Talk:Congestion pricing in New York City/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Correspondence with a fellow editor

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

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

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

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

Practical alternatives

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

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

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

That is the section referred to in the above post. Looking at it again, it does look more like original research. I am much more bullish about removing original research than simply unreferenced sections. So the section as it is now should be removed. But as I said above, as a subject matter, alternatives for reducing vehicular traffic that is particular to New York City is relevant in this article, as long as they are noted and supported by notable people and experts.
Perhaps there was guilt over the removal of that section's predecessor.TLK'in 13:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As you and I are of the same view, I think it's appropriate to delete it now. If anyone wants to restore it, the burden would be on them to demonstrate that there are reliable sources for this material. Marc Shepherd 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this also goes for Mr. Stein's constant addition of original research which is of the same nature. TLK'in 09:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Map on vote breakdown

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Congestion pricing in New York City. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Congestion pricing in New York City. 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) 03:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Anchors

Per BRD, you should have brought it here for discussion instead of edit warring it back in. I added the anchors to preserve the section links when you changed the section heading. They normally go in or just above the heading, though the former has the added effect of putting the anchor template into every edit summary, hence why I chose the latter. There's zero need to link directly to the current Cuomo paragraph, especially as it is to expand. The section will ultimately be about the Cuomo plan, of which Move NY (Gridlock Sam) will be one component. Anyone hotlinking to the Cuomo section is best off landing at the section header rather than having their screen scroll to a random paragraph. Please revert your edit. czar 18:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Unused source dump

A few things I found re: 1970s, but didn't consider appropriate/necessary to use:

a few temporary pedestrian malls have been created on Madison Avenue and other thoroughfares. But the suggestion of a permanent ban on certain city streets has brought angry protests from some merchants and businessmen.
— http://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/01/archives/city-has-no-plans-to-abolish-fares-wont-follow-romes-lead-on.html

New York is one of 36 cities that the E.P.A. has said could not meet the over‐all atmospheric standards for these pollutants even if the 1975 limitations on automobile exhausts were enforced. Therefore, these cities are under order from William D. Ruckelshaus, the E.P.A. administrator, to develop transportation plans to help meet the atmospheric standards.
— http://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/22/archives/lindsay-links-economy-to-1975-emission-rules-two-criteria-cited.html

Unhappy over Mayor Lindsay's compromise on the building of a new power plant in Queens, Citizens for Clean Air called on the Mayor yesterday “to demonstrate his goodwill and immediately ban private automobile traffic from the central business district—Manhattan south of 59th Street —during normal business hours”
— http://www.nytimes.com/1970/08/23/archives/mayor-urged-to-ban-cars-below-59th-st-during-day-mayor-is-urged-to.html

czar 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

1970s

Some of the recent edits go into the weeds with policy, place, date specifics that aren't necessarily relevant to the general reader. The idea is to provide a general overview (encyclopedic) to the topic and if readers wants to know more specifics, they can follow the link to the source. In writing about potentially complicated subjects, I've found that it often isn't worth introducing specificity if the facts/claims lack prima facie importance to the paragraph's arc (or aren't plot points that will recur later in the section). Jargon otherwise risks the reader's attention. czar 03:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

GA timing

Wouldn't it make sense to hold the GA nom given the recent renewal of political debate on the topic? Usually GA noms hold until the breadth criterion can be satisfactorily met (such that the article isn't passed today only to need a new full section tomorrow). czar 13:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. But there are recent examples of NYC-related GA's that change quickly even after they are nominated and passed. For instance, the article on NYC Ferry was nominated as a GA in April 2017, even though the ferry itself had yet to open. Between that time and the date of passing (September 2017), the article changed significantly. I'm betting on this GA nom not even being reviewed for several months, based on the backlog, hence why I nominated it now. I could delay the GA nom if that's what's best for this article, though. epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hu, Winnie; McKinley, Jesse (2018-04-09). "Congestion Pricing Plan for Manhattan Ran Into Politics. Politics Won". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-13.
  • Hu, Winnie (2018-03-31). "Congestion Pricing Falters in New York, Again". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-13.
Worth updating how the plan/momentum died again in last month czar 10:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Congestion pricing in New York City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Time to start the Epicgenius backlog. I will be hopefully taking care of all your backlogged nominations. No-one, especially you, should have to wait several months. Every article I review of yours is impressive and shows your dedication. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Issues

@Epicgenius: Sorry for the delay, long work week at the office. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's OK. I just started a new job myself, so I have very limited free time. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Nice! I commute to the city everyday and my breaks are filled with wikipedia. I am guessing you are the MTA creative director? AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I wish that were the case, but unfortunately, I'm only 19 years old. I learned the hard way that the MTA only hires students if they're heading into their senior year of college. I'm a rising sophomore, so guess that means two more years... epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

  • The last paragraph of "reaction" is a complete copy and paste plagiarism from slate.com
    • I wouldn't call it "plagiarism", since it's a direct quote. A pretty long one, I must add (but not the entire paragraph). I've reworded it. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  • I cannot access refs 19 or 20. Look into that
  • Ref 17 is dead
  • Ref 22 is dead
  • Ref 23 is dead
  • Ref 30 is dead
  • Ref 34 is dead
  • Ref 40 is dead
  • Ref 44 is dead
  • Ref 53 is dead

Article

  • "In 2017, Governor Andrew Cuomo reintroduced the congestion pricing proposal in response to the New York City Subway's state of emergency, a proposal that Mayor Bill de Blasio opposed."
Elaborate more on the state of emergency (what happened, effects)
If I elaborate too much, it will go into an irrelevant tangent. Thus, I only added a short overview. epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "A recurring proposal includes adding tolls to all crossings of the East River, which separates Manhattan from Long Island."
Elaborate more on this. Maybe give an example of a bridge (Brooklyn maybe). Talk more about the crossings of the east river and why its not tolled.
I will add info about this in the article's body when I get the time. But it seems like if I talk too much about these bridges, it will also become irrelevant. epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "which was very unpopular."
According to whom? Give examples
I reworded, to avoid this vagueness. epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "He had previously made a similar suggestion."
What was it? Why was it so similar.
It was the exact same suggestion. epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The parking ban, announced in September 1970, affected a triangular 50-block area below Fulton Street[5] and upset truckers and merchants."
Elaborate more
There's not that much to elaborate on. I mean, I could go on about the details of the parking ban, but it would go on a tangent. epicgenius (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1970, the government enacted new federal air pollution regulations."
What was this? You could click the link but it would be nice to have a little background info.
Done.
  • "The city's transportation commissioner said that limited bans on two streets in midtown Manhattan had been successful."
How have they been successful? Elaborate more.
The reference doesn't elaborate how it was successful. In any case, this doesn't need much explanation. Since it was a vehicle ban, it just reduced traffic. epicgenius (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The list starting with "On July 9, 2007" to "parking permits" needs to be fixed.
@AmericanAir88: I don't know what needs to be fixed. I simply added some explanations. epicgenius (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I meant incorporate it into prose. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88: OK, I have done that. epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Coincidentally, by July 2008, gasoline prices of over $4.00 a gallon caused a 5 percent drop in vehicle trips into lower Manhattan, realizing goals that Bloomberg had envisioned for his congestion pricing scheme."
Very choppy and confusing. Consider splitting.
Done.
  • If you can, expand the 2015 proposal with additional citations accompanying it.
I expanded a little. I will add more later. epicgenius (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Pass. The epicgenius backlog will finally go down!AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congestion_pricing_in_New_York_City/Archive_1&oldid=1191287617"