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

341–350 of 595 posts

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#341

Post by dkga »

carlosjobim wrote: post #121
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.

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?

I‘m delighted to introduce to you the amazing microlino.ch

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#342

Post by toomanyrichies »

saltysalt wrote: post #337
stouset wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who, exactly, would you like to monitor air quality and who, exactly, do you think should be funding it?

Someone without bias, obviously.

“Someone without bias” is indeed obvious, and therefore unhelpful. Can you be more specific? Who, precisely, doesn’t have a dog in the climate change fight?

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#343

Post by rufus_foreman »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #339
rufus_foreman wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

[flagged]

"to prevent poor people in buses from using the highway"

No evidence whatsoever for that motivation. You could take the bus to the beach.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#344

Post by Ericson2314 »

pornel wrote: post #321
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.

Heavy particles and gaseous emissions are not comparable in such a simplistic way. If you take a dump on the street it doesn't mean you caused 50 million times more emissions than the EPA limits for ICE car exhaust. For example, iron from brakes is heavy but ecologically pretty harmless. OTOH NO₂ weighs almost nothing, but is toxic. You can eat 30mg of iron per day to stay healthy (just don't lick it off the asphalt…

the break pad and tire particles in question are not so large they precipitate immediately. They aren't iron but rather real/synthetic rubber and other organics. There is research on them being bad for human health.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#345

Post by dghlsakjg »

Saline9515 wrote: post #100
oblio wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be real here, a huge chunk of car traffic in cities is purely for convenience. Once that's reduced by say, 50%, everything becomes much better, but nobody gives up convenience voluntarily.

The problem is that, among casualties, you create an environment that is hostile for families and disabled people.

I can assure you that there are disabled people who really don’t like car oriented environments since so many disabilities preclude driving.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#346

Post by Ericson2314 »

impossiblefork wrote: post #313
robin_reala wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mm. Now that I see it in real life I don't know how I feel about it. It doesn't feel safe when I see a Twizy, but when I see these cars in my mind I see them on Swedish bicycle roads. The whole thing would probably require a total transformation of city travel.

The regulatory regime will take a minute to figure out, but with tiny vehicles like this + good transit + closing streets to regular big cars, we'll figure it out.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#347

Post by saltysalt »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #342
saltysalt wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone without bias, obviously.

“Someone without bias” is indeed obvious, and therefore unhelpful. Can you be more specific? Who, precisely, doesn’t have a dog in the climate change fight?

How specific am I supposed to be, do you want names, resumes, potential investors?

Not my problem to solve.

However, I no longer accept published reports at face value, unless I check who the authors are, and who funds them. They even have a Cruchbase page, it's easy to check for yourself.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#348

Post by dublinben »

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.

Nothing says freedom like being required to spend thousands of dollars just to get around and participate in society. Imagine how "free" the roughly one-third of folks who are too young, too old, too disabled, etc. to drive a car feel when trying to go about their lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0MVCyOjvtk

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#349

Post by wtallis »

jopsen wrote: post #93
netsharc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, imagine EVs that have removable add-on batteries that you'd only plug in for the longer trips.. Like the Thinkpads with the "bigger battery" humps: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_ap/photo/l/lenovo-thi/lenovo-th...

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 :)

Speed limits for towing smaller trailers mostly derive from safety concerns about overloaded or imbalanced trailers being unstable at high speeds. A battery-only trailer with little or no cargo space, designed and certified in conjunction with specific tow vehicles, could easily be safe enough to operate at highway speeds.

I think the main reason why we don't see anyone seriously pursuing the battery trailer idea is that it would be an expensive niche product. It would have to be mostly a rental-only product, and offer few advantages over simply renting a more suitable vehicle.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#350

Post by [deleted] »

epolanski wrote: post #77
grg0 wrote: post #31

Cars in cities, let alone designing cities around cars, is one of the greatest tragedies of modern life.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN