Talk:Congestion pricing

Not market economics???
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)


 * 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 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

Long term effects
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.

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * "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)


 * 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)

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)


 * "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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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, with congestion levels continuing to rise. 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * '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)

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)

Long term effects, part 2
"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)
 * 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. 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. TfL found no clear trend in the congestion data from 2007 to 2012, 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. 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.
 * 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)

GA Reassessment

 * in my opinion the article needs a lot of work to "earn" the status... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)