Hacker News Reader

Comment by agentgt | Hacker News Reader

I think this could be a big deal depending on future politics. I would not be surprised if Manhattan in 10 years or so only allows etrucks over the bridge (with certain exemptions of course).

If that happens there could be some interesting but boring (oxymoron intended) business opportunities like transfer stations at the borders of urban areas (switch engines).

This could also dramatically improve the safety of trucks as there are still an enormous amount of trucks that are not automatic and do not have antilock breaks (or whatever the analogous tech is these days).

By mandating electric engines the safety improvements could be had at the same time.

I like the name: eTruck.

View on HN

If the mayor of NYC has his way, that could happen. But unfortunately Albany (the capital of NY) will override it.

See the attempts by NYC to set up congestion pricing but Albany won't allow it happen.[1]

Personally I think other cities will start this first such as London, LA, Paris, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York...

Stockholm has congestion pricing since since 2007.

Prices are between $0 and $5 depending on the time and day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing#Stockholm

Sorry I meant in terms of requiring only eTrucks in business districts of major cities, not congestion pricing.

Just saying that NYC tried to have congestion pricing only to be overruled. And I'm sure they'll aim for eTrucks only requirement but will be overruled by Albany because that's what Albany does.

And that other cities (Stockholm I'm sure) will be at the forefront of the new eTruck revolution as soon as it's commercially viable.

You say that like you're unaware that NYC basically runs NY from the perspective of anyone living anywhere but the NYC are in NY.

Same for CA and SV, MA and Boston, IL and Chicago. In states with one dominant city that city runs the show for the most part. If the dominant city can't get something done it's either because it's BS and shouldn't get done in the first place, would screw most of the rest of the state or because they need to wait to politically recharge after ramming something that fell into one of the former two categories down everyone's throat.

Why are Albany and NYC in constant tension then, if NYC runs NY?

You speak like someone who doesn't follow NY politics.

[0]NYC: The 51st State! [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City:_the_51st_State

Does LA really have credible public transit alternatives such that people don't actually need personal cars? Doesn't seem like it.

London has had the Congestion Charge since 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

Reply on news.ycombinator.com