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

51–60 of 524 posts

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

#51

Post by citrin_ru »

unreal6 wrote: post #24
jgeada wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?

[flagged]

Tire wear - yet, but in theory they should emit less brake dust thanks to regenerative breaking.

> A Tesla Model 3 has a greater curb weight than a Chevy Suburban

Google AI tells me that Tesla model 3 (heaviest modification - AWD) is 1851 kg and Chevy Suburban 4WD is 2640 kg. Is it wrong?

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

#52

Post by fullstop »

unreal6 wrote: post #24
jgeada wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?

[flagged]

Tires yes, brakes no. Friction brakes are barely used on EVs outside of specific scenarios. Mine will engage in three situations:

    1. The brake pedal is pressed hard
    2. The battery is 100% charged and the energy from braking can not be used
    3. I am backing up
For #3, the only reason why the brakes are used when backing up is to ensure that they are used even the tiniest amount and to clear any rust from the rotors.

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

#53

Post by fsckboy »

lkbm wrote: post #33
aurareturn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. Spend some time in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City or a very dense city in Asia and then come back here. Let me know if you change your mind.

I won't change my mind about emissions in NYC . NYC is full of modern, western cars. Two-stroke engines are terrible , classic automobiles are terrible, cars with no emission regulations will tend to be terrible. Cars in NYC will have catalytic converters and other technologies to reduce tailpipe emissions.

western? what is this less polluting non-western car you are advocating?

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

#54

Post by pulisse »

nalnq wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Very few poor people drive into lower Manhattan. And people whose work requires them to drive in that area (delivery drivers, plumbers, etc.) come out ahead. One of the first NYT stories after congestion pricing was rolled out had multiple quotes from tradesmen reporting that they're saving an hour or more a day and prefer the new system.

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

#55

Post by jeffbee »

MisterTea wrote: post #46
jeffbee wrote: post #14

To head off the almost inevitable recapitulation of yesterday's parade of misinformed complaints by teenage libertarians, please actually read the paper before commenting. The paper shows there was no significant reduction in entries to the congestion charge zone by cars, vans, and light trucks. And you can confirm this conclusion is consistent with their source data using their github repo. The reduction in pollutio…

> Truckers were using lower manhattan as a cut-through route to other places Popular truck route from Queens->Bronx was 59th st bridge, left onto 2nd then immediate left onto 59th, and another left onto 1st and take 1st all the way to Willis Ave bridge to beat the RFK bridge (formerly the Triborough) tolls.

[flagged]

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

#56

Post by maerF0x0 »

raldi wrote: post #43
nalnq wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Even without congestion pricing, the poor are the least likely to drive. Spending public money to subsidize driving (which we’re still doing on balance, even in Manhattan) disproportionately helps the wealthy.

IMO it would be even better if was an auction based system, maybe 24/7. That way if someone has an <= $8.99 threshold/need to drive, and they find a slot, they will. I think the static pricing will create a distortion in the usage, maybe having dynamic pricing (with a ceiling) would be smarter?

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

#57

Post by ceejayoz »

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]

They're probably enjoying the reduced traffic their trucks have to deal with?

The truck carrying $10k in sushi can afford and justify the daily $9 fee.

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

#58

Post by acdha »

fortran77 wrote: post #30
lkbm wrote: post #2

> Particulates issued from tailpipes can aggravate asthma and heart disease and increase the risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Globally, they are a leading risk factor for premature death. Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. The study is about PM2.5[0]. which will chiefly be tires and brake pads. Modern gasoline engines are relatively clean, outside of CO2, though diesel engines s…

This is actually a major nitpick. If this "study" is this sloppy, what else isn't quite true?

The study isn’t sloppy, and I would highly suggest reading it before casting aspersions at the authors:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2

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

#59

Post by tart-lemonade »

lkbm wrote: post #18
throwawaypath wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.

I'm not sure, and I assume it will vary a lot by speed. EVs do also have higher torque, so that may increase tire-based particles, but you're right that it avoids the brake pads for the most part. Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.

>Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.

And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century).

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

#60

Post by eli_gottlieb »

bgirard wrote: post #17

Not surprising. The real question is how do we measure the opportunity cost of these measures? Is it a net gain? You could, at the extreme, ban all motor vehicles but the opportunity cost would outweigh the benefits.

It's called congestion pricing because you can measure the opportunity cost.
Post reply on HN