> 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.
It'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.
Absolutely. Nearly eliminates. Even non-plugin hybrids have greatly reduced.
There was a "study" going around claiming otherwise, which sampled air captured by passing vehicles with a trash bag on a busy road, claiming EVs did not reduce brake dust, but even my brief summary here makes it extremely obvious how flawed this "measurement" is.
I 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.
And to add info, an F-150 will change brake pads 3-7 times over 200k miles, while a Model Y will still be on the original set with nearly no sign of wear.
IME they only wear out maybe 15-20% faster than you'd think. On the other hand, over the span of 40,000 miles, a tire loses a LOT more rubber by weight/volume than a brake pad loses pad material. No idea what the PM2.5 breakdown is though.
The difference is that only about 1% of the worn rubber ends up in the air whereas most of the brake pad ends up in the air. Most of the worn rubber stays on the road. Where it will get washed away by the rain to end up as microplastics in the water.
Specialized 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.
Additional weight (which is minor; of best-selling vehicles, F-150 curb weight is 4000-5600 lbs, Tesla Model Y is 4400-4600 lbs) does not meaningfully increase brake wear because the brakes don't get used.
> 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.
Can you source that? Diesel is only 13% more energy dense than gasoline [1] so the difference between the two fuels isn't huge.
I suspect that modern (last five years) turbocharged gasoline engines are probably approaching diesel thermal efficiency, but I don't think that it's correct to say that they generally surpass it. The gasoline Ford EcoBoost is 33% thermally efficient while a BMW N47 turbo-diesel is 42% thermally efficient, as an example [2].
Yes, 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.
Not only that, in France for example the liter of Diesel fuel was always 10 to 15 euro cents cheaper at the petrol station due to how regular gasoline and diesel fuel was taxed.
That's why before EVs started to show up on the market en masse if you walked into a dealership they would always recommend that you pick the diesel engine if you wanted to save money of fuel costs.
That was actually the reason why the Yellow vest protests started in 2018 when the French government announced that the taxation gap between diesel and regular gasoline was going to disappear gradually.
Small edit to add to the context:
By that point, when the protests started in 2018, the governments(right and left) of France and the many French automakers had been pushing diesel engines as THE solution to alleviate rising fuel costs and so justifiably, the protesters thought that someone had just pulled the rug from underneath them.
Also this measure was in direct contradiction to Macron's campaign promise which was that he was going to reduce the tax burden or at least not increase it on the middle class, especially the rural middle-class that basically cannot get a job without having a car as public transport is almost non-existent in rural France.
That and many other things which I won't get into since it is not relevant for this discussion really riled people up.
In Canada, diesel fuel is priced around mid-grade gasoline (89). So it's slightly more expensive than regular, but slightly cheaper than premium (91/93).
Based on this, I've always thought of diesel as "more expensive", like you better get 15% more power/miles out of it if it's going to cost more! However, I suspect that most people purchasing diesel vehicles have as their other choice a car that would slurp premium, so for those buyers perhaps diesel is still a discount, even in Canada.
Modern diesel engines with DPF and DEF are pretty clean from a particulate and NOx standpoint. Of course there are still older diesels on the road, mainly buses and trucks. In the USA, diesel is so unpopular as a passenger car engine that it's not even worth worrying about.
It's unfortunate that so much rhetoric around environmentalism is based on faulty claims. It's starting to make me sceptical of environmental claims in general.
The latest one is AI data center water use- the extreme numbers like 5 liters of water per ChatGPT image just makes me feel sad that we can't have a civil discussion based on the facts. Everything is so polarized.
>It's starting to make me sceptical of environmental claims in general.
What does that even mean?
Honestly whatever it means it sounds like you would be the kind of person that would fall for the firehose of falsehood rather than look for the truth behind the actual claims.
For 99.9% of issues, we rely on trust to make up our minds. We assume people are mostly not lying. If a group of people are found to lie, then yes, maybe “look for the truth behind the actual claims” is worth it, but more likely shooting them out of the discourse and into the metaphorical sun is the right response. If you walk around lying, you don’t get to complain that people aren’t doing research on your claims.
Sure, but how does that relate to environmentalists? The people lying were the car industry, but somehow the OP questions environmentalism. Why are they not questioning the car industry?
Why? There are massive incentives for people to lie in a great many cases, especially where profits exist. Car manufactures, as we know, gladly lie and fake evidence. Even when there are massive fines involved, the fines are generally less than what they make in profit from the lies.
What's even better is you can play both sides to confuse the issue. Create 3rd party groups on the other side of your claims and have them make up the stupidest claims "Just looking at a car will give you cancer". Flood the zone with false information, bullshit asymmetry. Lobby the shit out of politicians so they don't care about the issues, only the money it brings in.
The confused regulars in the middle are so propagandized to they no longer know up from down and billionaires laugh all the way to the bank.
To add to what others said: diesels always had a reputation of reliability. The cast-iron TDI 1.9 is legendary but even Italian cars fitted with the JTD line would just work and not require maintenance. I recall making light of a friend who was driving an Alfa Romeo until he mentioned that actually it's been more reliable than anything else he's driven - at least in terms of powertrain issues.
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.
I believe the popularity of diesel car in Europe is actually a tax-related hack.
The idea is that diesel is the "work" fuel, for shipping, construction, etc... While gasoline is the "consumer" fuel, for personal use, motorsports, etc... Make the former expensive and it will affect the entire economy, everything will become more expensive and less competitive. Making gasoline more expensive will not have the same impact.
So, put high taxes on gasoline. The result was an increase in popularity of diesel cars, that cost less to run because of taxes.
Now, the situation is changing. Diesel, at least the one that is legal to use on the road is taxed at a level closer to gasoline. Diesel cars are also becoming less and less welcome with regards to low emission zones and green taxes, so many people are going back to gasoline.
Yes, in France as I pointed out in my other comment, the diesel fuel was always cheaper than regular gasoline. The re-alignment of the tax was (amongst other things) what sparked the massive yellow vest protests in France in 2018.
When I was at the military they told us that in case of war the government would start appropriating diesel cars, since those are compatible with the fuel the military uses and that there were ancient incentives to buy this type of car to make sure there were enough of them.
"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/S13522...
It is different in Africa, where catalytic converters are harvested for precious metals and cars are driven without them.
That 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.
New York City has a more European balance of cars versus light trucks than most of the USA. Not easy to park a modern American pickup in any bourough except maybe Staten Island. Source: lived there
The subject here is New York City where I would expect people are less like to drive the heavy ICE vehicles (unless they are doing some that needs such a large vehicle).
But 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.
Yes, 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.
the 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.
Similar to with tire wear what's important to emissions is the amount of force that has to be applied to decelerate and how often it occurs. At highway speeds it's far less of an issue, but in slow speed urban environments with lots of stop start driving and high vehicle densities it's a real problem.
My Polestar 2 (shared design from Volvo's EVs) only uses brakes once it's hit its regen limit, this changes based on battery capacity and temperature but in the real world it means coming to a near complete stop from 50-60mph. The constant rust on the brakes are evident to that.
My only experience is BMW EV, but my i4 aggressively prioritizes regeneration over using the brakes. It even has an energy meter that shows negative/positive energy flow. The positive flow is blue until the actual brakes engage where it changes to black. And this is in two pedal mode, one pedal driving is even more aggressive about regen.
I would not doubt I use my breaks 1/20th of the amount that our X5 or Silverado use theirs.
I have an Equinox EV and the brakes do not get used often. They did a great job with blending kinetic regeneration with friction activation, but you can still feel the difference when it kicks in.
They are active in reverse, to ensure that they are used and so that any rust gets cleared from the rotors. They also activate if you slam on the brakes or if the battery is at 100% charge and the kinetic energy can not be used.
I have about 12,000 miles on the car over the last year and the rotors and pads look the same as when I got them. The first annual inspection showed no measurable wear.
But 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.
Not all tire wear is when skidding out. A car tire's contact patch is several inches wide (especially on trucks/SUVs where extra-wide tires are often used to give a more premium look), so any time that wheel is turning a corner, there's a portion of it at the outside and inside that's rotating at a different speed than the pavement beneath it is moving.
There's also the regular deformation of wheel just in the course of regular rotation, which is where the majority of highway wear dust comes from.
The 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.
It’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.
With extea weight and tire size, evs will have more slippage. It isnt about the entire tire slipping against the ground. It is about tread patterns slipping as the tire rolls at any speed, especially in corners where car tires cannot ever avoid slipping.
TLDR regenerative braking reduces this significantly, nut getting the raw numbers is always fraught with today's horrific AI-addled search engines.
Also seems like a wonderful opportunity for the materials science people to print money coming up with better brake materials here. And if anyone here who can say "clean coal" with a straight face disagrees, point and laugh at them.
Folks in the comments will say "not really" for EVs because of better control and lower speeds, but if you've ever driven in Manhattan, you'd know it's often light-to-light drag racing at times which with an EV and a heavy foot will undo a lot of the regen braking via stress on the tires.
There 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.
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?
I 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.
> 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.
> 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).
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 be a tough sell.
Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.
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 length, you may be able to just use your regular plug to top up over night. Infra upgrades to support the future are unfortunate, but it should be a one and done kind of thing. It was probably time to update the panel and get 200 Amp service- you will recoup a portion of that if you ever sell the house.
The best part is batteries get signficantly (for some values of signficant) cheaper and better each year. Gen 1 Nissan Leaf owners can now actually replace their batteries for about 1/5th the initial pack cost and increase their range.
> Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.
You likely don't need to replace the panel, as load management options exist. Wallbox, in particular, has an option where you can add a modbus doo-dad (carlo gavazzi energy management module) to your panel and it will monitor the overall usage and drop the EVSE current to keep it at a safe level.
It's more expensive than if you had a modern panel, but less expensive than replacing the panel itself.
How many amps is your current service? I have 200A service where I live, but the house is 100% electric -- water heater, range, heat pump, washer, dryer, etc. All electric. There's even a little medallion on the front of the house about it: https://i.imgur.com/BrHj1XQ.jpeg The 70s were weird.
And when you say that your panel is old, just how old are we talking?
Watch out for electricians who try to rip off new EV owners. Make sure you get a few estimates. When we added a charger, bids were $2000, $2000, and $500.
You likely don't need to install a special charger or breaker panel. A regular 120V wall outlet will give probably give you 30+ miles of range just charging overnight. If your commute is longer, you might want a better charger, but don't let someone upsell you on a high-speed charger if your average daily travel is under 30mi and 90%ile under 100mi.
My EV is the best most fun car I've ever owned. I had a V8 Mercedes E430 and my EV is faster and more fun to drive. You have it backwards. Having and ICE car is accepting a worse time in exchange for government subsidies on Oil.
One of the biggest bonuses for me is never needing to go to a gas station. So much more pleasant to charge at home overnight, or at charge stations if I’m on a road trip. I can’t imagine buying an ICE car ever again.
Says the person who has never owned an EV. Fifteen years of EV ownership, I’m never going back. Environmental factors aside, an EV is the overall better vehicle. You can keep your rattling ICE vehicles that need special fluid from specific vendors.
I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars. I know some people swear by them being more fun to drive but that's the last thing on my list of requirements for a car. I will say I think you're giving ICE cars a bad rap, my little Honda Fit that will be replaced by the EV is at 150k miles with nothing other than like three oil changes (yes i know) and a new set of tires.
I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars.
I plug it in when I get home, and when I get in it again the "tank" is always full. I think about the EV a lot less than I do our ICE car, which seems to need gas at the most inconvenient times. You might have an argument for road trips, but even that's almost a no-brainer these days. Sure, I can't just get off at some random exit in the Utah desert and expect to find a charger, but my experience says this whole "charging on a road trip" is way overblown, as if even the slightest bit of look-ahead planning is just too much for people to handle.
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.
Because when you're talking about particulates in the air, one of the main local environmental harms from cars, EVs aren't the 100% clean people expect them to be.
EVs are heavier than equivalent-sized ICE vehicles, but they do enjoy regenerative braking. The answer is to make smaller-sized cars but the auto industry has been pushing the farmer cosplay for decades because the profit margins are a lot higher on a $75k truck or SUV than $30k sedan.
It's a tough area, honestly, and will be until public charging is better. You need a bigger battery to get the range that people need (want?) to be able to reach the next charging station. Realistically, though, most people don't really venture far from home but they don't like the idea that they can't venture far from home without finding a place to charge.
EV charging availability has drastically improved over the last few years, so maybe there is hope for smaller EVs.
The Chevy Suburban has been one of the largest vehicles on the market since 1934. [1]
If you wanted an EV to match the Suburban it would probably be that Cadillac Escalade IQ in terms of size, comfort, and towing capacity -- that's got a curb weight of 9,100 pounds which is 1.5x heavier than the Suburban.
I'd think the BMW 3 Series has a similar vibe to the Model 3 and that has a base curb weight of 3536 which is about 10% less than the Model 3.
[1] it's the oldest nameplate that's been made continuously
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.
Tire wear is probably a thing - although I suspect the per-wheel control allows them to better respond to slips and sudden acceleration. I've noticed test driving a Tesla that it accelerates rapidly much more smoothly with no tire slippage than a combustion car.
Brake wear is likely nulled out by regenerative braking. And you're probably not driving highway speeds through Manhattan, either.
Tire, yes. But not brakes. With an EV most of the kinetic energy is converted back to electricity thanks to regenerative braking instead of being turned into heat through friction.
Overall the EV emit fewer airborne particles even without counting the exhaust.
Why does everyone immediately pivot to SUVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan Tesla Model Ys that weigh as much as a Ford Bronco and EV trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US consumer habits and the demand for huge vehicles to pick up groceries?
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.
Tire 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.
>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).
If you substitute with “don’t travel far [or at all]”, it’s a big savings. If you substitute flying 1000 miles on an airliner with “drive 1000 miles instead”, or flying US to Europe with a cruise ship trip to Europe, you’ve probably made it worse; in that regards, it’s less the mode of travel and more the total distance in these trades.
Rail 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.
A 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.
There'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.
“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.
It 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.
My 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.
Probably 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.
I 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?
The study doesn't mention tailpipes (afiact). This press release/article does. Don't dismiss scientists because journalists reporting their findings incorrectly.
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.
The 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.
Unlike many other places in the United States, NYC area’s railroads are almost exclusively passenger rail and there is comparatively very little freight railroad traffic serving NYC and therefore there are way more trucks in NYC. They emit way dirtier emissions. The problem is never the cars; it’s always the trucks.
And oh also the small engines powering street food carts.
Pretty 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.
They have different ICE engines. Many two stroke scooters. Emissions are way different from those tailpipes. You’re doing apples to oranges comparisons.
And 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.
I see from your sources that lung cancer in non-smokers is still one of the top causes of death, and of course air-pollution is a primary cause of that. Good to know.
Quiet zones require crossings to be up to a certain standard. If the people opposed to train noise were serious, they could pressure their local/regional gov to upgrade crossings and establish a quiet zone. This tends to be more successful than trying to prevent the train entirely.
In 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.
There 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.
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.
"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.
We have fruit trees in our backyard. The year of the COVID lockdown they had so much fruit the branches broke from the weight. Most fruit I've seen in 20 years in the house, by a large margin.
I'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?
It’s a national issue because as soon as one city tries it out and it turns out to be pretty good and none of the doom scenarios ensue, congestion-charge opponents all over America lose most of their talking points.
Best they can do now is, “Well, we’re not New York.”
> Best they can do now is, “Well, we’re not New York"
But that's a real argument. They're not a $1.3tn economy ($1tn of which is Manhattan alone) [1] with fewer than one car per household (0.26 in Manhattan) [2].
I dunno, I think there's a hard stop at "having a functioning public transit system". I could imagine DC implementing a congestion charge. Nashville less so.
Attention economy, the algorithm, rage-bait, maximizing engagement, doomscrolling - pick your buzzword. Individual people care about all sorts of weird things, but on average, this and no other reason is why a person in Idaho suddenly finds themselves caring about Manhattan congestion pricing. It's easy to point a finger and laugh/marvel when it's something so obviously absurd to you, but of course you and I both have entirely different blind spots where our attention is marshalled and our opinion is formed by the rage-bait engine. Ours must seem preposterous to those on the outside looking in, too.
Probably very clear-cut, right? "No parking, no business" never made sense, but it makes even less sense in a city where cars are involved in less than a third of all trips
Especially considering that
* Congestion is an opportunity cost in itself already, which is paid in wasted time by all road users, impacting mostly those who spend a long time on the road, which is busses, taxis, professionals and delivery drivers, as they spend the most amount of time actually driving in congested roads
* Congestion pricing forces trips to self-select on cost/benefits in actual dollars, instead of time, so you optimize for wealthier trip takers, short stays or high value trips, where before you would favor long stays (which make looking for parking forever not so bad), and people who don't value their time very much
* Car use remains heavily subsidized, as motorists do not come close to paying the full costs associated with their road usage
Feels 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.
You run in very different social circles than I do. The only complaint I have ever heard about California's high speed rail plan (as a life-long Bay Area resident) is how damn long it's taking because of the yokels claiming it'll annoy their cows and almonds.
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.
Just to defend myself (similar to what I said in a different thread): I live in an area that would be marginal for high speed rail, but I still want it. If the US can get a great high speed rail network it would make sense to bring that to me, but as one of the last lines built! If CA can't build a good HSR where it should obviously work out there is no way it is worth trying here. They have to make the mistakes and then learn from them (this is the harder part!) in order to bring something to me where there can be no mistakes.
Cars are en extension of some Americans' identity and driving is something they feel utterly entitled to.
I've lived all over the world and in NYC for decades so it seems silly to me. Bust most Americans have never seen or ridden an effective form of public transport. So they view congestion pricing as an infringement on their rights and quality of life.
I agree, and would add that there are others who are decidedly "anti-car" and you could say that this is part of their identity. This particular policy may be a strictly positive (no strong opinion here), but when viewed as part of the broader disagreement it drives some of the reflexive pushback.
It'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).
There are reliable ways to transform American rhetoric to collectivist vs. individualist.
"We should toll roads". This will reliably produce "we should all contribute through tax to the maintenance of roads and they should be considered a public good".
"We should have land value taxes". This will reliably produce "we should not have to pay rent to the government for something that we own".
A simple self-interest model will capture all participants in this discussion. This is why economically optimal policies have such opposition. People don't want to pay the price for their actions. They're ideally hoping to have someone else pay it. It is just as common for a position like funding for SF's Muni.
Propositions J and K made it clear. One said "let's raise Muni spending". The other said "if we raise sales tax, that will go to Muni spending. If we don't, the Muni spending proposition dies". People voted for the first and against the second. Pretty straightforward position: "We should spend more money but from a place that is not me".
The way welfare is organized in the US also shows this. Welfare is the largest sector of the US federal budget, and the ideal is to tax all productive capacity to pay for the aged. This aligns with the increased vote share from the aged. The classic two wolves and a sheep at dinner.
Why 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.
I think it's because it disproportionately impacts the people who can least afford it. It allows the wealthy to continue to enjoy the convenience (relative to alternatives) of driving into the city while polluting and causing traffic at a price that has zero impact on their lives while it punishes those who already have much less and whose lives will be impacted by the fines and the often significant amounts of time they'll have to spend arranging and taking alternative modes of transportation.
That's a very hard sell when people all around the country are feeling continuous downward pressure on their lifestyle and financial security while billionaires are seen getting massive tax breaks and pillaging everything they want while escaping accountability for the harms they cause everyone else. Taking a basic task like driving into the city, something many people are forced to do for work, and punishing them for it while once again giving the wealthy a pass was certain to upset people. in fact, by forcing more of the peasant class off the roads it makes driving into the city much more pleasant for the people with enough money to not care about the extra expense. Taking from the poor to improve things for the wealthy resonates with a lot of people.
It also doesn't help that in other contexts, congestion pricing has already hit people's wallets and is seen as an exploitative business model designed to extract as much money from the public as possible. The last thing most people want is seeing congestion pricing and other price-fuckery infesting another aspect of their daily lives, which is why the pushback against wendy's implementing it was so swift and severe that the company had to backpedal even after spending a small fortune on the digital menu boards they needed to enable it.
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 so anyway because parking is incredibly expensive. People take the subway. Car ownership is already disproportionately preserved for the rich.
NYC is different from much of the country. I'm not going to make an argument that it's any better or any worse, but it is different. NYC congestion pricing as a national debate is missing the forest for the trees.
> 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 impacted by congestion pricing.
> People take the subway.
Many do. When it's an option for them and at the expense of time/convenience. If this were an acceptable excuse we might as well just shut the roads into Manhattan down entirely.
This article proves that people have been being priced out of driving into the city and I promise you that isn't the millionaires who are suddenly navigating the subway system and waiting for the trains in filthy stations.
It's also important to note that nationally, nobody knows or cares about the specific differences in NYC compared to their own cities. The vast majority of the people outside of NYC complaining about have never even been to the state. They just know that once again, it's the small guy who is getting screwed over and that they don't want the success of congestion pricing in New York (however that is measured) to cause it to appear where they drive, and who can blame them for that?
>I assure you that Manhattan is filled with many employees and service workers.
That is not a meaningful response to "Very, very few people must drive into the center of Manhattan to work.", the two statements do not contradict each other. Those employees and service workers take the subway.
> When it's an option for them and at the expense of time/convince
The subway is both faster and cheaper than driving in NYC at peak hours. Traffic has historically been awful, hence the congestion charge! Trading money to gain time/convenience is what the rich do. The "small guy" didn't have the money for the bridges, tunnels and parking before the congestion charge even arrived.
> It's also important to note that nationally, nobody knows or cares about the specific differences in NYC compared to their own cities.
Yes, that is literally my point about why conversations like this one are fruitless.
> They just know that the small guy is getting screwed over
Right but that isn't true. They are mistaken in what they "know" because, as you said, they don't know or care about the specific differences in NYC compared to their own cities.
> Those employees and service workers take the subway.
Not the ones who need to bring service vehicles with them. Not anyone who has to enter or return with heavy items or any number of the other many many reasons people choose to drive and not take the subway. The fact of the matter is that the subway has always been an option for many people, but not all people and it comes with costs of its own. The people driving into the city, as obnoxious as that trip is, were making the decision to put up with the traffic and parking for a reason. Now many of those people, enough to make measurable differences in pollution levels, have been priced out of that choice. "It's only a few poors, why are people bitching about it?" isn't going to make people across the country worry any less about it spreading to them.
> The subway is both faster and cheaper than driving in NYC at peak hours.
And also not an option at all for many and a less attractive option for many, as noted by the number of people who were driving. It's not as if the subway is a well kept secret.
> Right but that isn't true.
Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it true. Show me that millionaires are taking the subway because of the increased fines at the same rate as the hourly workers and I'll concede that the impact is being equally felt.
This debate has been done to death. And it's always, always a vague group of people who are apparently affected. Never specific examples. And, as we see here, there's always an appeal to class warfare: "it's hurting the poors". And it's always by someone who wishes to speak on behalf of those poor people, never actually the people themselves.
Only 2% of lower income outer borough residents (around 5,000 people) drive a car into the city:
When the congestion pricing rollout was paused, only 32% of lower income voters supported the move, compared to 55% of those earning more than $100,000:
(AFAIK there isn't direct polling on a yes/no support question by income, this was as close as I could find)
The overwhelming majority of poor people in New York City take transit and stand to benefit from the funding congestion pricing brings. Highlighting that 2% of the population and ignoring the 98% is a fundamentally dishonest position to take, especially when you're not even in the group yourself.
Again, this conversation would be so much more rewarding if you had read the paper and established a minimal level of factual basis for your statements. The number of light vehicles (cars, vans, pickups) entering the zone has not declined! At all!
> Again, this conversation would be so much more rewarding if you had read the paper and established a minimal level of factual basis for your statements. The number of light vehicles (cars, vans, pickups) entering the zone has not declined! At all!
The question was "How has congestion pricing became a national issue" and the answer isn't "the nation hasn't read this one study". For what it's worth though the study linked in the article does show a reduction in cars entering the zone. (ctrl-F "car" to find that)
I 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.
They 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.
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.
> You could, at the extreme, ban all motor vehicles but the opportunity cost would outweigh the benefits
We did this in Times Square and on Broadway, and it's honestly been great. I say this as someone who takes cars far more frequently than most New Yorkers and has a place I lived at full time for over a decade off one of those closed-off sections of Broadway.
Well, 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.
It could also be the case that making it viable to drive personal vehicles at all inside a dense city comes with opportunity costs (parking, roads that cut through infrastructure, pollution, noise) that aren't worth it.
Since this is generating revenue for NYC, you can't consider whether this tax is good or bad in a vacuum though. The alternatives are a different tax with its own effects, or more debt, or less spending. (In this case, the revenue goes to the MTA.) Any opportunity costs due to less traffic are at least partially offset by opportunity costs you aren't having to pay somewhere else.
You take a walk along a 55-mph stretch of highway, and then you take a walk down Broadway, and you see which one makes you feel better as a human being.
This 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.
Imagine 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.
> 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.
I 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.
I 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.
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 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.
> 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.
Please. 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)
The number of trucks I see that are either horribly maintained or purposefully modified to defeat emissions devices spewing massive clouds of black smoke every time they step on the accelerator pedal speaks otherwise to me.
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.
There was also an endless parade of NY Post stories about how Manhattan restaurants would suffer because their customers couldn't just drive in from Long Island and New Jersey.
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.
Im not sure this fits, they saw a much larger drop (18%) in heavy duty trucks entering the city, and a smaller drop (9%) in passenger cars. I am not sure the public transit options are close alternatives for heavy duty trucks.
I suspect that this is due to the elimination of toll shopping/avoidance. Per [0] and [1], the only way to avoid a toll entirely is to drive from the West Side Highway or FDR Drive to the Brooklyn Bridge, but commercial vehicles are prohibited on FDR Drive and the Brooklyn Bridge has weight restrictions [2], so heavy trucks don't have a legal way to dodge the tolls anymore.
If you need to reach Long Island, the incentive to avoid the (tolled) Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Verrazzano, and RFK bridges are gone; now you're paying for the privilege of sitting in Manhattan traffic.
Do we know that those heavy duty trucks were formerly used to do things you need heavy duty trucks for? It seems more likely that 18% (or more!) of the usage was by people who think heavy duty trucks look cool and wanted to show off theirs.
That's the difficulty with the Light/Medium/Heavy Duty categories. It doesn't tell you a huge amount about what the vehicle is being used for but most of them heavy duty mean commercial or utility. There are a handful of popular models that tip into the Heavy duty class and those are usually 3/4 ton pickups. Not sure how popular those are in NYC though.
For many people, the thing being substituted for an alternative is not "transportation into Manhattan", but more broadly "engaging in commerce in Manhattan"
What business or shopping trip into Manhattan is small enough that 9 dollars is a significant hurdle or increase in cost? It's there to disincentivize taking a car for no reason when you can use transit while being small enough to absorb if you have a reason to actually use a car.
What percentage of the road traffic do you think they constitute? How much of the value of the truck full of expensive seafood do you think the congestion charge represents? How many extra deliveries can a single driver make when they spend less time stuck in congestion?
Reducing the number of cars on the road helps everyone: we tend to focus on the enormous quality of life and health benefits to residents but it also helps everyone who doesn’t have the option of not driving, too. Ambulances getting stuck in congestion less is a win. Deliveries which can’t be done using cargo bikes similarly benefit from reducing the single greatest source of delay: cars.
With reduced congestion, delivery companies will find marginally increased productivity (maybe 1 more delivery stop is possible per shift, for instance) that will likely make the fee worth it
Can they not afford to pay $9 per truck per day? Seems like a bad business plan that can't manage to pay such a minor fee. That's the design of the congestion charge it disincentivizes optional trips but is small enough for any money making business to absorb.
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?
Yes, but also it's just annoying to have a car in NYC. For many routes the subway is going to be faster than driving and sitting in traffic, unless you're traveling between outer borough neighborhoods that only have a connection in Manhattan. If you're making that commute often (say, Bushwick to East Flatbush, or Flushing to Canarsie), a car might make sense, but then this whole congestion pricing thing doesn't apply to you.
Transit is $3/ride (in a few weeks), 24 hours, and all over the city. It's not perfect, but for the vast majority of cases owning a car in NYC is just not really worth it. If you need one because you have a weekend home out in Long Island or up in the Hudson Valley, you can afford the $9 toll.
It's economically infeasible for a large percentage of people to drive in a dense urban area, period.
That's true even without congestion pricing. A city would go broke and bulldoze itself trying to add enough stacked lane, highways, and parking to handle everyone who would prefer to drive in or through if the capacity existed.
is 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.
Regular 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?
> How many people on Wallstreet do you know that drive to work?
A lot. Also white-shoe lawyers. They live in Greenwich, Westchester or Westport and drive into the city. (And still, they often park uptown because driving in the congestion zone is annoying and expensive.)
The poor in New York don't drive. If they do, they do so to earn an income. Less congestion helps with that.
I'm not so confident in that first claim, and my anecdotal evidence doesn't support your theory.
However you did mention some other studies on this thread that support your claim this is a regressive tax, I'm worried I missed them, can you share the links?
Regressive taxes aren't bad inherently bad. Regressive spending is bad.
In this case, you have a regressive tax with a huge positive side effect due to taxing an externality. If the funds are also spread into progressive services it can be a net positive for all income brackets.
I wish as a society we'd use this form of taxation more, and widely applied taxes less. In theory insurance is supposed to have the actuarial people who figure it out and properly price the choices in, but it's also surprising how crude they can be-- lumping very distinct situations as "the same". eg aggressive drivers are only penalized after they hurt someone, like the phrase "no harm no foul" (until there is harm). It'd be better if telemetry was collected and penalized in realtime.
They can also have their own significant externalities and introduce perverse incentives (in this case...) for revenue-seeking infrastructure governance.
Of 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.
The rich were driving before, and are still driving.
The difference is that now they are paying for that service they were already using, and those funds are going to public transit which serves the majority of New Yorkers especially those with lower incomes.
The problem is that no one in NYC, rich or poor, has any confidence in the MTA's ability to properly and efficiently use these funds. This stems from a long history of incompetence and wastefulness by the MTA
> no one in NYC, rich or poor, has any confidence in the MTA's ability to properly and efficiently use these funds
They're already using them, and the results show. They could have done it cheaper. But the LIRR is operating at Swiss rail efficiecies since the recent electrification and signalling improvements.
What electrification and signal improvements are you talking about? Signal upgrades are a constant thing in the MTA, both for the LIRR and the subways. They are not something that just started with congestion pricing funds.
Also, efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds[1].
Are the funds actually going to public transit, or are they being used to pay off all the people whose support was needed to implement the congestion charges?
> In June 2025, revenue from the congestion toll was used to increase service on more than a dozen bus lines citywide… In October 2025, the MTA sold $230 million worth of bonds to help fund the first projects that were being partially financed using congestion-toll revenue.
> 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.
Because that’s not true. Cars are expensive compared to transit everywhere, but especially so in NYC. This was studied a lot before congestion pricing was implemented and only something like 2% of poor people were going to pay congestion charges. This did not stop a bunch of rich suburbanites from using them as a prop to demand that the city subsidize their lifestyle at the expense of NYC taxpayers, of course.
I don't think poor people who lived in NYC were driving that often anyway? cars are expensive to begin with and parking is crazy in that part of the city
Even before congestion pricing this was the major factor. It's often quicker, more reliable, more pleasant, and has less variation in delays to ride the train/subway in NYC. Speaking from personal experience I could easily eat the congestion charge to daily commute into Manhattan, and I'd rather still take the train because I can do my mindless scrolling or read a book during that time.
The only time I've found that a car is better is during the weekends with a group larger than about 4 people. The train schedules are terrible, the commute time isn't bad, and the price per ticket (assuming you're coming from the outer suburbs) vs parking and tolls works out to be a wash.
This mechanism allows people with more money to enjoy driving in the city or is this congestion prcing based on your salary? no its not its based on the time in the city independent of what you make.
A person with their high end car and miillions now can buy himself a nice little drive into the city while everyone else can't.
Do you seriously think that multi-millionaires drive to and from Manhattan to commute?
Our C-suite and top quant traders at our firm take the train, bike, or walk to the office daily. I asked around my office - no one has ever driven regularly to our office in 20+ years.
The reason why is because driving objectively sucks in the city.
you clearly dont live here or you'd know that the poor of NYC are not the ones that own cars. they're the ones that take public transit. also, there are state benefits that offset congestion pricing and other fees for people who are poor
> 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.
> 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.
The article speaks to this as well, "Pricing led to a drop in pollution across the greater metropolitan area, according to the study, published in the journal npj Clean Air."
So while this was/is a common sentiment about congestion pricing, looks like it luckily didn't pan out.
Good 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.
This 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.
NY dropped the goals of cleaner air and any premise of regulating traffic flow. Once the Feds approved the plan the State of NY made fixed, increasing, revenue targets their only goal. If they cared about emissions they could try to regulate idling, which worse emissions profiles. Here in NYC they do this money making charade of "street sweeping" for 90 min twice or more times a week. And people sit in their cars with tge engine running that whole time. It too is focused on revenue, though they do actually mechanically sweep the street sides.
One 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.
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.
Didn't advocate for "more highways" -- I totally get it. More offering that maybe these problems shouldn't be viewed as a purely zero-sum game, where cities get all the benefit at the expense of the larger region due to a form of geographic tyranny. (Or at least, perhaps we shouldn't pretend that externalities don't exist through studies that largely look at quality-of-life factors in the hub.)
You can see some of these same dynamics playing out in SF with the decommissioning of the 'Great Highway' on the west side, which led to a recent recall of the local council member. Why does the majority vote of a city of 800k people get to unilaterally dictate the transportation options for a region upwards of 7MM?
I understand what you're saying but after 100 years of uninhibited car-centric design i think its reasonable for those of us who live here to want to prioritize the experience of people who live and work in manhattan, south bronx, and west queens and brooklyn. if people want to commute from places surrounding the city in a more efficient fashion i think its reasonable for them to redress that with the local or state governments instead of using nyc infrastructure for free in a way that inhibits community growth here.
> it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled.
Is this happening in/around NYC?
> 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.
The are the same, you just have to pay the fee.
Also, for like 90% of NJ you'd be going the southern route into Brooklyn anyway, no congestion pricing involved.
Both NY and SF were regional hubs before cars disfigured them. No commercial vehicle is going to be discouraged by a $10 dollar charge, and trade is so much easier when the roads aren't clogged by single people demanding 1000 sq-ft of ground space to move around.
It doesn't seem reasonable to complain that multitudes more of people should substantially worsen their everyday trips and suffer much higher risk of being killed by cars to make occasional trips that would pass through the city more convenient.
> 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.
This is a fixable problem. I'm still waiting on someone to do it though. NY is mostly interested in corruption from their preferred interests. (which is why they are working on a law to require a conductor on all subways instead of working to eliminate all that extra labor, instead of fixing their system so it is fast and reliable and then covers more area)
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
reply