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

431–440 of 524 posts

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

#431

Post by MLgulabio »

gWPVhyxPHqvk wrote: post #306
MLgulabio wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats concern trolling? This mechanism allows people with more money to enjoy driving in the city or is this congestion prcing based on your salary? no its not its based on the time in the city independent of what you make. A person with their high end car and miillions now can buy himself a nice little drive into the city while everyone else can't.

Do you seriously think that multi-millionaires drive to and from Manhattan to commute? Our C-suite and top quant traders at our firm take the train, bike, or walk to the office daily. I asked around my office - no one has ever driven regularly to our office in 20+ years. The reason why is because driving objectively sucks in the city.

That all might be true, but this is still not the point i'm making: Either you can afford it, than it doesn't matter to you, or you can't afford it but have to pay it than it affects you.

As long as the pricing is absolut and not relative to the owners salary, it is increase inequality.

Poor could also mean the middle class is more affected than the rich class (whatever you call the class above middle).

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

#432

Post by MLgulabio »

saubeidl wrote: post #145
MLgulabio wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"poor" is relative. Ever thought about this? Should i said poorer people who still need a car to drive in NYC to make it more understandable to the hn crowed Oo?!

Who needs a car in NYC? It's an expensive hobby and its time we stop letting drivers externalize their costs.

I'm not discussing if someone should drive.

My only point i'm making is, that this system increases inequality between financial richer people vs poorer ones.

And thats because its an absolut fee and not a relative one.

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

#433

Post by HPsquared »

mrguyorama wrote: post #409
HPsquared wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest"

What material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of? Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs. Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health. The…

If nobody asks the question, nobody will try and look for one.

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

#434

Post by cguess »

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.

There's a large (long time) movement to do this to lower Manhattan, the most public transit connected area in the US (probably North America, definitely up there in the world). It's getting pick up again.

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

#435

Post by JumpCrisscross »

expedition32 wrote: post #422
cogman10 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that also drives the question of "why don't we have functioning public transit?" or "why aren't we building out our public transit?". There will be a stop and balance struck everywhere, but this sort of thing really does make people that deal in the car industry nervous. I'd gladly ditch my car tomorrow if I could catch a bus within walking distance. I'm unfortunately 5 miles from the nearest bus stop.

I recall reading that many US cities started as railway stops! Back when the iron horse was the only way to ship cargo across the US.

> recall reading that many US cities started as railway stops! Back when the iron horse was the only way to ship cargo across the US

I've heard that from San Jose to San Francisco, the major towns (San Mateo, Palo Alto) are spaced about a day's laden carriage ride apart.

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

#436

Post by brailsafe »

fsckboy wrote: post #423
coryrc wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to add info, an F-150 will change brake pads 3-7 times over 200k miles, while a Model Y will still be on the original set with nearly no sign of wear.

but compare the wear of the tires, and weigh tires vs brakes by the amount of "total pollution delivered to the environment", i.e. 20% more wear of something that is 2x as polluting is 40% more pollution. I don't know the numbers or the answer, I'm just saying it's not as simple as your statement makes it out to be.

> 20% more wear of something that is 2x as polluting is 40% more pollution

If an equivalent car wore down its tires 20% slower, and those tire particles contributed 2x the intensity of pollution than other types of wear-based pollution, than the increase in produced pollution from that source seems like it would be ~16%, not 40%.

If one car drives 100 km and produces 2 units of pollution per km, that would be 200 units. Another car wearing 20% more would produce 240 units, or roughly ~16% more.

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

#438

Post by taeric »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #386
taeric wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The SF-LA transit project isn't a replacement for driving, it's a replacement for flying. Cars are replaced by local transit, the CA high speed rail line goes through a whole lot of nothing (read: the worst farmland they could route through) between SF and LA. Are you sure you live around here if you're this off-base with the basic premise?

People have a habit of arguing online that this would replace people's commutes.

Which, to be fair, people online have a habit of just arguing past each other.

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

#439

Post by OkayPhysicist »

taeric wrote: post #438
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SF-LA transit project isn't a replacement for driving, it's a replacement for flying. Cars are replaced by local transit, the CA high speed rail line goes through a whole lot of nothing (read: the worst farmland they could route through) between SF and LA. Are you sure you live around here if you're this off-base with the basic premise?

People have a habit of arguing online that this would replace people's commutes. Which, to be fair, people online have a habit of just arguing past each other.

It might speed up the commutes of people coming into the bay from Gilroy, and it might make Madera a somewhat-viable commuter town (if you don't mind 2 hour commutes), but I can't imagine many people using it for daily travel who aren't already well-served by Amtrak/Caltrain

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

#440

Post by genewitch »

mrguyorama wrote: post #424
rangestransform wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this distinctly American idea that no policy can cause any detriment to any disadvantaged people at all, even if the policy effects are incredibly income-progressive overall. This is how we end up with carveouts for every special interest group in every single policy, the populace justifying turnstile hopping, lack of traffic enforcement by police, opposition to speed and red light cameras, opposition to rezon…

>I hate this distinctly American idea that no policy can cause any detriment to any disadvantaged people at all This "Distinctly American idea" you cite does not at all exist. Tens of millions watch a news channel that openly stated we should euthanize homeless people. Millions more moved to a crazier channel because that one wasn't lying enough They vote against free school lunch programs that cost very little. They…

> Democrats had no qualms voting for the Crime Bill back in the 90s, and were willing to turn around and get aggressive about the border to win an election.

this seems awfully coy. Why not just say who cheerled the bill and who went on the TV circuit to explain how great it was because of "super predators" - nice euphemism.

[*] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/biden-on-the-1994-crime-bi...

[*] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlGM4TClIjA (Hillary apologizes for 1994 crime bill)

"Democrats" isn't some amorphous thing we can't tag to individual people. The last president of the USA and his sponsor (Bill Clinton) were adamant to get that bill passed. Biden spearheaded the legislation. This isn't just some "he voted yea on it!" sort of thing.

Post reply on HN