3 ms·

EV utility is less than ICE cars, but far worse than commuter rail. Most of the pollution in the bay area is from car tires. So if they really want to clean tha

EV utility is less than ICE cars, but far worse than commuter rail. Most of the pollution in the bay area is from car tires. So if they really want to clean that up, they need to switch to light rail and inter city express rail

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
That's wild, didn't know that. Is anything doable about car tires short of not driving a car? Are people perhaps looking into better materials for this problem?
- tschuy 3y ago
  For at least one of the most toxic additives in tires, Washington State's Department of Ecology and some West Coast tribes are leading the push to prohibit, with the caveat that researchers are still looking for a suitable replacement: https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s-salmon-from-toxic-tire-dust https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s... https://apnews.com/article/epa-tires-toxic-chemical-salmon-tribes-ce4ea04af17e78d84632da5e68ab356c https://apnews.com/article/epa-tires-toxic-chemical-salmon-t...
givemeethekeys 3y ago
The Bay Area's pollution is very low compared to most other cities in the world. People from those cities wish that their pollution primarily came from car tires.
ramenmeal 3y ago
Honest question, tires, or brakes? I was under the impression brake dust was the worst polluter. I'm sure tires aren't great either, but they should be equivalent between EV's and ICE cars. Brakes last significantly longer on EV's and therefore would help with pollution.
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago
  EVs -can- have worse tire pollution in some cases, i.e. low rolling resistance tires and increased weight compared to similar ICE.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > they should be equivalent between EV's and ICE cars EVs tend to be heavier, so are harder on tyres.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  The difference is 1.3x more tyre wear vs 10x less brake wear…
Workaccount2 3y ago
The thing about mass transit is that the more people who switch to rail/bus, the better the experience of having a car becomes.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The more people who switch to mass transit the more the experience of using mass transit becomes (better used systems tend to have money to build/run more transit). And eventually you reach a point where mass transit is strictly better than the car as well, though in the short term you make the car better.
clhodapp 3y ago
I'm aware that car tires create a lot (most?) of the microplastic pollution in the Bay Area, but are you sure it's most of all pollution? Do you possibly have a citation?
The_Colonel 3y ago
I think the push to get rid of ICEs is more due to global climate change effects rather than local pollution.
nostrademons 3y ago
Most of the pollution in the Bay Area is actually from wood smoke. In the summer it's wildfires; in the winter it's wood stoves. A significant portion of Bay Area housing is still on wood heat, which is terrible for outdoor air pollution.
- grecy 3y ago
  > wood heat, which is terrible for outdoor air pollution FYI, newer wood stoves have a catalytic combustor and burn the gasses as they leave the wood box 2 or even three times. They are much, much more efficient and drastically less polluting (because all the particulates are burned instead of going out in the air) They're law for all new installs in many, many places.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    Yes, but most of the remaining wood heat in the Bay Area is from houses built in the 1920s-1950s. If the homeowner has money to upgrade, they usually re-do the whole place with updated electrical & heat pumps. We've got 4 of these houses on our street, all built in the mid-50s with owners who are senior citizens now and probably could never afford to live in their current home if it weren't paid off and subject to Prop 13. Their yearly housing cost is $3000. Our monthly housing cost is $10K. They can't really afford to upgrade anything, but as soon as the house is sold, it's going to get a full gut remodel and probably a second story.
bluGill 3y ago
Not light rail, you want and automated metro. the difference is small - sometimes even the same trains are used on both. However the automated metro is cheaper to run (in the US operating costs are a big deal), and so you run it high frequency all day long. Metro systems also tend to run faster than light rail and people care about their time. This in turn means people will choose to take the train as they know it will be there when they want to go. Light rail makes people dream of having a car (possibly self driving) because the car is ready to go when they want to and is fast. Of course in the US building the above is often not affordable. We need to fix that problem, the more we can afford to build the more we will build and the faster we get away from the car only mindset.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

That's wild, didn't know that. Is anything doable about car tires short of not driving a car? Are people perhaps looking into better materials for this problem?

tschuy 3y ago
For at least one of the most toxic additives in tires, Washington State's Department of Ecology and some West Coast tribes are leading the push to prohibit, with the caveat that researchers are still looking for a suitable replacement: https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s-salmon-from-toxic-tire-dust https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s... https://apnews.com/article/epa-tires-toxic-chemical-salmon-tribes-ce4ea04af17e78d84632da5e68ab356c https://apnews.com/article/epa-tires-toxic-chemical-salmon-t...

givemeethekeys 3y ago

The Bay Area's pollution is very low compared to most other cities in the world. People from those cities wish that their pollution primarily came from car tires.

ramenmeal 3y ago

Honest question, tires, or brakes? I was under the impression brake dust was the worst polluter. I'm sure tires aren't great either, but they should be equivalent between EV's and ICE cars. Brakes last significantly longer on EV's and therefore would help with pollution.

whaleofatw2022 3y ago
EVs -can- have worse tire pollution in some cases, i.e. low rolling resistance tires and increased weight compared to similar ICE.
lostlogin 3y ago
> they should be equivalent between EV's and ICE cars EVs tend to be heavier, so are harder on tyres.
dzhiurgis 3y ago
The difference is 1.3x more tyre wear vs 10x less brake wear…

Workaccount2 3y ago

The thing about mass transit is that the more people who switch to rail/bus, the better the experience of having a car becomes.

bluGill 3y ago
The more people who switch to mass transit the more the experience of using mass transit becomes (better used systems tend to have money to build/run more transit). And eventually you reach a point where mass transit is strictly better than the car as well, though in the short term you make the car better.

clhodapp 3y ago

I'm aware that car tires create a lot (most?) of the microplastic pollution in the Bay Area, but are you sure it's most of all pollution? Do you possibly have a citation?

The_Colonel 3y ago

I think the push to get rid of ICEs is more due to global climate change effects rather than local pollution.

nostrademons 3y ago

Most of the pollution in the Bay Area is actually from wood smoke. In the summer it's wildfires; in the winter it's wood stoves. A significant portion of Bay Area housing is still on wood heat, which is terrible for outdoor air pollution.

grecy 3y ago
> wood heat, which is terrible for outdoor air pollution FYI, newer wood stoves have a catalytic combustor and burn the gasses as they leave the wood box 2 or even three times. They are much, much more efficient and drastically less polluting (because all the particulates are burned instead of going out in the air) They're law for all new installs in many, many places.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Yes, but most of the remaining wood heat in the Bay Area is from houses built in the 1920s-1950s. If the homeowner has money to upgrade, they usually re-do the whole place with updated electrical & heat pumps. We've got 4 of these houses on our street, all built in the mid-50s with owners who are senior citizens now and probably could never afford to live in their current home if it weren't paid off and subject to Prop 13. Their yearly housing cost is $3000. Our monthly housing cost is $10K. They can't really afford to upgrade anything, but as soon as the house is sold, it's going to get a full gut remodel and probably a second story.

bluGill 3y ago

Not light rail, you want and automated metro. the difference is small - sometimes even the same trains are used on both. However the automated metro is cheaper to run (in the US operating costs are a big deal), and so you run it high frequency all day long. Metro systems also tend to run faster than light rail and people care about their time. This in turn means people will choose to take the train as they know it will be there when they want to go. Light rail makes people dream of having a car (possibly self driving) because the car is ready to go when they want to and is fast. Of course in the US building the above is often not affordable. We need to fix that problem, the more we can afford to build the more we will build and the faster we get away from the car only mindset.