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

321–330 of 524 posts

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

#321

Post by dghlsakjg »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #169
stetrain wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diesel looks good if you are focusing primarily on fuel economy (mpg / L/100km), and when companies cheat the tests on other emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal When you remove the cheating and give adequate weight to those emissions, diesel for passenger vehicles makes a lot less sense.

Diesel is less fuel efficient than regular gasoline except when you measure by volume. It gets fewer miles per unit of energy in the fuel.

I don't think any car buyer has ever looked at Calories per litre of fuel as a relevant metric for purchasing.

People that buy cars almost exclusively care about cost of fuel to move between A and B.

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

#322

Post by cycomanic »

afthonos wrote: post #301
pixl97 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's starting to make me sceptical of environmental claims in general. What does that even mean? Honestly whatever it means it sounds like you would be the kind of person that would fall for the firehose of falsehood rather than look for the truth behind the actual claims.

For 99.9% of issues, we rely on trust to make up our minds. We assume people are mostly not lying. If a group of people are found to lie, then yes, maybe “look for the truth behind the actual claims” is worth it, but more likely shooting them out of the discourse and into the metaphorical sun is the right response. If you walk around lying, you don’t get to complain that people aren’t doing research on your claims.

Sure, but how does that relate to environmentalists? The people lying were the car industry, but somehow the OP questions environmentalism. Why are they not questioning the car industry?

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

#323

Post by rangestransform »

ics wrote: post #160
mjmsmith wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the parking garages are going to have issues in the near future with EVs, there was already a high profile garage collapse

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

#325

Post by rangestransform »

jpfromlondon wrote: post #41
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.

[flagged]

With reduced congestion, delivery companies will find marginally increased productivity (maybe 1 more delivery stop is possible per shift, for instance) that will likely make the fee worth it

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

#326

Post by the_gastropod »

piinbinary wrote: post #264

They should put subway stations in each of the 3 big airports.

JFK has a subway station (Howard Beach)

EWR is in New Jersey, so... not technically the NYC Subway. But taking the subway to Penn Station, then hopping on NJ Transit is pretty easy

LGA is the only one that straight up has no subway/train option.

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

#327

Post by saalweachter »

offsign wrote: post #229

One thing that irks me about these schemes is that they often ignore cities role as regional hubs -- i.e. many cities became cities because they serve as geographical gateways interlocking the surrounding region. They are happy to take the benefits of being at the hub, but (increasingly) adopt a nativistic dialogue with the rest of the spokes. I get that no one likes highways running through their communities, but wh…

Manhattan is surrounded by a ring road. It is excluded from congestion pricing.

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

#328

Post by rangestransform »

kccqzy wrote: post #98
MLgulabio wrote: post #81

[flagged]

And yes let’s think of the poor people who have no choice but to drive into Midtown and downtown for work. Have you ever talked to poor people in NYC?

the only poor people driving personal cars in manhattan are projects residents with their taxpayer-subsidized parking spot

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

#329

Post by autoexec »

afavour wrote: post #303
autoexec wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because it disproportionately impacts the people who can least afford it. It allows the wealthy to continue to enjoy the convenience (relative to alternatives) of driving into the city while polluting and causing traffic at a price that has zero impact on their lives while it punishes those who already have much less and whose lives will be impacted by the fines and the often significant amounts of time…

I think this comment is a great example of what the OP is talking about. Your comment is completely divorced from the context of congestion pricing in New York City . For example: > Taking a basic task like driving into the city, something many people are forced to do for work That is simply not the case in NYC. Very, very few people must drive into the center of Manhattan to work. It was already unaffordable to do s…

> Very, very few people must drive into the center of Manhattan to work.

I assure you that Manhattan is filled with many employees and service workers.

> It was already unaffordable to do so anyway

Yes, it was a massive strain on the budgets of many people, and it's the people who managed to sacrifice enough to show up for work or get where they needed to go anyway even though it was difficult for them who were most impacted by congestion pricing.

> People take the subway.

Many do. When it's an option for them and at the expense of time/convenience. If this were an acceptable excuse we might as well just shut the roads into Manhattan down entirely.

This article proves that people have been being priced out of driving into the city and I promise you that isn't the millionaires who are suddenly navigating the subway system and waiting for the trains in filthy stations.

It's also important to note that nationally, nobody knows or cares about the specific differences in NYC compared to their own cities. The vast majority of the people outside of NYC complaining about it have never even been to the state. They just know that once again, it's the small guy who is getting screwed over and that they don't want the success of congestion pricing in New York (however that is measured) to cause it to appear where they drive, and who can blame them for that?

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

#330

Post by recursive »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #317
rconti wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always surprises me when people want stop signs in their neighborhood for traffic calming. The last thing I want is all of the noise and pollution of vehicles stopping and starting over and over again; surely various piece of road furniture like bulb-outs, roundabouts, etc, do a better job with fewer drawbacks. Other than cost, of course.

My assumption is that stop signs act somewhat as a way to enforce the lower speed limits in residential areas. There's several stretches without stops in my suburb where I've seen drivers whizzing by very obviously above the 25mph speed limit, which is bad enough on its own but becomes a serious hazard when combined with the massive blind spots that come from curbs on both directions being filled to the brim with par…

> A better solution would probably be radar-based speed signs with printed threats of fines, though.

I don't think people respond to those as much as they do to "traffic calming" like speed bumps, roundabouts, and narrow choke points.

Post reply on HN