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

301–310 of 595 posts

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#301

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

Krssst wrote: post #153
carlosjobim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be incredible if somebody invented a light car, that would transport one or two people and some groceries. Maybe with two wheels instead of four to take up less space. Hmmm why has nobody invented this?

While bicycles are quite convenient for commuting, I am not sure if there is a way for transporting groceries for an entire week for multiple people. Is there such a way? The only solution I see is doing groceries every day.

We do most of our weekly groceries with a grandma cart, a cargo bike fits much more.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#302

Post by tschwimmer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #70
trollbridge wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But spews forth more rubber (and plastic, since that's what tyres are made from these days), which is an ongoing problem for Tesla EVs when owners discover their tyres don't last nearly as long because they're transmitting power both when starting and stopping, not just when starting.

I don’t understand this concept. I would expect an ICE and an EV vehicle with the same weight, speed, deceleration, tires, etc to have the same wear on tires. The difference being the energy to stop an ICE being transferred to the brake pads and rotors, rather than recharging the EV’s battery. What am I missing? Why wouldn’t the tires experience the same forces in both scenarios?

You're only considering braking, and for that case you're right. You're not considering acceleration, where EVs supply near maximum torque instantly when you press the accelerator pedal. This causes increased wear in tires, I've seen estimates of 20%.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#303

Post by kspacewalk2 »

robocat wrote: post #296
ahaucnx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that there has been fundamental mistakes and overstatements in the amount of particles from brakes in much of the secondary research in the last decades. Details: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792

Greens seem to deceive in the same way as green-washing except with greener deceptions (whereas green-washing is capitalists pretending to be green). Example: a report on the cost-benefit of using bicycles, that comes out with a fantastic positive number for introducing a cycle lane. Except the number depends on a monetary estimate of the benefits to society for health improvements. I'm sure the health improvements e…

It would be great if you could cite the report you're talking about, so we can judge for ourselves whether you're steel-manning or straw-manning its methodology.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#304

Post by FredPret »

thehappypm wrote: post #108
FredPret wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because they weigh more

“They weigh more” is something I kinda have a problem with. People act like EVs are these behemoths, but your typical EV is hardly an outlier. The Tesla Model 3, for example, weighs as much as a Honda CRV. Yes, that’s a different car class; but nobody looks at a CRV and complains about its weight and the environmental impact of that weight on air quality nearly the same way.

I just looked it up and wow, you're right. A Cybertruck weighs less than an F250 depending on specs

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#305

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #239
jltsiren wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to traffic and urban planning, Paris is best understood as a city of 10+ million people. The administrative subdivision called Paris has only ~2 million people, but the city doesn't end at its borders.

Yes, however there is little urban planning for whole metro, and the administrative level we are talking about here is the intra-muros one. When the mayor decided to reduce the speed on the outer loop, she didn't notify nor discussed with the rest of the metro, for instance. And the measures discussed in the article are specific to Paris.

> Yes, however there is little urban planning for whole metro

Paris biggest infrastructure project for the past 20 years is called "Grand Paris" and revolve entirely around the whole metro. Actually there is literally no urban planning not involving the whole metro. And yes, lowering the speed limit involved multiple consultations with the prefect and the region because it impacts the whole metro.

Considering Paris without its metropole doesn’t make sense. Paris intra-muros is ridiculously small, one eightieth of London, 80% of San Francisco.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#306

Post by gambiting »

domoritz wrote: post #111
bornfreddy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would also expect that EVs wouldn't emit that many particles from brakes since the brakes typically wear much more slowly than with ICE cars.

But they are heavier. Not saying it offsets the effect but it's just not straight forward to assume either way.

My Volvo XC60 T8 is not even a full EV but after 5 years of ownership the brakes on this 2200kg, 400bhp SUV are only 10% worn - it's all thanks to regenerative braking with the EV motor. It definitely makes a massive impact on how quickly the brakes wear out(as in - much much much less than in a normal car).

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#307

Post by iknowstuff »

merman wrote: post #292
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not inherently heavier. They're only heavier if you put a long-range battery in them, even then it's not by very much, and even that may not persist as higher energy density batteries are developed. Or to put it another way, the difference between a small car and a large SUV is far greater than the difference between an electric car and a gasoline car.

Size for size they’re heavier. Maybe someday not but they are.

The Standard Range model 3 weighs 3,582 lbs, while the Long Range and Performance trims both weigh 4,065 lbs.

The BMW 3 Series has a curb weight ranging from 3,536 to 4,180 pounds

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#308

Post by robin_reala »

impossiblefork wrote: post #288
10-1-100 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth noting that with modern emissions standards (and transition to EVs), over 50% of handful particulates come from tires, brakes, road surface wear, and resuspended dust: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate... I don't think there's any healthy level of private cars coexisting with humans in a city, without even considering the more immediate harms from crashes, etc.

What if the cars were made really light? Four bicycle wheels, as many batteries as you can safely put on something supported by four bicycle wheels, an aerodynamic CFRP bubble for the driver etc? I think such a vehicle can be better than one thinks, with acceptable range, acceptable particle emissions, acceptable noise levels; and I think they could easily get to 80 km/h safely.

Seeing as we’re talking Paris, there are plenty of Twizys around. Not light light, but a third the weight of even a new Renault 5 EV. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#309

Post by fzeroracer »

goatlover wrote: post #235
Zigurd wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private cars are an economic sinkhole. They make no financial sense. My town in the exurbs used to have rail service and stagecoaches. The necessity of private cars is a marketing triumph. Not a choice.

I like the freedom a private car gives me. I can go anywhere at anytime. I have nothing against public transportation and want it to be good. But you can't go everywhere at anytime. Here I'm including the country side and smaller towns.

> But you can't go everywhere at anytime

This is a solved problem in countries with modern public transportation. In Japan for example you can go across the entire country without needing a single car, and indeed it's both cheaper and more available than doing so while driving. If you need to go somewhere really far out of the way that is not reachable by foot or bicycle, then you can rent a car.

All of this results in a system that is far cheaper for you and far more open for the average individual.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#310

Post by rufus_foreman »

alistairSH wrote: post #188
itsmartapuntocm wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Here's the sub-heading from the article you linked to:

"The story: Robert Moses ordered engineers to build the Southern State Parkway’s bridges extra-low, to prevent poor people in buses from using the highway. The truth? It’s a little more complex"

Post reply on HN