewhat to make it easier to read and understand. It still needs citations to supporting sources for much of the text.Folklore1 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The following note was recorded in the "References" section without an online citation anywhere in the article.: "Gardner, G., Cornwell, P., and Cracknell, J., The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Research Report 329, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1991" I wasn't able to find the source document at the Crowthorne DOT website; it was apparently too old to be listed anymore. Without a citation in the text, I do not know whether the note is actually relevant. So, I'm removing it from "references."Folklore1 (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "Wikify" and other general repair tags, because I think the article has reached the point where tags at specific problem locations would be more helpful. Please tag specific spots in the text where you think citations are needed. For other improvements you would like to see, please add a note here on the discussion page. Folklore1 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with light rail
The last paragraph of this section states that light rail "is known to attract significantly higher passenger numbers." Is this statement true? Perhaps it should be revised for a more neutral tone.Folklore1 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not have hard numbers here, but experience in Germany says yes. One hint de:Schönbuchbahn I would guess 1000 bus passengers per day pre opening. Forecast for rail 2500-3500 pre opening, already exceeded on first day of operation. Nowadays 7400 passengers/day. Stadtbahn Karlsruhe is a similar story... -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this intended to suggest the results of something like a controlled experiment? Jim.henderson (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am aware of a few studies and reports that refute the above attractiveness. Probably the most well known is "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus" from Transport Policy 2002.  Quotes from the conclusion section follows:
 * Two empirical studies have been examined in order to investigate ridership attraction of rail compared to bus . . . According to the estimated coefficients of these dummies, there is no evidence that the light rail service is preferred to the current bus service.
 * These results are reinforced by the reviews of 'before and after' studies and previous analysis. Thus, the principle conclusion of this study is that rail and bus services which provide similar service attributes have the same ridership attraction.
 * This conclusion implies that high performance bus service can well be a substitute for rail service . . .
 * The findings of this study implies that there is no justification to the introduction of a rail preference bias in a mode choice model which is employed to analyze alternative transit services including both rail and high quality express bus.
 * from Conclusion section of paper "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus" by Moshe Ben-Akiva and Takayuki Morikawa, Transport Policy 9, (2002) 107 - 116
 * This position is supported by both UK and FTA policies that require sensitivity tests when model preference settings have been applied to transport models. Bigglesjames (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Had a quick look at that paper. I note that it is based on data from the US (Washington DC and Boston MA) with mainly metro systems and little if any tram/streetcar network. Part of the de:Schönbuchbahn success story is to lure non-captive passengers aka car users (even Merc drivers). From the several quotes in  I find two remarkable. First in Munich: bus 3,600/d, tram forecast 11,000/d, tram real 18,000/d (slides 9 and 10). Second Berlin: switch from bus on bus lanes to not-the-newest trams, +100% (slide 13), IMO coming close to comparing like with like. And this in a city where politics endeavours to push BRT-style bus (Metrobus) and with at best lukewarm support for efficient tram operation (slides 19-21). There is the German word de:Schienenbonus (=rails bonus). In the case such thing were not to exist, I wonder why there is a track record of tram passenger underpredictions. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm. I post my evidence from a published research paper on ridership attraction from an international journal dedicated to this topic.  This paper itself notes its authors (inc credentials); data sources; has been peer reviewed and is cited by other papers.

 * You post your evidence from a pro-light rail powerpoint (without even an author or listing of its data sources) that was itself sourced from the personal website of a professional political researcher for the German Green Party. Everything stated may be true but as real research evidence this doesn't meet the grade. Please see my earlier comments on Five pillars under Talk:Bus_rapid_transit above. Bigglesjames (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, this powerpoint paper does not have a bibliography. Of course I would have preferred otherwise. However, I take it as a hint where to look for data sensitive to the light rail "is known to attract significantly higher passenger numbers." statement validity question. I am not in the field of learned traffic research, however, I am in contact with peer reviewed papers in a different research field. And reading the Ben-Akiva paper, in particular towards the conclusions section, I become critical. If my job were in the field of traffic research, I probably would comment on that paper (adding myself to the citations list ;-) ). For instance, The findings of this study implies that there is no justification to the introduction of a rail preference bias... reads to me "disprove effect X", and while a meaning "does not prove effect X" is fully justified, the "disprove" meaning I sense as a non-native English speaker cannot be based on the paper's data. Sorry for getting into research mode here on wikipedia. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There are countless case studies of ceteris paribus replacements in both directions (i.e. Former tram replaced by buses or former buses replaced by trams) even with parameters like fares, schedules, scheduled times and so on the same (and in a few cases even in disfavor of the rail option), and the trend is overwhelmingly that the rail option outperforms the bus. Meaning: ridership soars when trams replace buses and tanks when buses replace trams. Across continents and decades, in rich and poor places, in contexts of overall decline or growth of public transit. This relationship is a pretty well documented one empirically, the BRT boosters try to dismiss it, however, by claiming that some confounding variables were the real reason or that a proper BRT does everything rail does but better, cheaper and with adorable puppies. But the empirical data does not back up their claims. Now of course if you replace crappy bus service with better bus service, you'll get better ridership, but that's not in dispute among the reason adjacent community... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

BRT vs Express Bus service
If it looks like BRT but doesn't swim or quack like BRT, is it BRT? There seem to be a few services that are currently identified as BRT but that appear more to be Express bus service with a few advanced features. RapidRide (Seattle) and AC Transit are two examples. Rapid Ride (Albuquerque) is an example of an article that, in this contributor's opinion, more accurately describes the service. So where do we draw the line between BRT and rapid buses?

I found the table in this article quite interesting, albeit unsourced. It might be useful to create a rapid bus service article to differentiate the two. Ibadibam (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Personally, I would propose covering express bus services effectively within Public transport bus service, making reference to it in this article and also mentioning it in the proposed 'Busway' article - see below for my proposal. Another article would seem to be be confusing, but a redirect from such an article title to 'Public transport bus service' would probably make sense in my view. I am not convinced we really need a whole Express bus service article actually. PeterEastern (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have ridden express bus service (in Austin, TX) it is drastically different than the BRT system here in Eugene, OR (EMX). Express bus service tends to be more of a longer distance bus (think greyhound, but within a city) that only stops at one or two places per route but the stops tend to be typical bus stations. The BRT is high frequency, regular stops at specialized stops, alternate ticketing scheme, etc. I haven't ridden the systems you describe Litch (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's often true in the U.S., where many agencies operate express buses that run partly on freeways and serve suburbs or distant neighborhoods. Other areas may have express buses that operate a similar route to local buses, but on a limited-stop basis, stopping only at major cross-streets and landmarks. Many newer pseudo-BRT systems operate like the latter, with the addition of a few BRT-related innovations like offboard fare collection and signal priority. But it seems to me that this isn't really a sufficient service upgrade to qualify as BRT. The EMX system you mentioned operates partially in dedicated bus lanes, which is a core feature of BRT. That seems to me to be an important dividing line. Ibadibam (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

PeterEastern Rewrite of BRT Article
User:PeterEastern has just completed a substantial rewrite of the Bus Rapid transit Article without notice or consultation. While appreciating the effort made to clean up this article, this rewrite has arguably moved some information to the wrong place and removed other information that arguably should be retained. I am especially dissappointed with the virtual elimination of the BRT vs Light Rail discussion section given this is an ongoing area of contridicutory views by authors. That said, I do not want to follow PeterEasterns example and simply commence another round of changes and reverts but follow Talk page guidelines. The following further updates are suggested: The article is now different but, IMO, not improved. Comments ? Bigglesjames (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove the statement "Intermediate stops increase the headway, and limit a BRT lane to about 10,000 pph, even with passing lanes in the stations." that is both uncited and in obvious contridicition to the figures in the table that follows this.
 * Restore some of the the content that was under the old heading "Comparison with light rail" including :
 * In contrast to BRT, light rail and tram systems require the placement of rails for the entire line
 * Update the Light Rail Capacity based on actual usage rather than theoritical capacity as outlined under the Light Rail article "Most light rail systems in the United States are limited by demand rather than capacity (by and large, most North American LRT systems carry less than 4000 persons per hour per direction), but Boston and San Francisco light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour per track during rush hour." to align to the real world figures outlined in the Performance Section
 * Move the Light Rail Costs into the "Comparison with light rail / metro systems..."
 * Add "Many BRT systems, such as Ottawa's OC Transpo and Brisbane's South-East Busway, are based on multiple bus routes sharing a common dedicated busway to bypass congestion,..." to the "Priority" Section
 * More work also need to be done on the "Main features" Section. The rewrite may be more logical but it included excessive pruning of information added over years by many authors.  The article needs to also capture the wide range of systems that are aruably still BRT (such as LAs very successful Metro Rapid service) but don't meet the criteria of "BRT systems will normally include most of the following features:".

 * Thanks for your comments. In hind-sight it probably would have been appropriate to have put a note of my intentions on the talk page before embarking on my edits, however as is often the case, the edits grew from some initial tweeks to correct obvious errors into something more substantial and then into what it is. In response to the above very valid comments, can I respond:

 * I intend to do more work on the article, and there is a lot of text in the current version tha I am not happy with at is stands, either because it is in my view clearly untrue, is dubious, or simply uncitied. However... I have tried to work at a steady pace with pauses over the last 24/48 hours to allow people to respond to my changes. I agree that this claim "Intermediate stops increase the headway, and limit a BRT lane to about 10,000 pph" is dodgy, contradictory and uncited. I have left it in this far because I had not got to that section yet. Feel free to delete, if you don't I will soon!
 * I fully intend to work on the 'comparison with light rail' section which I have retained for that reason, but have renamed 'comparison with light rail/metro systems' because many BRT have been created in place of intended and unaffordable subway systems (for example Metrobus (Lahore), which is what got be interested in this article in the first place). Feel free to add more comparative cost information, but lets aim to have all claims in the article appropriately cited within the next few weeks.
 * With reference to the 'Main features' section, I felt that this would be clearer if it was purely a description of the these necessary features, leaving specific examples relating to implementations around the world to a later 'Examples' section which can illustrate how these features work together (well or badly!) in specific settings. As such I have 'parked' the text about Ottawa's OC Transpo and Brisbane's South-East Busway in this new Examples section in preparation for doing just that.
 * With respect to the 'many authors' you refer to, it was my view that the main message of the article had become obscured by the number of words, examples, claims and counter-claims, many of which were uncited and that the article was benefiting from some pruning. As is often the case, all the information was there, but not is a way that was citeable or clear as it stood.
 * I suggest that we need a source of the claim that "BRT systems will normally include most of the following features:"! I agree that there is considerable room to debate what should be in the list, and it is clearly necessary to cite it and the describe what the source says is essential. My plan was to use the BRT Standard 2013 and Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (2007) (warning - large page pdf) documents from the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy as a primary source for such statements, unless others feel that would be inappropriate? I am just embarking on reading the relevant sections of the 800 page document! Re Metro Rapid, I am not familiar with it, however it may well make a good case study for the examples section? I am familiar with the El Monte Busway and also the Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro), both of which are in LA and LA seems to be doing loads of interesting work in this area. I have worked on a number of LA related public transport articles, including the above, and took to opportunity of a trip to the West Coast to visit LA and experience them first hand recently).
 * Again, apologies for not putting a note on the talk page about my actions and intentions until prompted to do so. I am planning to keep plugging away with this article over the next week, in collaboration with others, until we get it to the high standard that the subject deserves, unless other strongly disagree with that.
 * --PeterEastern (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some further comment on the structure of the BRT Article. It seems to me that to properly implement the more structured approach we need to do some more changes to the section order.  I would suggest the following:
 * 1 Etymology
 * 2 History
 * 3 Main features
 * 3.1 Priority
 * 3.2 Quality 'stations'
 * 3.3 High-frequency all day service
 * 3.4 High capacity Quality vehicles
 * 3.5 Prominent brand or identity
 * 3.6 Environmental issues
 * 4 Performance Benefits of BRT
 * 4.1 Benefits in comparison with conventional bus services
 * 4.2 Benefits in comparison with light rail / metro systems
 * 4.3 In tunnels or tunnel systems
 * 5 Costs of BRT
 * 5.1 Cost Comparison with conventional bus services
 * 5.2 Cost Comparison with light rail / metro systems
 * 6 Examples
 * 7 Environmental issues
 * 7.1 In tunnels or tunnel systems
 * 7 See also
 * 8 References
 * 9 Further reading External Links
 * The article also needs to cover two other important points. 1) that BRT is usually part of the wider bus PT services with the busway and station being shared by bus routes that also operate across roads and bus lanes providing an effective single journey trip to commuters and 2) many BRT systems enable a layered service of express bus and all-stops bus services emphasising the BRT advantage that buses can pass each other (esp at stations/stops) unlike LRT / Metro.
 * Comments ? Bigglesjames (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I suggest we pull the structure conversation out into a new section, which I will do now - based on your proposal above. PeterEastern (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable improvement in the organization of this high-importance article. You have done a lot of re-organization of material already; I trust that some of the material you have removed will reappear in more-appropriate locations, including other related articles.  The comparisons with other modes of transportation are very important, and utmost efforts should be made to maintain WP:NPOV. Please continue making your editorial plans and decisions as transparent and as open as possible.  Reify-tech (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new 'Busway' article
I think it would be a good idea to have an article about Busways themselves, ie highways used exclusively or predominantly by buses. The page, Busway is currently being used as a disambiguation page. I am proposing tat it is turned into an article would carry content that was relevant to both busways used in BRT systems also by other bus services which are not considered to be BRT system. It would also carry content about how guided busways are constructed and operated (as distinct from the article about Guided buses which already exists.

If people feel like joining the conversation then it might be best to do it on talk:Busway. Thanks.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Revised sections
BigglesJames has proposed a set of section names above. To make the conversation simpler, I suggest we discuss it here in this way. This following text shows the heading structure being proposed at the end of the discussion (this text will be updated as the discussion develops. The discussion about the sections follows, and will build up as normal in a talk page.

 * Current proposed headings, see below for dicussion. Do update these headings as you propose changes below so this always reflects the latest proposal.

 * 1) Etymology
 * 2) History
 * 3) Main features
 * 4) Priority
 * 5) High-frequency all day service
 * 6) Feeder system
 * 7) High quality vehicles
 * 8) Quality 'stations'
 * 9) Prominent brand or identity
 * 10) Considerations
 * 11) Speed
 * 12) Frequency
 * 13) Capacity
 * 14) Affordability
 * 15) Pollution and environment
 * 16) Easy of implementation
 * 17) Urban impact
 * 18) Mode Comparison Table
 * 19) Examples
 * 20) See also
 * 21) References
 * 22) Further reading

 * ''Comments in relation to the above, changes described below should be matched by changes to the above list to keep it always expressing the current proposal.

 * OK, so lets see how this works. For starters I have removed the ins and del markers. The above is still how it has been proposed by BigglesJames without the markup. I will make my proposed changes next. PeterEastern (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Here are my proposed changes to the headings (I have also updated the proposal above to match my suggestion. Feel Free to change it again):
 * I have added 'Feeder system' to the Main Features - was going to mention that, but I think it is a critical feature. A better title may be 'integration' or something. I need to do some more reading on the matter but I think you get the idea
 * I have removed 'Environmental benefits' as a main feature and suggest we cover it in 'Benefits'
 * I have moved cost into the benefits section, as cost seems to be a key driver. I have also added implementation time to the list of benefits, and performance.
 * I have created a top level heading for 'Comparison with other modes'. This might include a table - as included somewhere in Bus Planning Guide 2007, will look up the page number now. OK, so table 11 on page 48 looks useful. There is a useful section on other modes starting on page 47. Table 2.1 on page 54 is useful. Table 2.2 on page 55 is handy in terms of comparative cost. System capacity comparisons on page 70 and 71. Average speed comparison Fig 2.42, page 76. Service frequency comparison page 79. The table which seems to bring it all together is the 'Public transport decision matrix' Fig 2.9 on page 89.
 * I suggest we cover stuff about tunnels in with the appropriate other headings. I guess we should mention it in the 'main features' section and again under 'Environment' as appropriate.
 * Personally I prefer the headings 'Further reading' if the external links are to more detail documents, rather than to a random set of related websites. Given the content Further reading seems better in this case.
 * -- PeterEastern (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with the suggestions except for two issues:
 * I question whether you can describe the benefits of BRT without comparative reference to the alternative solutions of incumbant (and lower capital cost) "conventional bus services" or similar capacity alternative option "light rail / metro systems" (which is why I included these into respective benefits and cost sections).
 * I am not sure that "Costs" should be in the "Benefits" section . . . one is the price to achieve the other. Perhaps we could use the headings "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" (a major disadvantage of BRT obviously being financial cost but there are others such as loss of general lane capacity).  Such headings could also setup these sections to describing the benefits and costs relative to other modes and approaches which is, IMO, the key issue with selecting any transport solution.
 * This latter point also highlights that the article does not clearly outline situation(s) or "the problems" that should "trigger" consideration as a possible solution. BRT is a Rapid transit mode used to address several different transport problems including Traffic congestion causing PT service unreliability and/or increased travel time, lack of PT passenger capacity, and poor image for PT services. These problems, in turn, can be caused by population growth in the PT area (increased Urban density), expansion of the city (e.g. Urbanization), increased use of cars by the city population. Bigglesjames (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that in the 'benefits' section there should be some comparative information on each subject, so under capacity there would be comparative capacity information with light rail and with road capacity; under speed there would be comparative information with rail and with road etc. Personally I would not encourage the binary 'advantages/disadvantages' headings as the issues are sometimes less clear than that and we could end up with loads of edit wars on the subject. Also, to avoid any whiff of WP:NPOV I have changed 'Benefits' to 'Considerations', given that we can't prove that everything about BRT is better that everything else. I have also adjusted some of the headings within that section as well. Are we pretty much ready to go? I say that because I should have a decent slug of time this weekend to progress the article. PeterEastern (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your logic. I have suggested a slightly different order of "Main Features" headings with a view to discuss the service elements first (Priority, High-frequency, Feeder) and having stations and buses adjacent (as they should be matched with each other).  Have clarified the "Comparison Table" is actually a "Mode Comparison Table" . Yes, we are good to go.Bigglesjames (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Might the examples section get out of hand?
I am concerned that the examples section could keep growing and growing with more reference to more and more systems (see recent edits re Ottawa). In my view, this section should be limited to a small number of examples which are included because they illustrate important aspects of these systems. Notability for this section is not the same thing as notable for WP itself. PeterEastern (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that examples are being added without discussion and the merits of the additional one is unclear. However this recent example is "The BRTS service of the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, India; ...", not the example of Ottawa which has been there since you created this section on 31 march this year hence my revert of its deletion.Bigglesjames (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is the Ottawa system an important example? Why are any of them? The "Examples" section is full of peacock words and definitely in need of better context for why a particular system is worthy of highlight in this article. Independent studies or reviews of BRT systems would be helpful sources. Ibadibam (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"passenger/patronage" figures- double count of transfers?
I think some care needs to be taken with the patronage figures on this and other BRT (and even transit pages). When a figure of "Passengers" is given it often counts a patron making a single transfer as "two" passengers; in this case there should be some qualification. The record figure for Curitiba of 2.3 million in a day includes transfers (i.e. people counted twice). Assuming those people transferred on the way to work and the way home then they would count as "four" when they only made two "trips". Technical specialists might assume this about such figures but for the general reader, IMHO, the word "passengers" denotes a single person on a continuous trip within a system. I adjusted the Curitiba daily figure to reflect this.Tjej (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bus rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227030154/http://camara.ccb.org.co/documentos/1935_Foro_TransMilenio_Fase_III_-TM_SA.pdf to http://camara.ccb.org.co/documentos/1935_Foro_TransMilenio_Fase_III_-TM_SA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713173303/http://www.kuchingptc.com/download1.php to http://www.kuchingptc.com/download1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bus rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130828135003/http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698 to http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130703043300/http://www.itdp.org/microsites/bus-rapid-transit-planning-guide/brt-planning-guide-in-english/ to http://www.itdp.org/microsites/bus-rapid-transit-planning-guide/brt-planning-guide-in-english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Surface subway" label
I have placed a "by whom" tag on the "surface subway" label near the top of this page, since the cited source does not use that term to describe BRT. Since even the most optimistic ridership estimates appear to put BRT service levels closer to light rail than subway, we should be extremely cautious about any attempts to relabel BRT as "surface subway." Assuming no subway-like ridership numbers can be located, I would at the very least argue for the use of a framing device, such as saying "sometimes referred to by advocates as ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaphills (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone
I have done some modest editing to improve readability and to reduce a non-encyclopedic tone in parts of the article. Remember, we need to maintain WP:NPOV in this article, and to focus on facts documented by WP:RS, rather than attempting to advocate or oppose BRT technology. Reify-tech (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bus rapid transit. 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/20130605074801/http://www.vanhool.be/ENG/highlights/vanhoolpresentst.html to http://www.vanhool.be/ENG/highlights/vanhoolpresentst.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian "T-way"
I noticed the line 'in Australia it is often called a "T-Way"'. I don't intend to start a dispute, but isn't this only true in Sydney? In Adelaide, there is the O-Bahn Busway and in Brisbane, there are 3 busway lines. Fauzi (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bus rapid transit. 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/20151018092300/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicia-operacion-la-carrera-7-con-buses-duales to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicia-operacion-la-carrera-7-con-buses-duales
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810081725/http://www.tullaveplus.com/recarga to http://www.tullaveplus.com/recarga
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919011327/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309053717/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_0.pdf to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_0.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160501102439/https://algarete.com.co/2016/01/24/penalosa-y-su-trancon-de-intereses/ to https://algarete.com.co/2016/01/24/penalosa-y-su-trancon-de-intereses/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919011327/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018092300/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_vf.pdf to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_vf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018092300/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicio-operacion-de-buses-hibridos to http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicio-operacion-de-buses-hibridos

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bus rapid transit. 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/20160506024550/https://algarete.com.co/2016/03/07/si-penalosa-no-va-a-la-ciudad-la-ciudad-va-a-penalosa/ to http://algarete.com.co/2016/03/07/si-penalosa-no-va-a-la-ciudad-la-ciudad-va-a-penalosa/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

BRT Gold standard listing
I have cleaned up the table, split the country into a separate column, and alphabetized the listings. Some new entries have been added beyond the original 8, but no references are given. I propose deleting all entries that are not backed up by a reliable source, as well as adding new entries if they have good references. Reify-tech (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the table, because it was an out-of-date, arbitrary subset of the table in the BRT Standard article. There is no point in having an inconsistent, lower-quality table here, when there is a much better one in the other article. Reify-tech (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Who was first?
The text before recent edits called a system in England the first "comprehensive" BRT system (whatever that means) which has since been removed, changing the claim to that being the "first" (no qualifiers). So... Who was first? I often hear Curritiba in Brazil cited as "first", but it could be argued that any bus lane was the "first BRT" if one is willing to sufficiently water down the term... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought 'comprehensive' was a helpful descriptive term myself ('Adjective. Including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.') But removed it following your clarification request. Although personally I think it was better with the 'comprehensive' qualifier, precisely to avoid confusion between the first bus lane (1948 apparently though no-one has provided a reference for that) and the first BRT system (1971). Dgp4004 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * What makes something a "comprehensive BRT system"? Is there a certain minimum length? The fact that it was referred to as such by people in charge at the time? Is there a certain minimum amount of lines? The term is famously slippery and undefined, but I think it'd make more sense to give the early history in a more "complicated" form like on the high speed rail article, but I fear there'll be a lack of good sources... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated lanes vs mixed traffic
What portion of the BRT route should run along dedicated lanes? At least 50%? At least 70%? Or should it run entirely on dedicated lanes without any single portion of the route running in mixed traffic?

Other routes on dedicated lanes
May other bus routes of the same transit operator use the dedicated lanes intended for BRT routes? For example: Randomcity Transit Authority operates a BRT corridor running along Anyname Avenue intended for routes BRT1 and BRT2. But there are also routes 42 and 43 running on Anyname avenue also managed by Randomcity Transit Authority. Routes 42 and 43 are not BRT routes and operate in mixed traffic in the other parts of Randomcity. May these routes (42 and 43) also use dedicated lines intended for routes BRT1 and BRT2 in order to increase their service quality or the dedicated lanes can only be used by BRT routes? YS --88.196.69.76 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Cost
LightrailNow should not be accepted as an encyclopedic source:

Reasons: „De facto "BRT" is widespread in European cities“ is a strange statement of https://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt007.htm published in Texas compared to https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/best-practices-2013/.

The cost "analysis" of LightrailNow refers to mystic „personnel discussion papers“ containing examples nobody could check and containing no indication of any objection to the study of the GAO. Nothing should be understood to be an objection to the GAO study which not even says so. As the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) had already regarded all mentioned aspects, this chapter is misleading.Waegend (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

More specific: 128 BRT-Corridors have been certified by BRT STANDARD, among them 12 in Canada+USA , 75 in All America, just 4 in Europe - "De facto "BRT" is widespread in European cities"?-Waegend (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)--Waegend (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 * @"the US is neither a leading nation in BRT nor a leading country in passenger rail. It is also famously bad at cost control. Sources describing the situation in other countries should be added."-Reply: US institutes are certainly leading, US travel agencies differ. The US GAO used research wordwide. The situation in other countries was entailed in the GAO report.-Waegend (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Section: environmental issues. “More in next chapter”???
An edit last month to the “Environmental Issues” section by Waegend with a description that simply says, “hint” claims, “More news about Bogotá BRT follow in the next chapter.” There is no source.

I’m sorry to be blunt, but what could possibly be the meaning of this “hint”? I was going to just delete it due to the jaw-droppingly glaring break from encyclopedic tone, but seeing as how there’s no source cited for the preceding information, deleting it would probably require deleting a whole lot more. The way it is, it reads an awful lot like it’s been copy-pasted right out of a book. If anyone knows, please say so.

If anyone has any idea what cleanup tags are even relevant here, I think they’re more than necessary. Ntowle98 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 * SorryWaegend (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tunnels
Do we still need the long chapter about tunnels? Why not remove it or substitute it by this section of chapter "Cost": "... Underground BRT was suggested as early as 1954. As long as most buses run on diesel, air quality can become a significant concern in tunnels, but the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is an example of using hybrid buses, which switch to overhead electric propulsion while they are underground, eliminating diesel emissions and reducing fuel usage. Alternatives are an elevated busway or an elevated railway, which costs differ."Waegend (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bus rapid transit


text:
Irina Rodnina

Irina Konstantinovna Rodnina (Ирина Константиновна Роднина; born 12 September 1949) is a Russian politician and retired figure skater, who is the only pair skater to win 10 successive World Championships (1969–78) and three successive Olympic gold medals (1972, 1976, 1980). She was elected to the State Duma in the 2007 legislative election as a member of President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party. As a figure skater, she initially competed with Alexei Ulanov and later teamed up with Alexander Zaitsev. She is the first pair skater to win the Olympic title with two different partners, followed only by Artur Dmitriev.

Early life and family
Rodnina was born in Moscow on 12 September 1949. Her father was Russian Red Army officer Konstantin (Nikolaevich) Rodnin, from a village named Yaminovo on the outskirts of Vologda. Her mother was Ukrainian Jewish paramedic Yulia (Yakovlevna) Rodnina. Her parents met each other during the Second World War, and both took part in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria against the Empire of Japan as the war came to a close. She has an older sister, Valentina, who works as an engineer. As a young child, Rodnina was often sick, suffering from pneumonia eleven times. On the advice of her doctor to give Rodnina additional exercise and outdoor time, and in 1954 took her to an ice rink for the first time at Pryamikov Children Park of Moscow.

Figure skating career
Since the sixth form of secondary school, age 13, she trained at Children and Youth Sports School of CSKA on Leningradsky Prospekt. By 1963, Rodnina had begun skating with her first partner Oleg Vlasov, coached by Sonia and Milan Valun. In 1964, her coach became Stanislav Zhuk, who paired her with Alexei Ulanov. They won four consecutive World and European titles. Rodnina/Ulanov won their first World title in 1969, ahead of Tamara Moskvina/Alexei Mishin.

Rodnina and Ulanov won their next two World titles, 1970 and 1971, ahead of silver medalists Lyudmila Smirnova/Andrei Suraikin. However, Ulanov fell in love with Smirnova, and prior to the 1972 Olympics, the couple made the decision to skate together the following season. Rodnina/Ulanov went on to compete at the 1972 Olympics where they captured the gold. They then prepared for their last competition together, the 1972 World Championships. While practicing together a day before the start of the competition, the pair had an accident on a lift and Rodnina ended up in hospital with a concussion and an intracranial hematoma. Despite the accident, they had a strong showing in the short program, receiving some 6.0s. In the long program, Rodnina became faint and dizzy but it was enough for their fourth World title. Ulanov continued his career with Smirnova, while Rodnina considered retirement.

In April 1972, her coach Stanislav Zhuk suggested she team up with the young Leningrad skater Alexander Zaitsev, who had good jumping technique and quickly learned the elements. Their music stopped during their short program at the 1973 World Championships, possibly due to a Czech worker acting in retaliation for the suppression of the Prague Spring. Known for intense concentration, they finished the program in silence, earning a standing ovation and a gold medal upon completion, ahead of Smirnova/Ulanov, whom they again defeated in 1974.

In 1974, Rodnina/Zaitsev left Zhuk, with whom the working relationship had become strained, to train with Tatiana Tarasova. They won six consecutive World titles together, as well as seven European gold medals, and won their first Olympic title together in 1976. Rodnina/Zaitsev did not compete during the 1978–79 season because she was pregnant with their son who was born on 23 February 1979. They returned in 1980 to capture their second Olympic title together and Rodnina's third. At the age of 30 years and 159 days, she became one of the oldest female figure skating Olympic champions. They then retired from competitive skating.

Throughout her career, Rodnina competed internationally for the Soviet Union and represented the Armed Forces sports society at the national level. Rodnina, along with Ulanov and her later partner Alexander Zaitsev "completely dominated international pair skating throughout the 1970s". With her partners, she won ten World Championships and three consecutive Olympic gold medals from 1971 to 1980, a record that equaled Sonia Henie's, along with eleven European titles, making her the most successful pair skater in history. She was one of the first female pair skaters to be known for her athleticism and ever-increasing dangerous tricks. She and her partners were also known for their acrobatic lifts, side-by-jumps, and for the split triple twist. In the early 1990s, she coached at the Ice Castle International Training Center in Lake Arrowhead, California.

Comments on doping
In a 1991 interview, Rodnina said she was aware that Soviet figure skaters had used doping substances since the early 1970's in preparation for the competitive season. According to Rodina "Boys in pairs and singles used drugs, but this was only in August or September. This was done just in training, and everyone was tested (in the Soviet Union) before competitions."

Political career
Rodnina became a member of the Public Chamber of Russia in 2005. In the 2007 legislative election, she was elected to the State Duma as a member of President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party. On 17 December 2012, Rodnina supported the Dima Yakovlev Law, the law in the Russian Parliament banning adoption of Russian orphans by citizens of the United States.

Sanctioned by the United Kingdom from 15 March 2022 in relation to Russia's actions in Ukraine.
 * Sanctions

In December 2022, the Ukrainian Parliament sanctioned Rodnina for her support of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, she supported Poland's decision to boycott the Olympic Games in case Russian athletes are allowed to compete, saying that it would mean "Poland gets banned for the next two Olympic cycles".

Personal life
Rodnina graduated from the Central Institute of Physical Culture. Her first marriage was to Alexander Zaitsev, with whom she has a son of the same name, born in 1979. From her second marriage with the film producer Leonid Menkovsky, Rodnina has a daughter, Alyona Minkovski, born in 1986. She is currently divorced. She spent a number of years living in the United States and then moved back to Russia.

Twitter controversy
On 13 September 2013, Rodnina caused a stir when she tweeted a doctored photo of U.S. President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, with Obama's mouth full of food, with a photoshopped banana in the image's foreground. She said she was practicing her right to free expression, but critics claimed she was making a racist comment about the African-American president. On 10 February 2014, Rodnina in her Twitter claimed that her account was hacked at the time of posting the offensive photograph and apologized for her handling of the affair.

Other honours and awards

 * Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1972)
 * Order of Lenin (1976)
 * Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", 2nd, 3rd and 4th classes
 * Medal "In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow"
 * Inducted into International Women's Sports Hall of Fame (1988)
 * Inducted into the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame (1989)
 * International Skating Union's Jacques Favart Award
 * In the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, she was given the honor of being the lighter of the Olympic Cauldron along with Vladislav Tretiak

title: Irina Rodnina


text:
Belus (Egyptian)

In Greek mythology, Belus (Βῆλος) was a king of Egypt and father of Aegyptus and Danaus and (usually) brother to Agenor. The wife of Belus has been named as Achiroe or Side (eponym of the Phoenician city of Sidon).

Diodorus Siculus claims that Belus founded a colony on the river Euphrates, and appointed the priests-astrologers whom the Babylonians call Chaldeans who like the priests of Egypt are exempt from taxation and other service to the state.

According to Pausanias, Belus founded a temple of Heracles in Babylon. Meanwhile, it was said that Egyptians initially fought with clubs but later on Belus invented the use of sword in fighting. The word bellum, "war," is named from this.

Family
Belus was the son of Poseidon and Libya. He may also be Busiris, son of Libya, ruler of Egypt, killed by Heracles, although Heracles was born many generations after Belus since he was a great-grandchild of Perseus; see Argive genealogy below.

The Bibliotheca also claims that Agenor was Belus' twin brother. Belus ruled in Egypt, and Agenor ruled over Sidon and Tyre in Phoenicia. The wife of Belus has been named as Achiroe, daughter of the river-god Nilus. Her sons Aegyptus and Danaus were twins. Later Aegyptus ruled over Egypt and Arabia, and Danaus ruled over Libya. Pseudo-Apollodorus says that it was Euripides who added Cepheus and Phineus as additional sons of Belus.

In the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Belus was also the father of a daughter named Thronia on whom Hermaon, i.e. Hermes, fathered Arabus, presumably the eponym of Arabia.

According to Pherecydes of Athens, Belus also had a daughter named Damno who married Agenor (Belus' brother, her uncle) and bore to him Phoenix and two daughters named Isaie, and Melia, these becoming wives respectively to sons of Belus (their cousins) Aegyptus and Danaus. Yet another source says that the daughter of Belus who married Agenor was named Antiope.

Some sources make Belus the father of Lamia while Antoninus mentions him as the father of Thias (father of Smyrna) by the nymph Orithyia.

Nonnus makes Belus the father of five sons, namely Phineus, Phoenix, Agenor (identified as the father of Cadmus), Aegyptus, and Danaus, though Nonnus elsewhere makes Phineus to be Cadmus' brother. Nonnus has Cadmus identify Belus as "the Libyan Zeus" and refer to the "new voice of Zeus Asbystes", meaning the oracle of Zeus Ammon at Asbystes.

Belus and Bel Marduk
Pausanias wrote: "' Manticlus founded the temple of Heracles for the Messenians; the temple of the god is outside the walls and he is called Heracles Manticlus, just as Ammon in Libya and Belus in Babylon are named, the latter from an Egyptian, Belus the son of Libya, Ammon from the shepherd-founder. Thus the exiled Messenians reached the end of their wanderings.'" This supposed connection between Belus of Egypt and Zeus Belus (the god Marduk) is likely to be more learned speculation than genuine tradition. Pausanias seems to know nothing of supposed connection between Belus son of Libya and Zeus Ammon that Nonnus will later put forth as presented just above.

Belus and Ba'al
Modern writers suppose a possible connection between Belus and one or another god who bore the common northwest Semitic title Ba'al. According to some sources, Belus was the son of Poseidon by Libya. Bel is associated with Babylon and Assyria, but Aegean Greeks had a distant relations with that area, in contrast they had trading relationships with north Canaanites of Syria, Ugarit and Levantine Sidon and Tyros, cities that are mentioned in Greek myths about Belos, and his name is an echo of the Canaanite god Baal (Redfield, 1989, pp. 28 & 30–31), which  in Akkadian Babylonian scripts is replaced  with Enlil, both meaning "lord", and may be connected with Marduk, but the most probable connection in ancient Levantine/Canaanite mythology is Baal Hadad, a fertility god, whose attributes are lightning, rainstorms and the forces of nature.

title: Belus (Egyptian)


text:
Amy Tuck

Amy Tuck (born July 8, 1963) is an American attorney and politician who served as the 30th Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi from 2000 to 2008. A member of the Republican Party, she was previously a member of the Mississippi State Senate. She is the second woman to be elected to statewide office in Mississippi, and the first to have been reelected. Tuck later served as the Vice President of Campus Services at Mississippi State University from 2008 to 2019.

Biography
Tuck was born in Maben, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi in 1963. She received Bachelor of Arts in political science and Master of Public Administration degrees from Mississippi State University in Starkville before obtaining a J.D. degree from Mississippi College School of Law in Jackson.

In 1990 she won a special election to the Mississippi Senate as a Democrat, representing parts of Choctaw, Montgomery, Oktibbeha, and Webster counties. In 1995, she was an unsuccessful candidate for Secretary of State, narrowly losing the Democratic primary to eventual winner Eric Clark. Following her defeat, she served as secretary of the Mississippi Senate from 1995 to 1999. Tuck was elected lieutenant governor in 1999, defeating Republican state senator Bill Hawks.

In 2002, Tuck announced her intention to qualify for reelection as a Republican, effectively switching parties. In her announcement, she cited ongoing disagreement with the Democratic state legislature concerning redistricting as well as her conservative stances on abortion, same-sex marriage, and criminal justice reform as motivating factors for her decision to switch parties. The next year, in 2003, she was nominated as the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor and went on to defeat former Democratic state senator Martin Blackmon in the general election with 61% of the vote. Due to term limits, Tuck was ineligible for reelection as lieutenant governor in 2007. She was succeeded by Phil Bryant on January 10, 2008.

In October 2007 it was announced that Tuck would be appointed as special assistant to Mississippi State University President Doc Foglesong upon expiration of her term as lieutenant governor. In this role, Tuck took a leading role in facilitating the university's economic development and private sector initiatives. Upon the retirement of Foglesong in March 2008 and the selection of Mark E. Keenum as his successor, Tuck was named the Vice President of Campus Services, a new position. In this position she oversees the university's facilities, parking and transit, sustainability, planning, and utilities divisions. Tuck announced in October 2019 that she would retire from her position as vice president on December 31, 2019, and was succeeded by former MSU finance head Don Zant.

title: Amy Tuck