NYC congestion pricing cuts air pollution by a fifth in six months(airqualitynews.com)
airqualitynews.com
NYC congestion pricing cuts air pollution by a fifth in six months
https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/nyc-congestion-pricing-cuts-air-pollution-by-22-in-six-months/
210 comments
The fact that tolls are now directly useful to the entire public must not be underappreciated. This is good news for everyone.
The run up to their implementation was so deeply frustrating. The sheer number of disingenuous objections. And they’ve all been proven false.
People are seemingly okay with rationing services by time, but adamantly opposed to rationing by price. You see this everywhere throughout society.
But obviously the latter is better. It offers more flexibility for consumers and more transmission of demand signals.
But obviously the latter is better. It offers more flexibility for consumers and more transmission of demand signals.
> People are seemingly okay with rationing services by time, but adamantly opposed to rationing by price
Maybe that has to do with the fact that lifetime is somewhat (!) equally distributed, while wealth isn't
Maybe that has to do with the fact that lifetime is somewhat (!) equally distributed, while wealth isn't
But you can make more money, but you can't make more time.
> sheer number of disingenuous objections
This is unfair. Nobody wants to pay more for anything. And many of the objections resulted in policy adjustments that made the programme better.
This is unfair. Nobody wants to pay more for anything. And many of the objections resulted in policy adjustments that made the programme better.
Which objections lead to better policy?
> Which objections lead to better policy?
The MTA "changed its flawed initial proposal to offer the [disability] exemption only to drivers or vehicles owners with state-issued disability plates" [1].
[1] https://www.nylpi.org/resource/letter-to-mta-regarding-conge...
The MTA "changed its flawed initial proposal to offer the [disability] exemption only to drivers or vehicles owners with state-issued disability plates" [1].
[1] https://www.nylpi.org/resource/letter-to-mta-regarding-conge...
Which objections were proven wrong?
The objection that pricing will damage local retail, in aggregate retail has thrived from pricing.
https://bettercities.substack.com/p/congestion-pricing-is-a-...
https://bettercities.substack.com/p/congestion-pricing-is-a-...
Not surprised. In general, retail works way better when shoppers are on foot.
When you have everyone in cars, it's more convenient to go to one big store and buy everything in one place, than to go to three small ones to buy three different things. Shopping malls tried to bridge this gap for suburban retail, but the ultimate rules exploit was Wal-Mart: just build a giant box with a parking lot and sell absolutely everything in it.
The problem with one-stop shopping is the same problem as centralized app stores[0]: it creates a single buyer that can dictate to the entire market the terms of the sale. There's only room for 1 or 2 big-box department stores per market. General retail is owned by Target and Wal-Mart. Electronics is owned by Best Buy. Office supplies are owned by Staples and OfficeMax. Crafts and sewing supplies are owned by Michael's[1]. Pet supplies are owned by Petco[2] and Petsmart. Construction supplies? Home Depot and Lowe's. Each one of these are businesses that were built for maximum scale - to suck up all the demand in a market, region, or country for a thing and then mete it out to whatever supplier offers the best terms.
[0] The fact that arguments for the iOS App Store monopoly are the same as arguments for car-centric suburbs should not be lost on you.
[1] RIP Jo-Ann's
[2] Fuck Petco, all my homies hate Petco. Adopt, don't shop.
When you have everyone in cars, it's more convenient to go to one big store and buy everything in one place, than to go to three small ones to buy three different things. Shopping malls tried to bridge this gap for suburban retail, but the ultimate rules exploit was Wal-Mart: just build a giant box with a parking lot and sell absolutely everything in it.
The problem with one-stop shopping is the same problem as centralized app stores[0]: it creates a single buyer that can dictate to the entire market the terms of the sale. There's only room for 1 or 2 big-box department stores per market. General retail is owned by Target and Wal-Mart. Electronics is owned by Best Buy. Office supplies are owned by Staples and OfficeMax. Crafts and sewing supplies are owned by Michael's[1]. Pet supplies are owned by Petco[2] and Petsmart. Construction supplies? Home Depot and Lowe's. Each one of these are businesses that were built for maximum scale - to suck up all the demand in a market, region, or country for a thing and then mete it out to whatever supplier offers the best terms.
[0] The fact that arguments for the iOS App Store monopoly are the same as arguments for car-centric suburbs should not be lost on you.
[1] RIP Jo-Ann's
[2] Fuck Petco, all my homies hate Petco. Adopt, don't shop.
Retail where? Inside the congestion zone? What about outside it?
I don't know, but specifically many people objected that the tax would hurt retail inside and they were wrong.
If you are objecting to a policy because it will make that area better and as a result, hurt businesses elsewhere, you need to rethink your choices.
I didn’t say every objection was disingenuous, just that there was an incredible number of objections that were.
I'm sure you're being honest about your intent, but a glancing read of your previous comment sounded categorical, to my ear at least, "And they've all been proven false."
It’s hard from reading what is written how it is intended. Written communication is hard since it doesn’t encapsulate tone, emphasis, and other cues. I read “all” in this case to mean: “most of the commonly espoused objections”.
All of the disingenuous objections. The intent of the OP is very clear, imo.
RhysU(11)
They better be. No one’s rooting for the smog, but a congestion tax is pretty regressive (hurts poorer people more)
Poor people are forced by circumstance to live in the busiest areas so they will get the biggest health benefits and many do not own cars and often do not even own a car space, so I would beg to differ.
You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation (if any) by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.
You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation (if any) by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.
Isn’t it the opposite though? The poor aren’t able to live in the most popular busiest areas, and usually have to live on the fringes of the city. They might train in though. This is mostly going to benefit the rich people who can still afford to live in the city, but with rent control there are still some non-rich people in the city.
It is both. People forget that probably a third of all housing in the congestion zone is rent-controlled or public housing.
Half of households in the congestion zone are living at or below 3x federal poverty level ($70K for a family of three). One in six residents makes $20K or less a year.
Half of households in the congestion zone are living at or below 3x federal poverty level ($70K for a family of three). One in six residents makes $20K or less a year.
well it's not 100% this or that -- it's mixed up
really-rich people don't have to work/commute, so prefer to live in countryside with gardens
really-poor people can't afford cars, and rich(=busy) cities usually have accomodations for them -- so they live inside busy cities
really-rich people don't have to work/commute, so prefer to live in countryside with gardens
really-poor people can't afford cars, and rich(=busy) cities usually have accomodations for them -- so they live inside busy cities
Really poor people can’t afford cars in the city, and yes, they can exist in the city because of public housing snd rent control. And it really isn’t the cars that are expensive, or even operating the cars, but the parking.
There are lots of middle class commuters who can’t afford to live in the city: they aren’t lucky enough to win the lottery with a rent controlled unit, and are too rich to live in public housing, but still too poor to live in housing of a standard they can tolerate in the city even if their job is there.
There are lots of middle class commuters who can’t afford to live in the city: they aren’t lucky enough to win the lottery with a rent controlled unit, and are too rich to live in public housing, but still too poor to live in housing of a standard they can tolerate in the city even if their job is there.
Not in NYC where less than half the population has access to a car.
This mostly commuters and tradesmen. You aren’t going to get your tools on the train, snd you are driving into the city from white plains or somewhere similar.
The alternative is the tradesmen can now apply their trade for 30 minutes more each way rather than sit in traffic (probably better overall) That, and apparently they and their kids can breathe easier.
Tradesmen pass the charge onto their customers. Commuters already have to pay huge parking fees, by comparison the congestion charge is small change.
> Tradesmen pass the charge onto their customers
You mean to say people without cars are paying the congestion tax? :P
You mean to say people without cars are paying the congestion tax? :P
Likely not. Reduced congestion decreases transit time which can easily pay for the conjestion charge.
The people who are hiring tradesmen are disproportionately the rich.
I mean it's funny to say but I think it should be pretty obvious to anybody that tradesmen are not the only people driving into NYC.
But yeah, customers pay the congestion tax for the tradesmen to drive just like they pay the tariff taxes on the supplies the tradesmen use.
But yeah, customers pay the congestion tax for the tradesmen to drive just like they pay the tariff taxes on the supplies the tradesmen use.
Ya, definitely, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
The congestion tax has far more impact on people who live and work above 60th or in the outer boroughs or NJ than it does Manhattanites. Retail, wholesale, trades, small businesses and yes commuters in these areas, which are poorer than Manhattan, suffer disproportionately
Actual poor people suffer the most from air population. They are the ones who live next to busy roads...
2.90 is pretty accessible
The 2.90 is even capped at $34 per week. Then there's the 50% discount for low-income NYC residents who qualify and apply for the Fair Fares NYC program, or for anyone regadless of residence who qualifies for reduced fares through age or a qualifying disability.
Both of these numbers are changing in early January to $3 and $35 respectively, but same idea.
Still, some European countries like Germany offer far cheaper than this, while others like the UK are probably pricer. NYC public transit gives very good value for the US at least.
Both of these numbers are changing in early January to $3 and $35 respectively, but same idea.
Still, some European countries like Germany offer far cheaper than this, while others like the UK are probably pricer. NYC public transit gives very good value for the US at least.
Many things hurt the poor more, because there are many things that the poor do that have negative externalities that cannot be compensated for by the productivity of the poor. Strict enforcement against violent crime is pretty regressive in that more poor people are incarcerated when this is done. Others are that strict enforcement of traffic laws is pretty regressive; paid parking is regressive; as are fares for buses and trains. Requiring a minimum number of signatures for a ballot proposition is regressive. Allowing more expensive cars to incorporate more advanced safety features is regressive. Requiring grant applications to be carefully written is regressive. As are minimum flying requirements for pilots. DoD medical standards for soldiers are regressive. Officer ASVAB score requirements are regressive. Surgical requirements. Drug approval requirements.
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
> Officer ASVAB score requirements are regressive
Used to be that you had to purchase an officer's commission...
Used to be that you had to purchase an officer's commission...
The glory days when we could charge cannon fire on horseback. This is what they took from us.
I actually doubt it's very regressive in NYC. Also, you're still only counting the price and not the cost. The benefits are likely tilted towards the poorest residents who absorb the most costs of congestion in terms of both pollution and road safety. That's just an educated guess but it's very plausible.
A charge on the marginal driver looks regressive if you only examine who pays the toll, but not who’s been paying the externalities all along. Once you include the benefits - faster buses, cleaner air, better reliability, and the ability to reinvest revenue into transit - the incidence flips pretty quickly.
We’re basically shifting costs from people who can’t opt out of congestion to people who can. That’s about as progressive as a transport policy gets.
We’re basically shifting costs from people who can’t opt out of congestion to people who can. That’s about as progressive as a transport policy gets.
Well, Mamdani wants to make transit free. Car taxes can probably help a lot to pay for that.
Partial correction: he wants to make buses free, but not subways.
It hurts homeless more, that's a fact (although most,big cold city homeless couchsurf rather than sleep in their car in my experience, but it might be different in the US). But if you take 'poor people' as in the bottom 20% of earners, they probably don't drive, because car are expensive.
Do I understand correctly -- you are saying this NYC congestion price hurts the homeless more? As in, people who are homeless in NYC are regularly driving cars into and back out of lower Manhattan?
Poorer people disproportionately take public transit.
No it’s not. NYC transit is already one of the most expensive in the world and quality is suspect. Pushing money into a dysfunctional structure doesn’t make it functional and might make it worse. A money grab from the public that goes through a maze of expenses.
The solution was to re-structure the MTA. But that’s hard work. Politicians would rather blame the other side and just raise taxes. The people like it because they are grabbing money from what they consider it to be their oppressors.
The solution was to re-structure the MTA. But that’s hard work. Politicians would rather blame the other side and just raise taxes. The people like it because they are grabbing money from what they consider it to be their oppressors.
The quality is not suspect. It is one of the world’s few 24/7 systems, and there are many capital improvements happening constantly. For example, making more stations accessible and improving switching equipment to improve reliability and volume.
This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.
This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.
The MTA is billions in the red because it overpays the union workers and fails to commercialize the stations
You may not realize this, but the roads are also in the red. All transportation is subsidized out of taxes.
You may not realize this, but there are numerous rail systems around the world that are not subsidized and are in fact profitable. See Japan, for instance
Almost all rail in Japan is subsidized, directly and indirectly. Yes the single line that is the Tokaido Shinkansen is immensely profitable; even then, JR Central does not pay market-rate interest on even the portion of the construction debt that was not absorbed by the government.
I don't want our public infrastructure to be profitable; I want it to be ubiquitous and frequent.
This is not true: Japan's rail systems are profitable on a cash-accounting basis (e.g. fares add up to more than day-to-day operating costs), but not if you include the immense cost of building the rail itself. When Japan privatized its rail, part of the privatization agreement included the government assuming most of the debts from construction, so the private entities wouldn't have them on their books. If you were to include these costs, Japan's private rails wouldn't even be close to profitable.
The MTA does not overpay when you compare to other employers in central NYC. It's an extremely expensive city due to housing policy failures.
As for commercialising the stations, does the MTA try to do so and fail, or are they forbidden from doing so effectively (often by the same people who are pushing the narrative that there is something wrong with the organisation)?
As for commercialising the stations, does the MTA try to do so and fail, or are they forbidden from doing so effectively (often by the same people who are pushing the narrative that there is something wrong with the organisation)?
I simply do not care if my public services are “in the red”. Let’s make them entirely in the red, please.
The point is that the MTA is deeply in the red even though it still charges significant fares. Meanwhile, systems like the London Tube manage to recover at least their operating costs without charging fares that are much if at all higher.
According to a quick search the nyc subway is $2.90 rising to $3 next year. This is comparable to, but slightly less than a zone 1 off peak ticket in London at £2.70. Most journeys are more expensive (on the train, busses are pretty cheap here)
If you're a car-owning Long Island or upstate suburbanite who occasionally commutes into Manhattan, the MTA is a god damned marvel compared to what would be available to you in other cities.
If you live anywhere in Brooklyn or Queens, the MTA is an inconvenience that constantly reminds you that the spirit of Robert Moses haunts your city to the present day, and that he really, really would like you to ride a private vehicle. Those boroughs are littered with coverage and frequency gaps that can turn a 40 minute car ride into a 2 hour subway ride. And god help you if you ever need to take a bus.
The capital improvements you mention are improvements on the margins. The MTA needs to engage in a radical rethink of NYC metro area transit. There needs to be radial lines - plural - crossing through Brooklyn and Queens at regular intervals to move as much traffic as possible out of Manhattan. The IBX is a good start, but it should also cross through Staten Island and the Bronx. Queenslink should absolutely be built[0], the N/W should extend to LaGuardia Airport, Utica Ave needs a subway line, and the subway in general should extend through Nassau County and Yonkers. Nassau and Suffolk counties need way more north-south rail[1] than they currently have (which is zero) and the same probably could be said for the service areas of MNR.
The bad part of government is not that it can't run a successful transit service. Actually, government is very good at taking a politically popular service and preserving it[2]. But this comes with a cost: extreme conservatism. You see, our government also happens to have a military that is obsessed with roads; and they pay a 900% subsidy to highway projects. So even states that like transit are hard-pressed to actually fund coverage improvements because it's capital inefficient to build anything that isn't a road. And private institutions building their own rail or transit services will just get absolutely crushed by the road subsidy making driving the only good option. So, government bad, actually, but not for the reason you think.
Also, you're replying to someone talking about NYC in particular. Politics in this area are notoriously corrupt; NJ had a mayor who literally closed a bridge to punish people who didn't vote for him. LIRR in particular has a labor scandal every decade or so. And don't forget, Trump was a NY real estate guy before he decided to tear apart America's political fabric.
[0] In fact, it's kind of absurd they didn't do this when they initially switched the Far Rockaway line over from LIRR to subway service!
[1] This would actually be a good opportunity for light rail, unlike the MTA's initial idea of making the IBX a light rail line
[2] See also: Amtrak.
If you live anywhere in Brooklyn or Queens, the MTA is an inconvenience that constantly reminds you that the spirit of Robert Moses haunts your city to the present day, and that he really, really would like you to ride a private vehicle. Those boroughs are littered with coverage and frequency gaps that can turn a 40 minute car ride into a 2 hour subway ride. And god help you if you ever need to take a bus.
The capital improvements you mention are improvements on the margins. The MTA needs to engage in a radical rethink of NYC metro area transit. There needs to be radial lines - plural - crossing through Brooklyn and Queens at regular intervals to move as much traffic as possible out of Manhattan. The IBX is a good start, but it should also cross through Staten Island and the Bronx. Queenslink should absolutely be built[0], the N/W should extend to LaGuardia Airport, Utica Ave needs a subway line, and the subway in general should extend through Nassau County and Yonkers. Nassau and Suffolk counties need way more north-south rail[1] than they currently have (which is zero) and the same probably could be said for the service areas of MNR.
The bad part of government is not that it can't run a successful transit service. Actually, government is very good at taking a politically popular service and preserving it[2]. But this comes with a cost: extreme conservatism. You see, our government also happens to have a military that is obsessed with roads; and they pay a 900% subsidy to highway projects. So even states that like transit are hard-pressed to actually fund coverage improvements because it's capital inefficient to build anything that isn't a road. And private institutions building their own rail or transit services will just get absolutely crushed by the road subsidy making driving the only good option. So, government bad, actually, but not for the reason you think.
Also, you're replying to someone talking about NYC in particular. Politics in this area are notoriously corrupt; NJ had a mayor who literally closed a bridge to punish people who didn't vote for him. LIRR in particular has a labor scandal every decade or so. And don't forget, Trump was a NY real estate guy before he decided to tear apart America's political fabric.
[0] In fact, it's kind of absurd they didn't do this when they initially switched the Far Rockaway line over from LIRR to subway service!
[1] This would actually be a good opportunity for light rail, unlike the MTA's initial idea of making the IBX a light rail line
[2] See also: Amtrak.
The quality is most definitely suspect for how much revenue it brings it and how poorly its allocated. MTA has been full of cronyism and corruption for years and the cycle of kickbacks. Yes, its a complicated service, however you cannot deny the lack of transparency and ineptitude leaves the service in a much worse place than it currently could be. People can understand price increases when it translates to service.
Even if the govt lights the money on fire we still get the benefit of fewer cars in lower manhattan.
What in particular about the MTA would you change?
What in particular about the MTA would you change?
> What in particular about the MTA would you change?
Remove the diversity compliance requirement from bids, e.g. [1]. Open up bids to any firm in the nation and select winners based on cost and competence only. Subject the MTA to a forensic audit every ten or twenty years.
[1] https://www.mta.info/document/180556
Remove the diversity compliance requirement from bids, e.g. [1]. Open up bids to any firm in the nation and select winners based on cost and competence only. Subject the MTA to a forensic audit every ten or twenty years.
[1] https://www.mta.info/document/180556
Usually diversity requirements don't come with lower competence requirements. They usually require people to be competent and then also equal opportunity. Or are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
> diversity requirements don't come with lower competence requirements
They come with certification requirements. The one that RFQ lists are NYC specific.
> are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
I’m saying a local-only bidding pool will necessarily be smaller than a national one. And requiring local certification guarantees the former.
I’m objecting to diversity compliance. Not diversity requirements. (Though even there, one needs to be cognizant of how quickly intersecting requirements can rapidly cascade the candidate pool to small numbers.)
They come with certification requirements. The one that RFQ lists are NYC specific.
> are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
I’m saying a local-only bidding pool will necessarily be smaller than a national one. And requiring local certification guarantees the former.
I’m objecting to diversity compliance. Not diversity requirements. (Though even there, one needs to be cognizant of how quickly intersecting requirements can rapidly cascade the candidate pool to small numbers.)
I live in Europe so it's still very much considered pedestrian-friendly, but cars and roads scale so bad. Especially with population density going through the roof in bigger cities.
I wonder how it's going to look like in 50 years.
I wonder how it's going to look like in 50 years.
EV self-driving shuttles you can take on demand so nobody needs to keep a car
EVs help with air pollution & congestion, but a huge part of the AQI impact of cars is tires, and I don't think there's a solution for that yet short of "fewer cars"
I thought the tire wear particulates being a huge source of particulate air emissions was an overestimate due to misunderstanding and misquotation of primary literature by secondary literature used by regulatory agencies.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792
1/6 is a lot lower (good!) but is that sufficient to say they're not a large source of particulate air emissions?
Well, scanning an article on it for Manhattan, the fraction of "road dust" PM2.5 looks like somewhere around 2-5% depending on time of year, which is a bit below contributions by sea salt.
From my limited reading, what fraction of road dust is from tire tread is unclear. The models trying to estimate it give anywhere numbers from 4 to 48%, but may be incorrect due to the citation problem above. Experiments seem to show 4-9%, but they have trouble excluding resuspended dust.
I'd also point out that if we're worried about air quality in NYC between modes of transport, then one should look at subways since PM2.5 in stations/tubes is many times that of the street and far exceeds EPA limits.
From my limited reading, what fraction of road dust is from tire tread is unclear. The models trying to estimate it give anywhere numbers from 4 to 48%, but may be incorrect due to the citation problem above. Experiments seem to show 4-9%, but they have trouble excluding resuspended dust.
I'd also point out that if we're worried about air quality in NYC between modes of transport, then one should look at subways since PM2.5 in stations/tubes is many times that of the street and far exceeds EPA limits.
How do EVs help with congestion? They take up the same amount of space as an ICE car.
EV shuttles will come in lots of capacities. Vans, buses. But you won't need to worry about schedules or preset routes because it's all dynamic.
Wherever there would be the most congestion is precisely where the app will give you the biggest discount to switch from your private vehicle into a bus, then switch back into another private vehicle for the last 5 minutes of your trip.
Wherever there would be the most congestion is precisely where the app will give you the biggest discount to switch from your private vehicle into a bus, then switch back into another private vehicle for the last 5 minutes of your trip.
None of what you are saying has anything to do with being an EV vehicle.
Derp. Quite right. For some reason I was thinking about self-driving instead...
I was thinking autonomy, but you're right for EV alone.
electric bicycles have significantly less tire waste.
Braking dust is worse than tires, and EVs don't use brake pads nearly as much because they rely on regenerative braking.
How do EVs help with congestion
Or, how about this, connect them together and put them on rails to reduce friction.
You could even run them separate from the street with raised platforms for accessibility and sometimes even run them underground.
We could call this something like “underway” or “steel beam connect-o-cars”
You could even run them separate from the street with raised platforms for accessibility and sometimes even run them underground.
We could call this something like “underway” or “steel beam connect-o-cars”
> put them on rails to reduce friction
Good luck climbing hills. A lot of systems like these moved away from rails onto rubber tires.
Rapid bus is probably best combination. Yes it will never match the throughput of rail, but it's vastly cheaper.
Good luck climbing hills. A lot of systems like these moved away from rails onto rubber tires.
Rapid bus is probably best combination. Yes it will never match the throughput of rail, but it's vastly cheaper.
Have you seen hills in NYC or (most of) other major cities? Also, the solition is deeper stations under hills & escalators.
So solution is to make from 3x more expensive to 5x more expensive?
And don't get me wrong, some places in US (with extreme density) should do this. Personally it's not the places where I'd ever want to live ever again lol.
And don't get me wrong, some places in US (with extreme density) should do this. Personally it's not the places where I'd ever want to live ever again lol.
deep stations have a significant impact on travel times, it takes well over 5 minutes to surface from the deepest stations in Barcelona
Trains can have rubber tires (Paris metro)
That's so unbelievably difficult it might as well be impossible. It's easier to teach cars to drive themselves than it is to build transit. Ridiculous I know.
No, individualized point to point travel is better. I just got back from Tokyo and Taipei, which have transit systems better than any European country. And it was still faster to Uber everywhere.
And how much did that cost? You can get around Tokyo on the subway system for $5 for an entire day, and it's a profitable system that largely does not rely on taxpayer subsidy.
And how fast would it be if Tokyo and Taipei's trains weren't handling 80% and 40% of trips, respectively?
If you reduce Tokyo's 80% trip usage rate down to 5% like many American cities, that means for every other car on the road in Tokyo you'd now see 5 cars instead. How's that Uber ride looking now?
And how fast would it be if Tokyo and Taipei's trains weren't handling 80% and 40% of trips, respectively?
If you reduce Tokyo's 80% trip usage rate down to 5% like many American cities, that means for every other car on the road in Tokyo you'd now see 5 cars instead. How's that Uber ride looking now?
Only because most people were taking the train. If everybody was taking a car you would be at a stand still.
Only if you build the city like Tokyo instead of like Dallas. Average commute in Tokyo is 45 minutes to an hour one way: https://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/08/05/231455. Average commute time in Dallas is 26 minutes one way: https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/dallas-suburb-s...
I’m not aware of any transit-oriented city where average commute times are as low in absolute terms as in sprawling, car-dependent American cities. You just don’t like the aesthetics of that approach. I don’t either. But it’s an aesthetic critique at bottom.
I’m not aware of any transit-oriented city where average commute times are as low in absolute terms as in sprawling, car-dependent American cities. You just don’t like the aesthetics of that approach. I don’t either. But it’s an aesthetic critique at bottom.
> Average commute in Tokyo is 45 minutes to an hour one way: https://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/08/05/231455. Average commute time in Dallas is 26 minutes one way: https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/dallas-suburb-s...
People in Tokyo will accept a longer commute for the sake of a better job or housing or both, because the commute is less miserable (and also because employers pay commute costs).
> I’m not aware of any transit-oriented city where average commute times are as low in absolute terms as in sprawling, car-dependent American cities.
Transit-oriented cities provide access to more jobs within a fixed range like 30 minutes even for car commuters. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00020-2/figures/4 . People in Dallas having shorter commutes isn't a sign that Dallas is built better, it's a sign that people in Dallas are avoiding switching to otherwise better jobs because it would make their commutes worse.
People in Tokyo will accept a longer commute for the sake of a better job or housing or both, because the commute is less miserable (and also because employers pay commute costs).
> I’m not aware of any transit-oriented city where average commute times are as low in absolute terms as in sprawling, car-dependent American cities.
Transit-oriented cities provide access to more jobs within a fixed range like 30 minutes even for car commuters. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00020-2/figures/4 . People in Dallas having shorter commutes isn't a sign that Dallas is built better, it's a sign that people in Dallas are avoiding switching to otherwise better jobs because it would make their commutes worse.
From your article: “The automobile provides better access than transit in all cities we compared, except in Shanghai, China, where automobile reaches about 90% of the jobs reachable by transit at 30 min.”
Yes, that's what a tragedy of the commons looks like. An individual in a given city will have a shorter commute by car. But the more people who are using cars, the worse everyone's commute gets.
Tokyo has a population of some 14 million. Dallas is about 1.3 million. Did you pick cities with populations exactly 10x apart on purpose or something?
Got any real stats?
Got any real stats?
So what? Why do you need one city with 13 million people when the US has the land area to build 10 cities with 1.3 million people?
Because that's where people individually want to live. Cities are getting bigger, rural areas and small towns are depopulating.
It's a tragedy of the commons. For an individual, private car is faster, but the resulting traffic ultimately makes things slower for everyone. Public transit in Tokyo is faster than private cars in car-oriented cities.
That’s not true. Public transit in Tokyo is slower than driving in Dallas or LA. Average one-way commute in LA is just over 30 minutes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B080ACS006037. For Tokyo it’s 45-60 minutes based on sources I’ve seen online.
As I said on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46214609 , that statistic doesn't mean what you think it does. The article I linked doesn't have figures for Tokyo but it has Shanghai which is comparable; there are around 4x as many jobs within 30 minutes by transit in Shanghai as by car in LA, while the population is only 1.5x bigger.
If speed is your only concern, why not hire a helicopter? Oh, because cost is also a concern so we can't just look at what's "faster"? Rats.
Why hire a helicopter when one can just be bought outright?
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/mining...
Permitting can be a bitch though: https://www.afr.com/property/residential/rinehart-s-loses-bi...
so there's a reason not to.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/mining...
Permitting can be a bitch though: https://www.afr.com/property/residential/rinehart-s-loses-bi...
so there's a reason not to.
this is the west, we can afford to spend more marginally on transportation to:
- have a financial and physical barrier between the riffraff and paying customers
- spend less total money (for real, the cost of second ave subway alone is about 1/3 the market cap of waymo)
- sit down in comfort with door-to-door air conditioning
- go faster
wheverever the density justifies, autonomy will make "dollar van"-style minibuses financially viable too, since unionized drivers have made full-sized buses a money pit
- have a financial and physical barrier between the riffraff and paying customers
- spend less total money (for real, the cost of second ave subway alone is about 1/3 the market cap of waymo)
- sit down in comfort with door-to-door air conditioning
- go faster
wheverever the density justifies, autonomy will make "dollar van"-style minibuses financially viable too, since unionized drivers have made full-sized buses a money pit
Everywhere? This is a crazy thing to claim. I was also recently in Japan and I never took a car anywhere. I'm sure there are particular routes that are badly served but come on.
I've been few times to Japan. Limiting yourself to rail gets boring very quick.
Also if you travel (aka kinda pressed for time), esp. with larger group (aka family) a lot of time cars are cheaper and faster and more practical option.
Also if you travel (aka kinda pressed for time), esp. with larger group (aka family) a lot of time cars are cheaper and faster and more practical option.
Everywhere. I was staying right next to Tokyo Station, too. I went from a meeting in Roppongi Hills to a bookstore in Jimbocho. Apple Maps says 31 minutes by train and 24 minutes by Uber.
And I was traveling alone this time. Last year when I went with my wife and three kids the differential was even more extreme. I’m convinced public transit is a major reason for the birth rate collapse in east asia.
And I was traveling alone this time. Last year when I went with my wife and three kids the differential was even more extreme. I’m convinced public transit is a major reason for the birth rate collapse in east asia.
So you spend like 3-5x more than a train ticket to save 6 minutes?
> I’m convinced public transit is a major reason for the birth rate collapse in east asia.
Sure thing. Just so we're on the same page, mind backing that up with the obvious basic research? You know, just a simple breakdown of birth rates vs public transit usage across the world. Rudimentary stuff.
Sure thing. Just so we're on the same page, mind backing that up with the obvious basic research? You know, just a simple breakdown of birth rates vs public transit usage across the world. Rudimentary stuff.
There are studies showing that dense housing is correlated with lower birth rates. https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-crowding-fewer-babies-the-ef.... It’s possible that public transit has a similar effect.
A lot of obviously positive things correlated with lower birth rates, like not having half your kids die before they reach adulthood, being able to treat infections with antibiotics, not needing a crazy amount of labor to keep subsistence farming going.
Birth rate collapse itself is a positive thing, this planet can’t ecologically sustain pre-industrialization birthrates combined with modern medicine and life expectancy. Back in the mid-century there was a lot of academic concern about overpopulation.
Birth rate collapse itself is a positive thing, this planet can’t ecologically sustain pre-industrialization birthrates combined with modern medicine and life expectancy. Back in the mid-century there was a lot of academic concern about overpopulation.
EVs are just going to further escalate the race to the bottom with traffic that we’re already seeing with services like DoorDash.
Driving down the marginal cost per hour to operate a vehicle on the road and removing humans who are averse to sitting in endless traffic is not going to result in the utopia people think it will.
Driving down the marginal cost per hour to operate a vehicle on the road and removing humans who are averse to sitting in endless traffic is not going to result in the utopia people think it will.
EV human-driven shuttles can do the same. Why do we need a robot for that?
This is a bad way to provide functioning public transit and a good way to enshittify car ownership. All the externalities of private vehicles with all the downsides of not owning your own mode of transportation.
NYC has a better subway system than most Euro cities. Probably because NYC has the advantage of being old before cars became affordable.
For a few decades it seemed planners all over the world really had this crazy idea that everyone would just drive around for everything. Just put 10 lane highways straight through your town!
For a few decades it seemed planners all over the world really had this crazy idea that everyone would just drive around for everything. Just put 10 lane highways straight through your town!
> NYC has a better subway system than most Euro cities. Probably because NYC has the advantage of being old before cars became affordable.
Nah, it's just because it's very, very big, nearly 9 million people. Very big European cities have comparable transport, but most European cities are smaller than this.
NYC's subway system is a little smaller than London's (though its commuter rail system is much smaller), and both cities have similar populations. And a little bigger than Paris's.
(Comparing metro system sizes can get messy, because there are things that are called metros but aren't really (eg SF muni metro, which shares space with cars) and things which aren't usually called metros but are metro-like (some S-bahn type things, in particular))
Nah, it's just because it's very, very big, nearly 9 million people. Very big European cities have comparable transport, but most European cities are smaller than this.
NYC's subway system is a little smaller than London's (though its commuter rail system is much smaller), and both cities have similar populations. And a little bigger than Paris's.
(Comparing metro system sizes can get messy, because there are things that are called metros but aren't really (eg SF muni metro, which shares space with cars) and things which aren't usually called metros but are metro-like (some S-bahn type things, in particular))
> NYC has the advantage of being old before cars became affordable.
Aren't Euro cities generally much older than those in the New World?
Aren't Euro cities generally much older than those in the New World?
It's frustrating how poorly most people understand economics and the distinction between price and cost. Everybody in the world is being asked to blithely accept the massive unpaid costs of motor vehicle usage. This is a tiny step towards recouping some of this costs. Roadways, parking, collisions, pollution, noise have all be costs born by all of us. And in NYC that's a load of non-drivers. We should be adopting all sorts of policies to pass those costs on to drivers.
People panic over the thought of free buses when we have millions of miles of free roads.
People panic over the thought of free buses when we have millions of miles of free roads.
> we have millions of miles of free roads.
Are you familiar with the gas tax? Vehicle registration fees?
Are you familiar with the gas tax? Vehicle registration fees?
They don't begin to cover road construction costs (not even mentioning fair market rent for the amount of area they take up)
are you familiar with how negligible a fraction of the costs that car-dependent infrastructure imposes on society those two taxes represent
Roads are very expensive. Those taxes are never high enough to pay for the roads.
Neither of which is required to use the road in all cases.
True, you can ride a bicycle/scooter/etc. or just walk on roads without paying. All motor vehicles pay registration fees if I'm not mistaken. And in at least some states, they hit EVs with higher fees, to make up for lost gas tax revenue. I think some states are even moving towards per-mile fees for EVs, for this purpose. But most road damage is done by big rigs and other heavy vehicles, which are basically all ICE.
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.
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/
I couldn't find anything more recent that this but apparently it has made the streets safer for pedestrians too. "Traffic fatalities in the Congestion Pricing zone are down 40% from last year."
This is from July 2025: https://transalt.org/press-releases/new-data-from-transporta...
This is from July 2025: https://transalt.org/press-releases/new-data-from-transporta...
"average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
I think that the numbers are already low enough that the drop is actually not very significant, at all. Is there any data that shows better health outcomes at 8 vs 13 for PM 2.5 levels? From my understanding adverse health outcomes come at exposure over the long term to higher levels like 30 minimum
For context I have several air purifiers in my home and I'm all for better air quality but the percentage difference makes it sound like a much bigger drop but when these numbers are already so small I just am skeptical it really makes a difference...
I think that the numbers are already low enough that the drop is actually not very significant, at all. Is there any data that shows better health outcomes at 8 vs 13 for PM 2.5 levels? From my understanding adverse health outcomes come at exposure over the long term to higher levels like 30 minimum
For context I have several air purifiers in my home and I'm all for better air quality but the percentage difference makes it sound like a much bigger drop but when these numbers are already so small I just am skeptical it really makes a difference...
This is not accurate. The WHO (which recommends lower levels than US authorities) recommends an annual PM 2.5 level below 5 µg/m³: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/WHO-Air-Quality-Gu...
But more importantly, when it comes to PM 2.5 levels, there are really no safe levels, the risks are just dose dependent, so lower is always better. In a city the size of NYC, lowering air pollution by 20% means a significant decrease in effects.
To give a good analogy, driving a car on the US is still quite safe, most of us take that risk, but still, thousands die annually from car accidents. A one fifth reduction in deaths from car accidents, even from its current low level, would be a major deal. In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution.
But more importantly, when it comes to PM 2.5 levels, there are really no safe levels, the risks are just dose dependent, so lower is always better. In a city the size of NYC, lowering air pollution by 20% means a significant decrease in effects.
To give a good analogy, driving a car on the US is still quite safe, most of us take that risk, but still, thousands die annually from car accidents. A one fifth reduction in deaths from car accidents, even from its current low level, would be a major deal. In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution.
That's the strictest "policy" I've seen and I was asking about any specific health data not WHO guidelines
"In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution."
A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
"In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution."
A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
> A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
Yes, it will, and that's the point I was making.
There are some things that have no harmful affects below certain concentrations, in that they are not toxic at low levels. PM 2.5 particles are not one of those - they are toxic at all levels. It's quite similar, in this context, to ionizing radiation. There is no safe level of ionizing radiation - every X-ray you get will slightly increase your chance of getting cancer. Of course, in the risk/benefit analysis, the risk is low and the benefits for medical X-rays are high.
It's the same with PM 2.5 pollution - every percentage reduction results in fewer health effects and related deaths. It's fine to argue that some level of pollution is worth it to get the benefits of industrialization, but it's simply false to say a reduction from 12 to 8 PM 2.5 levels won't reduce related deaths.
Yes, it will, and that's the point I was making.
There are some things that have no harmful affects below certain concentrations, in that they are not toxic at low levels. PM 2.5 particles are not one of those - they are toxic at all levels. It's quite similar, in this context, to ionizing radiation. There is no safe level of ionizing radiation - every X-ray you get will slightly increase your chance of getting cancer. Of course, in the risk/benefit analysis, the risk is low and the benefits for medical X-rays are high.
It's the same with PM 2.5 pollution - every percentage reduction results in fewer health effects and related deaths. It's fine to argue that some level of pollution is worth it to get the benefits of industrialization, but it's simply false to say a reduction from 12 to 8 PM 2.5 levels won't reduce related deaths.
So about ionising radiation: UNSCEAR recommendation is to act as if no threshold effect exist at low doses for indeterministic effects (even though effectively we act as if a 100mSv threshold exists), but the medical literature isn't as clear cut. Precautionary principle should be respected in any cases.
The most recent epidemiology studies (studies on _very_ large cohort) do seems to favour a linear model without threshold (or, if the threshold exists, it is so low ambient radiation is enough to go past it), so I think you're right, but I wanted to nitpick because you wrote it like it was settled science and it's not yet, so I had to look up the PM 2.5 stuff too.
The most recent epidemiology studies (studies on _very_ large cohort) do seems to favour a linear model without threshold (or, if the threshold exists, it is so low ambient radiation is enough to go past it), so I think you're right, but I wanted to nitpick because you wrote it like it was settled science and it's not yet, so I had to look up the PM 2.5 stuff too.
Thanks for investigating and adding detail, very helpful info.
> I think that the numbers are already low enough
Is that low? I don’t know what is considered high or low here.
Is that low? I don’t know what is considered high or low here.
What did it do to GDP? (Sincerely asking)
I wonder myself this too. Would people have to say "If NYC was a country would its GDP be 11th largest in the world compared to being the 12th largest GDP in the world like in 2024?"
What we can quantify is the economic impact the San Antonio River Walk has or the impact the Atlanta Beltline has which is billions of dollars in added economic activity. Based on those examples, likely it will increase the NYC GDP by millions if not hundreds of millions. We can prove with dollar amounts getting rid of cars in these cases increase the GDP by billions but in NYC they are only decreasing them so probably won't have the positive impact completely getting rid of cars does.
What we can quantify is the economic impact the San Antonio River Walk has or the impact the Atlanta Beltline has which is billions of dollars in added economic activity. Based on those examples, likely it will increase the NYC GDP by millions if not hundreds of millions. We can prove with dollar amounts getting rid of cars in these cases increase the GDP by billions but in NYC they are only decreasing them so probably won't have the positive impact completely getting rid of cars does.
No city has reliable data on this for a fleet of reasons. The high quality data tends to show little effect on retail foot traffic, slightly more reliable commute times, and then the wealth of health benefits. Linking this to output seems to be beyond economists for cities that have done something similar (London, Stockholm, Milan, etc)
Is this an AI assisted answer?
Doubting the humanity of other community members ought to be against guidelines
Not every comment that disagrees with you was written by a computer
Anecdotally, living in London where we have congestion charge, I doubt it changed GDP much. GDP is basically total spend and if people don't spend on one thing they'll probably spend on another.
In terms of real economic output I'd guess it helped a bit as it made things quicker for workmen who needed to get around while reducing the more leisure driving. But we've had lots of much larger changes like covid and brexit that would probably drown things out in the numbers.
In terms of real economic output I'd guess it helped a bit as it made things quicker for workmen who needed to get around while reducing the more leisure driving. But we've had lots of much larger changes like covid and brexit that would probably drown things out in the numbers.
Since GDP growth in the US is dependant on medical care and on new car sales, it probably decreased it on the short term.
A sudden decrease in car crash would probably decrease the GDP the year it happen, then the fact that less people are dying or disabled would probably increase it in the long run. It will probably have the same effect here.
A sudden decrease in car crash would probably decrease the GDP the year it happen, then the fact that less people are dying or disabled would probably increase it in the long run. It will probably have the same effect here.
and downtown activity. i know NYC rebounded better than most us cities, but nearly all of them still ended lower than pre-Covid
How much respiratory disseases and deaths asociated with polution do to GDP? (Sincerely asking)
I'm not sure GDP is a good guide there since whether you drop dead at 60 or 80 doesn't effect the GDP much. Though obviously there's a value to the individual there.
In most of the civilized world the goverment takes a big chunk of the GDP for health care so their citizens dont die.
Does your goverment just let people die?
Does your goverment just let people die?
WFH anyone?
Regressive tax keeps the poor out of area with their older vehicles that pollute more than people who can afford to pay a $9 fee per day. News at 11.
Who are these mythical people who can pay $500/month to park below 60th street but will be bankrupted by the congestion toll?
$1.50 toll on rideshare drivers/users and/or people getting dropped off at work.
> $1.50 toll on rideshare drivers/users and/or people getting dropped off at work
Anyone Ubering to and from work is not among New York's poor.
Anyone Ubering to and from work is not among New York's poor.
You act like driving in NYC is free even without the congestion price. You realize how much it costs to park in Manhattan right? $50/day? And if you are coming from the Jersey side, you realize how much the toll is for the tunnel? $17-27.
So yea, if you're poor, you're not driving your beater to SoHo and parking in a lot for $50 daily.
So yea, if you're poor, you're not driving your beater to SoHo and parking in a lot for $50 daily.
Most people driving into the city aren’t parking in Manhattan. When I was living in west Chester county, I would drive in into midtown and always find street parking near Columbia, free. I was surprised how easy it was to drive into the city because I heard lots of stories that it wasn’t. No tolls either.
I'm confused, if you lived in Westchester and were parking by Columbia why would you be in Midtown? Mind you, it's still like $14-$22 to cross the GWB and if you parked by Columbia after driving down from Westchester you don't have a congestion charge to worry about.
I’m not sure, I’m a bit hazy about the names, it was a dormitory, I never actually saw the school. The dormitory wasn’t on campus. We were interning at IBM Hawthorne at the time and my friend was living at a Columbia dorm and commuting. Sometimes when I took the train the nearest train line stop (to get back to Hawthorne) was Harlem.
I get it, remember the congestion zone isn't the entire borough of Manhattan. It's just below 59th street. And, if you were driving down there, good luck finding parking in the literal densest place on planet earth during work hours (187k people/sqm). Driving in the congestion relief zone is not a right.
(Also, this thread's root was "regressive tax affecting the poor" which I assert again, is just a silly mischaracterization)
(Also, this thread's root was "regressive tax affecting the poor" which I assert again, is just a silly mischaracterization)
Columbia is over 40 blocks north of the congestion zone. You’d be able to do the exact same thing today.
The American mind truly struggles with the concept of people not owning cars
We did perfect their mass production, and it propelled us to the world's largest economy. The only country with better GDP growth over the last 100 years is Japan, and that's in large part because they perfected the manufacture of cars themselves.
Right, it's not the geopolitical situation, but cars. Natural resources + every potentially powerful hostile country is across entire oceans = success.
> We did perfect their mass production
I mean... Toyota would beg to differ (and realistically US car manufacturers today are closer to the Toyota model of car mass production than the traditional US one).
I mean... Toyota would beg to differ (and realistically US car manufacturers today are closer to the Toyota model of car mass production than the traditional US one).
The European mind quivers at the thought of a state with a bigger area than most EU countries
I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
But we're talking about New York City here, not Kansas. Specifically the congestion zone which during the work day is the most congested place in the world (187,500 people/sqm).
> I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
Congestion pricing makes driving in New York better. Broadly speaking, the tendency for someone to have a problem with the scheme is proportional to their distance from and inversely related to the amount of time they've ever spent in New York.
Congestion pricing makes driving in New York better. Broadly speaking, the tendency for someone to have a problem with the scheme is proportional to their distance from and inversely related to the amount of time they've ever spent in New York.
What does the size of the state have to do with anything?
The article says "average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
But 8-9 was already considered a safe level: "Most studies indicate PM2.5 at or below 12 μg/m3 is considered healthy with little to no risk from exposure. If the level goes to or above 35 μg/m3 during a 24-hour period, the air is considered unhealthy." (https://www.indoorairhygiene.org/pm2-5-explained/)
So, good job on reducing pollution, but you already had very safe levels (well, the article doesn't tell us what the old "peak concentrations" were). Since the levels were "little to no risk", the claim of "significant health benefits" (i.e. reduction in disease or death) should be challenged.
But 8-9 was already considered a safe level: "Most studies indicate PM2.5 at or below 12 μg/m3 is considered healthy with little to no risk from exposure. If the level goes to or above 35 μg/m3 during a 24-hour period, the air is considered unhealthy." (https://www.indoorairhygiene.org/pm2-5-explained/)
So, good job on reducing pollution, but you already had very safe levels (well, the article doesn't tell us what the old "peak concentrations" were). Since the levels were "little to no risk", the claim of "significant health benefits" (i.e. reduction in disease or death) should be challenged.
Even if the risk was linear/exponential with threshold at 12 for everyone, including infants and elderly, the 30% average reduction is likely mostly done by smoothing the peaks (since you probably have a base level of PM2.5). So you would have more than a 30% reduction in days in which you are exposed to above-threshold PM2.5
Btw, it's a very legitimate remark, please don't down vote the parent. (Sorry about meta commentary I try to avoid)
Btw, it's a very legitimate remark, please don't down vote the parent. (Sorry about meta commentary I try to avoid)
The hidden risk of round numbers and sharp thresholds in clinical practice:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-02079-y
Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses. Using coarse linguistic categories to argue otherwise is an abuse of the purpose of categories as a linguistic tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-02079-y
Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses. Using coarse linguistic categories to argue otherwise is an abuse of the purpose of categories as a linguistic tool.
Kinda irrelevant, since 12 isn't really a round number (like 10 would be).
Further, the article is essentially saying that there is far less difference between 11 and 13 than might be assumed by a categorical model that says one level is inside the "safe" level and one is outside of it. But that isn't the issue here - 9 was already quite safe, the risk is very close to zero, so going lower doesn't reduce risk much - because the existing risk can't get much lower.
> Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses
Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that unleaded gasoline must be below 0.05 grams of lead per gallon. While the elimination of lead up to this point was a massive benefit to public health, is there any significant health benefit to reducing this further below 0.05? If so, who's claiming that and why haven't the standards changed in 30 years?
Further, the article is essentially saying that there is far less difference between 11 and 13 than might be assumed by a categorical model that says one level is inside the "safe" level and one is outside of it. But that isn't the issue here - 9 was already quite safe, the risk is very close to zero, so going lower doesn't reduce risk much - because the existing risk can't get much lower.
> Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses
Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that unleaded gasoline must be below 0.05 grams of lead per gallon. While the elimination of lead up to this point was a massive benefit to public health, is there any significant health benefit to reducing this further below 0.05? If so, who's claiming that and why haven't the standards changed in 30 years?