Jump to content

Talk:Congestion pricing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCongestion pricing was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 15, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Not market economics???

[edit]

Talon bar, I reverted again your deletion as per WP:BRD and to preserve content fully supported by reliable sources, in fact there is an entire section with the economics rationale that it seems you did not read. The lead did not have those sources because as per WP:Manual of Style if the content is fully supported by reliable sources there is no need to repeat them in the lead (they were dropped during the GA review of this article, and all sources were checked by the reviewers and accepted as reliable sources). So, if you still have an issue with that paragraph, please detail it here, but first read the first section of the article, and also I recommend you to check the articles about public goods, tragedy of the commons, Pigovian tax, and externalities (this is not a public monopoly as you claimed in your edit). The economic theory supporting congestion practice is old and well established. See also the article section about criticism. Please, do not start an edit war. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there is no economic theory to support congestion pricing. It has always been, and always will be, an effort to fund a public monopoly, the MTA of NY. This has been true since the term was invented. It is not an economic theory, it is a taxation scheme. I know, I've been working on this since the 1950's. There is no market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talon bar (talkcontribs) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately mainstream transportation economics does not share your view, and all content here is fully supported by reliable sources and college textbooks in economics (it is using a pricing mechanism to regulate the consumption of a public good, therefore it is indeed applied economics). For example, check the source supporting the World Bank support for the implementation of Singapore's scheme, the first one in the world, in operation for more than 40 years. As per Wikipedia policies you need to support your edits with WP:reliable sources. You are welcome to include this POV (I will suggest in the controversy section) but only if supported by reliable sources. If you have material related to a specific congestion pricing scheme, such as NYC, please do your edit in the corresponding article. You seem to be new to Wikipedia, but by now you should be aware that Wikipedia is NOT a blog or discussion forum where we can introduced our opinion, which is considered WP:original research.--Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long term effects

[edit]

I have added the following text:

The congestion pricing in London, Singapore, and Stockholm did not lead to long-term reduction of congestion. Despite the short-term reduction following the introduction of congestion pricing, and despite long-term reduction in total traffic, the average travel time has increased, and congestion surpassed its pre-congestion-pricing levels and continues increasing.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ London congestion trends (PDF), INRIX, March 2016, retrieved July 5, 2019
  2. ^ Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts monitoring, Sixth Annual Report (PDF), Transport for London, July 2008, pp. 57–59, Average levels of congestion in the 2007 calendar year, measured against an uncongested travel rate of 1.8 minutes per kilometre, were identical to the representative level applying before the introduction of the scheme in 2002.
  3. ^ Sock-Yong PHANG (March 2004), "Road Congestion Pricing in Singapore: 1975-2003", Transportation Journal, 43 (2): 16–25, ISSN 0041-1612
  4. ^ The Swedish Transport Administration Annual report (PDF), 2011, pp. 13, 16, 17

Everything is sourced down to the page. Check the references, they support everything written. כורכום (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misrepresenting the sources. In the body, the London report says that congestion would in fact be worse in the absence of congestion pricing, and that congestion increased due to other reasons. The same may be the case for the other reports you cited, which did not attribute the rise in congestion to congestion pricing when I checked them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to add something to the lede of an article, it must not only reflect the best available research and accurately summarize it, but also represent the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the London report says that congestion would in fact be worse in the absence of congestion pricing, and that congestion increased due to other reasons" - this doesn't contradict anything I've written. Congestion has gotten worse despite the congestion pricing. "did not attribute the rise in congestion to congestion pricing" - neither did I. You are misreading my addition. "[the lede must] also represent the body of the article" - not necessarily. Information can be in the lede even if it's not in the body of the article. כורכום (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth are you adding this content to the lede of "Congestion pricing" when the content has nothing to do with congestion pricing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the content has nothing to do with congestion pricing" - the content is about the long-term results of congestion pricing. Two of sources are named "Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts monitoring" and "Road Congestion Pricing in Singapore". You appear to be removing the edit for reasons that are not to do with the content of the edit. Let me break down the content for you:
(1) "The congestion pricing in London, Singapore, and Stockholm did not lead to long-term reduction of congestion." - this is correct and supported by the sources, one for each city.
(2) "Despite the short-term reduction following the introduction of congestion pricing" - same as above
(3) "and despite long-term reduction in total traffic" - same as above
(4) "the average travel time has increased" - same as above
(5) "and congestion surpassed its pre-congestion-pricing levels and continues increasing" - same as above, with the mild caveat that "continues increasing" is MOS:NOW, but still supported by sources.
So what are you objecting to, what is misrepresented out of these four claims about the long-term effects of congestion pricing, and which ones "[have] nothing to do with congestion pricing"? כורכום (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth are you adding content that is unrelated to the causal impact of congestion pricing? If New Orleans implemented CP and traffic reduced in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, we wouldn't add text to the lede of this article, saying "After the implementation of CP in New Orleans, traffic massively reduced", because it has nothing to do with CP. Please tell me that you understand this. This is not complicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. First you reverted the edit for "misrepresenting the sources", which it doesn't, so it was a bad revert. Now it's "unrelated to causal impact". This is an arbitrary bar that none of the content on the lead currently meets or needs to meet. The long term effects of congestion pricing is important enough to be in the lead.

There are no other sources in the article that discuss the long term impact, causal or otherwise, of congestion pricing on actual congestion. I have provided three (and an additional one about the continued increase of congestion). The fact congestion pricing's long-term effects do not reduce congestion is very pertinent to the topic of the article. כורכום (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact congestion pricing's long-term effects do not reduce congestion is very pertinent to the topic of the article" Ok, this clearly demonstrates that just don't understand. If you can't or won't understand, there's no point continuing this discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've answered nothing and backed out of your revert reasons. This definitely needs a third opinion because you're being wildly unreasonable. כורכום (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Should the proposed text be incorporated into the article?):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Congestion pricing and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The proposed text should not be incorporated into the article as it is currently written. The sources do not support the link between rising congestion and the implementation of congestion charging zones (CCZs) implied in the proposed text, and it should be re-written in a more nuanced fashion.

For example, source 1 cites roadworks as a significant contributor to congestion in London, which will clearly affect the congestion statistics within the charging zone and are not an effect of the zone itself. Furthermore, sources 1-2 both indicate reductions in the use of cars and other vehicle types, which should be noted as it demonstrates that CCZs do reduce certain types of traffic. In London this decrease has been mitigated by a rise in commercial vehicles using the CCZ, which source 1 notes is a result of economic factors and is not a fault of the CCZ per se. The most compelling argument comes from the Singapore source, which definitively states that 'traffic congestion had not been eliminated [by the introduction of the zone] -it had merely been shifted in time and location.' This should be included as an example of the negative effects of a CCZ, but care should be taken to contextualise it and more detail given. The cited page of source 4 concerns trains and seems irrelevant to the subject of the article.

Overall, the text needs to recognise that congestion in major cities is a complex problem that requires a more in-depth statistical analysis than is currently given. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly incorporate all of the details into the "effects" section as long as the knee-jerk reverts stop. There's no need for all the nuances in the lead; the addition merely summarizes that congestion pricing is not a long-term solution for congestion, and it fails even at keeping congestion at the levels that exist at the time congestion pricing is introduced. כורכום (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, no "link between rising congestion and the implementation of congestion charging zones" is implied in the text. It's just that the effects of congestion pricing are short-term and the reduction in congestion does not remain long-term, as the sources say. כורכום (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revised addition to lead:
A study on the long-term effects of congestion pricing in Singapore found that "traffic congestion had not been eliminated—it had merely been shifted in time and location" and that the average travel time has increased.[1] Transport for London's sixth annual report found that the average levels of congestion five years after the introduction of congestion pricing were the same as the levels of congestion before its introduction despite a drop in total traffic,[2] with congestion levels continuing to rise.[3] The Swedish Transport Administration reported in 2012 that congestion was the same or worse every year for the five years following the implementation of congestion pricing in Stockholm, despite a drop in total traffic.[4]
This is more verbose but hopefully everybody can now see that every single claim is taken directly from the sources, and nothing is misrepresented. כורכום (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not entirely satisfied, as your changes do not take into account TfL's explanation of the increase in congestion (particularly on pp. 83-4), which states that 60-70 percent of the increase was due to roadworks, other temporary developments, and a deterioration of the road network as a whole. Furthermore, on p.58 the report states 'comparison of recent congestion levels against static pre charging conditions is inappropriate', due in part to these temporary obstructions. If TfL has reports for less disrupted years available I'd suggest you use them, as the 2008 one seems to represent an unusually poor year for London congestion. Little of this is the fault of the CCZ and it's difficult to explain why in the lead without making it rather long.
Again, I do not see the relevance of the Stockholm source. You specifically cite page 17, yet page 17 is about the rail network and rural/regional travel. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"temporary developments" - that's why the INRIX report shows a steady, year-over-year increase in congestion. 2008 is actually not an "unusually poor year", you can see the steady increase year-over-year after the initial drop the year the congestion pricing was implemented from 2003 to 2007. They do blame it on roadwork in 2008 and 2009 (see reports), but the increase in congestion continues in 2010, 2011, 2012, with TfL providing nice graphs showing traffic speeds and traffic flows continuing to decline. From then on you have the INRIX data which is much more detailed and clearly shows a year-over-year increase in congestion despite reduction in traffic. This can all be explored in-depth as much as you like in the body of the article. The summary in the lead should be concise, and "congestion levels continuing to rise" is a concise description of what is happening.
"the Stockholm source. You specifically cite page 17" - I cited only page 17 because there's a table there that summarizes the text clearly. The text pertaining to the table is on pages 13 and 16. I hope that clears up everything. כורכום (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'congestion levels continuing to rise' is an oversimplification, as the London reports do not categorically state that the CCZ is the main cause of the congestion. The lead neads to reflect this with clarity and brevity: 'In London the introduction of the congestion charging zone coincided with a reduction in congestion. Since 2008 congestion has risen across the city, though the increase has been less pronounced within the zone.' (London Congestion Trends, p. 12) It is clear to the reader that congestion has risen, but does not imply that the CCZ is the major cause.
You should cite pp. 13-17 of the Stockholm source if that's where you've drawn your statement from. I'd suggest that the page ranges you've cited are too narrow in general, as we've both drawn far more widely from your sources than the pages given in the citations during this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No causation is implied in the text. There's no misrepresentation of the sources. If you wish to provide more information from the sources you can use the rest of the article for that—in particular, the effects section is suited for this information. At any rate I'll incorporate your suggestion into the lead. כורכום (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long term effects, part 2

[edit]

@Snooganssnoogans: "no consensus" doesn't mean "I don't agree so there's no consensus." There was a lengthy discussion, and the valid concerns of all parties have been addressed. Your concern, "the literature does not state such a thing", is false, as everything in the added text is quoted from literature, and both your and A.D.Hope's concerns have been addressed. If you believe something in particular about the addition is misleading, please fix it instead of reverting. כורכום (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the text as added, after discussion has ended and after addressing all participants' "legitimate concerns" in order to achieve consensus:
A study on the long-term effects of congestion pricing in Singapore found that "traffic congestion had not been eliminated—it had merely been shifted in time and location" and that the average travel time has increased.[1] Transport for London (TfL) found that the average levels of congestion in London five years after the introduction of congestion pricing were the same as the levels of congestion before its introduction despite a drop in total traffic.[2] TfL found no clear trend in the congestion data from 2007 to 2012,[3] and INRIX found that congestion levels in London have steadily risen year-over-year between 2012 and 2016, with "slightly less growth in congestion" in the Congestion Charge Zone.[4] The Swedish Transport Administration reported in 2012 that congestion was the same or worse every year for the five years following the implementation of congestion pricing in Stockholm, despite a drop in total traffic.[5]
Note that each claim is referenced down to the page, with some claims taking direct quotes from the sources. No causation is implied and nothing is misrepresented. כורכום (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to cover the environmental and health impact at greater length. The research is clear: congestion pricing reduces pollution, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and has health benefits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical of "advocates claim" in the second sentence of the lead. Is the research strong enough to just state that in wikivoice? This is an important topic, and it'd be nice to save it from delisting. Chidgk1, have you noticed other problems, or just that the lead doesn't align with the body? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of this article compared other articles e.g. Electricity pricing - see e.g. https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/lmp Too much detail on the London ULEZ but some general explanation of relationship with LEZ would be interesting e.g. why US has road congestion pricing but no LEZ as far as I know. And will the balance change as EV proportion continues to increase rapidly in Europe? Bibliography needs trimming and updating. I may find more problems later. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oposed the delisting. The topic is still up to date, no much progress has occurred worldwide since it gained GA. Details about the London congestion charge should go in that article, not here. The summary about London is due to more studies and evaluations available, and because it is the onle big city in the world with such scheme, therefore, it is a global reference.--Mariordo (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mariordo Do you have an opinion about the scope of the article? I mean whether it should include things other than transport? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the article explains in its description section (supported by the corresponding reliable sources, mainly economic literature), congestion pricing could be applied in several public services, but in practice it is mainly use in transportation services, such as road pricing (most common application) and other transportation modes (such as the scheme in the Panama Canal). In other sectors similar concepts has been applied, but slightly modified because of the different nature of the service (for example, electricity requires distribution, transport does not. Final users of water and energy services pay a monthly fee according to use, road users don't pay out-of-pocket fees for use of the road network, except some toll roadas), and are called by different names, such as variable pricing, water pricing, and electricity pricing.--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you the scope should be wide as explained in the lede. But the body does not have enough on non-transport e.g. electricity has moved on since the article was first written Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On scope, I think that we ought to restrain it to "congestion pricing" in transport, i.e. traffic congestion pricing. This is for several reasons:
    • It allows us to proceed without having to cut or add much to this article, increasing the likelihood we can save it.
    • The broader concept of congestion pricing is already covered in dynamic pricing and variable pricing.
    • The non-transport uses of congestion pricing are often called different things and have different qualities, so it makes sense to discuss them separately.
    • Articles with too big a scope tend to become unwieldy.
I've added a hatnote attempting to clarify this. I hope that helps with scope, but the very fact we're having to discuss it here rather than it being something the original author made clear is a failing of the article (the 2008 version included transportation network in the first sentence definition but then included public utility in the next sentence), and is something that could portend other quality issues. I haven't looked into those, so I can't comment on that yet. I will note, though, that this topic has changed a ton since 2008, so if it hasn't been actively updated, it's likely no longer up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is delist. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, unsourced portions here and there (2), most of the article seems a list rather than general coverage of the topic (3b), and has a separate large WP:CRITICISM section (4). Other concerns mentioned above also seem plausible, although I have no preference as to what exactly the final scope might be at the moment. CMD (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion the article needs a lot of work to "earn" the status... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]