5 ms·

The article quotes Mayor Garcetti as saying that "improving air-filtration, building design and tailpipe emissions" may be better than zoning restrictions. The

by mturmon 10y ago

The article quotes Mayor Garcetti as saying that "improving air-filtration, building design and tailpipe emissions" may be better than zoning restrictions. The article is properly scathing about the building of apartments with balconies and sliding doors not more than 100 feet from very busy freeways. But, it does not follow up on Garcetti's point: we need to be more aggressive in curtailing vehicle pollution. That's the root cause, after all. As their particulate graphs point out, vehicle pollution has an 80/20 quality. A few vehicles cause a disproportionate amount of pollution - they cause the spikes in the graphs. This is also evident from driving around. You can clearly smell, and see, when you are following a badly tuned truck, or almost any 1970s and earlier car.

lima 10y ago
In Germany, we did exactly what you suggest and banned all the old and badly tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success ("Umweltplakette"). Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone The concept is used in many other European cities, too.
- knz 10y ago
  Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of individual right rather than collective right. My right, and that of my family, friends, and community, to clean and pollution free air seems to be less important than someone else's individual right to drive the vehicle of their choosing and maintain it as their means allow. I know some States have emissions testing etc but that is not universal across the US. I assume the assumption has always been that the market will slowly correct the issue and the fleet will change accordingly. But CAFE laws are of course a politicized issue.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state has lowered those limits over the years. >So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car. In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the 1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they decided to leave it at 1975. To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Part of that has to do with systemic defects in (our) culture in the US. * We don't have /good/, /usable/, public transit that can replace vehicle use (outside of some high-density urban cores). * We don't encourage sufficient building of housing /near jobs/ to reduce the need for commuting long distances. * We don't encourage the building of family capacity housing in those same areas. (Again, to increase competition, decrease rent and increase more civilly minded communities in those areas.) * The tax code and civic involvement that exist favor NIMBY, instead of targeting the future potential of an area (a corrective tax would be based on the /potential value/ of given land and what could be built on it, rather than it's current use).
- kogepathic 10y ago
  > banned all the old and badly tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success Too bad a recent study found that diesel cars (PKW) are much more polluting than previously thought (article in German). [0] They're even worse for emissions than modern trucks (LKW), at least in Europe. We traded a very well known pollution source (old and/or badly tuned cars) for a new and previously unknown pollution source (diesel cars). I do honestly think this is the beginning of the end for diesel cars. VW scandal aside, they're just more harmful than previously thought. For me personally I'm excited for electric cars to reduce noise pollution in the city. You don't realize how loud normal cars are until you've ridden in an electric car, like a Tesla. It's night and day. [0] http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/diesel-pkw-stossen-teils-mehr-stickoxide-aus-als-lkw-a-1128839.html http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/diesel-pkw-stossen-teils-...
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    Nitpick: PKW (Personenkraftwagen) does not mean Diesel car; it's any street legal car capable of transporting up to nine people under its own power (regardless of power source).
    - kogepathic 10y ago
      Sorry this was unclear. I meant PKW as a car, not specifically a diesel car.
sjg007 10y ago
It's semis and buses mostly. Diesel trains too.
avar 10y ago
Even if that was done, wouldn't these areas be disproportionately less healthy due to particulates in the air from tires incrementally tearing up the freeway, which ends up in the air?
- mturmon 10y ago
  Yes. Probably you need some of both approaches (construction regulation/redesign within X feet of freeways + tailpipe standards). I think the emissions are more important, because it's the root cause, and the article has the emphasis the other way around.
true_religion 10y ago
> The article is properly scathing about the building of apartments with balconies and sliding doors not more than 100 feet from very busy freeways. People love balconies though. You'd have to push out government regulation to prevent them from buying condos with balconies.
- mturmon 10y ago
  People in LA love wood-burning fireplaces, too, but building codes have been making them harder and harder to put in. Same kind of thing should apply here. Maybe clever design could mitigate the loss.

by mturmon 10y ago

lima 10y ago

In Germany, we did exactly what you suggest and banned all the old and badly tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success ("Umweltplakette"). Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone The concept is used in many other European cities, too.

knz 10y ago
Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of individual right rather than collective right. My right, and that of my family, friends, and community, to clean and pollution free air seems to be less important than someone else's individual right to drive the vehicle of their choosing and maintain it as their means allow. I know some States have emissions testing etc but that is not universal across the US. I assume the assumption has always been that the market will slowly correct the issue and the fleet will change accordingly. But CAFE laws are of course a politicized issue.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases. As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state has lowered those limits over the years. >So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car. In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the 1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they decided to leave it at 1975. To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Part of that has to do with systemic defects in (our) culture in the US. * We don't have /good/, /usable/, public transit that can replace vehicle use (outside of some high-density urban cores). * We don't encourage sufficient building of housing /near jobs/ to reduce the need for commuting long distances. * We don't encourage the building of family capacity housing in those same areas. (Again, to increase competition, decrease rent and increase more civilly minded communities in those areas.) * The tax code and civic involvement that exist favor NIMBY, instead of targeting the future potential of an area (a corrective tax would be based on the /potential value/ of given land and what could be built on it, rather than it's current use).
kogepathic 10y ago
> banned all the old and badly tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success Too bad a recent study found that diesel cars (PKW) are much more polluting than previously thought (article in German). [0] They're even worse for emissions than modern trucks (LKW), at least in Europe. We traded a very well known pollution source (old and/or badly tuned cars) for a new and previously unknown pollution source (diesel cars). I do honestly think this is the beginning of the end for diesel cars. VW scandal aside, they're just more harmful than previously thought. For me personally I'm excited for electric cars to reduce noise pollution in the city. You don't realize how loud normal cars are until you've ridden in an electric car, like a Tesla. It's night and day. [0] http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/diesel-pkw-stossen-teils-mehr-stickoxide-aus-als-lkw-a-1128839.html http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/diesel-pkw-stossen-teils-...
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Nitpick: PKW (Personenkraftwagen) does not mean Diesel car; it's any street legal car capable of transporting up to nine people under its own power (regardless of power source).
  - kogepathic 10y ago
    Sorry this was unclear. I meant PKW as a car, not specifically a diesel car.

sjg007 10y ago

It's semis and buses mostly. Diesel trains too.

avar 10y ago

Even if that was done, wouldn't these areas be disproportionately less healthy due to particulates in the air from tires incrementally tearing up the freeway, which ends up in the air?

mturmon 10y ago
Yes. Probably you need some of both approaches (construction regulation/redesign within X feet of freeways + tailpipe standards). I think the emissions are more important, because it's the root cause, and the article has the emphasis the other way around.

true_religion 10y ago

> The article is properly scathing about the building of apartments with balconies and sliding doors not more than 100 feet from very busy freeways. People love balconies though. You'd have to push out government regulation to prevent them from buying condos with balconies.

mturmon 10y ago
People in LA love wood-burning fireplaces, too, but building codes have been making them harder and harder to put in. Same kind of thing should apply here. Maybe clever design could mitigate the loss.