This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
The term "pollution charge" is not universally used in the references for this "charge". A cited BBC article refers to it as a "traffic charge" and the zone as the "congestion charge zone". The term "road tax" is generic for all forms of compulsory contributions to state revenue for road use, such as this. -- de Facto (talk). 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be aware you are reading a translation from a journalist. The original description is in Italian, the link to the site is in the article for you to check. Just to avoid an edit war I did change for congestion charge, as most English language news are translating it, but this does not make it right. I have translated in the article the pricing table from Italian to English, clearly the price is structure is strictly based on tailpipe emissions, that is why it is a pollution charge. Read the explanation in the end of the leading paragraph. I will comment on your road tax later, but please, first show me one of the WP:RS included in the article that call it a "tax"--Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I was about to work on the controversy and concerns section, but all I found was in Italian. Do you know of any criticism in English?--Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "tax" is the generic and neutral term for such charges. It is applied to all types of compulsory contributions to government revenue. "Pollution charge", "congestion charge" or whatever, are politically weighted terms with a deliberate "spin". Use of the latter type of term should be accompanied by attribution as to whose opinion it is, to comply with WP:NPOV, so the reader can judge the motivation behind its use.
By Wikipedia's policies the edits should not reflect our opinions, but rather the content should be supported by WP:RS, so please provide those reliable sources to support your interpretation. Not a single one of the references provided in the article use the term tax, so it would be WP:OR to write it otherwise, and clearly, the use of "tax" is controversial, as it is the preferred word for those advocating against congestion pricing and road charges in general, therefore in this context using "tax" would go against Wiki's WP:NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the charge isn't actually "based on tailpipe emissions", no measurements of fuel used or emissions produced are made. It appears to be based purely on engine technology, regardless of distance traveled in the day or of fuel quantity consumed or emissions produced. A diesel bus, even if fitted with a particulate filter (free access), driven around the city all day would certainly produce more tailpipe emissions than a "pre-E" diesel car (€10.00 per day) driven just inside the zone to be parked for the day. -- de Facto (talk). 17:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here I agree with your argument, so I think that "based on engine emission standards" would be more precise. If you agree go ahead and correct the text wherever talks about "tailpipe emissions".--Mariordo (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
de Facto. Please read carefully the additional references I provided in the latest edits (most in English). As you can see almost all sources in English at one point or directly refer to the Ecopass as a pollution fee or pollution charge. Even the article you mentioned above by the BBC, near the end also uses the term: "Two other northern cities in Italy, Turin and Genoa, are also considering a pollution fee.". Also I added several references supporting the objective of the program. Before proceeding any further I will wait for your feedback on this issue.--Mariordo (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, and as I still believe, terms like "congestion charge", "pollution charge", "pollution fee", etc., applied to certain implementations, are POV-laden, and, essentially, designed to mislead, if not to actually deceive. If the schemes are not pure and unambiguous implementations of congestion or pollution charge theory, we should use only clear generic and NPOV terms for them. The fees/charges/tolls are levied, on a non-voluntary basis, by governments or local authorities or their agencies, for the use of certain specified public roads in certain specified vehicles. As such they are literally road or vehicle taxes (see tax).
I think that the article content should be adjusted to give a neutral point of view. It could say something like:
The Ecopass program is a road user tax [or similarly neutral (unspun) term] implemented in Milan, Italy, for some motorists travelling within a designated traffic restricted zone.[ref] The tax is variously termed "pollution charge", "congestion charge", ..., by different media and government bodies. The xyz news organisation refer to it as a "congestion charge" in one sentence and a "pollution fee" in another.[ref] The ... government agency insist that it isn't a tax but a "xyz charge/fee/consideration".[ref]
Then use only the neutral term elsewhere. That way we keep it neutral, and do not emphasise (or show bias for) any particular spin applied to the tax name. -- de Facto (talk). 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were to agree you, still it would be original research or original thought because it would be our interpretation. We have to stick by names and terms used by the sources. Furthermore, by wiki policy we have to use common names, were are not free to interpret or invent terms, because that is OR, and in this case "tax" is contentious, as you are pushing a word preferred by one side of the discussion, also violating NPOV. It seems we are going nowhere, so let's wait for somebody else to jump into this discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a duty under WP:NPOV to discuss notable opinions (like choice of terminology for the "charge"), yes, with appropriate attribution. We can do that as I've said, by citing who uses each term, and with the precise context and with a proper cite. But we also have a duty to keep the article neutral, which means using neutral terminology unless it is fully attributed to who uses it. "Tax" is the generic noun. Did you read the tax article? Did you notice that its name is "Tax" (not "charge" or "fee" or "toll" or "duty")? Because it is the generic NPOV term. "Tax" is the neutral noun for such charges - they are literally taxes. We could, possibly, get away with the word "charge" instead of "tax" ("road use charge" or "road charge" or something like that). However, we certainly shouldn't bias the article by using the politically-charged adjectives "congestion", "pollution", "eco", "green" or whatever, other than when explaining that they are used, and specifically by who, and with appropriate context and citations. You can see from all the references that you have provided, that the chosen adjective depends upon the source. We should definitely avoid the POV-laden adjectives and stick with "road use", "vehicle use" or similar. -- de Facto (talk). 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Wiki is not the place to advocate for any cause and our duty is only to respect the rules to guarantee a NPOV. Therefore, the wording from the sources provided in the article must be respected: a charge or fee related to congestion or polllution, both terms are used in the refereces, and tax is used in none! The only one of such schemes that call be called a tax is the one from Stockholm, because it is officially called Stockholm congestion tax, and the Swedish legally define it as such. Sorry, let's way for other opinions .--Mariordo (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think that the proper way to channalize your concern within Wiki policies is to write a section on this issue in the road pricing article, which is general as it includes congestion pricing and other charges that some consider to be taxes. However, you will have to provide reliable sources to proof such criticism/concern exist, only that way will not be OR. As far as I know, this view is mainly found in web blogs of advocacy groups or individuals who are against any type of new road charges, and as a general rule, these are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes.--Mariordo (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Access to a good dictionary should sort out a lot of these problems. In general, this english language term for charging comes from economics; it is a type of rent or price that is put on an action to encourage a certain sort of behaviour and is not seen as primarily enriching the Treasury. The charge could be levied by any public or commercial body to have the desired effect. Thus "Tax" is clearly the wrong context as should be apparent to anyone who understands just a bit about economics or government funding. (As editor DRF should be well aware of, as it has been pointed out to him on multiple occaisions at similar pages.) Trying to call any such charge a "tax" appears to be soapboxing a extreme minority view and hence is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. A quick review of sources shows that sometimes the italians refer to this using the English expression "pollution charge". In Italian it may sometimes be described as "forma di accesso a pagamento" by some sources, "pedaggio urbano"[1] by others. Literally this translates as "access fee" or "urban toll", but it seems some people have chosen to translate it to "congestion charge" as a more commonplace English equivalent. To have to explain this subtlety each time it appears in a source (per DF's suggestion) will only satisfy the retentive and ruin the readability of the article. IMHO Italians are very sensitive about their taxes, and if they don't call the Ecopass a tax then I concur with them. However, it may be appropriate to mention this in an appropriate "controversy" subsection, but only if there are good quality verifiable sources that can explain why this is a valid claim over the economist's meaning. Ephebi (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries won't really help, because my contention is that this particular charge/fee/toll or whatever, should not be asserted to be either a "pollution charge", as it was when I first read the article here, or as a "congestion charge", which it was later changed to here, following my intervention, when actually there is no clear consensus from either the authorities or commentators as to what it actually should be called. A quick flick through even the cited references will confirm that. To select one particular less-than-neutral term, from the many available in the literature, especially when there are neutral ones there too, is unnecessary. What I was suggesting, and what seems to have met strong opposition from the article's author, is that a neutral and generic term should be used to describe it. I originally suggested "road tax", as it is a tax (as any good dictionary would confirm) on road use and it is described as such in many articles which are available on the web, including some from Italy, but as I said in the discussion above we could possibly use other generic terms such as "road use charge" or "road charge". How about "traffic charge" (as used in an article by the BBC)? That is pretty neutral, and has no political baggage associated with it. With so many different terms being used in the media and by the authorities to describe the same thing, and with many of those terms (including "pollution charge" and "congestion charge") implying something about the charge, those who pay it, or even about those who are allowed to drive on the road for free, we need to tread very carefully, and fully attribute those who coin or use the non-neutral or POV-laden terms - to comply with WP:NPOV. -- de Facto (talk). 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources provided and the technical literature (economics and transportation engineering) refer to Ecopass as congestion pricing, congestion charges or pollution charges. As it is written right now, "congestion charge", reflects the sources and respects the common use of the word, as for wiki naming policies aiming for broader audiences is more important than the technical terms, but I can live with "traffic congestion fee" or "traffic user fee" or "traffic fee", the article's content makes clear what this fee is about and what the objective of the program is. Also note that the original text already mentions the concept of urban toll, as it appears in the original Italian references. --Mariordo (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
de Facto, I reversed and/or edited several of the changes you did in this article and in several of the articles where Ecopass is mentioned or linked as a "See also" because you overdid and extrapolated what was discussed above, and in some cases you were soapboxing again. Furthermore, you deleted or changed info that reflects that the provided references say/support. As you probably know road pricing ≠ congestion pricing, and I fixed that. Also, in the references provided in this article Ecopass is indeed considered to be based on the polluter pays principle, and the See also section is for related articles, so there no justiciation for deleting it. So please, it will be nice if you discuss here first or at least provide reliable sources supporting your edit before changing the content of the article. Also, please stop asking for refs in the middle of sentences or paragraphs when actually the reference at the end supports the content. By some of the changes you did it seems you not even bother to read the reference. As suggested above my me and Ephebi, it will be more constructive if do a section on such issues supported by valid issues supported by reliable NPOV sources. Your recent and past behavior could be considered vandalism, so next time you do such disrupting edits I will ask an administrator to intervene. I restore the copy-edit you have done right after my rv, I hope I did not miss any typo or grammar error. I just reverse the whole thing first because it was going to be more time consuming to go one by one of your edits.--Mariordo (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't personalise this discussion, and please remain civil. Attempting to achieve a NPOV is not "soapboxing", and certainly good faith attempts to improve the article cannot be characterised as vandalism.
My concern is only that this article should not assert certain assumptions and opinions as fact. Opinions and assumptions cannot be transformed into incontrovertible facts, even if they are supported by reliable sources. -- de Facto (talk). 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is a direct violation of Wikipedia's policies, please read againg WP:RS and WP:OR. You are cherrypicking terms from the sources and ignoring the wording you don't like, and above all, disregarding and distorting these policies in a blatant attempt to push your POV and OR disguised as WP:NPOV, as the article content and wording is fully supported by all the reliable sources provided. I have also attented to all of your constructive suggestions so I would really appreciate a less disruptive editing from you.--Mariordo (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mariordo, please quote directly the part of the policy that you believe my sentence violates. I take inspiration from WP:ASF which I believe supports my sentence precisely. Notable opinion can be included in the article, but as opinion (not as fact), and with reliable support.
I quote you: "My concern is only that this article should not assert certain assumptions and opinions as fact. Opinions and assumptions cannot be transformed into incontrovertible facts, even if they are supported by reliable sources." the bold is mine. By assuming that the articles from the New York Times, BBC News, etc are expressing opinions you think they are not reliable soucres any longer? --Mariordo (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) my meaning, I never said (or implied) that they were unreliable sources. I said that opinion cannot be asserted as fact (see WP:ASF). -- de Facto (talk). 20:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mariordo, which source supports the assertion that the scheme is an evolution of the London and Stockholm ones - neither London, Londres, Stockholm or Estocolmo appear to be mentioned in the Portuguese one that is cited at the end of the sentence? And that is why I placed a fact tag in that sentence (which you removed without clarifying the source). -- de Facto (talk). 19:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this discussion is looking like a Kafkaesque nightmare and even though I think this is the most ridiculous edit I have ever made at Wiki (an a waste of time), it's about time we close this nonsense discussion, so the following is a transcript of relevant texts from the 10 first reliable sources as they appear in the references provided in the article, excluding the two entries from the blog "Blog from Italy", so refs number 10 and 11 were skipped. The texts in Italian and Portuguese are translated to English. Here we go (the underline is mine and used on the terms or concepts disputed):
1. NY Times (2008-01-27):
Milan’s system, called Ecopass, is a variation on the congestion pricing used in Stockholm, where …
Milan started levying a charge based on vehicle emissions in five engine classes.
2. BBC News (2008-03-02):
Milan introduces traffic charge
There have been teething problems with the launch of the congestion scheme,….
3. The New York Sun (2008-01-03):
Milan Introduces Congestion Charge To Cut Pollution
Milan yesterday joined London, Stockholm, and Singapore among cities imposing congestion charges on drivers in an effort to improve the air quality in one of Europe's most polluted urban centers.
The nation's fashion capital introduced a traffic charge……. for the most polluting models.
Mayor Letizia Moratti of Milan, …. has been pushing for the congestion charge since … as part of a broader plan to cut pollution and improve traffic …
The city aims to curb particle matter circulation in the center by 30%
4. Comune di Milano (2008-12-31) – This is from the official website of Ecopass, ergo, the most reliable of all the sources.
il provvedimento che limita l’ingresso delle auto più inquinanti all’interno della Cerchia dei Bastioni.
Translation from Italian: the measure limits access to the most polluting autos into the Cerchia dei Bastioni.(area)
Regarding the table showing the pricing structure or fees by vehicle class, notice at the top of the table for that each category begins with the Italian phrase “Classe inquinamento”, which translates as “Pollution class”
5. Reuters UK (2008-01-02):
Milan drivers face trend-setting pollution charge
Drivers will have to pay a "pollution charge" to enter Milan's city centre … as a trend-setting way to cut smog. "This is a new way to deal with the problem of pollution and health," Milan mayor Letizia Moratti told…
The fee will be measured on pollutants emitted by vehicles, based on five engine classes...
Some critics argue that the pollution charge should not just be an extra tax on drivers.
6. European Federation for Transport and Environment (2008-02-06):
Milan has become the latest European metropolis to introduce a city charge to reduce pollution and congestion levels, as the idea of ‘low emissions zones’ gains in popularity.
As the site offers on-line payment of the pollution charge,…
As the aim of the charge is to reduce pollution levels, it is differentiated according to emissions of pollutants,…
In theory, the pollution charge is a trial for one year,…
7. The Daily Telegraph (2008-03-07)
despite the city's much trumpeted new "ecopass" congestion charge, which was designed to slash air pollution.
"The pollution charge introduced January 1 covers just…
He is proposing that the pollution charge be raised and the zone be extended outwards,…
8 Associação Nacional de Transportadores Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias - Portugal - (2008-01-22):
Itália - Zona Ambiental de Milão “Ecopass”
Translation from Portuguese: Italy – Milan Environmental Zone “Ecopass”
O “Ecopass” é um sistema que limita o acesso dos veículos mais poluentes ao Cerchia dei Bastioni de Milão.
Translation from Portugues: Ecopass is a system for limiting access to the most polluting vehicles into the Cerchia dei Bastioni (area) in Milan.
And again the translation to Portuguese of the pricing fee table accurately translated from Italian the heading “Classe de Poluição” which means “Pollution Class” in English
9. Times Online (2008-01-03):
Congestion fee leaves Milan in a jam
A London-style congestion charge caused chaos in Milan on its first day, …
The congestion charges are intended to reduce traffic and pollution in Milan…
The charges are levied on a sliding scale of engine types, with the most polluting vehicles being charged the most and the “least polluting” ones, …
12. BBC News (2007-02-01):
She also wants to introduce what is being called a "pollution charge" for drivers who enter the central area of the city
From the above summary is crystal clear that:
1. The most used terms in English for the Ecopass scheme are "congestion charge" and "pollution charge" This is absolutly not a matter of opinion, to say otherwise is pure OR. So it is more than justified to restore the term "pollution charge" at the leading paragraph, I will do so.
2. Ecopass is indeed a variation of the other existing congestion pricing schemes in Europe and Singapore. Besides the obvious context, refs # 1 and # 9 explicitly say so, and #3 can be included too. Just for the sake of stopping the discussion I will add those two refs after the sentence that says so.
3. Though obvious, the sources explicitly say that the price structure is base on the pollution emissions according to Euro engine standards, so this support the rv I did when engine standard was edited everywhere in the article.
4. And except for one transcription where a concern citizen is complaining about the Ecopass fee, not a single one of the sources calls it a "tax."
I really hope these unnecessary transcriptions (anyone could have just read them from each of the sources following the web links, and please read the sources I did not include here) allow us to stop this nonsense discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that you have wasted your time, as your answers do not address the point that I am making. In fact your long reply has reinforced my point. I have never questioned that those terms have been used by various newspaper reporters, but question the assertion of them as absolute facts, and not just as opinions of those reporting it (see WP:ASF).
Let me attempt illustrate the point with an analogy. An animal similar to the one in this picture was born. The proud father phoned his family to tell them of the new arrival and they told all their friends and acquaintances about the birth of a new horse. Meanwhile, its mother phoned her family, and they told all their friends and acquaintances about the arrival of a new donkey. Both families were reporting their understanding of what they thought were the facts of the the event, but both were wrong. You see, the foal was a hinny, a hybrid - it was part horse and part donkey and not actually a pure-bred of either.
It is the same with the Ecopass. It has some of the elements of a congestion charge, which has led some to report it as as congestion charge, and it has some elements of a pollution charge, which has led some to report it as a pollution charge. It also has some of the elements of other types of road tax, but we'll leave that alone for the moment. But, actually it is not purely any one of those things - and therefore it should not be asserted to be. What is incontrovertible is that it is a road charge, like the hinny is an Equidae. -- de Facto (talk). 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. You are just pushing the terms that favor your position on the issue, no matter how you try to disguise it. I will be calling experience users, even an administration if possible, to clarify for you the meaning of RS, NPOV and OR. I will appreciate If you refrain from further editing on these terms unitl we hear several experience third party opinions regarding how Wiki policy must be interpreted.--Mariordo (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a position on the Ecopass, so have no motivation to "push" it, please don't forget WP:AGF. All I want is a NPOV article, with no OR. -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, you are right on this one.
However, regarding you other edits, you continue pushing your POV regarding congestion pricing as a tax, and your personal interpretation of Ecopass not being a congestion pricing scheme, and worst, doing changes here and in the congestion pricing article without waiting for the discussion to end over there. This is why I reversed your non NPOV edits here and in the congestion pricing article. Please continue with the discussion in the congestion pricing Talk, before making edits here regarding the wording and terminology that is under discussion. --Mariordo (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your assertion of POV-pushing, and remind you of WP:AGF. Which "other edits" are you referring to? All of them? Just the ones on this article (the subject of this discussion page)? -- de Facto (talk). 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Ecopass is so clearly a "congestion pricing" scheme, then it should be described as such in this article. Whilst it isn't, it is incorrect to categorize it as such. Currently it is described only as a "pollution charge", and is also categorised as such. -- de Facto (talk). 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Carbon tax" from the 'See also' list as the basis for this charge is not carbon related.
"Pigovian tax" is also in the list. Is Ecopass considered to be a Pigovian tax? Does it need an RS?
Is it NPOV to have "Polluter pays principle" in the list, given that the article clearly describes that a vehicle charge is based on engine technology, and in no way related to the amount of pollution emitted by the vehicle? -- de Facto (talk). 10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are making judgments out of context. Do you bother to read all the sources before deleting? Several sources, green groups and European authorities are calling it such names. Second, the See also is for related subjects, not necessarily directly related, so that readers can do a follow up. Therefore, wiki links DO NOT need a reliable source. And please, there is a direct correlation between engine standards and tail-pipe emission pollution, this is the kind of questioning you do that I mentioned in the CP talk. --Mariordo (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through all the English sources cited, and cannot find CO2 emission mentioned in relation to the Ecopass scheme. It is all rooted in air pollution and engine emission regulations (we know that the Euro engine standards do not include CO2 emission, just several varieties of pollutants). -- de Facto (talk). 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any correlation between engine standards and tailpipe emissions would rely on the other influential factors such as distance travelled, driving style, vehicle weight and engine size being identical. -- de Facto (talk). 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think they observed a reduction in CO2. All vehicles burning oil fuel produced CO2, is part of the combustion process, it takes H from the fuel (diesel or gasoline) and the oxygen from the air (O2). The less vehicles running the streets the less CO2. also remember that Ecopass main objective is pollution, but they also stated the objective to reduce traffic congestion.--Mariordo (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CO2 reduction may be consequential, but never discussed as an objective, and certainly not targeted in the pricing structure - it is not one of the emissions measured for Euro engine emissions standards. Yes, the main objective is stated to be pollution reduction - CO2 which you and I exhale, and which is an essential ingredient for photosynthesis is not a pollutant. -- de Facto (talk). 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no matter no name, it is price signal to correct/compensate an externality, whether it is local pollution (particulates) or greenhouse gases.--Mariordo (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, a price signal, it doesn't matter the form this charge takes in the real world, tax, fee, toll, etc. The term is used in the context of economic theory. See my answer in the Talk page of congestion pricing. We need to level the playing field and stop this nonsense ping pong game.--Mariordo (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the change in nature of the Ecopass, I plan to create a new article Milan Area C (please note that Area C already exists to cover another subject). The creation of the new article will preserve the content of the Ecopass article and will also followed the precedent of the congestion pricing schemes implemented in Singapore, which is divided in two articles, the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme (the initial scheme) and the Electronic Road Pricing (the present scheme). Please share any thoughts about below.--Mariordo (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. Area C is totally different from Ecopass (except it covers the same area, that is actually the city center). The article on Ecopass should stay and be changed to past. However, I propose to wait until 16th to create the new Area C article--Ita140188 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
