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

Re:In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop... by fsckboy on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @04:10PM (#46223900)

but compare the wear of the tires, and weigh tires vs brakes by the amount of "total pollution delivered to the environment", i.e. 20% more wear of something that is 2x as polluting is 40% more pollution. I don't know the numbers or the answer, I'm just saying it's not as simple as your statement makes it out to be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop... by brailsafe on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @05:43PM (#46225021)

> 20% more wear of something that is 2x as polluting is 40% more pollution

If an equivalent car wore down its tires 20% slower, and those tire particles contributed 2x the intensity of pollution than other types of wear-based pollution, than the increase in produced pollution from that source seems like it would be ~16%, not 40%.

If one car drives 100 km and produces 2 units of pollution per km, that would be 200 units. Another car wearing 20% more would produce 240 units, or roughly ~16% more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop... by yunwal on Wednesday December 10, 2025 @10:19PM (#46227261)

> Another car wearing 20% more would produce 240 units, or roughly ~16% more.

This is some Fermat’s Last Theorem shit

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In New York City, congestion pricing leads to marked drop... by coryrc on Thursday December 11, 2025 @01:40AM (#46228362)

Why are you just making up numbers then saying "it's not as simple"? Try educating yourself a little first instead of just jumping to conclusions which reinforce your existing biases.

[ Parent | on HN ]