Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City will charge drivers going downtown

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#691

Post by rfrec0n »

cyberax wrote: post #611
nayuki wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And individual people driving themselves is not a waste of human potential?

Nope. Because cars _save_ _time_. Car commutes are shorter than transit commutes in well-designed cities. But even otherwise, you don't need a dedicated full-time driver.

> cars _save_ _time_ Cars only save time if there aren't very many of them. Look at Northern Virginia, at 3 A.M you can drive 10 miles in 10 minutes because the roads are direct and have high speed limits, but that same drive would take close to an hour during the day.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#692

Post by eggy »

Jolter wrote: post #528
eggy wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not pollute heavily fume-wise, and most motorcycles other than Harleys or sport bikes with racing exhausts with the dB component removed are not that loud. I get 60 mpg and the engine is efficient. A car gets half or less that mpg, so is 2 to 3X more polluting than a motorcycle when you have 1-to-1 driver/passenger comparison. 2 people on a moto is even better than a car.

Most motorbikes I’ve been near have had significantly more smelly exhaust than a modern car. I don’t think their catalytic converters are as efficient, or maybe they’ve been broken? Anyway, I don’t think the fees aim to improve pollution, just congestion.

Motos emit less CO2, but more NO, however, most motos are now adopting the EU emissions standards with Euro 5 for motos, so I think that gap is not as bad as when Myth Busters did their episode on it.

Motos are certainly less congestive especially with most cars being single driver and no passengers going into NYC.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#693

Post by Jolter »

eggy wrote: post #692
Jolter wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most motorbikes I’ve been near have had significantly more smelly exhaust than a modern car. I don’t think their catalytic converters are as efficient, or maybe they’ve been broken? Anyway, I don’t think the fees aim to improve pollution, just congestion.

Motos emit less CO2, but more NO, however, most motos are now adopting the EU emissions standards with Euro 5 for motos, so I think that gap is not as bad as when Myth Busters did their episode on it. Motos are certainly less congestive especially with most cars being single driver and no passengers going into NYC.

If you do the math on the CO2, the emissions per passenger mile is significantly worse for a motorbike than for subway or bus -- regardless of the power source for the train or bus.

But, again, I don't think this proposed fee/tax is aiming at pollution or carbon emissions per se, more at the congestion itself.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#694

Post by tekknik »

closeparen wrote: post #688
tekknik wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the next step isn’t it? With EVs being near useless outside of city centers and city centers are beginning to charge congestion fees then it’s quite obvious what’s coming next.

EVs are near useless in city centers because hardly anybody can install home charging, plus many households have only 1 car so they hamstring themselves for road trips. If you can install a charger on your property and also have ICE vehicles in your household, EVs are great. Not too many suburbanites / exurbanites doing >250 miles in day.

you pretty well ignored the question and answered one nobody asked.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#695

Post by tekknik »

closeparen wrote: post #689
tekknik wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bit different, but still a head scratcher. You can never go to a museum and still be capable of going to work. You need a car for work most of the time.

You absolutely do not need a car to go to work in Manhattan, outside of very particular situations.

if you live in manhattan, but this isn’t punishing those people is it?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#696

Post by tekknik »

Cogito wrote: post #690
tekknik wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bit different, but still a head scratcher. You can never go to a museum and still be capable of going to work. You need a car for work most of the time.

> You need a car for work most of the time. This is an interesting perspective. Here in Sydney Australia most households will have a car or two, but most of the people I've ever worked with do not drive to or for work. Another large chunk of people will drive to get to a train station or bus stop, and then get public transport the rest of the way. There are a lot of people who do drive for work, especially as you get…

We’re talking about the US, not Australia.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#697

Post by Cogito »

tekknik wrote: post #696
Cogito wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need a car for work most of the time. This is an interesting perspective. Here in Sydney Australia most households will have a car or two, but most of the people I've ever worked with do not drive to or for work. Another large chunk of people will drive to get to a train station or bus stop, and then get public transport the rest of the way. There are a lot of people who do drive for work, especially as you get…

We’re talking about the US, not Australia.

The post you responded to originally literally talks about congestion pricing ‘around the world’.

Regardless, it’s not like everyone in the US has to drive for work, for the exact same reasons they don’t here.

It’s still an interesting perspective for me because I know that in some places it must seem like everyone has to drive, but it’s not something that I would normally consider.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#698

Post by closeparen »

tekknik wrote: post #694
closeparen wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs are near useless in city centers because hardly anybody can install home charging, plus many households have only 1 car so they hamstring themselves for road trips. If you can install a charger on your property and also have ICE vehicles in your household, EVs are great. Not too many suburbanites / exurbanites doing >250 miles in day.

you pretty well ignored the question and answered one nobody asked.

The “what’s coming next” part depends on the premise “EVs being near useless outside of city centers” being true. It’s not.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#699

Post by closeparen »

tekknik wrote: post #695
closeparen wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely do not need a car to go to work in Manhattan, outside of very particular situations.

if you live in manhattan, but this isn’t punishing those people is it?

It’s New York. The vast majority of commuters from outside Manhattan take public transit. PATH, LIRR, Metro North, etc.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#700

Post by [deleted] »

midoridensha wrote: post #672
grepfru_it wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the fact that Land Rover tints rear windows and never the front windows from the factory? Regardless, if you drive to a state that mandates tint at a certain level it doesn't matter what factory it came out of.. you're still breaking the law.

Did you miss the part where the OP said multiple times that this is a factory tint? Yes, it DOES matter what factory it came from. Cars sold in the US must conform to federal regulations in order to be sold in the US, so it's impossible for a car to be built in a factory and legally sold in the US which is illegal to drive on US roads. No, states cannot override federal regulations.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN