Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#81

Post by striking »

lillecarl wrote: post #74
striking wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An octane rating, or octane number, is a standard measure of a fuel's ability to withstand compression in an internal combustion engine without causing engine knocking. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating. Octane rating does not relate directly to the power output or the energy content of the fuel per unit mass or volume, but simply indicates the resistance to…

It means we can run higher compression in our engines without engine knock, which means we can run our turbos and timing harder on a smaller dispacement engine without ruining it, meaning more efficient engines. Cleetus McFarland ran a car on brake-clean which has really low octane rating so sure anything works if you care about nothing. https://youtu.be/0hYOgGYQ_c8 American big block naturally aspirated engines will…

I'd love to know which new big block naturally aspirated American cars don't recommend premium fuel. I think the low octane fuel is really only there for the older cars (and for folks who don't understand octane ratings).

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#82

Post by hndamien »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #80
deepsun wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tax fuel/electricity instead of car.

We also tax those already. EDIT: There is a fixed VAT charge of 5% on electricity, as well as a currently 16% levy on electricity to cover various environmental and social benefit schemes. Which is hilarious, as the UK is moving away from fossil fuels for its electrical generation mix, while taxing electricity consumption much more than it taxes gas (5% VAT and 5.5% levies). This punishes those using electricity for…

Tax them again!

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#83

Post by lillecarl »

striking wrote: post #81
lillecarl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means we can run higher compression in our engines without engine knock, which means we can run our turbos and timing harder on a smaller dispacement engine without ruining it, meaning more efficient engines. Cleetus McFarland ran a car on brake-clean which has really low octane rating so sure anything works if you care about nothing. https://youtu.be/0hYOgGYQ_c8 American big block naturally aspirated engines will…

I'd love to know which new big block naturally aspirated American cars don't recommend premium fuel. I think the low octane fuel is really only there for the older cars (and for folks who don't understand octane ratings).

Recommendations only do so much, 80% of sales are crap fuel.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1270-dece...

Modern engines will pull back timing and decrease efficiency to prevent breaking down, raising the bar is in everyone's best interest, except the fat and happy Oil companies.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#84

Post by mvieira38 »

bluGill wrote: post #66
mvieira38 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also false that transit prices are small, by the way, at least globally. Where I live (third world), taking the subway daily to and from work amounts to 14% of minimum wage

Cars cost more than transit for most people. However transit is expensive no matter how you look at it. The money to run it much come from someplace.

Yes, transit costs a total X. In the car regime everyone puts in a small amount towards public transit and roads and richer folk put high amounts towards cars, totalling X. In the public transit regime everyone puts in a medium amount towards roads and public transit, and a negligible amount of tradespeople and construction companies buy their work vehicles, totalling X.

You can choose the car regime if you want, the US does, but: 1- public transit is lower quality due to higher income brackets choosing cars. 2- everyone is screwed by the cars' negative externalities (noise and air pollution mainly). 3- lower income brackets are screwed by the traffic generated by the higher guys (50 minimum wage workers occupying the same lane space as 3 SUV-driving middle managers). Also you have to remember how much the mortality increases in higher car traffic areas, so that X figure isn't really true

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#85

Post by mvieira38 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

OK, imma just say the quiet part out loud here: There would be less need for daily transportation commutes if companies allowed 100% WFH wehre applicable and the government would force/incentivise this on companies for the positions that can be done remotely in order to save the environment. Especially given that Geneva labor market skews heavily towards specialized office jobs like diplomats, banking and pharma wher…

Well put. Easy pollution-reducing policies are all under our noses but governments chicken out of implementing them for whatever reason. Office workers having at least one mandated day of remote work would be a godsend, and it's very noticeable post-pandemic how much nicer the cities where this is unofficially implemented are on fridays

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#86

Post by amanaplanacanal »

smsm42 wrote: post #35
dukoid wrote: post #11

Why do we still allow drivers to externalize most of the costs associated with cars? There is existing technology to extract co2 from the atmosphere, and the current cost of this should be the free market-based price for co2 emissions.

Gas and cars are already heavily taxed. In California, for example, it's 61c per gallon now. I am not sure what's the situation in Switzerland, but last time I have been in Europe gas prices there was very significantly higher than in the US (even in California). Given as European gas doesn't seem to be a different product than US gas, I have to conclude Europeans already pay a lost of costs when buying gas. Same wit…

I'm not familiar with how things are done in Europe, but in the US fuel taxes aren't enough to pay for road maintenance, let alone new construction and externalities like pollution. New construction is typically mostly done with federal grants (newly printed money) and pollution we all just breathe.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#87

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ferguess_k wrote: post #64
bluGill wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs Strongly disagree. There are too many perverse incentives that work against transit. If there are a lot of car commuters (which there will be - plumbers taking their tools to the job for example) they have inventive to pressure politicians to reduce that tax - any voting block will always be more powerful than the d…

I completely agree. Free for the poor people but don't give free stuffs to the other people (including me). Public services are NEVER really free - they take $$ from taxes. Looks like many people simply don't care about taxes.

You either spend the tax money on roads, or on public transit. Roads aren't free either.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#88

Post by amanaplanacanal »

mvieira38 wrote: post #27
komali2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and making the traffic slower for the bus in doing so. Strong agree except here, busses should have their own lanes at all expense to cars - even if this means entire roads are now no longer available to cars. The private car should be the slowest, least convenient way to get where you're going.

We have dedicated bus lanes where I live, and they don't really work during heavy rush hour, unfortunately, due to merging and turns. For example, most of the time the bus lane needs to be on the right so it can pick people up, so cars turning right will have to cross the bus lane somewhere. The opposite happens if the bus needs to take a left turn, or if another bus is stopped for maintenance or something and overta…

If they don't work where you live, it's because they are poorly designed.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#89

Post by bluGill »

mvieira38 wrote: post #84
bluGill wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars cost more than transit for most people. However transit is expensive no matter how you look at it. The money to run it much come from someplace.

Yes, transit costs a total X. In the car regime everyone puts in a small amount towards public transit and roads and richer folk put high amounts towards cars, totalling X. In the public transit regime everyone puts in a medium amount towards roads and public transit, and a negligible amount of tradespeople and construction companies buy their work vehicles, totalling X. You can choose the car regime if you want, the…

You shouldn't use X as your only variable as it sort of implies a fixed amount that is the same either way. However the systems are different and should have different costs.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#90

Post by Vegenoid »

pkulak wrote: post #46
dfxm12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auto industry is pretty powerful, worldwide, but also particularly locally around Switzerland. I mean powerful enough to shape people's opinions and sway regulations.

That is crazy to me that the country with a national identity built around trains also has a powerful car lobby. You really can’t escape it.

Automobiles are extremely seductive. They offer a lot of benefit to an individual. The trouble comes when everyone is using cars, at which point their advantages to the individual are substantially diminished, and their harms to the populace substantially magnified. A thing like this is tough to stop, because by the time you really want to stop it, it's entrenched.
Post reply on HN