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

471–480 of 524 posts

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

#471

Post by taeric »

panick21_ wrote: post #459
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.

Of course because more people live outside of CA then inside. And lots of people talk about transport policy. Lots of countries talk about high speed rail and California is known globally.

It isn't necessarily a problem one way or the other, I should add. The observation, though, is that people are far far more forceful and opinionated on the situation the further from the area that they are.

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

#472

Post by hollerith »

potato3732842 wrote: post #470
efaref wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody was even thinking about CO2 when the policies that got Europe where they are were enacted. Europe began embracing diesels 40yr ago when they were noisy and stinky and they did it because they taxed the crap out of fuel so people rightfully prioritized buying vehicles that got better fuel economy. Giving a crap about CO2 is a recent thing.

Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago?

In the US, Federal lawmakers would be voted out of office (even now after the science of climate change has settled) if they imposed taxes on fuels anywhere near as high as European lawmakers do.

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

#473

Post by taeric »

panick21_ wrote: post #461
taeric wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in Atlanta and Seattle. Both have perfectly workable transit. Even if Atlanta does seem to have gotten a bit worse over the years.

Seattle LRT has about the same usage as some german systems trams that are like 20x smaller. For a whole lot of the population that life around Atlanta and Seattle the public transport isn't workable.

It is workable for far more people than will make it work. Particularly in tech jobs.

The underlying issue remains that it is seen as a poor person option. As soon as people can afford a car, they get one.

Back when I didn't have a car, my future wife and I saw a comedian that literally had a joke about being above the poverty line of "do you take the bus?"

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

#474

Post by panick21_ »

taeric wrote: post #473
panick21_ wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle LRT has about the same usage as some german systems trams that are like 20x smaller. For a whole lot of the population that life around Atlanta and Seattle the public transport isn't workable.

It is workable for far more people than will make it work. Particularly in tech jobs. The underlying issue remains that it is seen as a poor person option. As soon as people can afford a car, they get one. Back when I didn't have a car, my future wife and I saw a comedian that literally had a joke about being above the poverty line of "do you take the bus?"

The thing is, people are not ideological. If the car is 5x faster and nicer, then people will use it. People use what is convenient, most people don't pick public transport when it is 'workable' they pick it when it is actually good.

And the reason it seen as 'for poor' people is because you only use it when you can't get a car.

So the underlying issue is the overall quality of the service (frequency, reliability, comfort and so on).

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

#475

Post by bryanlarsen »

margalabargala wrote: post #462
coryrc wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EV brake pads don't hardly wear down, so they obviously can't have nearly the same amount of brake dust, yet the "study" showed they did. I'm guessing there's brake dust on the ground being kicked up. > EVs unfortunately do increase tire particulate, Fairly significantly In the USA, mass of EV is not significantly different than the alternative choice. EVs do not have increased tire particulate. If in Europe extremel…

It's not just the fact that EVs are heavier than the non-EV version of the same car, it's also that the regenerative braking means that the tires are dissapating energy that otherwise would have gone to the brake pads or to air resistance. Tires wear way faster on an EV, their lifespan in miles is generally much shorter.

The engines are absorbing the energy that would have otherwise gone to the brake pads.

Tires apply the braking force to the ground in exactly the same manner on both EVs and ICE vehicles.

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

#476

Post by potato3732842 »

kevstev wrote: post #233
Spivak wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What do you mean by a worse time? The advantages are substantial- No oil changes ever again, performance that is on par with high end sports cars, less moving parts which should lead to higher reliability, in my state you don't even need to do an annual inspection. Those types of unexpected appointments are what really aggravate me when they are unexpectedly needed and eat up weekend time. Depending on your commute l…

>What do you mean by a worse time?

Inconvenience when taking long trips.

When operating beyond your comfortable range you have to strategically plan charging the way shitbox owners have to stop and top up fluids. If it's your only car it's absolutely a degradation in the ~monthly ownership experience though you (in my opinion) make it back not doing oil changes and the like.

Even without the tax credit I still think that EVs are a great buy for most though. Charging shenanigans is simple and a "known known" whereas ICE maintenance is far more unclear at the time of purchase

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

#477

Post by potato3732842 »

doug_durham wrote: post #283
SoftTalker wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers like SUVs. They are convenient, easy to get in and out of, flexible for hauling large items, many can pull trailers, offer good visibility for the driver, and do well in the snow.

They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which is why car companies push them. In their current ICE form they also benefit from massive government subsidies of the Oil companies. If you took those away it is unlikely that the convenience would be worth the additional cost.

>They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which...

Look in the mirror, that's who's responsible for this.

You people levied regulations. You levied them in half baked ways that resulted in the demise of sedans and station wagons. And now you complain that SUVs are "subsidized". Get out of here with that nonsense and take your stupid regulations with you so the rest of us can have diversity of vehicle choice back.

None of this stuff is a subsidy, construing "exempt from the screwing some other product category gets" is just a lie.

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

#478

Post by AmigoCharlie »

autoexec wrote: post #329
afavour wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Autoexec, here, is simply right. Congestion price could be redefined as the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses and keep them f**ing out of the city center" price

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

#479

Post by potato3732842 »

hollerith wrote: post #472
potato3732842 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was even thinking about CO2 when the policies that got Europe where they are were enacted. Europe began embracing diesels 40yr ago when they were noisy and stinky and they did it because they taxed the crap out of fuel so people rightfully prioritized buying vehicles that got better fuel economy. Giving a crap about CO2 is a recent thing.

Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago? In the US, Federal lawmakers would be voted out of office (even now after the science of climate change has settled) if they imposed taxes on fuels anywhere near as high as European lawmakers do.

>Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago?

Energy security. They didn't have north sea oil back then. Buying from Russia or the ME was fraught with political peril. And of course the .gov is never gonna pass up a chance to increase revenue.

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

#480

Post by AmigoCharlie »

autoexec wrote: post #393
yannyu wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They know that congestion pricing coming to their city would hurt them in very real ways. But why should they even care to begin with? Just because the news and media made them aware of congestion pricing? This is the whole problem, that local issues are made mainstream news media specifically to cultivate fear and anger in people that literally have no skin in the game and a completely different lifestyle.

> But why should they even care to begin with? Why should they care about something that they feel will hurt them financially when they're already struggling and restrict their freedom on top of that? Why wouldn't they care? > Just because the news and media made them aware of congestion pricing? Uber's "surge" pricing was what first introduced many of them to a world where the price of something they depend on chang…

Autoexec, don't you feel a little bit like Rhea Seehorn as "Carol" in her struggle with the hive-mind humanity of "Pluribus"? It looks as in this discussion there is a lot of anti-car hivemind at play...
Post reply on HN