Talk:Time-based pricing

Merge in of Congestion pricing

The two definitions sound very similar to me. Perhaps we need a joint article discussing the theory, with separate sections for each notable variation on this theme. -- de Facto (talk). 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not think this is a good idea. Congestion pricing refers to public goods (utilities and public services) and their externalities (congestion in this particular case), while time-base pricing refers to private goods and services under free competition, essencially, how private firms do their pricing. Follow the references, particularly K. Button, and in particular all the existing literature on this subject in the transportation economics literature and papers. There are plenty of references in the congestion pricing article. Other readings to clarify the issue: welfare economics, congestion pricing is looking for maximizing social welfare, time-based pricing is about maximizing profits; Commons dilemma applies only to public goods and is one of the justifications for congestion pricing, it has nothing to do with time-base pricing; see also Pigovian tax, Externalities and follow the "see also" links. I request speedy deletion of the Merge banner. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all of the many references, but it would seem that congestion pricing is a specialised variety of time-based pricing. The Vickrey reference states "Vickrey ['the father of Congestion Pricing'] considered time-of-day pricing as a classic application of market forces to balance supply and demand". The time-based pricing article describes "The rational background of time-based pricing is expected or observed change of the supply and demand balance during time". Aren't they just different ways of saying the same thing. The theory is identical. Roads, railways,

electricity supply, can all be 'public goods' or private profitable services. In a socialist system, the level of "social welfare" may be equated to "profit" in a capitalist system. -- de Facto (talk). 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same, your are missunderstanding Vickrey's statement, but please, read the references to level the play field, and we talk about it thereafter.Mariordo (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of congestion pricing has been improved, and now I think it makes clear that it is a completely different concept than time-based pricing, so there is no merit for the proposed merge. See aditional explanations in the congestion pricing talk page. The only similar content relates to the paragraphs on electric power utilities, which despite the terminology used, indeed is talking about congestion pricing. My first sugestion is to move that part from the time-based pricing as a new section in the congestion pricing article, it will fit perfectly to the aplications already presented (but some editing will be required to make it compatible with the existing article). The rest of the text might stay here, as it refers exclusively to private firms pricing strategies for doing business. However, and this is my second suggestion, the remaining of the article is actually talking about variable pricing, thus, time-base pricing could be merge as a section of variable pricing. Mariordo (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) and Mariordo (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a good idea to merge. Congestion charging is on many exam specifications and they don't mean Time-based pricing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.Russell43 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - While the original Smeed Report into road pricing considered variable rates all actual transportation-related congestion pricing schemes to date have avoided dynamic time-weighting (with the partial exception of the 2nd generation Singapore ERP system) per the description in Time based pricing. Ephebi (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~. The lead to time-based pricing states "The rational background of time-based pricing is expected or observed change of the supply and demand balance during time." That description applies exactly to congestion pricing too. For example, the London congestion charge, implemented to cut day-time congestion, a charge is made to enter the zone when the demand needs to be cut, during the working day, and no charge is made at other times. It attempts a "change of the supply and demand balance during time". Congestion pricing is an application of time-based pricing, with the emphasis on reducing demand at peak times - like with electricity, rail fares, etc. -- de Facto (talk). 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I've changed my mind. The time-based pricing article confuses the two concepts, and includes some stuff on congestion pricing which shouldn't be there - it needs cleaning up. I'll remove the tags. -- de Facto (talk). 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my explanations above and in the talk page of the Congestion pricing article. Also my two suggestions above. The proposed merge is like mixing water with gasoline. Congestion pricing is related to public goods and it aims at provoking a re-distribution of peak-demand, in order to gain more efficiency in the use of that public good. Congestion pricing is trying to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons, in economic terms. The time-base pricing article has nothing to do with these concepts, and furthermore, is actually mostly talking about Variable pricing not time-base. You can not base this decision in one line, read the case presented in the article. Mariordo (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I am glad there was consensus. I will move the texts relating to power utilities to congestion pricing, and later on try to improve the explanation and look for more sources to back up the information presented. Mariordo (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.traveldaily.cn/en/11146.html (other sources likely, as text placed by same contributor). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]