6 ms·

Passenger cars create a negligible amount of particulate pollution, and are certainly not the cause of the air quality issues encountered here. Transport trucks

Passenger cars create a negligible amount of particulate pollution, and are certainly not the cause of the air quality issues encountered here. Transport trucks, in contrast, create a lot of air pollution (both greenhouse gas and particulate), but the story isn't as interesting when the villain are the goods and products that everyone consumes.

Asooka 8y ago
The story is pretty clear that the villains are ODOT who built a highway right next to a school.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  If that were the case, the title would have been, "Why do poor school kids have to clean up ODOT’s pollution?" But that wouldn't have gotten as many clicks, as OP stated.
  - foobarchu 8y ago
    The title is poor, yes. The content of the article is pretty clear that ODOT is the problem, though. I don't think the title was claiming that "rich commuters" should pay for it, so much as it was trying to emphasize that the children are in no way responsible for it. The author could have chosen better, though.
- influx 8y ago
  Likewise in Seattle they built i5 straight though the city cutting it in half.
- erentz 8y ago
  Only the article is incorrect as pointed out in my other comments down voted comments. And this does matter because it changes a lot of the tone and basis of the article. Sure there was some building of some sort there back in their 1962 photo. But that isn’t Harriet Tubman school we are talking about today. The school was only opened in 1982. Built after pressure by community activists who wanted a school in their neighborhood. Further it was actually closed in 2012 and then reopened in 2018. With much written at the time of reopening about the pollution problem. So really the “villain” (if there should be one) would have to be Portland Public Schools that built, closed, then reopened a school next to an existing traffic sewer. In 1980s it is somewhat forgivable mistake, we weren’t as aware then. But in 2018 they knew full damn well the pollution problem. Nobody can deny that. This school shouldn't be there. Is pollution bad? Yes. Was Robert Moses and his cohorts a disaster for urban environments? Yes. Do cities need to be greener and have better transit? Yes. But still, the school simply shouldn’t be there. So the article really falls apart on a number of levels. In this case I think people using the existence of the school to campaign against this freeway project are doing a selfish disservice to the students. I'm generally anti-freeway, very pro-transit, very pro-urban. But let's be clear: the current levels of pollution are unacceptable as is, regardless of widening. The school shouldn't stay where it is even if the freeway doesn't get widened. So the people using it as a prop in their campaign to prevent widening are essentially arguing it is fine to stay where it is. This is sad and IMO a selfish use of this bad situation for the students of this school by the anti-freeway campaigners.
hopler 8y ago
Does that analysis to apply to the area immediately adjacent to the freeway, before particles disperse over a wider area? Even when trucks are absent, traffic smells bad.
Brakenshire 8y ago
I’m not actually actually sure that’s the case, as long the regulation is in place HGV’s have the weight and cost margin to include really solid filters, so particulate pollution at least from the engine is equivalent to passenger cars. Tyre and break wear would be more, but then the numbers of vehicles would also be a lot lower. Do you have any evidence that passengers cars have a nominal effect? I wouldn’t expect that to be the case.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Exhaust processing of current trucks basically doesn't work with a city driving profile (~high idle fraction, very low loads, average speed 15-25 km/h).
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    They need periodic runs on decent speed roads, I’d have thought this road itself would do the trick. Presumably it doesn’t run at 20kmph.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      For several hours a day the people using this road would be ecstatic if it were that fast.
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      The I5 does often run at those speeds in this location, which is why they want to add lanes here.
droithomme 8y ago
Also the passenger cars contain the people who own houses and pay the city and county property taxes that fund the schools. So the passenger cars are the ones paying for the pollution controls. Those that don't drive, to a much higher extent than those who do, don't have jobs and don't pay property taxes.
- astura 8y ago
  TFA makes it clear that the people using the highway at peak times are not local residents, they are just passing thru. Also, there's no "unemployed exemption" to property tax, that I know of.
  - droithomme 8y ago
    To a much greater extent than those who do, those who do not own cars do not have jobs or own real estate. Those who own real estate are the ones who pay property taxes and that, plus the state lottery, plus federal subsidies, pay for the schools. Of course there are retirees who don't work but own real estate. These folks generally own cars, but don't drive them as much as those who work, yet they generally don't have children or even grandchildren in the schools and yet have to pay for the schools. Which is fine. The category of people who don't have cars is largely comprised of people who don't have jobs because if you don't have a car you can't get to work. These people don't own real estate. They generally live with others who do, or in subsidized housing and live off government benefits of some kind or another such as disability or aid for people with dependents.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    If you live in Clark County and work in Oregon, you get to pay Oregon income tax.
blueboo 8y ago
I still can't believe we paid for public awareness campaigns to promote turning off the water when you brush your teeth
- simongr3dal 8y ago
  Saving a liter or two of water two times a day for every person doesn’t seem like a bad start. It’s takes very low effort and you don’t lose any functionality, the water is literally just pouring down the drain. Or am I missing some sort of sarcasm joke?
  - nradov 8y ago
    Saving water at home is nice but it's literally a drop in the bucket compared to the water wasted by inefficient agricultural practices. It won't make a difference one way or the other.
    - NullPrefix 8y ago
      >It won't make a difference one way or the other Goal is not to make a difference, it is to make you feel better for yourself.
      - gruez 8y ago
        And more importantly, distract everyone from the real perpetrators with special interests.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    It's a very bad start because it effectively accomplishes nothing but waste the very limited bandwidth we have to convince the population to do anything. It also makes people feel like they're "doing their part", which isn't really true at all.
  - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
    Many people feel an obligation to take care of the environment. If they make an effort to turn off the water when they're brushing their teeth and buy LED bulbs to replace their CFLs, maybe even upgrading their 2005 Corolla with a 2015 Prius, they'll feel like they've abundantly satisfied that obligation. If they're (hypothetically) a commercial driver, spending the day at work driving around in an 1980s diesel truck, or installing golf course sprinkler systems, they'd still feel that they're an environmentally responsible person. If the ad campaigns instead of suggesting toothbrushing habits informed the public of the disproportionate pollution caused by old trucks or vilified inefficient agricultural watering practices, that person might have a 100x more effective impact from their personal obligation if they advocate replacement of the truck or change agricultural practices. Also, consumers of these polluters might help encourage change by, say, preferring a waste disposal company that uses newer trucks or by changing consumption to eat peanuts grown with rainwater instead of desert-grown aquifer-fed California almonds.
tompagenet2 8y ago
This doesn't seem to be true: see pages 83 and 84 of the link below, suggesting around 20% of UK PM2.5 emissions come from road transport - this is not negligible. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69635/pb13837-aqeg-fine-particle-matter-20121220.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- sjg007 8y ago
  Yeah, diesel cars and trucks are a menace. I remember getting black soot in my nose in London.
  - growlist 8y ago
    I read somewhere that 50% of particulate pollution comes from brake discs/pads and tyres, meaning that electric cars will still cause air pollution. But hey, half as bad is twice as good.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      The existence of regenerative breaking means that the amount of pollution from the little friction breaking still necessary should be much less.
    - NullPrefix 8y ago
      Regenerative breaking doesn't wear pads, so only emergency breaking would count towards that 50%.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    > black soot in my nose in London. That's probably dust from the London Underground, which is mostly iron (from the rails and wheels), brake dust (ceramic) and dead skin.
- nradov 8y ago
  There are far more diesel passenger cars in the UK than in the US. Diesel is generally far worse for particulate emissions.
belorn 8y ago
Since it has been several years since dieselgate, how much pollution does the average car create during freeway speeds?
- dsr_ 8y ago
  This is easier to know for new cars than old, because it's only been measured consistently since 2008. fueleconomy.gov will let you look up cars, and the "Energy and Environment" tab will show you CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, each on a grams/mile driven scale. A 2019 Volve V90 station wagon emits 328g/mile of CO2 and 444g/mile of GHG. A 2019 Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid emits 51g/mile of CO2 at the tailpipe and 140g/mile total including the upstream electricity production, assuming you live in Beverly Hills. A 2019 Tesla S P100D emits nothing at the tailpipe and 120g/mile. A 2019 Honda Accord Sport/Touring is 345g/mile CO2 and 410g/mile total GHG. Does that help?
xg15 8y ago
So who should then pay for the pollution reduction in the non-interesting version of the story?
- endorphone 8y ago
  The regulations on trucks (and diesel service vehicles in general) needs to be much more stringent, especially those that pass through urban centers. That is an industry that has pushed back at every turn and people just get misdirected to blaming Sally Suburban. The same thing happens regarding roads in general where we often imagine that industry and goods still appear at their destinations and the world rolls on if all of the roads were turned into parks. That's the general case, though. This school might be dealing with other particulate sources, as another comment mentioned a large number of industrial sources nearby (e.g. cement plants are a big source). In which case maybe the school just isn't in the best place. And it's worth noting that we now measure and pay attention to this but it was much worse in the past. Smelling the wonderful smell of a wood burning fire is usually an indication that you're in a dangerous particulate zone.

Asooka 8y ago

The story is pretty clear that the villains are ODOT who built a highway right next to a school.

stronglikedan 8y ago
If that were the case, the title would have been, "Why do poor school kids have to clean up ODOT’s pollution?" But that wouldn't have gotten as many clicks, as OP stated.
- foobarchu 8y ago
  The title is poor, yes. The content of the article is pretty clear that ODOT is the problem, though. I don't think the title was claiming that "rich commuters" should pay for it, so much as it was trying to emphasize that the children are in no way responsible for it. The author could have chosen better, though.
influx 8y ago
Likewise in Seattle they built i5 straight though the city cutting it in half.
erentz 8y ago
Only the article is incorrect as pointed out in my other comments down voted comments. And this does matter because it changes a lot of the tone and basis of the article. Sure there was some building of some sort there back in their 1962 photo. But that isn’t Harriet Tubman school we are talking about today. The school was only opened in 1982. Built after pressure by community activists who wanted a school in their neighborhood. Further it was actually closed in 2012 and then reopened in 2018. With much written at the time of reopening about the pollution problem. So really the “villain” (if there should be one) would have to be Portland Public Schools that built, closed, then reopened a school next to an existing traffic sewer. In 1980s it is somewhat forgivable mistake, we weren’t as aware then. But in 2018 they knew full damn well the pollution problem. Nobody can deny that. This school shouldn't be there. Is pollution bad? Yes. Was Robert Moses and his cohorts a disaster for urban environments? Yes. Do cities need to be greener and have better transit? Yes. But still, the school simply shouldn’t be there. So the article really falls apart on a number of levels. In this case I think people using the existence of the school to campaign against this freeway project are doing a selfish disservice to the students. I'm generally anti-freeway, very pro-transit, very pro-urban. But let's be clear: the current levels of pollution are unacceptable as is, regardless of widening. The school shouldn't stay where it is even if the freeway doesn't get widened. So the people using it as a prop in their campaign to prevent widening are essentially arguing it is fine to stay where it is. This is sad and IMO a selfish use of this bad situation for the students of this school by the anti-freeway campaigners.

hopler 8y ago

Does that analysis to apply to the area immediately adjacent to the freeway, before particles disperse over a wider area? Even when trucks are absent, traffic smells bad.

Brakenshire 8y ago

I’m not actually actually sure that’s the case, as long the regulation is in place HGV’s have the weight and cost margin to include really solid filters, so particulate pollution at least from the engine is equivalent to passenger cars. Tyre and break wear would be more, but then the numbers of vehicles would also be a lot lower. Do you have any evidence that passengers cars have a nominal effect? I wouldn’t expect that to be the case.

blattimwind 8y ago
Exhaust processing of current trucks basically doesn't work with a city driving profile (~high idle fraction, very low loads, average speed 15-25 km/h).
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  They need periodic runs on decent speed roads, I’d have thought this road itself would do the trick. Presumably it doesn’t run at 20kmph.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    For several hours a day the people using this road would be ecstatic if it were that fast.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    The I5 does often run at those speeds in this location, which is why they want to add lanes here.

droithomme 8y ago

Also the passenger cars contain the people who own houses and pay the city and county property taxes that fund the schools. So the passenger cars are the ones paying for the pollution controls. Those that don't drive, to a much higher extent than those who do, don't have jobs and don't pay property taxes.

astura 8y ago
TFA makes it clear that the people using the highway at peak times are not local residents, they are just passing thru. Also, there's no "unemployed exemption" to property tax, that I know of.
- droithomme 8y ago
  To a much greater extent than those who do, those who do not own cars do not have jobs or own real estate. Those who own real estate are the ones who pay property taxes and that, plus the state lottery, plus federal subsidies, pay for the schools. Of course there are retirees who don't work but own real estate. These folks generally own cars, but don't drive them as much as those who work, yet they generally don't have children or even grandchildren in the schools and yet have to pay for the schools. Which is fine. The category of people who don't have cars is largely comprised of people who don't have jobs because if you don't have a car you can't get to work. These people don't own real estate. They generally live with others who do, or in subsidized housing and live off government benefits of some kind or another such as disability or aid for people with dependents.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  If you live in Clark County and work in Oregon, you get to pay Oregon income tax.

blueboo 8y ago

I still can't believe we paid for public awareness campaigns to promote turning off the water when you brush your teeth

simongr3dal 8y ago
Saving a liter or two of water two times a day for every person doesn’t seem like a bad start. It’s takes very low effort and you don’t lose any functionality, the water is literally just pouring down the drain. Or am I missing some sort of sarcasm joke?
- nradov 8y ago
  Saving water at home is nice but it's literally a drop in the bucket compared to the water wasted by inefficient agricultural practices. It won't make a difference one way or the other.
  - NullPrefix 8y ago
    >It won't make a difference one way or the other Goal is not to make a difference, it is to make you feel better for yourself.
    - gruez 8y ago
      And more importantly, distract everyone from the real perpetrators with special interests.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  It's a very bad start because it effectively accomplishes nothing but waste the very limited bandwidth we have to convince the population to do anything. It also makes people feel like they're "doing their part", which isn't really true at all.
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  Many people feel an obligation to take care of the environment. If they make an effort to turn off the water when they're brushing their teeth and buy LED bulbs to replace their CFLs, maybe even upgrading their 2005 Corolla with a 2015 Prius, they'll feel like they've abundantly satisfied that obligation. If they're (hypothetically) a commercial driver, spending the day at work driving around in an 1980s diesel truck, or installing golf course sprinkler systems, they'd still feel that they're an environmentally responsible person. If the ad campaigns instead of suggesting toothbrushing habits informed the public of the disproportionate pollution caused by old trucks or vilified inefficient agricultural watering practices, that person might have a 100x more effective impact from their personal obligation if they advocate replacement of the truck or change agricultural practices. Also, consumers of these polluters might help encourage change by, say, preferring a waste disposal company that uses newer trucks or by changing consumption to eat peanuts grown with rainwater instead of desert-grown aquifer-fed California almonds.

tompagenet2 8y ago

This doesn't seem to be true: see pages 83 and 84 of the link below, suggesting around 20% of UK PM2.5 emissions come from road transport - this is not negligible. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69635/pb13837-aqeg-fine-particle-matter-20121220.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

sjg007 8y ago
Yeah, diesel cars and trucks are a menace. I remember getting black soot in my nose in London.
- growlist 8y ago
  I read somewhere that 50% of particulate pollution comes from brake discs/pads and tyres, meaning that electric cars will still cause air pollution. But hey, half as bad is twice as good.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    The existence of regenerative breaking means that the amount of pollution from the little friction breaking still necessary should be much less.
  - NullPrefix 8y ago
    Regenerative breaking doesn't wear pads, so only emergency breaking would count towards that 50%.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  > black soot in my nose in London. That's probably dust from the London Underground, which is mostly iron (from the rails and wheels), brake dust (ceramic) and dead skin.
nradov 8y ago
There are far more diesel passenger cars in the UK than in the US. Diesel is generally far worse for particulate emissions.

belorn 8y ago

Since it has been several years since dieselgate, how much pollution does the average car create during freeway speeds?

dsr_ 8y ago
This is easier to know for new cars than old, because it's only been measured consistently since 2008. fueleconomy.gov will let you look up cars, and the "Energy and Environment" tab will show you CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, each on a grams/mile driven scale. A 2019 Volve V90 station wagon emits 328g/mile of CO2 and 444g/mile of GHG. A 2019 Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid emits 51g/mile of CO2 at the tailpipe and 140g/mile total including the upstream electricity production, assuming you live in Beverly Hills. A 2019 Tesla S P100D emits nothing at the tailpipe and 120g/mile. A 2019 Honda Accord Sport/Touring is 345g/mile CO2 and 410g/mile total GHG. Does that help?

xg15 8y ago

So who should then pay for the pollution reduction in the non-interesting version of the story?

endorphone 8y ago
The regulations on trucks (and diesel service vehicles in general) needs to be much more stringent, especially those that pass through urban centers. That is an industry that has pushed back at every turn and people just get misdirected to blaming Sally Suburban. The same thing happens regarding roads in general where we often imagine that industry and goods still appear at their destinations and the world rolls on if all of the roads were turned into parks. That's the general case, though. This school might be dealing with other particulate sources, as another comment mentioned a large number of industrial sources nearby (e.g. cement plants are a big source). In which case maybe the school just isn't in the best place. And it's worth noting that we now measure and pay attention to this but it was much worse in the past. Smelling the wonderful smell of a wood burning fire is usually an indication that you're in a dangerous particulate zone.