Talk:Electronic Road Pricing

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Singapore Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Transport Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, came across this very interesting article and would like to find out if the facts and figures quoted are verifiable? According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts.

as well as from

Wikipedia articles should cite their sources, preferably reliable sources.

For example, "For example, the ERP gantry along the Central Expressway (CTE) has been said to have caused traffic to increase substantially in north-south trunk roads, such as along the Thomson Road and Serangoon Road corridors." - said by who?

=Travisyoung= 07:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I based that on newspaper articles read over the years, with quotes from members of the public who were interviewed. If a source is needed, time will be required to search for it.--Huaiwei 07:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Anon] 11:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?

"Implemented by the Land Transport Authority in September 1998 to replace the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme, it was the first city in the world to implement electronic toll collection."

It is a bold claim to state without a source, and may be verifiably inaccurate. Thanks.

User:Huaiwei sparked the conflicts in this edit, which he removed all content about ERP in Hong Kong while marking in the edit summary that the edit was an " Expand ". I went on to add the section on Hong Kong back, and expanded it [1]. After that, Huaiwei had taken a Singapore-centric point of view that she/he moved the content on the Hong Kong system to the "implementation in other cities" section [2]. He did the same again and said " the ERP is not unique enough for HK to have it mentioned in the first para. " [3], and " The ERP remains in existance only in Singapore thou " [4].

To my understanding Hong Kong was the first place on Earth to have considered to adopt the ERP, and to have conducted feasibility studies and pilot test. As the only city to have a running system called ERP fails to claim the uniqueness of ERP to Singapore, and justify her/his Singapore-centric point of view in editing. — Instantnood 07:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are two types of "ERP" we are talking about:

1. "ERP", is an abbreviation for "electronic road pricing", refers to a technology, and a adjective phrase of a system/trial/plan etc.
2. "ERP", is an abbreviation for "Electronic Road Pricing", refers an actual system used in Singapore (or in other countries, if it happened to be similarly named)

In the other version, where it says "Hong Kong ... conducted a trial run on an ERP system", this refers to the first meaning (i.e. technology); because the use of the "an", instead of "the", indicates so. This article with the title "Electronic Road Pricing" refers to the second meaning, the name of an actual system. I suggest the creation for another article with "Electronic road pricing (technology)" if deem necessary to do justice to the first meaning. --Vsion 07:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The system proposed and tested in Hong Kong is called Electronic Road Pricing. It happened that the Singaporean system used the same name a decade later, which, unlike the one in Hong Kong, has successfully been implemented. There's already an article on the technology in general at electronic toll collection. :-) — Instantnood 08:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It was User:Huaiwei who changed the meaning in his edit [5] :-) . — Instantnood 08:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the text on HK should be moved to electronic toll collection or to its own page. As far as I read it, the ERP system discribed in this page is addresing the Singaporean system directly, and it is the official name of an implimented system. On the other hand, the trails on-going in HK dosent neccesarily mean the final system will be named as such. London, for example, chose to give it a different name. Meanwhile, I also dont think terminologies like this are "claimed" by the first users, if it is extablished as such (When did Singapore first come up with the idea, for eg?). The term ERP has similarly been used by many other cities, but it is now most closely associated with the system in Singapore.--Huaiwei 08:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong system has always been known as Electronic Road Pricing. Whether or not it is successfully implemented is irrelevant. By proposing to have this page solely for the system in Singapore you are effectively claiming its use on Wikipedia exclusively for the first and only user of a system with such a name. The opinion " is now most closely associated with the system in Singapore " is plain Singapore-centric. — Instantnood 09:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry lah, when the HK's ERP system is up, and the name doesn't changed, there will be a disambiguation page. Just like what was done for Mass Rapid Transit. :-) --Vsion 10:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's irrelevant whether it's an active system or not. There can be article for anything that is proposed, under planning or defunct. :-) — Instantnood 10:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

If it is merely under planning, then what makes it any different from the plenty of other cities who are planning the same system, also called the ERP sometimes? These cities can be listed under the "Implementation in other cities" section, since a mere proposal usually dosent warrant an entire page on it. I dont know why this article should be interpreted as claiming it being "the first and only user of a system with such a name." Where is the evidence that HK came up with that name? And meanwhile, try using google, and we can all see that the ERP is much more associated with Singapore then any other city on earth.--Huaiwei 10:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That does not justify "Electronic Road Pricing" is unique to Singapore. Try search on Google and you can tell if Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong is notable. — Instantnood 12:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well well well, 236,000 (ERP + Singapore) vs 196,000 (ERP + Hong Kong). Does it speak for itself? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An SAR's evidence. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a third meaning of ERP: "Enterprise Resource Planning" which contributed most of the hits, you should instead try "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong and "Electronic Road Pricing" + Singapore. Anyway I accept that the Hong Kong's ERP proposal is called "Electronic Road Pricing" (based on the 2001 document), but since it is a proposal that has yet been approved, shouldn't it be titled something like Hong Kong Electronic Road Pricing proposal? -- Vsion 07:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I use the full name...Abbreviation is implemented here mainly due to handiness, or rather, my laziness. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you used the full name for the search engine test right? :-) — Instantnood 07:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am not too sure if folks noe how to use google search properly, but when I used vision's suggestion, I get 990 results for "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong. "Electronic Road Pricing" + Singapore? 6,990 results (7 times more). And if I do a "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong - Singapore and vice versal search, I get 581 and 4,810 (8.27 times more) respectively. Does it speak for itself? :-) --Huaiwei 16:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can consider "times" "a lot" comparatively, but do you think "hundreds" is scarce as well? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She/he is trying to claim sole right of the use of the term as article title on Wikipedia and to justify her/his Singapore-centric point of view in editing this article. :-) — Instantnood 16:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha...if anyone is claiming sole right, no other city will be mentioned in this page at all. That is hardly the case, so I dont see how this anal retentive comment can appear.--Huaiwei 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how much worth is 1000 when the other is 1,000,000,000? How much worth is your A- grade, when the rest of the class gets A+ before grade moderation? Practically nothing, if the grades are subsequently moderated.--Huaiwei 16:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's patent statistical trick, babe. Take homosexuality population as an example; it seems insignificant when compared with the total population on Earth. Should we ignore it, then? Certainly not. No matter how "small" the figure of a matter is, if it's of certain importance in particular aspects, I do believe it worth being recorded anyhow. ;-)

Furthermore, why not make ERP a general page, then divide original contents into pages like ERP (Singapore). Everything else is a comprimise. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a statistical "trick". Its another typical example of our tendencies in "twisting information to suit our agendas". I do it, and so does every single one of you. the only issue is most of you refuse to admit it. Yes, of coz "homosexuality" is significant socially and should not be ignored. Here, was Hong Kong being ignored at all in this page? Dosent look like it at all. I repeat the need to remove knee-jerk emotive reactions when dealing with issues. If any of you are going to over-react and keep claiming that there is complete deletion or that kind of thing again when it is not so, I am simply going to just ignore your whines and grines. As for why the ERP is not made a genral page, simple. The ERP as it stands now physically exists only in Singapore, and should refer to the system here. Feasibility studies, until they come to fruitation, do not claim ownership of terminologies and phrases any more so then existing ones. It is not just this issue. We have all seen plenty of governmental proposals which gives their projects certain names. Are all of these names maintained when the proposals are realised? London didnt keep the same name despite using a system similar to Singapore's, and they get to keep their own page under a different name because it exists too.--Huaiwei 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather say it's a on-purpose twist, I would call it a reckless pooh-pooh of the fir in the eye. First, I have to re-emphasise that I did not "whine and grine" against any so-called complete deletion from alpha to omega, just wondering why someone would blame me for that non-existant complaint. Personally I don't like the ERP of Hong Kong is in the same page of that of Singapore; two sharing the same shoes is nothing to be pround of, after all. Unfortunately, our naughty SAR government acted out like an annoying copycat and applied the same name as the Singaporean system to its project. This is the fact. I have shown an official page to you guys already. What can I do then, huh? To tell Donald Tsang to erase the name from his Holiness' agenda? Not likely. Hong Kongers lack creativity, mind you. *sigh* -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Sometimes your comments does bring a smile to my face, despite it all. I mean...obviously not on the comment over the HK govt or watever (we hadent even yet established who used that term officially first, so dont be so quick to lambast yr govt, yeah? :D), but on just how honest your comments are. Well..your whining came in when you somehow sounds like there is an attempt here to totally deny any mention on HK. That isnt the case, was it? Whatever the case, I am not too concerned about multiple cities/locations appearing on one page, but if you guys are "used" to taking owneeship of everything, including that of wikipages, then why not just start a new page called Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong, or even Road tax collection in Hong Kong, for a more detailed article which can discuss existing measures to curb traffic flow there, as well as add content on the ERP studies, how they are expected to help, why they were not implimented before, and any futher prospects of it being implimented? I would think this is far more informative to the reader then this one little article. In fact, I am thinking of doing one for Sg too! :D--Huaiwei 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ERP, although not implemented, is one of the main topics of the development of transport policy in Hong Kong. The pilot study in the 1980s was also a focus among academics and planners from different parts of the world who were specialists in transport and urban planning. It does not seem logical to claim its sole usage as a title to refer to the system in Singapore, just because it's the only active system under this name. It is irrelevant no matter it's a proposed, under planning, active or defunct system. — Instantnood 16:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC) (modified 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC))

Why should it not be relevant? A "main topic" dosent mean the name will be kept all the way to the finishing line. i have seen numerous governmental proposals seeing a name change, or multipl name changes, after a long period of idea conceptualisation and eventual implimentation. Do we need to make one page for each subsequent name change? Directs will do, if no one else uses that name. But when one existing system actually does use it, then who takes natural precedence? The answer is pretty obvious.--Huaiwei 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Preferences should not be automatically given to an active system. And as a matter of fact ERP is the only name used in Hong Kong over the the past two decades. — Instantnood 16:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh? So why should preference not be automaticaly given to an active system?--Huaiwei 11:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my response below. — Instantnood 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Jerry's comment at 15:19, 27 July 2005) Well.. quite the opposite.. it was Hong Kong the first place to propose the system, and to conduct a pilot test. Singapore later proposed the same thing under the same name (well, let's not say copied, or anybody a copycat), and implemented it. If the ultimate consensus is to split the article into

Er? So when did Singapore started the ERP project, and when did it start using the term? I didnt have the information yet, so I am quite interested to know from what source you based this comment on. Meanwhile, the page Mass Rapid Transit has a major difference from what you propose: all three entities are existing systems. We dont seem to have planned, proposed, or scrapped MRT systems listed there, do we?--Huaiwei 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, whether it's proposed, under planning or scrapped is not necessarily relevant. — Instantnood 16:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

And to repeat, notice you still hadent said WHY its not relevant.--Huaiwei 11:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for haven't stated it explicitly. Notability is not necessarily related to, and shouldn't be solely determined based on whether the system is an active one. I've already stated why Hong Kong is notable in the study of ERP, and why ERP is notable to Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we all know why ERP is notable to HK. But you seem to refuse to comment on how much this "notability" compares to any other city, Singapore included. Singapore's ERP system is notable precisely because it is in existance, and its implimentation has been of great interest for other cities all over the world. That London decided to base their system on Singapore's shows an endorsement for its global notability and credibility. That even HK is often quoted for citing the systems in Singapore (and nowadays London) for its own feasibility studies again highlights this notability. Was the opposite phenomena (of Singapore citing HK) as prominent? No. Go ahead and try to proof this wrong. None of you are able to even show that the ERP is generally more notable in HK then it is in Singapore, either locally or on the global scene in fact, let alone this one. So if you want to dismiss the significance of physical existance compared to mere existance on paper, and claim that a feasibility study since 20 years ago (it was not even a continous study, btw, but was restarted many years later) is more "notable", then please show us why that should be so, particularly on the web or in general texts via any medium you can think of. If not, then i am afraid your comments hold little water and are hardly worthy for consideration here.--Huaiwei 17:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By comparing prominance and notability you're indeed speaking based on a judgment that can hardly be truly objective. How would you comment which is more notable?

Macedonia the Former Yugoslav Republic? — Instantnood

19:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I would say Macedonia the ancient empire and Georgia in the Caucasus. And also, if ERP is implemented in Hong Kong, Singapore's ERP is also unique as Singapore is the only country whose government apply ERP so frantically! sigh. You have to pay on pratically every road! *Every Road Pay* suits ERP. The new highway, KPE, has 16 ERP gantries.Joshywawa (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a dispute regarding the focus and the way of presentation of this article, which has not yet been settled. The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the versions. You may also read the other version and the difference between the two.

In the first line of the "Impact" section I removed the word "understandably" because it (intentionally or not) justified the 'drivers' opinion. If the article is going to support the opinion that the ERP is justifiably unpopular then it would have to argue that it is bad, at least for drivers. I think the value judgement was unintentional so I simply removed it instead of asking for a citation; similar to use of the word "most" in the same sentence. --TimTL 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the discussion above, it is now the time to rename this article to "Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing", since this general term applies to other systems now inmplemented troughout the world (such as Oslo, Santiago de Chile, London, and Stockholm). This will help to create a more general article on urban roads congestion pricing which also is incorrectly title as "Road Pricing". Just wiki road pricing or electronic toll collection to verify this claim. I updated the article to include London and Stockholm, which are also true congestion pricing schemes. The required references were provided.[User:Mariordo|Mariordo]] 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the "globalize" banner to request an administrator the title change. Mariordo 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed the main gist of the discussion above. Electronic Road Pricing is the name of the specific electronic toll collection system in Singapore, hence its capitalisation. Until there exists another electronic toll collection system with the same name, there is no need to disambg this, nor is there a need to "globalise" it. Discussions on the London and Stolkholm systems goes under electronic toll collection, which is the general article, not here.--Huaiwei 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "Congestion Pricing" is a concept from economics. Singapore was the first to apply it for a CBD in an urban area. Now there are other schemes. Congestion pricing from the point of view of economics has been used a lot in commercial aviation, that's why you pay more during rush hours and during the holidays. As Singapore proved, you can have congestion pricing without the electronic toll collection. The more general article would be about congestion pricing, not the technologies, that, is already in electronic toll collection. Think about it.Mariordo 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought we are discussing the name of a "Congestion pricing/electronic toll collection/etc" system in operation in Singapore, but it is becoming apparent to me that you are still talking about the concept. Your comment do not seem to be different from my opinion that general discussions should go somewhere else, be it Congestion pricing (which redirects to Road pricing) or electronic toll collection. Meanwhile, I find your definition of "congestion pricing" a little odd. Congestion pricing in layman terms refers more to an effort to slap charges on users to discourage usage during peak periods to prevent congestion. Your analogy with airline ticket prices is more related to the basic business fundamental of raising prices when demand is here and supply is low in a bid to increase revenues. The essence of distributing demand over time may be similar, but the agenda to do so is profoundly different.--Huaiwei 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that wiki articles are aimed for the whole world, they are made with contributions from users all over the world, and we have to be objective and neutral. I do not participate in edit wars, nor do I like to go into discussions just for the sake of debate. Let me put additional arguments for the need to change the article's name to identify it only with Singapore, and the make it compatible with the main article regarding Road pricing:

• There are already city specific articles on urban congestion pricing schemes implemented around the world, as you know, such as
  New York congestion pricing. Singapore is just another case. All these specific articles should branch out from a main article, such as Road pricing
  or "Road congestion pricing" which I am intending to contribute with.
• The subject of congestion pricing could be discussed in other languages (I intent to do it in Spanish and Portuguese), which unfortunately do not have a word by word translation of the term "congestion pricing" or to "electronic road pricing", therefore, country or city tags are a must to explain the concept and the specific cases.
• For example,
  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Together with Singapore's congestion pricing schemes, they are both well-known in the transportation community as textbook examples of good practices, and it took almost two decades to be successfully implemented in other cities of the world. Take a look at the BRT article, Curitiba appears listed as just one of the cases, as it should be. Curitiba also has an specific name for its system, "Rede Integrada de Transporte" (RIT), which translates to Integrated Transport Network. As it is the case with Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing
  , the wording defines a general term, that can be used by others. So, in a worldwide article, I think these schemes must be referred with a city tag, such as Curitiba's RIT or Singapore's ERP.

PD: the content of the ERP article is very interesting, but as someone above commented, it needs references. Mariordo (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My quick comment with regards to the RIT. The RIT article happens to be at Rede Integrada de Transporte and not at Bus rapid transit. Rede Integrada de Transporte do not even translate as bus rapid transit. This cannot compare to the situation above regarding the ERP, because Bus rapid transit is not the official name of the RIT and is not the only operating BRT system in the world which uses the BRT name. The name Electronic Road Pricing is used by only one operating electronic toll collection system in the world. Until another similar-named system appears, there is little valid reason to "globalise" this article, because it is simply not a general article in the first place. It seems that the arguments are simply not moving forward, for the same arguments are being regurgitated again and again.

As for aviation, please think again. All things remaining the same, is your airline ticket for a peak hour flight more expensive than one during off-peak hours? Certainly not. Which particular fees do you refer to, that you claim will affect ticket prices in a direct way such that there is price differentiation based on flight time? And where is your evidence that these higher fees are slapped on to discourage peak hour usage, instead of a simple case of demand out-stripping supply?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, my point is that both schemes must be referred with a city tag, such as Curitiba's RIT or Singapore's ERP. And tickets might be more expensive only at airports using a congestion pricing strategy to regulate peak demand.

I agree with you we are going around and around with this issue. Let's wait to see if someone else enters the discussion.Mariordo (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the RIT, I would disagree, unless another system of equal or higher notability claims the name of Rede Integrada de Transporte. Ditto to the ERP case. I kinda wonder what you would say about article names like MTR then, where I tried on three occasions but failed to move the article to Mass Rapid Transit or even MTR (Hong Kong?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the first successful implementation of a congestion pricing scheme in the world was Singapore's Area Licensing Scheme in 1975 (see Road pricing Singapore's experience).

And thanks to technological advances in electronic toll collection (ETC), remote detection with GPS, and video surveillance technology, charging congestion prices became relatively less cumbersome than in the past, therefore, several cities in the world now use it (for congestion pricing or for regular road tolling), as one section of the ERP article explains and references to other wiki articles of cities with urban traffic congestion pricing schemes. Also, as the article says, Singapore upgraded its system in 1998, but it is not truth, as the opening paragraph says, that "It is the first city in the world to implement an electronic toll collection system". The type of ETC must be explained, let's see why.

As anyone can check following the next references (see [6] and [7]). ETC was implemented first in Norway's three major cities: Bergen (1986), Oslo (1990), and Trondheim (1991). Let's make clear that Singapore is the first city in the world to implement an electronic toll collection system but only for congestion pricing purposes ( this is, around a screenline CBD zone where the scheme is enforced). Since Singapore uses also the ERP to toll urban corridors, a distinction must be made. Also, the Norwegian system charges over urban freeways and in the beginning was not 100% free-flow (now at least Oslo is and Singapore's ERP was from the beginning), nor the Norwegian ring toll was intended for congestion pricing, but rather for generating revenues for a urban highway fund.

Therefore, that sentence needs to be re-written to limit the scope of the world's first. Before doing that (I have been trying to improve the reference of the ERP article, since it is a keystone reference for transportation planners, economist and engineers), I prefer to raise the issue, and listen to other points of view, before editing the sentence in question. Mariordo (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a valid point, but the solution may be much simplier. Check around various sources, and most will refer to the ERP as "the first of its kind in the world"[8] or something similar. "first of its kind" is the key word which may be suitable for the opening paragraph, but elaborated in length later in the article.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before working a bit on this article (to include some references, the evolution, some specific numeric results), I decided to improve first the

ERP has created a major impact to the Singaporean society, and as usual, local filmaker Jack Neo has decided to take advantage of the event, and make a movie of it. It's chinese; but it's called Money No Enough 2. I'm not talking in Singlish, but it was officialy called that. So, should I change and add a section?Is ^"zhe_liel" me? 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERP now has it's own userboxes!

Is ^"zhe_liel" me? 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I left out my signature

lol. Is ^"zhe_liel" me? 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I find this claim a bit dubious at best. Until I see some proof of it elsewhere I'm removing it for now and replacing the highlighted part with something more generic. --A.K.R. (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it seems as though there should be a topic article about electronic road pricing at the primary name, with the Singapore and HK articles as subarticles of it. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any separate article created about it would simply be content forking from the singapore article given its the only system that's in existence. So there really isn't a need nor is it possible to create a separate article without content forking from this article.KiasuKiasiMan 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Until a second scheme comes into being a general article is not required, as it would only draw from the Singapore example anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom. I have no problem with the IP editors suggestion above, but it would require re-writing and I don't see anyone doing that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose. The articles names as they are now (Singapore & Hong Kong) are easier to find for the general public and less confusing. The Hong Kong ERP certainly failed, but it is history, and as such, can not be ignored. Also, the term "electronic road pricing" is very generic (see congestion pricing, road pricing, electronic toll collection), so the country name serves a purpose.-Mariordo (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  hatnotes). — AjaxSmack 17:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]