This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
The editor who created this article is confusing road pricing with congestion pricing. Not only the existing articles here in Wikipedia make clear the difference, but quite a body of transport economics. I am aware that some people confuse both terms, even some journalists in the UK. In a nutshell, the article was named Road pricing ..., put a banner excluding other charges but congestion charges, and then in the content talk about several charges. If the editor intend was to only deal with "road pricing systems designed to reduce traffic levels and congestion ..." then the correct title should be Road congestion pricing in the United Kingdom (in this case "road congestion charges" would not so precise as "congestion pricing"). As "Road pricing in the UK" the content automatically includes any direct charges for using the roads are included, so why use a title that does not includes the whole concept?. If the same article name is kept, then tolls and other direct charges should be included and the top banner removed. If this issue is not addressed soon, I will open a discussion for renaming this article.--Mariordo (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally a split from the more general 'road pricing' article. I initially proposed it on the talk page of that article with the current title. There were no comments regarding the title (for or against) for nearly a month until Mariordo raised some concerns which led to a discussion on that page. That discussion is part of a larger one taking place on Talk:road pricing between Mariodo and myself on the issue raised above which I believe may soon need to go to mediation. I do note from talk:road pricing that a proposed merge of Road pricing to Toll Road was unanimously rejected back in 2007 which seems to be one of the options being proposed for this article. As such I feel that the UK article is fine as it stands. Personally I urge Mariordo to focus on pending discussion on talk:road pricing and reconsider if it is appropriate to request an expert opinion on this article until that it resolved. PeterEastern (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In justification of the title, it is used because the term 'road pricing' is more generally used in the UK as a number of references indicate. Also because there was a move to include a substantial air pollution charge into the London 'congestion' charge and because the London low emission zone charge is solely about air quality which are not 'congestion charges'. Personally I believe that the boundary between charges for raising revenue, improving air quality, reduce congestion will only get even more mixed in future, which is possibly why policy makers are using the 'road pricing' term in the first place. PeterEastern (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
