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

151–160 of 524 posts

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

#151

Post by theurerjohn3 »

jpfromlondon wrote: post #86
theurerjohn3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it? i dont see the relevant other studies, and my initial assumptions would be that the median subway user is lower income than the median car driver in NYC, so transfering funds from car drivers to subway improvements would be progressive. However NYC's transit is notoriously bad at spending, so not sure it would achive that. Which studies linked in this thread are you refering to? I cant see them.

Regular driving in large working cities is usually only done out of professional necesscity and people who drive for a living tend to be in lower socioeconomic bands. How many people on Wallstreet do you know that drive to work?

I'm not so confident in that first claim, and my anecdotal evidence doesn't support your theory.

However you did mention some other studies on this thread that support your claim this is a regressive tax, I'm worried I missed them, can you share the links?

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

#152

Post by bpt3 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13
Angostura wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?

Alternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...

I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs.

If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.

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

#154

Post by efaref »

Aurornis wrote: post #125
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…

> though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff. Exactly. The noxious tailpipe emissions in a city are usually from diesel trucks, small vehicles like motorcycles (small or absent catalytic converters), modified vehicles (catalytic converter removed or diesel reprogrammed to smoke), but not modern gasoline ICE vehicles. The love for diesel engines in many European countries was always confusing to me. PM2.5 is…

The love for diesel came from a catastrophic misunderstanding and the resulting belief that CO2 must be reduced at all costs. Diesel engines of the past produced slightly less CO2 per km than petrol engines in exchange for much worse overall emissions. The fact that they were slightly more efficient in terms of fuel consumption helped with the sales pitch, too.

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

#155

Post by mikestew »

throwawaypath wrote: post #5
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…

How do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.

“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago?

I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.

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

#156

Post by hamdingers »

jgeada wrote: post #9
throwawaypath wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.

Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?

People want a solution to this problem that requires them to make approximately zero compromises.

The auto industry has positioned EVs as that solution, even though it's mostly not.

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

#157

Post by fullstop »

Spivak wrote: post #116
Angostura wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?

I say this as someone who owns an electric scooter and whose next car will be an EV—the sales pitch for EVs right now is basically pay more (especially now that the tax credit is gone) to have a worse time and maybe eventually claw some of it back over the lifetime of the car in fuel savings. The environmental impact is the pro in the pro con list. So if that doesn't pan out, or doesn't pan out enough it's going to b…

> Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.

You likely don't need to replace the panel, as load management options exist. Wallbox, in particular, has an option where you can add a modbus doo-dad (carlo gavazzi energy management module) to your panel and it will monitor the overall usage and drop the EVSE current to keep it at a safe level.

It's more expensive than if you had a modern panel, but less expensive than replacing the panel itself.

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

#158

Post by stetrain »

MLgulabio wrote: post #113
ceejayoz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has 8M people and 2M cars. Manhattan has like a 22% car ownership rate, and it's… not the poor people. https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L... A parking spot will cost you more than rent in some other cities.

This doesn't change my argument at all. The more money you have, more you benefit from this ruling. Now you can buy a service which was not possible before.

The rich were driving before, and are still driving.

The difference is that now they are paying for that service they were already using, and those funds are going to public transit which serves the majority of New Yorkers especially those with lower incomes.

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

#159

Post by mtalantikite »

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?

Yes, but also it's just annoying to have a car in NYC. For many routes the subway is going to be faster than driving and sitting in traffic, unless you're traveling between outer borough neighborhoods that only have a connection in Manhattan. If you're making that commute often (say, Bushwick to East Flatbush, or Flushing to Canarsie), a car might make sense, but then this whole congestion pricing thing doesn't apply to you.

Transit is $3/ride (in a few weeks), 24 hours, and all over the city. It's not perfect, but for the vast majority of cases owning a car in NYC is just not really worth it. If you need one because you have a weekend home out in Long Island or up in the Hudson Valley, you can afford the $9 toll.

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

#160

Post by ics »

mjmsmith wrote: post #76
pulisse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few poor people drive into lower Manhattan. And people whose work requires them to drive in that area (delivery drivers, plumbers, etc.) come out ahead. One of the first NYT stories after congestion pricing was rolled out had multiple quotes from tradesmen reporting that they're saving an hour or more a day and prefer the new system.

There was also an endless parade of NY Post stories about how Manhattan restaurants would suffer because their customers couldn't just drive in from Long Island and New Jersey.

Parking garages: the OG congestion fee.
Post reply on HN