Talk:Congestion charge
| 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) |
| 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:
|
| 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:
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: congestion charge schemes can restrict urban mobility and human capital growth.
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
|