10 ms·
In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop in pollution
- lkbm 11mo ago> 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 spit out a bunch of bad stuff. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- throwawaypath 11mo agoHow do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.
- kyleee 11mo agoAnd unfortunately there is some nasty stuff in tires
- HPsquared 11mo agoThere never seems to be much discussion on reducing the harm from tire (and I suppose road surface) particulates. Maybe that's the next frontier?
- ceejayoz 11mo agoThere's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction. For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.
- selimthegrim 11mo agoHow would you recommend them based on winter performance?
- ceejayoz 11mo agoI live in a snowy area and am quite happy with them.
- selimthegrim 11mo agoI believe they are directional tires so it would make it hard to operate with a full size spare otherwise I’ll definitely consider them
- HPsquared 11mo agoI was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest"
- ceejayoz 11mo agoSure, that's great too. But the rubber lasting longer means less of those bad things to inhale floating around at any given time.
- mrguyorama 11mo agoWhat 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 human lungs just have bad filtration.
- HPsquared 11mo agoIf nobody asks the question, nobody will try and look for one.
- potato3732842 11mo agoBecause a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.
- ZeroGravitas 11mo agoEU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022): https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry/environmental-protection/emissions-automotive-sector_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv... > Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.
- jgeada 11mo agoWhy 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?
- Angostura 11mo agoBecause a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?
- ceejayoz 11mo agoAlternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinformation-activists-rural-america https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-behind-offshore-wind-misinformation/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...
- bpt3 11mo agoI see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs. If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd... That's not shocking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) > Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson > Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
- lkbm 11mo agoI'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.
- tart-lemonade 11mo ago>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).
- oasisbob 11mo agoIf we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice?
- treyd 11mo agoYes, and the northeast has the best rail transit in the US, which NYC sits right in the middle of.
- bluGill 11mo agoRail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here.
- littlestymaar 11mo agoA bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better.
- nabla9 11mo agoWith EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier. EV SUV worse than gas SUV.
- a_paddy 11mo agoTire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle. The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life.
- PunchyHamster 11mo agoI'd gonna guess "worse" Brake dust is mostly some iron, carbon, silica. Not great to ingest but very much recyclable by the environment, unlike rubber. And possibly much easier to greatly reduce (just build some shielding around the brake to catch most of the dust) than the tyre
- coryrc 11mo agoUnfortunately it's also copper and asbestos :(. (Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads...) But tire dust is definitely now the worst of the two, by far. 6-PPD alone.
- potato3732842 11mo ago>Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads.. On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoEV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle... non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.
- throwawaypath 11mo agoThank you for sourcing an answer!
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- mikestew 11mo ago“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago? I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.
- biophysboy 11mo agoIs that true for slower moving vehicles? I can't imagine there's a lot of brake dust generated by stopping & starting in the 0-10 mph range.
- nabla9 11mo agoTires and brakes. With EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier.
- nonethewiser 11mo agoWhoops
- ceejayoz 11mo agoBut the tires are individually controlled - less slippage - and the brakes are regenerative. As a bonus, NYC is pretty much best-case scenario for the latter.
- entropicdrifter 11mo agoWhile this is generally true, tire wear is known to be generally faster on EVs due to their weight and instantaneous torque when accelerating. Which, as an EV owner, feels like an "oh no, my steak is too buttery" kind of problem to have.
- ceejayoz 11mo agoThe instant torque also comes with better control over it, though. I don't doubt it's a thing, but I do doubt it outweighs all the other environmental benefits.
- Aurornis 11mo agoIt’s the forces that accelerate the wear. Significant wheel speed is a rare occurrence in normal driving, but acceleration, cornering, and braking forces are ever present.
- oersted 11mo agoAnd besides, even if lung cancer and heart attack may be the most common means of premature death, it does not entail that air pollution is the primary cause of them. I thought that smoking and bad dietary/exercise habits were the main factors. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
- cenamus 11mo agoAir pollution is pretty clearly correlated with reduced life expectancy, even if you don't directly die from it
- maerF0x0 11mo agoAlso noise pollution, and above ground trains are hella loud. (Or at least CalTrain and BART are...)
- hamdingers 11mo agoThis is a widely debunked bad faith NIMBY talking point. A train, even at high frequencies, is less noise pollution than a highway or major road.
- maerF0x0 11mo agoIn the house I lived it was not debunked. It was fact. The caltrain blasted it's horn hourly (or more) 24/7 within earshot of my house. I could not sleep with my window open and often slept with ear plugs even with the window closed. I get you might be tempted to spout generic statistics, but I can tell you without a doubt it was ear blistering loud up close, and sleep disturbing even 2 blocks away. Also for what it's worth you have no idea if it's good or bad faith.
- hamdingers 11mo agoSo you would have preferred a roughly 12 lane freeway 2 blocks from your house to move the same number of people?
- aurareturn 11mo agoMinor 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.
- lkbm 11mo agoI 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.
- fsckboy 11mo agowestern? what is this less polluting non-western car you are advocating?
- fullstop 11mo agoThey probably mean two stroke motorcycles.
- lkbm 11mo agoPretty much any new car sold in the US, Canada, Mexico, and most of Europe. "Western" typically refers to "countries rich/developed enough to [in this case] add emissions regulations". It's a luxury that many countries haven't gotten to yet, but is widespread in North America and Europe. The good news is that I believe Ho Chi Minh City is about to start, so hopefully they'll have much cleaner air in a couple years.
- macNchz 11mo agoThe notable source of bad tailpipe emissions in NYC are heavy diesel trucks, which, to my understanding, produce a large proportion of tailpipe particulates (and NOx) in the US, despite being a small fraction of overall vehicles on the road. There are strong correlations with heavy truck traffic and asthma rates.
- fortran77 11mo agoThis is actually a major nitpick. If this "study" is this sloppy, what else isn't quite true?
- lkbm 11mo agoThe study doesn't mention tailpipes (afiact). This press release/article does. Don't dismiss scientists because journalists reporting their findings incorrectly.
- theurerjohn3 11mo agoI am a little confused, why would sloppiness in the media release (the article that uses the word tailpipe), have anything to do with sloppiness in the study, which the above comment clearly highlights is about PM2.5, not specifically tailpipe emissions? Are Yale's media releases typically done by the people who do the study?
- acdha 11mo agoThe 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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2
- scythe 11mo agoCongestion leads to more use of the brakes, which can have nonlinear effects. Also, I thought tire particles tend to be larger.
- MLgulabio 11mo agoco2, co, NO. Nothing i would breath in a garage. Nothing i like to breath in while i'm driving.
- Aurornis 11mo ago> though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff. Exactly. The noxious tailpipe emissions in a city are usually from diesel trucks, small vehicles like motorcycles (small or absent catalytic converters), modified vehicles (catalytic converter removed or diesel reprogrammed to smoke), but not modern gasoline ICE vehicles. The love for diesel engines in many European countries was always confusing to me. PM2.5 is also a broad category of particulates that come from many sources. The PM2.5 levels in the air depend on many sources, with wind being a major factor in changing PM2.5 levels. It’s hard to draw conclusions when a number depends on the weather and a lot of other inputs.
- stetrain 11mo agoDiesel looks good if you are focusing primarily on fuel economy (mpg / L/100km), and when companies cheat the tests on other emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal When you remove the cheating and give adequate weight to those emissions, diesel for passenger vehicles makes a lot less sense.
- cool_dude85 11mo agoDiesel is less fuel efficient than regular gasoline except when you measure by volume. It gets fewer miles per unit of energy in the fuel.
- stetrain 11mo agoYes, but measuring miles per volume of fuel and setting increasing targets was a big focus of reducing petroleum dependency since the 70s. The focus has more recently shifted to reducing overall emissions of CO2 and other harmful gases and particulates, which makes diesel much less appealing.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- SECProto 11mo ago
- Jon_Lowtek 11mo ago"relatively clean" means 85% of PM2.5 is from non-exhaust sources, and 15% is from exhaust after catalytic conversion. In New York EV and ICE are pretty much on par when it comes to this category of pollution, as the additional weight increases non exhaust sources. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135223101630187X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... It is different in Africa, where catalytic converters are harvested for precious metals and cars are driven without them.
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoThat source is Europe, not New York. It claims EV's are 24% heavier than ICE vehicles. That might be true in Europe but definitely not the case in the US where the average ICE vehicle is a 6000 pound truck and the average EV is a 4000 pound Tesla. It also assumes they're using the same tires. EV owners put on EV tires, which are formulated to have a lower rolling resistance, quieter and last longer. All 3 of those correlate with lower dust.
- awongh 11mo agoBut a 6000 pound truck doesn't get replaced with an EV sedan. Or vice versa. As things move to EV I don't know why the proportion of car body types (whatever you call this) wouldn't stay the same.
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoYes, but that 24% increase in Europe is partly due to increase in vehicle size. Vehicle size is increasing over time in Europe, and the average EV is newer. Also, cars designed as pure EV's are a lot lighter than EV's built on an ICE chassis. A Telsa 3 is about 2% heavier than a BMW 3 whereas a Ford Lightning is 20% heavier than the comparable F-150.
- Jon_Lowtek 11mo agothe 24% increase has nothing to do with car size over time in europa. Table 2 in the paper lists which cars where compared, and that 24% numbers is an average from comparing models where manufacturers offer EV and ICE variants.
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoIt's true that brake dust is the primary PM2.5 emission from vehicles in an urban environment. However the PM2.5 component from tail pipes are still very significant, higher than the contribution from tires. The order is: 1. brake dust 2. road dust 3. engine emissions 4. tire dust https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653519305831 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456... https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle...
- somewhereoutth 11mo agoand would it be true to say that regenerative braking on electric cars reduces significantly this dust?
- thmsths 11mo agoI recall a discussion on HN explaining that while true, this might be offset by the higher average weight of EVs, leading to more dust from the tires and the road. Again, no easy solution unfortunately, just trade offs.
- iambateman 11mo agoIf that were true of tires, you would expect an EV’s tires to get substantially less range before wearing out…which I don’t believe is the case.
- pif 11mo agoIt is actually the case! That's why your choice of tires on online sites gets so smaller as soon as you tuck the "electric/hybrid vehicle" case!
- t_tsonev 11mo agoSpecialized EV tires are also optimized for drag and noise, wear is just a factor. Anecdotally speaking I'm at over 80k km on a set of EV tires with at least 20k more to go. The issue has more to do with driving style and engine power than any other factors.
- zeristor 11mo agoThere’s also ammonia from farmland, it reacts to form secondary PM25
- rconti 11mo agoIt always surprises me when people want stop signs in their neighborhood for traffic calming. The last thing I want is all of the noise and pollution of vehicles stopping and starting over and over again; surely various piece of road furniture like bulb-outs, roundabouts, etc, do a better job with fewer drawbacks. Other than cost, of course.
- cosmic_cheese 11mo agoMy assumption is that stop signs act somewhat as a way to enforce the lower speed limits in residential areas. There's several stretches without stops in my suburb where I've seen drivers whizzing by very obviously above the 25mph speed limit, which is bad enough on its own but becomes a serious hazard when combined with the massive blind spots that come from curbs on both directions being filled to the brim with parked cars. A better solution would probably be radar-based speed signs with printed threats of fines, though.
- recursive 11mo ago> A better solution would probably be radar-based speed signs with printed threats of fines, though. I don't think people respond to those as much as they do to "traffic calming" like speed bumps, roundabouts, and narrow choke points.
- cosmic_cheese 11mo agoProbably true, but all of those are significantly more involved installations or modifications. To be clear, I'm all in favor of reworking neighborhood roads to be more friendly to pedestrians, but I think things like signs have a significantly better chance of actually being implemented in most circumstances.
- rconti 11mo agoOf course, drivers respond to speed bumps the same way they respond to other poor road surfaces: 3-ton SUVs.
- cameronh90 11mo agoThere are some early tyre and brake dust collection systems which might help, but that won't do much for the road dust. I've been wondering whether, theoretically, if self driving cars become widely usable and deployed in cities, will they be able to safely operate with harder tyre compounds and harder road surfaces that shed less but don't grip as well? If nothing else, less aggressive driving should lead to less shedding.
- seg_lol 11mo agoI wonder if it is the `congestion` itself that causes the PM2.5 spike. More stop and go traffic, more brake dust, more tire dust?
- jeffbee 11mo agoSee also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46213504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46213504
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- nalnq 11mo ago[flagged]
- bitwize 11mo agoPigovian taxes WORK, and are in many cases desirable, something lolberts just seem unable to get their heads around.
- nalnq 11mo agoOf course they work. If the government manipulates the equation to make something unaffordable, the poor can no longer afford it. That’s not the point.
- jpfromlondon 11mo agoPigouvian*, this is a regressive tax though that is probably unnecessary as the other studies referenced or linked in this thread show.
- theurerjohn3 11mo agois it? i dont see the relevant other studies, and my initial assumptions would be that the median subway user is lower income than the median car driver in NYC, so transfering funds from car drivers to subway improvements would be progressive. However NYC's transit is notoriously bad at spending, so not sure it would achive that. Which studies linked in this thread are you refering to? I cant see them.
- jpfromlondon 11mo agoRegular driving in large working cities is usually only done out of professional necesscity and people who drive for a living tend to be in lower socioeconomic bands. How many people on Wallstreet do you know that drive to work?
- theurerjohn3 11mo ago
- CGMthrowaway 11mo agoThere was a study published about how much air pollution dropped in NYC during the COVID lockdown. PM2.5 was found to have dropped 36%. However with more robust analysis, this drop was discovered to not be statistically significant. I would caution anyone reading this who is tempted by confirmation bias. Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/
- bonsai_spool 11mo agohttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/figure/f0025/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/figure/f002... Take a look at their figure, especially in May 2020—the average appears lower, but, more significantly, there is much less variability in May 2020 compared to earlier years. The authors' model quite strongly includes their preferred confound (secular decrease in PM2.5) but doesn't explore what other covariates could explain the differences between years. It's fine to say that one should be skeptical, but one contrary report doesn't invalidate an antecedent report, and the structure of a linear model strongly influences an outcome.
- dj_gitmo 11mo agoThat's a very surprising finding since the drop in traffic was very noticeable. I wonder where the PM2.5 is coming from?
- graeme 11mo ago"Not statistically significant" doesn't mean did not happen. Given the physical mechanisms involved it is implausible that pollution did not decline. And if you look at their data you see a marked drop in 2020 at day 70 This is March 10 or thereabouts, I think. And there are ZERO high pm 2.5 days for a 20 day stretch or so. This isn't seen in other years. The vast bulk of days are below the trend. And then for the rest of the year there are some days above the trend line but no high pm 2.5 days. This fits with people being extra cautious in the early days and then relaxing a bit as things went on. Now, I'm eyeballing this so I could be incorrect. But: 1. The effect was found in other cities 2. The physical mechanism makes it highly expected that there would be a drop The study was about the slope of the regression modal, but if you had scrambled the years I'm fairly confident I could have picked 2020 out of the set.
- jeffbee 11mo agoTo 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 pollution is coming from the significant decline in heavy truck traffic. Truckers were using lower manhattan as a cut-through route to other places and they are now doing that less, exactly as congestion pricing planners long argued.
- MisterTea 11mo ago> 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.
- jeffbee 11mo ago[flagged]
- squigz 11mo agoThis is a totally normal and sane response.
- jeffbee 11mo agoYou have to be terminally poisoned by capitalism to not understand that giving kids asthma in order to save a few dollars is itself violence.
- MisterTea 11mo agoPlease. Truckers aren't intentionally giving kids asthma. Go after the capitalists who incentivized the behavior. Otherwise you're just harming more innocent people. (edit: grammar)
- bgirard 11mo agoNot 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.
- raldi 11mo agoTry things and ask the people in a year if they like the results, then do the good ones more and the bad ones less.
- pulisse 11mo agoThe point of congestion pricing is to let market mechanisms determine where the optimum is.
- eigenspace 11mo agoWell, the market decides where the optimum is *in response to* the price set by the government. So the government can decide at least approximately where they want things to end up by setting a higher or lower price.
- bgirard 11mo agoRight. It finds an economic optimum limited to what people are willing to pay and their perceived value from that. That optimum doesn't naturally weight more complex factors like for the trade-off for the smog generated from your travel.
- eli_gottlieb 11mo agoIt's called congestion pricing because you can measure the opportunity cost.
- hamdingers 11mo agoDynamic pricing based on congestion would solve this. It would also almost certainly result in higher costs for drivers though.
- maerF0x0 11mo agoThis article confirms my existing bias/belief that user pays and auction[0] based systems improve governmental programs and finite supply systems in a society like the USA. [0]- Yes I'm well aware this is not an auction based system in this case.
- dei-integrity 11mo agoInteresting study. Similar results in London I heard.
- ChrisArchitect 11mo ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46213504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46213504
- onemoresoop 11mo agoIt may have dropped pollution in Manhattan but I guess more pollution added up to the surrounding borroughs in addition to more traffic.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> but I guess more pollution added up to the surrounding borroughs in addition to more traffic Why? Fewer cars into Manhattan means fewer cars through the boroughs. And even if they all diverted, you’re still looking at less idling and less stop and start braking.
- CryptoBanker 11mo agoNot necessarily. I use my brake far more in stop and start traffic on the highway than I do in Manhattan. In the city stop and start is primarily determined by traffic lights, which are predictable, rather than the traffic itself.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> I use my brake far more in stop and start traffic on the highway Is that because of gridlock or because of the higher energies? > In the city stop and start is primarily determined by traffic lights Source? In my experience it's unexpected incursions, whether that be cars changing lanes, pedestrians stepping off the sidewalk or food-delivery bikers yeeting themselves into an intersection.
- jpfromlondon 11mo agoGood question, this happened in London for sure, congestion charging increased the net pollution from vehicles but reduced the metrics inside the city, probably not much either way.
- venturecruelty 11mo agoThis was a common anti-congestion pricing talking point, but it ends up not being the case. People either don't drive into the city, or they take transit.
- MLgulabio 11mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 11mo agoNYC has 8M people and 2M cars. Manhattan has like a 22% car ownership rate, and it's… not the poor people. https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-Light-NYC-Infographics-May-2024.pdf https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L... A parking spot will cost you more than rent in some other cities.
- MLgulabio 11mo agoThis doesn't change my argument at all. The more money you have, more you benefit from this ruling. Now you can buy a service which was not possible before.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> Now you can buy a service which was not possible before. It wasn't possible to drive a car in NYC before congestion pricing? I find that… unlikely.
- MLgulabio 11mo agoIt wasn't possible to buy reduced traffic.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> more money you have, more you benefit from this ruling This is nonsense. The poor of New York benefit from congestion pricing. It means more funding for the public transit they predominantly take. And for the minority who drive for a living it increases their revenues. The opposition to congestion charges comes from principally outside New York, often from folks who have little to no familiarity with it.
- 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- game_the0ry 11mo agoYou know what else would drop pollution and ease traffic congestion? Allowing employees to work remote.
- PunchyHamster 11mo agoNo mention about change in average commute time?
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago21 minutes faster. https://www.tomtom.com/newsroom/explainers-and-insights/the-data-behind-nyc-s-congestion-pricing-success/ https://www.tomtom.com/newsroom/explainers-and-insights/the-...
- trgn 11mo agocongestion pricing is the gift that keeps giving
- CryptoBanker 11mo agoThat was true at the beginning of congestion pricing and perhaps over the summer, but it is definitely not true anymore
- ceejayoz 11mo agoAre there numbers to back this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York_City#Private_vehicle_traffic_and_congestion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York... says "By July 2025, there were 67,000 fewer daily vehicles in the congestion zone compared to before implementation. The same month, one study found that travel times within the congestion zone had decreased, and that delivery companies were opting to use smaller vehicles (which were charged lower tolls) in the toll zone".
- CryptoBanker 11mo agoYour comment aligns with what I said. "Over the summer"
- ceejayoz 11mo agoI'm asking if you have post-summer data you're referencing, as I'm struggling to find some.
- whimsicalism 11mo agoI would really appreciate it if the Bay area got real congestion pricing and also enforcement. We have lots of HOT lanes here, but they are basically unenforced so everyone sets their ez-pass to “3” and gets the free HOV pricing, which rapidly becomes economical at the rate of enforcement in the Bay. Frankly, if they let me citizen report - I could likely cover my entire tax burden in 2-3 days. At $490/ticket, the ROI for enforcement seems obviously there.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 11mo agoHow does NYC congestion pricing deal with disparate impacts? Real question, I don't live near NYC
- ceejayoz 11mo agohttps://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-03612 https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-03612 > Some drivers can apply for Low-Income Discount or Low-Income Tax Credit for Residents. > A 50% discount is available for low-income vehicle owners enrolled in the Low-Income Discount Plan (LIDP). This discount begins after the first 10 trips in a calendar month and applies to all peak period trips after that for the remainder of the calendar month. The revenue also goes towards public transit, and the congestion charge applies mainly to the wealthiest part of the wealthiest borough.
- rangestransform 11mo agoI 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 rezoning unless it's built by free-range grass-fed vegan union labour and 100% below market, etc.
- ceejayoz 11mo agoI mean, if we're gonna pick a group to impact, the ones who aren't already deeply struggling seem like the place to do it. Given the parent poster's commenting history here, though, I don't think they have a genuine concern in "disparate impact" at all.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 11mo agoHey CJ! No I don't have a genuine concern at all. But it was a real question and thank you very much for answering it with a real answer. FWIW, I like that there is a carveout for economically disadvantaged folks. Either way doesn't affect me since I'm not a NYer.
- know-how 11mo ago[dead]
- Projectiboga 11mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> NY dropped the goals of cleaner air and any premise of regulating traffic flow What’s your source for this? Also, why would a goal matter more than results?
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> If they cared about emissions they could try to regulate idling... They have, for decades. https://nyc-business.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/description/idling-regulations https://nyc-business.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/description/idling-...
- idontwantthis 11mo ago> 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.
- Projectiboga 11mo agoNot for cars what so ever. There is a 3 minute rule which is unenforced.
- sigmar 11mo ago>If they cared about emissions they could try regulating idling, which worse emissions profiles They do, in fact, regulate idling my dude- https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02222 https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02222 > In New York City, vehicle idling is illegal if it lasts more than 3 minutes or more than 1 minute when adjacent to a school.
- enragedcacti 11mo ago> 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-pricing-nyc https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/congestion-p...
- flerchin 11mo agoWhatever you tax, you get less of.
- luckydata 11mo agoSome people are really going to hate this.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo agoI'm curious how congestion pricing became a national issue. The strength of conviction people have about this policy–almost either way, but certainly among those against–seems to scale with distance from the city. Nobody in Idaho gets uppity about New Jersey's tolls. But they have strong, knowledge-free, almost identity-defining opinions about congestion charges. Is it because it's a policy that's worked in Europe and Asia and is thus seen as foreign? Or because it's New York doing it, so it's branded as a tax, versus market-rate access or whatever we'd be calling it if this were done in Miami?
- standardUser 11mo agoIt's because Trump made it one of his obsessions for a period of time, putting it on the MAGA radar.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> It's because Trump made it one of his obsessions for a period of time, putting it on the MAGA radar Had most people outside the tri-state area not heard and formed an opinion about congestion pricig before Trump brought it up?
- standardUser 11mo agoWhy would they? There is virtually no congestion pricing in the US outside of a few major metros and a huge portion of the population live in areas where the lack of density makes the entire idea moot.
- venturecruelty 11mo agoIt's because everything is a culture war issue now, and anything remotely seen as helpful or benefitting society or taking even an inch from cars is "bad" for the people who live in places like Idaho (and Staten Island).
- taeric 11mo agoFeels like this is the curse of modern US politics. I'm convinced the majority of people that "want high speed rail in CA" don't live in CA. Further away they live, the stronger they will argue for why we should have it.
- offsign 11mo agoOne thing that irks me about these schemes is that they often ignore cities role as regional hubs -- i.e. many cities became cities because they serve as geographical gateways interlocking the surrounding region. They are happy to take the benefits of being at the hub, but (increasingly) adopt a nativistic dialogue with the rest of the spokes. I get that no one likes highways running through their communities, but when you decommission historical arteries while aggressively adopting anti-car transportation policies throughout the rest of the hub, it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled. Maybe congestion pricing is the way to go -- it can certainly work for major European cities built inland, and surrounded by ring roads. For NYC / SF (surrounded by water), I'm less convinced. Sure, I'll 'just take public transport' to go downtown, but the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.
- tclancy 11mo agoRobert Moses has you covered.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> when you decommission historical arteries There are no highway arteries running through the congestion zone. Building one would require hundreds of billions of dollars of eminent domain. Manhattan has a $1tn GDP [1], on par with Switzerlad [2]. Its economy is larger than all but 6 states (between Pennsylvaia and Ohio) [3]. More than all of New Jersey. If it crossed the pond it would be the fifth-largest member of the EU, between the Netherlands and Poland [4]. It's a tremendously productive jewel that towers–literally–over the economies of its neighbors. Sacrificing Manhattan to save a few bucks on a trucker who doesn't want to take a highway through the Bronx is absolutely mental from a social, economic and environmental perspective. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City $939bn in 2023 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- xvilka 11mo agoThey 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.
- mritterhoff 11mo agoBig agree. Times Square would be a great place to start.
- Maximus9000 11mo agoIsn't times square already pedestrian? https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohet...
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- mritterhoff 11mo agoA small section of it is. > “Bowtie” bounded by Broadway and Seventh Avenue between 42nd and 47th Streets.
- stemlord 11mo agoThis is already underway
- cguess 11mo agoThere'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.
- piinbinary 11mo agoThey should put subway stations in each of the 3 big airports.
- the_gastropod 11mo agoJFK has a subway station (Howard Beach) EWR is in New Jersey, so... not technically the NYC Subway. But taking the subway to Penn Station, then hopping on NJ Transit is pretty easy LGA is the only one that straight up has no subway/train option.
- ipaddr 11mo agoImagine it actually mattered to them and they didn't force everyone into downtown offices instead of allowing people to work from home. This is a cash grab.
- TulliusCicero 11mo agoWho's "they" here? I don't think it's the government forcing everyone at finance and tech companies to come into the office.
- stevenalowe 11mo agoCongestion pricing == demand pricing Yet it’s good if the city does it but bad if a Corp does it?
- hengistbury 11mo agoThe city does it for the benefit of the public, the Corp does it for the benefit of the shareholders
- stevenalowe 11mo agoThe public pays higher prices either way
- johnea 11mo agoYea, if they could keep ALL of the poor people out, image how great that would be!
- genewitch 11mo agoall i gotta say is, super work, everyone! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65127-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65127-x Now we can get back to our regularly scheduled global warming, without all those pesky clouds in the way.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]