274:(most common application) and other transportation modes (such as the scheme in the Panama Canal). In other sectors similar concepts has been applied, but slightly modified because of the different nature of the service (for example, electricity requires distribution, transport does not. Final users of water and energy services pay a monthly fee according to use, road users don't pay out-of-pocket fees for use of the road network, except some toll roadas), and are called by different names, such as
192:
Too much detail on the London ULEZ but some general explanation of relationship with LEZ would be interesting e.g. why US has road congestion pricing but no LEZ as far as I know. And will the balance change as EV proportion continues to increase rapidly in Europe? Bibliography needs trimming and
390:
in the next sentence), and is something that could portend other quality issues. I haven't looked into those, so I can't comment on that yet. I will note, though, that this topic has changed a ton since 2008, so if it hasn't been actively updated, it's likely no longer up to standard.
124:
It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot.
269:
As the article explains in its description section (supported by the corresponding reliable sources, mainly economic literature), congestion pricing could be applied in several public services, but in practice it is mainly use in transportation services, such as
214:
OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting.
154:
I'm a little skeptical of "advocates claim" in the second sentence of the lead. Is the research strong enough to just state that in wikivoice? This is an important topic, and it'd be nice to save it from delisting.
237:
should go in that article, not here. The summary about London is due to more studies and evaluations available, and because it is the onle big city in the world with such scheme, therefore, it is a global
377:
attempting to clarify this. I hope that helps with scope, but the very fact we're having to discuss it here rather than it being something the original author made clear is a failing of the article (the
140:
The lead needs to cover the environmental and health impact at greater length. The research is clear: congestion pricing reduces pollution, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and has health benefits.
300:
I agree with you the scope should be wide as explained in the lede. But the body does not have enough on non-transport e.g. electricity has moved on since the article was first written
69:
441:
section (4). Other concerns mentioned above also seem plausible, although I have no preference as to what exactly the final scope might be at the moment.
363:
The non-transport uses of congestion pricing are often called different things and have different qualities, so it makes sense to discuss them separately.
65:
437:, unsourced portions here and there (2), most of the article seems a list rather than general coverage of the topic (3b), and has a separate large
346:
On scope, I think that we ought to restrain it to "congestion pricing" in transport, i.e. traffic congestion pricing. This is for several reasons:
50:
42:
17:
379:
233:
the delisting. The topic is still up to date, no much progress has occurred worldwide since it gained GA. Details about the
450:
428:
409:
340:
309:
295:
264:
247:
224:
202:
177:
149:
134:
117:
106:
90:
419:. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion.
255:
Do you have an opinion about the scope of the article? I mean whether it should include things other than transport?
349:
It allows us to proceed without having to cut or add much to this article, increasing the likelihood we can save it.
145:
234:
446:
374:
58:
383:
325:
141:
189:
438:
283:
185:
442:
291:
243:
35:
424:
336:
305:
260:
220:
198:
130:
357:
275:
102:
465:
353:
387:
159:, have you noticed other problems, or just that the lead doesn't align with the body?
459:
321:
287:
279:
252:
239:
420:
332:
301:
271:
256:
216:
194:
156:
126:
324:
Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as
111:
397:
328:
165:
190:
https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/lmp
331:) intending to improve this article further in the next few days?
352:
The broader concept of congestion pricing is already covered in
85:
77:
46:
366:
Articles with too big a scope tend to become unwieldy.
386:in the first sentence definition but then included
184:Scope of this article compared other articles e.g.
8:
193:updating. I may find more problems later.
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
429:13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
410:22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
341:12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
310:07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
296:23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
265:19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
248:17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
225:19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
203:18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
178:17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
150:15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
135:12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
482:
451:09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
118:09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
235:London congestion charge
384:transportation network
284:electricity pricing
186:Electricity pricing
91:Most recent review
28:Congestion pricing
407:
395:
175:
163:
473:
408:
405:
404:
402:
393:
358:variable pricing
326:Snooganssnoogans
276:variable pricing
176:
173:
172:
170:
161:
142:Snooganssnoogans
114:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
481:
480:
476:
475:
474:
472:
471:
470:
456:
455:
398:
396:
392:
375:added a hatnote
354:dynamic pricing
166:
164:
160:
112:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
479:
477:
469:
468:
458:
457:
454:
453:
415:My opinion is
413:
412:
388:public utility
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
350:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
122:
121:
120:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
478:
467:
464:
463:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
418:
411:
403:
401:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
371:
365:
362:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
323:
311:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:water pricing
277:
273:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
204:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
171:
169:
158:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
119:
116:
115:
108:
104:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
439:WP:CRITICISM
434:
416:
414:
399:
380:2008 version
320:
272:road pricing
238:reference.--
230:
213:
167:
123:
110:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
188:- see e.g.
47:visual edit
99:: delisted
382:included
460:Category
322:Mariordo
288:Mariordo
253:Mariordo
240:Mariordo
231:I oposed
421:Chidgk1
333:Chidgk1
302:Chidgk1
257:Chidgk1
217:Chidgk1
195:Chidgk1
157:Chidgk1
127:Chidgk1
70:history
51:history
37:Article
466:GAR/67
435:Delist
417:delist
282:, and
113:buidhe
97:Result
373:I've
79:Watch
16:<
447:talk
425:talk
400:Sdkb
394:{{u|
356:and
337:talk
329:Sdkb
306:talk
292:talk
261:talk
244:talk
221:talk
199:talk
168:Sdkb
162:{{u|
146:talk
131:talk
66:edit
43:edit
443:CMD
286:.--
462::
449:)
427:)
406:}}
339:)
308:)
294:)
278:,
263:)
246:)
223:)
201:)
174:}}
148:)
133:)
109:)
105:·
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
445:(
423:(
360:.
335:(
304:(
290:(
259:(
242:(
219:(
197:(
144:(
129:(
107:c
103:t
101:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.