Talk:Congestion pricing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Global warming

To mention congestion taxes as a tool against global warming right next to the viewpoint of economists is misleading. Politicians may say that congestion taxes are to help with global warming, but that doesn't make it true. Now the sentence only mentioned "interest" in such taxes, which I guess is true by tautology: If people speculate about something it is evidence of interest in the subject. But this doesn't make it worthy of mention, especially not in the lede. I'm not against bringing it up in the rest of the article, but having it in the lede is most certainly undue, considering as though it's not even mentioned in the article.

Compared to the costs of congestion, the costs of global warming and fossil fuel supply are minimal. In Automobile Externalities and Policies , which was published in the Journal of Economic Literature in 2007, summarized the costs of driving, in cents/mile:

Greenhouse warming: 0.3
Oil dependency:     0.9
Local pollution:    2.0
Congestion:         5.0
Accidents:          2.0

Now these were calculations for a tax to be levied on gasoline, which in the sentence before said was ineffective against congestion! Something that economists support as a tool against congestion will have an even wider spread (I don't have time to find an article for you, maybe later).

Also, to say that the current statements are sourced is misleading. The books cited deal with congestion taxes and global warming/oil dependence rather separately. From my best Google Book research, the best link in the books is speculation that congestion taxes would reduce traffic across the board. The speculation of these books does not merit a spot in the lede.

Now smog is affected by, and has been targeted with, a congestion tax. That could go in the lead, but even then it's still probably undue. Smog is only indirectly correlated to congestion. I mainly removed it because it seemed tacked on to the last paragraph, and probably would fit better in the next paragraph.  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Austin512 thanks for bringing the discussion to the talk page. First, three out the four reliable sources are from economists, and Cervero, Sperling and Gordon are authorities in their field, transport economics, urban planning, energy and environmental policy. Only Friedman is a layman in the field. Also I provided page numbers from where this concept was taking (only Cervero's book is missing, but I can get if you want me too, I have all the books). So this is no discourse by politicians neither a broad interpretation of these books. If required I can produce more reliable sources supporting the relationship (some others are already in the article) between reducing greenhouse emissions and avoiding congestion. Second, you are taking the paragraph out of context, it is not about costs (your figures above), all it is saying is that renewed interest in congestion pricing is due to concerns about oil supply and a policy to reduce oil consumption through reduction of traffic congestion. The "renew" part is important, because Singapore began implementing congestion pricing since the seventies, and for a long time only Hong Kong tried and failed. It was until the 2000's that transportation professionals and politicians took interest in this demand-side policy, and several implementations (detailed in the article) took place. Other demand-side policies also implemented, such as road space rationing, have also takne new momentum due to this concerns, particularly in Latin America. As for traffic congestion in general, any policy that reduces travel during rush hours will decrease travel time (improve productivity) and reduce fuel consumption which translates into less tailpipe emissions (smog is a popular term but is technically wrong, the emissions worsen smog see here), less CO2 emissions, and reduces travel costs. Also, CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumed. So congestion reduction is related to less oil consumption, less pollution and less greenhouse emissions (accidents is not quite so, when you increase speed more serious accidents take place). And I can go on. Please let me know if you want to expand on any of these subjects. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post another message when there was an edit conflict. I hate when that happens. Anyway, I'll hold off while I digest your post  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs)

Ok, I had written a wall of text, most of which was going through the 4 references and pointing out how they don't support that sentence (Freidman does a little, but its tenuous and in passing). My real point is that global warming/greenhouse gases are given too much weight throughout the article, when it should be near none. I won't argue for removing stuff, just that, since the congestion pricing is fundamentally about internalized the externality of congestion, it be made clear that greenhouse gas emissions reduction (and fuel security) have an extremely small benefit compared to the gains from reductions in congestion. These two papers [1] [2] calculate the the gains from reducing congestion in London have been 75x and 300x more valuable than the CO2 reduction. If in the lede it brings up climate change, not bringing this up is misleading.  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, then we might have a NPOV issue, as it seems congestion pricing might not be cost-effective in reducing GHGs (that will depend on the investment and operating cost of the charging scheme, London is very expensive, but not sure about the other schemes). Give me some time to read the three papers, since I am a transportation professional I was interested in reading them anyway. Please give a couple of days and I will get back to you.--Mariordo (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Austin 512, I did my homework and I do not see how the three papers contradict the paragraph you wanted to remove. First, two of the papers relate only to the London congestion charge. They show that indeed in the case of London the proposal dates back to the 60s and also that when implementation took place, the authorities made explicit that this was a scheme to relieve congestion not environmental problems (this political claim is quite funny because TfL regularly reports how much tailpipe emissions and CO2 -greenhouse gases- have been reduced thanks to the charge + as I explained before, if you reduce pollution, you reduce fuel consumption, and automatically local and global emissions). The valid point here is that in monetary terms the reduction of greenhouse gases and local air pollution is low as compared to other impacts of less congestion. And by the way, the values you presented above correspond to externalities reflecting nationwide automobile use (both rural and urban). The 2007 Small and Verhoef book has a table for the U.S. that reflects commuter trips and includes all costs (not just externalities) - See table 3.3 on pp. 98 - which also shows that the cost of environmental externalities are much smaller than the other costs.

But any of these relates to the fact supported by the sources provided (even the Parry, Walls and Harrington (2007) paper recognizes the "popular focus on the need to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption because of the energy security and climate change.") that the modern (2000s) push for congestion pricing originates on the specter or concerns about climate change and oil supply/high prices. The sad reality is that this is the fifth time the world is going through the fear of running out of oil (see "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World" by Daniel Yergin), but prices skyrocketed even when the fear was unfounded (the reality is that in the future a lot of oil is going to be more expensive to extract). So these specters had a lot of reaction in the real world, even if peak oil fears were not justified or if the cost of greenhouse gases is low (actually most advocates do not care about the cost, just the effects). The only congestion pricing scheme implemented before these concerns were raised is Singapore, but the paragraph is taking only about the "renewed interest", and as written is not limited to schemes actually implemented but also to academic discussion (there are plenty, just Google), public agencies and cities that are or had considered it (such as the New York congestion pricing proposal, which failed).--Mariordo (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Language in Lede

The lede, as currently written, describes both the realities and intentions of congestion pricing. This is clear. Adding excessive conditional wording serves only to muddle the language and detract from the quality of the article. There is no good reason to do so. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Twice I've been reverted, with similar reasons.

1. I tried to fix the lede so it would not endorse the POV of proponents but this was reverted with admonitions of '"blatant original research" and using WP as "a blog"'
2. I waited patiently for an explanation of the WP:OR complaint, but none was offered. So I restored my edits, asking, "What OR?" and expressing the hope that I'd get an explanation rather than an edit war
3. Ignoring my request, another contributor reverted my edits, merely repeating the OR complaint (without explaining it); and then piling on yet another unexplained complaint of "weasel words" (also without explanation) [3]

--Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly did not "ignore your request." I opened up this discussion, per your suggestion, and explained my edit in my original comment in this discussion thread. Please stop making false accusations in this matter. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that "muddling the language" would not (in general) be a good thing, I'm not sure where I am supposed to have muddled anything. My aim was to clarify that CP advocates are claiming that raising prices will have the desired effect. The article should at some point examine the results of CP in various places, so that the reader can determine for himself if the desired effects have taken place. Or at least quote some authorities who assert (or question) such effects.

In sum, I think it's better for the lead to reflect the "intentions" of CP advocates than to assert that its supposed access is a "reality". Please allow me to correct the pro-CP bias of this article.

Please work with me to clarify the CP is intended to produce certain effects, and also to describe the results of CP in various places, along with non-OR findings of published, reliable sources as to how well or poorly it has produced the desired effects. (Buried in the body of the article is a statement conceding that no comprehensive studies have been done, although claims have been made of traffic volume reductions from 10% to 30%.)

--Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The lede should be kept clear and straightforward. You can discuss the successes and failures of the various programs, versus their original goals, in the body of the article. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, the article content, before you tried to introduce your POV, reflects the view as per main stream economics. Cervero, Sperling, Button, Small, and Verhoef, are all authorities in the transport economics field, the reliable sources are provide, just go and read directly from the sources (most of the citations correspond to textbooks used in transport economics courses for graduate students - use Google books and/or the "Look inside" feature in Amazon). The article already reflects the shortcomings of the theory, alternative policies, the practical difficulties of implementation, the controversies, etc, did you actually read it? (if in doubt just follow the discussion threads above). And finally, I did intend to make a summary of the key results from the different existing implementations, but it is too complex and the performance indicators change every year, and the main limitation is the lack of baseline indicators, which make comparisons very subjective. Besides, the article is already too long, so I believe it is more reasonable to present the results in the individual article projects. The ones about London and Singapore already do so.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sections relating to utilities, public transport and internet etc?

Utilities, public transport and internet, and others, are referred to in the lead or in the general theory sections but are then not detailed further in the article. Can I suggest that are sections for each of these. If the road pricing details are moved to Road pricing then there will be plenty of space for this new content. Needless to say... another benefit of moving the bulk of the road pricing content is that all the associated arguments move to that page as well! PeterEastern (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition and content as it is

Peter, this is a GA, meaning it was peer-reviewed and it is a fully reference article, improved as per the recommendations of the GA reviewer. Also it means it reflects neutral point of view, and any significant criticism has to be reflected in the lead (which you removed). Also check the threads above which reflects the subject is contentious and the article has been improve to achieve a better NPOV. Furthermore, the definition you edited is incorrect, congestion pricing is a policy for charging a fee or tax (surcharges) with the intend to reduce congestion, so it could be a fix fee or a variable fee, and therefore, it is not variable pricing. And one more clarification, road congestion pricing has more weight in the article because it is the sector where it has found more application and more controversy too. If you wish to introduce changes please let's discuss them here first. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, you seem to have a policy of not responding to comments on the talk page and to reverting changes citing GA saying one needs to discuss stuff first on the talk page which makes it hard to progress;) PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeping multiple discussions and opening several threads in the same page makes it more difficult to have a dialogue. Please let's discuss one issue at a time. (unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk))

• Regarding my edits. The first sentence currently reads "Congestion pricing or congestion charges is a system of surcharging users of a transport network in periods of peak demand to reduce traffic congestion" (my emphasis) - however the linked article about 'traffic congestion' refers only to 'road traffic congestion' and thereby implies that congestion pricing only relates to roads. The second sentence then contradicts this when it says "examples include some toll-like road pricing fees, and higher peak charges for public utilities, public transport and slots in canals and airports" (my emphasis) - so the scope if now extended to cover public utilities, waterways and airports. All is then fine until the third paragraph of the Description section now mention telephones and internet which could usefully be mentioned in the lead. Can you please try to create a form of words in the lead that gets more rapidly to the point? Regarding controversy, you may or may not be aware that one of the more belligerent contributors to this article has received a permanent ban for 'tendentious editing' and 'edit-warring'. PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you gave me good news, DF is gone. Honestly I rather spend my time in Wikipedia producing new content, updating and expanding articles than wasting time in lengthy discussion with editors pushing their POV. The above discussions is a testimony to that. Regarding the definition, I agree with you, it should read public goods instead of "transport network" and reduce congestion not traffic congestion. The original definition before the GA review is this one. As you can see in the history, the reviewer made the changes. I agreed that the original text was too technical, but his changes distorted the precise definition. Now that you have raised the issue I would like to give it a try in laymen terms next week, when I have more time. About the possibility of expanding on other public services I tried, but it is more difficult to find reliable sources. Prices going up at peak demand not necessarily are due to congestion pricing. For example, electric utilities have to put online more plants to meet demand (some utilities use tier charges, and this is not congestion pricing, just charging for the additional cost of generation), metro rail services have to send more trains (fares are higher are peak hours due to the additional labor and rolling stock costs), airlines charge more during the summer time simply because there is more demand (the good old relationship between supply and demand). Congestion pricing applies strictly when you do not have additional costs for the supplier but the congestion is increasing the costs for the other users, like road congestion and the Panama Canal, you are just trying to divert users to the off peaks or to alternative modes/services. We can review this issue too next week or please, make a proposal here and we can try to improve it together.unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I note from the article history that you had been battling with DF over wording for years on this article and that you largely wrote the initial content. Personally I think some of that earlier wording is better than the current text, in particular the clearer list of 'public goods' that were amenable to congestion pricing. See comments above about GA review. I am going to make the lead more consistent, drawing on earlier wording and will then await your return. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Roads or Urban Roads

Another comment. One of my changes was to change the section heading from 'urban roads' to 'roads' and to add a clearer reference to high occupancy toll lanes in the USA, which are not all on 'urban roads' to my knowledge. Do you not agree that the title 'roads' is better than 'urban roads'? PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Typically in transportation engineering you divide roads in urban and rural. Most HOT lanes in the US are in the suburbs, and in LA, you have plenty of cities between the suburbs and downtown, so these are not rural facilities, and therefore, classified as urban trips (home to work) within a metropolitan area.--Mariordo (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the word 'urban' is unnecessary and the article would be better without it. For sure, most uses are urban, but a national road pricing scheme was considered in the UK in 2005 (which incidentally isn't mentioned in this article). Was that not congestion charging? To quote "The Times November 29, 2005 Congestion charge to be rolled out nationwide By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent"[4]. Unless you intend to add a section called 'non-urban roads' then I suggest we change the term to 'roads'. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, most existing implementations are located in urban areas. And there is a reason for it. Congestion is widespread in urban areas, while rural roads have congestion limited to the weekends or during the holiday season. Nevertheless, this is not about my opinion or your opinion, the literature in the article clearly supports that this is about urban areas not roads.--Mariordo (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Existing implementations may be on urban roads, but there was a very serious effort to introduce 'congestion pricing' on the UK motorway network in the UK in 2005. As such the work 'urban' appears to be unhelpful. The fact that it was not implemented does not make it irrelevant; indeed there are details of a number of other 'rejected' schemes in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

There is a considerable amount of content in this article that relates to Road pricing. Can I suggest that we move road-specific content to that article and leave this one to concentrate on the general theory of congestion pricing. This article would then provide brief introduction to the different sectors in which it is used and the issues that relate to each one (including for roads, airspace, waterways, utilities and internet traffic). The roads section would have a big 'main|road pricing' tag. Another benefit of this will be to reduce duplication of content across many articles in and thereby make it easier to keep WP up-to-date as schemes evolve. I have already changed a bunch of redirects that were clearly related specifically to road pricing to that article. Fyi, I am in the process of giving a load of love and attention to many of the main road pricing related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

After some consideration I have done a trial merge of road related details from this article into Road pricing. I found a huge amount of overlap which makes me think that we are heading in the right direction. There is still plenty of trimming that could be done to road details this article, particularly in relation to all the 'criticism and comment' which is now available verbatim in the road pricing article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These edits were reverted later - see 'reverting the reversion' section below PeterEastern (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

There is a considerable amount of content in this article that relates to Road pricing. Can I suggest that we move road-specific content to that article and leave this one to concentrate on the general theory of congestion pricing. This article would then provide brief introduction to the different sectors in which it is used and the issues that relate to each one (including for roads, airspace, waterways, utilities and internet traffic). The roads section would have a big 'main|road pricing' tag. Another benefit of this will be to reduce duplication of content across many articles in and thereby make it easier to keep WP up-to-date as schemes evolve. I have already changed a bunch of redirects that were clearly related specifically to road pricing to that article. Fyi, I am in the process of giving a load of love and attention to many of the main road pricing related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

After some consideration I have done a trial merge of road related details from this article into Road pricing. I found a huge amount of overlap which makes me think that we are heading in the right direction. There is still plenty of trimming that could be done to road details this article, particularly in relation to all the 'criticism and comment' which is now available verbatim in the road pricing article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These edits were reverted later - see 'reverting the reversion' section below PeterEastern (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sections relating to utilities, public transport and internet etc?

Utilities, public transport and internet, and others, are referred to in the lead or in the general theory sections but are then not detailed further in the article. Can I suggest that are sections for each of these. If the road pricing details are moved to Road pricing then there will be plenty of space for this new content. Needless to say... another benefit of moving the bulk of the road pricing content is that all the associated arguments move to that page as well! PeterEastern (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the reversion

I originally created a section here on this talk page on the 21 April 2012 noting that my edits to this article were reverted with the comment Rv Good faith edit: your ideas of what road pricing and congestion pricing are is wrong, road pricing is more general.[5] and to the Road pricing article with the comment Sorry to revert the whole thing but road pricing is different from congestion pricing, what you are doing is original research.[6]. The section was then moved to Talk:Road pricing using the same title (without discussion). Given the continued reversions of my contributions to this article I would like to retain a link to that discussion from this article in the correct time sequence. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just move it to have the discussion in the same page. Now that the road pricing discussion is finished we can continue here. Please let's try to keep a linear discussion, one issue at a time. Also I ask you for a rain check, this week I do not have much time for more complex edits (that is why the HOV lane has been slow), but next week I will be on a business trip and I will have more time, for the HOV article and to address the issues you raised here. unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I will correct the lead as per the conversation below and will then leave further changes until your return when I hope we can have a focused discussion on this article and help it 'fit' better into the family of article relating to congestion management of roads. At that point I will encourage you to be less quick with use of the 'revert' button and to look to build on the changes being promoted rather than removing them entirely (and my inclusion of this talk section was in exasperation at your continued use of revert on this article and others). Regarding the Good Article review, that was back in 2008 and many things have changed since then and I suggest that we don't consider that to hold back further improvements of changes to the article. Road pricing is better btw, but I wouldn't call is 'finished' :) PeterEastern (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with what you did. There was no consensus and you are ignoring completely that is article is rated a Good Article. Furthermore, you have been making edits all over the related articles changing congestion pricing for road pricing. Let me point out the issues: Because you based some of your edits on your OR, you continue to confuse road pricing with congestion pricing, and adding the qualifiers "variable" to congestion pricing, when in reality congestion charges and other road pricing fees can be fix or variable. You are doing this regardless of the content being properly supported by reliable sources. I am aware that some people confuse both terms, even some journalists in your country, but there is a difference well established in the field of transport economics, and I will revert immediately any such errors you introduced. In case you have not notice, every time you do an edit there is a label saying that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You are not following this fundamental principle, but ironically, you are requesting other editor to provide RS. From now on, I will request citations from reliable sources for your edits, and be sure I will remove any blatant OR immediately.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the reference to 'variable pricing' exists in the text that you keep reverting to. I did not introduce it during my edit and it was not removed by your reversion. If you object to the reference to variable pricing then please remove it yourself. Regarding you insistence on RS, please see later comment about your observation that my proposed lead text is actually already in the Description section. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that the article gained GA status in 2008 does not make it dated. Being GA means there was a reviewer who checked that there was no original research, that all content was supported by reliable sources, that there were no copyright violations, among other things. Many FA and GA lose their quality due to vandalism and also because editors like you introduce content without proper citations, pushing their own agenda (in your case road pricing = congestion pricing or trying to split the article without a proper discussion), and you name it. So I have and I will continue to implement rigourosly WP policies to keep the GA quality of this article. You are the one who is quick in introducing your OR or doing big changes without having reached consensus here.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You had already agreed that the first sentence of the introduction was misleading, that 'public goods' was better and that the link to 'traffic congestion' was inappropriate, so why revert back to wording that we had agreed was wrong. See next comment re your claim that the lead is not supported by reliable sources. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The restoration of the old content you did significantly degrades the article and puts at risk the GA status of the article. As you left it not only is duplicating word by word content in the first paragraph of the Description section but also is ignoring the recommendations and changes made during the GA review process (it is too technical for the typical Wikipedia reader to grasp). For this reason I will reverse it. I have already agreed that needs improvement and I proposed to work a draft lead here, in the talk. As explained yesterday, I am available to work together on it next week. So again, please go ahead a propose an alternative here, with proper RS or wait to evaluate my take.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of the first para of the description was unintentional - I was actually using the content from the earlier version of the article you linked to above as the basis for the wording. However... as it is in fact text from the current article then what is the justification for reverting it as 'not being based on reliable sources'? I would be quite happy with you adjusting the lead further from where I left it, but I see no justification for your reverting to a lead sentence which we all agree is misleading. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition and content as it is

Peter, this is a GA, meaning it was peer-reviewed and it is a fully reference article, improved as per the recommendations of the GA reviewer. Also it means it reflects neutral point of view, and any significant criticism has to be reflected in the lead (which you removed). Also check the threads above which reflects the subject is contentious and the article has been improve to achieve a better NPOV. Furthermore, the definition you edited is incorrect, congestion pricing is a policy for charging a fee or tax (surcharges) with the intend to reduce congestion, so it could be a fix fee or a variable fee, and therefore, it is not variable pricing. And one more clarification, road congestion pricing has more weight in the article because it is the sector where it has found more application and more controversy too. If you wish to introduce changes please let's discuss them here first. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, you seem to have a policy of not responding to comments on the talk page and to reverting changes citing GA saying one needs to discuss stuff first on the talk page which makes it hard to progress;) PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeping multiple discussions and opening several threads in the same page makes it more difficult to have a dialogue. Please let's discuss one issue at a time. (unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk))

• Regarding my edits. The first sentence currently reads "Congestion pricing or congestion charges is a system of surcharging users of a transport network in periods of peak demand to reduce traffic congestion" (my emphasis) - however the linked article about 'traffic congestion' refers only to 'road traffic congestion' and thereby implies that congestion pricing only relates to roads. The second sentence then contradicts this when it says "examples include some toll-like road pricing fees, and higher peak charges for public utilities, public transport and slots in canals and airports" (my emphasis) - so the scope if now extended to cover public utilities, waterways and airports. All is then fine until the third paragraph of the Description section now mention telephones and internet which could usefully be mentioned in the lead. Can you please try to create a form of words in the lead that gets more rapidly to the point? Regarding controversy, you may or may not be aware that one of the more belligerent contributors to this article has received a permanent ban for 'tendentious editing' and 'edit-warring'. PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you gave me good news, DF is gone. Honestly I rather spend my time in Wikipedia producing new content, updating and expanding articles than wasting time in lengthy discussion with editors pushing their POV. The above discussions is a testimony to that. Regarding the definition, I agree with you, it should read public goods instead of "transport network" and reduce congestion not traffic congestion. The original definition before the GA review is this one. As you can see in the history, the reviewer made the changes. I agreed that the original text was too technical, but his changes distorted the precise definition. Now that you have raised the issue I would like to give it a try in laymen terms next week, when I have more time. About the possibility of expanding on other public services I tried, but it is more difficult to find reliable sources. Prices going up at peak demand not necessarily are due to congestion pricing. For example, electric utilities have to put online more plants to meet demand (some utilities use tier charges, and this is not congestion pricing, just charging for the additional cost of generation), metro rail services have to send more trains (fares are higher are peak hours due to the additional labor and rolling stock costs), airlines charge more during the summer time simply because there is more demand (the good old relationship between supply and demand). Congestion pricing applies strictly when you do not have additional costs for the supplier but the congestion is increasing the costs for the other users, like road congestion and the Panama Canal, you are just trying to divert users to the off peaks or to alternative modes/services. We can review this issue too next week or please, make a proposal here and we can try to improve it together.unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I note from the article history that you had been battling with DF over wording for years on this article and that you largely wrote the initial content. Personally I think some of that earlier wording is better than the current text, in particular the clearer list of 'public goods' that were amenable to congestion pricing. See comments above about GA review. I am going to make the lead more consistent, drawing on earlier wording and will then await your return. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Roads or Urban Roads

Another comment. One of my changes was to change the section heading from 'urban roads' to 'roads' and to add a clearer reference to high occupancy toll lanes in the USA, which are not all on 'urban roads' to my knowledge. Do you not agree that the title 'roads' is better than 'urban roads'? PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Typically in transportation engineering you divide roads in urban and rural. Most HOT lanes in the US are in the suburbs, and in LA, you have plenty of cities between the suburbs and downtown, so these are not rural facilities, and therefore, classified as urban trips (home to work) within a metropolitan area.--Mariordo (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the word 'urban' is unnecessary and the article would be better without it. For sure, most uses are urban, but a national road pricing scheme was considered in the UK in 2005 (which incidentally isn't mentioned in this article). Was that not congestion charging? To quote "The Times November 29, 2005 Congestion charge to be rolled out nationwide By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent"[7]. Unless you intend to add a section called 'non-urban roads' then I suggest we change the term to 'roads'. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, most existing implementations are located in urban areas. And there is a reason for it. Congestion is widespread in urban areas, while rural roads have congestion limited to the weekends or during the holiday season. Nevertheless, this is not about my opinion or your opinion, the literature in the article clearly supports that this is about urban areas not roads.--Mariordo (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Existing implementations may be on urban roads, but there was a very serious effort to introduce 'congestion pricing' on the UK motorway network in the UK in 2005. As such the work 'urban' appears to be unhelpful. The fact that it was not implemented does not make it irrelevant; indeed there are details of a number of other 'rejected' schemes in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)