Worth noting that 50-60% of passenger cars in France are diesel, but Paris have been gradually banning older higher emission diesels (Crit’air 3, 4, 5) from Paris. Banning cars outright also works, of course, but I suspect a lot of the reduction can be attributed to getting particularly bad diesel cars out vs. the limited areas where cars are entirely restricted.
Also worth noting that with modern emissions standards (and transition to EVs), over 50% of handful particulates come from tires, brakes, road surface wear, and resuspended dust:
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.
It seems that there has been fundamental mistakes and overstatements in the amount of particles from brakes in much of the secondary research in the last decades.
Heavy particles and gaseous emissions are not comparable in such a simplistic way. If you take a dump on the street it doesn't mean you caused 50 million times more emissions than the EPA limits for ICE car exhaust.
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.
50% number of particulates might not amount to 50% of the health risk.
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.
I flipped through the summary of that report, and I would think there is almost surely no way this is true, unless focusing on worst case assumptions like aggressive driving styles and very poorly maintained vehicles.
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.
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.
> I don't think there's any healthy level of private cars coexisting with humans in a city
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.
There are lots of things in cities that are unhealthy for both ourselves and others but we allow them. It's possible to make big improvements while still enjoying a certain amount of the benefit of something.
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.
We need to start taxing vehicles based on the damage they are responsible for.
The 4th Power Law is a principle in road engineering that states that the damage a vehicle causes to a road surface is proportional to the fourth power of its axle load. This means that even small increases in axle load can cause exponentially greater damage to the road.
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.
Isn't it more likely that it was tyre dust? Every vehicle (more so the heavier ones) is continually depositing tyre dust into the air, whereas brake dust will only be produced when slowing (and hardly any for regenerative braking vehicles).
Many cities in Europe have introduced climate zones in the past ~20 years, mainly to ban older smoky diesels like that. Petrol cars have also gotten more efficient; smaller engines (1 liter 3 cylinder ones are the norm now for smaller cars), smaller cars, more efficient engines, stop/start systems, hybrids and EVs (especially good for city traffic), etc.
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.
Makes me wonder how much of this kind of progress other cities could get just from phasing out the dirtiest vehicles without going straight to car-free zones
How much of this has to do with the policies highlighted - removing 50k parking spots, adding bike lanes and green spaces - and how much has to do with cars having better exhaust?
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.
I‘m currently visiting Paris for the second time in my life after 2008. I can tell you it’s much cleaner now than it has been back then. There are many electric (cargo) bikes, scooters, cars and buses. The city is much quieter and there is way less crazy traffic. There are few cars parked on the side of the street. However these parking spots were cleared for bike lanes and bike sharing parking. Biggest polluter are the garage trucks, which are still diesel and noisy. If they manage to replace them by electric ones, many parts of the city will be really quiet.
This paper [0] suggests improvements in car emissions has played a big role in reducing emissions in European cities as a whole. Vehicle emissions of all kinds have fallen pretty dramatically across Europe [1], although this is total emissions for vehicles, so it includes policies to reduce driving as well as those to reduce each vehicle’s emissions. So overall trends toward more efficient cars are certainly part of the story. Given these images are between 2007, when emissions had already been falling, and 2024, I’m inclined to think the policies highlighted in the article played a significant role as well.
No, it’s not just that. There’s a reduction in traffic. Traffic is the biggest cause of pollution. Even if the exhaust is “ clean “ (it’s not) there’s also tire dust and brake dust
Right when covid started I drove around Austin to pick something up. There were hardly any cars on the road and the air looked pristine after several days of people mostly staying at home.
Immediately followig 9/11 in the US, there were a number of atmospheric scientists that were able to conduct studies for the first time without jet con-trails in the air.
There's this guy on YouTube that travelled to india and one thing stood out to me was the non-stop honking of cars and bikes. Just endless forever. What a nightmare!
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!
This it the most immediate and obvious change in any Chinese city now, they are practically silent. All electric cars means you can actually have a conversation with someone while walking through crowded downtown areas, and you never realize how much of a difference it makes until you experience it.
Of course, noise on sidewalks is important and annoying. But to a German who is used to good (sealed) German windows, French and Spanish cities, just to name some, are just a pain.
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%.
I believe https://carto.bruitparif.fr/ represents 2022 levels, but my French is very rusty and I suspect that historical data review is more readily available to a speaker of it. Perhaps that site has lockdown data as a layer somewhere?
In the UK people consider "speeding" to be going 10mph or more over the limit. So 20/30mph really means 30/40mph, and in addition there are still many places with 40mph (50mph) roads going through.
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.
> Speed limit signs don't work. ... What works is narrowing the roads.
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.
Maybe it's just me but every car I've rented while traveling through the UK for the last 3 months starts beeping when you go over the limit. Really helps keep you under it by annoying the shit out of you.
... 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.
I am highly confident that a sufficient percentage of those whose cars are burned go on to buy another car that the net impact of the act you describe is negative on all counts.
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.
Ah yes, the joy of destroying your neighbor’s property just for fun. Is he a working-class guy, struggling to pay his bills? Too bad. Because nothing says “let’s build a better future” than a riot.
Sadly, that is mostly how it happens. Wars/riots and strikes are the only proven mechanism for effecting systemic change to power structures. It's how you got most of your freedoms.
The comment you resond to is obviously a joke, and so is yours (in a way) but owning and driving a car in Paris almost certainly places you in the upper class. Most Parisians don't own cars, most don't use them to drive around the city.
Massive strikes that are hard to contain got use the 8 hour work day, weekends and a lot of labor rights. Civil right movements won only because a huge portion of them were militant (back then even the National Rifle Association supported banning guns).
A violent status quo necessitates violence to achieve change.
I will note that car burning is rare during protests. It mostly happen during riots, which are quite rare (i think 2005 were the big ones, and some light ones started last year). What can happen is a luxury car finding itself on its own roof (those racing cars are light).
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.
Readit News
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except, you know, the amount remained the same, we just got rid of the other 98% that used to be there.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
I wonder what that does to a population. How does anyone think??
https://youtu.be/IFUIdcrgW6M?si=o6LkXK4MyS-PL7m-&t=661
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!
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%.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/business/trump-kills-congesti...
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.
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.
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.
Dead Comment