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

361–370 of 524 posts

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

#361

Post by axpy »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #313
stewarts wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only experience is BMW EV, but my i4 aggressively prioritizes regeneration over using the brakes. It even has an energy meter that shows negative/positive energy flow. The positive flow is blue until the actual brakes engage where it changes to black. And this is in two pedal mode, one pedal driving is even more aggressive about regen. I would not doubt I use my breaks 1/20th of the amount that our X5 or Silverado…

It varies by model, I know some lower end EVs from GM still use the breaks quite often depending on the driving mode.

Blending brake with regen is normal to avoid rust to develop on the rotor but I haven’t seen any EV that don’t prioritize regen over normal braking.

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

#362

Post by stemlord »

xvilka wrote: post #245

They should make pedestrian-only streets in most dense places of Manhattan and use these money to improve public transportation. Even just a few blocks of no cars would make a huge difference for livability of the city center.

This is already underway

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

#363

Post by taeric »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #273
taeric wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like this is the curse of modern US politics. I'm convinced the majority of people that "want high speed rail in CA" don't live in CA. Further away they live, the stronger they will argue for why we should have it.

You run in very different social circles than I do. The only complaint I have ever heard about California's high speed rail plan (as a life-long Bay Area resident) is how damn long it's taking because of the yokels claiming it'll annoy their cows and almonds.

My assertion is most people arguing online about this do not live near the impacted areas. Happy to be proven wrong on this. I just have a lot of sour taste to the whole thing with how many people constantly harp on public transit, but then want me to see their brand new car.

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

#365

Post by mritterhoff »

Maximus9000 wrote: post #337
mritterhoff wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big agree. Times Square would be a great place to start.

Isn't times square already pedestrian? https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohet...

A small section of it is.

> “Bowtie” bounded by Broadway and Seventh Avenue between 42nd and 47th Streets.

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

#366

Post by taeric »

bluGill wrote: post #256
taeric wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like this is the curse of modern US politics. I'm convinced the majority of people that "want high speed rail in CA" don't live in CA. Further away they live, the stronger they will argue for why we should have it.

Just to defend myself (similar to what I said in a different thread): I live in an area that would be marginal for high speed rail, but I still want it. If the US can get a great high speed rail network it would make sense to bring that to me, but as one of the last lines built! If CA can't build a good HSR where it should obviously work out there is no way it is worth trying here. They have to make the mistakes and…

Don't get me wrong. I used transit for the majority of my career. Biked for as much of it. Love the ideas.

The VAST majority of people I would see have conversations about this seem to want others to take transit so that traffic is better for them in their car.

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

#367

Post by autoexec »

afavour wrote: post #357
autoexec wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those employees and service workers take the subway. Not the ones who need to bring service vehicles with them. Not anyone who has to enter or return with heavy items or any number of the other many many reasons people choose to drive and not take the subway. The fact of the matter is that the subway has always been an option for many people, but not all people and it comes with costs of its own. The people driving…

This debate has been done to death. And it's always, always a vague group of people who are apparently affected. Never specific examples. And, as we see here, there's always an appeal to class warfare: "it's hurting the poors". And it's always by someone who wishes to speak on behalf of those poor people, never actually the people themselves. Only 2% of lower income outer borough residents (around 5,000 people) drive…

> And it's always, always a vague group of people who are apparently affected. Never specific examples.

Someone on the other side of the country is only going to see the way this will impact the lives of people like them. They aren't going to say "Clearly this policy has impacted the household budget of NYC plumber Mitchell Tnenski" They don't know Mitchell. They know that congestion pricing coming to their city would hurt them in very real ways. They also know that rich people don't give a shit about a couple extra bucks in fines for getting where they want to go by car. That's why this issue has resonated nationally.

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

#368

Post by TulliusCicero »

ipaddr wrote: post #350

Imagine it actually mattered to them and they didn't force everyone into downtown offices instead of allowing people to work from home. This is a cash grab.

Who's "they" here? I don't think it's the government forcing everyone at finance and tech companies to come into the office.

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

#369

Post by CryptoBanker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #310
CryptoBanker wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What electrification and signal improvements are you talking about? Signal upgrades are a constant thing in the MTA, both for the LIRR and the subways. They are not something that just started with congestion pricing funds. Also, efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds[1]. [1] https://www.mta.info/press-release/icymi-governor-hochul-cel...

Congestion pricing was agreed to in 2019. Expected revenue was used to budget quite a few projects; this caused a bit of a scare when Hochul put it on hold for a while. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/nyregion/congestion-prici...

The loans backed by congestion pricing revenue weren't taken out until this year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-07/ny-mta-ge...

That money you're talking about was money that was already spent to implement congestion pricing

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

#370

Post by kjkjadksj »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #216
bryanlarsen wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that brake dust is the primary PM2.5 emission from vehicles in an urban environment. However the PM2.5 component from tail pipes are still very significant, higher than the contribution from tires. The order is: 1. brake dust 2. road dust 3. engine emissions 4. tire dust https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456... https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle...

and would it be true to say that regenerative braking on electric cars reduces significantly this dust?

You can get this lack of brake pad use with an ice with a manual transmission as well if you engine brake.
Post reply on HN