A friend of mine does research on air pollution from cars - the TL;DR is you should not live within a third of a mile of a highway. The falloff is pretty sharp, but you don't want to be in that zone.
Generations of men have been taught that when walking with a woman on a pavement, they should always take the side closer to the road allowing her to keep further away from the traffic.
But Dr Iarla Kilbane-Dawe claimed that Londoners should avoid walking too near the kerb because on busy streets, air pollution can be up to a third higher than on the inside of the pavement.
Shame you cant remember the source. Ive long since wondered if its actually more deleterious for my health to cycle to work in London due to air quality. I came to the conclusion that youre damned if you do and damned if you dont in the end, as in London at least, many of the tube lines have particulates higher than is considered safe
Probably depends on the tube line; one of them, can't remember which now as I left the country in 2018, left me with black snot on each use. Cycling wasn't that bad, but neither were the other lines.
Notably, most major cities have been building tons of housing (especially ‘affordable housing’) right next to highways, as it is the only areas that aren’t already built out with tons of high value houses.
Developers build apartments where they can make money from them, in other words where they can rent them for enough that they'll make back their investment. It's very expensive to build housing, so the only way to make the investment back and have low rental prices is to try to make the building costs as low as possible. A big part of those costs is the price of land.
Or, the only places to build houses with reasonable costs are in areas that weren’t already built out with very expensive houses.
Which will tend to be less desirable areas, by definition.
One approach, of course, would be to also make existing houses less expensive/desirable. Notably, wealthy people tend to have the resources to fight efforts to do that.
The other approach is to expand what land is available to build on. I understand that in the UK, farmers consider it a lottery win if they get planning permission for some of their farmland to become housing.
Despite what many in the UK think about it "being full", this is mostly an illusion from how cramped are the parts in which the houses are allowed to go; the country as a whole is mostly undeveloped.
(There are of course other considerations, with "why did you build on a flood plain?" being one of the failure modes in the UK).
Well, letting people build houses right next to freeways and/or on things like earthquake faults or flood plains is what is being done here. Which is, uh, also a problem. Since those people are now at much higher risk, eh?
Building on farmland has national security concerns (as countries are slowly realizing), as the country ends up dependent on foreign food imports after awhile. Can't grow food effectively when there is a subdivision there instead eh?
In most high demand areas (which are the ones everyone is complaining about, generally), all the decent land (or even just 'normal' land) is already developed.
Bonus - next time around, even the flood plain land might be 'too expensive' to develop on, and folks will only be able to afford houses at the dump, or in a swamp, or the like. Yay.
> The other approach is to expand what land is available to build on. I understand that in the UK, farmers consider it a lottery win if they get planning permission for some of their farmland to become housing.
I've seen that mentality in other parts of the world. The thing is that agricultural land is often protected because it is good agricultural land. It is literally the reason why the cities were built where they were built, since that land provided for the cities. Unfortunately, good agricultural land also tends to be easy to build on and we have a tendency to ignore features that may make it a poor decision to build on. (Such as the flood plains you mentioned.)
Woke activists love the word "systemic" for a reason.
If a bunch of good people acting in good faith produce a result an evil mastermind would want does it matter if they are good? On many levels obviously yes, on some practical levels the system and the incentives still need to change.
EV's have 100% reduction of NOx/tailpipe VOCs, 100% reduction in soot/tailpipe particulates, 70% reduction in brake pad dust (due to regenerative braking), in exchange for 25% increase in tire wear.
Vehicles are capped at emissions of 3mg/mile of particulates and 30mg/mile of VOC's. Something like 1-2mg of tire material actually becomes airborne PM10 particles every mile (and only about 10% of that for PM2.5 particles).
So, EV's really do a great job reducing emissions from 35mg/mile to <2mg/mile (PM10) or even <0.1mg/mile for PM2.5. A 95%-99.8% reduction in air pollution near highways would seem absolutely fantastic for me and my children!
> EV's have 100% reduction of NOx/tailpipe VOCs, 100% reduction in soot/tailpipe particulates, 70% reduction in brake pad dust (due to regenerative braking), in exchange for 25% increase in tire wear.
I replaced the tires on my Tesla model 3 at 74,000 km and they still had tread above the indicator bars. I'm now at 140,000 km and the tires look great, the back ones look like they're only about halfway done. I might be an outlier but my previous Subaru needed tires every 50,000 to 60,000 km.
Needless to say, the brake pads have never been touched and when I saw the left front one at around 110,000 to 120,000 to patch that tire, it looked like it was just installed. The regen braking almost completely eliminated the brake pad or rotor as a wear item.
Yeah, aren’t the EV tyre’s compounded differently in some way to account for the extra weight?
If the weight on each wheel is greater I’d have assumed the tyre would need to be harder, for the same performance.
I would have assumed that would counter the otherwise additional wear, but I keep hearing EV tyre pollution is higher and yet everyone who owns one has always said they aren’t changing tyres an more than they did on their combustion cars.
Given that tires have a range of warranties from 40,000 miles to 80,000 miles ... it's possible that the tires are wearing 25% faster but the consumers aren't noticing because it's still around the normal 40k-80k mile range.
No matter the warranty - I still notice when I replace them.
And the warranty requires proof of periodic rotation. If the tires are wearing evenly, as is the likely case for a new vehicle, then rotation costs significantly more than the pro-rated rebate.
One might similarly note the awe-inspiring destructive power demonstrated by tanker trucks of fuel catching fire and causing interstate bridges to collapse.
You're speculating about something that hasn't happened, using something that doesn't exist; no body is driving batteries large enough to destroy a bridge about.
They are driving liquid fuel tankers that can do that around regularly.
Also consider that as battery tech improves new chemistries lower the risk of fire even more. E.g. sodium batteries are very stable right now and solid state will improve that further. There's no way you can make petrol less flammable.
You're going to have to face facts, battery powered vehicles are safer than petrol powered one.
Consider that every single human being on the planet carries around a lithium battery in their pocket, at a large percentage of those batteries have experienced such damage that would destroy the glass screen on those devices, and yet people are not bursting into flames regularly, and even the defective batteries that Samsung distributed for a while only made events extremely rare.
