Talk:Congestion pricing/Archive 1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is generally very good and reads well. Avoid mentioning the title of the article in the sub headers, for instance use "urban roads" instead of "congestion pricing in urban roads". There are several instances where there is an unnecessarily amount of prose; it is partially repeating itself and partially covering irrelevant areas—in particular the "old town" section needs rewrite. I would recommend a thorough copyedit where scrutiny is used to remove such things as presenting cities as capitals, and trimming down the detail level of the New York incident or the excessive amount of forward and back in the public controversy in London—the overload of statistics in the sections fails to clearly present the essence of the oppositions rationale. There seems to be a difference in the level of accuracy to the enforcement of the Manual of Style; some sections seem to not have been given the thorough copyedit expected before a GA nomination. Other issues include in-line citations not directly following punctuation (as recommended in MoS), wrongful use of boldface and several incidents of questionable capitalization. The hatnote is unnecessary long, and due to complex wording it fails to give the quick guide it is intended; at minimum rephrase and remove the New York link, and consider removing it at all. Also the second paragraph of the lead should be split in two. GA status requires that all such issues be dealt with; I recommend a thorough copyedit be performed on the entire article, and I would recommend rewriting parts of the public criticism and old-town sections altogether.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are several subjects that seem to be commented out—with a debate to their relevance, or merely with encouragements to translate sections or to include new sections. It is clear that there are issues related to the broadness of the coverage, and I fear that as long as they persist this article cannot achieve GA status. It does however strike me that some of the commented issues have been resolved, and the comments remain as ghosts. Also see comments under section 1 on detail level.

   My reading of the article, and of the comments page, is that the issues raised have been reasonably well dealt with, to the extent that this is possible without losing the focus of the article. The whole issue of traffic congestion is contentious and neutral points of view are hard to find; I know I have a different point of view on congestion when I'm walking to when I'm driving a car. Within the ambit of congestion pricing, any individual scheme needs to show that congestion is a problem, and that pricing is better than other potential solutions (including expanding road space). Neither is true in all cases, or false in all cases. I think the article does the best thing possible by providing details and links to individual schemes.Travelplanner (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

3. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The concerns arisen on the talk page seem to have been resolved.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Per comments in point 3.

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   Why have the images had forced sizes? It is in violation with MoS—I have removed the size tags.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is in general well written and covers the topic in an accurate way. However there remain challenges with this article; I have placed it on hold for a week so the concerns can be addressed. It fails to follow the Manual of Style, and occasionally the prose drowns the essence through excessive detours. It also has unresolved issues of content, and comments claim the article is not complete, and lacks coverage of certain areas. I expect these two main issues to be dealt with, after which I will be more than happy to take another look at the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I have now performed a copyedit on the entire article. I would recommend the authors use scrutiny to make sure I have not accidentally left out something, or otherwise miswritten something. A few comments; the

   lead

   is to summarize the article, not introduce it, and should contain a little from all the sections. It should be a little longer than present, but avoid formulations in the lead that can only be understood by economists; most people do not understand terms like equilibrium price or negative externalities, and these must be explained—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all sorts of people, not a textbook for scholars. Throughout the article I have tried to remove information not related to congestion pricing, and removed a detail level (particularly to dates and secondary matters) that are not important to understand the concept. People seeking more information can always read the articles on the individual schemes.

   On the public controversy I have rewritten it based on a per problem basis, instead of a geographic basis. Otherwise there is nothing on the criticism on "just another tax"-issue, as mentioned in the inline comment, and the text remains unclear as to the difference between the four classifications. I would have rewritten them to better explain (perhaps as a single paragraph before the four) but I fail to understand the difference from the current text. As to matter related to the WP:Manual of Style I recommend just plain reading it, and trying as good as you can to stick to it. It is not much to read, and will help make more consistent articles when editing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Mariordo being away I have done a "tidy up" edit mainly to fix some grammatical glitches which had crept in throughout the text, and to remove or explain jargon.Travelplanner (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I feel that the article now meets the criteria for good article status. However, I feel that I have contributed so much through the course of the review through rewriting several of the sections, that I am asking for a second opinion on the matter to insure the integrity of the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Second opinion per request: Some of the links used to source the article appear to be dead (run this tool to check the page). Obviously this pertains to the factual accuracy criterion, so these should be re-sourced or fixed. However, once that's addressed I have no other issues with this being listed as a GA, and much thanks to Travelplanner and Arsenikk for your hard work. I think this may be a candidate for
  splitting into separate articles at some point if it expands further, but for now, great job all ;) EyeSerene^talk
  09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The matter of dead links has now been seen to. Thanks for the second opinion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As already discussed in the

Dear Mariordo,

1. May I respectfully refer you to the
   WP:COOL
   essay.
2. Attempting to achieve a balanced article should not be characterised as soapboxing, and I resent that implication. Please concentrate on your argument and avoid any ad hominem.
3. You appear to be contradicting what you have said in discussions above: "For example Congestion pricing is exactly the same as Congestion charges, the former is the American term, the latter is the British one. See for example London congestion charge and New York congestion pricing, the concept is exactly the same in both cities, and by the way, sometimes is also a tax, see Stockholm congestion tax." (my bold).
4. And this is the crucial point, my edit did not assert that congestion pricing is a tax. My edit, in the appropriate "Urban roads" section, stated that practical (real-world) implementations of road congestion charges are widely referred to as congestion taxes. They are, and as you said above, one of them even has the word in its name!
5. Are you sure that transport economics literature never mentions the "tax" word? Even in discussions about real-world interpretations of the "congestion pricing" theory as pragmatically applied to traffic charges? How do they refer to the Stockholm Congestion Tax?
6. Mainstream media use the term - it is mainstream.
7. Critics of such schemes may also refer to it as a tax, but then critics are not likely to use the
   spun
   terms that the advocates of it, and those who stand to benefit from the revenues from it coin.
8. The fact that "congestion pricing", when applied as a traffic charge, is widely referred to as a congestion tax isn't solely in connection with controversy, so there is no need to bury that fact in the controversy section.
9. Editorials (and even blogs) can be from reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. However, the references that I supplied showed this term used in factual accounts in mainstream media RS references.

-- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PD: a tax is enacted by law with certain legal characteristics, and with the exception of the Stockholm congestion tax no other congestion user fee has the legal nature of a tax. In the controversies some people call it "...just another tax," but this claim does not make it a tax, even if mention a hundred times. That is why in the literature is recognized those fees are perceived by some as a tax. There is enough material in the books supporting the article, and the provided sources in the concerns & controversy section to work an entire subsection about this complaint. So I do suggest you might look at these sources and/or research a bit, and develop such sub-section, with the style and quality according to the article's Good Article status. Just inserting this claim in the wrong place is soapboxing--Mariordo (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting in the first English group in the "Newspaper of record" article, here are some examples in which the term "Congestion Tax" appears in "normal" English usage...

• The Australian: [1][2]
• The Australian Financial Review: [3][4][5]
• The Sydney Morning Herald: [6][7][8][9][10][11]
• The Age: [12][13][14][15]

-- de Facto (talk). 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DF, Mariordo has shown patience above & beyond the call of duty and been the epitome of cool over many months in dealing with your incessant attempts, over dozens of articles, to push a clearly minority POV that any usage charge on congestion, emissions, or other motoring expense is a tax. He has even embraced the inclusion of this minority view in articles, albeit in the context of controversy or a minority perspective. For each of your popular press articles cited we could pull out many, many more that refer to them as charges, levies, etc. I noted that many of your Ozzie reference articles also used other terms than tax. In technical literature you won't find such terminology. For your future guidance, I again ask you to take a look at a definition of tax such as: Chambers, or OED. Note they use the term "compulsory contribution". A pure Treasury fund-raising "tax" is compulsory, yet these traffic "charges" can be avoided by changing behaviour by changing fuels, routes, vehicle class, or mode. Ephebi (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebi, presumably you can support that attack with evidence? That will of necessity include the list of over a dozen articles in which Mariordo has had to deal with what you call my "incessant attempt" to "push" "clearly minority POV". You will, of course, also need to show which of my contributions to those articles were "clearly minority POV" of the type you describe. -- de Facto (talk). 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebi, my "popular press articles" were to demonstrate the validity of my contention that the term "congestion tax" is widely used when referring to congestion charges, and that that fact should be mentioned in the article. The other terms you mention are used in the article, so why not the one I suggest too? This is a Wikipedia article, not a transport economics text book, so real-world congestion charge terminology needs to be mentioned. A quick Google, for the various terms, on the websites of the Australian newspapers of record that I quote from above reveals the following number of results for each term:

We see that tax/taxes comes a very close second to charge/charges. Fee/fees and levy/levies fall way behind.

-- de Facto (talk). 23:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebi, you have just "proved" that income tax and purchase tax are not a taxes! Presumably you realise that it is not compulsory to have a taxable income? Presumably you realise that it is not compulsory to buy goods which attract purchase tax (VAT in the UK?)? The printed Oxford Concise Dictionary gives vehicle tax (Vehicle Excise Duty in the UK?) as an example of a tax - but what do they know eh? -- de Facto (talk). 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear DF, Australia's media has been grappling with its first time-related usage charges at Sydney Harbour etc., and so a quick glance through the literature by necessity shows a lot of conjectural future speculation. Are they still right to refer to this as a "tax" now? Will they continue to do so when it becomes generally accepted? The official line differs but, still, "charge" has been the official term reported in popular press: [16].

(BTW, I tried similar searches and got different numbers from you.)

Nonetheless, Mariordo has not been trying to silence the usage of the tax term, instead we've been trying to ensure that is is represented correctly & fairly as a (non-technical) opinion, where this applies, rather than the term used in mainstream economic theory. WP is not a good place for a tit-for-tat argument, but can be a good forum for sharing expertise and common sense. Instead I politely suggest you remind yourself of the contents of your own talk pages from 9 April 2008 when this issue was (first?) raised with you. And I am sure that you are at least as competent as I at looking through your own edit history. Ephebi (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebi, whether "they" are right or wrong, they refer to it in that way - very widely - in line with my contention. Would you consider that an article about the UK's

Community Charge

was complete and NPOV if it didn't mention the use of the term Poll Tax?

For the searches try the obvious variations on this.

You were implying that the use of the term was invalid, even ignorant - have you changed your mind? Are you planning to defend your serious accusations above with the appropriate evidence as requested? -- de Facto (talk). 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be obliged if you don't attribute things to me that I haven't said. Re-read my previous reply &

WP:NOTOPINION

and you have your answers. Thanks, 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What did I attribute to you that you hadn't said? -- de Facto (talk). 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebi, you made the accusation, I'm asking you to provide the evidence. Please detail what you describe as my "...incessant attempts, over dozens of articles, to push a clearly minority POV...":

1. Which clearly minority POV?
2. List the dozens of articles.

-- de Facto (talk). 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

DeFacto, thanks to Wiki's history tracking of our edits, anyone interested can check what you did and what you did not. As Ephebi mentioned, and to set the record straight, your edits have indeed been more disruptive than constructive, and you have been tagging for ^{[citation needed]} edits that reflect the mainstream knowledge of economics, and lattely, pushing "tax" as synonymous of "charging", which is not NPOV because it the preferred term used by those advocanting against such pricing schemes, and that is the POV you have been pushing in several articles, and worst, almost never providing RS. Look what difference it makes when you provide sources, you made your case with the Australian congestion tax, because you took the time to provide RSs. I suggest we do not waste more time making personnal attacks, and move on to close the issue you raised. I will continue below providing the rationale for my proposal and an outiline for everybody to comment on it.--Mariordo (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I refute, and resent, your claim that my "edits have indeed been more disruptive than constructive". My edits are designed to improve the NPOV of articles, and to ensure verifiability. If a statement makes a claim or an assertion which isn't immediately verifiable from a following inline reference, then it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed encouraged to place a {{fact}} tag. The onus is on the editor to show where the statement is derived from (see

WP:BURDEN). I've never "pushed", I may have been bold, but then that is encoraged too. The fact that "tax" may also be the preferred term of those who argue against such schemes probably only reflects real-world and popular perception of what the schemes actually are. I've not pushed POV I've encouraged NPOV. -- de Facto (talk

). 11:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have seen some of the evidence, what is the general feeling about including a phrase something like 'also popularly known as "congestion tax"'. At least in the section about road charges? -- de Facto (talk). 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are not inclined to work on a sub-section regarding the "tax" issue/controversy, so please re-read the article carefully (or use the FIND tool in your web browser) and take notice that despite being a minority view, not used in mainstream economics theory, but for the sake of NPOV as required by Wiki policies and to summarized past and ongoing debates, the article already says:

• In the lead paragraphs: Critics maintain that congestion pricing is not equitable, places an economic burden on neighboring communities, has a negative effect on retail businesses and on economic activity in general, and is just another tax.

• In the description section: Usually this means increasing prices during certain periods of time or at the places where congestion occurs; or introducing a new usage
  tax
  or charge when peak demand exceeds available supply in the case of a tax-funded public good provided free at the point of usage.

• In the cordon and area wide sub-section of the urban roads section: Cordon area congestion pricing is a fee or tax paid by users to enter a restricted area, usually within a city center, as part of a demand management strategy to relieve traffic congestion within that area. (By the way, it would be to this section that your proposed edit would belong, the other sub-sections talk of other options where it is not the government that necessarily gets the revenues, such as in the case of the Californian HOT lanes, or the Chilean urban freeway, etc., there is a concessionary who BOT, and they are repaying the investment, clearly not a tax.)

• The obvious case, every time the article is talking about Stockholm refers to the charge as a tax, since legally was issue as such, as I already explained above.

• The "Academic debate and concerns" sub-section mentions "tax" twice, and within the proper use by academics and economic literature referring to a common argument given by those against congestion pricing.
• The "Public controversy" sub-section mentions "tax" four times, explicitly showing the most common use by those opposing congestion pricing, and even repeating the same concept several times.

As a corollary, it is crystal clear that the article already reflects the use of "tax" as the word is used in the academic world in the context used by most, if not all, economists, by most of the English-language press, and also as it is used by those opposing congestion charges. Therefore, such a reference is not only unnecessary but also it is NOT truth that tax is a popularly known synonymous of congestion pricing or congestion charging as you are proposing, but rather the favorite word use by critics and some citizens against such traffic fees. Saying otherwise is OR and a violation of NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, a lot of information, but mostly not addressing the essential point. I am not proposing, or even suggesting, that the term "congestion tax" is popular in economics or transport engineering technical publications or literature, although, apparently, it is used there in certain contexts. Similarly, I am not talking about controversies surrounding these charges, or the prevalent terminology used in them.

What I am pointing out, and what is currently absent from the article, is that the term is popularly used in the popular media when referring to such charges. To deny that is futile, and to exclude its inclusion as such contravenes

WP:NPOV. -- de Facto (talk

). 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did checked the links you provided and search some more, and I think you have made a valid point regarding the local use of the term "congestion tax" in Australia, but not on a "worldwide" or common use. Can you hold a bit, until I have time tonight to explain why and make a proposal to end this discussion. In the meantime look at the section "terminology" in the Flexible-fuel vehicle article. I wrote it and believe it is possible to edit something similar here regarding congestion pricing, congestion charges, pollution charges, road pricing, urban tolls, and congestion taxes. Please wait.--Mariordo (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Officially it seems that the Ozzie charge is not treated as a tax but was legally constructed as a charge [17]. Being a variable charge it is getting more like the original mechanism proposed by Smeed. However, in the run-up before announcing the system used for Sydney Harbour the popular press and many politicians have seemingly freely used the term tax. Whether "tax" remains, or gets superceded by "charge" in common parlance in future is open to speculation. Ephebi (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether they are "legally" constructed as taxes, or not, only influences the "official" term for them, they will still remain whatever they literally are. Similarly once a term becomes common, it will stick, even if the thing that it refers to is "officially" renamed. Spun terms too, such as "Ecopass", cannot remove the underlying definition. -- de Facto (talk). 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mariordo, Well-done for reconsidering your stance, and reviewing the publications. I suspect that you may arrive at a similar conclusion to me - the term is very widely used. There is no rush and no pressure for a quick-fix now that we now appear to be moving towards a more consensual outcome again. -- de Facto (talk). 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal and outline for discussion

• 1. Common use of the term and "popularly known". A Google search, though with all the caveats (including changing significantly the number of hits with minor adjustments) at least works as a reference to have ball park figures. Using a closed search with " " and the maximum number of hits obtained, the result shows that congestion pricing and congestion charging add up to 1,32 million hits, while "congestion tax" shows 40,800 hits. This means that even including blogs, editorials and sites from advocating groups, pro and against, congestion tax is appears 3% of the time. If I now use for the calculation the minimum number of hits observed, this becomes 558,000 against 38,700, or 6.4% of the time. Therefore, we can conclude that "congestion tax" is not such "popularly known" term and definitely as used as the other two, regardless of the context, let Australia and Sweden apart, meaning its use its local not worldwide. This proxy shows that the article is consistent with the common use and the academic jargon. Just out of curiosity, the search adding the word Australia within " " operator is very low, so I did it again leaving the country or place out of the " ", resulting in 11,000 hits for Australia, and 7,150 hits for Stockholm is (Sweden is 6,600), so adding up both they represent almost half of all hits for "congestion tax". See the details below including the min and max number of hits I got at different times of the day (I do not know if this wide variation has something to do with my local Google server or the min I got with Mozilla and the max with Explorer - the minimum corresponds to the link included):

"congestion pricing" 333,000 to 987,000 hits (see here)

"Congestion charging" 225,000 to 337,000 (see here) or "congestion charge" 141,000 hits (see here)

"Congestion tax" 38,700 to 40,800 hits (see here)

"congestion tax" Australia 11,000 hits (see here)

"congestion tax" Stockholm 7,150 hits (see here)

and to support the proposal in the next section

"urban toll" 10,100 (see here)

"congestion toll" 14,100 hits (see here)

• 2. If there is agreement with the above, I proposed to include a terminology sub-section under the roads section, like this one. The following is an outline of the main contents with the basic concepts. I will work the details and final edit only if consensus is reached, so feel free to comment below each paragraph:

• Congestion pricing = Congestion charging or charges/fees, one is the American term and the other is the British one. Both are the most commonly used terms both in academic circles and literature, by the public press, and the general public.

• A further level of distinction is required. "Congestion pricing/charging" is the theoretical concept. "London Congestion Charge", "Stockholm Congestion Tax" & co. are pragmatic implementations, which do not necessarily fully adhere to all the theoretical principles, so are not necessarily pure implementations, and their names may be politically spun (e.g "Ecopass"). Congestion charges/fees/levies/taxes/tolls are the "things" that the users have to pay under the schemes, and should not be confused with the terms used for the concept ("Congestion charging/pricing"). -- de Facto (talk). 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Congestion pricing is sometimes confused with road pricing, both by press and by the public. Road pricing is a broader concept that includes gasoline taxes, parking fees, costs of ownership, annual vehicle fees, etc.

• Be careful with the POV again. I'd say something like: "... is a broader concept that includes charges, fees, taxes and tolls for fuel, parking, vehicle ownership, etc. Don't attemp to choose a specific term for each example. -- de Facto (talk). 14:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Congestion tax is used as synonymous to congestion pricing in some places, like Sweden and Australia. Often used in Australia by both the press, the public, and politicians, though it is legal nature is not officially a tax. In Sweden, the pricing scheme is called Stockholm congestion tax because legally was enacted as a tax. Do you want to mention it is more often used by advocates against?

• I wouldn't bother with this one because I suspect that the legal definition of a tax varies by jurisdiction, even though the literal meaning of the word is more flexible. c.f. Pigovian tax. The different terms can be covered in the terminology group discussion as outlined in the first point. -- de Facto (talk). 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Urban toll and congestion toll are other popular terms sometimes used. The latter is often used in the context of congestion pricing in corridors. Urban toll is the favorite translation in other languages, particularly those branched out from Latin, such Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian.

• Again, cover in the one terminology discussion. -- de Facto (talk). 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pollution charge is a term coined by Milanese authorities for their congestion price scheme. It is considered a variation of the congestion pricing programs in other countries because fees are based on the engine standard emissions reflecting the Ecopass program objective to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions, even banning vehicles with older more polluting engines.

• The Milan scheme is a hybrid, it's neither one thing or the other. It's apparent main objective is to reduce air pollution not congestion - so it probably falls outside of the scope of this article anyway. It can be mentioned in the "
  Pollution pricing" article. -- de Facto (talk
  ). 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be as comprehensive as possible, and some of this concepts are going to be though to support by direct RSs. Another option is not to include this sub-section, and instead to add the most relevant ideas at key paragraphs of the existing article. Now, let's have some feedback.--Mariordo (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your count rationale is flawed, and you are missing the point again.

I'm not arguing against the use of "congestion pricing" or even "congestion charging", I'm suggesting that "congestion tax" is a term in popular use as an alternative to "congestion charge" (not to "congestion charging"), "congestion fee", "congestion levy", etc.

A term count across the entire internet cannot possibly be used to judge whether a term is in popular use or not in the road congestion charging field, which is all we are discussing here. Also the particular choice of phrase for particular schemes can heavily influence the use of a term. For instance the count for "congestion charge" is heavily influenced by the notoriety of the London Congestion Charge. Of the 143,000 hits on "congestion charge", "London congestion charge" is in 110,000 of them. A search which also includes a country name does not help. If I write a piece about a local topic, I don't automatically include the country name in it. In fact, I'd probably only include the country name if the target audience was largely in another country.

To determine the "popularity" of a term you need to target a source that more closely reflects popular use. That is why I targeted newspapers. I think I have already shown that "congestion tax" is in popular use, in Australia at least. You need to search across English-language newspapers, books, tv, and such like, to get a true feel for what in popular use. -- de Facto (talk). 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am lost here. Even you agree that the use of "congestion tax" is popular only in Australia, as the proposal says, so, what is wrong with it. The Google count is just a gross reference, but clearly all terms have biases, and your preferred term shows mainly in the Australian debate. And what about the rest of the proposal?--Mariordo (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed that he term was popular only in Australia, the first group of newspapers in "Newspaper of record" happened to be Australian. It may be popular elsewhere too.

I do support a sub-section, similar to the one you describe, explaining the variety of terminology surrounding this subject. That doesn't mean that I don't also expect the rest of the article to be NPOV, and inclusive of all political, social and non-specialist views too. I'll add comments directly after your thoughts on this as you suggested.

Here are some more interesting term counts, from Google Books and from Google Scholar.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I did complete your search, because you skipped "congestion pricing", which results in 7510 hits in Google Scholar, plus 2420 hits of congestion charge, adds up to 9930 for the two most common terms, meaning that congestion tax represents only 4,7% of the word use (486 hits). Therefore, this result confirms my much gross finding above. So again, there is clear evidence that congestion tax IS NOT as popularly known as you proposed, but rather sometimes used as synonymous of congestion pricing or congestion charges, and much more used, or, commonly used in Australia. For me this issue is more than settle, but if you still insist on playing around with language and philosophical questions, please provide RSs. Also I would appreciate more specific comments on the proposal above. By the way you commented on them you almost persuade me that it is not worth it to include such section in the article. We all have to be aware of and separate our opinions and our views of the world from an enciclopedic NPOV, and in Wiki this is solved in a good part by editing based on reliable sources, not our interpretations of the content in these RS.--Mariordo (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "congestion pricing" applies in all cases in my table, so if you add it to the count for one of the alternative terms used for the resultant "amount of money to pay", then you must add it to them all. "Congestion pricing" or "congestion charging" gives rise to an amount of money having to be paid, by some, to use a facility. That "amount of money to pay" is referred to using a variety of terminology, some of the main terms being in my table above. It is whether to deliberately exclude one of those terms that we are discussing. The "amount of money to pay" is never referred to as the "congestion pricing" or as the "congestion charging". "Congestion price" may also be used and another one: "congestion tariff". I've added them to the table below.

So you see that "congestion tax" is more commonly used, in the books and papers indexed, than "congestion fee" or "urban toll". There is no "playing around" involved, it is a serious issue of balance.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But even assuming all your analysis is right, two facts remaing: 1. The most commonly used terms in both the academic and real world are congestion pricing and congestion charges, as the article reflects; and 2. Congestion tax, as the other terms you listed, are used by a minority or seldom used, with the exception of Australia, ergo it is not correct to say "congestin tax" is a "popularly known" term (or any of the other terms you searched).--Mariordo (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The most common, and probably the most generally acceptable, term for the charge applied under a congestiion pricing scheme seems to be "congestion charge", yes. May I suggest then for consistency that we use just it (obviously except where terminology is being discussed) throughout the article when referring to the actual charge, and only "congestion pricing" when refering to the principle, and add the section you suggested to discuss the all the prevalent terminology in use, and add an aka clause in the lead. -- de Facto (talk). 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Lets not put too much blind faith in the statistics of google searches. As both of you have said at various times, it not an accurate measure of acceptability. And nor does it imply that any particular term is accurate or encyclopaedic. When I looked at a random sample of few of the articles in the "congestion tax" counts above, some of them do not refer to specific schemes, others relate to to charges not being taxes, and others to other non-transport topics, such as building/planning control, etc. Its apparent that these google searches are an impractical, overinflated measure because you cannot get a meaningful count without reading the context. Ephebi (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree 100%, those were just gross numbers, context is the key as your correctly pointed out. I hope you can help me a bit explaining that in the discussion of version 1.2 below---Mariordo (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal evolution

My proposed evolution of the above proposal by Mariordo for a "Terminology" sub-section for the "Urban roads" section.

Congestion pricing and congestion charging are used interchangeably as terms to describe the general concept and principle of this method of attempting to reduce congestion, the former is the American term and the latter is the British one. They are the most commonly used terms both in academic circles and literature and by the public media. Congestion pricing is sometimes confused with road pricing, both by the press and by the public. Road pricing is a broader concept that includes charges, fees, taxes and tolls for fuel, parking, vehicle ownership, etc.

Schemes such as the London Congestion Charge and the Stockholm Congestion Tax, and similar schemes, are pragmatic implementations of the congestion pricing doctrine, although they do not necessarily fully adhere to all the prescribed principles of such schemes. The official names given to schemes may not necessarily reflect the precise nature of the scheme in question.

As a result of the implementation of such a scheme, certain users, will, at certain times, have pay a "congestion charge" to use the road. Some of the other terms in general use when referring to the "congestion charges" are: "congestion fee", "congestion levy", "congestion price", "congestion tariff", "congestion tax", "congestion toll" and "urban toll". The choice of term may be influenced by jurisdiction, geographical location, political persuation or advocacy group.

Please discuss. -- de Facto (talk). 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we are making progress! I answer back to you during the weekend. There are a couple of phrases that might need adjustment to avoid OR and in need of RS, and some style issues that I want to review first.-- ). Mariordo (talk 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

DF, please wait! If we were to have this section it does not mean you are free to change the wording in the entire article, you can not change what is stated in a source like that, it depends on the content, style (many times you change congestion pricing for congestion fees or congestion charges just for the sake of not keep repeating the same word), and always OR has to be avoided. Also, I want to remind you this is a Good Article, therefore, modifications and new edits have to keep the quality the article already has or improve it. Please wait, I will be making my proposal soon, but be aware that I want other editors to give a word on this section, particularly Ephebi, this is not something you and I are going to decide alone.--Mariordo (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal version 1.2

Proposed text for "Terminology"

Congestion pricing(

• Note: Of course there is going to be more refs, particularly in the second paragraph. For the sake of simplifying the discussion, we can return to that important detail later, and just point it the most controversial one. I included the tag ^[citation needed] as an example of info that needs RS. I think we can avoid too many refs by using Wiki links.

• I suggest tweaking any such text to describe the very precise origin of the term. AIUI:

The Canadian economist William Vickrey first coined the term "congestion pricing" in his original work on "marginal cost pricing" for managing demand for the World Bank in the 1950s. This was followed by the mathematician and transport planner RJ Smeed in the UK a decade later; in his book "Road pricing: the economic and technical possibilities" he recommended variable charging to manage traffic levels in congested networks

All the on-line references I can find for Vickrey use this term. I don't think Smeed used one specific term. Unfortunately I'm not aware of the original publications being on-line sources. Ephebi (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, that will improve the section. Vickrey is no problem, there are RS on the web citing his work. I can look for Smeed.

Pending issues

• I completely disagree that if the article has a "Terminology" sub-section, this entitles any editor you change wording and terms already in the article. First, the main purpose of any terminology section is to clarify to the reader which terms are synonymous, which ones are used incorrectly or confused, etc., and also will help contributing editors to write the article with the correct/proper and most commonly used/known terms, without constantly having to clarify the meaning. Second, in order to keep NPOV and to faithfully reflect the content from the sources, whenever possible (style is an exception), the original wording must be kept. By no means a terminology section objective is to pass judgment in the content or the wording used by the source, if it is a RS. I think that if these basic assumptions are troublesome, then we better do a simple
  disambiguation page
  , because they are so succinct that usually they are good at avoiding any NPOV or OR discussions.

• If words such as "tax" and "fee" are to be marginalised in the terminology section, then how can their use in the main article, outside of direct quotes, be justified? -- de Facto (talk). 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The following paragraph is OR and there are no RS that I am aware of that backup such claim: Schemes such as the London Congestion Charge and the Stockholm Congestion Tax, and similar schemes, are pragmatic implementations of the congestion pricing doctrine, although they do not necessarily fully adhere to all the prescribed principles of such schemes. The official names given to schemes may not necessarily reflect the precise nature of the scheme in question. Here you need reliable sources to support these interpretations. See also my comment below regarding theory vs practice.

• Have you looked for sources to support that assertion? Do you believe that all current schemes purported to be, or reported as "congestion pricing" schemes are nothing else? -- de Facto (talk). 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The following text is vague, so I proposed a simpler version that is not making the unnecessary difference between congestion pricing and the fees themselves, how you used it depends on the context, is more of writing style: As a result of the implementation of such a scheme, certain users, will, at certain times, have pay a "congestion charge" to use the road. Some of the other terms in general use when referring to the "congestion charges" are: "congestion fee", "congestion levy", "congestion price", "congestion tariff", "congestion tax", "congestion toll" and "urban toll". The choice of term may be influenced by jurisdiction, geographical location, political persuation or advocacy group.

• "Pricing" is one thing - the system, a "charge" is an entirely different thing, the amount of money to be paid. -- de Facto (talk). 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• I do not feel it is necessary nor very accurate to mention that "congestion tax" is often used by those advocating against such schemes, because actually they complaint is that congestion charges are other form of taxes or disguise taxation, but the term "congestion tax" is not used that often. Therefore, this issue is out of the scope of a terminology section and the article already mentions this fact, properly sourced, several times throughout the text.

• "Congestion tax" is a common term used by newspapers, politicians, academics and the public alike. I agree that it isn't only used by those who advocate against such schemes. -- de Facto (talk). 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• One clarification is important. Economic theory defines a pricing mechanism such as "congestion charges" but it never goes into the details of implementation, as the version 1.1 of the text proposed is assuming. Economist talk about optimal solutions and second-best solution, as most literature foresaw the controversy that practical implementation implies, and advocated for "second-best solutions" to mitigate the associated problems, such inequality, more burden on the poor, etc. Despite all the theory, the biggest unknown is the actual price to be charged, as the theory does not allow for such accurate calculation, so in the real world it is each local government that must decide the fee structure and how much is going to charge, meaning, in practice it is a political decision that takes into consideration the investment and operating costs of the charging system, and the money that will be directed to transit and other improvements. I can provide all RS from the books already cited in the article to support this explanation, if required. Note: My OR, this is a tough decision for politicians to make because the more successful the charge is the less revenue you get; also very low charges will not reduce significantly traffic congestion, but very high charges will cause political unrest. Furthermore, as the 25 year-old Singapore case has shown, with time you always go back to pre-charge levels, as auto use and ownership continues to increase year after year, although you are better off than doing nothing, but this is too technical for most people to grasp. This is a trial and error process and economists do not attempt to make an estimate, because there are no analytical tools for doing so.

• Yes, the article should be clear that schemes, generally, are not pure "congestion pricing" implementations, with many "political" features also being included. -- de Facto (talk). 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please note with a tag the texts you think must have a specific RS, as I did with the use of value pricing as example.

I proposed we do the comments and suggestions below each of the above paragraphs.--Mariordo (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More pending issues

1. "Congestion pricing" and "congestion charges" are not synonymous. Pricing generally means the setting of a price or applying a price, so "congestion pricing" is basically the system of setting the price of congestion, and is similar in meaning to "congestion charging". Charges is the plural of charge, which is the amount of money due, or to be paid, and is similar in meaning to fee, tax, levy, etc. That is why I suggested the form of words that I did above.

• Because English is not my native language, and I am more used to American English, I do not fully grasp the subtleties of the language, particularly British. However, considering all I have read it seems that the plural term "congestion charges" is in fact being widely used as synonymous of "congestion pricing" and the singular is used to refer to the actual fee. This new use of the term might be the result of the London scheme and the name they choose. Can we wait until more British editors give an opinion on this one. At Wiki the common use must prevail, though I understand that what you are pointing is grammatically correct, but the meaning seems to be different depending on the context.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "Road pricing" isn't only "aimed to restrain auto use and ownership". That may be one of its aims in certain cases.

• Yes, traditional tolling is used to payback the investment or simply to increase government revenues. So, it needs expanding.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The literal English meaning of the word "tax" does not change, even if an authortity chooses not to use the word tax to describe a congestion charging scheme, or in the law enacting it.

• Tax should be used only when enacted as such, the use of the word is contentious, so, it use must be avoided out of context. We are not allowed at Wiki to judge the legal nature, the sources speak louder. The article explains the proper context, and I think it is important to mention the common use in Australia.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. If this reference from an Australian
   tabloid newspaper
   , in which a politician is reported to deny that the the Australian system is a tax, is good enough to support your POV that it isn't a tax, it is surely also good enough, as the same politicain is also reported as characterising the London and Singapore schemes as taxes, to support those facts too.

• The important thing is who said, in this case a government official. The source is valuable because it is clarifying that it was not enacted as a tax, but everybody call it a congestion tax, and the official term the government is using is variable tolling by time-of-the-day. That is the piece of information that is relevant. This can be solved including the paragraph I suggested below that explains why politicians and technicians avoid/wash the term.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The stockholm system is a tax enacted as a tax, for legal expediency apparently. In what practical ways does it differ from other congestion pricing schemes?

• For example, the fees paid by the Swedish are tax deductible from the income tax to avoid double taxing. The legal figure matters, and how taxes are treated legally vary from country to country. In my comment above, a toll being collected by a private party to repaid the investment is not a tax.--Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-- de Facto (talk). 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence that congestion charges are also popularly regarded as taxes in places other than Australia. The start date for the "London congestion charge" was described in the Daily Telegraph, a leading British newspaper and RS, in an article titled "Congestion charges: the creeping tax", as follows: "The tax on traffic coming into central London starts a week today."[18] -- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

These two refs (RS) NYTimes and ITS Decision(a vendor) provide good support for the claim that some of the wording has been washed for political reasons. Would you Google for at least one more and make a proposal for a paragraph that would go after several less used terms, and some of those can be included in the list. This is an example of how you should avoid non NPOV and support your edits with a NPOV. Can you do the same with the other issues you raised, but please, contentious issues required more than 1 ref (I do prefer 3 at least)--Mariordo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you disagree with the updates I did tonight, please!!! discussed it here first, in a separate section, but let's finish this one first.

I removed this reference from the 'Description' section paragraph about William Vickrey as I have a question about its attribution.

{{Cite web
  |author=Vickrey, William
  |year=1992
  |url=http://www.vtpi.org/vickrey.htm
  |title=Principles of Efficient Congestion Pricing
  |accessdate=2008-02-26
  |publisher=Victoria Transport Policy Institute
}}

What evidence is there that William Vickrey is the author of this? If he is; was he writing about himself, including his own death, in the third person, or is it another William Vickrey? -- de Facto (talk). 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• ISBN 978-0-415-28515-5{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  ) (Amazon.com.uk has it fo £26.99). It is not nice what you are doing, and it is making me waste my time policing you. I rather spent my time here at Wiki doing productive work, improving or creating new articles, rather than having these endless discussions and reversing your OR and non NPOV.

• "Ridiculous"? Was the author of the cited document William Vickrey (who is actually stated to have died in 1996)? Did VTPI write the document? If they did, why doesn't the cite state that? Is it a
  WP:RS? -- de Facto (talk
  ). 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Read carefully: VTPI is reproducing some ideas Vickrey wrote, of course, before he died.--Mariordo (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does dropping Vickrey as author= solves your concern, then do so, and leav VTPI as the publisher. But this is no reason to delete the ref. VTPI is the one saying he is the father of congestion pricing, and that is what the inline citation is about. Nothing of what they are reproducing from Vickres's work is being reproduced in the article.--Mariordo (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Not nice what you are doing"? I'm challenging the accuracy of the cite, and all you have done is to confirm that the cite is indeed factually incorrect. I would say it is "not nice" what you are doing. Why are you "policing" me in these articles, and reverting my edits before discussing them? How many times have you wasted your own time recently reverting my "OR" and "non NPOV" edits, only to later accept them as justified? Please concentrate on "doing productive work", and do not worry about my edits. I am a long-standing editor committed to balance, NPOV and RS. -- de Facto (talk). 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• The economic theory behind congestion pricing is mainstream, I have tried by best to edit without technical jargon (such the optimal price must correspond to the short-term marginal cost) and reflect the ongoing practical implementation using the common use wording, included the caveats recognized by economists, and the practical implementation as reported by the popular press, and attended your observations and anyone else to keep the series of articles with a NPOV. Whether you like it or not, Ecopass is indeed both congestion pricing and pollution charges, that is how the municipality of Milan enacted it, and this fact is supported by the provided reliable sources. Nitpicking the parts you like from the sources is not NPOV, and your opinion or mine is just OR. Wiki is not a blog nor a platform to advocate your point of view or agenda. Please be more serious.

• This does not excuse your revertion of my fully explained removal of a factually inaccurate citation. -- de Facto (talk). 11:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have had lots of patience with you, explored the issues you raised, and even explain to you the concepts behind congestion pricing. However, because of your disruptive behavior, if you jump into one more of your impulsive editing rallies, I will formally request the administrators for a ban, restricting you to edit any of the series of articles on road pricing, congestion pricing, road taxation, and the city/country case related articles. I ask you to finish the discussion here before doing more hasty edits here, on the Ecopass, or any of the articles in the series.

• I patiently tolerate your apparent "revert first, discuss later" response to my edits, confident that after an initial tirade, you will generally accept inclusion of much of what I am putting forward. I may employ the recommended "
  WP:BOLD" approach to help achieve balance, but I would certainly dispute that it could be characterised as "disruptive behaviour". Some though, may well characterise your mass-reversions as "disruptive". However, I do not plan to attempt to stifle your valuable contributions by threatening to have you banned. -- de Facto (talk
  ). 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, be patient because I will take some time for me to respond to your comments giving the gymnastics you decided to do with the meaning of the words instead of looking at context. I will be quite busy the following next three weeks, but I'll be dropping by from time to time, and providing my feedback one by one of the issues you raised. It also is important to hear other opinions.--Mariordo (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What "gymnastics? Is this about the incorrect reference? -- de Facto (talk). 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies for taking this liberty but it was patently in the 3rd person. I note that you had escalated it as a non-RS to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have answered your question there. IMHO it seems apparent that by changing the entry from author=Vickrey, William to author=Victoria Transport Policy Institute you have an appropriate answer. Ephebi (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to all of the above questions

The following is the answer to all of De Facto's questions regarding my general comment above. I will be straight forward, and even risking being snobbish, but I do want to put an end to this nonsense ping pong game between you and I, so we both can do a more productive contribution here at Wiki.

• First, as you know I do have an academic background and professional experience on public policy, transport economics, transport planning and engineering, and civil engineering. As the main contributor to this article (235 out of 432 edits as of today) I have aimed since the beginning to write a comprehensive article, in a professional style but avoiding academic jargon as much as possible, and with a NPOV, reflecting the economist’s view and also the real world implementation, with its reactions and controversies. After the article gained
  Feature article article
  . Through the entire article development several editors have contribute, including you, but it is necessary to maintain the professional style if the article is to make it for FAC, otherwise might even lose its GA status.

• Global warming controversy
  Talk pages and its archives, to see this protocol working in practice.

• I have been patient with you, and even went to the effort of trying to explain some economic concepts, and the above discussions are proof of that. However, if you are really serious about contributing constructively and being less disruptive, you do need to read the sources throughout (sometimes you have clearly cherry picked what supports your POV) and stop focusing so narrowly on words, out of context, and worst, ignoring that these wordings have a technical meaning in the theory of pricing. Going even further, if you are so interested in this subject then why you don’t make the effort to grasp the basic economic concepts behind congestion pricing, so we level the playing field. The book I recommended above is a textbook for grad students, but the following two were written for the general public:

• Harford, Tim (2007), The Undercover Economist, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York,
  ISBN 978-0-345-49401-6
  This one explain all the concepts and particularly Chapters 3 (pricing signals) and 4 (Crosstown Traffic) explicitly discusses externality charges or charging (the author uses both) and the economic rationale of congestion pricing, including pros and cons.
• Sperling, Daniel and Deborah Gordon (2009), Two billion cars: driving toward sustainability,
  ISBN 978-0-19-537664-7
  Chapters 2 and 9 have a brief discussion about congestion pricing in the context of a low-carbon transport system, as part of climate change concerns.

• Finally, I think we all need to spell out more clearly our questions and concerns, to be more specific, to cool down before answering, as the only way to avoid miscommunication and avoid wasting time in reversing each other edits. And wait patiently for the answers. I hope this helps to do a more constructing editing, and allow us to have a "Terminology" section with the participation of all the regular editors. --Mariordo (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Mariordo! I agree with most of that. If I had a quibble, it would be be with the implication that a strong technical background results in a more NPOV, and that the views of laymen must be minority, so should be consigned to a special section.

I suspect that part of the cause of recent terminology "discussions" is that we have a slight geographical, cultural or other language "mismatch" where it comes to the choice and understanding of terminology. English, has a very rich vocabulary, with many words for the same thing, and with variations (sometimes huge, sometimes very subtle) in meanings of the same words between geographies and cultures.

I think we definitely need to avoid is the use of spun terminology. Economists, politicians or whoever may well coin a phrase or a term for a concept or scheme, which deliberately, or otherwise, avoids the use of the more honest and transparent words. This terminology should, of course, be mentioned, but should certainly not be used or referred to as the accepted term for the thing that it refers to. This includes accepting at face value claims that certain schemes are "congestion pricing" schemes, because they are described as such in RS media reports, or by the authority implementing them (primary sources). We should only describe schemes as "congestion pricing" with RS supported evidence that have all the qualifying characteristics of a "congestion pricing" scheme. -- de Facto (talk). 11:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I guess you miss this I wrote above regarding the terminology. This shows that you are misinterpreting my answer.

• These two refs (RS) NYTimes and ITS Decision(a vendor) provide good support for the claim that some of the wording has been washed for political reasons. Would you Google for at least one more and make a proposal for a paragraph that would go after several less used terms, and some of those can be included in the list. This is an example of how you should avoid non NPOV and support your edits with a NPOV. Can you do the same with the other issues you raised, but please, contentious issues required more than 1 ref (I do prefer 3 at least)--Mariordo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• And second, what you wrote in your last paragraph is flagrant OR, we are not allow to interpret "spun terminology". At Wikipedia we are NOT allow to pass judgment on the wording, nor cleansing or sanitizing the content as published. However, we can write a paragraph like the one I suggested and reproduced for you above. --Mariordo (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are looking at it the wrong way around. You (if I understand correctly) are suggesting that we accept, at face value, what the authorities call it in the primary sources, and that we need RS to support dissent. I am suggesting that the primary sources should be used with caution, and their assertions only accepted if proof of their validity (not just of the use of the term) is provided from secondary RS sources. OR means not supported with RS, and can apply if only primary sources are used. -- de Facto (talk). 12:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)