Talk:Road pricing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 External Links 2 Road pricing petition 3 Proposed Merge to Toll road 4 New fangled vernacular 5 libertarian counterargument 6 Inclusion & exclusion 7 Cambridge 8 Suggestion for changing article's name and dividing in two articles

[edit] External Links

Earlier this evening, user 86.145.193.138 removed a couple of links from the External Links section, including one to the BBC News that I had added a couple of days ago. These links were replaced with a note indicating that news items could be reached via the website of the National Alliance Against Tolls. This organization is strongly hostile to the notion of road pricing, which it describes as "daft". I believe that Wikipedia's NPOV policy implies that relevant news items should be referenced directly, and not via a partisan organization. I have therefore restored the links removed by 86.145.193.138. --RichardVeryard 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road pricing petition

I have twice added a line to the 'Criticisms' section, detailing and linking to a current petition against road pricing in the UK. I think that this illustrates the concerns of a majority of the general public on this issue. 'Thisisbossi', why do you keep removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.246.81 (talk) 14 December 2006, 13:40 (UTC)

Thisisbossi can speak for himself, but my own view is that the purpose of this article is to explain what road pricing is, not to encourage people to sign a petition against it. The petition currently has 41467 names which hardly counts as a "large proportion" let alone a "majority" of the general public. --RichardVeryard 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RichardVeryard said it much as I would have said it: an online petition does not do much to forward an encyclopedia article. A link to an organisation's developed website would be much more appropriate, as opposed to one individual's blog, for example, or a collection of relatively useless names. The "No Tolls" website, while a hideous mess as far as aesthetics go, is a much more appropriate website for providing criticism of road pricing. Additionally, the links that keep showing up in each of your edits only cycle me right back to this Road Pricing article -- another reason for my reverts. I have no issue with your edit which added info regarding PAYD, but I do not feel that the petition reference and cyclical link are fit in Wikipedia as per WP:EL. --Thisisbossi 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. What do you mean by "the links .... only cycle me right back to this Road Pricing article"? I am afraid that I don't understand you there. In response to Richard, I understand your point of view, although many forums and, for example, the vote on here show a majority (73%) against the proposals. I would be satisfied with there not being a link to the petition under 'external links'; Are you both happy with the edit as it currently stands? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.246.81 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

The petition has been removed pending provision regarding how it is appropriate for Wikipedia per the above comments. --Thisisbossi 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Thisisbossi, I understand you now.. Link corrected, sorry, still getting to grips with this... 80.47.246.81 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I still disagree with its inclusion, though, but first I'll await additional opinions. --Thisisbossi 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To hopefully bump this section and garner some additional feedback: I'd appreciate some more response on the inclusion of this petition, which seems to thoroughly violate WP:EL. The History for the article is getting cluttered with people doing little more than update the date and number of this item which supports a bias against the topic; and is one of numerous petitions of its kind. If there is no adequate response as to how this is acceptable within Wikipedia, this will be removed. --Thisisbossi 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. The general flaws in such petitions are described in Internet petition, and I can't see that this petition is any exception. I have added a discussion point to Wikipedia talk:External links --RichardVeryard 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is an important subject deserving of a quality NPOV article. Continual updating of online petition numbers is unencylopedic and a misuse of Wikipedia.--JBellis 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The petition has been removed pending provision regarding how it is appropriate for Wikipedia per the above comments. Thank you all for your input. --Thisisbossi 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, but keen to compromise. I feel that if your issues are with the link to the petition, why remove all reference to it? It would seem to me that considering the huge numbers involved, the petition is highly relevant to any discussion of, or article about, road pricing. As such I have added a link to Reuters news article about the petition, and I also think it is fair to add a POV flag, considering the debate and editing taking place with this article. Also, in answer to RichardVeryard's concerns about internet petitions, the one in question is hosted and maintained by the UK government, and the results are passed directly to the Prime Minister. All signatures are validated with a full UK address, presumably to be verified against the electoral register. The target recipient of the petition is well defined, and ballot stuffing, although admittedly possible, is far more difficult than for the vast majority of 'e-petitions.' Midlandstoday 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this seems like something I can agree with! Thanks for the link to Reuters, Midlandstoday. --Thisisbossi 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge to Toll road

Against - Egads no: they are nothing alike! I suspect this to be vandalism on the part of an anonymous contributor, particularly as he/she left no explanation of his/her intentions. I will remove this tag tomorrow barring any legitimate issues in support of a merge. --Thisisbossi 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? No, not at all, merely a legitimate but anonymous post. (Please Assume Good Faith, eh? - WP:AGF) I am honestly curious to know why you think these topics are different enough to justify separate articles. -- 201.50.248.179 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (I originally added the merge tag)

Something that possibly affects this discussion: In the U.S., the term "toll road" is used, however AFAIK the term "road pricing" is never used. As far as I can tell, both of these articles are discussing effectively identical subjects. I think we should merge them. If there is some difference, I think we sould clarify what it is for the Americans. Thanks for your consideration. -- 201.50.248.179 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the difference, as I understand it. Toll roads are specific roads that are subject to charging. Whereas road pricing doesn't just refer to specific roads but to potentially all roads. For example, a large chunk of Central London is covered by congestion charging. --RichardVeryard 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am extremely wary of such merge tags given the circumstances of the tags insertion. Thank you for your explanation. You may wish to register with Wikipedia so that such a misinterpretation of your intentions does not happen again -- anonymous posters tend to have some bad connotations.

Toll roads are a form of road pricing, but road pricing is not specifically a tolled roadway -- a similar relationship could be that a square is a rectangle, but not vice-versa. There are numerous types of road pricing schemes that would not naturally fit into a "toll road" classification. One such example would be the aforementioned congestion pricing. --Thisisbossi 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RichardVeryard on this. Generally, 'toll roads' refers to a road or network of roads which charge for their use, as part of a greater 'free' road system. 'Road pricing' refers to a system where a far greater number of (possibly all) roads are charged, especially where there is active variation of prices based on time of day etc. There is a very real difference, and in my opinion a merge of the two articles would be groundless. Midlandstoday 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Against -- as per previous discussions. A toll road is a type of road, whereas road pricing is more of a concept. This would appear to be another example of an unnecessary merge. Incidentally, the merge banners were place on 9th Feb and it will be possible to remove them at the end of the week, since the concensus would appear to be 'against merge'. -- EdJogg 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Against' -- as per previous discussions and because the rationale behind each is different. Road pricing (or road user charging as it should be called) is about demand management i.e to improve road conditions, tolling is about revenue raising.--JBellis 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Against. Over here in Singapore where road pricing has been around for decades (and which has been the model which London studied before its implimentation), there is incidently no toll road at all. Tolls roads are often typified as being charged for use round-the-clock, as a form of revenue reimbursing the cost of constructing that road specifically. Users often have to pay more the longer they drive along that road, which may be accomplished by passing through multiple gantries. Road pricing typically charged vehicles for entry into a specific zone only during specific periods to ease congestion, and typically involves just one gantry involving a flat fare to be paid irregardless of actual distance travelled within that area. Of course there may be variations, such as the one in Singapore which has two main zones with one within the other, thus there are two gantries to pass through if the user wishes to drive right into the city centre, but the principal of road management remains the same.--Huaiwei 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Against. Road pricing covers entire urban areas, "toll road" only individual roads. Toll road is a subset of road pricing, if anything it should be merged to here. Cambrasa (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New fangled vernacular

Shouldn't we mention that this is often called "C-charge" in the UK? (Including media news outlets etc.)
138.243.129.4 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this line :)

London has had a Congestion Charge in the central area since 2003.

--Thisisbossi 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] libertarian counterargument

"Note that some libertarians in general, however, favor transfer of roads to private ownership, which is likely to result in tolls for individual roads, set on a profit-maximizing rather than an economic welfare-maximizing basis, which in many cases is likely to lead to a higher toll." -- I'm not sure this is a relevant answer to the libertarian freedom of movement argument. After all, in the libertarian utopia private roads might have tolls, but there wouldn't be high gov't taxes either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.133.86 (talk • contribs)

True, however roads would no longer be free at the point of usage, which is what the "libertarian" ABD wants to preserve, government or no government Cambrasa (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion & exclusion

In response to the deletion of the New York congestion pricing proposal here, there is no reason (I think) not to include noteworthy proposals from other places, as long as they were considered or studied at the governmental level. Notable failed or stalled proposals are just as important and relevant as implemented ones. It's your job to include them.

From what I found from a web search, Toronto's mayor doesn't want it [1] and Chicago is only in the preliminary stages [2]. If you want to include those cities and others–with sources–you can and I support that. But NY's plan has support at the city and federal level. Even if NY's proposal is ultimately defeated, it has been widely talked about and reported in New York City as much as the New York City 2012 Olympic bid or the West Side Stadium, and is therefore still notable. TLK^'in 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's not omit North America, nor let the article ramble too long about a large area where it's all just proposals, either. One or maybe two paragraphs are appropriate for the New York proposal, and a few sentences about each place where the movement is less developed, maybe amounting to a separate paragraph for those. Jim.henderson 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge

I've removed the following

Various trials have taken place in British cities - the City of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, for example, had experimented with congestion charging as far back as 1993. [3]

The para implies there was a real live congestion charge in place, and the source notwithstanding, this is not the case. I'm afraid I don't know more, but i'm guessing maybe it was a very small scale trial with a small number of volunteers or something. (I've lived in Cambridge since 1985, and driven in Cambridge for most of that time, so I would certainly have noticed if there had been a congestion charge at any point.)

Of course, Cambridgeshire is bidding for TIF money so a Cambridge congestion charge is on the cards for the future. Roy Badami 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for changing article's name and dividing in two articles

Going a step further to the old proposal to merge this article (see above), road pricing is a very general concept from economics, but in practical terms, as I added to the article, it has two distinct objectives: revenue generation and congestion pricing for demand management purposes. Toll roads are the typical example of revenue generation. Charges for using high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or entering a restricted area of a city are typical examples of using road pricing for congestion management (see [4] for a very comprehensive summary on this subject). Electronic toll collection is a technology that can be use for both of these objectives.

If you look a the specific cases in this article, all but the German one refer to congestion pricing (which I already edit to explain the general economic concept), and most of the cases presented here (Singapore, London, Stockholm, New York, etc.) have their own articles. Therefore, the content of the article as it is now, refers mainly to pricing for congestion management purposes.

My suggestion is to relocate "Road pricing" as a more general separate article, and leave most of the actual text here under a new article's name. The new article's name could be "Traffic congestion pricing" or "Road congestion pricing", even though that the concept and most of existing schemes refer to urban areas, so an alternative will be a specific article named "Urban traffic congestion pricing" (as I called it in the more general congestion pricing article). The specific economic rationale for this pricing system could be included in the article, as it is related with the externalities of auto travel in urban areas, such us air pollution, noise, urban deterioration, and the extra costs and delays impose upon other drivers due to congestion, and mainly, to the more efficient public transportation vehicles.

If this suggestion is accepted, the main "Road pricing" article will have the basic economic rationale for all type of fees, tolls, etc, and a reference for all existing applications in the world. From there, the article will branch out to specific (existing) articles on Toll roads, Electronic toll collection, the proposed new article on "Traffic Congestion Pricing" (from where case specific articles will branch out) and any other related article will be referenced from this new main article.

And by the way, there is an article called Electronic Road Pricing which refers only to Singapore, city that for some time was the only one to have an urban congestion pricing scheme in the world, but not anymore, since London, Stockholm and other cities have it (as you can check from this article). I try to change the name for "Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing" and added the "worldwide view" wiki banner, but one of the main contributors of that article deleted, and he does not want to recognize that this is no longer a country-specific scheme. You can see that similar articles are called with country specific tags such as London congestion charge or Stockholm congestion tax or New York congestion pricing. For consistency, I think this change would have also to be made.Mariordo (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)