Hacker News Reader

Comment by herbst | Hacker News Reader

When I talk about health implications I often end up saying "but it's less bad than living next to a street" which statistically many things we spend time optimizing about are.

However most people live next to a busy street ...

View on HN

The street isn't the problem. Cars and trucks are. If those streets were filled with people walking, cycling, etc., the health penalty of living next to one would vanish overnight.

Ok that's not what I consider a "busy street" but I get your point, need better wording there.

Why not? A lot of streets often seem busy simply due to the incredible space inefficiency of cars. What I like to do sometimes, when I wait at a traffic light with my bicycle, is to count the actual number of cars that cross during a phase. The amount feels large, but when you count, it's often not more than the amount of cyclists that cross in the next phase, and they take up just a tiny fraction of what cars need.

Sure it absolutely makes sense. But for me and my eyes 200 people passing by are somehow still less "busy" than 25 loud and stinky cars. That's what I mean with I need better wording

Generally, the busiest streets are pedestrianised; you just can't move that volume of people in cars.

(Actually, the _very_ busiest streets are probably major bus gates (where, again, there are no cars), those can have fairly ridiculous density at peak times.

A street full of EVs in a traffic jam is also pretty good. No exhaust pollution and low tire wear due to low speeds and low acceleration.

Sure, but it still has the 90% of issues caused by ICE cars.

EVs aren’t a panacea but they’re a lot better than a 10% improvement. You still have tires but losing engine particulates, fumes, noise, and heat is a huge win in a city - bike or walk near one and you can feel the difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com