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) ←--#: . 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) |
| 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.[3] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:04, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
| 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.[4] --User:Amr Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 29.4.2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
| 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:
|