Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
GraniteGrok's avatar

Once again, Lloyd, you've left your context incomplete. The total population of Toronto and Montreal is 4,200,000 against your reported 1,100 deaths. That's a 0.026% - again, rounding error territory.

Yes, the obligatory that any death is a tragedy but you should not create public policy on such a minuscule number. And once again, I point out, what is the cost to achieve your end goal of no risk of anything to anyone at anytime? And that includes both the financial cost AND the political costs of running up the old truism of the 80/20 Rule.

Except you're trying to solve the 98/2 rule - tremendously more expensive. And while you are railing against the problem, what is your real world solution that is achievable? THAT I want to see (although I already know, in part, what that is after reading your posts for years now).

"As urban areas continue to grow,". This must gall you as a New Urbanist - see, it's the CITIES that are the problem! Decentralize everything - including population centers! Wouldn't you agree with me on that point?

Expand full comment
Cindy McLaughlin's avatar

Interestingly, the UFPs from tire and brake emissions are some of the worst offenders (Emissions Analytics says they're nearly 2000x as concentrated as combustion, especially in newer engines), and tire emissions are even worse with EVs, which are 20-30% heavier and have far more torque. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article284533695.html. So solving idling or tailpipe doesn't actually solve the problem -- and their antidotes: speedy, uncongested traffic, actually make EV emissions worse.

The answer is so so clearly density, walkability, lighter vehicles (i.e bikes), the smallest possible electric vehicles where a car or truck is absolutely needed, and far far far fewer VMT overall.

Expand full comment
85 more comments...

No posts