Live data from Hacker News

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

e360.yale.edu

521–524 of 524 posts

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

#521

Congestion pricing == demand pricing Yet it’s good if the city does it but bad if a Corp does it?

The city does it for the benefit of the public, the Corp does it for the benefit of the shareholders

The public pays higher prices either way

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

#522

[flagged]

> try to regulate idling, which worse emissions profiles Most certainly regulated. There are people who make a living off of reporting idling trucks and collecting the bounty.

Not for cars what so ever. There is a 3 minute rule which is unenforced.

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

#523

[flagged]

> Once the Feds approved the plan the State of NY made fixed, increasing, revenue targets their only goal. The first thing the State of NY did with congestion pricing was halt the plan (arguably illegally) before reintroducing it six months later with a price reduction to $9 down from $15: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/congestion-p...

After the election. And it's slated to go up at least $1 per year, and more if they miss their fixed revenue target. If the seccede in reducing traffic then the fees have to increase more.

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

#524
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.

I don't know about mainland Europe, but in the UK it really was exclusively about CO2 emissions per distance travelled, to the extent that Vehicle Excise Duty (the annual tax you pay on a car) was defined in terms of g/km of CO2 emitted. This happened in 2001 and wasn't changed until the wake of the emissions cheating scandals [1].

[1] https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-re...

Post reply on HN