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?
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.
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 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?
there is blog post somewhere i read, i cannot find it at the moment, that discusses the idea of "doctor problems" vs "musician problems". Doctor problems are problems where low quality solutions are deeply bad, so you should avoid them even if it involves producing fewer high quality solutions, while musician problems are ones where high quality solutions are very very worth it, so you should encourgage as many tries as possible so you get the super high quality wins. This seems a useful frame of reference, but not really the Ortega Hypothesis
it seems clear to me that the downside of society having a bad scientist is relatively low, so long as theres a gap between low quality science and politics [0], while the upside is huge.
There is a vast gap in how academia treats adjunct vs tenure track professors, a difference the author of this blog has spent a decent amount of words explaining and complaining about.
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?