←back to thread

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

(e360.yale.edu)
473 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | 10 Dec 25 15:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
nalnq[dead post] ◴[10 Dec 25 15:42 UTC] No.46218992[source]▶
[flagged]
bitwize ◴[10 Dec 25 15:49 UTC] No.46219119[source]▶
Pigovian taxes WORK, and are in many cases desirable, something lolberts just seem unable to get their heads around.
replies(2): >>46219149 #>>46219188 #
jpfromlondon ◴[10 Dec 25 15:53 UTC] No.46219188[source]▶
Pigouvian*, this is a regressive tax though that is probably unnecessary as the other studies referenced or linked in this thread show.
replies(3): >>46219431 #>>46219497 #>>46219667 #
theurerjohn3 ◴[10 Dec 25 16:07 UTC] No.46219431[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>46219534 #
jpfromlondon ◴[10 Dec 25 16:13 UTC] No.46219534[source]▶
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?

replies(2): >>46219866 #>>46220624 #
1. theurerjohn3 ◴[10 Dec 25 16:36 UTC] No.46219866[source]▶
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?