
L.A. keeps building near freeways, even though living there makes people sick - blondie9x
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-freeway-pollution/
======
mturmon
The article quotes Mayor Garcetti as saying that "improving air-filtration,
building design and tailpipe emissions" may be better than zoning
restrictions.

The article is properly scathing about the building of apartments with
balconies and sliding doors not more than 100 feet from _very_ busy freeways.
But, it does not follow up on Garcetti's point: we need to be more aggressive
in curtailing vehicle pollution. That's the root cause, after all.

As their particulate graphs point out, vehicle pollution has an 80/20 quality.
A few vehicles cause a disproportionate amount of pollution - they cause the
spikes in the graphs. This is also evident from driving around. You can
clearly smell, and see, when you are following a badly tuned truck, or almost
any 1970s and earlier car.

~~~
lima
In Germany, we did exactly what you suggest and banned all the old and badly
tuned cars in the inner cities, with significant success ("Umweltplakette").

Edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-
emission_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emission_zone)

The concept is used in many other European cities, too.

~~~
knz
Unfortunately (in this case) the US seems to have a much greater sense of
individual right rather than collective right.

My right, and that of my family, friends, and community, to clean and
pollution free air seems to be less important than someone else's individual
right to drive the vehicle of their choosing and maintain it as their means
allow. I know some States have emissions testing etc but that is not universal
across the US.

I assume the assumption has always been that the market will slowly correct
the issue and the fleet will change accordingly. But CAFE laws are of course a
politicized issue.

~~~
Klathmon
IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only
tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases.

So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.

~~~
gozur88
>IIRC emissions testing is similar to building codes in that you are only
tested against the year the car was manufactured in most cases.

As I understand it older cars have higher allowable emissions, but the state
has lowered those limits over the years.

>So a 1970 car will still pollute as much as a 1970 car.

In CA you are not required to get emissions testing for any car older than the
1975 model year. It used to be any car older than 30 years, but in 2005 they
decided to leave it at 1975.

To the larger point, yes, older cars can be registered with emissions levels
consistant with a well-maintained car from that year. Though the net effect of
the rules is to take more older cars off the road, since much of the time when
you fail emissions testing it's cheaper to replace the car than to fix it.

------
SippinLean
Related: the Princeton study that concluded that reducing congestion near toll
booths lowered birth defects for nearby residents

> We find that reductions in traffic congestion generated by E-ZPass reduced
> the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight among mothers within 2km
> of a toll plaza by 6.7-9.1% and 8.5-11.3% respectively, with larger effects
> for African-Americans, smokers, and those very close to toll plazas.

[https://www.princeton.edu/~jcurrie/publications/Traffic%20Co...](https://www.princeton.edu/~jcurrie/publications/Traffic%20Congestion%20and%20Infant%20Health.pdf)

------
rdtsc
An acquaintance of mine is a realtor and he noticed a seemingly higher
incidents of sickness associated with people living close the highway. He
believes he sold more houses around the highway where one spouse got sick and
died from cancer, and the surviving one was selling the residence than in
other parts of town.

------
heyjon
Will electric cars change the health issues related to living near freeways? I
know we are a long way away from replacing most of the vehicles with electric.

~~~
handedness
Perhaps, but it looks like there are significant tradeoffs:

[http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-
particulate-m...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate-
matter/)

Summary: Electric cars are much heavier, and therefore generate more brake
dust, tire and road wear (and therefore constituent particulates), etc.

Edit: Downvote all you want, guys, but here's the source:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X)

~~~
vlad
Brake regeneration is a large part of the braking force for many EVs when the
brake pedal is pressed, so the brake pads in some EV cars are actually smaller
than their gas siblings.

Brake regeneration also avoids using the brake pedal altogether in many cases
because an EV slows down significantly when the gas pedal is released.

With electric power, smaller brake pads, and less need to use them, I'm
surprised the article believes there is only a 1% reduction in overall
particle pollution for EV's vs. gas cars.

Plus, a typical EV is a small and modern 0-2 year old car compared to the gas
vehicles out there, such as a 7-year-old, inefficient, v8 engine SUV.

~~~
maxerickson
A big factor is that gasoline engines don't release all that much
particulates.

~~~
vlad
"Electric-powered vehicles, of course, have no exhaust emissions. However,
because they’re 24 percent heavier on average, the study found that EVs shed
more particulate matter from tires and brakes, and also kick up more
particulate matter from road surfaces."

If the brake pads are smaller and aren't required to slow down in many cases,
the EV should win, especially when the average EV on the street is likely
similar in weight compared to an average non-EV vehicle.

As far as kicking up existing particulate matter, EV's shouldn't be penalized
for kicking up dust on the road which came from others cars, which are almost
entirely non-EV cars and 18-wheelers.

I bet there are other more significant factors to derive impact on pollution
from EVs than brake dust, such as the source of electricity used to charge
them.

I'll try to look at the study later to see how the 1% difference between road
pollution between gas and EV vehicles was calculated.

~~~
maxsilver
> "However, because they’re 24 percent heavier on average, the study found
> that EVs shed more particulate"

That's a pretty misleading statistic too. EV's are 24% heaver _than the
average subcompact_. But most people are already driving cars significantly
heavier than the lightest subcompacts.

According to the EPA, the _actual_ average personal vehicle weight was 3,977
pounds in 2012. That is heavier than most EV's -- it's heavier than any Chevy
Bolt, Volt, or Nissan Leaf ever sold.

For example, a 2017 Volt is lighter than a similarly-priced 2017 Avalon, even
though the Volt has a 18.4kWH battery in it, does 53 miles zero-emission
electric, and gets an extra 15mpg when using gasoline.

------
oneplane
Because in that country, the pricetag is more important than health. I wonder
if there will ever be a tipping point for this type of issues.

~~~
benevol
It's so amazing how much shit people are (apparently) willing to eat (or maybe
simply have no clue about due to lack of education due to lack of money).

I know of more than 1 study which has proven serious adverse health effects
for people living near traffic axis. It's so obvious: constant noise keeps
your stress level high 24 hours a day, and air pollution adds damage to the
brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, etc.

~~~
ryandrake
Let's not mistake necessity for willingness. Most people live where they can
afford.

------
cdransf
Having lived in and now moved out of LA, I can't really think of anything that
would make me want to go back. The air quality is an issue, as are the
terrible commutes (which can only be avoided by living within a few miles of
where you work — not easy when more than one person in the household works).

------
HillaryBriss
An LA real estate person once told me that San Fernando Valley prices for
homes _really_ close to (but south of) the 101 freeway are higher than prices
of homes far from (but north of) the 101 freeway.

Prices seem to be driven less by smog and more by neighborhood quality. In the
SF Valley, locations south of the 101 tend to have better schools, less crime,
proximity to the hills and west side, etc. The 101 itself seems to serve as a
barrier between good neighborhoods and less-good ones.

Perhaps something similar can be noted in San Francisco, again, around the 101
freeway, where it divides the Mission District from Potrero Hill. I mean, the
wind is very often out of the west, blowing that smog up across Potrero Hill.

------
TheCoelacanth
Cars are the real "American carnage". There were 40,000 deaths from traffic
accidents in 2016. MIT estimates another 53,000 from traffic pollution[1].
That's more than 5 times as many as the number of homicides.

[1] [http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-
causes-200000-e...](http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-
causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)

------
spraak
I'll be moving to LA soon for work.. Are there any areas anyone can recommend
that have a lot of trees/plant life/parks? I also appreciate farmers markets
and a health food store. I'd like to not be too far from e.g. Santa Monica or
Northridge

~~~
wcarron
I would, but you named one place in the valley and then Santa Monica, so I
have no clue where you'd actually be working => can't recommend an area.

~~~
spraak
Doh, need to get more familiar with the area.. I will mostly be working in
Santa Monica

~~~
wcarron
Venice, Marina Del Rey, Culver city areas are all not bad. Santa Monica is one
of the most expensive areas in the country, though, so just be aware of that.
Venice cheaper, but since it's LA, that's still gonna be up there in terms of
rent/housing.

I can't give any more info, since I personally stick to downtown, hollywood,
silver lake, and north hollywood (in other words, far away from the west
side).

------
chrismealy
They could tear out the freeways and let people be free to live anywhere.

------
mason240
The buildings are "permanent," but the auto emissions will greatly reduced and
gone in 20 years once electric cars become mainstream.

------
alexkavon
Musk's got it in the bag anyways with his boring company.

~~~
surrey-fringe
Please don't post trollish comments on HN. I don't like it when you do that.

