Talk:Congestion pricing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Scope of article

There is a considerable amount of content in this article that relates to Road pricing. Can I suggest that we move road-specific content to that article and leave this one to concentrate on the general theory of congestion pricing. This article would then provide brief introduction to the different sectors in which it is used and the issues that relate to each one (including for roads, airspace, waterways, utilities and internet traffic). The roads section would have a big 'main|road pricing' tag. Another benefit of this will be to reduce duplication of content across many articles in and thereby make it easier to keep WP up-to-date as schemes evolve. I have already changed a bunch of redirects that were clearly related specifically to road pricing to that article. Fyi, I am in the process of giving a load of love and attention to many of the main road pricing related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

After some consideration I have done a trial merge of road related details from this article into Road pricing. I found a huge amount of overlap which makes me think that we are heading in the right direction. There is still plenty of trimming that could be done to road details this article, particularly in relation to all the 'criticism and comment' which is now available verbatim in the road pricing article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These edits were reverted later - see 'reverting the reversion' section below PeterEastern (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sections relating to utilities, public transport and internet etc?

Utilities, public transport and internet, and others, are referred to in the lead or in the general theory sections but are then not detailed further in the article. Can I suggest that are sections for each of these. If the road pricing details are moved to Road pricing then there will be plenty of space for this new content. Needless to say... another benefit of moving the bulk of the road pricing content is that all the associated arguments move to that page as well! PeterEastern (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the reversion

I originally created a section here on this talk page on the 21 April 2012 noting that my edits to this article were reverted with the comment Rv Good faith edit: your ideas of what road pricing and congestion pricing are is wrong, road pricing is more general.[1] and to the Road pricing article with the comment Sorry to revert the whole thing but road pricing is different from congestion pricing, what you are doing is original research.[2]. The section was then moved to Talk:Road pricing using the same title (without discussion). Given the continued reversions of my contributions to this article I would like to retain a link to that discussion from this article in the correct time sequence. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just move it to have the discussion in the same page. Now that the road pricing discussion is finished we can continue here. Please let's try to keep a linear discussion, one issue at a time. Also I ask you for a rain check, this week I do not have much time for more complex edits (that is why the HOV lane has been slow), but next week I will be on a business trip and I will have more time, for the HOV article and to address the issues you raised here. unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I will correct the lead as per the conversation below and will then leave further changes until your return when I hope we can have a focused discussion on this article and help it 'fit' better into the family of article relating to congestion management of roads. At that point I will encourage you to be less quick with use of the 'revert' button and to look to build on the changes being promoted rather than removing them entirely (and my inclusion of this talk section was in exasperation at your continued use of revert on this article and others). Regarding the Good Article review, that was back in 2008 and many things have changed since then and I suggest that we don't consider that to hold back further improvements of changes to the article. Road pricing is better btw, but I wouldn't call is 'finished' :) PeterEastern (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with what you did. There was no consensus and you are ignoring completely that is article is rated a Good Article. Furthermore, you have been making edits all over the related articles changing congestion pricing for road pricing. Let me point out the issues: Because you based some of your edits on your OR, you continue to confuse road pricing with congestion pricing, and adding the qualifiers "variable" to congestion pricing, when in reality congestion charges and other road pricing fees can be fix or variable. You are doing this regardless of the content being properly supported by reliable sources. I am aware that some people confuse both terms, even some journalists in your country, but there is a difference well established in the field of transport economics, and I will revert immediately any such errors you introduced. In case you have not notice, every time you do an edit there is a label saying that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You are not following this fundamental principle, but ironically, you are requesting other editor to provide RS. From now on, I will request citations from reliable sources for your edits, and be sure I will remove any blatant OR immediately.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the reference to 'variable pricing' exists in the text that you keep reverting to. I did not introduce it during my edit and it was not removed by your reversion. If you object to the reference to variable pricing then please remove it yourself. Regarding you insistence on RS, please see later comment about your observation that my proposed lead text is actually already in the Description section. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that the article gained GA status in 2008 does not make it dated. Being GA means there was a reviewer who checked that there was no original research, that all content was supported by reliable sources, that there were no copyright violations, among other things. Many FA and GA lose their quality due to vandalism and also because editors like you introduce content without proper citations, pushing their own agenda (in your case road pricing = congestion pricing or trying to split the article without a proper discussion), and you name it. So I have and I will continue to implement rigourosly WP policies to keep the GA quality of this article. You are the one who is quick in introducing your OR or doing big changes without having reached consensus here.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You had already agreed that the first sentence of the introduction was misleading, that 'public goods' was better and that the link to 'traffic congestion' was inappropriate, so why revert back to wording that we had agreed was wrong. See next comment re your claim that the lead is not supported by reliable sources. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The restoration of the old content you did significantly degrades the article and puts at risk the GA status of the article. As you left it not only is duplicating word by word content in the first paragraph of the Description section but also is ignoring the recommendations and changes made during the GA review process (it is too technical for the typical Wikipedia reader to grasp). For this reason I will reverse it. I have already agreed that needs improvement and I proposed to work a draft lead here, in the talk. As explained yesterday, I am available to work together on it next week. So again, please go ahead a propose an alternative here, with proper RS or wait to evaluate my take.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of the first para of the description was unintentional - I was actually using the content from the earlier version of the article you linked to above as the basis for the wording. However... as it is in fact text from the current article then what is the justification for reverting it as 'not being based on reliable sources'? I would be quite happy with you adjusting the lead further from where I left it, but I see no justification for your reverting to a lead sentence which we all agree is misleading. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition and content as it is

Peter, this is a GA, meaning it was peer-reviewed and it is a fully reference article, improved as per the recommendations of the GA reviewer. Also it means it reflects neutral point of view, and any significant criticism has to be reflected in the lead (which you removed). Also check the threads above which reflects the subject is contentious and the article has been improve to achieve a better NPOV. Furthermore, the definition you edited is incorrect, congestion pricing is a policy for charging a fee or tax (surcharges) with the intend to reduce congestion, so it could be a fix fee or a variable fee, and therefore, it is not variable pricing. And one more clarification, road congestion pricing has more weight in the article because it is the sector where it has found more application and more controversy too. If you wish to introduce changes please let's discuss them here first. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, you seem to have a policy of not responding to comments on the talk page and to reverting changes citing GA saying one needs to discuss stuff first on the talk page which makes it hard to progress;) PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeping multiple discussions and opening several threads in the same page makes it more difficult to have a dialogue. Please let's discuss one issue at a time. (unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk))

• Regarding my edits. The first sentence currently reads "Congestion pricing or congestion charges is a system of surcharging users of a transport network in periods of peak demand to reduce traffic congestion" (my emphasis) - however the linked article about 'traffic congestion' refers only to 'road traffic congestion' and thereby implies that congestion pricing only relates to roads. The second sentence then contradicts this when it says "examples include some toll-like road pricing fees, and higher peak charges for public utilities, public transport and slots in canals and airports" (my emphasis) - so the scope if now extended to cover public utilities, waterways and airports. All is then fine until the third paragraph of the Description section now mention telephones and internet which could usefully be mentioned in the lead. Can you please try to create a form of words in the lead that gets more rapidly to the point? Regarding controversy, you may or may not be aware that one of the more belligerent contributors to this article has received a permanent ban for 'tendentious editing' and 'edit-warring'. PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you gave me good news, DF is gone. Honestly I rather spend my time in Wikipedia producing new content, updating and expanding articles than wasting time in lengthy discussion with editors pushing their POV. The above discussions is a testimony to that. Regarding the definition, I agree with you, it should read public goods instead of "transport network" and reduce congestion not traffic congestion. The original definition before the GA review is this one. As you can see in the history, the reviewer made the changes. I agreed that the original text was too technical, but his changes distorted the precise definition. Now that you have raised the issue I would like to give it a try in laymen terms next week, when I have more time. About the possibility of expanding on other public services I tried, but it is more difficult to find reliable sources. Prices going up at peak demand not necessarily are due to congestion pricing. For example, electric utilities have to put online more plants to meet demand (some utilities use tier charges, and this is not congestion pricing, just charging for the additional cost of generation), metro rail services have to send more trains (fares are higher are peak hours due to the additional labor and rolling stock costs), airlines charge more during the summer time simply because there is more demand (the good old relationship between supply and demand). Congestion pricing applies strictly when you do not have additional costs for the supplier but the congestion is increasing the costs for the other users, like road congestion and the Panama Canal, you are just trying to divert users to the off peaks or to alternative modes/services. We can review this issue too next week or please, make a proposal here and we can try to improve it together.unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I note from the article history that you had been battling with DF over wording for years on this article and that you largely wrote the initial content. Personally I think some of that earlier wording is better than the current text, in particular the clearer list of 'public goods' that were amenable to congestion pricing. See comments above about GA review. I am going to make the lead more consistent, drawing on earlier wording and will then await your return. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Roads or Urban Roads

Another comment. One of my changes was to change the section heading from 'urban roads' to 'roads' and to add a clearer reference to high occupancy toll lanes in the USA, which are not all on 'urban roads' to my knowledge. Do you not agree that the title 'roads' is better than 'urban roads'? PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Typically in transportation engineering you divide roads in urban and rural. Most HOT lanes in the US are in the suburbs, and in LA, you have plenty of cities between the suburbs and downtown, so these are not rural facilities, and therefore, classified as urban trips (home to work) within a metropolitan area.--Mariordo (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the word 'urban' is unnecessary and the article would be better without it. For sure, most uses are urban, but a national road pricing scheme was considered in the UK in 2005 (which incidentally isn't mentioned in this article). Was that not congestion charging? To quote "The Times November 29, 2005 Congestion charge to be rolled out nationwide By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent"[3]. Unless you intend to add a section called 'non-urban roads' then I suggest we change the term to 'roads'. PeterEastern (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, most existing implementations are located in urban areas. And there is a reason for it. Congestion is widespread in urban areas, while rural roads have congestion limited to the weekends or during the holiday season. Nevertheless, this is not about my opinion or your opinion, the literature in the article clearly supports that this is about urban areas not roads.--Mariordo (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Existing implementations may be on urban roads, but there was a very serious effort to introduce 'congestion pricing' on the UK motorway network in the UK in 2005. As such the work 'urban' appears to be unhelpful. The fact that it was not implemented does not make it irrelevant; indeed there are details of a number of other 'rejected' schemes in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Pre-Vickrey mention of congestion pricing

I just stumbled across the following in Robert Heinlein's 1951 novel The Puppet Masters: "We headed for Des Moines. Instead of parking at the toll gates we paid to take the car into the city proper, and ended up at the main studios of Des Moines stereo." (From page 15 of 340 in my 1990 Del Rey mass market paperback edition; this is the "uncut" version described in the above-linked WP article.) The action in the novel takes place in 2007. Note that this novel was published in 1951, one year before Vickrey's 1952 proposal for higher subway pricing, and eight years before his 1959 proposal for urban congestion pricing (see refs for Vickrey). It makes me think that this idea was floating around, unpublished in academia, or maybe the previous authors of this article (and the scholarly textbooks in the references) haven't found the earliest sources. It's also possible that I could be completely wrong, and that my 2012 worldview assumes that Heinlein was describing congestion pricing instead of mere road tolling. One sentence isn't much to go on. Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you final comment, and that there is not enough evidence that this is not just a conventional USA toll road? PeterEastern (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Later in the novel, on page 49: "At the toll gates into Des Moines the gatekeeper hesitated when I offered the fee." So two sentences. It does give me the impression that no matter how you enter the city center, you have to pay a toll. I supposed New York City's bridges and tunnels are like that, though, and that's not considered congestion pricing. Jonesey95 (talk)

Excess Images

There are too many images here that serve no apparent purpose. This is an article about congestion pricing, not about congestion in general, and certainly not about uncongested roadways. Castncoot (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you noticed, the article is rated GA, and it was reviewed with the images as they were before you changed them. I think it was a good idea to have pics of actual systems in the lead, but if the reviewer approved it as such based on the MOS, I do not see the point of of your proposal because there are not pictures available of every system in operation. It is considered to have too many images when you have a picture wall, but this is not the case here. If it is not broken, do not fix it. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• NYC: You changed the wording in the caption for "nixed." Check the NYC congestion pricing article. As per the reliable sources provided, the proposal was not voted, my understanding is that nixed means vetoed (implying there was a vote). Since English is my second language I am not sure, but the terms seems to reflect different actions. Would you be so kind to clarify the meanings to me. Thanks. (unsigned commment by Mariordo (talk) 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Mariordo, two points-

1. "Nixed" simply means to refused to accept - it doesn't imply a vote. The point is that the proposal was rejected, and the discussion is in the correct section in the article.
2. More importantly, your reasoning given above regarding the images is fallacious. This issue simply represented an oversight by the reviewer. That's no reason to rest on one's laurels and not fix what actually is broken.

Best,

-- Castncoot (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, I really appreciated. Regarding the pictures, did you check the GA review? The link is there for you to confirm the alleged oversight.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• PS: I forgot, I do not see the point of the two of us arguing about the pictures. Since the article was officially reviewed, just look for consensus from other editors to define the criteria for the pictures if you want to change it. You already showed biased by putting a pic of NYC in the lead, which is not representative and was showing congestion in general, which for other images you are criticizing. From my point of view, programs in operation are truly representative. --Mariordo (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the links to both the consensus discussion and the GA review? Thanks. In fact, I also find it offensive you talk about bias - there's none. If anything, it's an excellent and pertinent image to this article. Programs in operation are representative, but proposals are highly relevant as well. Not to mention that the picture it replaced in the lead had no place being there! Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The link of any GA is kept at the top of the corresponding talk page (just go here). Pictures are part of the review as you will see. Second, a GA review is not made by consensus. What I meant is that if you want to change the pictures as they were OKed in the GA review, seek consensus. Clearly you and I have different opinions and we are not going to agree, so let's avoid an edit war.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a tiny paragraph about images in that review. I believe this issue needs re-visiting with a critical eye. Let's see what others here think. At my first glance, the Milan, San Francisco, and Santiago images don't belong in this article. Castncoot (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As a good example of a discussion about changing pics in the lead see the electric car article here. The pics of Milan and Santiago are showing images of actual system in operation, so I am strongly opposed to their removal. The Golden Gate pic is illustrating the case mentioned in the corresponding section, just like the bridge in Sidney. But anyway, open a formal discussion with your specific proposals, and I will give my opinions and let's wait for others to jump in. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The London Heathrow Airport picture in the lead is also just a proposal. At least the NYC proposal went as far as the state legislature, so your rationale appears to be debunked, and I feel that the New York image belongs as I had originally inserted it in the lead, with an appropriate caption - given that it is emblematic of a congestion pricing proposal and pictorializes congestion itself. But let's see what others think. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• As far as any specific proposals, I believe that the NYC, London, Singapore, and Sao Paulo images should suffice. You feel strongly about the Milan and Santiago images, although I disagree. I think this article should be more text attentive rather than image heavy, and certainly without irrelevant or distracting images. Castncoot (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal discussion

Strongly disagree for the following reasons:

• As per the MOS (see Pertinence and encyclopedic nature): Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. (the underline is mine). Wikipedia "is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation." Furthermore, the MOS recommends (see here) that "images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." The proposed cut will trim cut from 13 pics (assuming we keep also the three graph/maps) down to 4. The article has 19 sections, and as today no section is crowded by the images (in a square screen). The only warning in the MOS is to "be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers."
• Out of the 13 pictures in the article, 6 are showing current systems in operation (Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore, London congestion charge, Stockholm congestion tax, Milan Area C, Costanera Norte in Santiago, and 91 Express Lanes in San Diego, California) whether showing road signals and markings or the surveillance/detection gantries controlling access, and therefore, totally relevant for the article content. Nevertheless, the proposal is to keep only two of these and another two that illustrate congestion in cities where the scheme has been proposed, one of them already a failed proposal (NYC). This does not makes any sense and it is against the MOS, as images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.
• For the last reason, the best image for the lead is any of the ones from a system in operation, not NYC which failed in 2008. Also, the MOS recommends not to stack too many of them within the lead, so I think we should keep just one image in the lead (as in most articles) to remove the existing excess due to two pics and the Economics tag. I propose the Heathrow image to be moved to the "airports" section. However, because this is a short section, we have to chose between Kennedy airport and Heathrow, one should be enough. Both are mentioned in the section to avoid crowding the section. For the lead, the two most notable systems are Singapore (the first) and London (the largest city with such program). Just check with Google to confirm these are the two most notable system. Any of those two (and there is plenty to select among in the Commons) is fine with me.
• As for the remaining 7 images, 3 are illustrating other transport modes (waterway or airports) where congestion pricing has been implemented, so in the corresponding section we should have one for each, leaving just 4 pictures that are not directly showing any feature of the program they are illustrating, but showing the bridge or city where a system is operating (Sidney), proposed (San Fancisco and Sao Paulo) or failed (New York City), so I believe these are OK within MOS recommendations. In terms of the image content and quality itself, the only picture that I think is not the best photograph to show the subject is the one for NYC. Not only it is blurred but more area of the picture is showing buildings rather than congestion in NYC (I bet there are better options in the Commons). And by the way, I think it is wrong to pretend that all the pictures should show congestion. If you do not see a traffic jam in Singapore or London as compared to São Paulo, it is precisely because they have congestion pricing and it is working. So, congestion alone should not be a criteria to select an image for this article.
• Finally, the new caption in the Heathrow pic should be fixed. The MOS clearly states that "textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image."(See here). The article already has content about Heathrow airport in the corresponding section, but a caption was added not related to this content, and that is why it required a source of its own in the caption to avoid OR. This was unnecessary considering the existing content.

--Mariordo (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's good to see a working conversation here. First of all, it's disingenuous to pretend that congestion is not an important criteria in the images. By this logic, I could display an article full of images of empty roads and say, "See, congestion pricing is working here." This isn't to say that every single image needs to display congestion, but most indeed should. After all, if congestion pricing works, then congestion would be expected to be relieved, but certainly not resulting in the elimination of substantial traffic. Also, simply showing an iconic image of a city where a congestion pricing scheme has been proposed or operating (San Francisco or Sydney) represents excess - the thoroughfare displayed should itself be subject to the pricing scheme. We could eliminate the Heathrow image altogether for the reason(s) you mentioned above, but I believe the inserted NYC image reveals a long line of red taillights very clearly through a canyon of city office buildings, which if anything magnifies the significance of the congestion and the accompanying need for a potential congestion pricing scheme as mentioned in the caption to the reader. Castncoot (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, I googled "congestion pricing," and most of the articles on the first screen concerned NYC. Castncoot (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Please note that google "congestion charge" returns 5.49 million hits, most of them about London, "road pricing Singapore" returns 8.39 million hits, and while "congestion pricing" returns 5.13 million hits, with most hits not about NYC. And because a google search can be tricky, a closed search to "congestion pricing in New York City" returns only 376 results while a close search of "London congestion charge" returns 43,800 hits. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but this article is entitled, "congestion pricing." "New York congestion pricing" yields 317,000 hits, while "London congestion pricing" yields 224,000. Castncoot (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, check the first line of the article: congestion pricing = congestion charges. Congestion charges redirects here. The former is American English, the latter is British. Let's allow other editors to jump into the discussion. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• My mistake about the Sydney image - the Harbour Bridge was involved in the scheme. But the actual Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was not, only areas near it within the city of San Francisco. I wonder what PeterEastern, who has formatted this Talk page, thinks about the topic on hand. Castncoot (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that beside San Francisco city itself, the section where the Golden Gate pic is located explains that "In August 2007, the United States Department of Transportation selected five metropolitan areas to initiate congestion pricing demonstration projects under the Urban Partnerships Congestion Initiative, for US$ 1 billion of federal funding. The five projects under this initiative are; Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, ...." (unsigned comment by Mariordo).

But did that initiative on the bridge actually follow through? Was it not nixed, like the NYC proposal? Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed been following the conversation, formatting it more carefully to allow people to follow the conversation. I will respond below in a new section below with my observations. PeterEastern (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article?

I haven't followed the above discussion in detail, however I have been asked to comment by one of the contributors to the above section, so here goes...

Between April and May 2012 I made a sustained effort to improve both this article and the Road pricing article before concluding that it was almost impossible to make any changes to them. Mariordo appeared to view these articles as 'finished', reverted virtually all my work on the articles and didn't respond to many of the issues I raised on the relevant talk pages (and still hasn't). I signing off from these articles on on a section of the road pricing talk page last year with the comment: "I am signing off from editing this and related articles for the time being after experiencing more reverts and less engagement than with any other subject on Wikipedia over a 4 year period. After one month I have still not had a response from Mariodo to my request for him to justify using certain references to support the claim in the first sentence of the lead.'

I am still of the view that this has far too much overlap with the road pricing article and too little detail on all the other types of congestion pricing (internet, utilities etc). Not sure what happens next. Any thought Mariodo? Am I being unreasonable?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013‎

Sorry about the delay, but I have been busy this week. I am aware of the good job you have done improving existing articles, particularly in reorganizing content. Nevertheless, you modified road pricing and congestion pricing in a way that showed you had a conceptual confusion between these two concepts, and under Wikipedia policies it is considered original research, as you did several changes without providing reliable sources or contradicting the existing sources. As adequately supported in both articles, these are concepts of transport economics, fully developed and supported by the academic literature in the field (and yes, most real life applications of congestion pricing have taking place in the transport sector, where the concept had its origin). Indeed there is an overlap between road pricing and congestion pricing. Road pricing includes conventional road tolls, distance or time based fees, congestion charges or congestion pricing, etc. If you have documented examples of congestion pricing outside the transport section (i.e. internet, utilities), please bring them to this article. Only be aware that higher prices during peak periods of demand are not always are the result of congestion pricing policies but of the law of supply and demand, as it is the case of airline tickets. If you believe this article should be split, merged or modified in any substantial way, please open a formal discussion. I will give my opinion to your proposal and follow whatever consensus is reached. Mariordo (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• It was not my intention to reopen the discussion at this point, only to note that I found it impossible to work of these articles a year ago due to your conviction that they were already 'good articles', your enthusiasm with the revert button your reluctance to use the talk page, these being very much the same issues being raised in relation to the current dispute. Personally it feels a bit like WP:OWN. I would also like to note that at you appear to have 'cleaned' your talk page of all negative or critical comments but have kept all the praise. In normal circumstances I would put personal observations like this on a user talk page, but not when they then get scrubbed out. If you do wish to get things moving again, you might like to consider responding to the questions I left on the road pricing talk page that have been outstanding since early last year. PeterEastern (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• See my note to Mariordo after the following comment (which starts 'I have recovered a couple of sections..'). PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have recovered a couple of sections from the talk page archive, in one of which I ask if more details should be given for congestion pricing applied to non-transport sector. I got no response. If you do have comments on particular topics raised on the talk pages, could I ask you to continue to threads on which the issues were raised. I will respond to them as appropriate. I note however that you often resist changes to this article citing GA and then suggest that I might like to add content relating to non transport related themes, which seems a bit perverse. PeterEastern (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mariordo, I note that it has now been five days, (during which time you have made 50 edits to WP, some substantial, and all relating to makes of electric car) but have not found time to respond to the two points I have raised on this talk page, and have not picked up on the older outstanding queries as I requested. If you aren't going to do this, then can I suggest that you leave it to others to develop these two articles (on congestion pricing and road pricing)? GA does not mean that articles should be frozen. Can we discuss a way to balance this article? If you don't wish to merge the road transport content with road pricing as I suggested, then how about splitting the substantial urban transport content off into an article titled 'Congestion pricing of road transport' or similar. PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Peter, no one in Wikipedia has to right to tell another editor what his editing priorities should be. Are you stalking me? Please check WP:DRC, I am free to remove from my user talk page the comments I want (they are still in the page history, or do you want to force me to keep them there as a sort of "badge of shame"?) You are dangerously moving the discussion to a personal attack, and if this behavior continues you can be sure that I will request the proper measures. Check WP:NPA and WP:HAR. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My points were simply that 1) You have not responded to a range of questions I raised on the talk page many months ago - notably that the lead is not supported by references in the body of the article and the article is heavily biased towards road transport 2) That you failed to respond to my question above for nearly a week during a period that you found time to edit numerous other articles 3) That you appear to remove critical comments from your talk page and leave all the praise. Note that WP:TPO suggests that users should only edit or remove other contributors comments with caution and stop if there is an objection (for the avoidance of doubt I did object, as such WP:DRC seems an inappropriate response) 5) You have responded to my suggestion that you should 'allow some air into the article' as a personal attack. It was simply meant to be a polite request for you to stand back and allow myself and possibly others to make changes and develop the article. I don't find it helpful or reasonably to suggest that I am stalking you - I have intentionally not overlapped with you for over 18 months during which time I have made numerous edits to other articles. Can I suggest that we leave that one well alone? PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• As for the non-personal points you are raising:

• 1. I do not own the article, nor it was frozen since the GA review ended as you asserted. Since 17 July 2008, when the GA rating was granted, the article has had 394 edits by several editors expanding and updating the content (chek here). I am the main editor (325 edits out of 715) but being the primary editor of an article does not constitute ownership. I have interest in the topic and I am an expert on the field, and I just have an interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Nevertheless, as the talk history shows, I have not imposed my expertise on anyone, when necessary I have engaged with other editors in the talk page (particularly DeFacto, who was blatantly pushing his POV) to clarify the concept, which resulted in an endless discussion. In order to avoid the deterioration of the article's quality, yes, I am guilty of removing content not supported by reliable sources, or worst, removing edits contradicting the sources provided. I think being a GA implies that quickly removing original research is in order and according with WP policies. A good example of how an article deteriorates if not properly maintained is London congestion charge, which was recently demoted from FA. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that you seem so confident about your view and expertise on the subject that you are not prepared to discuss other views and this can across as WP:OWN (the fact that you made most of the edits does not give you any greater rights over the article). My issue on this an article is this it totally skewed towards motoring and ignores other types of congestion charge, something which you don't appear to agree with and are not prepared to discuss (see 'scope of article' above where I raise the question). PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• 2. I believe my reply of 25 October 2013 is crystal clear. Because of the overlap between road pricing and congestion pricing, you clearly had a confusion of the concepts and tried to move most of this article to the road pricing article. Now you have acknowledged the difference but still want to move most of the content from here. And I disagree with you. Considering no other editors have been willing to participate in the discussion, reaching consensus in any direction is not possible, and I do not think it is a productive use of my time to engage in an endless dialogue with you. I suggested you open a rename, split or merge discussion, but instead you brought back the stalled discussion from a year ago. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I do find your suggestion that I am 'clearly confused' unhelpful. It is my view that road pricing and congestion pricing are overlapping concepts, ie that some road pricing is congestion pricing and some congestion pricing is road pricing but that they are different. The basic question is the scope of the article as I say. PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• 3. The way the article uses the terms congestion pricing and congestion charges reflects the academic view of the concept and the practical implementation of it, and even the wording used by the press and by reliable sources. If you google congestion pricingor congestion charges, it returns millions of hits with the same exact use of the wording as it is used in the article, most of it is about road transport (because of the externalities of congestion), with no need of additional wording as you proposed. But you and any editor is free to propose any big changes, just open a rename/merge/split/etc discussion using the proper formatting of such discussions. I will go with the consensus, as WP policy mandates. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree that in common language most people equate 'congestion charging' with 'urban road congestion charging', but that is not what the first paragraph of the lead says and is not the more general use the term. If you believe that the scope of the article should be urban road congestion charging only then should that not be reflected in the lead and ideally also in the title? If it is, then I will fork a more general 'congestion charging theory' article or whatever that can have room to discuss the concept as applied more widely. PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I will try to work with you in cleaning/improving the article from a clean slate, but only if you keep a linear discussion of one issue/topic at the time. In the past you had made comments in different articles, in different sections at the same time, which makes the communication very difficult. And please, stop bringing discussions from the past that were not closed or unanswered question. Let's keep just one thread. Also, the arguments have to be supported by reliable sources. You might not be aware you tend to make changes that look like copyedit to you but in fact you are changing established concepts in economics (as an example, look at the two edits I just did regarding variable pricing and congestion pricing, one more time you mixed up the concepts - If I am wrong, please provide reliable sources supporting your claim that congestion pricing is part of variable pricing - you added that content without support of a RS and that is considered in this project OR, by no means that was copyedit - If you produce reliable sources supporting that congestion pricing is an example of variable pricing, I will immediately revert myself). So this is not what I think or what you think, this is an encyclopedia and we will follow WP policies. If you agree, I would like to start with one of the most contentious issues:

• Issue #1: Congestion pricing vs road congestion pricing vs congestion pricing of road transport

This issue is pertinent to the article name and its content. I will use only the term "congestion pricing" because the article is writing in American English (as per MOS), and the article clarifies that congestion charges are the same thing. In transport economics, where the concept of congestion pricing originated, and in common or popular use as reflected by media outlets (see [4] or [5]), congestion pricing can be applied to any public service, but most real life implementation are within the transport sector, and particularly in urban areas. There is not such a thing as congestion pricing of road transport or road congestion pricing. As per WP:AT, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." and "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" A google search of "congestion pricing of road transport" (the title you proposed for a split of this article), see "" here, returns mostly articles related to "congestion pricing" and only one entry about "pricing in road transport" which is the same as "road pricing" and not a single one about "congestion pricing of road transport" (so your proposed title does not fulfills WP criteria for naming an article).

Reliable sources supporting my argument

1. The article Transportation Economics/Pricing (full disclosure, I did not make a single edit in that article) presents a short explanation of the theory of congestion pricing (no need to go into the math) and the relation to road pricing in general. Please note the brief mention to long-distance telephone service. The wording in the wikibooks article is 100% consistent with this article. You talk about congestion pricing, most of the time you are referring to the transport sector, and more specifically to roads or facilities in urban areas, because this is the place where externalities appear under traffic congestion. It is not by chance that most proposals, failed attempts and actual implementations occurred in urban areas. Congestion pricing is just a policy developed for the transport sector that can be applied to other public services.
2. Unfortunately the books used as references in the congestion pricing article are not available to read online. So I will provide the following academic papers to support my argument about the normal use of "congestion pricing" without any other qualifying wording, congestion pricing is just a policy: here, here, here, here, and this one is about airports.
3. The following (some are references in the article), provides examples of layman use (not economics jargon) of congestion pricing: here, here, here, here, here,here.

In summary, congestion pricing is a policy mostly used in transport, and the article reflects that. I will wait for your reaction, and please, keep a linear thread.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I respond to a few of you observations above:

• To response first to your comment: "please, stop bringing discussions from the past that were not closed or unanswered question. Let's keep just one thread". I asked a perfectly clear question about the scope of this article back in April 2012 in a section on this page titled 'Scope of article'. I see no reason why you couldn't have (and can't now) go and respond to that question, which is at the heart of the matter. If the scope of the article is 'urban road congestion pricing' then change the lead and I will build a separate more general article, if this one is the more general article then the content needs for the balanced accordingly and should certainly make specific reference to 'peak fares' on railways and probably not include a summary of numerous urban road projects. Needless to say, there are other significant unanswered questions on talk:road pricing where it would be very helpful for you to bring the discussions to a resolution. Personally I would find it more far more helpful if you were to spend a bit of time responding to my earlier questions in context, and less time quoting WP policies! PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding WP policies, I do really want you to respond to my my point that contributors should only remove other people's messages from their talk pages with caution, and not do so where the other editor objects (see WP:TPO). I mentioned this in passing above, and was hoping to get a direct and prompt acknowledgement of the matter. If you do acknowledge that, I will in future use your talk page again for personal comments such as these. While we are on the subject, could you also acknowledge (please) that it was possibly inappropriate to draw my attention to WP:NPA and WP:HAR or the reasons I gave in response. Again, all I was expecting was a brief acknowledgement of my observation. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• On a technical matter, are you sure that wikibooks and investopedia are a suitable evidence base for the scope of a WP article? Also, are you being careful about WP:CIRCULAR with your evidence. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Finally, can I say that your responses still project a very strong message that you are very confident that you are right on all this, and that I am confused. I find this off-putting, and it does convince me that I should not try to work with you on this article at this point. As such, I will leave it to you to address the above matters as you see fit. All I do ask is that ensure that the scope of the article is clarified, and that the discrepancies between the lead and the body are resolved. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you did not want to start a clean slate discussion. FYI, the rules that apply to your own user talk page are slightly different from the ones for an article's talk page. Read carefully DRC which states that "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it." Also check WP:OWNTALK, that states that "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred."--Mariordo (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do find it incredibly unproductive trying to discuss anything with you really, given that virtually every thread gets abandoned when it gets specific. All I am really asking you to do is choose if this article is about urban road congestion charging or about congestion charging as a more general economic theory and adjust the lead or the article accordingly. Would you object if I took the view that it should be about urban road congestion charging and adjusted it accordingly and created an article titled Congestion pricing (economic theory)? I have just noticed that all the categories for this article relate solely to urban road pricing. As such it seems completely clear that this the more general content should be split out into a separate article, possibly using my suggested title. PeterEastern (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you want to continue the discussion (I guess I misunderstood when you said "... it does convince me that I should not try to work with you on this article at this point."). First, I do strongly oppose creating a separate article about congestion pricing theory just by splitting the content here as you proposed. Second, can we concentrate on the content issues (no more personal matters into the discussion).

The reasons for opposing the "theory article" has to do with issue#1, and I really would like to hear your rebuttal, because from my POV this is at the core of our differences (you can propose as issue #2 the creation of such new article or any other issue of your choice). In a nutshell, I argued that plain "congestion pricing" is a policy concept in economics developed for and mostly used in the road transport sector, and urban transportation in particular. And by "plain" I mean that you do not need adjective of quality to describe the nature of "congestion pricing." The examples I provided are from scholars and also show the laymen popular use (and that is why I included a couple of examples not clearly are not RS, it was just to illustrate my point). All examples talk about plain "congestion pricing" without any adjective in front, but they all are talking about congestion pricing in the context of roads in urban areas (and that is why after last year discussion I created the redirect Road congestion pricing).
Perhaps an analogy might help. When you talk about a bridge you do not need to say a road bridge, it would be redundant. But when you are referring other uses of bridges (other than to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road - the common use of "bridge") you must have an adjective of quality, as in jet bridge or pedestrian bridge, which are other types of bridge use. So, if we were to create articles about congestion pricing on waterways or airports, definitively we need a qualifier, resulting for example in Congestion pricing in waterways or Airport congestion pricing. Unfortunately, there are so few implementation in those sectors, that there is not enough material to create stand alone articles. Finally, because of the actual academic and laymen use of congestion pricing, this is the mother article, from which other articles related to the topic can branch, as London congestion charge, Electronic Road Pricing, etc. currently do. As a mother article, the concept has to be explained here, as well as a summary of the existing implementations (roads, waterways and airports). And as per the WP policies cited at the beginning of this thread, I believe the article name and its content fulfill the requirements of this encyclopedia, and it passed the GA review without the kind of questioning you are doing (and you can check in the history page to confirm that other editors contributed during the GA review). I hope I made myself clear this time. I await for your rebuttal. Cheers.

--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that it will be productive to work with you on this article for the reasons I have give above and won't repeat again. My suggestion was simply that we would agreed to split off a separate more general article on the economics but you seem to be against that on principle for reasons that I don't believe as sound but can't develop with you because of you resistance of following threads inline. PeterEastern (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Variable pricing

‎Mariordo: I notice that you reverted my edit to the lead of Variable pricing which introduced a wikilink to this article with the comment "rmv OR --> congestion pricing is not variable pricing (most congestion pricing schemes charge a fixed fee not a variable one, the only exception is for some HOT lanes in the U.S.))".

I am puzzled by that, because the lead sentence of this article reads "Congestion pricing or congestion charges is a system of surcharging users of public goods that are subject to congestion through excess demand such as higher peak charges". Does this not state that the charge is one that varies (or is introduced) during the busiest periods? Are 'Peak fares' on trains, charging for use of roads a peak times, higher phone charges for office hours not all being examples of this?

I also note that 'Congestion pricing - A primer'[6] by the FHWA suggests that road congestion charging is by definition variable, being only charged at peak times and that this is the main distinguishing feature compared to ordinary flat tolls. Singapore and Stockholm have schemes that vary in cost through the day, and as you note some HOT lanes have dynamic pricing based on real-time demand.

Thoughts?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Traffic sign indicating the time period when the charge is prevailing)

• In order to speed up the discussion, I will not provide RS for the time being, but most of the following explanation is already suported by reliable sources in the variable pricing and congestion pricing articles. Please feel free to request links to RS to back any part of my argument, but I hope it will not be necessary.

In economics a fixed price is a price that is set and known (in public services, prices are officially pubished). Everyone would pay the same price. In the other hand, Variable prices are prices that change from buyer to buyer within the same time frame, for example auctions (stock market, eBay), or bargaining (buying a car, new or used). Modern technology has now allow real-time variable pricing. As per their definition, fixed prices do not implied that you can't have several prices for a product or a service, as long as the pricing structure is known before hand. Typical examples are the prices of movie tickets, which during the week have a lower price than on weekends. Other example is bus or metro fares, in many countries rush hour fares are higher than off-peak fares. These are not cases of variable pricing because the different prices (price structure) are known to customers in advanced.

In the case of congestion pricing, most of schemes use fixed prices, made known to the public in advance, with a pricing structure that may vary by type of vehicle or time of the time. For example, in London you pay £10 per day for entering the C-Area from Monday to Friday from 7 am to 6 pm, and nothing at other times (see picture). This is a fixed price structure. In the other hand, Singapore's ERP used fixed prices for decades, but recently introduced real-time variable pricing, meaning that the congestion fee varies depending on the amount of traffic. When the city is reaching higher levels of congestion, prices go up. Since these prices cannot be announced in advance, the current rate is announced in electronic boards to alert drivers about conditions ahead, and the prices being charged at that moment. The overhead boards are located at the ERP gantries (both the ERP and main congestion pricing articles are dated in this respect (in CP appears as a development), real-time variable pricing is already in place in Singapore, and since this fact is not in the article, you can confirm it here, towards the end of the article. I have the RS to support this fact, and I plan to do this update before the end of the month, and also another about Shanghai).

The FWHA primer clearly confused the fact that you can have a pricing structure with several fares with actual variable pricing as defined by economics. this is a common misunderstanding of the concept of fixed price. In summary, CP is a pricing strategy to restraint demand during peak hours, and in theory you can have both, fixed or variable pricing. Most implementations though are fixed. Providing the required RS, I think this is an important clarification that can be made in the article.

--Mariordo (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reliable sources for your definition from either this article or the Variable Pricing articles, indeed the Variable Pricing article only has one reference which is to a paper which only talks about 'dynamic pricing'.[7] I do however note that the World Bank people seem to also include peak pricing within their definition of variable pricing and thereby support the FWHA deinition. To quote: "Variable pricing, based on peak periods of use, is a common form of pricing in other industries. It is used when capacity is fixed in the short-run, and demand fluctuates significantly between the peak and off-peak periods. Before cell phones, phone companies used peak-period pricing to encourage consumers to shift their use of the fixed capacity of the phone system to off-peak hours [...] Economists recommend congestion pricing of roads for the same reason private firms use peak-period pricing: to use available resources more efficiently." [8]. I also note that many academic papers seem to confirm this use of the term. For example "Approach and models. The term congestion pricing, also called variable pricing or road pricing, refers to any form of charging more for the use of roads during periods of peak demand (Burris et al., 2002)."[9] A quick review of the literature seem to indicate a preference for the terms 'dynamic pricing' and 'dynamic variable pricing' for prices that vary more unpredictably. PeterEastern (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not intended to provide a definition, it was just a quick explanation. But since I will have to read carefully the sources you provided, reply to your statement with reliable sources, and provide RSs for my explanation, can you wait until Friday night or Saturday morning. I will take me some time to search for these sources and to react in detail to your comment. (PD: as per MOS, you do not need to ce my edits, the rules are more relax for the talk page, and every editor can sign their comments as they wish). Cheers.-- unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I find it odd when you say that you will provide RSs for [your] explanation. Does this imply that you are discounting the views of both the FWHA (who you said were 'confused') and now also the World Bank views and the other academic articles I referred to. Are you still looking for evidence for the interpretation you outlined? I will be interested to see what you come up with. PeterEastern (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• fyi, I note that you are still imposing your (currently unsupported) interpretation of variable pricing[10] within that article, even when it contradicts the source I used to support the claim using the FWHA link. Please conclude this discussion before again changing that article, given that all the available sources indicate that all congestion pricing is indeed a type of variable pricing. Happy to be proved wrong, but that seems unlikely at present. PeterEastern (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Can you wait until we finished the discussion before jumping to editing. I already said that there are both fixed and variable pricing real implementation of congestion pricing (though not updated HOT lanes in the US and ERP in Singapore are the two examples of variable congestion pricing, the rest use fixed pricing). You are making a generalization out of a reference talking about HOT lanes. Also, you changed yield for revenue which are two different thing. Amazon has had enormous growth of revenue over the years but little or no profit/yield. And please just answer one question, is the London congestion charge of 10 pounds an example of variable pricing?-Mariordo (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Mariordo.

• I have provided clear references above suggesting that congestion pricing is a type of variable pricing. In the absense of the promised information from you to the contrary I have restored my text on Variable Pricing. I have also reinstated the link to 'revenue' in the yield management article that you reverted to 'yield' for the reason I give in the revert.[11] PeterEastern (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• According to the World Bank reference (and others - see above), the charges for London it is a 'variable price' because it is only applied during at certain times of day. According to the FWHA London uses 'value pricing' or makes a 'variable charge' or 'variable toll'. My implication their definition equates to the WB term 'variable pricing'. According to their terminology it is certainly not a 'flat toll' (where the toll never changes across the day), or indeed a 'dynamic toll' (where the toll may vary every few minutes). I will be very interested to see what you come back with over the weekend. PeterEastern (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• ps, were you being ironic when you requested that I didn't 'ce your edits', (which I only do to clarify authorship of responses on talk pages), but then failed to include your name at the end of the response? As you will note, I have just added a signature to your text for my benefit and for that of other readers as I would do for any author for a thread that I am following or contributing to. PeterEastern (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I explicitly asked you to wait until Friday night/Saturday morning (tomorrow!) because I wanted to read the references you provided carefully, and provide a reaction using reliable sources. Instead you went into an editing rampant today, began an edit war with me in two of those articles despite requiring you to finish the discussion here after some consensus was reached. One more time, you DO NOT have the right to control my time or that of any other editor, nor tell me what my editing priorities should be (I am entitled do with my spare time whatever I please). You muddle the discussion by editing several articles and opening several threads within a discussion we agree was going to be linear. And as usual you made changes in several articles related to the concept being discussed here, misusing the concepts in the two references you provided. And silence does not means consensus, and as per WP policies you are allowed to be bold, but if questioned (this is, reversed), you are obliged to discuss the topic in the talk, so the proper thing to do should have been to return to the discussion in this talk. Due to your evident lack of economics background and your clear confirmation bias (today you changed several articles about the topic to fit your view, didn't you wonder the possibility that if you have to change so many articles it is because you might be wrong?), you extrapolate conclusions that the sources do not support. In top of that, you become emotional and anxious with the discussion instead of focusing on the arguments in an straight forward discussion (leaving aside personal feeling and not guessing the editor intentions, I just want to have an objective discussion).

If you cool off, I am wiling to continue the discussion but at a reasonable pace focused on the arguments in a linear thread and without doing edits in other articles (I will not revert what I considered gross conceptual mistakes you made in some of these edits, until consensus is reached here, if that is the conclusion of the discussion). I was in the middle of my web research to bring concepts of economics you are missing (unfortunately the material available in standard economics college textbooks is not available online) to support the initial explanation I provided and rebut your interpretation of the sources you provided. My aim is to show you why the London congestion pricing uses fixed prices (10 pounds), while some HOT lanes in the U.S. use variable pricing, showing that congestion pricing can have several types of pricing types (and why peak-charging in the electricity industry is completely different from congestion pricing in transportation - it is due to the marginal cost of generating electricity and the idle capacity the producer has to provide, which is not the case in urban transportation, where the policy is based on the externalities caused by congestion). Let me know if you are willing to continue this discussion, in that case case, please start a new thread with a question of your choice, or if we shall leave it here. Sincerely, I have more productive things to do, in Wikipedia and outside.--Mariordo (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• On the 11th May 2013 I made adjustments to the lead of Variable pricing, and added a reference to Congestion pricing.[12] It sat there uncontested until the 3th Nov when you removed it stating OR. I added this section to this talk page on the 5th to discuss your concerns, provided evidence for my edits and tried to reinstate them on the article with suitable references. You then removed twice[13][14] and have now added a 'expert needed' banner to the article[15] with the message I will not go into an edit war, but the changes PeterEastern made are conceptually wrong from the POV of Economics. A third party with the proper expertise would be a better judge of the recent changes. I find this last move strange, given that you are confident enough of your own knowledge of the subject to state that 'PeterEatern is wrong' in the first place. On the 9th I am still waiting for any evidence for your interpretation. I will however now wait to see what you come up with over the weekend. PeterEastern (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• You talk of me having gone on 'an edit rampage' in the past hours. What exactly do you object to about my recent edits? I was doing some basic clean-up of articles relating to different pricing strategies, creating clearer section headings and linking back to the Pricing strategies article to assist us with resolving our issues by making it easier to navigate the different articles on pricing approaches. If you object to any particular edit then make suitable changes and we deal with them individually. Personally, I really don't think it is appropriate for one WP editor to tell another not to edit articles because they are too busy to discuss an issue. PeterEastern (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding your two comments above: I contested your edit which initially you did without any support from a RS [16]. Anybody is allow to contest an edit at any time. I do not track that article, so when I saw what I considered a conceptual mistake, I reversed. You are allow to be bold, but once I contested it we opened this discussion, which still is not finished. You produced a couple of references and restored your edit without waiting from my response. The discussion is supposed to reach consensus before further editing on disputed content and your practice of doing multiple edits in the middle of an unfinished discussion just muddles the discussion. For the time being, I will not follow your tactic of branching the discussion into multiple issues. I will only focus in a new thread to show why your interpretation of the two references is wrong in the context you are doing the edits (I will address one of your RS at a time, once I have feedback from you I will present my argument for the other). I hope at least you will stop doing additional edits about this subject. And finally, regarding your other edits in related articles, you used laymen words for your understanding of terms that have a specific meaning in economics, the best example is your changing of "yield" (meaning profit) for "revenue", that is a gross mistake, and you do not have to have a background in economics to understand that these are completely different things. I provided the Amazon example above, but basically you ignored all my arguments, instead you ask more questions or cherry pick references that you think are consistent with your interpretation (confirmation bias) and ignored those that contradict your thinking. You have a dozen definition of congestion pricing that DO NOT say anything about the pricing being variable, but you chose the one that said so, and jumped into a editing according to your interpretation. This reference is only talking about HOT lanes in the U.S. I will hold it here and start a new subsection. If you continue not addressing the arguments or branching the discussion, this will be my last attempt to work toward a consensus with you.--Mariordo (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also... regarding your addition of an 'expert needed template' to the Variable pricing article, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use WP:RFC? I note that you also added an 'expert needed' tag to Peak car in May 2012[17] (following a disagreement with me), which you then restored in September 2013[18] after someone unconnected to the dispute removed it[19] commenting that they were not sure that expert attention was actually needed. How long it is appropriate to leave a banner like that on any article, especially if no help is forthcoming? I note that in September 2012 you stated on the relevnat Peak Car talk page that 'Right now I do not have the required time, but if nobody volunteers, I will do the edits in a few weeks from now' (which is now over a year ago). PeterEastern (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

So what? what do you think the template is for. I am an expert on both transportation and economics, but since I was/am involved in the discussion I prefer to avoid COI and a third party can bring an objective POV to the discussion. Just look at this discussion, it is going nowhere and you keep making edits about the disputed topic in the middle of it. Unfortunately, nobody has jumped into any of these discussions. If you want to call an RFC instead of continuing this discussion is just fine with me. But please do it right away, so I can spend time this weekend doing something more productive .--Mariordo (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of the sources provided

This discussion is about the use of term variable pricing regarding congestion pricing, as used by PeterEastern in the following initial edits that I revered and that originated the ongoing discussion:

Talking about congestion pricing:[20]

"This variable pricing strategy regulates demand, making it possible to manage congestion without increasing supply..

— as it appeared in Congestion pricing

Talking about variable pricing:[21]

" ...notably examples include yield management and congestion pricing."

— as it appeared in Variable pricing

I argued that:[22]

In economics a fixed price is a price that is set and known (in public services, prices are officially pubished). Everyone would pay the same price. In the other hand, Variable prices are prices that change from buyer to buyer within the same time frame, for example auctions (stock market, eBay), or bargaining (buying a car, new or used). Modern technology has now allow real-time variable pricing. As per their definition, fixed prices do not implied that you can't have several prices for a product or a service, as long as the pricing structure is known before hand. Typical examples are the prices of movie tickets, which during the week have a lower price than on weekends. Other example is bus or metro fares, in many countries rush hour fares are higher than off-peak fares. These are not cases of variable pricing because the different prices (price structure) are known to customers in advanced.

In the case of congestion pricing, most of schemes use fixed prices, made known to the public in advance, with a pricing structure that may vary by type of vehicle or time of the time. For example, in London you pay £10 per day for entering the C-Area from Monday to Friday from 7 am to 6 pm, and nothing at other times (see picture). This is a fixed price structure. In the other hand, Singapore's ERP used fixed prices for decades, but recently introduced real-time variable pricing, meaning that the congestion fee varies depending on the amount of traffic. When the city is reaching higher levels of congestion, prices go up. Since these prices cannot be announced in advance, the current rate is announced in electronic boards to alert drivers about conditions ahead, and the prices being charged at that moment.... In summary, CP is a pricing strategy to restraint demand during peak hours, and in theory you can have both, fixed or variable pricing. Most implementations though are fixed.

The following references were provided by PeterEastern as reliable sources to support his thesis that congestion pricing always uses variable pricing, and that even the London congestion charge scheme uses variable prices, despite my argument that the ₤10 rate is an example of a congestion charging scheme with a fixed rate. Now I present my analysis of each of the four references used by PeterEastern, moving from what I considered the simple ones to the more complex ones. After the discussion of these sources, if still necessary, I intend to present additional sources to support my argument about the difference between variable pricing and fixed pricing as defined in Economics, and that in practice, implemented congestion pricing schemes use both fixed and variable pricing (the latter includes dynamic or real-time variable pricing).--Mariordo (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Texas A&M Transportation Institute

This document published by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute was initially used in this edit to support that congestion pricing is a notable example of variable pricing. I modified it to clarify that, as per the source, the correct example shall be limited to "congestion pricing in HOT lanes in the U.S."

A careful reading of the document, which is indeed from a reliable source, shows that:

• The document presents the definition of variable pricing in the context of congested roadway facilities, and identifies two forms of variable pricing, by the time of the day and dynamic pricing. It also presents the advantages of this pricing strategy, issues and other details that are not relevant to this discussion.
• Regarding variable pricing by time of the day, the document explains that

"The toll adjustment schedule is set to generally (but not exactly) correlate with the level of congestion on the road; the times of day with higher congestion levels are tolled the highest, and the times of day with the lower congestion levels are tolled at a lower rate."

As per the definition, the congestion charge or toll has to vary by the time of the day according to the levels of traffic congestion, and the document presents the examples of variable or dynamic variable pricing for IH 15 FasTrak Express Lanes in San Diego, California; IH 10 Katy Freeway, Managed Lanes in Houston, Texas; Midpoint Bridge, in Lee County, Florida; and IH 35W Dynamically Priced Shoulder Lane in Minneapolis, Minnesota. These are all examples of congestion pricing in single facilities as already presented in the corresponding section of this article, most of them HOT lanes, reflecting the only type of congestion pricing schemes implemented in the U.S. as of today. Not a single example is presented of cordon area and area wide congestion pricing, despite the fact that Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing has used variable pricing for several years and was testing real-time variable pricing, as documented in the article. The Stockholm congestion tax also uses variable pricing.

Based on the definition presented by Texas A&M, the following cordon area and area wide congestion pricing programs cannot be classified as using a variable pricing structure, because the published fares do not depend or change based on the levels of traffic congestion:

• London congestion charge, single fixed charge of ₤10 on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Milan Area C, fixed charge from €2 to €5 depending on the type of user (resident, non-resident and commercial, and the lower fees are called "discounted fees") not on the level of congestion, and applies on weekdays from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
• Even the original 1975 Singaporean scheme, called Singapore Area Licensing Scheme, was based on fixed charges, and began with a price of S$3 per day for entry between 7.30 am to 9.30 am daily, except on Sundays and public holidays.

In addition, the "old town center" schemes presented in the article also use a fixed charge within certain times of the day. As these examples and the document show, regular tolls and congestion pricing schemes can have pricing structures based on fixed charges (within certain scheduled and/or type of user) or variable pricing based on the levels of congestion. And finally, the document is only dealing with variable pricing so it is not valid to extrapolate or conclude that fixed congestion charges do not exist. The real life examples presented are proof that schemes with fixed pricing do exist. Therefore, it is not correct to make the generalization that all congestion pricing schemes use variable pricing. Road pricing and congestion pricing can use any type of pricing strategies.

Based on the analysis I proposed:

1. An entry could be made in the congestion pricing article to explain that in practice these two types of pricing structures have been used, with specific examples. Also, an explanation can be introduced to show the difference between pre-determined variable charges and dynamic variable charges. The section about HOT lanes could be expanded or even better, a new article could be created. This new article could include more examples (there are plenty of HOT lanes in the U.S. and some in Canada) and explaining in detail the schemes using pre-defined variable charges depending on the time slot within the peak hour and those using variable or real-time variable pricing. I had though of creating a stand alone article about Congestion pricing in HOT lanes, or about Congestion pricing in the United States to cover HOT lanes, conventional tolled roads and bridges that use higher rates during the peak hour and the proposed schemes in New York City and San Francisco, etc.) but it is still in my to do list. )

2. A new section could be created in the variable pricing and the road pricing (since the concept applies also to conventional tolls) articles explaining the two types of variable pricing existing in practice, but making the note that not all schemes used it. Then, as per MOS a summary could be included in the lead base on the content properly supported by reliable sources without need of using refs in the lead.

I await for a reaction to this analysis before moving to the next source, Predicting multi-faceted activity-travel adjustment strategies in response to possible congestion pricing scenarios using an Internet-based stated adaptation experiment. If you agree with the analysis, I also would like to hear your opinion about the proposed edits and creating new articles.--Mariordo (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I find your argument interesting, but not compelling, in particular your suggestion that the London charge is not a variable fee, even though a fee being charged only at busy times. I do agree that this source could be used to exclude London given that the fee does not 'vary' during the day, but goes from non-existent to something. I will be interested to see what your take it for other sources. It is probably going to be best if I let you complete your analysis of other relevant sources before commenting further. PeterEastern (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Economic rationale for moving from untolled (zero charge) equilibrium to congestion pricing equilibrium (after charging the ₤10 in the case of London). The result, you have less traffic volume with just a fixed charge.

The jump from non-existent to something is precisely at the core of congestion pricing: charging a price to shift the point of equilibrium between supply and demand, as shown in the graph at the right. In the case of London, is just the ₤10, no need to use different charges varying according to the traffic load. As explained in this CBO document: The quantity supplied (measured in lane-miles) is less than the quantity demanded at what is essentially a price of zero. If a good or service is provided free of charge, people tend to demand more of it – and use it more wastefully – than they would if they had to pay a price that reflected its cost. Hence, congestion pricing is premised on a basic economic concept: charge a price in order to allocate a scarce resource to its most valuable use, as evidenced by users' willingness to pay for the resource" (and this source explains why due to technological advances, variable pricing was prefered in the U.S.) More formally, according to the economic theory behind congestion pricing as explained in these two standard transportation economics textbooks: the economic rationale of CP is that, at a price of zero, demand exceeds supply, causing a shortage, and that the shortage should be corrected by charging the equilibrium price rather than shifting it down by increasing the supply (this is, increasing road capacity). 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. The objective of this policy is the use of the price mechanism to make users more aware of the costs that they impose upon one another when consuming during the peak demand, and that they should pay for the additional congestion they create (the externality). As you notice, what matters is the jump, a fixed charge will do it. Now, if you use variable pricing, you are forcing multiple points of equilibrium at different periods during the peak hour, providing a price signal to the users with the aim to achieve even higher traffic volume reductions at the most critical times.

Before presenting the analysis of the second source, I will provide an additional graph showing how the equilibrium point shifts when a variable pricing strategy is used instead of a fixed one, with a price structure like the one in place in Stockholm.--Mariordo (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The following graphs illustrate how the point of equilibrium shifts under different pricing strategies. I hope it helps to understand the importance of the jumps and shifts (one shift = fixed charge is enough to achieve the effects expected from congestion pricing).

Congestion Pricing Equilibrium showing shift in traffic from Q0 to Q1 due to the introduction of a fixed congestion charge of ₤10 (P0 to P1) like the London congestion charge.

Congestion Pricing Equilibrium showing shift in traffic from Q0 to Q1 to Q2 due to the introduction of a variable congestion charge increasing from 0 to 10 SKE to 20 SKE at different times during the peak hour (P0 to P1 to P2), like the Stockholm congestion charge.

-- --Mariordo (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I created this talk section in response to your revert of my edit to the lead of Variable pricing article which removed the wlink to congestion pricing which I had added, leaving no reference to CP at all from the article. You supported that revert with the statement "mv OR --> congestion pricing is not variable pricing (most congestion pricing schemes charge a fixed fee not a variable one, the only exception is for some HOT lanes in the U.S.". You now seem to supportive of a reference to this article from Variable pricing, and also seem to acknowledge that there variable congestion pricing is not just limited to 'HOT lanes in the USA' which is good. I have accepted that fixed peak-hours only congestion pricing may not be 'variable'. PeterEastern (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Transport Policy Paper

This academic paper published by the Transport Policy journal (a reliable source and we can assumed the paper was peer-reviewed) was used in this edit to support that congestion pricing is a notable example of variable pricing.

The paper is about the simulation of several congestion pricing strategies using data gathered through the internet. Since only the abstract is available, based on the summary presented and its conclusions I do not see how this paper is related to variable congestion pricing in any way, and therefore it shouldn't be use as source to support that congestion pricing is a notable exampleof variable pricing. Peter, I respectfully request that you remove this reference.--Mariordo (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, the paper includes the definition " The term congestion pricing, also called variable pricing or road pricing, refers to any form of charging more for the use of roads during periods of peak demand (Burris et al., 2002)" which seemed pretty relevant. I will take a look at the full paper in a bit, however that quote does seem to justify inclusion. Hint... Google search results comes up with that quote even though it is not available from the source for the paper.PeterEastern (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the inline citation points to the pdf I analyzed above. Google is just a tool to help you find information, you cannot use the results of a google search as a reliable source. I can not give my opinion about Burris et al. (2002) because it is not available in the provided reference, all you have is a loose piece of information from a google search without the proper context. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Mariordo (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your view that a resource behind a paywall is not a source because you cann't view it, or that Google is not a reliable source for the definition of variable pricing that it contains. Be aware that this was one example of many that could have been chosen which included definitions of variable congestion pricing. Lets not try to resolve this one on this thread though. I just wish to note that in my view it is a useful and appropriate resource, even though you disagree. PeterEastern (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

World Bank source

This source was published in the World Bank Group website and was used in this edit to support that congestion pricing is a notable example of variable pricing. The first important clarification is that the author of the content presented is not World Bank staff, but it was authored by Bern Grush, Founder and Chief Scientist, Skymeter Corporation, who apparently made a presentation in the World Bank on September 25, 2008. The powerpoint can be found here and clearly, its content is not officially endorsed by the World Bank.

Regardless of its authorship and its merits as a reliable source, the summary and the presentation available in the WB website is advocating for the introduction in the U.S. of GNSS road pricing based on Vehicle miles traveled as a tax to substitute the revenue coming from the existing gasoline tax established in 1932 (the summary presented is not quite a faithful reflection of the presentation's content). The author advocates that road pricing should be based on three variables: time, distance and place, so that users pay more during peak periods, pay for actual use and pay varying rates on different roads. He considers this is the fairest way to pay for road use (just like it is done with water and electricity). Among the menu of options available to purse such a policy taking advantage of the existing technological advances he included congestion pricing, but there is no detailed discussion of congestion pricing. Then he illustrates that a product from his company, Skymeter, can allow the implementation of several of these measures (see slides 46 through 48).

The description of the presentation, presented together with the agenda, advocates the use variable congestion pricing,as it is done in other industries. Also says that congestion pricing (in general, not specifically variable congestion pricing) is recommended by economists to use available resources more efficiently. Then explains how the pricing can be done and the positive effects that higher variable prices during peak periods. Finally it talks about the advantages of such approach. I do not see any relevant content for our discussion here: fixed versus variable congestion pricing.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that this source can not be considered a reliable source due to the commercial interest involved in the presentation (though technically there is nothing incorrect about it), nor content produced by the World Bank. And the introduction only support the advantages of using variable pricing. Peter, I respectfully suggest that you remove this reference from the variable pricing article, which would leave the sentence I challenged without a reliable source.

I do acknowledge that this is a paper presented by someone from a commercial company at a World Bank event, and that it does not represent the view of the Work Bank itself. However... are you seriously suggesting that a paper of a talk given at a WB event is not a reliable source for WP? I suggest that it is entirely appropriate to include this paper within context.PeterEastern (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter this is not a paper, an academic paper to be valid has to be peer-reviewed and published. This is just a powerpoint presentation, and based on the content of the slides 46 through 48, it is actually a sales pitch. You are able to find this presentation in the WB website because the transparency policies all multi-lateral development banks (MLDBs) have in place, but it doesn't means endorsement. Furthermore, when you use a document, working paper, etc. produced by any MLDBs you have to check for the disclaimers to see if the content is formally endorsed by the institution. I know because I do work for a MLDB.

Second, and most important, the presentation nor the introduction have any content that is relevant for the issue at hand, other than the existence of variable pricing as an option, so as a reference is not supporting the content you added in the lead of the variable pricing article and should be removed, regardless of its merits as a reliable source.--Mariordo (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal number 2 ....

I suggest we follow my proposal number 2 (above) and create a new section in the variable pricing article explaining the two types of variable road pricing existing in practice (since it applies to both conventional tolls in roads, tunnels and bridges and also to existing congestion pricing schemes), and as per arguments presented until now, make clear that this is just one of the pricing schemes available since there are plenty of road facility that charge fixed tolls around the world and there are existing congestion pricing schemes that also use it. The Texas A&M document is one of the possible sources to support this content. Then, as per MOS a summary could be included in the lead based on the content properly supported by reliable sources without need of using refs in the lead. In the mean time I suggest you substitute the two references with the Texas A&M and ce in a similar line as the edit I did (like.. and several congestion pricing schemes or even more general, several road pricing schemes - to include conventional tolls (my concern is about generalizations).

One more time, I await for your reaction before proceeding with the analysis of the FHWA Primer (that is, if you still consider it is necessary) I think I already made my objection clear, and based on the research I made for this analysis, I have adjusted my view that most congestion pricing systems are based on fixed charges, I realize that thanks to the technologies available today the number of schemes with variable pricing has significantly increased, but still both coexist. In the case of conventional tolls, from a worldwide view, I do not know the answer. Based on my experience (due to my job I travel a lot), in developed countries variable road pricing is coming ahead, but in the developing countries old technologies are still in use and fixed toll pricing prevails).--Mariordo (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Lets complete the review before coming to conclusions. I am also interested to see what over resources you bring to the table other than the ones I use. I know of at least one very useful paper that has not been mentioned. PeterEastern (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that would be necessary, the FHWA Primer content quoted below makes crystal clear that both fixed and variable pricing exist in practice, and the Texas A&M document provides a clear definition of what variable pricing is, the charge has to vary by the time of the day according to the levels of traffic congestion. Furthermore, I already provided you above the basic theoretical concepts in economics (supported by two academic textbooks on transport economics) that show that without the jump from zero pricing to the congestion charge you do not have congestion pricing at all (London being the best example). Variable pricing just keep shifting the jump with a higher fare as the traffic load increases, regardless if it is implemented with pre-established fares (like Stockholm) or real-time (like Singapore is testing). The latter makes it dynamic, adjusting in real-time to the actual traffic flows passing the control points. The issue being discussed is about whether all congestion pricing is variable, as you claimed, and I believe enough evidence has been presented to show that it is not, both fixed and variable pricing are used in practice. I would appreciate if you address the issue at the core of this discussion, and the arguments and evidence already presented. I already did my homework, now is your turn (and please do not branch the discussion, I will only address your questions about dynamic variable pricing below, but this observation is not related to your claim that congestion pricing has to be implemented with variable pricing).--Mariordo (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FHWA Primer

Before doing an extensive analysis, Peter, please consider the following explanation presented in page 1 of the primer under the heading: II. What is congestion pricing? (the bold is mine):

There are four main types of pricing strategies, each of which is discussed in more detail later in this section:

• Variably priced lanes, involving variable tolls on separated lanes within a highway, such as Express Toll Lanes or HOT

Lanes, i.e. High Occupancy Toll lanes

• Variable tolls on entire roadways – both on toll roads and bridges, as well as on existing toll-free facilities during

rush hours

• Cordon charges – either variable or fixed charges to drive within or into a congested area within a city
• Area-wide charges – per-mile charges on all roads within an area that may vary by level of congestion

I believe this content fully supports my explanation that congestion pricing can be both base of fixed or variable charges. I await your reaction.--Mariordo (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that we have not yet discussed the term 'dynamic tolls' at all (even though this term appears to be the preferred term for tolls that vary minute by minute and the term is used extensively in this paper). Here is a quote from the FHWA paper makes a distinction between flat tools, stepped variable tolls and dynamic tolls. (on page 4) "Flat tolls, “stepped” variable tolls, and “dynamic” tolls. The first roads in the United States and in many other countries were toll roads. In these cases, toll rates were fixed at a flat rate, since their purpose was to raise revenue, not to manage demand. If tolls are to be used to manage demand, they must vary by the level of demand. They may be set in advance by time of day, based on traffic volumes observed – during the past week, month, or quarter. In each case, the toll schedule may appear as a “stepped” form, as shown below. Tolls to manage demand may also be set “dynamically.” Under this approach, a maximum toll rate may be specified in advance for selected time periods (see schedule for I-15 HOT lanes shown below), but actual tolls typically vary below the maximum based on real-time traffic observed on the facility. While a driver knows the maximum rate that can be charged, actual rates (which are generally lower) are known to him or her only a few minutes in advance of approaching the priced facility." Using this definition would the London charge not be a 'stepped variable toll'?

I also note that word 'dynamic' does not currently appear in this WP article and there and that Dynamic pricing article redirects currently to Time-based pricing (which is different) and that article does not even mention roads or transport at all other than on the talk page which is dominated by a heated discussion between Mariordo and deFacto on a proposal to merge it with this article. All this seems very messy to me.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in my proposal 1, there is plenty of room for expanding this article and others, and even creating new ones, where these options can be presented. There is also some updating required (that I hope to do in the following weeks, but only after this discussion is closed). The FHWA and Texas A&M provide enough information to support explaining the three types of charging you can use in road pricing, both for conventional toll and congestion charges: (i) fixed or flat charge; (ii) pre-determined or stepped charges; and (iii) dynamic or real-time (there is already some content about Singapore's in the "new developments" section - I intend to update it since it appears they are already using dynamic or real-time pricing, I have some references but the picture is still incomplete).

And by the way, please fix the edit you did in the variable pricing article, as shown above the two references you used do not support the content, they talk about something else (regardless of their merit as RS). Also the wording has to be changed to reflect that several, no all, congestion pricing implementation use variable pricing, stepped or dynamic. Both the FHWA and Texas A&M sources are fine to support that content. Finally, and as I stated in proposal 2, talking about road pricing is more comprehensive, since conventional tolls also use variable pricing. The quote you made above reflects this fact. And as per MOS, it would be even better to create a short section supported by these two reliable sources, then just having a short summary in the lead (it is weird to have a fact in the lead that is not presented in the main body of the article). I still await your reaction about the evidence and arguments presented regarding the core issue of this discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the 'expert' banner, and added the words 'some forms of' before the reference to congestion pricing in the lead. I have removed all references to support that for clarity (given that references are available from this linked article). If you prefer to see references to support it in the lead, then please add them. PeterEastern (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OECD - International Symposium on Road Pricing -Conference Proceedings 34

For the record, I note that at the OECD 'International Symposium on Road Pricing' in 2003, the organisers noted that "Although they are often used interchangeably, the phrases "road pricing," "congestion pricing," "value pricing," and "variable pricing" can have different meanings to different users. This document typically uses the phrase "road pricing." Under a road pricing strategy, road users are charged a fee that reflects the cost of their use of the road more fully than do existing fees and taxes, and thus pricing can serve as a public policy tool to help manage demand for a limited resource– road space. Because of its role in managing demand, road pricing is often referred to as "congestion pricing," particularly in cases where the charge rises at peak travel times and falls or is eliminated entirely when demand is low.". PeterEastern (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Peter, I am aware some of the terms are used interchangeably by some people, even some professional transportation engineers and a few transportation economists (though mainstream use is clear about the differences). Particularly in British English is common to hear road pricing meaning congestion pricing or congestion charges, and in other industries is called peak pricing. Also the use of tax instead of charge. The Americans came up with value pricing when the HOT lanes were introduced, now congestion pricing is becoming more common among practitioners. If you check the talk history (a couple of years back, I guess), I was in the middle of a discussion with DeFacto to introduced a "Terminology" section, but he was more interested in pushing his POV than improving the article, and we ended the discussion abruptly. I think it would be a good idea to introduce such section (proposal 3?). Are you willing to work on it? You can use the material from that discussion, the OECD material (I assume you have the url), and the Victoria institute (link already in the CP article) to start with. The article Plug-in electric vehicle#Terminology is a good model to follow for such new section.--Mariordo (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926183426/http://www.brooklyneagle.com:80/categories/category.php?category_id=27 to http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=13380

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421115116/http://www.cfit.gov.uk:80/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm to http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215151551/http://www.costaneranorte.cl:80/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf to http://www.costaneranorte.cl/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807161601/http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/seattle.htm to http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/seattle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807161643/http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/minneapolis.htm to http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/minneapolis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100929004543/http://londoncouncils.gov.uk/Transport/Publications/anindependentassessmentofthecentrallondoncongestionchargingscheme.htm to http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/Transport/Publications/anindependentassessmentofthecentrallondoncongestionchargingscheme.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090907131134/http://www.newsday.com:80/search/ny-stcong125252662jun12,0,3435226.story to http://www.newsday.com/search/ny-stcong125252662jun12,0,3435226.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090907111241/http://www.stockholm.se:80/OmStockholm/Forvaltningar-och-bolag/Andra-verksamheter-/Valnamnden/Folkomrostning-om-miljoavgiftertrangselskatt-/Resultat-fran-folkomrostningen---per-stadsdelsomrade/ to http://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Forvaltningar-och-bolag/Andra-verksamheter-/Valnamnden/Folkomrostning-om-miljoavgiftertrangselskatt-/Resultat-fran-folkomrostningen---per-stadsdelsomrade/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fosgerau's comment on this article

Dr. Fosgerau has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The section on Developments does not give developments for Stockholm

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Fosgerau has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Fosgerau, Mogens, 2015. "Congestion in the bathtub," MPRA Paper 63029, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The paper is 100% of academic nature and only about the definition of bathtub congestion, nothing useful for the article about congestion pricing. I will look up (google) about any latest developments of the Stockholm schema. It would had been useful if some tips had been provided by Dr. Fosgerau about the Swedish case.--Mariordo (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

New development in Stockholm have been included (raised tax).--Mariordo (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of GBP template

I have removed the GBP template from the section concerning London (which was not consistently applied) as it is unambiguous which currency is being talked about, seeing as GBP is the official currency of the UK.

At the very most, the Manual of Style states that the template should only be used on the first mention of GBP and only where there would be ambiguity in the article. 81.159.193.27 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Peak-load pricing

For those interested in the discussion of the merge proposal of the article peak-load pricing to congestion pricing, the discussion is being held in the talk page of the former article.--Mariordo (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302045327/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302045327/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/seattle.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/minneapolis.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfit.gov.uk:80/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.costaneranorte.cl:80/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302073502/http://www.tollroadsnews.com:80/node/2848 to http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2848
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://londoncouncils.gov.uk/Transport/Publications/anindependentassessmentofthecentrallondoncongestionchargingscheme.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608193744/http://val.cscs.se:80/ to http://val.cscs.se/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com:80/search/ny-stcong125252662jun12,0,3435226.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412020716/http://www.ny1.com:80/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=70617 to http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=70617
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907071140/http://biblioteca.prensa.com:80/contenido/2006/05/09/9-44a-nota2.html to http://biblioteca.prensa.com/contenido/2006/05/09/9-44a-nota2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803154550/http://mensual.prensa.com:80/mensual/contenido/2006/08/25/hoy/negocios/714407.html to http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2006/08/25/hoy/negocios/714407.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228163750/http://www.cfit.gov.uk:80/map/index.htm to http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017115635/http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/congestionpricing/materials/Key%20Documents/CongestionPricingReport-Draft_1-18-13_ForWeb.pdf to http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/congestionpricing/materials/Key%20Documents/CongestionPricingReport-Draft_1-18-13_ForWeb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627154821/http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~tristan/pubs/ieeeic01.pdf to http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~tristan/pubs/ieeeic01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213163049/http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Vag/Trangselskatt/Information%20p%C3%A5%20engelska.pdf to http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Vag/Trangselskatt/Information%20p%C3%A5%20engelska.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403045834/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharge/whereandwhen/ to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharge/whereandwhen/#section-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907033339/http://www.eltis.org:80/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1560&lang1=en to http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1560&lang1=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708232606/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1007/1007736_ccharge_details_revealed.html to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1007/1007736_ccharge_details_revealed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116114401/http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073 to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6042551
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614065454/http://www.sfcta.org:80/content/view/468/288/ to http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/468/288/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603081534/http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/faq.htm to http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/faq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909134553/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/roads/tpm/congestionresearch/perceptions/perceptionsofcongestionrepor4026?page=1 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/congestionresearch/perceptions/perceptionsofcongestionrepor4026?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531162136/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Ex-post-evaluation-of-quantified-impacts-of-original-scheme-07-June.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Ex-post-evaluation-of-quantified-impacts-of-original-scheme-07-June.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715053128/http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se:80/ to http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719031656/http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-06-37.pdf to http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/rff-dp-06-37.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907033359/http://www.eltis.org:80/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1610&mainID=458 to http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1610&mainID=458
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228180828/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/FourthAnnualReportFinal.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/FourthAnnualReportFinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627154819/http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/03083.pdf to http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/03083.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627154819/http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Transportation/doc_files/airport-congestion.pdf to http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Transportation/doc_files/airport-congestion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627154819/http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Transportation/doc_files/airport-congestion.pdf to http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Transportation/doc_files/airport-congestion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627154821/http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~tristan/pubs/ieeeic01.pdf to http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~tristan/pubs/ieeeic01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309210332/http://www.progress-project.org/Progress/rome.html to http://www.progress-project.org/Progress/rome.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411130815/http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=6241 to http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=6241
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharge/whereandwhen/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1560&lang1=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306095431/http://www.cva.gov.mt/ to http://www.cva.gov.mt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907033346/http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1610&comments=1 to http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1610&comments=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305132512/http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/congestion to http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/congestion
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/468/288/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.costaneranorte.cl/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807174435/http://www.piarc.org/library/aipcr/1/88FDcnh3295yCfA04Vm71nCN.pdf to http://www.piarc.org/library/aipcr/1/88FDcnh3295yCfA04Vm71nCN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117163944/http://www.aecc.eu/en/content/pdf/AECC%20Newsletter%20September-October%202011.pdf to http://www.aecc.eu/en/content/pdf/AECC%20Newsletter%20September-October%202011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2848
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/congestionresearch/perceptions/perceptionsofcongestionrepor4026?page=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://val.cscs.se/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eltis.org/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=1610&mainID=458
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/search/ny-stcong125252662jun12%2C0%2C3435226.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=70617
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228220202/http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Hushall_eng.pdf to http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Hushall_eng.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://biblioteca.prensa.com/contenido/2006/05/09/9-44a-nota2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2006/08/25/hoy/negocios/714407.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411130815/http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=6241 to http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=6241
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Congestion pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703111917/http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_transportation.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_transportation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219055853/http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/ricardo-setti/politica-cia/perdendo-30-bilhoes-de-reais-por-ano-por-congestionamentos-de-transito-sp-mira-o-exemplo-do-pedagio-urbano-de-londres/ to http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/ricardo-setti/politica-cia/perdendo-30-bilhoes-de-reais-por-ano-por-congestionamentos-de-transito-sp-mira-o-exemplo-do-pedagio-urbano-de-londres/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115121350/http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/12384129/harbour-bridge-variable-tolls-to-stay to http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/12384129/harbour-bridge-variable-tolls-to-stay/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005155307/http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5283437/peak-hour-toll-begins-harbour-bridge/ to http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5283437/peak-hour-toll-begins-harbour-bridge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)