|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transport economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
The page could do with a bit of writing and reorganisation to make it more coherent and to ensure that there are appropriate links to the pages within this category, so I've put a cleanup request on it. -Dave A 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've carried out a bit of a reorganisation and tidy up - I removed some stuff when I thought it might be irrelevant, so if anyone sees something missing they think should be there, please say. -Dave A 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
(from article, don't seem to belong in an article on economics) ... The provision of an upgraded transport network usually requires a disruption of the present network for months or even years, whether that upgrade is stimulated either by wear-and-tear, safety considerations, land-use change or a decision to uprate capacity. In some cities, especially in Europe, the redistribution of roadspace in favour of pedestrians, buses, trams or cycles has reversed the historic tendency for the faster modes to prevail. Some historic networks, such as canals or rural railways have even been restored as heritage attractions, following generations of neglect. Such re-opened facilities usually aim to attract nostalgic tourists as well as to perform a limited transport function.
Higher speeds in any mode are often justified by the time drivers or passengers can be expected to save, but these traveller flows have to be estimated with some confidence ahead of the provision of the faster - or more frequent - service. Added speed will have implications for both the design of the vehicle and the infrastructure it needs on the ground, but it might negatively impact energy efficiency, safety and perhaps elements of the environment through which it passes. dml
I cannot believe this. There's not one mention of the word 'rail' (or indeed 'railway' or 'railroad'). Nor of the word 'airline' nor 'ferry'.
I noticed that the article presents road rationing as an alternative but incorrectly makes it seem as if rationing is a better idea or has more support by economists. The fact is-- and this was even found in the Road Rationing article itself-- quantity rations create different shadow prices and thus are considered very inappropriate interventions by economists. In general quantity rations reduce welfare, making them hardly "equitable." I added a set net from the road space rationing article to reflect the fact that rationing as a strategy is not considered economically effective, but inferior in a wide array of economic situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
New list for 2013 or 2012
Dr. Florio's comment on this article
Dr. Florio has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The flow of arguments is chaotic. Authors should prefer to organize the text of the article following a textbook structure first, and then go into such specific details as congestion charges etc.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Florio has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference : Michela Cella & Massimo Florio, 2009. "Hierarchical contracting in grant decisions: ex-ante and ex-post evaluation in the context of the EURegional Policy," Working Papers 171, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2009.