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

In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 524 posts

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#91

Post by jpfromlondon »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #80
jpfromlondon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pigouvian*, this is a regressive tax though that is probably unnecessary as the other studies referenced or linked in this thread show.

TIL that word. I wish as a society we'd use this form of taxation more, and widely applied taxes less. In theory insurance is supposed to have the actuarial people who figure it out and properly price the choices in, but it's also surprising how crude they can be-- lumping very distinct situations as "the same". eg aggressive drivers are only penalized after they hurt someone, like the phrase "no harm no foul" (until…

They can also have their own significant externalities and introduce perverse incentives (in this case...) for revenue-seeking infrastructure governance.

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#94

Post by twiss »

theurerjohn3 wrote: post #62
rtkwe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question becomes how critical is X and is there a close alternative. In this case I'd say for 95% of people yes driving is easily substituted by NYC's public transit options.

Im not sure this fits, they saw a much larger drop (18%) in heavy duty trucks entering the city, and a smaller drop (9%) in passenger cars. I am not sure the public transit options are close alternatives for heavy duty trucks.

Do we know that those heavy duty trucks were formerly used to do things you need heavy duty trucks for? It seems more likely that 18% (or more!) of the usage was by people who think heavy duty trucks look cool and wanted to show off theirs.

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#95

Post by squigz »

jeffbee wrote: post #14

To head off the almost inevitable recapitulation of yesterday's parade of misinformed complaints by teenage libertarians, please actually read the paper before commenting. The paper shows there was no significant reduction in entries to the congestion charge zone by cars, vans, and light trucks. And you can confirm this conclusion is consistent with their source data using their github repo. The reduction in pollutio…

It's good to point this out but I don't think the snarkiness at the beginning is necessary to get your point across.

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#96

Post by kccqzy »

lkbm wrote: post #33
aurareturn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. Spend some time in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City or a very dense city in Asia and then come back here. Let me know if you change your mind.

I won't change my mind about emissions in NYC . NYC is full of modern, western cars. Two-stroke engines are terrible , classic automobiles are terrible, cars with no emission regulations will tend to be terrible. Cars in NYC will have catalytic converters and other technologies to reduce tailpipe emissions.

Unlike many other places in the United States, NYC area’s railroads are almost exclusively passenger rail and there is comparatively very little freight railroad traffic serving NYC and therefore there are way more trucks in NYC. They emit way dirtier emissions. The problem is never the cars; it’s always the trucks.

And oh also the small engines powering street food carts.

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#97

Post by CalRobert »

oersted wrote: post #16
lkbm wrote: post #2

> Particulates issued from tailpipes can aggravate asthma and heart disease and increase the risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Globally, they are a leading risk factor for premature death. Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. The study is about PM2.5[0]. which will chiefly be tires and brake pads. Modern gasoline engines are relatively clean, outside of CO2, though diesel engines s…

And besides, even if lung cancer and heart attack may be the most common means of premature death, it does not entail that air pollution is the primary cause of them. I thought that smoking and bad dietary/exercise habits were the main factors. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

I can choose to eat healthy and not smoke. I can't choose not to breathe.

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#99

Post by nemomarx »

dchest wrote: post #75
theplatman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

working class people are predominantly using public transit to get around nyc this claim has been debunked many times and anyone with eyes can see who the private drivers in NYC are

Because it's economically infeasible to drive?

It would be before the congestion fee anyway - parking costs alone are absurd and cumbersome right?

Re: In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution

#100

Post by Mawr »

dchest wrote: post #75
theplatman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

working class people are predominantly using public transit to get around nyc this claim has been debunked many times and anyone with eyes can see who the private drivers in NYC are

Because it's economically infeasible to drive?

Well yeah — cars are expensive.
Post reply on HN