Talk:New York congestion pricing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed Wikipedia guide to mass transit in the New York City metropolitan area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within the New York City Public Transportation WikiProject.

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from New York congestion pricing appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 June 2007.

[edit] Correspondence with a fellow editor

I was getting slightly hot under the collar that some new guy didn't understand how pushing his name and views wouldn't fit the encyclopedic enterprise and was using the "new article" dodge instead of discussing the matter in talk page. What bothers me now about my work in [1] is hat it has no references. No newspaper, no dissenting chamber of commerce, no politician's position paper or nothing. This month I ought to do the searches that will find that stuff, and of course any help in that direction would be welcome.

As far as I see this material does not belong in the worldwide [2]] article, because that's already a big article with broad geographic scope, and its theme should be more narrowly limited than this one. On the other hand [[3] is broadly about road congestion, and perhaps we can find a place there for a few "alternatives" after expanding them beyond the bullet points that are appropriate in our New York article. And if there aren't adequate links among these articles and the appropriate section of [4], there should be. Always an eager editor can find things to improve. Not much of the work is about adding new ideas. It's more about making connections.

To me, the inadequacies in TiNYC are freight, and roads. Alas, my knowledge in these topics is not adequate to the job, but I am qualified to start a new article about Bicycling in New York City, after the pattern of [5] and ought to do it one of these days. I hope to meet some of you in Central Park on August 19 Jim.henderson 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to say that I feel your addition is almost as bad as the previous user's. It's not that I think the section is irrelevant, because it is relevant, but it is a list in a rather unencyclopedic tone. "Hybrid electric vehicles burn less fuel. Exempt them."? Is there some way to clean up the list or convert it to prose? And there is the unreferenced issue. Since you seem to know that you need references, and partly from my sentiment on my talk page, I won't add an "unreferenced" tag. I thank you for pointing out that you need references, but I can't search them for that section, sorry, unless I happen to find some. There are other expansion priorities in this article that I need to address first (help is always appreciated): mainly the history before the current proposal, traffic characteristics in New York, and more about political endorsements and pro and con reasons from both sides. TLK^'in 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practical alternatives

This section of the article seems to be Original Research. The article up to that point is copiously sourced. Then comes the section called "Practical alternatives," which is written in a "laundry list" style, and contains only one source, which doesn't even support the statement to which it's attached. As far as I know, no reliable source has advocated the specific list of alternatives offered here. Some of them are absurd, and have probably not been seriously suggested by any credible authority.

In addition, the section's title advocates a point of view, by implying that all of the listed alternatives are, in fact, practical. Some of them clearly are not, such as banning all motor taxis, building a network of skyways, and "start thinking twenty years from now." It seems more like a list of all conceivable ideas, whether practical or not.

I would kill the whole section. Marc Shepherd 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the section referred to in the above post. Looking at it again, it does look more like original research. I am much more bullish about removing original research than simply unreferenced sections. So the section as it is now should be removed. But as I said above, as a subject matter, alternatives for reducing vehicular traffic that is particular to New York City is relevant in this article, as long as they are noted and supported by notable people and experts.

Perhaps there was guilt over the removal of that section's predecessor.TLK^'in 13:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As you and I are of the same view, I think it's appropriate to delete it now. If anyone wants to restore it, the burden would be on them to demonstrate that there are reliable sources for this material. Marc Shepherd 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this also goes for Mr. Stein's constant addition of original research which is of the same nature. TLK^'in 09:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I was too busy when my little list was deleted, and afterwards found other things to do. Anyway, it seems to me there ought to be a list of alternatives, or at least a reference to [Regional Plan Association's densely detailed refutation of them]. Whether I'm the one to write such section, well, the criticisms above are mostly fair and make me reluctant to enter anything. Mine was a mere list, rather than a paragraph of prose, because the wisest of the points, such as they were, already had their inadequacies discussed in traffic congestion to which I intended to make internal links. As for the title, "practical" to my reading did not denote wisdom or other good things about the alternatives; merely that they were proposals for practice. However, others saw the word as one of praise, and perhaps the original author so intended it. Thus, in trimming the title I should have trimmed that word as well. I hope the smarter editors can make something useful out of my ideas, but if not, no hard feelings. Jim.henderson 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason alternatives can't be listed. The problem is that many of those you included had no reliable source. The Regional Plan Association's document, for instance, focuses on just three alternatives. I don't believe it proposes replacing all motor taxis with pedicabs, as the earlier draft did. Feel free to re-introduce the section, as long as there are cited sources for whatever you include. Marc Shepherd 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map on vote breakdown

Something like this would be great to include in the article, however I was sad to find out we don't have a city council district map on Wikimedia, so no go for now... --Padraic 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)