Skip to content
flowss
Start freeChecking your session
Argument map templates

Argument Map — City Centre Congestion Charge

Argument structure for introducing a weekday congestion charge in a large regional city, with the regressivity and boundary-displacement objections rebutted and counter-rebutted.

Argument mapResearch & AcademicArgument map syntax docs
Template previewArgument map
Should the city introduce a weekday congestion charge?CLAIMThe city should charge fordriving into the centre onweekdays.PROLondon's scheme cut centraltraffic by about 15%.PROCharge revenue ishypothecated to busservices.PRORoadside NO2 exceedances areconcentrated inside thezone.CONThe charge is regressive forshift workers.PROA night and shift-workerexemption removes most ofthe burden.CONExemptions erode the demandresponse the charge existsfor.CONTraffic displaces onto theboundary ring road.PROBoundary displacement fellwithin two years inStockholm.CONRetailers expect footfall inthe centre to fall.PROCentre footfall rose wherestreet space wasreallocated.

Make it your own.

title "Should the city introduce a weekday congestion charge?"
claim   C  "The city should charge for driving into the centre on weekdays."
support S1 "London's scheme cut central traffic by about 15%."   for C
support S2 "Charge revenue is hypothecated to bus services."     for C
support S3 "Roadside NO2 exceedances are concentrated inside the zone." for C
object  O1 "The charge is regressive for shift workers."         against C
object  O2 "Traffic displaces onto the boundary ring road."      against C
object  O3 "Retailers expect footfall in the centre to fall."    against C
support S4 "A night and shift-worker exemption removes most of the burden." for O1
object  O4 "Exemptions erode the demand response the charge exists for."    against S4
support S5 "Boundary displacement fell within two years in Stockholm."      for O2
support S6 "Centre footfall rose where street space was reallocated."       for O3