Talk:London congestion charge/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content of the 'Effects' section

The main objective of the CC was to reduce congestion, so one of the discussions in the 'Effects' section should be about congestion. Given that the most serious congestion is during the morning rush, then the section 'Effects' should primarily discuss the effect of the charge on this particular congestion.

Other side effects, public transport use, road safety, environment, should each have their own sub-section so as not to confuse them with the main issue.

Discussion of income and costs needs to be outside the 'Effects' section. -- de Facto (talk). 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the points on this that you added to my talk page:

  • The Bow report is as valid a source for inclusion as TfL. Tfl run the scheme, so are not themselves an 'independent source', and one could argue are also a "political organisation with a particular axe to grind".
  • As said above, the CC objective is to control congestion, so the effect on congestion needs to be discussed. As you say "a network does not suffer from congestion just because there is more traffic", so traffic discussion is not necessarily relevant, except where it impacts problematic congestion - such as that occuring during the morning rush.
  • If you think that the figures & quotes by the LAS, to do with traffic calming, have a direct relevance on the interpretation of TfL's accident estimates, then perhaps it should be re-inserted in the new 'Road safety' section.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adressing your points in no particular order :

  • the Bow group are a good citable source of opinion, but as they have a political agenda we should be careful to quote them in context. The only consistent sources of traffic count data comes through TfL, and the Bow group uses them. Having gone through all of the monitoring reports I am very much aware of the spin that is put into TfL's summaries & particularly the Mayor's :-( The only source for raw data is via their various traffic control centres & their contractor, & the information after the summaries uses this data. To the best of my knowledge the transport planners of TfL & its predecessors have been the only guardians of complete sets of historical traffic data for London. The only independent data source comes from the London Air Quality Network, which you will note gives a different perspective to TfL's report.
  • the Bow report's claims of an immediate effect uses time-period graphs and text that cites the long-term reports. Therefore we should be wary of citing them in the context of the immediate effects section. TfL shows a totally different effect in their "Congestion Charging 6 months on" report which showed approx 15% decrease in peak time morning traffic, a 30% drop in mid afternoon traffic, and a 15% increase in evening traffic (with greater evening volumes entering & leaving the zone than the morning)- ref Para 3.57 & Figure 9 of the 6-month on report: "There has been no substantial shift in the timing of vehicle trips to avoid the charging hours". The later reports used annual average figures and so gave a different perspective. Perhaps the figures confirmed Bow's conclusions, but in drawing any conclusions we need to be wary of how we state this to avoid WP:OR in an encyclopedic article.
  • Various authorities point to the 30% reduction in levels of private traffic as a "success" for the CC, and conveniently ignore the effect on congestion (e.g. the change in vehicle transit time). Thus both traffic effects and congestion effects need to be displayed alongside each other.
  • It may be difficult to entirely separate private & public transport in the sub sections; the discipline of transport planning has tended to think of them more or less together since the 1980s. For example, Mogridge had shown how maximum car journey speed in a congested network was linked to maximum public transport speed, while "modal split" (choosing to change mode of transport mid-way through a journey) is influenced by the effectiveness of different forms of transport. And it is hard to see if journeys were "deterred" (as many businesses claim) if these figures get to be sprinkled all over the article.

Ephebi (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Article content, structure, and sources

I think that there are some changes required in this article, which will make it even better, more neutral, more accurate, and more useful for the reader. Let me try and explain...

If you come to it fresh, you see a summary in the lead, which starts with a sentence on its aims, then one on its coverage, then one on its background, then one on its operation, and a bit about who operates it, and finally one about it being the subject of controversy.

Then come the sections Operation, Coverage, History, Effects, Income and costs, Reaction, and Future proposals.

There isn't one to discuss the first point in the lead, and perhaps the most important point of all, its purpose. In fact I don't think that the lead points about purpose are verifiable from the rest of the article text at all.

The other issues I have are to do with the Effects section.

Firstly, where earlier parts of the article deal in facts, which can easily be checked from TfL sources, the roads, covered, start date, fee, etc., the Effects section is concerned with the discussion of things which, to some extent, are a matter of opinion. That being the case, TfL, being accountable for the effectiveness of the scheme, are not a reliable source for that information. I believe that third party analysis should be the main content of this section. Caveats on TfL's opinions are not good enough, true third-party analysis must be used.
Next, one of the objectives of the scheme, and one which is mentioned in the lead, and is arguably the most important objective of all, especially as it is also in the scheme name, is to reduce congestion. So I would expect to see a sub-section for discussion about how effective the scheme has been in reducing congestion. There is a long discussion in there about traffic, but that is not really the same thing at all. Again, third-party analysis is essential.
Finally (for now), I am worried about the content of the Environment sub-section. By using raw TfL before and after data, it may leave the reader (deliberately or otherwise) with the impression that all of the fall is due to the scheme, when actually vehicle technology improvements, and other factors are responsible for a great deal of it. Third-party analysis of the data is, again, essential. And, obviously, if there are less cars and more buses in the area, then bus pollution will be more significant, This fact should be acknowledged, not suppressed.

To summarise:

  1. The first section should be Purpose, with a discussion of the objectives.
  2. The 'Effects section should drop TfL sources for all subjective judgements of effectiveness, and only use third-party analysis.
  3. The first sub-section of the Effects section should be Congestion, given that it is the main objective.
  4. The Environment sub-section of the Effects section needs to concentrate only on the effects directly attributable to the scheme, report notable opinions, and be very careful not to mislead.

I have tentatively attempted to address some of these concerns in the article, but most of what I have done has been reverted, or watered down by the current dominant editors. I would be interested to hear the opinions of others on these points, and I would like to move forward and improve the article with some sort of consensus.

-- de Facto (talk). 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I think you are being over-zealous in trying to change the article, where data and analysis is from TfL, that is clearly pointed out. The section on environmental effects is heavily caveated as it is. If there are additional third-party analyses available, by all means present them. David Underdown (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not concerned about using TfL as a source for facts, but I am concerned about also using them as the primary source of opinion. The article needs to conform with the NPOV policy, which necessarily means presenting opinion via third-party sources, and presenting a balanced selection of the alternative opinions reported by such sources. Caveats are not enough. -- de Facto (talk). 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would second the [David Underdown] comment above. I am concerned that de Facto regards TfL as unreliable, yet is happy to present the positions of conservative politicians, Association of British Drivers etc as reliable and neutral analysis. Adopting their view makes it sound like some sort of conspiracy theory not an encyclopedia based on majority accepted belief. Alex Sims (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that, amongst other things, the article does not represent all of the significant opinions on the effects of the CC scheme. The NPOV policy is quite specific about what should be presented:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Of reliable sources, the Verifiability policy is quite clear:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

And of self-published sources it says:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: ... it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving;... it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; ... the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So it appears that TfL sources may not be appropriate for certain sections in an article about their own scheme, and significant "positions" should not be ruled-out because of who holds them, indeed all such positions should be fully included, so long as they can be supported with duly reliable sources. -- de Facto (talk). 10:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If truly independent 3rd party analyses exist that would be better obviously, but if they do not exist I do not see any real problem with presenting the TfL analysis as is and letting readers make up their own minds. To be truly neutral, we must present all analyses as is, without our own editorial comment. 3rd parties may still have their own vested interests and are so not necessarily any more neutral than TfL which is the point you seem to be missing. There is a problem here in that the raw data is largely controlled by TfL - who has the resources to perform the traffic counts etc required. David Underdown (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of information we are talking about here. The first are the facts (traffic counts etc.), TfL is the primary source of such information, and it is perfectly valid to cite it for such factual data (as I state in my comments above). The second type of information is opinion, and this is the type I am concerned about (as I also state in my above comments). On opinion, the point isn't that the analyses, and opinions, themselves have necessarily to be neutral, but that their existence must have been reported by verifiable, and reliable, third-party sources. TfL's opinion on the effects of the scheme, and their analysis of the raw data, is certainly valid, though it may not be neutral, so should only be reported via third-party sources. Other significant opinions, even from bodies which also have their own vested interests, should also be reported in the same way. We must absolutely refrain from applying any of our own editorial comment, that would conflict with the No original research policy. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above criticisms of the latest range of edits. Through the uncritical presentation of critical sources, it has become very POV in the opposite direction and lost some of its technical strength. Unfortunately there's only one source of detailed data, which is the second half of the annual 100+ pp TfL Impact assessment reports. All interpretations of the scheme have been based on that data, or apparent FoI requests which are not in the public domain AFAIK. Some of the repeated interpretations on this technical subject have some technical flaws which also causes me concern. I won't have time to address these issues for a little while, especially whilst it seems de facto is so keen to revert them every time I start. Ephebi (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody got any comments on the other three, of the four, changes that I mentioned at the head of this discussion:

  • A new first section needs to be inserted, Purpose, with a discussion of the objectives of the scheme.
  • The first sub-section of the Effects section should be Congestion, given that it is the main objective of the scheme.
  • The Environment sub-section of the Effects section needs to concentrate only on the effects directly attributable to the scheme, report notable opinions, and be very careful not to mislead.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the various effects of the scheme are so inter-twined taht it makes sense to treat them as a body. Likewise the environmental effects, all we can do is report the changes that have occurred, witht he possibility that some or none is actually due to the scheme, as is currently done. Whilst generally the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole, it seems difficult to say much more about the purposes than is currently set out in the lead. You could however set out a proposed paragraph here on the talkpage for discussion. David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with David Underdown/Alex Sims points above. Further, we can't have too many sections (per the Featured Article criteria) nor do we need to. Stubby sections make the article hard to read and put details out of sequence or split the context. For example traffic and congestion are actually a function of each other so sit together. Purpose was already hinted at in Background, therefore I have moved the content into that section which restores the flow of the article as it currently sits. The purpose mention on environment I have moved to the environment section, which provides welcome context to this section. The article was so heavily caveated as it was, I also agree with Ephebi that some of the technical aspects have been lost and it would be nice to see his editing skills on these as the last set seriously improved the article. Regan123 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New 'Purpose' section

I have added this section to allow the reasons for the existence of the CC scheme to be explored. I believe it is needed to set the scene for the rest of the article. -- de Facto (talk). 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Congestion versus traffic count

I've added a new section for the detailing of significant opinion of the effect of the CC on congestion, as proposed above. The tackling of congestion was the claimed primary purpose of implementing the current scheme, so analysis of its impact on congestion is important. Congestion is not the same as traffic count, so care must be taken to keep the two concepts separate. I believe some of the current 'Traffic' section is, in fact, talking about "congestion", so it needs to be split properly out into the new section. I'll be looking at it in more detail another time. -- de Facto (talk). 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My attempts to separate the discussion on "congestion" from that on "traffic", in the 'Effects' section, have been undone again, in a large change,[1] with no detailed explanation. The scheme's main objective was to reduce congestion, so "congestion" needs to be fully discussed. When I recently added discussion on "congestion" to the "traffic" section, I was informed (on my talk page) that the two should not be confused.

I propose to reinstate 'Congestion' as a sub-section of 'Effects'. If there are good reasons not to, can we please discuss them here. -- de Facto (talk). 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Congestion is a function of traffic volumes, amongst (many) other items. As there have been some attempts to conflate the two by the 'official' presentation of the effects, which has been passed on by the media who have no experience in transport planning, it is important not to separate them, but to address the difference within the same section. We were trying to do this before you started reorganising it a fortnight ago. However, as your edits have shown no attempt to present a balanced viewpoint (and are often bordering on vandalism) you should not be surprised if other editors revert them when they are attempting to present an encyclopedic article. I haven't been reverting your edits myself as I still haven't had much time for WP edits recently. But frankly I think that the slant is now so heavy, and the figures so presented, that this article no longer deserves the FA moniker. For example, no recognition is now given to the mainstream interpretation that comes out of the mayor's office & media channels (even though that may be partial). Ephebi (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and answer each point in that separately.
  • On the discussion of congestion measure. Congestion may, in certain limited circumstances, be a function of "traffic volumes", but given the numerous, and complex likely confounding factors, traffic volume levels cannot be assumed to correlate with congestion levels.
  • Surely to best way to counter the "conflation" of traffic and congestion discussion, is to separate them unequivocally, not to continue with the practice. If we do not separate the two, then given the title of the charge, and the stated objectives for it, then the least we should do is change the section name from 'Traffic' to 'Congestion', and change the emphasis, and point out the differences.
  • Now to balance. As has been said before, TfL are a reliable source (perhaps the only source) of primary data, that is, the "facts" of the congestion charge: traffic counts, etc., but because of their vested interest in the scheme, and their political controllers, they cannot be assumed to offer a neutral point of view on subjective analysis of the data. For that reason, other significant opinions must be explicitly included (not merely the TfL POV caveated). I am attempting to add, not remove balance.
  • I would like you to further explain, with examples, your use of the phrase "often bordering on vandalism", with respect to my edits.
  • The only "heavy slant" in the article, that I can see, is that resulting from the insistence in using TfL as a source of subjective analysis. If you think that anything I have added has resulted in an opposite slant, please describe what and where, and we can discuss it.
  • I was surprised that the article got the "FA moniker" at all, particularly that it satisfied the "neutral and stable" criteria.
  • I don't understand your "no recognition is now given to the mainstream interpretation that comes out of the mayor's office & media channels (even though that may be partial)" remark, please explain.
-- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for attribution of 'economic principles' assertion

I added the 'fact' tag to the assertion that the CC was "based upon the economic principles of congestion pricing", but the tag was removed without a citation being supplied, so I have brought the discussion here.

The reason I tagged it was that notion is not covered elsewhere in the article, and because it is at odds with what is in the article, that the prime objective of the CC was to reduce congestion. The definition of the priciples of congestion pricing, as explained in the linked article, are basically, that it is designed to charge for the costs of negative externalities, rather than to reduce demand.

If TfL, or others, have said that the CC is based upon the that definition of the economic principles of congestion pricing, then please cite a reference to that if restoring the assertion. -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact on car sales

Anyone know where I can find statistics on car sales, before and after London's congestion charge was introduced? Thanks in advance Stebu2007 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales of hybrid cars have apparently increased according to a few articles knocking about, including this one. It's from a few years ago but I'll try and find something a bit more recent. Norman22b (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Operations and Technology

Hi, I'm not very aux fait with wikipedia so apologies if I'm doing this wrong...I just thought you might be interested in a few adjustments that could be made to your 'Operations and Technology' section.

  • Regarding Capita - while it's true that they fully operate the original congestion charging sites, the Western Extension Zone was set up and is monitored & maintained by Siemens Traffic Controls - initial announcement here: http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/pr_cc/2005/10_oct/ius10054697_(london)_1320114.htm. Capita do run the actual charging side of things for the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme (CloCCS) and the Western Extension Zone (WEZ). However, they have nothing to do with the actual WEZ camera sites.
  • CCTV Cameras - just thought you might be interested in the different methods of capturing. CloCCS cameras are indeed CCTV cameras, which feed video back to an ANPR system at their core site. WEZ cameras, on the other hand, are true ANPR cameras that only send images of recognised number plates. Small difference but it might be of interest with regards to privacy (as the WEZ cameras aren't streaming video to the service provider all the time). There's an interesting article about them here : http://www.pipstechnology.co.uk/script/download_document.php?file_id=108 (PIPS technology provide the ANPR cameras. I say interesting, but in truth you may find it quite tedious lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.24.108 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Toll not Tax

Technically the CC is a toll because it's pay-per-use. If it was a tax it would be charged indiscriminately to all vehicles registered in London (like road tax). It is also officially called a toll by TFL, and CC money does not go in the same pot as tax revenue. The only people who call it "tax" are a fringe of hardcore CC opponents who have a blatant political agenda and the American Embassy who needs an excuse for not paying their bills. Whether politically it is a toll or tax is irrelevant . The tube fare also isn't called a tax. Toll is what most people call such a road pricing scheme and so does Wikipedia consensus. "Tax" is thus a POV term promoted by certain groups.

Furthermore the "tax vs toll" controversy is arleady covered by the article.

Please refrain from unilaterally pushing your POV, DeFacto - Cambrasa (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us examine what you are saying:
  1. "Technically the CC is a toll because it's pay-per-use":- In what way is it pay per use and what is the unit of use? It isn't per mile and it isn't per entry into the zone. It is, in fact, pay per "working" day. So it is a charge payable to be entitled to use the public road for a period of time. Just like Vehicle Excise Duty, which is commonly referred to as the "road tax", and its proof of payment as the "tax disc".
  2. "If it was a tax it would be charged indiscriminately to all vehicles registered in London (like road tax)":- Road tax isn't indiscriminately charged. Road tax is only payable by certain vehicle types, and the rates vary according to certain factors and circumstances. Like the CC in fact. The main indiscriminate taxes are purchase taxes, such as VAT.
  3. "It is also officially called a toll by TFL":- Do you have a reference for that (other than relating to their disagreement with the U.S. embassy)? Their main CC website calls it a "Congestion Charge".[2] Even if they did, they have no power to redefine English-language words, so it would still be a tax too, in the same way that national insurance contributions are still a tax on income, even though the government prefer not to call them an "income tax".
  4. "CC money does not go in the same pot as tax revenue":- The "pot" is not the defining factor. National insurance contributions have a special "pot", as does the TV licence fee. It is a hypothecated tax.
  5. 'The only people who call it "tax" are a fringe of hardcore CC opponents who have a blatant political agenda':- Read these: Grist, Green Consumer Guide, CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, DT, IFS, City Mayors. Do you wish to modify your statement?
  6. "Whether politically it is a toll or tax is irrelevant":- Please explain why.
  7. "The tube fare also isn't called a tax":- No, because it isn't considered to be a tax, it is a charge which partially covers the cost of a service received.
  8. "Toll is what most people call such a road pricing scheme":- Can you support that assertion? Isn't "toll" the term that only those who are attempting to deny that it is also a tax use?
  9. "... and so does Wikipedia consensus":- Can you refer us to that "Wikipedia consensus"?
  10. '"Tax" is thus a POV term promoted by certain groups':- Non sequitur.
  11. Furthermore the "tax vs toll" controversy is arleady covered by the article"
    This discussion though, is nothing to do with the U.S. embassy dispute.
  12. "Please refrain from unilaterally pushing your POV":- I strive only to represent all significant views on a subject. I attempt to add balance to articles which are often largely based solely on the "establishment" or "orthodox" POV (spin). That may sometimes lead to misunderstandings in the minds of those who can only accept one POV. Please retract the accusation of POV-pushing, and be careful not to push POV yourself.
-- de Facto (talk). 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear de Facto, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambrasa (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "Technically the CC is a toll because it's pay-per-use":- In what way is it pay per use and what is the unit of use? It isn't per mile and it isn't per entry into the zone. It is, in fact, pay per "working" day. So it is a charge payable to be entitled to use the public road for a period of time. Just like Vehicle Excise Duty, which is commonly referred to as the "road tax", and its proof of payment as the "tax disc".
Many toll schemes in the world offer a flat rate and season ticket pricing model. That doesn't stop them from being tolls.
  • "If it was a tax it would be charged indiscriminately to all vehicles registered in London (like road tax)":- Road tax isn't indiscriminately charged. Road tax is only payable by certain vehicle types, and the rates vary according to certain factors and circumstances. Like the CC in fact. The main indiscriminate taxes are purchase taxes, such as VAT.
It's not an either/or. Road tax is charged more indiscriminately than the CC. To me, a tax is something that must be paid whether or not a service is used and a fee or toll is something that is paid only in exchange for a service. The CC is more similar to the latter than the former
  • "It is also officially called a toll by TFL":- Do you have a reference for that (other than relating to their disagreement with the U.S. embassy)? Their main CC website calls it a "Congestion Charge".[3] Even if they did, they have no power to redefine English-language words, so it would still be a tax too, in the same way that national insurance contributions are still a tax on income, even though the government prefer not to call them an "income tax".
National insurance contributions aren't a tax either. They are a form of compulsory insurance. In fact, many forms of government revenue are not taxes.
Anyhow, I think this article should stick with the official definition by TfL. The terms "toll" and "tax" are more or less synonymous in this context, and the official usage is all we have to go by. For instance, the article Stockholm congestion tax uses the word "tax" because that's what the government calls it and Electronic Road Pricing uses the word "toll" because that's what the government calls it even if both are essentially the same thing.
By the way, I don't mind changing the word "toll" to "charge". Perhaps that is more neutral than both "tax" and "toll".
  • "CC money does not go in the same pot as tax revenue":- The "pot" is not the defining factor. National insurance contributions have a special "pot", as does the TV licence fee. It is a hypothecated tax.
So according to your logic, any form of government revenue is a tax? An example: The government owns a building in the City and decides to rent out spare office space to private companies. Is the rent collected on those offices a "hypothecated tax"? Another example: The government agrees to give an IMF loan to Brazil. Is the interest collected on that loan a form of "tax" on Brazilians? The CC is in some ways similar to example 1. The government owns the real estate in central london, makes it into roads and charges people to use it.
Partisan media such as Telegraph and Reuters certainly do have a political agenda. As for the rest, you are right, the term is more common than I thought. However, this needs to be weighed up with the media who call it "toll".
  • "Whether politically it is a toll or tax is irrelevant":- Please explain why.
Because Wikipedia has a neutrality policy and politically motivated vocabulary should be avoided where possible, in favour of techical terms.
  • "The tube fare also isn't called a tax":- No, because it isn't considered to be a tax, it is a charge which partially covers the cost of a service received.
Who is to say that the CC does not "partially cover" the cost of roads in central London? Roads aren't free you know. They incur a lot of microeconomic costs (maintenance, land use, construction) as well as macroeconomic costs (traffic congestion,noise,pollution,pedestrian fatalities,opportunity cost) etc. In fact, roads in central london have a much higher market-clearing price than what the government charges. They occupy some of the most valuable real estate in the world. If they were privatised the usage fee to enter the Square Mile by car would be a lot higher than a paltry 8 quid.
  • "Toll is what most people call such a road pricing scheme":- Can you support that assertion? Isn't "toll" the term that only those who are attempting to deny that it is also a tax use?
Maybe we should do a poll
  • "... and so does Wikipedia consensus":- Can you refer us to that "Wikipedia consensus"?
See the following articles which also use the term "toll" to describe schemes similar to the CC: Toll Collect,Electronic Road Pricing,Oslo#Road,AutoPASS
  • Furthermore the "tax vs toll" controversy is arleady covered by the article"
    This discussion though, is nothing to do with the U.S. embassy dispute.
Please fell free to add these arguments to the article.
  • "Please refrain from unilaterally pushing your POV":- I strive only to represent all significant views on a subject. I attempt to add balance to articles which are often largely based solely on the "establishment" or "orthodox" POV (spin). That may sometimes lead to misunderstandings in the minds of those who can only accept one POV. Please retract the accusation of POV-pushing, and be careful not to push POV yourself.
Again, I think it is probably best to use neither term, but something more neutral like "fee" or "charge".

Cambrasa (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambrasa, following our discussions, it appears that you now accept that "tax" is a valid term, and that "toll" is a POV term, but that "fee" is probably a more NPOV term. The article does now use "fee". For further discussion on what UK revenue raising measures may be considered to be taxes see the article Taxation in the United Kingdom. -- de Facto (talk). 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Tax, Toll, or Fee?

Should the first paragraph refer to the London Congestion Charge as as tax, toll, or fee? or something else? There is a lot of controversy as to which is the most accurate term. In particular, opponents of the CC like to call it a "tax" and supporters like to call it a "toll". It would be nice to reach some kind of consensus since this is a featured article. Please state your opinion. -- Cambrasa (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for and against

  • Tax is what some mainstream media call it.
    • Toll is what some mainstream media call it.
  • Tax is what the general public calls it.
    • Toll is what the general public calls it.
  • Toll is the term preferred by Transport for London, the authority in charge of the CC.
    • The usage of "toll" by TfL is politically motivated.
  • It's a hypothecated tax because most forms of government revenue are taxes.
    • Products and Services sold by government-owned companies (eg. London Underground,United States Postal Service) are not generally called "taxes". The CC is like a "rent" for real estate (publicly owned land designated as roads and parking space) in central London.
  • Singapore and Oslo use the term "toll" for a similar scheme.
    • Stockholm uses the term "tax" for a similar scheme.
  • The CC is different to most tolls because it is charged per working day and not per entry. It is therefore more similar to a road tax.
    • Private motorway operators sometimes also charge a flat rate, and call it a "toll".
  • The stated aim of the CC is to prevent congestion, not to raise money.
    • The de facto aim of the CC is to raise money for public transport improvements.
  • The money collected from the CC is not used to provide a service to the motorists who paid it, since it is spent on public transport. Therefore it is not a toll.
    • The money is collected in exchange for a service, namely allowing motorists to use scarce land. How the profit is spent is irrelevant - private companies operating a toll road also don't need to spend their profits on the user to justify calling it a "toll".

Discussion

  • Fee as both "tax" and "toll" are used for political reasons by notable organisations and are thus POV. -- Cambrasa (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It achieved "featured" status using the word "fee", so that is probably how it should stay. -- de Facto (talk). 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fee, charge, or scheme as they currently seem to be used in the article. If the controversy over naming is significant than perhaps that should be discussed in the article, if it's not already. I personally would use the word 'toll', but if that can't be used neutrally due to the controversy, other words are preferable. Fritter (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fee or charge. For reasons both of accuracy and of politics. "Tax" suggests something that is assessed infrequently (like an income tax) or something that is built into the price of something (like a VAT or sales tax). "Toll", to my ears at least, suggests something that is collected per passage. For reasons I find it hard to explain, "fee" sounds better than "charge", but either will do. They also haven't been politically loaded. --Atemperman (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Levy is the correct word. Basically this charge is analogous to either Customs or Excise in that it is a charge for entering / leaving a specific point (similar to a levy when entering or leaving a country). Customs charges were always duties because it was your historic customary duty to pay. Excise charges were arbitrary levies as they were non-customary. This is a non-customary charge, so its a Levy. 81.86.230.16 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fee or Charge. The very broad definition of tax/duty/etc in the dictionary allows for interpretation in several ways. However, the precise status of the CC is subject to legal dispute; TfL claims it is legally analogous to a toll, but the US Embassy claims it is a tax, and hence they are exempt from paying it in accordance with the usual diplomatic agreements. This dispute is unlikely to be settled in the short term; nor is it WP's place to rule in judgement on this, so Fee or Charge are left as the only safe, neutral terms.. Ephebi (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fee. See the article on congestion pricing. Most schemes collect the money as a toll, but the objective is to reduce demand. Actually London does not collect it as a toll because it is a daily charge. Also, see Stockholm congestion tax, theirs is a real tax, deductible from the income tax. Besides, fee is either a tax, toll or charge. Mariordo (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Operating hours

The article says the charge operates between 7am and 6pm, however in the image it says 7am - 6.30pm. I checked on the TfL website, and 6pm is definitely correct. Anyone feel like updating the image? Nzseries1 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The original zone operated until 6:30, only on the extension of the zone were the hours changed. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that, thanks! Nzseries1 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

POV issue with the 'long queue of buses' picture

The picture seems to be trying to prove that congestion is now being caused by buses instead, which 'have been funded by the congestion charge'. Actually New Oxford Street (where I think the photo is taken) has always been a bottleneck for both buses and cars, though it has been improved somewhat by the congestion charge as the number of cars has gone down. The queue of buses pictured is actually not very long: it seems longer as at least one of them is an artic, and as soon as the lights change they will all disperse (some down Charing X Road and others down Oxford Street). I would like to nominate this picture for removal on the grounds of POV, as it isn't a good example of true congestion. Please discuss.

I agree that the caption is POV. The queue isn't long, it just looks long because there are no gaps between the buses. If the same space was filled with 20 cars instead of 10 buses it would be quite a common and unimpressive sight and nobody would call it a traffic jam. We can continue to use the picture but only if the caption says something like "TfL has introduced more buses since the start of the charge". --Cambrasa confab 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm removing the picture as POV. As you say it is misleading and designed to suggest congestion is being caused by buses. I'm not sure that a more neutral caption would help, as it would still appear as if the buses were causing congestion, even though they aren't -- OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.160.88 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been to London just as a tourist, but as a transportation engineer, to me this is what it really looks (this is near Trafalgar Square). So, you guys who live over there are to decide if this pic is really typical (NPOV). Mariordo (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Typical??? traffic flow within the congestion area
* Actually, as a Londoner, I'd say that view is hardly unusual for the Charing Cross area where I think the photo was taken, but the area around Oxford Street has always been much busier... outside of rush hours it can seem rather like queues of cars and taxis have been swapped for queues of buses and taxis... my record is 15 buses in a line trying to go north over one of the central bridges on a Saturday lunchtime. Though what the picture doesn't show is that the double-deckers are fairly agile and keep moving - IMHO it can get worse in the City where the bendy buses roam, as at peak times its frequently not even possible to walk across the street between them, or get past them on a motorcycle (legally). And now that the roadworks season has restarted the knock-on effects can be quite messy... Ephebi (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to settle where this picture is taken - the vantage point is outside the Zimbabwean Embassy on the Strand looking west, and the queue of buses are stopped at the lights outside Charing Cross station... — iridescent 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason to include a picture like this. What is the point that you are trying to make? That buses are causing congestion instead of cars? This is arguable because buses carry and move a much higher number of people than cars, so their effect on congestion is less because of the vehicle size to passenger numbers ratio. Any picture of a queue of buses in this article is bound to come across as POV, because you could just as easily take a photo that shows a single bus stuck behind a queue of cars in the congestion zone, or a picture of all traffic moving freely. All I can say is that as London a bus user, journeys seem quicker and face less congestion than before the start of the charge. Also the point about Oxford Street itself is not directly relevant to the effects of the congestion charge because cars are not allowed on most of the street anyway. -- OP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.33.248 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any interest whatsoever in the picture. You were discussing the other one was biased, I just brought one that as a professional traffic engineer, and without the biased a Londoner might have, because as a specialist I find it shows the city IS NOT congested! You have to be at Sao Paulo my friends, New York, that is congestion. I have no idea how London looked before, so it is up to you guys to replace the other one or just leave it as it is. In the Spanish article for [Road space rationing] this picture is showing how good London is looking after the congestion charge!.Mariordo (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Ok thanks for clarifying - that's really interesting, and just reinforces how perceptions of congestion can be very different. Personally I think it also shows how we Londoners like to moan about everything even when things aren't so bad! I don't think there is any need for a picture in this section - anyone disagree or shall we just leave it as it is? --OP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.33.248 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Emission based fees

I have removed most of this section since it no longer applies. I have transferred it to its own section instead. Epzcaw (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)epzcaw

That makes sense, though I might just add in a sentence or so about the controvercy about it and how it was made an election issue.Norman22b (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually looking at the article again maybe it would be worth deleting that section and adding information about the emmisions based structure in 'further proposals'. Before the emmisions based structure section talked of the new system as though it was deffinately coming in, although now Johnson has scraped those plans it makes it just a proposal in a way. Anyone feel free to post their opinions on what to do on this?Norman22b (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, and have moved the 'emissions based fee structure' to 'proposals'. The new articel I created is still there but no longer has any links to it. I don't know how to delete it, but it probably doesn't matter.Epzcaw (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)epzcaw

I have also moved a political bit into the 'political' section.Epzcaw (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)epzcaw

Wikipedia is advising that the article is too long, so need to think about how it could be split.Epzcaw (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)epzcaw

I have now done a fairly big edit on the article. I have moved a lot of bits about to what i think are more appropriate sections. I have deleted only very small bits. However, I think the order of the sections should be changed, as it does not look particularly logical. I will think about this but maybe someone else would like to have a go.Epzcaw (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)epzcaw

Nice one epzcaw, it's much better now.Norman22b (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchester congestion charge

I'm awe struck if not a little jealous by this featured article on the London congestion charge. Congestion charging in Greater Manchester is set to go to referedum in December, and its a major change for the region. However, the article is pretty terrible. Are there any users from this article who'd be willing to help get the Manchester page up to a good standard? It would be eternally appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Size comparison of new zone vs old zone

As someone not familiar with the geography of London, it's not clear from the article if the new zone is larger than the old zone, whether the new zone contains the old zone entirely, etc. Given the nature of government, I assume it is larger, but some clarification would be helpful. Pimlottc (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'Western Extension Zone' is just that, an extension. It simply extended the zone as far as Shepherd's Bush to the West. PRL42 (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Is there a map of the "new" congestion charge zone? It was extended three years ago. best. Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What did they use to charge for access before this systems was introduced? Was it free to use the streets or another toll booth?

Nothing was charged; road usage in London was free (apart of course from the Vehicle Excise Duty charged to all vehicles everywhere in the UK). There were a few tolls in the UK on specific tunnels and bridges, of which one had recently been technically changed from a toll to a congestion charge, and on one very new section of motorway, but no area tolls. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Western extension removal

Can someone please review the article in light of the removal of the zone's western extension? The removal is mentioned in a couple of points in the article, but other passages read as if the extension were still in place (such as the second paragraph of this section, about free through routes; the heading of the next section, "Original area covered"; and the caption of the image here). Waltham, The Duke of 23:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Non English

I noticed the phrase "raison d'être" on the article. As a native speaker of English, I don't know what it means, and I feel it needs to be replaced with the appropriate English equivalent. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a moderately common borrowed phrase in english, so I can't see any problem with it being in the english wikipedia - not the simplified english version no doubt, but here it is fine. It roughly means "reason for existence" if anyone is still wondering. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, however.. an encyclopedia should be accessible to as may people as is reasonable possible, not all of whom will be native English speakers to be familiar with less common terms. As such I suggest it is better to stick to less 'fancy' English when there is a suitable way of doing so. I would put 'raison d'être' into the 'fancy' class. For the record it appears to have already been replaced in this article. PeterEastern (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A 'history' section and a new 'Road pricing in the United Kingdom' article?

Would it be appropriate to create a history section in this article summarising in one place the key stages in the development and operation of this project based on content already included in the article; also to create a new article titled 'Road pricing in the United Kingdom' into which details relating to the broader subject of road pricing can be transferred? PeterEastern (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I have now done a major edit one the article to pull most of the historical content out into a chronological series of historical sections. I have not removed or added any content during this change. I will wait now for any feedback over the next 24 hours before doing any more work on the article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Nicely done. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Very much appreciated. You may be interested to know that moved on to the Congestion pricing and Road pricing articles. Unfortunately my edits to these have all be reverted and it seems to have turned into a bit of an epic! You can read about it on Talk:Road pricing. I am sure we will get there in the end, but I was hoping that it would be a bit simpler! PeterEastern (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Features Article Review (FAR)

If this article cannot be cleaned up, at least reasonably, it may be brought to FAR. There are numerous issues:

  1. Several sentences lacking sources.
  2. Numerous short (one sentence, even) pargraphs
  3. Numerous short (one paragraph, even) sections
  4. Too many sections
  5. The Preparing for the Western Extension section looks a lot like WP:PROSELINE
  6. Numerous dead links
  7. Lead is too short (per WP:LEADLENGTH this should have three to four paragraphs)

These are only general comments, from a very brief look at the article. This currently fails FA criteria 1a, 1c, 2a, and 2b. Further investigation may reveal more problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be delighted if someone would do the required work to bring it up to FAR. As the main author of the current content I agree with all of your above comments. In particular it may be drifting well into proseline, which was however a good starting point for understanding what was going on. Happy for others to build one where it has got to. For the avoidance of doubt I don't have time, or possibly also the skill, to do it myself and encourage others to do so. PeterEastern (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll leave this posted for another week before starting the FAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Western Extension timeframe

3rd sentence: "the Western Extension which operated between February 2013 and January 2014." How could it have operated (past tense) during an 11 month time period which just began? Later in the article is a reference to the extension fee ending in 2010 Dec. --Trep26 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The issues bow appears to have been fixed. PeterEastern (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

9 seater discount

all vehicles with 9 seats or more can get 100% discount after registration.


how do I do footnotes?

this is the link below - I don't know how to put it together

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6713.aspx

2.98.152.182 (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:London congestion charge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a go, I know the area and the history reasonably well.

I've had a quick look through the article and noticed a few problems. Some paragraphs are unsourced and there is one [citation needed] tag. These will need to be fixed. The prose seems to be over detailed in places and comes across as waffling. I see this was delisted as an FA a few years ago - have you looked at the comments there? Although the GA criteria is not as strenuous as FA, the comments, particularly those that suggest improvement, are well worth listening to.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On with the review.....

Lead

  • "is a fee charged" could link to Congestion pricing
  • Is CCZ an actual acronym used? I don't recognise it.  Done Added reference for it
  • "Central London" is usually (according to signs) in upper case  Done Fixed it
  • "public holidays" could link to public holidays in the United Kingdom  Done Linked to it
  • "between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday" - this claim in the lead doesn't appear to be in the body
  • The source in the first paragraph is a dead link  Done Fixed it
  • "The charge, which was introduced on 17 February 2003, remains..." - might be simpler to say "It was introduced in February 2003 and remains..."  Done Changed it
  • "The charge aims to reduce congestion," - the reader can probably guess that! Might be worth just saying what the problem is, high traffic flow, queues at key points etc
  • "The standard charge is £11.50 for each day" - to avoid dating, it would be worth qualifying this with a date
  • " £2.6 billion through December 2013" - suggest "though to December 2013"

Comments on the body to follow Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed all the dead urls except 2 (ref23 and 87). :) The rest I will edit when I have time. Ya, I also noticed about the "between......to Friday" sentence. Where should I include it in your opinion?Vincent60030 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Present scheme

  • "which forms the A501, A1202, A1210/A1211, A100, A201, A202, A302, A3204, A4202 and parts of the A5" - I don't think that means much to the layman reader. The map to left explains the layout of the inner ring road, and a description of streets a few paragraphs later (which are notable!) is a better fit.  Done Removed it
  • "the major roads defining the boundary were" - are they still not there as of now?  Done Fixed it
  • "Signs were erected and symbols painted on the road to help drivers recognise the congestion charge area" - the source for this returns 403 : Forbidden  Done Fixed it
  • "The Western Extension, introduced in February 2007, was removed by major Boris Johnson beginning on 4 January 2011" - this fact seems better suited for the "History" section. Instead, just a brief overview of where the Western Extension was would be better  Done Added and fixed typo "major" to "mayor"

Charges

  • This section seems strange to start with "In January 2013 Transport for London opened a public consultation..." which sounds like a history fact. I think it would be better to just state what the charges are now and leave it at that. Dartford Crossing#Charges might give you some ideas.
  • "The consultation process run from January 2014 to March 2014" - grammar, should be "ran"
  • "Since 16 June 2014 the following charges applied:" - better to say "As of" instead of "since" and "applied" should be "apply", assuming the charges are still valid  Done Changed it
  • "Residents living within or very close to the zone " - can we qualify this with exactly what "very close" means? The source given doesn't seem to say anything about resident discount zones (at least not directly)
  • What makes www.goultralow.com a reliable source?
  • Boris Johnson should be wikilinked (first mention, assuming the copyedit in the above "Present scheme" section is adhered to  Done Linked it

Suspensions, Avoidance and Evasion

  • The first two citations in this section are dead links, and tagged as such  Done Fixed it
  • "if the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be traced, is deceased, or bankrupt" - the link for this is dead  Done Fixed it
  • This section has one paragraph that is completely unsourced

Payment by embassies

  • "In May 2011 the Mayor, Boris Johnson," - per WP:LASTNAME just say "Johnson" here. We don't need to repeat that Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London time and time again

History

  • As a general point, there seems to be far too many mentions of "Boris Johnson". As a rule, mention (and link) Boris Johnson the first time in the article, then use "Johnson" thereafter

Background

  • The source "Bannister, David (2002). Transport Planning" needs more information, ISBN (a book from 2002 should have one) and page number(s)
  • "Only a small section of these road schemes had been implemented" - normally I'd say "what makes www.cbrd.co.uk a reliable source" but I happen to know Chris Marshall and I believe he knows more about the London Ringways than anyone else still alive (I've seen the plans of how much of South London was getting bulldozed), so I'll let you off
  • What makes thecarandtheelephant.com a reliable source?

Planning and preparation

  • "benefit from a congestion charge scheme," - I think you want to start a new sentence here
  • "Indeed Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London and key proponent of the charge, himself predicted a "difficult few days" - the source given seems to be dead  Done Fixed it
  • "an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced" - the source given cites the 300 extra buses, but not the total 8,000

2004 election campaign

  • "the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - the link this is cited to is dead

Preparing for the Western Extension

  • The whole of this section seems to be suffering from recentism where the original text was layed out (probably in about 2003-2004) and these bits have been added piecemeal to it without any overall review. In general, any section that says "In August 2004.... in October 20004 ... By November 2004 .... in May 2005 .... in June 2005 ...." etc etc is now, in 2015, going to be overlong and out of date
  • "the polls were a "charade" which did not diminish his electoral mandate. "A consultation is not a referendum" he said" - cited to a dead link
  • "The rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets" - the TfL press release is a dead link

Effects

  • "Once within the charging zone car ...." - this paragraph is unsourced

Air quality

Public transport

  • "On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced" - this has already been mentioned earlier in the article (same problem with 8,000 buses not being verifiable)

Summary

  • I think I'm going to stop there, as I'm afraid it doesn't look like this is going to reach Good Article status in the short term. There are small problems with wording and a few questionable or missing sources, but the real problem is the recentism that's been active since 2004-5 with editors adding piecemeal bits here and there. Those areas need a serious copyedit and trim down to form a coherent narrative - without that the article just can't meet the "focused" part of the GA criteria, I'm afraid.
I think one of the principal problems is you haven't edited the article much - you're not even in the list of top editors. As a general rule of thumb, a successful GA will usually be nominated by somebody who has spent substantial work and edits improving the article first. For a future review, I'd get @Mariordo: and @PeterEastern: involved, and work through the article as a team. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very good at this part but may I work as a team too? Vincent60030 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London congestion charge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London congestion charge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Embassy section is POV bullshit

The law is extremely clear, and no country agrees with the idea that embassies have to pay such local taxes.

This whole section calling baseless numbers as "owed" somewhere between extremely biased TfL POV and total bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taw (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what the sources say, if you can find some sources backing up your argument then feel free to put them in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_congestion_charge/Archive_2&oldid=1136963475"