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

411–420 of 524 posts

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

#411

Post by mrguyorama »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #199

I'm curious how congestion pricing became a national issue. The strength of conviction people have about this policy–almost either way, but certainly among those against–seems to scale with distance from the city. Nobody in Idaho gets uppity about New Jersey's tolls. But they have strong, knowledge-free, almost identity-defining opinions about congestion charges. Is it because it's a policy that's worked in Europe an…

You're curious how an issue where government listening to experts results in obvious good outcomes and no serious failures became a national culture war issue?

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

#413

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #286
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one in NYC, rich or poor, has any confidence in the MTA's ability to properly and efficiently use these funds They're already using them, and the results show. They could have done it cheaper. But the LIRR is operating at Swiss rail efficiecies since the recent electrification and signalling improvements.

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...

> They are not something that just started with congestion pricing funds

Correct. But they’re being expanded. Early signs are there. And we have precedent to show that funding this work, and funding it sooner, works.

> efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds

Correct. Congestion funds accelerate that process.

I spoke an inarticulately, but the point was trying to make is that we have precedence for quality and efficiency improving capital spending by the MTA. The bonds the MTA issued earlier this year double down on that. The early signs of that spending show those capital deployments are helping in the way the preceding spending did.

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

#414

Post by awongh »

wiether wrote: post #193
awongh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The love for diesel engines in many European countries was always confusing to me. And turns out the whole thing was a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal It's unfortunate that so much rhetoric around environmentalism is based on faulty claims. It's starting to make me sceptical of environmental claims in general. The latest one is AI data center water use- the extreme numbers like 5 liters…

I'm confused by your comment. You link an article that talks about how manufacturers lied on their emission figures. But later you seem to imply that the actual lie was about how bad emissions are for humans/environment?

My point was that misinformation makes it impossible or nearly impossible to evaluate "is this environmental or not".

Best effort is not enough to guarantee a good outcome- for example, this car is diesel and has lower emissions, therefore I will buy it and I will be reducing my own emissions turns out to not be true all the time.

Just like congestion pricing might or might not actually affect pollution in the way that it's claimed. The obvious point being that the city loves the new revenue, no matter what the level of impact it actually has.

I'm actually in favor of congestion pricing in principle (whether or not pm2.5 is reduced or not). I'm just sad that often times it's impossible to figure out what's true.

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

#415

Post by [deleted] »

squigz wrote: post #404
vel0city wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Truckers aren't intentionally giving kids asthma The number of trucks I see that are either horribly maintained or purposefully modified to defeat emissions devices spewing massive clouds of black smoke every time they step on the accelerator pedal speaks otherwise to me. Rolling Coal is absolutely a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

Even those people don't deserve to be "dragged from their cabs and beaten by angry mobs"

[deleted]

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

#416

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #388
ceejayoz wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One specific loan was taken out this year. (And planning tends to preceed the actual loans.)

Planning is not the same as spending

It’s not shovel-ready spending. But it’s absolutely part of the process, and not one you can skip in a democracy.

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

#417

Post by CryptoBanker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #399
CryptoBanker wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was true at the beginning of congestion pricing and perhaps over the summer, but it is definitely not true anymore

Are there numbers to back this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York... says "By July 2025, there were 67,000 fewer daily vehicles in the congestion zone compared to before implementation. The same month, one study found that travel times within the congestion zone had decreased, and that delivery companies were opting to use smaller vehicles (which were charged lower tolls) in the toll zon…

Your comment aligns with what I said. "Over the summer"

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

#418

Post by CryptoBanker »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #388
ceejayoz wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One specific loan was taken out this year. (And planning tends to preceed the actual loans.)

Planning is not the same as spending

That article was about expenses related to implementing congestion pricing, so I'm not sure what your argument is here

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

#419

Post by ceejayoz »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #417
ceejayoz wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there numbers to back this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York... says "By July 2025, there were 67,000 fewer daily vehicles in the congestion zone compared to before implementation. The same month, one study found that travel times within the congestion zone had decreased, and that delivery companies were opting to use smaller vehicles (which were charged lower tolls) in the toll zon…

Your comment aligns with what I said. "Over the summer"

I'm asking if you have post-summer data you're referencing, as I'm struggling to find some.

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

#420

Post by mr3martinis »

afavour wrote: post #307
raldi wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some cities are more like New York; they’ll go first. Eventually the argument will have to be, “We’re completely unlike everywhere else in America.”

I dunno, I think there's a hard stop at "having a functioning public transit system". I could imagine DC implementing a congestion charge. Nashville less so.

DC doesn't have a congestion charge that restricts all access to the city but it has dynamic toll road pricing that can hit rates that are far more expensive than NYC's congestion charge. It would be interesting to see an analysis comparing these 2 programs in terms of their effect on transit and air quality as well as the economics and public perception of each.
Post reply on HN