Hacker News Reader

Comment by kleiba | Hacker News Reader

But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise?

And congestion I find an interesting one. Where I live, the city planners are trying to make it as hard as possible for people driving into the city, the idea being that people will just give up if driving even to a parking lot close to the city center sucks too much. However, it has always made me wonder: doesn't this strategy add to the congestion? Like, what if you made it instead super easy and fast to get to a parking spot - then your car would be off the road much faster and you'd produce less congestion, less noise, and less pollution.

View on HN

EVs don’t have tailpipe emission but they have tire and brake dust (worse, due to the average weight) and make tire and wind noise, not to mention having horns. From a climate change perspective, less CO2 is better but for things like heart disease, asthma, stress as well as water pollution they’re not much of an improvement.

> have tire and brake dust (worse, due to the average weight)

this isn't really true. EV brakes barely get any use because of regenerative breaking, and EV tires tend to be stiffer which mostly evens out the tires.

People who’ve studied it disagree:

> Assuming lightweight EVs (i.e. with battery packs enabling a driving range of about 100 miles), the report finds that EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less non-exhaust PM2.5 and 18-19% less PM10 than ICEVs. Assuming that EV models are heavier (with battery packs enabling a driving range of 300 miles or higher), however, the report finds that they reduce PM10 by only 4-7% and increase PM2.5 by 3-8% relative to conventional vehicles. Additional simulations indicate that the uptake of electric vehicles will lead to very marginal decreases in total PM emissions from road traffic in future years. In scenarios where electric vehicles comprise 4% and 8% of the vehicle stock in 2030, their penetration reduces PM emissions by 0.3%-0.8% relative to current levels.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/env-2020-311-en/index.ht...

And by studied you mean come up with synthetic / theoretical models that are not verified against reality?

Ignoring actual tailpipe emissions and focusing on large PM10 particles like dust kicked up from the road is not a serious evaluation of the benefits of EVs vs combustion engines

This sub-thread came from someone specifically questioning a comment acdha had made about non-tailpipe emissions. To bring tailpipe emissions back up here is a bit of a non-sequitur.

That’s just one of many studies - look at the fishery damage caused by tires in the PNW next - but I’m not arguing against EVs, only that they are not a solution to pollution and any better world should involve fewer and smaller cars.

I don't think you've received a good reply to the congestion part of your comment.

The most poorly understood urban planning concept by the general public is the idea of induced demand. Usually this is applied to freeway expansion, which inevitably ends up being just as congested as pre expansion.

However, induced demand can just as easily be applied to parking lots. Especially in NYC area, very few people who drive and park don't have an alternative. Those people only have so much tolerance for looking for parking, so limiting parking will push people on the margin to transit.

For the individual, driving will almost always be the best choice if you build endless parking and highways. But, it's not necessarily better for the collective to allocate our land and resources like that. Parking lots aren't free. In fact, they require a huge amount of space. You can fit more people in an apartment building with that space!

Parking takes up a lot of space, and space is obviously at a premium in downtown Manhattan.

> But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise?

The loudest noise is tire noise.

This is generally the case in most cities, but less so at lower Manhattan speeds.

Large diesel trucks produce a lot of pollution and noise. But those will take longer to electrify.

Tire wear also contributes the most to PM2.5 pollution, and EVs are heavier and produce more wear

Interesting. Do you have a source to back up the part about EVs?

https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-los...

You need a source to tell you EVs are heavier? This is a basic fact.

> This is a basic fact.

Clearly they don't want a source, it's just malicious ignorance. After all, if they really wanted to know it'd be far easier to click the "plus" button on their browser and ask DuckDuckGo.

Funny that you should mention that, because the first hit I get when I type "EVs PM2.5 pollution" into my search engine is a Science Direct article that contains the following quote: "Findings demonstrate that EV adoption can significantly alleviate PM2.5 pollution." Not that I am one to blindly believe whatever happens to show up at the top of my search results, but it shows the ridiculousness of your argument about how easy it is to just do a web search.

So I'd recommend for next time, keep your clairvoyance to yourself (because I "clearly" did want a source) and while your add it, perhaps also your offences ("malicious ignorance").

The real loudest noise at city speeds is mostly jerks with modified exhaust or occasionally a large diesel truck.

Good news! Dodge are catering to that demographic with "the "Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust," which combines chambers and speakers under the car, plus some actual pipes" for all their anti-social needs.

If that is true then I doubt that this new fee will solve the noise problem.

In NYC, I'm pretty sure it is the horn (and the siren) ;-)

Noise will be about the same, it's the people honking their horns at traffic that are the real noise problem. But with a toll there will be less cars and then less horns honked.

Interesting. It's been so long that I visited Manhattan that I have no recollection of the soundscape, but the city where I live is much, much smaller. There is basically no honking here.

The horn honking is cultural in New York. If you visit the area, and cross from New Jersey into Manhattan, you'll notice that as soon as you cross the Hudson river, drivers are suddenly honking their horns for any reason at all, whereas they weren't in NJ.

It's not about city size; I live in Tokyo now, which is much larger than NYC, it's extremely rare to hear a horn honk here, even in the areas with heavier car and truck traffic. Horn honking is a cultural thing.

Honking is moderate. The biggest source of noise is ambulance / fire / occasionally police sirens.

Sometimes it's also the occasional car with a kilowatt music system blaring at full power.

This is regular streets; expressways are noisier but few.

In my experience the biggest source of noise is homeless people cosplaying as roosters, maybe I just got unlucky with my apartment location though. Police sirens only last a couple seconds because of the burst setup theyve got.

Must be an unfortunate location. From my many years of experience, this is really rare; NYC seems to have relatively few homeless folks, and most I ever met were quiet.

Regarding location, check the prices in hotels right on the Times Square; they used to be lower than in similar hotels a few blocks away. Times Squae can get really noisy, and stays bustling 24/7. Tourists value some quiet %)

Agree on the siren noise. Last time I stayed in NYC for a week, the sirens were constant. There was horn honking too, but the sirens were loud and frequent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com