Talk:Congestion charge: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|#|The tension between the demand side of transformation and the supply side of governance of cities with out a clear vision on urban transit can be problematic. The mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economical growth, hence the increased living expense of commuting for a younger population can contribute to framing the city as economically hostile or expensive. more effort should be aimed toward different tariffs to different categories rather generalized schemes.<ref>[http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/congestion_apr10.pdf]</ref>|--[[User:Amr Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Amr Ebrahim|talk]]) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC)}} | {{defend|#|The tension between the demand side of transformation and the supply side of governance of cities with out a clear vision on urban transit can be problematic. The mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economical growth, hence the increased living expense of commuting for a younger population can contribute to framing the city as economically hostile or expensive. more effort should be aimed toward different tariffs to different categories rather generalized schemes.<ref>[http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/congestion_apr10.pdf]</ref>|--[[User:Amr Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Amr Ebrahim|talk]]) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC)}} | ||
{{attack|# |In as much as mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economic growth the delay associated with traffic could as well serve as disincentive for people to move into these locations.The faster someone can transact business in a location the more likely the individual will tend to conduct business in that location.Hence it might be difficult for younger population to see such places as economically hostile.Moreover as non-productive activity for most people, congestion reduces regional economic healt.<ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion</ref>|--[[User:edem agbenowu]] ([[User talk:edem agbenowu|talk]]) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC)}} | {{attack|# |In as much as mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economic growth the delay associated with traffic could as well serve as disincentive for people to move into these locations.The faster someone can transact business in a location the more likely the individual will tend to conduct business in that location.Hence it might be difficult for younger population to see such places as economically hostile.Moreover as non-productive activity for most people, congestion reduces regional economic healt.<ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion</ref>|--[[User:edem agbenowu]] ([[User talk:edem agbenowu|talk]]) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC)}} | ||
Revision as of 06:51, 15 May 2017
Air quality and climate change
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme doesn't significantly affect air quality in cities.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#: . Carbon footprint caused by stationary traffic or ‘vehicle idling’ resulting from gridlock across urbanized advanced economies. The fuel that is consumed while stationary in traffic results in higher emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants, which leads to poorer air quality, particularly in urban areas. [1] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 28.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . I support the noted argument that congestion charge could have a positive impact on quality. For instance, the congestion charge trial in Stockholm in 2006, based on measurements, it was estimated that this system resulted in a 15% reduction in total road use within the charged cordon. Total traffic emissions in this area of NOx and PM10 fell by 8.5% and 13%, respectively. [2] --User:Ehab Mustafa (talk) 12:18, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Individual choice
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Congestion charge scheme constrains individual choice and behavior.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#: . Urban dwellers are more geared towards behavioral adjustment, since they are aware of the dynamic of distributions of the costs of congestion on house hold and their societal sense of belonging. Therefore, the incidence of such costs and benefits affects the preferences and in turn the willingness to build coping strategies will emerge by acceptance. Hence this can only apply to urban dwellers the case with suburbia and rural surrounding still needs more attention.[4] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
Economy
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: The economic viability of tariffs and transformation of urban space will encourage more use of roads and cars.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . Most economic decision in urbanized economical cities needs to overcome elements such as cost and convenience of toll collection, especially on down town streets. Nevertheless the regressive distributional impact, since lower income people spend a larger proportion of their income on commuting and have less work schedule flexibility, lack of trust in government to dispose of toll revenues wisely, and benefits that in some cases are so small as to be insignificant. These all can contribute for increased mileage attempting to look for either alternatives of escape the cost.[5] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
{{discussion |Statements = congestion charge schemes can restrict urban mobility and human capital growth. |Resolution = |Resolved = |Argumentation = ←--#: . The tension between the demand side of transformation and the supply side of governance of cities with out a clear vision on urban transit can be problematic. The mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economical growth, hence the increased living expense of commuting for a younger population can contribute to framing the city as economically hostile or expensive. more effort should be aimed toward different tariffs to different categories rather generalized schemes.[6] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#: . In as much as mobility towards more economic prosperous location is needed for economic growth the delay associated with traffic could as well serve as disincentive for people to move into these locations.The faster someone can transact business in a location the more likely the individual will tend to conduct business in that location.Hence it might be difficult for younger population to see such places as economically hostile.Moreover as non-productive activity for most people, congestion reduces regional economic healt.[7] --User:edem agbenowu (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Toxicity charge as a form of congestion charge is unfair.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . Older cars that do not meet Euro 4 standard paying an extra £10 charge on top of the congestion charge to drive in central London, within the Congestion Charge Zone is unfair because the fact that a car is old does not necessarily indicate that the emission levels are high [8] --Edem Agbenowu (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#: . The purpose of congestion charge is to discourage traffic in the city centers but some mobile equipment do not have any emmission standard and by extension might not pay any congestion charge attributed with emissions in London examples are vehicles with less than 4 wheels, those with 2-stroke engines,hybrid vehicles,quadricycles but these means of transport could as well cause congestion in the city center [9] --Edem Agbenowu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: congestion charge prevents the occurrence of tragedy of the commons.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . In any situation within a shared-resource system such as roads individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.The introduction of effective congestion charges will serve as a measures that may reduce congestion through economic incentives and disincentives [10] --User:edem agbenowu (talk) 01:07, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Materials that can be used
These are Finnish (focussing on Helsinki) discussions or proposals about congestion charge. The web pages are linked through Google translator so that the text shown is automatically translated text from Finnish to English. Mostly it works fine, but be aware of mistakes.
- The environmental council of the city of Helsinki suggests (9th May 2017) that regional congestion charges should be available for cities and the cities also should get the money collected. [10]
- Osmo Soininvaara, a member of Helsinki City Council, suppports congestion charges. These are his arguments:
- 3rd April 2017: congestion charges are effective in reducing traffic jams, they reduce emissions, and they collect money for the city. [11]
- 4th April 2017: even if a congestion charge punishes poor people (who can afford to sit in the current traffic jams but cannot afford the charges), the benefits (see previous point) spread to the whole community. [12]
- The Helsinki Regional Transport Agency HSL is planning congestion charges. News from February 2016.
- Report on congestion charges in Helsinki, 2016 [16]
- Background report on congestion charges, 2015 (in Finnish with English summary) [17]
- Autoliitto (Car Drivers' Association) opposes congestion charge in Helsinki (2009) [18], (2011) [19]
- Hannu Oskala argues against Autoliitto's statements (2012) [20]
- Summary page of HSL material about congestion charge (mostly Finnish only) [21]
- Helsingin kaupunki. Ruuhkamaksut tehokkain keino parantaa Helsingin ilmanlaatua nopeasti. (12.01.2017) [22]
- HSL (11.2.2016): Tiemaksut varmistaisivat Helsingin seudun kestävän kasvun [23]
- LVM. (2011) Helsingin seudun ruuhkamaksu. Jatkoselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 5/2011. [27]
- LVM. (2007). Joukkoliikenteen houkuttelevuuden ja käytön lisääminen eri liikkujaryhmissä. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 63/2007. [28]
- Talouselämä-uutiskommentti [29]
- LVM. Tienkäyttömaksujärjestelmät. Esiselvitys. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 17/2006. [30]
Scientific articles about congestion charge and health
- doi:10.1126/science.aaf3420
- doi:10.1016/j.jth.2015.08.002
- doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.912615
- doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.004
- doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.01.002
- doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.015
- doi:10.1080/13547500902965252
- doi:10.5172/impp.453.10.2-3.269
- doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.030
- doi:10.1136/jech.2003.012385