Gothamist: NYC Air Quality Getting Worse than Other Cities

sonyactivision

Sat, 03 May 2008 02:24:29 -0500

New York doesn't need more regulation, it just needs higher smokestacks.

megs

Fri, 02 May 2008 04:44:39 -0500

If Bloomberg keeps outfitting his developer cronies in new big boxes, with no infrastructure or costs to them to support their windfalls, soon we'll be like Tokyo, sleeping in drawers and such, packed like sardines. If mass transit was free, people would leave their cars at home. It would be a viable solution, if so much of our tax dollars weren't going to prisons we don't need upstate, and wars we don't need in Washington.

Spiritof76

Thu, 01 May 2008 23:21:12 -0500

That photo almost reminds me of Bladerunner.

angry_pickle

Thu, 01 May 2008 22:47:12 -0500

Has anyone walked around the financial district lately? It is a total construction zone! WTC, condors, buildings all over the place, roads getting torn out. You literally are eating dust when you walk through there during the weekday.

likesrudylikesbooty

Thu, 01 May 2008 18:41:40 -0500

It may be safe to assume that NYC has undergone similar changes in the years. Growth in population and large-scale development need energy, and it is reasonable to think demand will increase as the city grows. I can only imagine how much those ConEd plants spew out to power the city. And that is only one source. I agree that every bit counts, but that only works if people actually stop driving due to the fee. Most will find a way to justify and offset the cost. Think of how the city relies on transport to go about its daily business.

JMH

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:42:18 -0500

London has been growing in a number of ways in recent years, including in population and in large-scale construction. While the levels of pollutants in the air may be similar, levels of automobile emissions have decreased, suggesting that there is some other factor leading to the overall levels of pollutants and that those levels might have increased absent the congestion charge. A spokesperson for Transport for London (TfL) told New Scientist that congestion charging cut emissions of nitrogen oxides by 8% and particulate matter created by diesel engines by 15%. "A number of factors mean these do not necessarily feed through to observable improvements in air quality."

likesrudylikesbooty

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:02:35 -0500

But...but... London has a congestion fee. It has improved air quality. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn13809-london-congestion-charge-did-not-improve-air-quality.html Ok. Maybe not.

Politburo

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:10:52 -0500

Relative rankings are meaningless.. what about absolute quality? The linked website does not appear to have 2007 data.

interlard

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:01:07 -0500

Perhaps we can pump our sh*tty air into the assembly in Albany and see what they think of congestion pricing then?

xnan

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:29:57 -0500

Hmmmmmmmmm... Shoulda read:"One May 31st, the ALA is holding the Breathe NYC Asthma Walk 2004...

Ronkonkoma Ondinnonk

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:26:22 -0500

Well put, JMH.

xnan

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:17:46 -0500

FYI: "One May 31st, the ALA is holding the Breathe NYC Asthma Walk 2004..." This is not a good way to transmit info nor increase participation. Try proofreading just once... it really does make a difference!! (You're perilously close to Jen's editing skills here. I'm just sayin'.)

edEx

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:02:08 -0500

Thankfully congestion pricing was turned down by the nit wits in Albany. We're back on top baby!!!

JMH

Thu, 01 May 2008 13:58:24 -0500

Sure is a good thing we don't have congestion pricing.