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.
Details: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792
A lot of EVs even have smart “blended” brake pedals that preferentially apply regen braking when you press the pedal. Only in particularly hard stops will the friction brakes get used.
An easy way to test/observe this is simply to check for wear on the brake pads of EVs compared to combustion vehicles of similar mileage.
Tires, on the other hand, do tend to wear out quicker in an EV. Partly due to weight and also due to higher performance/acceleration compared to combustion models.
But I know at least one EV maker that has a manually selected mode that guides you through driving with the brakes engaged for surface treatment, as rust buildup will be the main issue.
A BYD Dolphin, roughly sized like a VW Polo, is some 400kg heavier than the polo. A Polestar 2 is roughly 500 kg heavier than equivalent sized cars. In other words, something like 33% heavier.
It’s moronic. But that’s how it works and why cars are getting bigger and bigger.
BYD Dolphin weight 1600kg, length 4290mm.
VW Polo weight 1580kg, length 3971 mm.
https://www.automobiledimension.com/model/byd/dolphin
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/cars/volkswagen-po...
VW Polo Mk6 is 1751mm wide, 1461mm tall, 4067mm long and has an unloaded curb weight of 1105 kg. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Polo_Mk6
The BYD Dolphin 2025 60kWh is 1770mm wide, 1570mm tall, 4290mm long, and has an unloaded curb weight of 1658 kg. https://bydautomotive.com.au/brochures/BYD-DOLPHIN-2025.pdf.
The VW Golf Mk8 might be a better comparison with an unloaded curb weight of 1255 kg, which reduces the gap from 543kg to 403kg.
(Note that for the gasoline and diesel cars, lighter trims give longer range, whereas it is opposite for electric cars, and that a fully loaded 45L tank of a polo weighs less than 40kg, especially if gasoline)
2025 BYD Dolphin, length 4290mm height 1570mm, curb weight 1506kg - 1658 kg
2025 VW Golf, length 4282 mm height 1483 mm, gasoline empty weight 1307 kg - 1492 kg
https://www.volkswagen.de/de/modelle/golf.html/__ui/technisc...
The BYD is taller to offset the battery, making the size misleading. However, the golf is not particularly a particularly good or space efficient car - others will do better at similar or lower weight.
250kg seems like a fair minimum weight increase, roughly 20%. The larger the car, the larger the gap though, as the rocket equation catches up - see a Skoda Octavia vs. a Polestar 2.
EVs are still way more efficient, but that doesn't mean we should turn our blind eye to making an already bad tire problem worse.
EVs are just a better tech in that regard, and buyers are not buying a Dolphin or golf based on torque or max HP. They're compacts in the same space. Someone looking at a dolphin would more likely be looking at the lighter eco motors.
This is true in other tiers too, e.g. a performance tier gasoline car might be 250-350 HP, while the same tier EV might start at 450-550hp just because they can.
The difference within a tier, simply based on the fact you're replacing at best a lightweight 100kg engine with 400-500kg worth of battery, can't be as small as you suggest.
With larger EVs, the battery weight is much greater, increasing the impact. Rocket equation and all.
In this context, what is the air speed velocity of an unloaded dolphin? Especially compared to an unladen swallow?
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.
We shouldn’t be singling out EVs if we suddenly care about tire wear… it’s pretty ridiculous.
If we want to reduce particulate pollution, we’d have regulations to govern acceleration on EVs, make tire monitoring more annoying, and have manufacturers certify tires and make compliance required during state emissions inspections, and get aggressive about the motor carrier overweight enforcement.
If Tesla or other EVs have a problem here, it’s that they are putting inappropriate tires on the cars.
Instead the topic is almost exclusively brought up as an attack without any real world studies supporting the ideas presented. Because actual studies show EV’s improve air quality over ICE engines.
But I do think tires are a significant environmental problem, especially in urban areas and when combined with diesel soot. We’re also poisoning soil by allowing shredded tires to be used as mulch, which is gross in many levels. Shredded tires are also used as aggregate for roads, so road wear also contributes to particulate pollution from tires.
The other common issue with EV’s is many don’t integrate the batteries casing as a structural element. Skipping the lead acid battery would also be useful, but that’s a different issue.
My EV6 (pretty heavy car) manual explicitly says "you should probably do some hard breaking from moderate speed to prevent corrosion on the brake discs".
Because 90+% of the time when you press the brake pedal the friction brakes aren't being used at all, it's all regen.
The BMW 3 Series has a curb weight ranging from 3,536 to 4,180 pounds
This whole meme comes from junk science (https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...)
> we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles. Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a factor of over 1,000.
They took plastic shedded by a gas car on non-EV tires, and compared it by weight to safety limits for gaseous emissions. This makes as much sense as saying that a lump of coal has 1,000 times more carbon than the safety limits for carbon monoxide.
I really can't place your comment, you simply start talking about something completely unrelated to what I was talking about.
It's pretty energy intensive to separate crude oil into it's various parts.
And what was the cost to build out and constantly repair the refinery?
The problem you have with your talking points is that solar and wind both have decades of service in them whereas fossil fuels are single use product. Further, once the infrastructure is created large portions of it can be reused when solar and wind hit their end of life. You only need new lines and roads for new installations.
All energy collection will have some environmental impact. It just so happens that fossil fuels have an outsized impact for the energy they create.
I'm not an absolutist about crude oil. It'll likely have a place in society for a long time.
With that said, it's a matter of degree and where it should be deployed.
If, for example, burning 1 gallon of gas sets up a power generation which produces the equivalent of 20 gallons of gas without emissions, that's a worthy trade off.
As it turns out, that's roughly the energy trade-off for new solar/wind installations assuming a pure fossil fuel grid.
What you are saying isn't a gotcha. The entire cycle of CO2 released for fossil fuel use is not comparable to the CO2 released installing renewables. That some is released is meaningless.
But also ... almost a century of brake dust because nobody is going through and vacuuming the tunnels.
[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-informa...
Makes sense, it's just going to be heat anyways. I wonder how often that happens vs the energy getting dumped into the line.
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 exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated. The problem is that by cherry-picking benefits you can simply ignore all monetary benefits of cars (no benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall).
I've seen it in other articles which talk sacharrinely about the benefit of some green tech. But ignoring real costs and certainly not being balanced. The ultra-idealistic greenies are not helping their cause when rubbish is repeated.
https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resour...
" Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics Acadia University, 2013" biased and poorly balanced.
As far as can be determined, no cost-benefit analyses of bicycle facilities have been carried out for locations in Canada.
The daily benefits from one person switching from car travel to bicycle travel for commuting are estimated to be $2.14.
Plus the internal+external "health ben." added up to be about equal to vehicle ownership costs.
See the "analysis" bias?
Perhaps an Acadia University Honours in Economics is toilet paper.
Rubber-stamp a multi-billion dollar highway widening project that won't reduce traffic*, no problem, doesn't deserve any comment. Bike lane? Scrutiny with a fine-tooth comb, subject it to years of studies, complain about the cost, complain about why anyone would want a bike lane - they must be up to something! The slider is jammed 98% over towards 'cars' and still the car drivers are like "Won't someone PLEASE think about the cars?!".
"No benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall" - seriously, you think everyone might have forgotten that cars exist in the twenty seconds between when they last saw one, or heard one, or had to wait to cross a road, or used one, or heard someone talk about one, or saw an advert for one? A study on bike benefits didn't say that cars were great, do you want a study on wheelchair accessibility to talk about the benefits of being able bodied?
> "I'm sure the health improvements exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated"
"Worldwide, we estimate that physical inactivity causes 6% (ranging from 3·2% in southeast Asia to 7·8% in the eastern Mediterranean region) of the burden of disease from coronary heart disease, 7% (3·9–9·6) of type 2 diabetes, 10% (5·6–14·1) of breast cancer, and 10% (5·7–13·8) of colon cancer. Inactivity causes 9% (range 5·1–12·5) of premature mortality, or more than 5·3 million of the 57 million deaths that occurred worldwide in 2008. If inactivity were not eliminated, but decreased instead by 10% or 25%, more than 533 000 and more than 1·3 million deaths, respectively, could be averted every year." - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
*roads are wider than they used to be; if adding lanes reduced traffic, there wouldn't be any traffic these days.
> complain about the cost
Bike lanes in my country are mostly paid for by taxes on cars and petrol. The costs/benefits are often justified by cherry-picked benefits (e.g. reduced car congestion, or reduced pollution). The congestion arguments anecdotally appear to be lies: low usage priority cycle lanes seem to cause extra congestion (through phasing of lights and islands and other traffic controlling features).
Try and fairly point out that the numbers are juggled and you'll get skewered by cyclist ideologues. Read my sister comment where I reference the thesis that was the basis for my original comment.
I have an acquaintance working in our council on improving bike lanes.
I'm not against bikes. I'm against badly biased reports : towards/against both cyclists or cars.
Balanced discussion seems so difficult.
Here's a somewhat biased look at the economics of cycling:
Governments get money in, and they spend money. There's no real sense in which "bike lanes are paid for by petrol taxes", nobody can prove it either way by measuring anything - that's a matter of where they write the numbers in a spreadsheet - it's not the same money, as long as all of it balances. It's an arbitrary accounting choice and you're choosing to raise it as a talking point because it makes car drivers mad, not because it has real world consequences.
> "The costs/benefits are often justified by cherry-picked benefits (e.g. reduced car congestion, or reduced pollution)."
The fact that you default to "the current level of car pollution with tens of millions of cars everywhere is the default" is a bias. That you think "reducing pollution" is cherry picking is a car-bias. That people have to argue for being able to breathe without getting lung cancer as a "nice to have" against a default of cars-for-everything is a massive bias.
> "The congestion arguments anecdotally appear to be lies: low usage priority cycle lanes seem to cause extra congestion (through phasing of lights and islands and other traffic controlling features)."
Public transport (which I will include bike lanes, pavements, sidewalks, L-trains) need to go from where people are, to where people want to go. It's a very car-biased talking point that a city put a bike lane from nowhere to nowhere, and look! The cars are inconvenienced and hardly anybody is using the bikelane, so bike lanes must be the problem, get rid of it. You can't just slap a bike lane in London, decide nobody is using it, and get rid of it. You need enough bike lanes that people can get from where they are, to where they want to go, safely - feeling safe, well lit, clear of mud and snow and muggers and not along a main road - and enough of those safe journeys for long enough that people can change their behaviour. Several rounds of New Year's Resolutions to get fit, months of seeing family and coworkers gradually cycling, increasing numbers of cyclists (or walkers) normalising it, seeing "normal people like me" bringing a bike to work or to the shops not just lycra clad idealists - for large numbers of people to move from car to (foot/bike/bus/tram). Amsterdam started changing towards encouraging cycling in the 1970s and it didn't get a reputation as a bike city for decades. Cars have a hundred and twenty years of being entrenched, multiple generations of people who think cycling is for children and the roads are too dangerous to cycle (they are!) which needs pushing back against.
> "Try and fairly point out that the numbers are juggled and you'll get skewered by cyclist ideologues."
I don't know if you can justify "existing without breathing car exhaust" in economic terms. I don't think one should have to. I don't think one should justify bike lanes in terms of reducing traffic congestion - moving people around effectively needs city planning overviews, zoning changes, joined up public transport where the schedules line up, until it overall becomes convenient to move around without driving. Bike lanes and cycling can be part of it, but you can't justify one bike lane or project in terms of reducing congestion. If one demands that bike lanes be justified in the framework of "good for car drivers" and then rejects the numbers because they've been juggled to fit in terms of "good for car drivers" when that really isn't the point at all, that's not balanced or unbiased.
> "I'm not against bikes. I'm against badly biased reports : towards/against both cyclists or cars."
It's just convenient that dismissing badly biased reports towards bikes means nothing changes, and dismissing badly biased reports in favour of cars means nothing changes, and that continues car dominance, which is nice.
Even starting the sentence "I'm not against bikes" is a bias. Cars parked up and down both sides of every side-road. Solid slow moving car traffic for multiple hours in the morning and evening every weekday. Billions spent on multi-lane motorways moving massive cars with a single person in them. Young drivers revving the bollocks off their engines at midnight, motorbike riders with exhaust volume increasers, pollution, road accidents, burden of cost on car owners, and you start with "I'm not against bikes". It's the millionaire saying "I'm not against helping the homeless, I just don't like the way they're asking for help. I'm just being unbiased and fair".
> "Balanced discussion seems so difficult."
It isn't a balanced world, it's a car-dependent, car-dominated, world, deliberately, by car advertising, governments subsidising car manufacturing, car company lobbying, car company bribing, and capitalism framing everything in terms of profit and having nothing in terms of community, quality of life, wellbeing, welfare, health. It's not an accident that the available land has been dedicated to cars, and that makes cars very convenient. It isn't because cars are inherently convenient it's that we have spent unthinkable amounts of effort carving through hills, flattening rocks, stabilising mud, to make cars convenient. Because cars are expensive so it's good for car companies if lots of people buy them. One can't take an unbiased "fair" position, one must make choices - one can't sit on the fence between "it's important that people can get to home/social/work/shops in many ways" and "it's fine if cars are the only way and if that's a problem for some, tough".
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 directly), but a similar amount of NO₂ would be lethal.
Heavy particles don't stay in the air for long, and don't get easily absorbed into organisms. OTOH gaseous emissions and small particulates from combustion can linger in the air, and can get absorbed into the lungs and the bloodsteam.
Not all particles are the same. Diesel exhaust particulates are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, i.e. pure carcinogen. Whereas I really doubt tire and brake dust has the same health risk "per particle".
Granted it may even be higher! But comparing two different things by simply "number of particles" isn't helpful.
Your conclusion that there is not “any healthy level of private cars coexisting” is heavy handed. There is a balance, but I suspect it’s more of a jealousy/equality issue. Heavily taxed and high quality requirements can surely lead to a healthy coexisting. Limiting trips to when they are truly worth the cost is an equation to be solved.
For taxing cars, you’re still leaving so much car infrastructure out there. It swallows the world. Six months ago for the first time ever I got a job where I could bike to work. The world is so much different from a bike. It becomes clear how dangerous cars are to humans, and how they chop up our cities in to little rectangles. I’m constantly at risk of being hit by cars that don’t stop. I love being on my bike. I feel like I’m part of the world. I ride rain or shine thanks to nice gear. We give up so much to have a world with cars. We could move our road budgets to trains and bike paths and have so much more space and health and life.
But I will curse at the stink of the exhaust from the crappy old motor when you ride by. Try an e-bike (you can get one built more locally surely), or an e-Vespa (or hell, make that your project to convert the vintage Vespa into a silent sleeper Vespa with crazy performance!). Electric is so, so much more fun.
Worrying about that small amount of “critical minerals” needed for a bike/Vespa is a conspiracy to distract you from the fact that oil is also extracted and has negative externalities, we just live with those already.
> Think of blue collar workers that are hungry
The what now?
> exhausted
There aren't many jobs that physically exhaust you to the point of not being able to walk (biking is no harder than walking). Especially since leg muscles are super hard to tire out.
> people getting older
Pretty much the same as above. If anything, the elderly prefer biking to walking, it's easier on the joints.
> Its fucking annoying to wait for the bus that does not show up
Less or more annoying than waiting when your car breaks down?
> Electric bikes are no solution, the minerals and energy must be produced to transport people like me.
Right, manufacturing a 30kg bike has costs, unlike manufacturing a 1500kg car.
> No new vehicle was produced, no rare earth was needed.
That's not how the economy works. Also, buying used is better than buying new if everything else is equal (it's not in this case), but whatever vehicle you bought was produced at some point.
> Fuel is produced every day for the plastics of the EV and for many other things like pharmacy and so on.
Er, what? I guess you think your vehicle is made out of grass and runs on water or something?
> Sure you are right with vegan biking, but not all folks can do it.
Not all folks can do it, so let's stick with 99% of people using cars to get around :)
Nice try with the vegan rage-bait.
Even my most reactionary and car-loving extended family members had this opinion when they visited :)
I owned a car once, it was sometimes convenient, interesting & fun, but it was also often infuriating, terrifying and expensive. If I can pull it off, I'd prefer to never own one again. I don't really care if anyone else owns them, I just don't want to subsidize them or have their externalities imposed on me.
An alternative to outright bans is to make some good faith attempt at estimating externalities and internalizing them, and reducing subsidies such as free, or below market rate public land for private vehicle operation & storage. But this is difficult and it's not clear the politics of it would be much better than an outright bans. If a good faith effort determined that operating a car while not being subsidized and not inflicting externalities on others, cost a significant amount of money, then the whole effort would be castigated as limiting driving to the very rich, and probably wouldn't go very far. So it feels like we end up with either "everyone drives everywhere all the time for everything and it's the govt's job to shovel public funds & land at it" or outright bans in popular areas.
Cars, oil, and the internal combustion engine, are all tremendously useful, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But all tools have their ideal uses and all tools can be misused & overused to bad ends, both for the tool user and for others.
A world of 100% gasoline car ownership where the car was simply a fun toy for kick ass weekend road trips, and cities had never been bulldozed to make room for them as substitutes for our legs, would be a pretty great world, even if it involved a bit more pollution/externalities/subsidies than some utopian car free world.
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.
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.
That is the best answer.
For a little while in the 80s (remnants of the fuel crisis of the 70s) this was the trend. Go light and then efficiency is guaranteed. Combine with a small efficient engine and that's the optimal solution. A CRX HF from 1988 could do 44 MPG, with an engine that compared to current fuel injection technology is very crude and inefficient.
I want to buy a car that is basically this CRX HF but with 25+ years of engine and materials improvements. It could easily be a 1500lb car getting 60MPG.
But, no. Manufacturers (to some extent forced by terrible government rules) have gone heavier and heavier and heavier and heavier. Which is worse in every possible way.
Colin Chapman had it right: simplify, then add lightness.
A similar thing is happening with electric bikes and scooters. This was all possible with gasoline but with the lower mechanical complexity this is really taking off.
This results in a wider range for bike like vehicles which replaces a lot of car trips.
The real hurdle to people getting rid of their mostly stationary cars (not everyday for work drivers) is that renting a car is a horrible experience and car shares are also bad mostly. But as the space for personal cars shrinks I suspect this will improve over time.
https://aptera.us/article/how-does-the-weight-of-aptera-comp...
Looks like the Renault Twizy is only 990lbs with a 28 mph top speed, so a much smaller vehicle.
That said, there might be something to it:
1. The "bicycle that's more like a car" angle: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H0jtCfdvwH4, https://youtu.be/9B0eXmbrBIo?t=30
2. The "car that's more like a bicycle" angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0
Concentrating humans together into a small locality, which is what a city is, will inherently have a significant environmental impact. Cities before private cars were still quite polluted, because transportation still has to take place just to keep the city running. Electric vehicles are the best-case scenario for truck deliveries, construction vehicles, and everything else you need to keep a city running on a day-to-day basis.
Moreover, you have to consider all cities in this analysis, not just posh, post-industrial cities like those in the US and Western Europe. Manufacturing has to take place somewhere, and logistics considerations imply that most manufacturing will be located next to transportation infrastructure. Just like any other economic activity, manufacturing benefits from talent clusters (a major reason cities exist), so manufacturing will tend to concentrate in cities as well, or at least the suburbs, which you can easily observe in China.
If you really hate air pollution, move to the country and be willing to sacrifice the advantages of cities.
It would be an insane amount of roads, cabling, water pipes, etc.
Cities are bad for human health, but good for the environment.
i really do hate air pollution! it drove me away from idaho, where 2-3 months of the year massive forest fires would choke the air and force everyone inside (gave my kids asthma).
we recently moved away from a suburb near two highways, out to a rural area where we are half a mile from the nearest paved road.
besides the lowered air pollution, the lower noise pollution is a huge benefit. hearing birds instead of traffic is amazing. and my kids don’t choke in their sleep any more!
For example - if you use the London Underground the air you breathe in is significantly worse than the air above ground in busy traffic. Significantly.
And/or make them go slower.
Like the Thinkpads with the "bigger battery" humps: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_ap/photo/l/lenovo-thi/lenovo-th...
I've never had an issue with the connectors for the batteries of the ThinkPad, and being able to swap in a spare fully charged battery has been very helpful many times when out doing field working all day long. What is an issue are the little plastic tabs on the batteries that break off over time. However, usually the batteries have already lost a lot of their lifespan by the time that happens, and since the batteries are removable they can be replaced without opening up the system or melting glue with heat as is the case on most modern cell phones. Seems like a win to me!
Which I think the person you replied was partially attempting to point out.
Making a high voltage connector is well understood problem space. Every electrical engineer knows how to deal with ramping up current when a power supply is plugged in or turned on (inrush current specifications are most definitely a thing), and the entire electric grid is based on sizing, insulating, spacing and switching conductors appropriately for the voltage and current being used. Moreover, high voltage battery packs tend to have switches / contactors on the battery pack that keep the high voltage off until the connection is securely made and enabled, hence why even Telsas require a functioning low voltage battery to start the system.
There are also certain use-cases that are likely best served by putting battery packs in a trailer. Take the trucking industry: going by the charging requirements of a Tesla semi (1MW for 30 minutes), replicating your typical truck stop turns into a huge problem for the grid -- you'd need upwards of 50MW of charging capacity to replicate the flow of diesel coming out of a bank of 10 fuel pumps (sorry, I ran the thought experiment on that one back when specs were first released). Having a battery pack attached to the trailer that gets charged at a more leisurely rate at the warehouse while it is unloaded and re-loaded over a couple of hours is far more scalable than charging the truck in a few minutes at a truck stop. Charging overnight while the driver sleeps is fine, but getting the 8-12 hours of runtime for a workday in a semi is a heck of a lot of battery.
The dangers can be mitigated -- that's the entire raison d'etre of the electrical engineering discipline! Otherwise you wouldn't be able to safely charge an electric car at a 350kW rate these days at charging stations all over the world with a connector that is deemed safe to be handled by random humans. It's not like the software industry where we throw half baked shit at the wall and see what sticks when users encounter it by running an A / B test in production....
These are little bit different than than what a swappable system would entail, aren't they?
> Otherwise you wouldn't be able to safely charge an electric car at a 350kW rate these days at charging stations all over the world with a connector that is deemed safe to be handled by random humans.
Okay maybe I miss read the initial premise but I took it as a home user swapping in-and-out modules themselves.
That would appear to me to be a significantly different engineering challenge and safety issue than what's currently deployed in consumer market EVs...
I'm not even sure the small upside here would justify the added costs and complexity either.
From an electrical point of view, swapping batteries is fundamentally the same general problem regardless of whether they are large or small: you want to avoid arcing when the connector is plugged in, and you need to avoid exposing the user to stray voltage. Sure, there's added complexity to achieve that in a safe and cost effective manner when high voltages are involved, but it's a solved problem as the charge port does exactly this today.
> Okay maybe I miss read the initial premise but I took it as a home user swapping in-and-out modules themselves.
Current EVs on the market suffer from decreased maintainability compared to traditional ICE vehicles. The battery swapping skill set needs to be more widely available so that we don't see EV owners being dinged $40k for a battery swap. There are videos on Youtube showing people doing a battery swap themselves, and while it is challenging, it's not all that hard to do safely when the battery is not damaged given that the battery packs don't expose high voltage on the connectors when not enabled. Of course a damaged battery pack means that all bets are off on the safety front depending on the nature of the damage.
> That would appear to me to be a significantly different engineering challenge and safety issue than what's currently deployed in consumer market EVs...
> I'm not even sure the small upside here would justify the added costs and complexity either.
It a solved problem!!! Just put the charge port at the back of the vehicle and then use it for the add-on battery pack like the existing signal light connectors for trailers. You're done. The only added design constraints on the EV are on the location of the port and verification that it works while the vehicle is being driven. The F150 Lightning fails this today since the charge port is just in front of the driver side door, but relocating the charge port is not exactly rocket science.
Many EVs have already taken the step of making the charge port bidirectional so that the expensive battery in an EV can be used to provide power during an outage or to balance the load on the grid, and that is a far, far more complicated problem than accepting power from an external battery pack through the charge port while the vehicle is operating.
The arcing is the problem AND generally when handling battery packs/modules requires high voltage safety equipment and precautions.
The charge port uses a low-voltage connection to "handshake" as I understand it before the high voltage is being supplied.
You can't, without a good bit more complexity to the battery module itself do that as the batteries terminals will just have the voltage of the battery itself (depends on their state of charge).
Plus the bus bar the module is connecting to also will have a voltage if there's existing modules connected to it.
You're down to having contactors and BDUs at every individual module.
> Current EVs on the market suffer from decreased maintainability compared to traditional ICE vehicles. The battery swapping skill set needs to be more widely available so that we don't see EV owners being dinged $40k for a battery swap. There are videos on Youtube showing people doing a battery swap themselves, and while it is challenging, it's not all that hard to do safely when the battery is not damaged given that the battery packs don't expose high voltage on the connectors when not enabled. Of course a damaged battery pack means that all bets are off on the safety front depending on the nature of the damage.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I am saying it's harder to make it actually safe for the average normal consumer to do as simply as plugging a battery into a power drill for example. In part because of the higher voltages involved.
> It a solved problem!!! Just put the charge port at the back of the vehicle and then use it for the add-on battery pack like the existing signal light connectors for trailers. You're done. The only added design constraints on the EV are on the location of the port and verification that it works while the vehicle is being driven. The F150 Lightning fails this today since the charge port is just in front of the driver side door, but relocating the charge port is not exactly rocket science.
This is a different concept than adding/swapping individual modules in the vehicle itself.
But regarding the concept of a trailer, I suspect that the high cost for the product for the minimum gain it not justifiable for the average consumer. That is you're trying to solve a problem in an inefficient and not profitable manner. (Who wants a trailer of batteries parked in their garage 99% of the time just to have a slightly lighter car?)
> Many EVs have already taken the step of making the charge port bidirectional so that the expensive battery in an EV can be used to provide power during an outage or to balance the load on the grid, and that is a far, far more complicated problem than accepting power from an external battery pack through the charge port while the vehicle is operating.
I understand that, but either you want a trailer or you want internal swappable/addable modules which both economically in my opinion seem of little benefit over engineering better cars with newer/better battery technology and stronger/lighter material.
Additionally, I didn't even mention the annoyance of engineering integrating the heating & cooling system for the modules themselves.
Better energy density batteries & better materials (or smarter manufacturing) make more sense to me than trying to make individual modules for a car swappable or asking people to drive around with a trailer they would use so infrequently that it would not justify the cost to them (not to mention most people don't know how to drive with one properly anyways).
But it would be cool to just rent the extra 500km when needed :)
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.
Nio has fewer Nio battery swap stations operating in the entire world than just the state of New Jersey has filling stations (not dispensers, entire stations).
Nothing in the video above made me think "oh wow, that looks like that process will be a lot faster than filling up!" and several segments made it seem like there would be more time involved in just getting the car into and out of the battery replacement service bay than filling up takes. (Nio's claim of a 2.5-3 minute battery swap seems to be measuring only the swap time while the car is stopped in the bay.)
That's all before we consider the travel time to one of the stations (which is unlikely to be as close to your trip as a typical filling station because of the rarity of stations), time waiting for the car [or cars] in front of you to complete their swap (which if Nios ever became popular would likely be longer than waiting for one of the typically eight or more dispensers to free up at a filling station), nor to account for the "all long range batteries are out of stock at this location, because it's the Friday before Christmas and everyone is road tripping to visit family" NACKs that are liable to occur in a Nio-only battery swap system.
For me the killer line in the video that will make it hard for Nio to solve all of these is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZy603as5w&t=270s : "Building these stations is incredibly expensive and it's no secret that Nio is losing a staggering amount of money right now..."
Can I guarantee it will never happen? No. Hence my comment. It was not about stating what will happen or not, I don’t feel this type of prediction has any reliability. Millions of people smarter than me get it wrong every day, especially the very long term ones are almost always wrong.
My experience was that you end up stopping to charge a bit more often than you'd stop to fill up gas, but factoring in stops for bathroom and food, it's really not a significant difference. There just needs to be more chargers (to avoid queuing for an open one), and chargers that are more closely spaced (every 50 miles like gas stations instead of every 100+ miles). Then today's EVs will be just fine for long trips. Not completely perfect, but perfectly adequate, to the point that it won't be worthwhile buying an ICE vehicle just to have it for long trips.
If instead people consider EVs that are non-car-shaped then we get things like e-bikes and e-scooters. Both can feature easily swappable batteries as the batteries are so much smaller due to the reduced weight of the vehicle. Also, the problems around congestion can pretty much disappear when you get enough people to use an e-bike/e-scooter instead of a car. The tyre wear/pollution is minimised due to the reduction in weight and similarly the brakes.
Then again battery charging/weight tech is getting pretty good pretty fast.
There's also plenty of other, more practical / affordable microcars [1] on the road around where I live, they're considered equivalent to mopeds in terms of legality / requirements but you don't need a helmet, they seat two people and some groceries, etc. They used to be mainly popular for elderly people but they seem to catch on to other people too. Great for local traffic.
So what if I own and use a small family car, to go shopping and take the kids places?
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
My neighborhood is a real life 15min city, and most people of all ages choose to walk. We don't need to prevent families from owning a car and taking it grocery shopping once a week.
Only bulk drinks (crates of beer/soda/...) are challenging. But for those, very often delivery systems are in place that surely are more efficient than individual trips anyways.
Whenever I go grocery shopping I mount a milk crate to my rear rack (this takes about six seconds) and put the cases in vertically. I can also carry a 4L jug of milk in the handlebar-mounted basket.
Honestly I don't know how she did it, but she did. It helped that we had separated bike lanes pretty much everywhere. It is entirely possible if the infrastructure supports it.
This sort of thing is why I'm personally a big fan of the 15-minute city concept.
Usually we’d just stop on the way home from work or whatever to do small, quick shops for whatever we needed.
But on the rare occasion where we did need to do a “big shop”, we just ordered groceries online for delivery the next day. All the major UK supermarkets offer this, with free or very cheap delivery, delivered by environmentally-friendly electric trucks.
There are billions of people that manage their shopping without a car. Millions of them live in North America. Surely, some of them have solved this problem for a family without having to go shopping daily.
Luckily, both reduced noise and increased life are fairly well correlated with reduced particulate emission.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Even if there’s 5% of vehicles that couldn’t use them, it would still be a large decrease in local particulates.
(I don’t expect this to happen, of course, absent draconian particulate emissions laws.)
For the tires it doesn't matter if the energy from stopping is transferred into brakes or back into a motor though?
What am I missing? Why wouldn’t the tires experience the same forces in both scenarios?
It's because it's wrong. If you decelerate the same vehicle at the same rate, the tires can't even tell whether the deceleration is from regenerative braking or friction braking, so the only difference is less brake dust with regenerative braking.
If anything it's the opposite because regenerative braking is more effective when braking is gradual, giving the driver a direct convenience and financial incentive to brake less aggressively (better range, buy less gas or charging), which generates less tire wear.
Because it's completely wrong. The tires indeed experience the same force and don't care where the energy is dumped. As other posters wrote, the increased tire pollution from EVs is because they tend to be heavier, and because their considerable extra torque is likely to be (ab)used by their drivers. Yours truly included, guilty as charged, though I do practice restraint... often.
My EV has three modes - Eco, Normal and Sport. In Sport you get shoved back in your seat from the instant torque, and the fast 0-60 times. In Eco you take off like in a normal car.
You also need to remember that traction control is inherrently easier and faster in an EV as the ECU has fine grained control of how much power to send to the tyres and can effect it near instantly.
You do realize you can drive without just slamming the accelerator pedal straight to the floor every time you start going right?
EVs wear tires more quickly, in general, because they are very heavy and produce more torque (and drivers are more likely to request that torque, also).
> because they're transmitting power both when starting and stopping, not just when starting.
bri3d’s adjacent post is what my thoughts would be on why EV’s consume more tires.
A model Y would be the comparison to a CRV (model Y is 400 pounds / 10% heavier).
A Prius causes about 50,000 times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 16 billion times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 31,000 times more damage than a Prius.
The solution is to tax trucks 31,000 times more than cars. Improve walking/biking/trains/public transportation. Private cars should be a luxury which is made a necessity with zoning laws.
OK, so what about consequences of that solution? With such taxes, I would expect the count of trucks to drop to ~ zero. Which, for many places in the world, means an abrupt cessation of any large-scale logistics.
Maybe big trucks could be replaced by a huge fleet of smaller trucks, but that also means 20x as many parking spots, drivers (there is a shortage of professional drivers almost everywhere) and much more congestion on the highways.
There aren't that many places that could shift their entire logistics onto rail. Even here in Czechia, where the rail network is about the densest in the world, we don't have much free capacity left on the main railway lines, and existing trains are chronically delayed.
Except, you know, the amount remained the same, we just got rid of the other 98% that used to be there.
On ICE cars, it’s much slower with way higher latency due to the mechanical inertias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Wyom...
What content on that page do you read as refuting those claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Wyom...
Not saying diesel ain't bad, but even now that diesels have been largely banned or reduced to euro 6, it has changed nothing about brake dust.
My flat would fill with it in a single day. It's everywhere. And I lived on a third floor, not even at street level.
I'm quite sure it was brake dust because during COVID 19 lockdowns everything was the same (heating etc) but streets were void of cars.
Then I've read some scientific article about brake with pics and it looked exactly as what I got inside my house.
I can't conclude 100% it was it (or just it), but it seems to be the most probable cause along tires.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/04/11/...
That said, when I was in Paris last there were a lot of motor-scooters; while they also have small engines etc, I can't see them being much cleaner than well-designed cars, only due to their smaller size. Given time, I'm sure the range on their electric counterparts will become good enough as well to become a practical replacement.
A scooter (125cc) weight from 100 to 150Kg.
Even comparing a 150kg scooter to a car as light as a smart you get 6 time increase in weight for a motor that is not 6 time less efficient.
How much less cars are on the road today vs then?
The charts and title make it look like there's no cars in Paris anymore. That's not the case, at all.
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259016211...
[1]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/emissions-o...
In my ( very personal, more than 20 years living here ) experience, it’s a completely different city, and there definitely are fewer cars than before.
Now if car exhausts are better and both effects compound I won’t complain !
It is amazing what this has achieved in Manhattan.
In Manhatten this works because there is already a decent public transport, already a culture of waking and an established culture of biking.
You can just force people into better cities with punishing taxes. You actually have make the roads safer, provide alternatives and so on. And this is easier said then done, almost all cities in the US have zoning codes and other laws that make it completely impossible to build decent urban infrastructure. And the traffic standards are literally 100% backwards to providing safety.
In fact, because the traffic standards are so bad that less cars actually kill more people. This is because a lot of traffic slows down vehicle speeds on avg.
So basically, if all you are doing is forcing less people to drive, without doing anything else, you are just gone make the roads unsafer, and not improve the city or the lives of most people.
This is unfortunately a problem where, as you say, many issues interact to make it difficult to solve piecemeal in most places. But that doesn't mean we can or should just allow it to fester. I agree zoning and physical infrastructure need to improve in tandem in most places.
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.
I wonder what that does to a population. How does anyone think??
I used to live next to a big intersection with a red light, and the cars accelerating away when it goes green was annoying. I now live at the end of a cul-de-sac with a cemetary behind me. So much more peaceful!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/business/trump-kills-congesti...
Be it in hotel rooms or regular homes, almost nowhere the windows are sealed. Just pressing gently on the window (more pressure on the sealing) reduces the moped noises by 30-50%.
Speed limit signs don't work. People will drive at whatever speed feels right and this is usually way above 20mph. What works is narrowing the roads. When the carriage way is barely wider than your vehicle it magically makes 20mph feel appropriate and 30mph seem fast (which it is). This has the bonus effect that larger vehicles feel it more, which is perfect considering they are the most dangerous and should be driven by trained professionals who are used to such tight spaces.
It essentially makes driving much more stressful, which is exactly what it should be. The problem at the moment is drivers get everything: big, wide, smooth roads, with the best drainage and grading; the easiest and most convenient mode of transport; but none of the responsibility. We need to shift the balance back. You can drive, but it's a big responsibility and if you fuck up the consequences are serious.
Even if you have every intention to stay within limits they don't work. In the US we have these massive stroads in urban areas posted at 35 mph. When I drive (rarely) I have to constantly monitor my speed. It doesn't feel natural and also takes away from, ya know, paying attention to the road. Aside from my opinion that 35 is way too fast anyways.
At the same time I've seen people complain that roads which are clearly not narrow, are too narrow because they can't barrel down side streets at 50. But at least it forces them to drive slower.
> It essentially makes driving much more stressful, which is exactly what it should be. ... the easiest and most convenient mode of transport ...
It boggles the mind. We sit in these big cozy chairs that transport us almost anywhere with little to no effort. It's pretty incredible. Yet, the most minor of inconveniences can cause a lot of car brains to absolutely lose it. Driving feels adjacent to addiction to many Americans and if people don't get their fix they go into complete meltdowns.
I think people do find driving stressful, but for the wrong reasons. Sitting a red light? Stressful. Cyclist slowing you down? Stressful. Too many other people are using cars at the same time you are? Stressful. It's stress originating from believing you had the god given right to drive like a maniac at all times.
In every part of US cities pedestrian walkways have to cross roads. But really roads should have to cross the walkways. Instead of sidewalks dipping down into four lane highways, roads should have to go up and over sidewalks at intersections. In Amsterdam there was huge expansive brick walkways that cars can use, but they're the foreign entity. Not the pedestrians.
The City of London famously has a congestion charge, which also helps lot. A similar plan just got started in Manhattan and already has big wins.
... when driven continuously without stopping, like a on cross country limited access highway.
When driving in the places people live, with cross walks and stop signs and children playing outside requiring frequent slowing & stopping, there's no efficiency benefit from racing 0 to 50mph every block then slamming on the brakes, only to repeat for each block after.
There is nowhere in the UK I can think of that has had a 50 limit in my lifetime that requires frequent breaking. 20 mph limits are invariably reduced from 30.
That has little to do with the pollution or traffic, and more about the extreme actions of their manufacturer. It's symbolic, albeit largely ineffective and ignored by the target.
The only reason Carnegie built 1500 public libraries is because he knew otherwise there was a good chance some vigilantes would take things into their own hands and he and his family would hang.
Yes, it sucks that the only way to reach the rich and powerful is to harm women, children and property. But at least the rich and powerful of old knew this, and preemptively prevented it.
New billionaires are far too cavalier. They believe themselves invisible, and it shows in their utter disrespect onto the average people. Where is our philanthropy? Why do you not fear for your life?
We have become too civilized, and allowed the evil to laugh in our faces.
I would consider that evil, much as I want the current administration and it's allies to have some healthy respect (and thus restraint) for the power of the people.
It's largely good that we, as a people, have become more civilized and don't resort to that. The unexpected downside of that, though, is that we are much more susceptible to being exploited. It's a sort of naivety trade-off.
> The tactics of the [Women’s Social and Political Union] included shouting down speakers, hunger strikes, stone-throwing, window-smashing, and arson of unoccupied churches and country houses. In Belfast, when in 1914 the Ulster Unionist Council appeared to renege on an earlier commitment to women's suffrage,[27] the WSPU's Dorothy Evans (a friend of the Pankhursts) declared an end to "the truce we have held in Ulster." In the months that followed WSPU militants (including Elizabeth Bell, the first woman in Ireland to qualify as a doctor and gynaecologist) were implicated in a series of arson attacks on Unionist-owned buildings and on male recreational and sports facilities.
This influenced the US suffrage movement, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_Unit... , even during WWI: "groups like the National Woman's Party that continued militant protests during wartime were criticized by other suffrage groups and the public, who viewed it as unpatriotic."
During the yellow vest protest, "unsafe" property destruction started, destroying an apartment and putting in danger bystanders (the only death was due to a police grenade shot trough an open window, but the protesters put in danger bystanders too, and only luck prevented any deaths). Which triggered an interesting response from old punks/antifas (and also active ones): They joined facebook yellow vest protest groups to teach "how to" destroy property properly: spot danger points, how to find a target, how to avoid side effects, when to avoid using fire (99.9% of the time), when not to, how to deactivate teargas grenade (it is surprising, but a lot of people do not know how to), and instilled in some very theoritical points about secrecy and compartmentalization that were passed down from like the "groupe Barta", which, to be honest, is quite funny.
electrify now!
I wonder if something less all / none might have nearly the same effects with far less drawbacks otherwise.
E.G. What if only emissions testing certified low emission vehicles were allowed? What if only electric? How about requiring quiet utility trucks for garbage / freight / etc?
For cities that large / dense, adding in Caves of Steel like people-mover belts might be a great alternative too.
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate...
Moving away from privately owned cars entirely seems to be the only way to eliminate the health impact of cars on people in a city.
I live in a European city, where I rarely use my car to get around. Banning cars won't do anything, because I don't use my car because I can, I use it because I have to.
If you want to get rid of cars, design cities that can be lived in without having to use cars.
I believe the goal of limiting car use in Paris is as part of re-designing the city so it can be lived in without having to use cars, yes.
Sure, but what about compared to eg. 15 year old diesels with removed DPF filters? Those were the cars that were removed from paris (with the "eco stickers" and other regulation), and that brought the pollution down.
New cars exhaust very little particulate matter, so percantages don't say a lot.
I mean.. almost 100% of the polution of bicyles comes from tires/brakes/road surface/resuspended dust, but the total amount is very low.
Garbage trucks and ambulances still use the streets. But they face no traffic and are exceptions rather than the rule. They don't need to be either low emission or quiet, though those things are also nice to have, since those things are no longer the most pressing issues.
We have that certificate you mention. Today in most large cities in France, some streets are forbidden to cars that have a bad "Crit'air" score. It's a sticker you have to order online, with a number from 1 to 6. What number you receive is dependent on your car's model and its age. You have to put it under your windshield or risk getting fined by the police.
Then the streets would still be unsafe and congested, just with a bit less pollution.
I'd argue these, along with private or public transit, emergency vehicles etc, are the best uses for the internal combustion engine or just vehicles in general. The problem with ICE/car/vehicles, isn't that they exist or are useful, but that at some point we over-indexed on their utility and ignored their externalities & subsidies.
A city is just 10x more beautiful without cars, and the place in the cities where most people actually want to hang out, doesn't have cars.
No idea what 'people mover belts' are. We already have trains in various forms, add bikes and maybe some scooters to that and your done. Plus of course lots of walking.
For garbage transport and cargo, it would actually be nice to use the existing tram lines. Zürich has something like that but its experimental. But it should be more developed. Until then, small electric trucks are a good solution. Most of this can be done overnight when the tram lines aren't used much.
You would also save sitting in traffic.
And it would push the quality of public transport
I like the idea of people-mover belts. Maybe fast surface belts and escalators could help larger cities if cars were out of the way. Subway systems almost feel like people-mover belts sometimes, but their noise levels are incredibly high and they do damage metalic rails during breaking so not sure how low the contribution to air polution could be.
Sure, but people won't stop moving, and there's no vacuum, you should compare brake particulate to whatever else people would use if cars didn't exist.
I have lived in a city with a (nearly) car-free city center (+ separate bike lines for many roads outside the center) for most of my adult life [1] and it is just glorious. Most locals just walk or cycle. Longer distances by (electric) bus or train.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Cycling_and_walking
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
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.
First, give cyclists bike paths, second develop your culture around cycling and walking. It's not a problem here. Virtually everyone cycles here (more bikes than people in this country). I am over 40 and I can only think of two people I know who had more serious injuries (one broken tooth and one broken leg), but both managed to fall without any other traffic involved.
Kids in our city walk or bike to school by themselves when they are 9 or 10 (some earlier) and there are virtually never accidents.
Pedestrian collisions with bikes versus collisions with automobiles are utterly incomparable both in number and severity. If that cyclist had been driving a car, you would probably need to find a new nanny!
As for your last paragraph, this is false; walking on the sidewalk is and should be safe: adding cyclists there makes it unsafe, irrelevant of the car's behavior. Typical predatory thinking of a toxic cyclist.
- Most kids get 'traffic training' and have to do a theoretical and practical exam when they are about 10 or 11.
- Building a cycling culture makes car drivers more aware. If car drivers are also cyclists themselves, they are more aware of cyclists. Also, during driving lessons some techniques are practiced, like e.g. opening a door with your hand that is opposite to the door. By doing so, you automatically turn while opening the door, so you can see if any cyclists are passing. All of this makes cycling on roads (as opposed to pavements safer).
- Give bikes a lane, or even better a separate bike path. Only let cars and bikes share a street in low-speed (30 km/h) non-busy streets. Cars, bikes, and pedestrians differ so much in speed that they usually should not be on the same roads.
- Change your laws such that in accidents involving cars <-> bikes or car <-> pedestrian, the car driver always bares a certain amount of liability even if the cyclist/pedestrian is at fault. To a cyclist/pedestrian a car is like a bullet flying by. Putting more liability on the car driver makes them more careful.
- Design your cities so that cycling/walking is preferred. E.g. the city I live uses filtered permeability. As closer you get to the city center, the harder it becomes to get there by car, whereas you can get everywhere easily by bike or by foot. This fosters a culture where biking/walking is the norm, because you can get in different places faster by bike.
It works very well. I don't know of any pedestrians who were hit by a bike.
Typical predatory thinking of a toxic cyclist.
Please avoid the personal attacks and victim-blaming. I have also lived in a country that was not cycling-safe and usually the only way to avoid getting hit is to ride on the pavement (as most natives did). The problem is not the cyclist, but the miserable infrastructure for anything that is not a car.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(spatial_and_tran...
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 connect.
Suburbs are cute, but they are a tragedy of city planning, let alone the tragedy they are on a social level, where people will put everything in their houses including movie rooms, entertainment rooms, anything to avoid having to go out and socialize. Terrible.
There is some awful HN bias here where young healthy well-paid tech workers live in some boogie part of SF/NYC/Boston/etc and enjoy the "car-free lifestyle" (and I've been there), without any idea how the other half lives.
Just because the system we created means that currently the only affordable place for the working poor is in suburbs where they must rely on cars doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be that way. You can support building infill housing and adding transit to eventually reduce the need for so many people to have cars.
It's one thing to call it "bias" and use that as an argument to not make things better instead of coming up with ways to help make car independence available to everyone across classes.
But it is nice to live in the Mission and take the techbus to Mountain View and handwave all the hard trillion dollar problems and say let the poors eat cake. Which is effectively how these discussions seem to go.
Regarding it can't be done I encourage anyone to read up on how the investment into public transport transformed Bogota. Which is both much poorer and in a much more challenging geographical environment than most US cities. So if they can do it, why can't US cities?
(I just looked at Bodega in Google Maps, and it is significantly more dense than all but the most "boogie" American cities. Compare it to say Chicago.)
For example, from my brief perusal of Google Maps, it looks like they have some sort of growth boundary, because it goes from dense city to farms in a sharp line. For historical reasons, America is not organized that way. (And Chicago is fucked-up, so be it.)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/07/headway/bogot...
Bodega does have a growth boundary, per google. (IMO the lack of that is the 'root of all evil' of USA development patterns.)
> But it is nice to live in the Mission and take the techbus to Mountain View and handwave all the hard trillion dollar problems and say let the poors eat cake. Which is effectively how these discussions seem to go.
Every study shows that the poor are hurt the most because of car centric development.
Here is a guide on how to improve American cities that are surrounded by lots of suberbia:
- Remove/close all highways that go across the city, only keep the ring road. People will simple reclaim those space for recreational uses as soon as cars are gone.
- Increase price of parking space or eliminate them completely. Most parking in city is not used by residents anyway.
- Redo even if its with paint and few concrete bolders, the city streets according to Dutch street regulations. Massively increase safety for everybody.
- That frees up lots of space for bike lanes (as US cities tend to have far to many car lanes). This is actually a benefit to the history of US cities, we can't do that in some of the older dense cities.
- Change your zoning code and other access regulations, so proper urban development is actually allowed to happen. The US could adopt something like Japan zoning laws. A heavy use of mixed use and allow living in almost any zone. The US has a hilarious amount of commercial development land that completely underutilized. This also means no more minimum parking space and all that nonsense. See maybe like this: https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/news/land-use-zones-in-japa...
- This will make it so suburbs can go from single house only to a mix of single house, duplex, fourplexes, townhouses and so on. Like suburbs used to be. And it will make it so that light commercial developments can happen in subburbs. Meaning a single house can turn into small shops, coffees and such.
- In the city select a few core blocks in different places in the city, make those pedestrian only. Or like Montreal does, a whole long street. Each year add more of those pedestrian zone, improve walking infrastructure between them.
- Make it so subburban residents start to pay full price for their utilities including water and other infrastructure. New subburban developments are often hilariously subsidized, needing more water pumps and such.
- Redevelop current stroads into much fewer lanes and create separate access roads to the commercial developments. This improves flow on the stroads, reduce accidents and makes walking and biking along those stroads safer. Of course some of those lanes would turn into bike infrastructure.
- In the subburbs, also reduce road with, install protected cycle lanes. Break open the horrible cul-de-sac, the city can buy part of peoples garden to create cross connects between different cul-de-sacs and surrounding developments (cross connects for people and bikes, not cars).
- Make all the bus services public, heir a real transportation engineer to come up with a plan. Consisting of a few main routes, using the old stroads and highways, and smaller buses that serve as connectors to these major routes. Of course for that you would make some lanes on the highway, busways. Despite what some people in the US think, you can actually do decent bus service in suberbia. Combine that with public on demand service, that gets you cheaply to the next closes major public transport node. Maybe start planning a tram route along the major bus-routes.
- Look at your old rail infrastructure and develop a plan for a decent regional service. Develop a 50 year rail plan.
- The city can also simply buy up some cul-de-sacs that are strategically located and redevelop them into proper nice walkable neighborhoods. The city can even own the land and only rent half of the appartments, some at affordable price. This worked well in Britain and still does work well in Austria. And of course develop a transportation plan for those new neighborhoods. See an example, where old soviet style neighborhoods were developed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w
- Change your property tax into a land tax, or a property tax heavily focused on land. Or potentially do more with sales or what taxes, importantly, just don't do property tax.
- Like in Japan, require anybody that wants to own a car in a city, to first prove the have a private place to part.
- Make all car registrations based on weight, meaning you pay more for a heavier car.
- Focus development on the city and the first suburban ring around the city. Offer intensives for people in the outer rings to move into the inner rings. So for example somebody that owns a small house in the far outer ring of the city, could move into a duplex in the inner rings.
- If yours city has repair backlog (and most cities do) focus on the city core and the inner ring of subberbia.
- Do not develop more land, US cities already are far to wide spread. Simply announce no new infrastructure or roads. And not taking over into city property stuff that developers have built.
I could list more, pretty much all of these have been discussed in urbanism research.
Pretty much all of these have been done in different places at different times. And the all pretty much work. Doing them all together hasn't been done but there is no reason to believe it wouldn't work.
Of course this does not mean that for 1 day to the next everybody will go from suberbinate to die hard city person. But the culture after 1-2 decades of such changes will be dramatically different.
I also suggest to see this video about comparing two cities over time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uqbsueNvag
> Every study shows that the poor are hurt the most because of car centric development.
Yes, the poor always lose out versus Hypothetical Utopia. I'm referring to reality as it exists in the current and near future where many many poor & middle-class people need cars. You can't just take them away because of a dumb student-type notion that "cars are only for rich people".
> Change your zoning code and other access regulations (etc)
Yes, I would love to tell Silicon Valley how to zone, but even the popular governor is having trouble doing that.
(Meanwhile, my urban SF neighbors are arguing about what paint colors should be allowed, like it is a HOA or something.)
> Develop a 50 year rail plan.
We have that, but it doesn't actually help because it's mostly about building rail out to new suburbs where people can get into city center office jobs (and the rail agency can get tax money). In the meanwhile, we built an urban subway with 3! stations.
Like I said, it's a trillion dollar problem, and there's no easy button. Just incremental improvements.
I didn't, I read your comment. I think you are just haven't done the necessary level of research or you just have a doomer outlook.
> Yes, the poor always lose out versus Hypothetical Utopia.
But they are not comparing to Utopia, but rather the comparable situation where changes have been made. Or to the same city before and after some change.
Unless you are making the argument that no objective knowledge can exist, the research is pretty clear.
> I'm referring to reality as it exists in the current and near future where many many poor & middle-class people need cars.
Nobody is questioning that. Literally nobody. That why its called 'car centric design'. Who are you arguing against?
> You can't just take them away because of a dumb student-type notion that "cars are only for rich people".
Again, literally nobody is arguing that! You have constructed a complete straw man of urbanist.
The argument is to encourage policy that will make people want to live without cars in the future.
Unless you think, restricting parts of the city center or closing some urban highways is 'taking cars away', you are literally arguing against nobody.
> Yes, I would love to tell Silicon Valley how to zone, but even the popular governor is having trouble doing that.
Yes, all of my suggesting involve politics. And of course not all of them can be implemented practically depending on location. This is always true with literally any suggestion about anything political.
But your claim wasn't 'its politically difficult' rather your claim was 'nobody knows how'.
> We have that, but it doesn't actually help because it's mostly about building rail out to new suburbs where people can get into city center office jobs (and the rail agency can get tax money). In the meanwhile, we built an urban subway with 3! stations.
If be 'we' you mean California, yes there is one. And that is already a lot better then what many other places have. You might not think its enough, but it better then nothing. And the claim that it is bad because its only 'new suburbs' is also factually wrong as part of the rail plan you just had Caltrain electrification, and future improvement to existing rail Caltrain. I'm not an expert on California rail, but the claim that it serves 100% new subburbs is certainty false.
> Like I said, it's a trillion dollar problem, and there's no easy button. Just incremental improvements.
I have no idea why you are claiming its a 'trillion $' problem. That can be said about not doing anything at all too. When we are talking about the infrastructure of 300 million people (assuming we are talking US) then of course, any decision you make its a trillion $. But in that context 1 trillion $ also isn't that much.
And if you actually look at the research you will see that actually many of the suggestion I have SAVE MONEY. The idea that all of this cost unbelievable amounts of money is simply not true.
Lets go threw examples:
- Saver roads pay for themselves because accidents have a really high cost. And the new safer roads will decease avg speed, leaing to easier to maintain roads. In the US today there is a massive amount of overbuilding of incrastructure that simply isn't needed if you were builing roads according to modern scientific principles, rather then some book some engineer wrote in 1960s that just so happens to have been adopted as 'the standard'. And the principles aren't that hard or expensive to implement. This is a clear money safer. Think about all the idiotic lights the US uses at every intersection, each set of lights is expensive, sound road planning would eliminate many of these.
- Closing down urban freeways increases property taxes. Gives the city new land to redevelop and sell, or keep as parks. Also reduces maintenance burden on state level.
- Rezoning pays for itself many, many, many times over, its not even close.
- Increase parking price can raise money for the city. If you don't want to remove them. Removing them is very easy and cheap.
- Putting down protected bike lanes with simple concrete protection is very very cheap and tons of research shows that it is very beneficial. More people on bikes means less car, means less time wasted in traffic. It has also been repeatedly shown that it improves retail on those roads and it also improves property prices.
- Setting up pedestrian zones is also incredibly cheap. Literally a few concert blocks or at most a few bulliards that you can fold down for emergency access. Incredibly cheap, increases property prices and retail.
- Increasing prices on suberbia to reflect actual cost, raises money, rather then losing it.
- Redeveloping stroads is a bit more expensive, but I'm not proposing building anything new, but rather changing the way access and priority works. Cost money but not that much and in the long term it saves a lot of money.
- City buying and developing land does cost money, but since the new mixed use areas will be popular they can actually make a lot of money. Money for this can be raised by cities.
- Setting up a bus network is also really not that expensive. That is some amount of running cost, but if your buses have good priority lanes and are frequent you can cover a lot of the operation. This certainty not a 'trillion $' and each city can handle this themselves, like the do in most of the world. And again, this is increasing tax revenue along bus routes as has repeatedly been shown.
- All the revenue increases are doubly relevant if you switch from property tax to land tax.
The only thing that is at all expensive that I proposed is a long term rail plan. But in terms of your long term transportation plan, you have a lot of cost anyway. And rail is a better long term investment.
I formulate all of my points specifically so they were something cheap that can be done. I didn't propose building huge new parks, or huge metro systems. Or high speed rail. Or anything like that.
You can literally do 95% of what is needed by with paint, concrete blocks, a bunch of buses and bus drivers and a few legal chances. The city will actually increase its revenue a huge amount over time.
The current model of trying to support ever increasingly distant suburbs is what is actually bankrupting cities.
I suggest you look at the detailed research from Urban3. They clearly show how cities that have done many of the chances I propose, are good for the cities finances. In fact, some cities have implemented some of these changes specifically because they are out of money.
So please do not spread the idea that American cities can't change because its to expensive. That is the sort of thing far-right wing people spread, the whole 'we can't afford bike-lanes' nonsense.
> Again, literally nobody is arguing that! You have constructed a complete straw man of urbanist.
I actually made my post to head the scarecrows off at the pass. Otherwise these HN threads tend to just turn into reddit fuckcars.
I also know of a tourism industry company that is buying up older hotels that are no longer competitive in the local market to use as seasonal worker housing.
There are solutions other than having someone drive a beater for 45 minutes to get to a low paying job.
Please just....stop. Stop trying to talk about how poor people lived or live.
It's also important to note that the extreme cost of living in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn is relatively recent. My friends that grew up here in the 80s, taking the subway to school, were far from bougie. They were living a car free lifestyle then and now just because that's how the environment of many parts of NYC is built. It's not like NYC was constructed as a walking paradise only for wealthy people in the 19th century.
Also, I use the bus and train to go downtown and places where it would take an hour to find a parking spot. I even lug big bags of food from Aldi on the crowded bus at rush hour weekly. I don’t know why it has to be either you drive everywhere or never need a car in these discussions. Use what you need to use given the situation.
By the way that's not something I'm making up, it was literally told me by several people in struggling neighborhoods, lacking a car can be easily make a difference for many between being able or not to have different opportunities in life.
Might be different elsewhere but it made sense to me.
Anyway, there's an abundant literature that links inequality with transport opportunities.
But those topics are so touchy for you Americans tbh, it's like arguing about weapons, it's too heated of an argument for rational discourse.
European car commuter rates are almost identical to USA's. But I know little about the details, so don't really have any commentary, other than not all of Europe some glorious bike/transit boogie utopia. (And some ppl get "touchy" about that.)
Hilariously untrue. Using the bus and bike to go to work is normal here. Buses and cycle paths are full of people during rush hour. In the US using those gets you weird looks. Depends on what part of Europe and what part of US we're talking about of course, but in general this holds true.
Do you have source for this? I believe this could be true now but I find this kind of arguing dismissive and missing the point.
I'm not from environment you have described. Still remmeber people in my East European corner were able to easily commute to work by bus/train without car. However since they got richer they adopted American commuter patterns more and this led to deterioration of public transport outside of urban areas.
No wonder people get "touchy" because you are not really arguing for those who are not "young healthy well-paid tech workers". But against them. It is not about just ditching the cars but changing whole design of living around the need of cars - which is the point that actually started this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43666410
Great, some discord found this a couple days later and wants a google-a-thon. Since I don't know anything about "Europe", I don't care who is "european" enough to qualify for the 50% or 70% or whatever. Just that they have much better public transit, but still largely drive to work.
So as soon as you start considering cost and return on investment services tend to be reduced or shut down.
Why wouldn't you want your kid to be independent like this? Why force them to have to rely on you and your car if they want to go out and see their friends? It inconveniences you and makes their life much more dull and restricted, not to mention the health benefits of taking the bike vs sitting in a car for a kid.
The secret to successful urban living is tolerance, but sadly that is in short supply.
...while also declaring that "used cars are a must" for poor people (if you can afford a car in a city, you're substantially above a huge number of people, and car ownership rate goes up dramatically with wealth. It rises higher than 1 car/person once you start hitting the single digits. A huge number of service industry people, not to mention students, get around on foot or bicycle. They just don't commute 9-5, and they don't live in your neighborhoods, so you don't see them)
...while also making wildly sweeping generalization about where transit does and doesn't go (in my city, poor people get busses, rich people get trolleys and light rail and commuter rail, and it's pretty clearly purposeful that it is very difficult to get to the rich residential parts from the poor residential parts)
...while also making wildly sweeping generalizations that working poor don't work downtown, and only work in "industrial" areas in cities. It really goes to show how invisible we all are to you....even when you're wagging your finger at the rest of HN for not understanding people like us, lol.
Downtown, who exactly do you think handles all the cleaning, maintenance, repair, delivery, food service, retail, etc in the "downtown" area of a city?
Who do you think delivers the paper towels and bottled water and k-cups? Everything around you in your office - every single fucking thing down to the carpet you're standing on - is there because a poor person put it there.
Who do you think is driving the busses and taxis and trucks and vans?
Who do you think works the "gig" "jobs" delivering everything from dry cleaning to laundry to a fancy lunch for to those "young healthy well-paid tech workers"? (and FYI, your boss/admin assistant/office manager, when they order that big lunch from the fancy place across town? They're shit tippers. And bad communicators. And take forever to show up to grab the order.)
Do you realize that even in the "boogie" (sic) part of the city, the guy running the cash register at that hip coffee joint is making as close to minimum wage as the company thinks they can get away with, which is likely, at best, a buck or two an hour more than average?
Who exactly do you think fills all the entry-level jobs, including in tech companies? What do you think the front desk receptionist is paid? The desktop support person?
I feel like you all think that someone who cleans the offices for the big dot-com or white-shoe law office...or someone who dishwashes or busses or does prep work for a fancy restaurant where a plate costs $50, is getting paid anything remotely proportional to the difference in cost from a restaurant a plate for $18 or the hourly rate of that law firm.
It's the opposite - the fanciest places and the biggest name corps squeeze people the hardest. That's how they got to where they are.
Robert Moses infamously made great use of infrastructure and urban planning to reinforce redlining.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-mo...
If you're gonna claim something don't cite an article that's all about debunking that thing.
"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"
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.
It emits particulates locally and power-generation-related emissions at the fossil fuel plant that provides the majority of my grid power.
Is it better than an ICE? Probably. Is it “basically zero emission”? Nope.
They will lie about how much they hate them but ask them to actually change their behavior and you get nothing but a litany of excuses.
Since private cars scale badly, you want to encourage people to take other modes, but in order to change behaviour, the alternatives need to be attractive - cycle layouts that are safe, buses and trains that are frequent and reliable, city layouts that don't involve a long drive to buy food. You can't convince people out of taking the rational choice. You have to build it
If you really don’t like cars, you’ll find a way to minimize use of them.
If you really don’t mind cars that much you’ll make up stories about how if buses and trains and bike lanes were more attractive then people would use them more.
I guarantee that if every American city had an ideal bus and train system, people would still find excuses and reasons to justify driving their cars.
My wife rides a bike. In the suburbs.
We chose a home that has grocers, schools, and dining within a walk or bike ride.
We own cars because there are things beyond ~2 miles and transit options aren’t good.
Sadly, doing this usually requires money. Lots of it.
Saying "people love cars" is false. Some people love cars. Those are the ones doing their own work/maintenance/restorations etc and just spending time in the garage with their cars. A few more people love driving, they don't just love cars for their own sake, but they will go and just drive for fun. But most people don't do any of that. They just use cars as part of their boring, routine lives.
You might as well say US people fucking love washing machines or knives and forks.
Yeah, you’re getting it.
Nobody will say they love washing machines but they clearly do. We see it in their actions. Same as with cars. Everything they do tells us that they love cars. They drive comically short distances. They spend money they barely have to buy them.
Cities do need to be reconsidered for more public transit and more opportunities to walk, but other issues (delivery, emergency, disability, etc) have to figure in.
(I lived in a streetcar part of SF, and loved it, fwiw. But the only reason it's still there is a tunnel.)
But _at the time_, buses were very competitive with trams; there wasn’t all that much other road traffic, so they weren’t really slower (and they could use the tram lines, while they existed, as a right of way), the trams of the time were non-articulated, so buses had similar or higher capacity, and they were more flexible. It’s easy to see how it happened, and it only became apparent that there was a problem when it was far too late to reverse.
There are really two problems with buses vs trams; buses are slow when there is lots of other traffic, and, _with modern articulated trams_, higher total capacities are achievable (one of Dublin’s modern tramlines has trams that take over 400 people with a frequency of under 3 minutes between trams at peak, which is a level of capacity that you just can’t really get with buses). Neither of these were factors when the first-generation trams died.
Very few tram systems worldwide actually survived from the early 20th century to today; while there are lots of trams today, most are second-generation systems put in from the 80s on.
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.
So ripping out existing serviceable train tracks is stupid (or alternatively: evil) if you think in the long term.
However it is impossible for the operational and maintenance costs for a bus service and for the roads on which the buses go to be cheaper than for an electric streetcar, unless some prices are fake.
It is true that I have seen enough cases where electric streetcars have been replaced by buses, but I cannot see other explanation except bribes, because it was extremely visible that the buses were more expensive, both because of the fuel consumption and because of the much more frequent repairs both for the buses and for the roads.
Bribes and the mafia may have been a factor[0], but that's how American cities do things.
[0] eg. https://www2.startribune.com/streetcars-buses-minneapolis-st...
You know, the less radical solution.
Disability needs an annotations for only specific disabilities that don't inhibit driving. Which is a small subset of disabilities.
Delivery of most things can be done with small cars/trucks.
Once that's reduced by say, 50%, everything becomes much better, but nobody gives up convenience voluntarily.
I don't understand this part, I read it quite often but... well, we are a family with young children, and although we do have a car we only use it once a week to go to the grand-parents that live 100 km away from here.
A city with less cars is great especially for families (though I would argue that cities themselves are not so great for children, but the comparison here is between cities that are car-centric or that are not). It makes going out easier and more spontaneous.
It's much less of a hassle to hop in the cargo bike and go wherever (including stopping en route if you see something interesting) than having to use the car, sit in traffic, hope you can find parking space at your destination, and pay for it.
Or when you need to go to the doctor. Or when your wife is sick. Or if you have an urgency. So, as a family, you still need a car.
I also use it for groceries. Sometimes using both the cargo bike and a bike trailer (on two different bikes). We don't buy nearly at many things though it seems. When I do use my car (doing groceries while the children are with the grandparents) I have to transfer them from the car to the bike anyway because I can rarely park close to my home.
My doctor (and my wife's doctor) is certainly easier to reach by foot than by car. And I guess I never have the kind of urgency that would require me to use a car in the city. If there's something urgent a bike is always faster in this city.
And with less space reserved for cars and only cars, there’s more space for wide/accessible sidewalks. Less chance of being run over by a car. Less air and noise pollution.
My initial post was that in Paris, they removed cars but did not improve public transports, so buses are overcrowded and hostile to strollers.
https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/new-york-city-ranks-2nd-in-a-...
Families are not second-tier citizens, and currently the public transports are not suited for them. On top of the other problems, such as the pleasure of having to deal with crackheads and various homeless people in the metro when you have a baby.
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.
Besides, what your say about the speed limit is false, the mayor didn't wait for the State's answer and decided unilaterally. The State and the region didn't agree with her: https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2024/09/09/anne-hid... https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/la-region-ile-de-france-ref...
You can consider as much as you want, it is not unified. The result is that Paris has an anti-car policy, but the neighboring towns are very pro-car, creating a system where Parisians can't own one, but have to bear their neighbor's who use them to get into the city.
> Besides, what your say about the speed limit is false, the mayor didn't wait for the State's answer and decided unilaterally. The State and the region didn't agree with her: https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2024/09/09/anne-hid...
The article you quote says the opposite of what you pretend. I invite you to read the paragraph "Une décision sous le contrôle de l’Etat, rappelle le ministère". It explains in details than the mayor could do nothing without the state agreeing to it.
> You can consider as much as you want, it is not unified.
It is unified. The city and its suburb are one economic unit. Where do you think all the service workers live? You have to be an extremely narrow minded inner city dweller to fail to see this.
> creating a system where Parisians can't own one, but have to bear their neighbor's who use them to get into the city.
I kindly invite you to check the average salary of Paris inhabitants vs the one in the suburbs then take a minute to think about what you just wrote.
My family and the dozens I see every day in the Paris public transports beg to differ.
I suggest you might be a bit prejudiced (well more than a bit to be fair).
Translates to a little over 30 deaths per year per million, so not a lot, though I suspect the number would have been much greater adjusted for distance travelled and even without that it's more than some countries achieve with their traffic.
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.
From the second link:
> It is easy to imagine that a hundred years ago, when cars were first appearing on our roads, they replaced previously peaceful, gentle and safe forms of travel. In fact, motor vehicles were welcomed as the answer to a desperate state of affairs. In 1900 it was calculated that in England and Wales there were around 100,000 horse drawn public passenger vehicles, half a million trade vehicles and about half a million private carriages. Towns in England had to cope with over 100 million tons of horse droppings a year (much of it was dumped at night in the slums) and countless gallons of urine. Men wore spats and women favoured outdoor ankle-length coats not out of a sense of fashion but because of the splash of liquified manure; and it was so noisy that straw had to be put down outside hospitals to muffle the clatter of horses’ hooves. Worst of all, with horses and carriages locked in immovable traffic jams, transport was grinding to a halt in London and other cities.
> Moreover, horse-drawn transport was not safe. Road traffic deaths from horse-drawn vehicles in England and Wales between 1901 and 1905 were about 2,500 a year. This works out as about 70 road traffic deaths per million population per year which is close to the annual rate of 80 to 100 deaths per million for road traffic accidents in the 1980s and 1990s, although we must not forget that many people who died from injuries sustained in road accidents in 1900 would probably have survived today thanks to our A&E departments.
> Motor vehicles were welcomed because they were faster, safer, unlikely to swerve or bolt, better able brake in an emergency, and took up less room: a single large lorry could pull a load that would take several teams of horses and wagons – and do so without producing any dung. By World War One industry had become dependent on lorries, traffic cruised freely down Oxford Street and Piccadilly, specialists parked their expensive cars ouside their houses in Harley and Wimpole Street, and the lives of general practitioners were transformed. By using even the cheapest of cars doctors no longer had to wake the stable lad and harness the horse to attend a night call. Instead it was ‘one pull of the handle and they were off’. Further, general practitioners could visit nearly twice as many patients in a day than they could in the days of the horse and trap.
[1] https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-p...
[2]https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horse...
"Pure sadism!!!"
Yeah I'm sure everyone is real miserable, which is why they just voted in a referendum for more car-free streets.
Amazing how out of touch with reality the car-dominance types are.
The people who live in the city don't want cars because it's the people who can't afford to live in the city who need them to get there.
What are you talking about. Paris's public transport reaches out 60km away from the city, and that's not including mainline trains (including high speed). The people who can't afford to live in the city have taken public transport to get there for 50 years.
Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?
It's a compulsory fee charged by the government not based on income/consumption. That's the most regressive tax. Even sales tax is less regressive than that.
> it primarily assists commuters and small businesses
Relative to any alternative that reduces congestion without charging fees, it doesn't. Even relative to doing nothing, the people being deterred are the ones paying the cost, and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
These? Don't exist. We're not going to sit here and argue against hypothetical, made-up solutions.
> and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
Sigh. No, the most price sensitive people are riding the subway, because the subway is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and faster than owning and operating a car. This is targeting the people right above those people, who, because they have a bit more money, think they need to drive. They don't. They should be riding the subway. And now, they are. They might complain - but really, they're saving money.
[EDIT]: since I'm being answered that it isn't true, here is a chart made by the city hall about the decreasing speed on Paris' roads:
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2024/07/12/original-4ee2d20dafdc9...
EDIT: Okay, to expand, it's true that speed limits in progressive cities have been falling for a while. This is meant reduce the number of pedestrain fatalities and overall make the cities safer and more pleasant.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that traveling by car is worse. These, in combination with anti-congestion legislation, make driving faster. The thing about driving is that broad roads and clear visibility encourage bad behavior, like speeding and tailgating. This actually increases traffic. It's counter-productive, but reducing speed can improve flow.
https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/paris-ville-la-plus-embou...
And even some of those can use bikes depending on the specific thing (some delivery workers).
By the way, the French metro's air is highly polluted, due to tire degradation and brake dust, making it unfit for children or pregnant women.
So yeah, it's manageable for young people. But when a baby arrives, it's hell. Same if you are old. Or disabled.
Anecdotally, kids are also much happier when they can just bike to school/sports/activities with their friends instead of having their parents drive then everywhere on the back of the family SUV.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territ...
It's funny how much the car-dominance folks do their best to ignore that countries invariably have spent at least an order of magnitude more on cars than bikes, and typically more like two orders of magnitude.
The bike infrastructure the Dutch do have is very cool, but let's be real, one of those fancy "bike interchanges" is absolutely dwarfed by the cost of a highway interchange, and there are far more of the latter than the former.
Mobility in families is actually higher, since each individual has sturdy legs, and highly likely, a bike after they’re about 5 years old. Kids often travel to school, after school events etc on foot, bike or public transport, not dependent as in many car-centric places on parents and their cars.
Grandma is as likely to bike over for dinner with the grandkids as drive.
We lived in Munich for five years as a family of three with no car and it was fine. There were definitely some times where a car would be more convenient (going to Ikea or the mountains) but overall getting around with our electric cargo bike or public transit was fine.
Yes, people outside of urban cities like that (which, basically by definition means the majority of people in the country) still need cars to get around most likely, but at least we can ensure that inside the cities themselves, there are good alternatives for people to get around that benefits every single person who finds themselves in the city not inside a car, which will be the overwhelming majority of people.
I live in Utrecht in the Netherlands, and the single best thing the gov't did a few years ago is rip out the highway that was in the city center and instead turned it back into a canal surrounded by parks [1]. Literally nobody who has ever been to Utrecht would argue we were better off with the highway.
[1] https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/utrecht-correc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
As for the excuses:
> they are a small
What does a size of a country have to do with how their cities are designed?
> dense
Same as above, unless you mean city density in which case there's nothing special about Dutch cities.
> flat
Yes, and?
> an oceanic weather
Yeah, it rains all the time and yet they cycle.
These sound like...car problems.
Meanwhile you live in a world where petty wars are fought over resources to enhance the wealth of an extreme minority of the population. That's an actual tragedy.
That is literally the opposite of reality.
I am very curious to hear yours.
… Eh? The city I live in has been here for a thousand years, and that doesn’t even make it a particularly old city. _Outer suburbs_ are a somewhat car-dependent phenomenon, but cities certainly are not.
Europe chose to levy big fuel taxes and punitive displacement taxes. Diesel cars are some of the best when it comes to driving experience and fuel economy for a given displacement. What followed was perfectly predictable.
The road to hell is paved with public policy implemented with willful ignorance to obvious 2nd order effects.
[1] https://github.com/CopernicusAtmosphere/air-quality-covid19-...
A win-win situation.
Car are still a lot in Paris and there are conflicting studies about the air quality evolution in Paris, some days it is better, some days not. But the Parisian regulation on car as no real effect so far.
Paris is like at a bottom of a curve and it is said that the car might account only for less than 20% of it, the biggest contributor being industry in the region.
What had a big impact on thin particules are the evolution of car technologies. Now every engine in France has to be equiped with efficient catalytic exhaust pipes and efficient engine to reduce this kind of bad particules.
In this article, you can see a very deceptive image comparison. There is a picture of the Eiffel tower long time ago and now.
The picture of before has a strong fog, but it is just because being taken on a foggy day but the article would like you to think that it is how a picture would have been everyday due to the popultof the air...
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.
Names would be good, for a start. If you can’t name a single person, group, or entity whose opinion would satisfy you, it’s likely that no amount of evidence would change your mind. Which means that you’re not discussing this topic in good faith.
All human endeavors have human bias, in one direction or the other. If you’re waiting for a bias-free source of information, you’ll be waiting a long time.
Others may have made that argument, but show me where I’ve done that. So far, all I’ve done is ask you who you’d accept as a valid authority, or what evidence you’d accept. And you can’t even do that.
A claim has been made that air quality in Paris has improved, and evidence has been provided to back that claim up, in the form of AQI readings provided by (in your words) “an NGO run by environmentalists and funded by the EU”. In turn, you have made a 2nd claim that this evidence is flawed, but so far you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim up. Claims which are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your attempt to somehow make me responsible to provide an alternative source of evidence is classic deflection. That is not my responsibility. Do your own research etc.
“Someone without bias” is a cop out. Everyone has bias, and literally anyone performing or funding air quality measurements is going to have some sort of interest in their outcome. There is no sterile room of blind and deaf eunuchs performing these services and you know that.
This comment was made in bad faith on your part, all I did was make that fact obvious.
The only qualification you managed to put out there is that they don’t have bias. This is literally unachievable and you know it, which is why you won’t even attempt to even hint at a better party.
1. You can question the source of evidence and funding.
2. If you do, you are not automatically required to provide alternative sources.
Nobody on this thread has addressed my OP directly, but have instead jumped to point 2.
No, you use this as a cop out to deny results. In this case you have done this check and you have decided you do not want to believe the outcome so you wave around a vague charge of bias in a lame attempt to discredit it.
Please show me one single scientific report or conclusion you’ve accepted that passed this same “bias test”. Neither the authors nor their funding source may have a particular interest in the outcome. Any such example will do.
Why don't you provide evidence that Airparif is independent instead, to address my original question? I'll wait.
I simply questioned their independence.
Let me give you another hypothetical example:
Would you trust a report on the impacts of fracking by a pro-fracking NGO, with private funding? Even if their data looked ok on face value?
The messenger matters.
The messenger matters less than the data, the collection methods, and the approach to analysis. Bias can be a reason to more carefully examine a conclusion and the methods, particularly if a source has had quality issues in the past.
But simply throwing out accusations of bias in the absence of literally any other reason to doubt a pretty straightforward conclusion (removing sources of NO2 makes NO2 go down, shocking!) is not a meaningful contribution to a discussion. Every researcher is biased. Every source of funding is biased. Hell, you haven’t even shown that they’re significantly biased, the only thing you’ve pointed out is that apparently some of their grant funding came from the EU, as if that’s some sort of smoking gun.
Did their bias lead them to an invalid conclusion? Do you believe it did? Do you have a reason to believe it did? If so, state it. If not, what was the point in making your comment other than to sow doubt?
All this time I’ve been asking questions of you, hoping to learn about your thought process: Who should be performing these measurements? Who should be funding them? Who is someone without bias in the outcome of this process? What is an example of any result on any topic you accept as having been produced by an unbiased party with unbiased funding sources? What do you think are deficiencies in this research caused by the authors’ biases?
Not only won’t you even attempt to answer these excruciatingly simple questions, but you make it obvious that you have no desire to. So it seems more than just a little disingenuous to suddenly hold up “just asking questions” as a virtue when you have zero interest in answering any yourself.
But you clearly can't. I give up.
They have provided analysis and data backing that analysis. It is now up to you as a skeptic to find fault in that. “They are biased” is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and utterly unconvincing. It is a canned response that can be given to literally every conclusion ever reached and so can (and has been) dismissed out of hand.
That's your right of course. No one can force you to avoid using logical fallacies. But the longer you do that, the more it starts to look like you're avoiding or even conceding the real debate. It's up to you whether that matters to you.
I have literally done my own research, and came away questioning their independence.
Nobody on this thread has given me any evidence that they are fully independent, best I got was a comment with a link to the Airparif website.
Instead I got attacked for even daring to ask the question. Go HN.
Airparif is a collection of people involving regular people, the local cities, major polluters etc. https://www.airparif.fr/airparif/missions-dairparif ( unfortunately in French)
It’s funded 24% by the state, 24% by cities, 27% by large companies including the polluting ones,20% by selling what they produce/know how etc.
Source: https://tracxn.com/d/companies/airparif/__7FZ-JDeTGVeYNdb_2-...
2 week ago, deputies were discussing the global ban of 'car free town center' because it doesn't really work and it exclude part of the society...
https://www.lefigaro.fr/automobile/zfe-50-deputes-defendent-...
It doesn't really work is hilarious statement when some of the cities with highest amount of tourists in the world have car free city centers. Not to mention that many off the cities ranked highest quality of live have lots of car free areas.
