Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 595 posts

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#181

Post by flomo »

jmward01 wrote: post #141
flomo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the myth. Streetcars were actually torn up because busses were much cheaper, there was no conspiracy. The streetcars were also old and cold and ppl hated them. (I lived in a streetcar part of SF, and loved it, fwiw. But the only reason it's still there is a tunnel.)

That is a statement that really needs citation and qualification to back it up. I'd argue that 'cheaper' is used in a vacuum here. By that I mean that the point of mass transit isn't how much it costs, but how much value it provides. By that measure the bus services that replaced streetcars and other mass transit really doesn't stack up. Busses have led to much lower ridership which has led to a massive amount of bad…

The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line.

I think you're making a different argument, where trains attract a more well-heeled commuter. Which is why many cities have brought back LRT as part of a redevelopment plan.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#182

Post by bryanlarsen »

potato3732842 wrote: post #48
usrusr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lighter cars, really, that's it. Make vehicles that match the transportation case in question instead of palaces on wheels that carry battery sized for solving some once in a year use case. And/or make them go slower.

You can use harder rubber compounds but that's a non-starter because longer stopping distances.

It is common for electric cars to use harder rubber compounds in their tires. Not because of particulates, but because tire noise is particularly noticeable in an otherwise quiet electric car, and because tire life is a concern for EV drivers.

Luckily, both reduced noise and increased life are fairly well correlated with reduced particulate emission.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#183

Post by const_cast »

bslalwn wrote: post #156
epolanski wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's one of the biggest promoters of inequality. I am an European who studied at OSU in Columbus for a semester and it was absurd to me how on one side there was lots of work downtown, yet you could live 20 miles of it and it would take you two hours by public transport to get there, an odyssey. People without a car, insurance, poorer parts of the society were cut off from the job market for not having a way to c…

[flagged]

The prices of cars have “skyrocketed” because the price is now closer to what they actually cost. Meaning, less is being externalized.

Cars are inequality-creators because the drivers offload the cost to everyone, including those who don’t drive. Car centric decisions, air pollution, interstates and freeways, parking lots.

It’s very much akin to tobacco. Tobacco used to be cheap - when the tobacco wouldn’t pay for your addiction, or your COPD, or your eventual death. Now they do - a tiny bit - and tobacco is expensive.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#184

Post by heresie-dabord »

EA-3167 wrote: post #95
1over137 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have that danger. But the animals are homo sapiens and they are surrounded by 2 tonnes of metal. :)

This is true, but from the perspective of the time, automobiles were far from "2 tons of metal" and quite a bit slower. They were also a rich man's conveyance, even more so than a nice carriage, and I doubt people understood early on just how widely adopted the automobile would become. A lack of foresight is also very human.

>A lack of foresight is also very human.

Let's call it what it really is. The stubborn unwillingness to consider scalability in our designs and planning — even in an era where a machine can do calculation for us.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#185

Post by bryanlarsen »

Saline9515 wrote: post #180
bryanlarsen wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are fewer cars on the road, there is a lot less traffic, and driving because much easier for those who are car-dependent. Example: the Netherlands.

Netherlands have as many cars as most the developed nations.

Yes, but they're used less frequently. Most middle class people have a car, but they're often only used for irregular trips. Commuting and errands use alternative means at much higher rates than elsewhere.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#186

Post by Saline9515 »

andrepd wrote: post #161
Saline9515 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids can't play in streets as now the new predators are cyclists who don't slow down or get down of their bikes. Besides, cars are a staple for families, and hardly substituable. Good luck doing groceries for 6 without one.

It's mind boggling to me that this is a genuine comment. I suggest this yt channel as a start to open your eyes as to how yes, another world is possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

I live in Riga, here cyclists ride on the sidewalk, along with e-scooters. I went out for a ten minutes walk with my son, I had to physically and verbally intervene three times to avoid him being hit by a cyclist or e-scooter. Last month our nanny was hit by a cyclist. In Paris it is very common and the main reason they banned e-scooters.

So, while the US paradigm is toxic, I'm not convinced about the one you are proposing, given that, in my experience, cyclists are ruthless and never behave unless I physically intimidate them. And I would rather walk in peace.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#187

Post by bluecalm »

clayhacks wrote: post #122
EasyMark wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburbs are fine. We are in 2025, not 1925, there is no reason why work from home isn't an option for information workers and others who don't need to be physically on premises. You are completely ignoring how much that cuts down on traffic and would lower the cost of real estate, so more people who aren't millionaires could live downtown. We also have electric cars that have basically zero emissions, there is a tech…

Work from home is great, but there’s more to life than work. Being walking distance or public transport distance to the rest of life’s activities is also great. And EVs aren’t saving the planet they are saving the car industry. They still cause tire particulate pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, and need tons of rare earth minerals

Don't forget the most important scarce resource they require: space. We waste so much space for parking and other car friendly infrastructure there often is not enough left for a a bike line or even a sidewalk let alone some actually pleasant peaceful passage people could use.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#188

Post by alistairSH »

itsmartapuntocm wrote: post #178
epolanski wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's one of the biggest promoters of inequality. I am an European who studied at OSU in Columbus for a semester and it was absurd to me how on one side there was lots of work downtown, yet you could live 20 miles of it and it would take you two hours by public transport to get there, an odyssey. People without a car, insurance, poorer parts of the society were cut off from the job market for not having a way to c…

It’s all by design. Car dependent suburbs with no transit access make it easier to keep “undesirables” out of your neck of the woods. Robert Moses infamously made great use of infrastructure and urban planning to reinforce redlining.

Just one example. He required bridges be built too low for buses to pass, limiting access to parks and beaches to those who owned cars…

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-mo...

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#189

Post by sokoloff »

netsharc wrote: post #127
jopsen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A battery trailer might affect the speed limit your allowed to drive. But it would be cool to just rent the extra 500km when needed :)

Obviously a trailer would not be a clever idea, but Nio already has cars with swappable batteries, for short distances you could just install a battery pack which is maybe 20% battery and 80% empty space https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZy603as5w

It’s enough of a pain in the ass to swap summer and winter tires, and that’s something that (some) people only do twice a year. I can’t imagine people wanting to swap battery packs (either themself or by making an appointment at a service center) before and after every long trip.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#190

Post by sorcerer-mar »

notyourwork wrote: post #145
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tax road consumption so people who use the roads actually pay for them. It is amazing what this has achieved in Manhattan.

Poor taxes are not a great solution with respect to equality.

https://www.mta.info/fares-tolls/tolls/congestion-relief-zon...

Pretty trivial to discount/exempt people as is done in NYC.

An even simpler starting point (which we should actually do for all road-related fees like tickets IMO) is to set fees by the KBB value of the vehicle in question. Let people contest them in court if they want.

Post reply on HN