4317Re: [carfree_cities] More pollution from slower traffic
- Feb 7, 2002In a message sent Today, carfreecrawford wrote:
-> Andras Toth continued:
-> So, putting aside all theoretical argumentation about traffic and
-> urban planning (in which I have always fully adhered to the opinions
-> you defend on this list):
-> Is it true or false that a car trapped in a traffic jam or slowed
-> down by sleeping policemen pollutes more on a given distance than a
-> car doing the same journey at an optimal speed/rpm whatever? If true,
-> how significant is the difference?
Joel and turpin have both provided accurate and fairly complete answers to
this question, the short forms of which are "yes" and "quite significant.
There is no question: they are correct.
However, the original inquiry was about the efficacy of increasing highway
capacity to alleviate congestion, based partly upon the assertion that
such action will reduce pollution by allowing autos to operate under
conditions that minimize tailpipe emissions. As has been pointed out
earlier in the thread, the phenomenon of induced traffic prevents such
reduction from being achieved in the real world.
A quick review should be sufficient to confirm that assertion. For
more than fifty years, autocentric societies have been madly adding to
highway capacity. Name one such society, or one metro area, where
increased capacity has resulted in overall reductions in tailpipe
emissions, longer than momentarily.
But cars don't belong in cities anyway. And they wouldn't belong even if
they were fueled by pleasant thoughts and emitted only music.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>