Here is a claim that taking lead out of gas reduced the crime rate by 50%. The graphs at the end of the paper are informative.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf
1
I can state affirmatively that the gas mileage of my car has fallen significantly since New York City enacted "Vision Zero" - a program that has placed thousands of unnecessary poorly timed stop lights that are intended to make drivers stop frequently. Sitting at these lights before proceeding one block to the next light that requires a stop as it is reached must be contributing mightily to an increase in pollution.
8
@Bill
If you get a hybrid or electric car, there are no emissions when stopped at a light.
Also it appears you are more concerned about your gas mileage, than people's lives.
18
@Don Wiss - "If you get a hybrid or electric car, there are no emissions when stopped at a light."
Actually many newer gas cars have stop-start built in which means at the light they aren't burning gas as well.
But all, hybrid, electric, gas are burning the one irreplaceable resource: Time. You life ticks down at each light rather than being where you intend to spend that time. Traffic efficiency increases when traffic is moving, not stopped.
On my commute along a main road there is a light that stays green for the side road. It forces any traffic along the main road to stop for 15 - 18 seconds before allowing it proceed. This creates extra congestion, conga lines, noise, and pollution from stationary cars for no discernible reason by to create congestion where there is a smooth flow of traffic.
Along the same road there are side streets that trigger the main road to stop instantly with no delay should a car want to enter. But along the main road they are forced to sit in a delay even when there is not traffic coming from the side road at that delayed light.
6
@Bill Much of the VZ noise is to cover for the massive cash grab that photo enforcement has given the city. Short yellow lights, and a lowered speed limit mean that technical violations are easily converted to cash. Yes, there are areas that should be car limited or car free, but for the other 97% of the City of New York, VZ takes any debate about photo enforcement off the table, as white bikes/its for the children/die in at City Hall take over the TV narrative. Congestion pricing is a toll booth, no more, no less, and anyone who thinks the subways will actually improve has missed MTA history lessons...NYC will remain gridlocked, but toll readers will ding all day. That's the only change.....
2
A clear argument for government (DOE) to end reduction of regultions on transport emissions and to finance, fund and subsidize transporttion electrification R&D to replace ICE vehicles.
Another gift from Trump, he wants greater emissions
1
All I ever see is "city" dwellers telling "suburbanites/country" dwellers that they need to change or ditch their cars or bike and walk more. News flash: most long term city dwellers have no idea the transportation needs of non city dwellers. I lived in NYC for 25 years but now my nearest food store is over 4 miles away. And I'm in a nyc suburb. I cant come out if the train and stop at fairway or citerella. I spent several summers riding my road bike 25.6 miles each way to my job in NYC. Took me 90 minutes and was faster than my 2 train + walk commute. My brother who still lives in nyc, says "we need to get rid of these bike lanes." I easily know 50 people living in nyc who keep a car in the city. City people need to go to copenhagen and see how biking in a city is supposed to work. How can I, a suburban person, take advice from a city person who owns a car in the city seriously. If city people want to tell me which carnival should own, then they shouldnt own any car because they can walk/bike anywhere they need to.
The answer is we need more infrastructure and public transportation alternatives both inside and outside the city. But until that happens, city people need to look to their own issues/solutions and suburban people will look to ours. Don't you tell me what I need to do or impose reateictions/taxes/congestion pricing on me and I wont tell you to get rid of your city car or cab or any other solutions. We can all do our own part.
1
How do you think the electricity is generated? Does it come out of thin air?
63% of US electricity generated by fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
3
Article may be somewhat misleading. The reference database calculates emission based on traffic data and state-specific emission factors for vehicle types. Which means this is simply stating that traffic is worse than in 1990. It surprises no one since our population ballooned to 20 million. I am more interested to see what the actual CO2 and particulate level is on an average day. Given that we are close to the ocean, would it be carried away with the wind quickly?
1
This is pretty depressing. We have a Chevy Volt duo and almost never go to the gas station any more. Our home solar panels via an outlet charge the Volt, so we basically pay nothing for fuel to run our car. Seems like a 'no brainer' to us. Yet electric cars and duos remain a small fraction of the new cars being purchased. This is true even as the mileage range of electric cars and the number of charging stations has increased. The people is so-called left leaning, climate change caring Seattle can't be bothered, even with the great incentives, including rebates. It is pretty disgusting as well as depressing.
4
Have my 7.56 PV array feeding my electric car that I use less than my e-bike...I'm doing my share - what are you doing?
1
To reduce driving there has been a commitment to improving and enhancing mass transportation (e,g. on time, transit routes that work for people, accessible, etc.). There also has to been a commitment by government to enforce emission regulations for the automobile industry (next president will need to undo the Trump's administration policies. )
And, personal will is needed to reduce America's love affair with large vehicles.
1
I live in one of these cities. I am fortunate to be able to walk or cycle to work. It's about 2 miles each way. I do this year round regardless of the weather. Good exercise and nice to be outside as starting this time of year it is the only daylight I will see during the work week. My partner uses it, but I wouldn't take our local public transit if they paid me. The service has too many faults to list and is expensive to boot. Of my co-workers that live outside of cycling distance, almost all of them drive. Some have no public transit option, others have tried it and given up. We do have a car that we use on weekends for errands, visiting friends and family, and for getting out of the city. We tried using a car sharing service and renting for longer trips but that doesn't cut it either. There is an attraction to having your own car. Still we drive between 5,000 and 7,500 miles a year and have an efficient vehicle so our fuel use is pretty low. Moderation in everything is a good habit to develop. Try to drive less. Walk or bike when you can. Take public trans if it works for you. Trade in an older vehicle for a more efficient (and safer) newer one.
2
@Pete
"You can preach all day about the need to drive more efficient vehicles but will not significantly change our driving preferences."
Not true. Look at the trend for San Jose: big dip in per capita pollution. Tesla and other electric vehicles? They are super common in the area. Less affluent areas would need incentives, but the point is it CAN be done, and it pays off in the long run. I essentially drive for free now, with my car plugged into my solar panel-powered house.
2
In 1955 at an English composition class I took at Washington University ins St. Louis, students were asked to comment on an essay entitled "Suburbia of thee I sing"! As an architectural student I was appalled realizing then that suburban sprawl was a bad idea, Frank Lloyd Wright 's Broadacre City" notwithstanding . My critique was not well received. But my objections were trivial against the behemoth forces that underly the capitalist system, of which Mr. Wright referred to as "the death system". The facts are that the system must continually expand. Given the fossil fuel and automotive industries whose lucrative profits underpin the endless expansion of capitalism nothing but production for use, the end of the wages system, and society's democratic control of all social production is going to end climate and species destruction. For democracy in industry and life see www.slp.org.
2
Many jobs, mine included, can be done by working from home. I’m allowed one day per week to do so and I accomplish more on that one day than ever at the office with all the noise and distractions.
Numerous coworkers work very effectively from their homes in other cities.
If my company, and others like it, would allow more work from home options whenever possible, we would see enormous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
How can our national, state and local governments incentivize responsible work from home business practices.
2
I suspect that it is not only the vehicles, but the traffic gridlock causing the higher emissions. The growth of the big cities leaving behind the infrastructure (ie. roads) to support that growth is largely to blame for increased emissions.
3
@Jack Emissions from idling and gridlock are two things that EVs are very good about. They do not use their “fuel” unless they are moving. In fact EVs get a higher MPGe rating
in stop and go traffic than they do at highway speeds.
1
@Jack Emissions from idling and gridlock are two things that EVs are very good about. They do not use their “fuel” unless they are moving. In fact EVs get a higher MPGe rating
in stop and go traffic than they do at highway speeds.
@Jack
Yes. Cites should invest in "smart" traffic lights and other measures to reduce gridlock. This is another areas where autonomous vehicles that can communicate with each other can save fuel. Many newer gas vehicles also shut off the engine when stopped and some have cylinder deactivation when under a light load.
1
What about animal agriculture, which is actually the #1 contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases. A substantial portion, even half of US land is utilized in agriculture. If we used that land for reforestation efforts, we could substantially decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. Please talk about this.
1
A personal example of the underlying problems. I live 20miles from where I work - the commute by car takes about 30 minutes each way. (I'm very lucky, making the same commute in the opposite direction would take 2-3x as long).
My alternative would be a 2 mile bike-ride to the nearest train station, followed by a 60minute train ride, followed by a 4 mile bike-ride from the train station to my office. This would take at least 90 minutes each way.
I'd very much like to reduce my emissions but not at the cost of tripling my commute times.
2
@HB In this day and age, you should try going by e-bike. The trip to work may take you about 45 minutes. Virtually zero emissions that way.
1
Would be nice to be able to zoom on the map (you did make a "most detailed" claim in the headline), and to select regions on the graph (want to see what the regions are with lowest per-cap emissions and the ones that took recent per-cap nosedives). Those are the regions to study and emulate.
1
We consciously drive drive less, have an efficient car and do what we can to mitigate our CO2 impact to the point of it costing us vs getting any monetary gain. It is the least we can do to pay for the damage our generation has caused. We're all for carbon taxation and we know the costs will, as usual, be passed back to us via various fees and surcharges. That's OK we really need to do something aggressive.
A few days ago the Guardian published a list of the top 20 CO2 polluters, AMOCO and CHEVRON topped the list (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions) producing
60 and 44 billion tons of CO2 since 1965.
When I see EXXON advertizing its commitment to removing CO2, I can only laugh, it is such an outrageous lie.
2
It's no just CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion that's a problem, but count all the 7.7 billion people on earth exhaling CO2 ( 1kg CO2 per human per day) and the 996 million cows and 9.5 million horses even more! But also important to consider, how many tons of methane these animals produce in a year! But then why are the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere in the parts per million range, can any body answer this? Why are they so low?
@Ralph
Need to have 3 million less people in the world. Thata the answer.
Sure wish we could explore the graphs.
2
It is not the individual's responsibility nor fault to change driving technology to one that is passive and friendly to the environment. As long as the fossil fuel industry is a zillion dollar piggy bank, it is ridiculous to think we individuals can fix that by "driving less". The fix is in getting rid of fossil fuel transportation. We could use Earth's magnetic core as Nikola Tesla proved, to generate massive amounts of energy, yet that stranglehold of power that the fossil fuel industry has, makes this impossible. Change means legislating fossil fuel burning out. Make it illegal.
2
Perhaps a tax on gas guzzlers? You are a commuter and want a big truck, an outsize SUV? You will pay a hefty tax for the privilege. One tool in the box.
3
@nanhum
There is one.
@nanhum
Clearly not a blue collar working person who may need to carry tools for their job. Put all your stuff in a soft little backpack or string bag? Good for you that you can have such a soft cushy job. Some of us actually do hard work for a living.
Except California!! I am amazed that you completely overlooked the fact that every city in California saw strong population growth, _and_ seeing per capita declines in emissions!! San Jose saw_30%_ declines!!
So why is that? Just as a wild guess, it may have to do with the fact that nearly 10% of new cars bought in California are electric. Shouldn't _that_ be the lede here? Behavior _is_ changing (with incentives) and the technology _is_ available (just). As the economics continue to improve, and more varied electric models arrive, electric vehicles
will supplant internal combustion cars pretty quickly.
2
@Hindmost9 Not just per capita emissions, but total emissions. San Jose metro area is down 13% total, even with population increases.California has stronger emissions standards plus the EV mandate that requires every manufacturer to sell a percentage of zero-emission vehicles. any other state can sign onto the higher standards and EV mandate.
1
Well done to the NYTimes for this article and the graphics analysis.
This can be a good tool for persuading the public of the urgency and priority of funding solutions.
My suggestion is this approach should be used to show the health effects and costs of emissions. About a decade ago, the NYTimes did a similar map for L.A. and related it to pulmonary and cardio health impacts. It was a great source and I have used to support the need to clean up emissions. I believe the public pays attention to their health and can be a very effective persuasion tool. I also have used data from Columbia University, who was doing work on fetal lung and brain development.
Keep up the good work.
While I fully agree that larger vehicles such as SUVs lead to greater emissions, I also feel much safer driving a larger, heavier vehicle. There are many horrible drivers out there that do not understand that their phone is a distraction. So, my way to protect myself is to have more metal between me and any other vehicle should I get hit. Same thing for parents who are transporting their kids around. I do not blame them for wanting a vehicle that has the best chance of keeping their child safe in an accident.
I am all for saving the environment, but it does not help me much if I am crushed in my little fuel efficient car.
1
@SH EVERYbody is safer in a bigger, heavier vehicle. So life in America becomes a Whermacht competition, while we watch our environment change to where natural disasters, massive dislocations, and wars become inevitable. What's the rational solution? Just to hurry up and make it happen?
1
@SH Then get yourself an EV! Because of their design, they get far better crash ratings than comparably sized internal combustion vehicles.
1
Now let’s see a map of cow, deer, and elk emissions, which ironically will be in the most sparsely populated areas of the nation. Grazing land is not suitable for farming and is marginal ground, though can be forested which can reverse any pollution. To suggest that a carbon tax should be imposed on cattle is about as sane as to suggest Trump is capable of functioning as president. Jan Schott, Fossil, Oregon
2
How did we get cigarette smoking out of the public sphere? It happened relatively quickly once it happened. Governments and regulators listened to public health advocates (a miracle that is not likely to be repeated with Trump in office). It became socially unacceptable to smoke around non-smokers. Hard to tell if the right balance of incentives, oil taxes, and generating a sense of social shame for driving an ICE vehicle would do the trick to get people to move to electric vehicles.
2
Public transit is good in Europe largely _because_ of the high price of hydrocarbon fuel.
And because European nations made a conscious effort to invest at the national level in mass transit after WW2. In the US, auto makers sabotaged rail transport, and govt subsidy went toward highways.
Cheap gasoline and diesel fuel in the US has brought us where we are, including suburban sprawl and total dependence on cars.
With high taxes, a liter of hydrocarbon fuel has cost 3-4 times as much in France as in the US - for decades. Lots of tax money to spend on rational transportation!
That hasn't pushed Europeans further into poverty. Instead, it's strengthened popular support for social consumption (including services), another big difference between the US and Europe: devil-take-the-hindmost vs in-it-together.
(Macron's mistake was to not take inequality sufficiently into account, including rural-urban inequality.)
If the US had taxed hydrocarbon fuel the same way Europe has over the years, the US would have not only fantastic mass transit but more livable towns and cities. It's about time to wise up.
2
@Drew
It's all about transportation alternatives. If you live in suburban/country US, there is no alternative. And if you think I'm carpooling 2-3 adults and 3 kids with 3 massive hockey bags to/from practice/games in a Chevy volt or a mini, you're out of your mind. Suburban/country dwellers have very different needs that city dwellers. You look after your needs/issues and i will look after mine.
The California speed limit for trucks is 55. The only time I see a freeway truck doing 55 is in a jam or when entering and exiting the freeway. Enforcing this law would surely reduce green-house gases.
1
Ifcities stopped building new freeways or improving existing freeways, city dwellers would stop driving.
I'm on a bicycle or on foot most of the time as is my wife. We ditched one car back when we lived in ABQ, NM (which is a city others should look to when designing a bike-friendly area). Have to resort to a vehicle more since I'm in the Great White North here, but honestly, we shoot for one trip a week during winter: Farmer's Market and any other assorted goods we need. Don't always stick to that, but we try. Takes planning; living near your work or modes of public transportation is a huge help.
But, as some have already noted, the best way to counter excessive driving habits is to raise the price of gas on the national level (and I mean somewhere above $5 per gallon), and sink those funds into much needed infrastructure repair, building (train lines, alternative transport), and thus jobs (win-win-win).
As well, those bright minds in Congress (cough cough) should come up with some way for folks to verify their motorized vehicle milage and/or non-motorized usage, and get nice, fat *payment* for consuming less fuel. Don't have to penalize the drivers, but make it attractive to Not Drive, perhaps many will take heed.
Gotta deal with continued commercial transport, but that should be pretty simple, and all non-commercial usage could result in huge fines and loss of vehicle, and someone needs to revisit Section 179 tax deductions for sm/med businesses - foolish policy there (Hummer subsidies, basically)
Fact is: we cannot continue as we are or it will just end, badly.
1
The article clearly outlines yet more reasons to buy an electric vehicle next time. I drive a Tesla Model 3; by far the best car I have ever driven. Go try one, you won't be disappointed. Its the best selling car in Norway, 3rd most popular in the Netherlands. It has zero emissions. A no-brainer decision.
1
Gee, I wish I had time to think more about all this but I'm afraid I have more pressing needs -- like keeping up with latest breathless twists and turns in the Trump impeachment drama. First things first!
It is fascinating to me that all the people I know who took their kids to the recent climate strikes, are also the same ones who drive large SUVs, travel heavily by air to go on their ski vacations (when they arrive in Colorado, I am positive they then again rent another SUV for all their stuff), buy tons of imported foods, etc. I hope that the most vocal of liberals see the irony and hypocrisy of this. No, using a stainless steel straw for your Starbucks is not sufficient to save the earth.
3
Confirms what I have thought for thirty years: the SUV craze has been the worst thing to happen to the environment in centuries. Everyone who drives one is complicit.
5
@Robert: Where are those electric vehicles with space inside and high clearance? High clearance is an issue, considering the conditions of the roads. They would be sellable to the suburban buyers.
Is an electric bicycle an environmentally responsible alternative to a car? Is a scooter or motorcycle?
2
There are more environmental friendly ways to drive a car and it also is not more expensive. The current administration simply isn't interested. They only look at the short-time goal of their leader to win the next election. They simply don't care at all about the next generation and if it is able to live on this planet. Their personal wellbeing at present times is all that matters for them.
There were 272 million registered vehicles in 2017 compared with only 193 million registered vehicles in 1990 (an increase of 41 percent over those 27 years).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
Yet, page 38 of the actual EPA report shows only a 22 percent increase in "transportation" emissions over the same 27-year period (from 1472 MMT in 1990 to
1804 MMT in 2017).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.pdf
The EPA report also states on page 30:
“In 2017, total gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,456.7 MMT, or million metric tons, of carbon dioxide (CO2)”
“Relative to 1990, the baseline for this Inventory, gross emissions in 2017 are higher by 1.3 percent”
“Overall, net emissions in 2017 were 13.0 percent below 2005 levels”
Conclusions.
1. "Transportation" emissions (1804 MMT) made up only 28 percent of all emissions (6456 MMT) in 2017.......not 60 percent as this article falsely implies.
2. CO2 emissions per vehicle has been trending downward.....as has total gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
As the report says:
"net emissions in 2017 were 13.0 percent below 2005 levels”.
1
Really wish I could zoom in
1
This is a superb analysis! And It's sobering to see per capita emissions rising in so many cities.
I'm fortunate enough to live near San Jose, one of the few cities bucking this trend. Total emissions and per capita emissions are down significantly over the period analyzed here. This is great to see.
An excellent follow up to this story would be to examine in more detail what communities like San Jose have done to make such improvements. I'm not aware of any significant expansion in mass transit in this area which could help explain the data. Reasoning from successful areas could provide insights to help improve the laggards.
4
More mass transit is needed in every urban and suburban area in the nation. We should have started a 1 cent a month increase in the Federal gas tax in 40 years ago. Yes, gas now would cost an additional $4.80 a gallon, but think of the mass transit and inter-city rail that could have been built. And the strong incentive to switch to all-electric vehicles.
I have a Nissan Leaf and a Tesla Model 3. I put in solar panels a few years ago. My power bill is low and I haven't been to a gas station in 5 years. I took a 6000 mile trip cross country this summer in my model 3. It cost around $300, and charging was easy.
Electric cars are a viable alternative now, and so much better to own and operate. I anticipate this trend catching on in the not to distant future.
4
In good faith, I don't disagree. All amounts to nothing if your cars were charged by electricity generated through fossil fuels.
Are you ready to support nuclear?
Also think about about the massive amounts of toxic battery materials lying all over the planet, if every automobile driver adopts an EV (assuming it is even possible).
1
How many years has it been since the federal gas tax has been raised? I'm guessing at least 20. People have to feel it in the pocketbook before they will change. I certainly don't want to pay more for gas, and the Ecuador riots over fuel cost increases should give any politician pause, but we have to pay the full cost of any activity that pollutes or harms in order to change behavior.
1
@Robert kennedy
Here in California our state legislature passed a $52 billion bill 2 years ago to be funded over 10 years with a modest gas tax increase. It was signed by Jerry Brown but before it could take effect the state's Republicans (who fought tooth and nail against it) put an initiative on the state ballot to repeal it. Last November the state's voters quashed it and it finally took effect last January. The price of gas did go up a bit but has not made gas unaffordable. It is funding the years of neglected road and transit fixes that Republican governors prior to Brown would not deal with. Arnold S famously used all the gas tax money to balance the state's budgets during his tenure, starving transit agencies from one end of the state to the other. He was sued by transit groups and lost in the State's Supreme Court, ordered to pay back the billions lost but never did. Getting Republicans on board federally is a non starter.
1
Rather than trying to find a one-size-fits-all approach, if we study and commit to what we can do where we are, we can in sum do a lot.
I grew up on a ranch where the closest public transportation is 90 miles away. That was not always the case. At the turn of the last century there were commercial stage coaches between little towns 5-10 miles away, a small railroad and until the late 1970’s there were Greyhound buses only 40 miles away. All of those options are now gone. At the ranch one drives because it’s the only realistic option left.
We used to drive an SUV through snow and mud across state to the ranch when to take our turn caring for elderly family members. In between those trips the SUV is parked at our home in the city. I walk and take the bus to work. We carpool to choir rehearsals and some evening social gatherings. We used to bicycle but accidents and osteopenia make that an unsafe option now. Our children and grandchildren who live within a mile of us take the bus and walk. Each household has a hybrid and one an electric for when we do in city car travel. We try to combine warehouse shopping trips together with our daughters household. There is much more that we can do and we work toward those options as best we can.
2
@Sarah Large vehicles are not what Is saw parents driving their kids to at the rally in my neck of the woods.
I've been driving a Chevy Bolt for about 18 months, and in optimistic about people choosing all electric cars when they become more widely available. Today, electric cars are faster, more reliable, and cheaper to own (though not cheaper up front) than gas cars. If you can charge at home, you don't even think about range except on road trips. Word-of-mouth from satisfied (or delighted!) owners will quickly shift preferences of car buyers.
The next 2 -3 years will be interesting to watch, as many new all electric cars come to market, including SUV's and pickup trucks, and (hopefully) battery process continue to decline.
3
A few thoughts:
- Cities need to take a good hard look at their zoning ordinances and how they prevent builders from creating the forward-thinking, community-building, high(er)-density developments that could eliminate or reduce commute times. Zoning is the reason people have to DRIVE from THIS zone to THAT zone in order to get to work, shop, go to the doctor, etc. There are developers who are trying very hard to change our models of daily life and travel, but municipal governments and zoning issues make it impossible.
- Suburban folks need to stop looking down their noses at high-density, multi-use areas and the people who live in them. In some (many?) circles, if you don't have a McMansion with a big lawn and a giant SUV, something is "wrong" with you. Holding the suburban life as the ideal is a social problem, a property-value problem and an environmental problem.
- High-density is the answer to some of this, but so is small-town living, a la Sarah Smarsh's Sept. 17 Opinion piece about "brain gain." Why drive an hour a day to go 12 miles to and from work, when you can abandon the daily city commute altogether by living and working in a smaller town? BONUS: If more liberals/Dems would move away from the big cities and into smaller towns and rural areas, we could perhaps also turn some of our (often gerrymandered) red districts blue, or at least purple!
I just have doubts about the methodology used. It states the data is based on federal traffic data on the miles driven. That kinda of data should be easy to obtain. How does it translate miles driven to CO2 emission, or how dose it tell a Telsa from a pickup truck, does it count motorcycles as well?
@Tao : Excellent question. NYT, I'd love to see a follow-up piece explaining the methodology in layman's terms. Sobering, powerful reporting . . . Thank you!
Here in St Louis gas stations were required to add a vapor hood to all gas pumps when our emissions failed to get below an acceptable level years ago. A few years ago, we hit the appropriate targets, and off came the hoods. I’m curious why they weren’t left on, and how effective they really are overall.
During the Eisenhower years, the president established a commission to examine and weight the effects of overpopulation. That investigative body concluded too many people in the world could impact the human quality of life in a negative way. The Nixon administration established the Rockefeller Commission. David Rockefeller came to the same conclusion, but Richard Nixon squelched the report and did nothing to publicize this potential threat to human habitation of the Earth. This is the root cause of all environmental problems especially air pollution be it industrial or automotive. I fully realize no one wants to hear this, but it must be brought to the public's attention regardless.
Why no mention of Uber and Lyft? Surely this new fleet of private "contractors" driving their cars around endlessly contributed to the rise in emissions as well as traffic congestion in recent years.
Also I would have liked to see Long Island considered a separate region from NYC. Geographically we're not far away, but in terms of public transportation options, we might as well be on another planet.
I don't drive - have never driven. People look at me like I'm mentally deficient when I share this fact about myself. If I run into someone after 5 or 10 years the first question they ask is if I still don't drive. I walk to work and local grocery, I bus in the winter when the snow becomes treacherous, and it's not always convenient, but it's not the great burden people think it is either.
With Uber/Lift/doordash/grocery delivery/amazon/internet delivery etc there has never been an easier time to not drive. People spend less time away from home now then ever due to new conveniences, but retain the car and double their expenses. There is a stigma/status element to not driving that is taboo and unspoken. Anywhere but NY, public transportation is seen as something only done if one is too poor to do anything else. Everyone hates the problem, no one wants the (perceived) inconvenience of being part of the solution.
1
Ultimately the only way to make a change is at the policy level, instead of expecting to sway consumer choice in a massive way.
When you are talking about the suburbs, the other issue is that car seat safety requirements and trends are working in direct opposition to smaller cars.
It seems amazing that despite increased traffic, more driving , cheap gas prices and larger car purchases all pushing up the total amount of carbon and other emissions from 1990 to 2017...that car engine technological advances , lighter vehicles and tighter emission standards have not halted (or reversed) the trend and increases seen in emissions.
We are talking about a time period in total of almost 30 years and the design, technological advances and other improvements in vehicles should have made a vast difference in terms of vehicle emissions if the big American Car companies as well as Government had done more and made a greater effort in deploying more efficient vehicles.
Instead the Car companies went broke and the Government did too little and is now about to try and reverse what was even done.
Meanwhile the Koch Bros who wanted every drop of oil they made and had...used as much as possible as they manipulate the market to ensure this whilst also being behind any actions to increase or improve mass transit and/or public transport across America.
And the majority of Americans wanted cheaper petrol (with no taxes or tax increases for road building or other needed infrastructure as they bought bigger and more powerful cars as costs went down and a new era of gas guzzlers began at a time when the trend should have been in the opposite direction and a lot more greener than was the case.
Now urban air quality drops as the climate warms promising all a worse future.
I live in a walk-able neighborhood (if you don't mind steep hills, which I don't) on the edge of downtown. I usually walk to stores, restaurants, bars, parks, the kids school etc. My wife works only a couple miles from our home. I however commute outside of the city for work about 15 miles each direction. Public transit between my house and work still would mean over three miles on foot (or bike). And even with a bike, it takes about 3 times as long as driving because of the connections. Before I had kids, I would usually ride my bike to/from work twice a week and take the bus and train 1 day a week. After kids, the timing just doesn't work out very well to do so. On the plus side, I do go the opposite way of most traffic during rush hour and once I get home I can usually leave my car parked until the next day. So you could say that having kids is the biggest contribute to climate change.
2
@Still Waiting... -- put an electric vehicle in your garage. It sounds like your day-to-day is far within the range of pretty much any of them on the market. If you go distances frequently enough to make it less useful to you, consider a hybrid instead.
And remember that in hilly areas, electric vehicles refill your tank on the downhill slopes - gas cars can't do that.
1
Ride a bike!
Government policy, which should in the US reflect the interests and will of the governed, profoundly affects our behavior as producers and consumers. Individual choices to reduce personal carbon footprints maybe virtuous but they are pathetically insufficient. Just as its impossible to be the lone socialist in a capitalist society.
We imagine that we have choices but in reality those are radically limited. It is technically possible, right now, to have the same number of vehicles on the road and still radically reduce carbon emissions. But we don't have That choice. That can be done by emissions standards and financial incentives which hyper-aggressively promote electric vehicles and make coal rolling pickups unaffordable to all but the wealthiest idiots.
Vehicles designed for big families need not be gigantic gas guzzlers. They could be efficiently spacious and power efficient. There are really very few people who actually need the power their vehicles have. Even those who haul stuff often have way overpowered vehicles. Restrict the use of high powered vehicles to those who actually require that power.
In 10 years our fleet could radically reduce emissions and still more radically in 20 years...
If we stop electing reactionary economic-libertarian or so-called "conservative" idiots who by their nature neither represent nor have in mind the best interests of their constituents.
1
It's great to see that San Jose, CA driving emission decreased, while the population grew.
But I only saw this finding by choosing San Jose in your interactive map. It would have been good if NTY mentioned this positive fact in the article, so your readers know that car emission can be reduced in a sprawling, growing, urban area.
2
You should include Hawai’i and Alaska
I looked up my own metro area -- San Jose, CA. Overall emissions AND per-person emissions are down. Around here we have state and local incentives that encourage the purchase of electric cars. And in fact we do have a lot of electric cars. Maybe that helps!
1
We all (well most of us reading the NYT consistently) know that emissions have increased and that the effects of global warming are worsening every year. However, looking at how emissions levels have changed over the past three decades shows that there have been increases and decreases in use per person. Meaning decreases are possible.
It's so easy to get stuck in the mindset that there's nothing an individual can do as the problem grows into a larger avalanche. But these graphs show that individuals have moved at least a little in the right direction before. We can do it again. Now if large corporations were held responsible for their role and cities developed more comprehensive public transportation systems, we might actually be able to do something substantial.
I'm not saying these issues are easily solved. They're not. And I'm not saying that everyone will be able to leave cars behind (those who live in rural areas, people with disabilities, etc.). But we should at least be trying. If we don't, well, at least I won't have to worry about a retirement plan.
I moved to the US in 2010 from Europe. My job in Europe and my job now in the US were about same distance from each respective home... about 10 miles. In Europe, it was easy to commute by bike, nicely maintained bike lanes and bike paths everywhere. Or you can use residential roads to get where you need to be without having car traffic dangerously close all the time. Not so in the US. There is no way for me to commute the 10 miles to work by bike without avoiding major state highways that do not bike lanes. And don't get me started on public transportation... the 10 miles would take me over 2 hours.
I love my RAM 1500 truck, it is useful for many things, and fun, but I really would be happy with just my bicycle to get to work, if I had bike lanes available.
4
Sounds like a great argument for a $135 per ton (or higher) revenue neutral carbon tax. Make people think twice about the necessity of having space for a man cave in a 4,000 sq ft house 24 miles from the office, the selfish convenience of driving alone to work, and the impossibility of committing to fund a urban mass transit system that works. Conservation only has real teeth when there is a price signal underwriting it.
4
It would nice to be able to zoom in more closely, as local emissions, especially diesel emissions from semi-trucks, are also correlated with poor health effects. Even very wealthy areas, such as Westport and Darien, that sit along I-95 can't escape this.
@Ken Wealthy areas like Darien and Westport can't just not escape that pollution, they're a large part of the problem. Wealthy people own more and bigger cars, and these towns are commuter suburbs. I-95 is full of traffic because people don't live where they work.
Single occupancy auto commute rates remain stubbornly close to 78%, despite huge leaps in technology-enabled mobility and connectivity. Congestion pricing may help some (it has in Europe), but so too would a rewards/punitive pricing on single-drivers. Eliminating Carbon emissions and slow commutes is economically valuable: use the market levers to price driving access.
I live in Orange County NC not far from the Durham border. I read the increase in emissions from the Durham /Chapel Hill area.
You might find more hybrid cars in Orange County per capita than most areas. The recycling program is 2nd to none.
We have 2 major interest highways running through both countie tThat connect to the I-95 corridor on both the north and southbound of Raleigh. In the last 20 years I have noticed a significant increase in traffic and traffic jams on these 2 interstates. I wonder how much it has contributed to our increase in pollution.
That said I still do not understand if Americans get it. Air travel is at an all time high and as soon as gas became cheap up went the sale of SUVs and PU. Leaf blowers are out this fall and HOAs still do not allow grass taller than 4" nor can you hang our your laundry.
Not far away is one of the worst polluting coal fired plants in the country.
I am glad we do not live downwind of Duke Energy's finest example of" who cares".
1
Our metro area is noticeably dirtier than it was when we arrived in 1982. Part of the problem is the cost of fuel, at some of the lowest prices in the country. But a big cause is the type of vehicle. Like everywhere else, SUVs and trucks -- the bigger the better -- are the vehicles of choice. And because Western cities have decades-old traditions of urban sprawl, public transport is highly ineffective, so people drive everywhere.
Just this morning, one of our senators complained that champions of wind and solar were not being realistic, and that oil and gas would be necessary for some time. He also pointed to the low cost of fuels. But absolutely no mention of a carbon tax, which, if imposed while prices were low and the economy robust, would be less painful, while it reduced the frivolous driving habit and produced revenue for public transportation initiatives. But in a state whose economy depends heavily on oil and gas extraction, I suppose this is too much to ask.
By the way, SUVs are not just an American problem. Over the past 40 years, we have noticed a significant change in European driving preferences: in the 1970s, small cars were the rule; now we see more and more SUVs on small French streets. How they pay for the fuel is beyond me.
It baffles me how we think we are going to seamlessly transition from a fleet of 300 million vehicles that are 99% fossil fuel powered to an equivalent electric vehicle fleet. The infrastructure costs and charging implications alone are staggering.
Do we really think we are going to just keep on with the current transportation model just powered differently?
Good luck my friends. Good luck.
Buses. Trains. Boats. Bikes. Feet.
That's the future. If we want one.
I'll happily pay $5 or even $10 per gallon for gas if the money is used to build better public transit infrastructure and green the electric grid. Traffic would be much better, people would be healthier, and we'd save the planet.
2
@purpledog I share your thoughts and ideas but the problem is the pace of this change is way too slow if it is going to happen at all.
Graphs that indicated the areas they correspond to by tapping or clicking on/mousing over the different trend lines would be interesting to see. Keep up the good work.
The suburbs were created by cars driven by the nascent middle class in a time when environmental damage was thing you found around factories and refineries. When it became impossible to more than a half mile across Los Angeles, people began to understand. The science laid it out, the evidence was in our faces. Yet neither the gas crisis in the 70's nor the crazy gas prices today have affected people's habits. We are choking on our short-sightedness. We have to stop smoking. Infrastructure anyone?
I can do my job by remote from anywhere and my employer knows this because I have had to work by remote several times. I drive 40 miles a day round trip and I've asked to work from home to save gas.
There should be a tax incentive to employers that allow their employees to work from home.
4
Thank you Koch brothers. The famous oil and gas philanthropic souls who have waged war on public transit systems all over the country.
They have fleeced the public and greased the levers of government with enormous sums of money to maintain their power.
It is not surprising that the congressional approval rating is so low.
Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Alexander should have put their constituents first instead of the Koch dirty money when Nashville sought to bring modern public transportation to its citizens.
Sad.
1
I think there's a lot of blame here which is how we end up not making progress at all. This is informative and there is no room for discussion when you statement involves "someone else is the cause of evil, get them!" We have people blaming SUV drivers like they are the only factor when some people need a bigger vehicle for road conditions where they live, families, dogs, or their business. Then people blaming rideshares though they were designed to help people not own a vehicle, especially in non bike friendly cities. And a lot of the solutions are out of the financial grasp of many people, like buying a new vehicle, increasing gas prices, living somewhere with better public transit. We need to remember that corporate giants are a bigger part of the problem than your neighbor who has an SUV because they have a child and a dog and groceries etc. We get at our neighbors throats about their responsibilities without knowing them at all instead of holding big business accountable and that is how we will indefinitely delay progress.
3
So the citizens of the NYC area, that part of the USA that least requires private transport, emit more now than 27 years ago, and this with improved emissions standards. Is their any greater indictment of our way of life? Our leadership must've risked getting voted out but chose to hold on instead, thus imperiling all civilization.
@Christopher This does seem hard to believe! I commute to work in Manhattan and don't own a car. Having lived in the NYC area for the past 25 years I can't say that I definitely see MORE cars on the road but I guess that must be the only explanation!
So the citizens of the NYC area, that part of the USA that least requires private transport, emit more now than 27 years ago, and this with improved emissions standards. Is their any greater indictment of our way of life? Our leadership must've risked getting voted out but chose to hold on instead, thus imperiling all civilization.
California was cited by the EPA for not reducing emissions. This data certainly demonstrates that the citation is unwarranted. Sounds like the EPA has actually become part of Trump, Inc. Anyone shocked by that information? Didn’t think you would be...
1
Actually Donnie is the one who said it first, and his cabinet head followed suit. Consider that he has been caught in multiple lies per day just since his inauguration, nothing he says is trustworthy.
Buy and drive an electric car: full stop.
The planet -- and all its inhabitants -- thanks you.
I live in an upscale suburb, full of left-leaning, highly educated people. They cluck their tongues at the non-stop advance of global warming, yet most all drive huge Suburbans, Armadas and Expeditions. They think that protecting the environment is a worthy goal, just so long as someone else is doing it.
334
@Joe123 The number of hybrids and EVs in my area is dramatically up. The number of SUVs way down. The number of pickups is none. An upscale, overwhelmingly left area.
34
@Joe123 Yup. I've spent the last seven years in Marin County, CA and Potomac, MD. People like to chatter non-stop about climate change, but they are the same people who probably take 50+ airplane trips a year. Because plane travel doesn't count.
72
@Joe123
Yes, I see this all around me. Such huge family people movers. Range Rovers quite popular here. And a Mercedes SUV that looks like a half sized bus appeared the other day down the street. Plenty of Suburbans, giant Toyotas and Ford Expeditions... Now I live in an older neighborhood with narrow streets and no sidewalks. A Cadillac Escalade that heads down the road where they are parked cars, parked construction vehicles and no sidewalks can make for scary moments. I have a larger Japanese sedan-comfortable at this stage of life. It still cost $50 to fill it up. I will confess to having owned a Suburban for 10 years but I had horses at the time and had to haul hay and trailers, and cross a low water crossing and dirt roads every day. And I lived where it snowed. But I sure hated driving that thing in town and on trips down Texas freeways with narrow lanes under construction. It was frightening. I don't understand why people who live in town want something that size. It has a blind spot issue when merging onto freeways, is tippy on curves and has a significant braking distance at high speeds. It will cost $ 80-$100 to fill it up if it has a 40 gallon tank-and gets 14 m.p.g. -18-19 on the highway if you are lucky with the wind. Farmers, ranchers, contractors need these vehicles. The average family..it seems like a huge, unnecessary expense. And yes, it just pumps out petrochemical bi products and heat. Much of the time only one person is in it.
53
You can preach all day about the need to drive more efficient vehicles but will not significantly change our driving preferences. The only way to get people to use less gas is to make it more expensive, tax it. The monies collected should be used for infrastructure and mass transit projects.
390
@Pete
Thank you...ycu your comment is right on. It is a tax that would be paid to a large degree by countries like Saudi Arabia as consumption drops. The fracking revolution has been a money pit and it is headed for failure. Gas is much more expensive in Europe and although the massive migration from the third world is pushing many people to avoid public transit bikes are still quite popular.
19
@Pete Good idea IF we could count on politicians to spend the tax money as you suggest. I doubt they would.
10
@Pete Electric cars! Solar powered electricity. It's Not rocket science.
20
The gas crisis in the late 1970's taught us nothing.
Perhaps if we didn't mind driving smaller fuel efficient cars, or if we demanded affordable electric transportation.......but we simply don't care.
185
@David Henry. I agree but many around today weren't around to remember the gas crisis in the 70s. Humans have very short memories. The next gas crisis will be a doozey though. Just a matter of time for something to happen with the Saudi govt that escalates into a global situation.
10
@David Henry
The problem is not that "we" don't care -- many of us do -- but that our "mis-leaders" are shills for industries that care more about present-day profit than humanity's increasingly grim future. America's high energy, high emissions car culture is the consequence of decades of industry propaganda, suburban sprawl, highway construction, and access to underpriced fuel, which more than anything else shapes the nation's politics and 18 tons per capita CO2 emissions. When is the last time you heard a national politician suggest that we drive less, and drive smaller cars? Conserving resources in the modern USA is a Cardinal Sin.
32
@David Henry The 70s gas crisis was about scarcity. This is about abundance and relatively cheap fuel prices nationwide. Even with gas prices here in the $4 per gallon range, I still see people driving huge pickups and SUVs for no apparent reason.
The only thing I see changing this is a price signal in the form of a big gas tax increase.
11
Wow.
An absolutely excellent summary of the role auto emissions make to CO2 addition to the atmosphere.
And, customized to my own city when I went to the article!
I doubt that the many Americans driving a gigantic, new Ford F250 back and forth to their sedentary job and then to the car wash to keep it nice and shiny, will change.
Americans are more likely to go for the Ford F350 next time (so it is bigger than everything but a Semi on the road).
I doubt they will ever even read this article.
In fact, I have long been predicting that Soccer Moms will soon deliver their kids to practice in an extended cab version of the Mack or Peterbuilt trucks.
That would make the most sense based on past behaviors in America.
287
@Michael I understand that Trump is letting the Army rent out Abrams tanks for proms and weddings with the understanding that Jared gets a 10% cut for making these available by bringing peace to the Middle East.
24
@Michael Extended-cab Mack soccer wagon. Made my morning. Thanks.
18
@Michael. Not only that, but where I live people routinely idle their big cars and trucks for 10,15, 20 minutes. They idle their cars in parking lots while talking on their phones. They have auto start so they turn on their car 10 minutes before they leave their house. The air conditioner is blasting so it's a nice 68 degrees in their vehicle before they get in. There are lines of cars wrapped around fast-food restaurants with cars idling. It's madness. Gas needs to be more expensive.
97
Science matters.
Facts matter.
Pollution matters.
Technology matters.
Nature matters.
Elections matter.
Register and vote on November 3 2020 for solving our pollution problem with human technology and human progress...not for Gas Oil Petroleum and Grand Old Pollution.
We have a choice in our futures.
388
@Socrates Will make little difference unless each and every one of us changes our behaviors, including our consumption behaviors, our vehicles purchases, and our housing choices.
16
@Anne One way to ensure that people change their consumption is to ensure that the total cost of that consumption is included in the sticker price. If the federal government taxed carbon emissions people would adjust their consumption accordingly. This will only be done by a government run by those who don't dismiss the facts and work to role back regulations. Voting does matter.
41
@Socrates
Yes, vote! But in the meantime there are a thousand things you can do.
Look at the trend for San Jose. Tesla?
21
I really don't understand why so many people need to be on the roads so much of the time. It's not as if anyone is gaining much value in their lives by spending 20 hours a week in their car.
I live in Alaska in a town without a road. On the next island over, we have about 30 miles of roads. I take ferries and trains when I travel south. The biggest problem I see is when I train across country, I pass freight trains laden with coal--dozens and dozens of them, each with 120 cars and each car with 100 tons of coal--all destined for China. This is the culprit.
1
Maybe if pickup trucks and SUVs had the same standards and taxes on emissions that cars do, people would buy fewer giant V8 vehicles for their daily drivers. We've seen a large uptick in trucks and SUV sales in recent years, and while they are getting more fuel efficient they still burn far more than a normal car.
It's important to recognize that we're talking about fractions of fractions. All transportation amounts to about 29% of greenhouse gas emissions, and personal vehicles are around 60% of that. So the entire emissions map is only accounting for less than 20% of the United States' total greenhouse gas emissions. A larger share overall still comes from electricity generation (about 28%). It would be vastly easier to reduce electricity emissions than to replace > 100 million personal vehicles and/or completely re-build all our cities.
2
@Henry
The problem is that GHG emissions from electric generation have been in decline, while emissions from mobile sources are rising. If you look at criteria pollutants in particular, transportation is a big culprit. We do not have the luxury to tackle one rather than the other; rethinking infrastructure developments is a must.
We are down to about 20 miles per week of what I call “life support” driving for a family of 5. Primary car gets 50 mpg.
We also have 5 household members that consider sitting indoors and going somewhere in climate controlled, dry comfort to be 97% of the utility of a car.
If a dishwasher shaped car achieved 100 mpg we would trade in our current car.
We are not the norm, though.
I moved from the Chicago area to the Denver area a bit more than a year ago. I used various forms of public transit to get around, even near my home. (I'm also a big walker.) I had a 1-year-old car when we moved to Denver that had 5,000 miles on it! We live in an adjoining town to the city of Denver and I have been so discouraged with the mass transit here. I can take the light rail into downtown Denver, but there are many things to do that are not near this location. A bus runs between the west side of Denver to Boulder, which is great - except for the fact that it runs only during morning and afternoon rush hours. I take a class once per week on a road straight east out my front door. The bus is calculated to take 1 hr 15 mins to get there, while the drive is 22 mins. We are going to rue the day (now?) when transit options are so limited in so many cities.
1
I live in Glendale, AZ part of the Phoenix metro area. Pickup trucks and minivans are the choice for drivers in this area. The average MPG for these cars is 22 MPG. Glendale's City Council voted down the extension of the light rail as too expensive and saying ordinary folks would not use it. This thinking is so archaic. I wonder what the city's plan is for keeping the city green/climate friendly. So far nothing, the council's concern is creating more jobs, providing a tax base, at the same time companies that move to Glendale do not pay taxes. In other words they are stuck in trickle down economy syndrone. These council members making these decisions won't be here in 2030. Of course if the citizens are clueless on climate change nothing will be done. It is sad for our children who will inherit a planet that won't be fit to live in. Remember the movie "Truman Story" where the characters live in an artificial world and encouraged not to leave, bad things are outside,science fiction, but maybe that is where we are headed. Instead of finding colonies on the moon, mars, we will need to find colonies on earth, artificial ones where the air and water are kept clean. Of course if the fuel question isn't address they will have to move as their air and water become contaminated.
2
DFW resident here. I really need this greening to become less niche and more applicable to middle class folks like my family. I get that there's savings in electric cars and solar but that doesn't mean much if we can't afford it upfront. A used car is far more economical for us at this point than a Chevy Volt ($34K) and installation of the recharging point at our house ($1K). Bosses still want to set eyeballs on you so we have to commute and on the way there's daycare drop offs/pick ups (set time hrs). Bus routes don't run that way. If I'm to hit work by 8am I don't want to have to leave the house at 6am just to match the route schedule especially when a car could get me there in 30 mins. I could walk to a grocery store but I've got a little one and I just don't have 2 hrs out of my day to walk back and forth loaded down with bags.
I'm all about doing what I can but policy makers have to help us buy in. If you're going to pull gas cars from the road and tax carbon you have to give us an alternative that doesn't drain our paychecks or add more hours to our already overloaded days. Sometimes these cures sound worse than the disease. Which further reinforces folks' mentality: "I'm not here for a long time- just a good time."
5
I recommend readers pay attention to the graphs. Notice that the per capita emissions declined after 2010. This is a couple years AFTER the Great Recession. It is not correct to say it was caused directly by the Great Recession. What happened? Following Cash for Clunkers people started driving cleaner, more fuel efficient cars.
Then, notice that the per capita emissions started going back up in 2015. What happened? Uber, Lyft, Postmates etc. These private individual drive services radically increased the vehicles on the roads. When you summon an Uber it must drive to you, then take you to your destination and then drive back to wherever the drivers resides or waits for another ride. When you summon an Uber to return, the same thing occurs. By using Uber etc. you dramatically increase vehicle emissions in your community. Uber and the others are unequivocally BAD for the environment.
1
@Flaminia Is it Uber or Lyft, or is it just more cars are sitting idle in traffic due to congestion?
Now is the time to transform our cities into places for people not cars. We need vibrant, mixed use cities and towns that rely overwhelmingly on walking, transit and bicycling. There is no such thing as a zero emissions car. Look at cradle to grave emissions, and brakes and tires degrading. However, the biggest problem with cars is the spatial domination and the sheer ugliness they engender. These changes to places for people are taking place right now in Europe. Do a search on Oslo, Norway. They are largely removing cars from the city center.
9
I agree that the increase in truck and SUV sales is a step in the wrong direction but at least in the city where I live the figures are lying. In the early 1990s Denver air was bad and that was mostly due to cars but it wasn't what came out of tailpipe that caused the problems. Back then they used pea gravel to combat ice and snow on the roads. When the roads dried out that gravel was worn down into sand and dust to became what was called the Brown Cloud. That went away almost overnight when they switched to mag chloride for the slippery roads. A good question at this point is how much of what's in the air is from cars and how much is from the fracking and the leaky wells here and North of town.
In 2015 we bought a Nissan Leaf, (electric). It isn't the perfect solution for everyone but it is a start. Even with our older model, which has a range of eighty miles or so, we are able to do well over ninety percent of our driving. We still have a gas powered vehicle for longer trips, but those have become the occasional treat instead of the norm. And being able to skip those weekly fill ups at the gas station feels really good.
2
What an awesome article! Thank you for all involved.
Transportation is fairly easy to fix, although it will require a lot of incentives to turn over the vehicle fleet and develop low/no carbon transportation alternatives.
San Francisco reduced per capita emissions. We can do it too!
3
The metro area I selected doesn't change the map, which seems stuck on the Eastern Seaboard.
@Craig Avery
Every metro area I tried did work. Even west coast. Maybe you need an upgrade. Very cool interactive report. Thank you NYT!
Upgrade to what?
This is what happens when the oil & automotive industries call the shots on how we transport people and goods in this nation. Failure to invest in public transportation and railroads is the problem. Designing the whole country so that people *must* putter around in gasoline-powered vehicles to get anywhere is not a coincidence. Go to any other developed country and see how it can be done. Our transportation infrastructure is a joke.
8
The most obvious step in the right direction is higher MPG for the US fleet of cars. Freedom to choose an SUV will kill the garden of Eden.
America needs to rethink the boundaries of pursuit of happiness.
7
Cities need to build systems of smart traffic flow to reduce driving and idling times. This will definitely reduce fuel usage and time waste.
1
It's striking that most California major metro areas show steep declines in per-capita emissions--down 33% in San Jose, down 14% in Los Angeles; even auto-dependent Fresno saw a 21% decrease. Meantime, many Texas cities showed not just overall emissions growth but steep increases in per-capita emssions. If other states had California's policies the country would be in better shape. Please configure the map to show state by state comparisons and write about the way that state as well as local policies affect emissions
13
@eastbay There have been an amazing amount of people relocating from California to Texas in the last 5+ years. I can't help but wonder how that plays into these numbers.
Keep buying those SUVs and trucks!! (now the only choice from Ford MotorCo).
Their gas mileage is about 1/2 that of smaller sedans,And their emissions contain more pollutants per gallon consumed !!
(you can now self-destruct after reading this)....
7
I think the times has a responsibility to report animals, cows and sheep, are huge contributors to green house gases. We could reduce them by eating less meat.
I’m not a vegetarian but started limiting my meat consumption and we all could do our little bit.
Yes the article states but does not clarify green house emissions specifically 18% of global gases are caused by animal production, more than vehicles.
Why is this topic so overlooked? Lots of $$$$$ in the production of meat.
Emissions up an astonishing 46% in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And that’s just carbon dioxide, harmful as it is. Increased particle pollution, sulfur dioxide, and ozone, add up to some of the worst air in the US. Heartbreaking to see what used to be called “country” so befouled. Children today will see this unhealthy filth as normal.
3
I recall how desperate I was to own a car 60 years ago. Indeed I bought a car that I really couldn't afford. Anyway there are millions of people in China , India and elsewhere hoping equally desperately to own a car as they certainly will in good time. Yes eco-friendly cars are available but these are not the cars this cohort are thinking of or can afford to buy. Disclaimer - I don't now own a car and depend on public transport.
I have a Chevy Volt, and I live in San Diego. It’s great: I’m driving on electric most of the time, charged by solar panels on the roof, and it plugs into any regular outlet. If I want to go farther than 50 miles it has a gas engine, so no worries about range. And it drives like a sports car! So why did Chevy and GM decide to STOP MAKING this great electric hybrid? So they could make more SUVs and TRUCKS!!!!
This problem is solvable!
Look I get it: I drove a Jeep Cherokee for years and I loved it. But I love 68 mpg better...and I can pile as much stuff, people and dogs in my Chevy hatchback hybrid as I could in my beloved Jeep! So Chevy: American-made, great car: all you need to do is make a plugin electric hybrid SUV with enough torque to pull a boat and we can prevent the Destruction of the Earth!
Of course, when I lived in CHicago I took the El and didn’t even own a car for ten years.......
16
@Ruth of course they discontinued the volt this year.
1
@Ruth
Outlaw SUVs. They're also implicated in a frightening increase in vehicle/pedestrian accidents and fatalities.
2
@Garrett Taylor Bolt's much better.
1
How do you zoom the map, or get a list of streets, or something?
1
Everyone who needs a car should be considering all-electric as their next vehicle - particularly suburbanites. As several commenters are noting, the savings is substantial both for fuel and for maintenance. You save time by not having to go for emissions tests, oil changes and the like, too.
As cities improve their access to charging infrastructure, it will be another boost for ease of ownership. Another benefit of all those batteries is that utilities are already looking at them as a way to absorb ever more solar power in the middle of the day, and wind power at night, increasing the fraction of our grid that's also fossil-free.
And in every state, even the coal ones, charging an EV produces less CO2 than burning what's in your fuel tank - and it's cheaper.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/saving-fuel-and-vehicle-costs
The coal-fired states are switching away, too, though - coal is too uneconomical to keep. Wind power is now 6 cents a kilowatt-hour - even new gas plants are starting to look risk.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/business/coal-power-trump/index.html
3
Go Portland, Oregon!
1
Why do you almost never include Hawai'i or Alaska in these wonderful maps?
My husband and I went down to one shared car nearly 9 years ago. It requires a bit of planning and cooperation with one another, but we make it work. This year we took another step and replaced our old gas car with a plug-in hybrid. We get 26 miles on a charge and have only filled up twice since buying the car on July 1, for a total of 16 gallons of gas in three and a half months. With the options and incentives on electrics and plug-in electrics now, there's really no reason to purchase a new gas car.
4
@Erin I will add that we also got solar panels a year ago, so our car is actually powered by the sun most of the time.
2
Higher gasoline taxes, higher tolls, smaller parking spaces, excise tax based on vehicle weight. Homo sapiens are not farsighted enough to make the right decisions. The number of trucks and SUVs on the road is ridiculous. Future generations will hold us in contempt for this folly.
3
What is San Jose doing right? I don't see any other city that has had anywhere near the imrpovement--from middle-of-the-pack to lower than NYC on a per-person basis.
1
@Ryan, EVs make up nearly than 5% of the cars on the road in California and 10% of the sales last year. In the more populated areas like Metro San Jose, the percentages are significantly higher. Also the state only allows a less polluting blend of gasoline.
@Ryan, EVs make up nearly than 5% of the cars on the road in California and 10% of the sales last year. In the more populated areas like Metro San Jose, the percentages are significantly higher. Also the state only allows a less polluting blend of gasoline.
@Ryan It is a synergy of many good public policies, including: increased investment in mass transit, including not only expansion of BART and light rail but investment in lower-emission buses, rezoning for development of higher density housing (lowers need to commute long distances), steadily increasing implementation of carpool lanes, massive investment in bike lanes, state tax incentives for electric cars and plug in hybrids, synchronized traffic lights, local governments moved to hybrids in their vehicle fleets. In addition, in the more recent years it probably helped that Tesla is headquartered in Fremont—it seems like every fifth car on the road in the South Bay is a Model 3.
I live in France now, in a mid-sized town, and do not own a car as many other alternatives are available: my feet, buses, a local train with connections to a TGV (fast train), taxis, and ride-sharing. In the past month I've been to Barcelona and to Paris--3 hours 20 minutes either direction via a TGV. Walking to the store, post office, library, etc,. keeps me limber and slim. (Check out how cities were designed before cars.) Once upon a time mass transportation was 'the big thing'--but it didn't make profits for a major corporation so it was dumped in favor of cars, gas stations and tires. This dilemma is not far from that of health care in the USA: profits before people. There's no easy solution....
4
Perhaps the cost of vehicle registration tied to energy efficiency would be a equitable means of reducing pollution.
You know ..... the old "polluter pays" approach
3
It's not just car ownership that is the problem. A big spike in CO2 is also coming from Uber, Lyft, Amazon, restaurant deliveries, online shopping. You can be car-free but a major contributor to the problem nonetheless.
4
@Valerie I can confirm this in Los Angeles. Our traffic is more congested literally because of these driving services. Every evening I have cars idling on my residential street, located three blocks from a major artery, while the drivers wait for another "gig." This is the reason that total emissions in Los Angeles continue to rise while the per-capita emissions decline only a little.
Why are Hawai’i and Alaska omitted?
I currently drive a Volvo and I love it. I've averaged about 32 mpg over the 19,000 miles I've driven it. But that's not good enough anymore. My next car (in 12 months) will be a Honda Clarity. It gets 47 miles on it's batteries before it's 4 cylinder engine has to kick in. And we rarely drive more than 47 miles on any given day.
4
Americans continue, almost across the board, the development pattern known as "sprawl." In the Boise, Idaho, metro area, for example. folks who buy a house off South Cole Road, are unable to complete even the simplest of errands without driving their POV (privately-owned vehicle). Many of my fellow citizens have apparently even forsaken the joy of a simple walk.
4
the bigger picture as many have alluded to is that we need a FFFF - fossil fuel free future. the only way to minimize the ongoing destruction of planet is to get off the fossil fuels. please read Naomi Klein's burning case for the green new deal. It requires every person who is concerned about life as we know it on earth to get behind an idea--we have to change radically the way we live. all industries need to get emissions down. our way of life needs to change. this means no more gas-utilizing vehicles. this means public transit that works, and everywhere - even in my home state of texas which is controlled by oil companies and allergic to good public transit for the most part. but one thing is clear - emissions will not go down enough if we continue as usual and expect market caps and taxes to fix it. first step: get your congress people and those running for congress to STOP taking $ from fossil fuel industries.
4
I can't see the eastern CT section when I scroll over top. Is it considered NY Metro? It shouldn't
For our last two moves, we relied on a website called walkscore that roughly calculates the number of trips from each property location you can make without driving a car.
It works, the number of trips you make each day and the amount of time in vehicles drop sharply, and the quality of life goes up.
2
Awesome presentation! Great work.
4
Trump has no idea that the automakers are planning to convert their entire fleet of vehicles in the near future over to electric powered vehicles.
Foreign carmakers are light years ahead of us in this process and Trump rush to take us back to the bad old days won't help us one bit.
8
It is about time for the supporters of green buildings and green energy to recognize that personal vehicles are the primary polluters in the US. I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of folks who drive their luxury SUVs and pickup trucks to meetings where they lobby for the green agenda, so long as it only inconveniences someone else.
4
It's time for NYC to get rid of our ridiculous 4-days-a-week alternate side parking rules. It adds so much unnecessary exhaust to the air. People who would use their cars very occasionally are instead in a situation of having to move them very frequently, and as a result, they use them to drive to work when they normally wouldn't, because they'll have to move it anyway, or driving up and down blocks looking for a parking spot on the right side of the road so as not to get a ticket. It's ridiculous and bad for our environment (and not necessary for the cleanliness of our streets - ever seen a cleaner go by? Does almost nothing).
3
Scooters. Encourage them. Design cities for them.
1
In checking several cities, I noticed that emissions per person are down in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Makes one wonder why the Trump Administration is taking California to court for enforcing lower emission standards.
8
This is a great reason to drive electric!
If you haven't tried driving an electric car, you really don't know what you're missing. It's easy, simple, clean, quiet, a LOT of fun, no emissions from the vehicle, and the electricity can come from anywhere including the increasingly popular solar, windmills, or hydro.
9
Bikes!
I realize it is not fpractical or everyone, but for those of us fortunate to have bike paths, bike lanes and showers - it's a win-win-win!
15 miles in, 15 miles out. No emissions except from my exhalations!
My loss (45 pounds) is also my gain. Not bad for an old guy!
More bike lanes please.
13
@Kevin o Bikes won't work in the winter. Too much slush, snow and ice. And cold! The car manufacturers have got to invent ways to get off fossil fuels. Cars aren't going away.
2
@Ellen Winter is often a fine time to get outside and feel alive. I biked many a sub 20 degrees day last winter. Proper clothing and the heart engine do the trick. (Admittedly, ice is a deterrent when the paths are unplowed.)
Being two-tired keeps me young!
So far I haven't seen any mention of another reliable way to increase emissions: keep reproducing. Reporting the numbers "per capita" ignores the fact that the emissions each person is responsible for varies enormously based on how many children they have. Even a person with only two children will be responsible for twice the emissions of a person with one, and a person with no children will be responsible for almost none of the emissions over the next 100 years.
4
I live right next to the Rt. 287 corridor and since the Mario Cuomo bridge opened, truck traffic has vastly increased. My allergies have also ramped up.
My sympathies to anyone sitting endlessly in traffic, but widening roads is not the answer--that only causes more cars and trucks to use the same road. The only answer is super strict emissions standards and maybe higher tolls for folks in SUVs and pick up trucks.
5
A little off topic but a pet peeve of mine has been the exhaust from the generators used by the multitude of vending carts in the city. They don't have a catalyst or any sophisticated exhaust system and I bet they pollute more than multiple cars driving by. In addition they sit statically and when there is little wind the pollution / smell really accumulates. Why not install outlets for these carts to plug into?
5
Of course emissions are higher. Now everyone and their mother has to have an SUV. They bought the car companies pushing large vehicles, lock, stock, and barrel regardless of the world we're leaving the kids. I have a Honda Accord Hybrid. I love it and don't care if gas goes to 4 dollars a gallon.
4
@Angel Gas prices are well over $4 per gallon in CA. Maybe a reason CA is so much lower than elsewhere?
The San Jose area looks like a ray of hope in this dataset. It has reduced per capita and reduced overall emissions over the last many years, while the rest of the country had increased emissions. Why is this? Electric cars?
4
@Mark
San Jose is probably the best urban environment in the country for cycling: flat roads and mild weather most of the year. With the rising popularity of e-bikes, there is much possibility if planned for.
7
@Jay Yes so something is going right there. Would be good to look into it and model it elsewhere if possible.
2
@Mark Very high adoption of EVs, especially in the urban and suburban areas is the California secret sauce. The driver going into the city from the suburbs is the best candidate for electrification: 1) Daily charging at home means that even a Tesla can have a lower cost of ownership than a Camry or Accord. 2) Most suburbanites have two cars so the EV only needs enough range to completely cover the commute with fudge factor. 3) Even in the dirtiest grids, like the Midwest, EVs produce fewer emissions over their lifetime. 4) Because the US grids are getting cleaner, EVs are too.
It's hopeless.
When two couples close to me, with very strong liberal voting records, choose 24 mpg cars over a 58 mpg car, and their reasons are completely specious, and they end up buying a 4 door sedan anyway, the only thing to conclude is that it is hopeless.
When you can't even sacrifice a tiny non-consequential property of a car, for a 150% improvement in MPG, and you care about CO2 emissions, it is simply hopeless.
6
@Djt
Not hopeless. Start with a very low carbon tax and edge it up yearly. As soon as you price the thing that is totally free at the moment--waste disposal of the fuel cycle--you will see people very very rapidly change their buying habits.
We could solve this in less than a decade. It's really pretty simple. All it takes is to stop socialism and support free markets.
3
@J c Let me know when we have a king that can do what you suggest. There aren't enough people that care to elect a congress and president that will enact a carbon tax. If people that care like those I mention refuse to lift a finger, how will enough votes in congress ever materialize?
1
@Djt
The difference is that those people are reacting to *current* market conditions completely rationally. They observe that driving an inefficient vehicle is subsidized and are maximizing their utility based on that. This is not an immoral or irrational choice on their part.
At the same time, because they are liberal, they are likely willing to VOTE for a carbon tax that would affect the market such that the next time they choose a vehicle, it would be a far more efficient model.
Both things can happen at once. This is not hopeless at all.
The marketing for a carbon tax law is bone simple: you should pay for what you get. If you do not pay for what you get, someone else is. That's called stealing.
1
It's not the data, but what fallible human beings do with it. For many progressive politicians (I speak from experience here in Portland, OR) the data is an excuse for a deep-dive into forcing citizens into making decisions mandated by the mandarins of the city's transportation and development bureaucracies.
Collectivizing transportation is high on the agenda--everyone on a bike! Buses! Light rail (scene last year of a grisly double-homicide)! Scooters! That the city assumes no responsibility for supplying an adequate supply of its transit monopoly (only scooters seem to proliferate--but that's a give-away to private business). Meanwhile, ridership on collectivized transit is flat. The people vote with their feet--but no one bothers to count that vote.
1
@Richard cheverton I'm from PDX as well. Perhaps you didn't look at the stats for PDX. per person emissions have decreased since 1990 but PDX has a long way to go; not as far as other cities by this chart. If the collective were the wisest in these matters we wouldn't have seat belts; which at the time, 1970-71, people were adamantly against. I suggest the same here. Times have changed. Wake up and smell the global crises! We are a community across the world. Individuals have to sacrifice for the collective good. THAT is democracy. If you must commute every day move to Beijing, that way you can have the immediate benefit.
Our government could do a lot more to reduce emissions. Congestion pricing of commuters into cities, Trimet would do well to drastically increase policing the public transit system, transportation, collect tolls from WA commuters, State tax breaks for those who utilize public transport, and Fed and State subsidies for electric car purchases, etc. What pray tell are we waiting for????
7
I expect housing prices and ineffective/insufficient public transportation factor into these patterns. I recently moved out of the Boston area to NH (southern NH is now basically an exurb of Boston). My commute time is now 2 hours (to go about 60 miles), but thankfully driving is a small fraction of that (Amtrak Downeaster gets me most of the way). My previous 4-mile commute took about an hour on a crowded and unpredictable subway (biking was a much shorter commute, but not feasible everyday, at least for someone like me who does not have nerves of steel for biking in Boston traffic).
2
@Laurabat You might think so, but the Bay Area in CA is the poster child for housing-cost induced increases in long commutes, and per-capita emissions in this area are dropping in recent years. High gas prices are a big factor here, which motivates a lot more electric cars and high-efficiency hybrids.
9
@Tim I'm always impressed by how many electric and hybrid vehicles I see when I visit the Bay Area. Your public transportation system also seems in much better shape than that in Boston.
1
This type of data is critical for all the public works issues we hope to deal with. We then can make a political decision about how much change we need to reach our goals. For example, to improve air quality in NYC we can try interventions that may have more local effects (e.g. congestion pricing), but that may be valuable in improving the quality of life for children growing up in the affected areas. If we want to provide a model environment for India and China we can try major steps (e.g. mandating major tax breaks for electric vehicles). We need the same level of data if we want to improve the gun murder rate across the country (for example we could find that background checks have little measurable effect, or maybe a lot). Same thing for home damage due to heavy rain or storm surge. Such data is also valuable for unintended consequences of public actions. For example, modifying state rules on pickup truck emissions may have little effect if most of the people affected move to SUVs.
3
@WHM Yes - substantial tax breaks for users of electric vehicles - And Tax the BeeJeepers (at the pump) out of Petrol consuming vehicles.
Changes will Not be made voluntarily by individuals.!
Force
the reduced consumption of pollution contributors..
or else..........
4
@JT Lawlor How about substantial tax breaks to those of us that decided to get rid of our car.
2
Reduce number of vehicles on road by allowing even number license plates on even number days on the calendar, and odd number plates on odd number days on the calendar.
6
@Darchitect
Good idea !
Some international jurisdictions tried that trick years ago and discovered that some people simply bought a second vehicle so that odd and even numbered plates could solve the problem.
3
@Ron B ..But that is an expensive way around such a possible regulation...I would hope car pooling would result and we would all recognize that we were breathing cleaner air and enjoying reduced congestion and wasted time in clogged traffic. If that is too much to hope for, maybe it is hopeless.
I live and work in Suffolk County, NY. I drive to and from work, alone, about 25 miles round trip. I would gladly take public transportation but it is woefully inadequate. There is literally no way for me to get from my home to my office without a car. My employer does not permit working at home on a regular basis. The only way to cut emissions on Long Island is to invest in public transportation and/or offer incentives to employers to allow their employees to work remotely.
19
@Sandra I feel the same way. In Denver it would take me longer to get to public transportation than to actually take it to work, ergo driving more than if I were just to drive to work. Denver is also more likely to allow roads to build up with snow as it is destined to melt more often and therefore the biking can be treacherous not to mention that there is one bike lane on the six different streets to work. If city planners and employers can not work together to make things like this easier people will not have a better option.
3
@Sandra What's the delta-t for a 1-way car trip? I predict 34-minutes. 12.5 miles by bicycle is 1-hour. 1-hour of exercise for the price of 25-minutes extra time. Twice/day. The cost savings can be enough to allow you to retire early. Just don't give up pedaling after you do.
1
@A Township managers ensure the main roadways are plowed first. If they are unsafe for driving a bicycle, you're not the only driver who ought not use them.
The main roads are great resources that go everywhere you'd need to go today. You don't need a special facility.
It'll be interesting to see how the 2021 congestion charge in NYC affects people like myself from driving into the city versus taking MetroNorth. I can drive into the city currently faster than it takes to take the train and I have the convenience of having a vehicle to use while in the city. If I take the train I have to:
1. Check the schedule (for Norwalk, CT it runs every 30 minutes), pick a time. This could be a loss of up to 30 minutes.
2. Drive down to the station (could ride a bike 7 months out of the year, but there are no bike paths and the roads here aren't very safe for bikes, though they're adding bike paths). This takes about 10-15 minutes to park, pay for parking (good luck if you live in a wealthy community where you have to be put on a forever wait list for parking). So now we're at 40-45 minutes wasted.
3. Take the train. 1 hour and 15 minutes to Grand Central. Now we're at 2 hours to the city, but wait, I'm not at my destination yet.
4. I have to find a cab or take the subway to my place in manhattan. 10 to 30 minutes
Total cost is around $45-60 to take the train with cab/subway at 2 and half hours one way
I can drive into the city to most locations on most days (depends on when you leave and the day) and get there in 90 minutes. The cost is about the same after you pay gas, tolls, wear and tear on the vehicle and parking (though that depends wildly on time of day).
We need to invest in high speed trains. It's exhausting to take the current train.
7
@DeMossMD - high-speed trains are fast when connecting locations a few hundred miles apart - not going from Norwalk to NYC. For commuter rail, the rate of acceleration/deceleration for each stop defines how fast the train can go.
Many employers offer commuter reimbursement to encourage use of transit rather than personal vehicles, does yours?
I used to drive to work in the NYC area decades ago and no thank you, the commutes I've done in the Chicago area on trains let me sit and read rather than the old process of wishing I could get into second gear at least once in the first half hour of driving each morning.
1
Very cool graph! I love when the Times makes interactive graphs like this. Before I studied the graph I predicted that overall emissions increase would correspond to population increase and, with some exceptions, I was right. Obviously as populations increased in cities like Seattle, Phoenix, Austen, Houston, and Atlanta, the emissions increase since everyone drives.
It shouldn't be surprising that the NYC metro area has increased 27% either because the population has increased by about 2 million people.
I'd love to see how statistics have changed in Manhattan and other areas where the population has remained relatively stagnant.
2
New York is the nation's largest city. During the study period, it became even more crowded, both as a place to live and as a place to work. There was minimal investment made in public transportation to offset the increased population density.
Is it any wonder that emissions increases there are the largest registered?
3
@JM That's why the researchers also estimated per capita emissions, which show car-dependent cities as having much higher rates than cities with large transit systems, like New York. Both calculations--total emissions and per capita emissions--are useful, but in different ways.
1
@JM Yes, everyone pushes the "per capita" notion of emissions, but the fact of the matter is, the more people, the more emissions--and therefore places like NYC, which are overbuilt, have no place for the toxins to go--no air circulation, poor stormwater management. We need to be thoughtful about how to reduce CO2 in areas where there is continued population growth (and population growth itself has fallen out of the discussion, oddly).
I love the dynamic time series graph so much, great job to the team that put it together! Very insightful the way the comparison was drawn between total emissions vs emissions per capita
5
I might take this more seriously if any effort was being made to reduce the number of SUVs and giant pick-up trucks on our roads. Put a tax on them and you would see progress.
30
@Larry Actually Larry, if you own a company you get a tax break if you have a vehicle over a certain weight- like an F150, Silverado, big Range Rover, etc. Now THAT is progress. Kidding of course.
1
@Larry
Some of us need large vehicles and I'm tired of blanket criticism. I'm a homesteader with an incredibly small carbon footprint due to my lifestyle. 6 bales of straw and five 50# bags of chicken scratch aren't fitting into a Prius!
So go ahead and tax those big vehicles, just be prepared for your food prices to increase accordingly.
Maybe you should also be advocating for taxing all those Amazon delivery trucks!
@B Dawson -- It's completely understandable if you need this kind of vehicle for work or real rugged use. I live in New Mexico where many people live in rural areas, on dirt roads, with very changeable weather/snow in winter. However, I came from Phoenix, where 90% of people in the metropolitan area don't actually need a massive SUV or truck--it's all for "looks".
4
I am so ready for the return of horse and buggy...or at least solar charging electric vehicles.
Sometimes while sitting in traffic idling along with all my fellow commuters, I imagine us all on electric scooters or bicycles even.
It could not be more clear that the system of cars and roads we have now is almost completely failed. A tragedy of the commons exemplified.
7
One remedy for gas guzzling commutes in rush hour city traffic: electric bikes. They go 20 mph, 30 miles on a charge, barely use any electricity, are quiet and much less expensive than a car. And easy to park. The hour commute to go 10 miles can be done in a half hour. And if you want to exercise, and save electricity, you can pedal.
8
@walkman -- Fine for those who have short (mileage) commutes, but with the growth of exurbs whose only logical route to jobs is on highways, I'm not sure this is a practical solution.
2
@walkman
Maybe that's a practical solution in L.A. but not in cities like Boston, NY, Denver, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, etc where riding a bike between November and April can lead to frost bite. Then there are all those rainy days between April and November.
1
One remedy for gas guzzling commutes in rush hour city traffic: electric bikes. They go 20 mph, 30 miles on a charge, barely use any electricity, are quiet and much less expensive than a car. And easy to park. The hour commute to go 10 miles can be done in a half hour. And if you want to exercise, and save electricity, you pedal.
@walkman
A splendid idea for January commutes in Chicago
1
While every part of the country needs to
reduce its emissions, California’s major metropolitan areas have some of the best numbers — or should I say, the least discouraging. San Jose, for example, produces 13% less emissions overall since 1990 and 33% less per person. And yet the Trump administration, at the behest of the oil and gas industry, is challenging California’s right to set its own admission standards. This is insane.
35
We can do it. Being an eco-freak, I bought PV solar panels four years ago, with an estimated payback of 15-17 years. Before they could be installed. we got an EV, which took the solar system payback down to three years in gasoline replacement alone.
Out two electric cars do not pollute,being charged by the Sun. If I paid for the power, the Tesla would cost 5 cents/mile to drive, with no engine maintenance, no tune-ups, no oil changes, no emissions checks, no transmission troubles, no muffler work.
The world changed, and you will love your EV.
19
@George Kamburoff Dear George, and I imagine that you are not impacted by the power shut-offs by your local CA electric utility to try to prevent wild fires. Your PV panels are safe. Thanks for letting people know the feasibility of your arrangement of solar and EVs.
8
@Constance Ruth Price, The PV panels will not produce power by themselves if there is no power from the grid to give it timing. for the 60 cycle AC. My Tesla household batteries have inverters with their own timing, which is one reason for their presence. Their timing will allow the solar system to work.
7
@George Kamburoff
Me too! I put solar panels on my office roof in 2015. They generate a huge amount of electricity, the extra goes back to the grid. My power bill is $13 a month - just the administrative fee for Florida Power and Light. (Unfortunately FPL has been blocking roof top solar at every turn in the Sunshine State!) Bought a Mitsubishi Outlander SUV plugin hybrid last year. It is a great car! No range anxiety. Have only used three tanks of gas in one and a half years. Mostly drive around in electric mode only, powered by the sun. It is so easy! We can do this!
8
Increase the tax on gasoline by $2 a gallon, and the researchers would see the same dip that they saw in 2008. People would carpool, combine trips, and buy fuel efficient cars. Students would take the bus to school. The $2/gallon would pay for infrastructure and mass transit options. Simple. But political suicide.
10
@harryhendo--some people have no choice but to drive. A $2 gas tax would cause a major recession. And just where would you spend that money?
Until better infrastructure and more options for commuting are in place you cannot penalize the people who need to rely on cars.
6
@bored critic Phase it in over 4 years at $.05 per month. In 2011, when the price peaked to $4/gal and stayed high for years, we had no recession, in fact we had incredible expansion. Put the money into recharging stations, subsidies on electric cars, bus lines, light rail lines, subway improvements, etc.
There's no better time to do it than we are in a strong economy like we are now. Break the addiction!
1
@harryhendo--and why do the car owners have to solely pay for this? Isn't it you planet too. And until I have options, I have no options,
1
How much would emissions be reduced if every gas-guzzling SUV in the United States were replaced with a more efficient automobile (just a standard gasoline engine, not a hybrid)?
10
Just to be clear, transportation is not the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. If you allocate electricity by sector, it is actually third. Residential and commercial buildings are first (31%), industry is second (30%), and transportation is third (29%). This is important because as environmentalists we should not leave the public with the impression that if we take certain actions, such as going to an all-electric vehicle fleet, that all of a sudden climate change will no longer be a problem.
32
@Thor Hogan The numbers are pretty close, and if we are talking about more than a trillion dollars in infrastructure improvements, it seems that there is more bang for the buck in tackling the third place, a 2 percent difference between first and third.
5
@Thor Hogan It's the biggest single cause.
1
We keep adding to our population although there's no room to add new road capacity. The result is ever more congestion, more idling time in stop and go traffic and longer drive times between locations - therefore more auto exhaust pollution.
8
@PWR--so we need to add roads and increase alternative methods of travel, train, bus etc...
1
I can think of a good reason for the rise in per-capita emissions in Houston. Hours/week spent sitting in traffic, going nowhere.
3
Great analysis. Re idling engines, the diesel engine on our 2018 GMC Terrain automatically shuts down at traffic lights and other stops, including when it's pulled into the garage. I'm thinking other newer cars have this feature, too. One grain of sand on the beach could turn into the entire beach some day, right?
4
@Bob LaSala
Buying a vehicle that yields double the mpg would reduce emissions 1000 fold easily.
Take a big step next time.
6
The role that informed, enlightenment governments must play in making significant change cannot he overstated.
Only government - elected by informed, enlightened citizens - can mandate the needed changes to our vehicles and policies that will begin to undo the massive damage we are wreaking on our planet and ourselves.
Government must accelerate rapidly the end of fossil-fuel modes of transportation. Rejecting fossil fuels is absolutely critical to saving ourselves. Get rid of your gas burning car. Replace it with an EV, or a bike, or public transportation, or a scooter, or walk.
5
@Unpresidented
"Get rid of your gas burning car. Replace it with an EV, or a bike, or public transportation, or a scooter, or walk."
That works great if you live in the heart of a big city like NYC, Boston, San Fran, Dallas etc... not so great if you live in the suburbs and the closest food store is 4-5 miles (like mine) or more away from you. What then?
My kids are hockey players. We carpool. I need to get 2-4 adults, 3 teens and 3 massive hockey bags in my vehicle.
I'm so tired of the "city" people who walk everywhere or take the subway (and I lived in NYC for 25 yrs) who dont either remember or understand "suburban" or "country" life and the difficulties of getting around telling me how I need to change MY lifestyle. If you live in the city, focus on how you can change your lifestyle. I will focus on my lifestyle. I won't tell you what you have to do and I certainly dont need you telling me what I need to do.
1
Despite a growing population and greater road congestion, it's interesting to see a steep decline in emissions in recent years in the San Francisco metro area . People here have embraced hybrid and electric vehicles more than most other cities. Seem consumer choice can make a significance difference.
11
@michael Driving an EV is economic joy before even getting to the environmental benefits. The money I save in gas v. electricity monthly over my old car (which wasn’t particularly inefficient) nearly pays my car payment.
9
I wish we would get to the part about why people drive. In Charlottesville, increasingly people drive to go and care for other people, could be a teacher, health care aid or food service worker in an assisted care facility. These "jobs" don't always pay enough to support people with families let alone afford the worker the ability to buy a vehicle with better gas mileage or one less likely to need costly maintenance. And if you look at demographics across the US, the story is similar.
I am seriously tied of this conversation that Americans need to stop driving or Americans need to buy a better car or Americans need to just...All this creating and analyzing of data does is obfuscate the reality that people are for the most part just trying to live their lives. When are the technologist behind all this data gathering going to acknowledge their energy consumption and CO2 emissions? You're in the same category as economists...creating graphs and tables AFTER the fact, that don't solve peoples' day to day challenges.
4
@Past, Present, Future Why do you think teachers, health care workers, and food service workers have to drive so far and can’t take public transit? Could it be because of our poor land use choices and development practices? Could it be because we didn’t build housing close to services? Why didn’t we do that? Is it actually a right force future generations to deal with the consequences of our emissions???
8
@My CO2 Emissions That's a whole other conversation we could have about American history in general. In the South you have to live with the consequences of decisions made after the Civil War. If you're in Colorado you are most likely living with land use decisions that were made by past governments and native American tribes.
You're right future generation will have to deal with it everywhere. Just like in Japan, their children will have to deal with the consequences of a failed nuclear reactor.
All I am saying is CO2 is the wrong metric to gauge "progress". You need to get more human.
Cars should be banned in dense urban areas. Only delivery and service vehicles should be allowed.
10
@Judy Petersen yes if people had to park in outlying areas and actually walk or bike into the urban areas we'd all be much healthier. unfortunately busy American lives are so time-crunched. We need to imagine a better way of life.
1
@Judy Petersen
I concur. If you want to live in the urban jungle it is just going to get more and more miserable.
The car companies and oil killed real public transportation years ago and this is the result. I would take public transportation in a second if there was any where I live and where I work. Once again, short-sighted capitalism at work.....
8
So it's not the cows as previously suspected. Duhhh. ia have seen such a traffic increase here it is frightening to imagine the damage being done to the air quality.
Each day, Trump and his Republicans act to make our planet less & less inhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
The window of opportunity to effectively mitigate Climate Change is rapidly disappearing.
The remaining 2020 Democratic Candidates will try to cut & paste portions of Governor Jay Inslee’s comprehensive & actionable Climate Change Mitigation Plan.
We must go with the Real Deal.
The winning Democratic Party 2020 Ticket: President Warren (build a green economy) + Vice President Inslee (save a blue planet)! W+IN 2020!
11
What about the air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act? Why not mention those?
Carbon Monoxide
Particulate Matter
Lead
Ozone
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Why not write an article about those? Why not write an article about the progress metro areas have made with these pollutants?
2
@Cali why not write an article about the fact that air quality has been getting worse again for the last two years?
@SB I just want local and state governments to get credit where credit is due. Metro Atlanta started working on air quality in the late 90s--working to reduce Clean Air Act pollutants ozone and particulate matter.
Perhaps a brief look at what happened approx. 90 years ago is in order. While, there isn't a "smoking gun" for the loss of light rail(trolley cars, etc.), a conference among the the major automobile companies in the 1920's about boosting automobile sales came to at least one solution - IF there were no light rail in America then more people would buy automobiles. Shortly after this conference, light rail, bus lines (hobbled by legislation, in many states), and other mass transit started to disappear from America. There is no Quid Pro Quo in this argument, but it did happen.
This Documentary "Taken for a Ride" (1996) does explain in part how this was done.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dt8ji
Its not entirely true but its close, Solely blaming General Motors isn’t true, closer to the blame is almost all the other auto makers, who were involved in various degrees .
2
One large cohort of Americans who cannot give up their cars are dog owners. Dogs are not allowed on public transportation, and I've never known an Uber or cab driver who will permit one in their vehicle. Last week I needed to get an 80 lb. sick Labrador to the veterinarian for emergency treatment. Good luck doing that.
2
@Lynne S. This her just launched Uber Pets this week where dress verse will allow pets. Also pets (not just service animals) are allowed on public transportation here in SF - just not during rush hours.
@Lynne S. You don’t need to do that all day every day, I hope? (I also hope your dog is ok!) There are plenty of places where vets make house calls, though. Some on bikes and some in electric vehicles. This would solve that problem.
Truck pollution going up an auto pollution staying level in Maine. We need to strangle those big diesel engines in tractor trailer trucks, heavy equipment, and boats...
3
this piece should be titled 'density and mass transit effectively reduce emissions' or maybe 'cars that are not trains are bad'
1
Many ordinary people drive larger vehicles like gas-guzzling SUVs because they are safer in a collision than compact cars. With our streets and highways clogged with massive 18-wheeler trucks, tankers, pickup trucks, intercity buses, car carriers, and the like, it is frightening not to be in a larger, sturdier passenger vehicle. The safety research backs up this common-sense perception of the danger of being in a small vehicle in collision with a larger one.
If freight were carried in separate lanes or on railways, and intercity traffic took place on trains, there would be far greater compliance among the general public in using compact electric passenger cars.
4
@Georgina SUVs are more likely to roll over at higher speeds. They are not safer than other vehicles.
8
@Georgina PU trucks (and SUVs?) are built to truck safety standards. Perhaps less safe than being in car in a collision. Do you have the data from the "safety research"?
@Georgina I drive cross country, and as a long term uber commuter, up and down the northeast coast. The long haul drivers long ago learned to respect me, because I drive safely, give them space, know how to pass them when I need to - and am not at all afraid to 1) call 911 and report them, if they are driving unsafely; and, since most public companies have posted phone numbers on trucks, 2) I will call also call their dispatchers, and 3) talk to their safety directors. On occasion I have also written to the Federal Motor Carriers Association. Since I have driven from the Midwest to the coast, and recognized the same truckers and trucks going out and back on that route, I think that this has been effective for me, to the point that if I start picking up my phone they give me some distance. I have no doubt that if I had a CB that I would learn that I have many unflattering names, but you know what, I drive a small car, the most polite truckers are great, I admire the engine equipment and technicalities of the job, and I have not had an accident driving among them on the road - and I am not afraid to drive among them, more importantly. People driving in large pickup trucks and SUVs who think that they have more control over their vehicles than they really do - they are the ones who spin out, have accidents, run into other people and cause accidents, unfortunately, when they overestimate the capacities of their vehicle.
1
In light of our incredibly high auto emissions I am frustrated to see negative coverage of electric vehicles from the times.
e.g. "L.A. to Vegas and Back by Electric Car: 8 Hours Driving; 5 More Plugged In"
They took a particularly strange approach (using one brand of station without fast charging) in an otherwise excellent car.
To compare, here's the headline from my recent trip "Almost 24 Hours Driving; 3 More Plugged In"
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=8ea61b83-f544-4ab6-90c4-31ca078d698c
5
I’m confused by this data. I read an article not long ago that stated planes were the biggest polluter with regard to transportation. Which is it??
5
@Landy
While planes may burn more fuel per passenger mile than cars and trucks, there are far more cars and trucks on the highways, many of them at a standstill in traffic with their engines running. The result is more pollution from cars and trucks than from planes.
This article says airplanes account for 11% of transportation emissions: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html
I seem to remember reading that air travel was the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, so maybe that’s what you read?
Amazing job, NYT. Thank you.
1
It began in the early 2000's, a heightened concern for "safety." Power became a cultural necessity and along with it, size. Individuals and families needed safety and to feel safe they needed vehicles that, as extensions of their castle/homes, became larger and more powerful. If accidents occur occupants of small vehicles will suffer the worst. In much of the midwest and the southwest, the 4x4 supercharged truck replaced the family sedan. Automobile manufacturers facing the recession offered ever larger trucks cheaper and easier to pay. In Texas, in a normal day, pick up trucks race along the left lanes of highways overtaking sedans and each other as they weave across the lanes. I have read that the fastest growing production of vehicles in China involve US-type pickup trucks. It will not be long before 500 million Chinese drive F-150's.
8
Every gas-burning passenger vehicle in the US should be a hybrid. I am amazed that we are still a nation of 25 mpg vehicles when you can get to 45mpg with ZERO effect on driving performance. The extra $2k per vehicle should be subsidized by tax credits.
EVs are an important part of the solution too, but their 1+hour charge time makes them less of a no-brainer.
10
@Bnad It's a $3,000 difference. Sadly that means ordinary people, such as myself, calculated we couldn't afford a hybrid.
1
@Anne I bought an 80 mile range EV used with less than 8k miles for less than $18k. Price shouldn’t be an issue.
@Anne Crunch the numbers. The improved mileage that you will get will get will, over time, more than make up for the additional cost of the vehicle.
The real issue is btu's per passenger mile and on that basis mass transit, especially bus transit, is not efficient at all. Electric cars merely move the pollution to remote locations outside cities, except to the degree electricity is generated by solar or water power. The focus on the city is not the issue for the planet: btu's per passenger mile is the goal to help the planet.
5
@George solar and wind. If we all had solar panels, if large areas of the west in particular had wind farms and solar farms, electric would indeed be cleaner. This is happening. Coal states are building wind and solar farms at increasing rates and more of us are getting solar panels. What we need is for government to assist with this. Cost of this for regular people, as well as the cost of electric vehicles and charging stations so that most of us to afford to do this.
1
Amsterdam and the entire country of Denmark are banishing petrol burning cars by 2030. Paris is also planning on banning these vehicles over a similar time frame. Every major car manufacturer is now making electric cars. In the Pacific Northwest, much of our power is hydro, resulting in lower carbon impact. We should require electric vehicles in all major cities in Oregon and Washington by 2030 and show the country how it can be done. Even for those that live away from cities and drive long distances - electric cars can now travel over 300 miles on a single charge (e.g. Tesla). Our children and our grandchildren will look to our decisions and hold us accountable.
21
@David The Northwest is going to lose a lot of its current hydro generated power or it will lose most of its salmon runs. It's time for them, especially Washington State, to start making some hard decisions.
3
The quite thorough article did not mention the amount of pollution created by drivers idling their engines. The populace needs to be educated about what drivers mindlessly think of as normal, innocent behavior, running an engine to keep electronic devices charged, or the temperature inside their vehicle ideal, actually does to the air we breathe and how such behavior contributes to climate catastrophe. Drivers regularly idle for close to 2 hours while waiting for alternate side of the street parking times to expire. Even with education some selfish drivers will continue to contribute to pollution so they can sit jacketless in winter inside their car, so laws need to be changed from allowing 3 minute idling to zero idling, as the 3 minute law is unenforceable.
19
Nice article at the aggregate but it does not bring it home.
I can see that in the SF metro area that the the about 3700 Kilograms of CO2 per person on road emissions....
...but, is that for all people living or just for all people who are driving?
In addition, I would like to know what that K-CO2 is for the typical gallon of gas and then what the K-CO2 is for the average passenger miles traveled in my region.
Then I can do the math for my own car, and its gas mileage, and miles driven to see how good or bad I am doing compared to everyone else.
The aggregates are instructive, but you need to bring it home and provide a way for us to benchmark our individual behavior.
2
We're planning to buy a hybrid soon. We'd prefer an electric car, but we find Teslas too expensive and the other options too small. We do a lot of in-town driving, so we'll be mainly using the electric part of the car anyway.
Let Trump try and stop that, while he's punishing California for lowering emission standards. Let's eliminate the combustion engine by 2040 and stop climate change.
10
Was Hawaii included in this study? The Honolulu metropolitan area doesn’t appear in the drop-down list, but many smaller cities on the Mainland are featured.
Greenhouse gas emission is a global problem. The CO2 we produce here in Hawaii contributes to climate change, just like CO2 from Mainland sources.
2
Go by any school any morning or afternoon and witness all the idling cars dropping off or picking up children, while mostly empty school buses are available for the same purpose. Schools should prohibit drop off/pick up, or make the area for drop off/pick up be far enough from the school that it becomes "not cool".
60
@harryhendo the substitution of “one motor per child” for school buses is a wealth tax on the health of nearby residents, who leach the wealth, and increasing fly, the health. We need to do better.
ALSO - the presumed “convenience factor” (ironic name for sitting 30-45 min in a stink machine, eh?) is purchased at the long-term cost of more asthma & oth respiratory problems in the children being “saved” fm interactions with their peers in favor of bickering w/ their parents while ruining their eyesight w/ tiny video games. What’s not to like?!?
7
@harryhendo In a perfect world, busing should work but try living in a community with not enough bus drivers, buses that often are inoperable and therefore service runs late, and kids who beg for more sleep in the morning. Parents are really stuck.
3
@Past, Present, Future
Sorry to say, but that's a cop out. Bus service to schools is state mandated. How many of your state senators and representatives and school board members and school administrators have you written and called to make them observe the rule of law? I bet if they heard from enough parents, they would raise the bus driver's wages and buy a new bus or two. They're just passing that cost to you!
Did your parents drive you to school each day? Mine didn't. I got on a crowded city bus with my fellow citizens and gained some insight into my society instead of being sealed off in my own comfy seat.
5
We have an urban planning crisis in this country. Cities designed for cars and not people are making us less healthy, less safe, and less able to confront the climate crisis with necessary urgency.
40
@Sean Living in small, expensive apartments which are largely unaffordable is not the goal of the most Americans.
4
@Sean Cities are designed for cars? It's almost impossible to be a vehicle owner in Manhattan. Meanwhile, less than 30 percent of the subway stops aren't accessible for disabled people. As a result, I moved to California and bought a car. If cities want more people to take public transportation they have to design systems that people can use.
4
@Sean
Cars are people too my friend. No one ever discusses the psychological effect of giving over most of our available land space to automobiles, making them the masters and the rest of us slaves. There are numerous thoroughfares in NYC, like the Prospect Expressway and McGuinness Boulevard that are flanked by residential buildings but are by, for, and about cars. Such an environment is so inhospitable, that despite the population density, you rarely see a soul strolling along these speedways. Even people walking their dogs take the first detour possible onto a side street. Even on an ordinary block, the vast percentage of square-footage is devoted to parking and vehicular traffic. We just take it for granted. And when someone honks their horn for half an hour at 3AM, because they're blocked by a double parked care, they're completely within their rights - just because they're sitting in a one ton chunk of steel. Meanwhile, if a drunk was beating on a garbage pail at 3AM, the cops would be over in 5 minutes to pulverize them.
6
Until there is a commitment to create viable public transport solutions this will continue. I was excited when the MBTA (the Boston Transit Authority) created a link to my town in RI only to discover that it only ran at peak hours and not at all on weekends. Of no use to anyone other than weekday commuters.
14
@Sam bicycles promote health & don’t pollute!
1
@D Lowery Disabled people, the elderly, and people with small children can't ride bicycles.
Every car owner can do their part right now. There are excellent hybrid options today, like a Camry, that get 55 mpg. There are plug in hybrid options that will nearly eliminate gas consumption. And there are electric options that will in fact eliminate the need for gas. In most states you can select your energy supplier and buy wind power for maybe a penny more per kilowatt hour than natural gas or oil generated electricity. This is all within our means today. The cost difference over conventional options is essentially the same. All you need to do is act.
15
@Steve
Yup, great options for those with the means. And drive less, great for everyone, especially those of less means.
2
Great to see this issue highlighted. Unfortunately, the mis-labeled “electric” car is not the ultimate solution. It’s not electric. It’s still mostly natural gas or coal powered by your local utility.
The single best way to get cars off the roads is, at least for the major cities, fairly priced, well-maintained and efficient public transportation options. We should all be pushing politicians hard to fix the poorly maintained city infrastructure. It’s harder in the suburbs, but certainly there’s some exurbs that would benefit from train links.
We still need to transport people. All we can hope for is far better efficiency. But it’s far more efficient to be utilizing functioning mass transit than autos or even trucks. Somehow, we abandoned rails networks and subways. It blows me away when I see systems like the LIRR, DC Metro, Boston T falter and give people a reason NOT to use them. It’s a far better use of tax dollars.
Somehow you have to put an incentive in to get people out of their gas guzzlers, stuck in interminable traffic, and in to functioning mass transit. It’s crazy how many folks from Westchester area drive in to Manhattan when they have a wonderful train network that zips them right in to Grand Central. Something is wrong not to make that an equation that works. A special gas tax and tolls that go 100% to Mass Transit Fund?
21
@Hal S
Mass transit is subsidized enormously throughout the country.
At some point one has to ask if it is simply not that great a remedy in most places rather than calling for still-heavier subsidies.
3
@Alan and private automobiles are not subsidized? What are the costs associated with the pollution emissions from automobiles, both direct (highway and road maintenance, accidental injuries and death, noise, and more) and indirect (stress, anxiety associated with dodging crazy motorists)?
8
@Hal S
I've driven EVs since the EV-1 in 1997. They have all been powered by emission-free solar on the roof of my house.
Your first paragraph is nonsense.
2
It's disappointing that the Times did not also mention the housing component to this problem: With land use laws in nearly all urban areas prohibiting infill construction, even if people want to live closer to where they work, or in dense, transit-accessible areas, they mostly can't afford to. Without reforming these antiquated zoning laws, the effect of penalties on vehicle miles traveled will be limited.
16
@Eric Are you a city planner? I am. I worked as a national city planning consultant for eight years before taking my current role as a planning director in a major metropolitan area. I don't know of any cities that prohibit infill construction. Where are these places? Municode.com has just about everyone's zoning code so I'm sure that you can provide links to these laws.
4
One step we can all take is to turn off the engine while idling at a traffic light, sitting in a fast food drive through lane, or waiting for a prescription.
9
It would be helpful if companies were required to either permit all who could work from home to telecommute and/or to stagger their office workers' hours so that all workers in a metro area would not be trying to get to and from work at the same time. Child care and schools would have to change their schedules to accommodate, but the 3 hour rush hours we have in Atlanta (6-9 and 4-7) are killing us, literally.
23
@Heather
Atlanta traffic is horrible. The suburbs need to extend the Marta and get over the false issues (supposed crime) that have prevented this from happening.
4
This is not surprising for San Diego which saw a 39% spike in emissions. Public transportation is minimal and is growing slower than the population. Traffic gets worse each year, even as we build new roads and widen existing roads. Some can switch to EVs, but given our high electricity rates (up time $0.67/kw, the highest in the country), EVs will never be an option for people who don’t own a large sunny roof. We need a massive public transportation system.
7
@Laura Colban bicycles promote health & don’t pollute!
2
The long-term plan for this seems to be to move the electric grid to carbon-free sources and replace gasoline with electricity to power most cars once the grid is free of fossil fuels.
The idea that we can build and will use a massive and wildly expensive train and/or bus network to replace cars in most cities and re-enginner (in painful ways) our lives much faster than we can accomplish the above-mentioned remedy is, at-best, far-fetched.
In all but the largest cities, public transit is largely wasteful and it seems to only get more wasteful. This is what happens when we artificially create "choke points" that funnel people into a single system and pretend that system is a moral or practical imperative.
We have a way out of the pollution problem that does not require limiting people's choices or autonomy. We should embrace it.
7
@Alan How is public transit wasteful in say, a medium sized city?
Also - what is the "way out of the pollution problem" that you're eluding to?
1
@Brett Baker bicycles promote health & don’t pollute!
1
@Brett Baker
Many buses drive around empty. Last I saw, buses average worse mpg per passenger than cars even though bus systems inflate their passenger counts. This is not apples to apples, but it implies that many buses are used so little that they are unambiguously very wasteful.
The solution is a pollution-free grid and EVs or walking. This will take a long time, but has much less risk and more widespread benefits than hoping transit will eventually become wildly successful.
1
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my garage. Shortly thereafter, three neighbors asked me how soon I would re-coup my investment. I told them that I did not expect to. By the time the third approached me, I was ready. I told him that the average new car sold for $36,000 and asked him how soon those purchasers would re-coup their investments.
All of my neighbors are Democrats and during the same time period, each purchased an expensive SUV. Although many people express concern about Climate Change, very few take any personal responsibility toward mitigating it.
168
@Zipster In my town, there was a demonstration by school children demanding climate change. By and large, the children were all driven to the site of the demonstration in big SUVs, the same SUVs that probably drop off and pick up those same children from their schools (even while buses are available), and probably the same SUV that a parent drives, alone, to work, instead of carpooling or taking public transit. Folks can look no further than their own nose to make a difference.
61
@Zipster -- For some reason it is easy to point fingers, get angry, and squabble about any number of issues here in the U.S., but when it comes to actually changing overall patterns in society, it comes down to our own personal behavior (and actually believing we might be part of the problem). Why are we so blind to this in the U.S. and think that we couldn't possible be part of the problem?
I believe it is partially due to the structure of our society where we are very much concerned about "me", as an individual, and not the collective whole. In other countries and cultures, society is based around an understanding of "us" and how we are each part of the whole. Overall change starts with each individual, and I'm afraid in the U.S. we are learning (or not learning this) the hard way...
10
@Dee
Based upon the purchasing decisions I see people make, I do not believe their children are making any significant efforts to alter their parent's behavior. I think that a lot of people might chose better alternatives if their children made it known how important it is to them.
I think that we are in the same position with climate change as we were with smoking 40 years ago. At that time, most people knew it was a dangerous habit, but it took another 15 years and socially imposed sanctions before significant change occurred. In the mean time, expect a lot of hypocrisy!
6
There is some myopia here in focusing only on transportation, at least for households. A household can have solar panels with no global warming reduction credit except for the utility industry, but then gets dinged for having an SUV, and dinged for not living in a tiny drafty apartment in an ant heap.
Also, there is a "carbon cost" to earn additional money to pay a high rent to live close to work to save "carbon" by living close to work.
While examining the transportation sector due to its relative size is worthwhile, some context is needed: the equivalent global warming metric nationally on a per capita basis, followed by globally on a per capita basis.
I live in Alabama. In addition to a new gas tax owners of electric and hybrid will charged an additional fee. This was recently passed in the legislature. I view it as a way not only to get more money from taxes (presumably to repair roads and bridges) but also to discourage energy efficient vehicles. Full disclose, I own a hybrid and have since 2008.
12
Living in such a bike friendly city is a dream come true, now we just need to make the switch to an electric car, thank you fellow cyclists for riding as often as you can!
32
@Juliana James Agree! Bicycles cause no emissions and tread lightly on the expensive infrastructure, while providing health benefits for the riders.
11
California needs to reform property tax laws like Prop 13, which shield some home owners and businesses from the effect of rising property prices. The result has been to force people to live further from work than ever because “tax squatter” owners won’t sell the homes for which they pay exceptionally low property taxes. Some ideas include eliminating property tax relief for homes the owner doesn’t live in, homes held in trust, business properties, eliminating the inheritance of tax relief and progressively eliminating the transfer of relief from home sales. This would rapidly open up the housing market to workers so they don’t have to commute 2 hours each way. Reducing the average commute time will go a long way to reducing tailpipe emissions.
7
@Dave
The folks you are calling "tax squatters " appear to me to mostly be ordinary, but probably older home owners. I'm amazed at the hostility I see out there directed at people who have bought a house and have managed to maintain it. In many jurisdictions when they turn 65 they can apply to have their property taxes frozen if their incomes do not exceed a certain amount and if they do not do extensive remodeling which raises the value. I have been able to. Just because your value is raised by circumstances beyond your control-price pressures caused by over demand/low supply-does not mean we should welcome social policies that price older people out of their neighborhoods. It could happen to you on down the road too. A Hobbesian society is nipping at most of us and has already arrived for some. Blasting the old folks out of their 40 year residence is not the solution to our auto emissions problems. It is certainly true that tax implications are something that we all take into account when making many decisions. This is called informed personal financial responsibility. A "squatter" is by definition a person who does not have a legal right to be there.
4
@Dave
So, your recommendation is to use excessive taxes to drive people out of the homes they've lived in for thirty years, because they can no longer afford it?
Wow, just wow.
1
I think at some point in the future we may see a need to make miles driven taxable. The more miles you drive the more you pay in addition to the normal fees associated with driving more miles. I can also see gasoline heavily taxed, but the politicians that come up with such schemes will have to first completely convince the public for the needs and get us all on board along with affordable alternatives. The days of being able to pay a buck or two for gasoline and be on your merry way is coming to an end. Like it or not..
8
@Martino Carbon tax for sure. It needs to be an added cost for everything.
@Martino Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax makes more sense than gas tax. That way, those who use the roads the most pay the most. Besides, the federal gas tax hasn't been raised in over 20 years.
2
@Martino
Yes! The more you drive, the more you pay. Already done for certain things like water use here in California. Should also be applied to flying - no more free flights for the rich who accumulate miles.
2
I am shocked by the increase in Chicago's emissions. Chicago remains probably the single busiest transcontinental transportation node in the US. It would be interesting to know what impact changes in rail and trucking have had on our emissions.
3
@Nancy Federal Highway policies that have privileged long-haul trucking (Rather than “last-mike” short-haul) over rail have done enormous damage to our financial & personal health.
3
Public infrastructure relies heavily on public funding, but its tough to generate an appropriate amount of public funding when 1) taxes are low and 2) the wealthy fail to pay their fair share. Communities could offer adequate public infrastructure if we could demonstrate its necessity to 1) forestall the lasting effects of climate change and 2) ease the burden of impoverished people who want to seek work or assistance but have no means of traveling.
All of these issues, which have been front-page stories on the NYT within the last few months are inextricably connected, and the solution will come when we stop imagining them as silos and start imagining them as comprehensive issues to revamp our economy and our nation. That starts with bold leadership, the likes of which I believe we have a chance to elect in the forthcoming election cycle.
9
Public transportation from the suburbs takes about two hours each way, and has very limited schedules that make it impractical to use outside of rush hours even during the business week.
The American population is aging and public transportation is in general unfriendly and difficult for older people use. Problems include falling in buses, step heights on trains that are too high, lack of seating. Problems getting to and from public transportation include distance, poor sidewalks, inaccessibility, and distances between connections, and even issues with large commuter lots.
It is clearly now culturally unacceptable to allow children to walk to/from school or playgrounds or play unsupervised. That adds to the problems.
"Behavioral changes" should include adequate, efficient, and safe infrastructure options. Working from home should be much more accepted by now. A POTUS supportive of climate change measures. SUV design that keeps headlights out of the mirrors of cars. More effective control of aggressive drivers - especially those in SUVs. For older drivers most cars are too low to enter and exist easily, so SUVs and vans are better alternatives - improve designs. SUVs and trucks are more profitable for manufacturers, but state and federal regulation could level that playing field.
20
So many complex factors involved. In my region of northwest Massachusetts, there is virtually no public transportation. Bus schedules are extremely limited, and run only on the main streets. The median age of the population is trending older. The City of North Adams, where I live, has been promoting bicycling as transportation for the past three years, and I think it’s working — I see many more bikers three years into their program — but the default is still driving.
4
@Dianne Olsen Yeah cycling! Bicycling is an extremely valuable & almost totally over-looked contributor to personal & community health!
Ironically, while reading this article, the pop-up add was for a beefy-looking Acura SUV. We drive EVs. The purchase of the first in 2013 was aided by a state tax credit, as well as federal. The state tax credit went away soon after and now in Georgia we pay an EV tax of over $240/year/EV, ostensibly to replace the gas taxes EV weren’t paying. However, that tax was carelessly calculated to equate to over 25,000 mIles driven per car per year within Georgia!!! The state should be providing MORE incentives to drive EVs since $s spent on gasoline/diesel largely leave the state but not electricity, which is produced in-state.
16
First, Nashville is a traffic, air pollution and noise pollution nightmare. The region's major interstates, 65, 40 and 24, cut right through the heart of residential neighborhoods and downtown core. I would take public transport but it doesn't reach my neighborhood, just 7 miles from downtown. I traded my hybrid for a plug-in hybrid recently. I've successfully driven on battery power only and haven't burned any gasoline in three weeks. I would have bought an all electric car but, except for Tesla, the dealers here don't stock any. Buying the plug-in was almost impossible as it was. Plus, no one in Tennessee seems to be doing anything about installing charging stations either in in town or along the highways.
9
@Tim We bought an electric Kia Soul at Carmax in Nashville. And there are plenty of charging possibilities, including your home, if you have an outlet. I've seen many high-speed DC chargers as well, including at the YMCA.
On the other hand, don't rule out Tesla. Its as cheap, or cheaper, than most of the other electric options. And there are chargers everywhere, especially for longer trips.
4
@Peter Kurland
A Tesla is decidedly *not* cheaper than the other EV options. An equivalently optioned Tesla is ~$10k *more* than its competitors.
1
Zoning plays a very important role here. As long as new developments are required to build vast parking lots, most people will be forced to drive everywhere. There is another way — dense development, accompanied by public transit, side walks and bike lanes. I live in Evanston, IL where this vision is becoming a reality. The entire city is walkable and the sidewalks are lined with beautiful trees. Bike infrastructure is improving. We are connected to Chicago’s CTA system and there are also some buses. I only drive about once a week (to the grocery store) and walk everywhere else. It’s great! I get exercise and spend time outdoors. But, we still have lots of work to do, because many people still drive more than necessary, even when walking is an option.
4
I think Uber and Lyft are a huge contributing factor.
Many city dwellers “don’t have a car”- but meanwhile countless ride share cars- many from out of state- creep around congested areas waiting for fares. This is both a traffic and climate disaster.
14
@Laume
Perhaps, but I notice that in my home town, San Francisco, the emissions have dropped by 9% per person despite the omnipresence of Lyft and Uber.
6
@Laume Yes, I walk around Brooklyn and see countless vehicles idling for long periods of time. Trucks, buses, cars. I've never seen them ticketed and it happens in all seasons. They aren't even creeping around. How about starting there?
5
What will it take for us to move to vehicles with no emissions, an end-of-days event?
7
@Mark Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated that it is coming. The only real answer here is to ban fossil fueled vehicles, toll all roads by GPS movement and continue to provide the choices that we now have regarding what mode of transport we use.
Finally the “Trump bump” I believe to be accurate: pushing outrageous overpowered heavy SUVs as primary method of transportation, investing in infamous “wall” instead of infrastructure programs and mass transportation and expanding the life cycle of outdated power-plants is certainly the very best method to address these emission issues! We here in Baltimore have exactly 1 subway line that interconnects with none of the other mass-transportation systems and is regularly closing down as soon as a few inches of snow are hitting the rails. Mass transportation is as undeveloped here than it is in most of the bigger cities in this country. Why? Ask the fossil fuel executives and what the goals of their lobbying activities are and how many politicians they have in their pockets...including the President and his “club of billionaires” administration.
33
@Thorsten Fleiter "club of billionaires" is very influential and is not tight only to the current president. These clubs have high influence/impact on both sides of isle. Our believes not liking exposed and controlled executive branch is illusion.
Pretty simple: Tax hydrocarbons of all kinds.
32
States that do no require vehicle inspections for exhaust, contribute to the problem.
15
Where is the demand for smaller vehicles, now that the trend of huge SUVs has run it's course? Americans are fools for fads, car manufacturers can make far more money by getting the soccer moms hooked on their shiny hybrid or electric car, with interior space and low emissions.
Parents care about their kids, and that means tending to their lungs and their future. I don't know why it's taken the industry, or the parents, this long to connect the dots.
22
Can we also see how much Uber and Lyft have contributed?
2
@Joe I'm sure they have had some negative impact but also keep in mind that their service helps reduce car dependency. For instance, my wife and I are able to get by with only one car because we have Lyft as a backup to our mediocre public transit system. Also we were able to spend a little more since we only have one car to pay for so we bought a Tesla Model 3. An EV purchase probably wouldn't have been possible without Lyft. But to your point, I wonder to what extent the extra emissions created by the rideshare companies are offset by the benefits they provide - environmental and otherwise. Bring on the electric autonomous vehicles...
2
What about people sitting in their car idling and looking at their phones? Wonder about that effect...
3
@S That's what I love about my hybrid. As soon as I stop at a light, it automatically switches to the battery even with air conditioning in Alabama.
2
@S That adds up. For us, its the school bus company trying to squeeze more profit by making students walk up to two miles to a pick up point. Try that with no sidewalk on a rural road or in a village, carrying the gym bag etc. while the unemployed are out exercising their fresh air rights and their freedom of speech. Of course the parents drive their children and then they idle at the bus stop for fifteen minutes. Go back to having safe bus stops located more closely together for those out of town, and for those in town establish a safe walking corridor. 30 minutes idling daily just to get 2.1 school children to and from the bus safely adds right up.
This really boils down to people buying what's being sold. Gas-guzzlers are still quite a bit cheaper than eco-friendly vehicles, and that's a problem. If we want people to drive eco-friendly cars, the cars should be as economically friendly as they are ecologically friendly. Otherwise, the majority of people are going to buy gas engines. Besides that, most of the electricity in places like Utah is still coal-driven. So even if I did buy an electric vehicle, I'd still be burning coal to charge it.
I understand that we the people have a role to play in reducing carbon emissions, but so do businesses and governments. If we want everyone driving electric vehicles, governments need to work towards replacing our power plants with something clean, and auto manufacturers need to find a way to make eco-friendly cars cheaper than traditional vehicles. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
21
I live in New York. I came from Europe and I hate the idea of driving! I try to walk everywhere. Right now we are moving to suburban NJ and the main criteria is a walkable town. The problem is real estate in such towns is significantly more expensive. Finding a house that is close to a train station that takes you to Manhattan is very a difficult task on a limited budget. I cannot understand why these small towns would not accept an idea of an electric scooter or a bike. And I am not talking about those as a form of a weekend activity, I mean using them everywhere: getting to the train station, to schools, to stores. The problem is not the people who are selfish but really the lack of other options. We need new modern infrastructure. Now.
13
@KatyNYC Bicycles promote health & don’t pollute! we need bike roads where cars can’t go!
1
The problem of cars in NYC is major. What we need is a new vision for the 21st century: no cars in the city. have free public transportation paid for by businesses (tax deductible).
parking lots available on perimeters of the city.This is not only a health issue but quality of life, less accidents no problem with parking spaces, and in general a helathier more liveable city.
Our leaders need to take a bolder stance and not be pulled in by political favors. C. Hasto
16
@carol Hasto #YES! Vision for NOW!
3
Article doesn't mention the use of bike as means of transport.
New York City is not the most bike-friendly city. But one of its prior name was New Amsterdam, the Dutch capital were today bikes rule over cars.
Let's transform New York in the Amsterdam of America. Everyone can do it changing his habit since now.
Also, lawmakers should promote the use of bike and e-bike, and make streets and avenues more accessible to them.
12
Stop investing trillions in fossil fuel wars and invest in public transport, especially in larger cities.
Utilize zoning laws to encourage higher density housing with shops and work within walking or Public transport distance.
It’s all about choices
28
@James #YES, and bicycles!
Our military interventions are a giant subsidy for fossil fuel industry.
25
@J
The trillions spent on fossil fuel wars could jumpstart the peacetime economy with truly useful mass transit infrastructure.
Just imagine it!!!
7
@James A small fraction of our defense budget would go a long ways..
5
CO2 is important to understand for climate crisis but other components of internal combustion emissions have a profound immediate and deleterious effect on human health especially on urban, poor and minority populations. Regs to reduce particulate matter and ground level ozone from nitrogen oxides are also under assault by the current administration. Mapping these emissions data sets along with CO2 would add a very compelling human health component to this.
13
Suburban zoning laws are a major reason why people need to drive so much. Shopping and work are always far from home.
It is time to abolish the very concept of zoning.
3
@Sk
So you think eliminating zoning is the answer? We've already done that experiment; I give you Houston. If you check the Houston line in the charts you will see its performance is not notably better than other places. No matter what the zoning is or isn't, the sheer concentration of activity/people required for business and store/warehouse locations in today's commerce insure that most people will have to travel a distance to work and shop; even if they shop on line, distance is traveled by trucks to bring their stuff to them.
4
@Sk Thoughtful zoning is important in dense areas like New York City. Bad zoning is bad.
1
@Sk
If you abolish zoning it won’t get better.
That’s basically what we now have. Endless strip malls and shopping centers outside of town. Urban sprawl devouring green spaces.
3
Great reporting. Keep environmental coverage front page. Our lives depend on it. The impeachment story taking up nearly all your ink on the front and editorial pages lately is important, and our country is eroding in other significant political ways, but so is our health and our children’s future.
75
@SSC Bicycles promote health & don’t pollute! We need bike roads where cars can’t go!
4
A very helpful study quantifying how the total carbon footprint of industrialized populations is increasing at frightening rates. But more helpfully, it identifies metropolitan areas from which lessons can be learned about reducing the rate of carbon emissions per person. Most significantly, what decisions created such a disparity between two of the fastest growing cities in the country: Phoenix increased per capita emissions by 86 percent, while nearby Las Vegas reduced by 6 percent. In the green-friendly Pacific northwest, how has Portland, Oregon reduced by 22 percent while neighboring Seattle seen a 14 percent increase? And in the North Carolina research triangle, why did Raleigh see a 22 percent decrease while adjoining Durham-Chapel Hill see a 7 percent increase? Slowing the rate of growth by which we are poisoning ourselves is a critical first step in this existential war against ourselves.
8
As a resident of Carlisle in the Harrisburg, Pa., metro area highlighted, I am not surprised that emissions have increased 46% (total), 22% (pp). Huge mega-warehouses are taking over land that was once fertile farms, due to the intersection of several interstates. This is clogging the highways (and downtown when there are accidents on the highways) with tractor trailers delivering goods to both big retail stores and online customers.
In addition to the CO2 increase, I'm also curious about the increase in particulates that spew from all trucks and the resulting health effects.
Consumerism has a cost, and not just in the wallet.
13
Kudos to Portland, OR which had one of the few per-capita declines in auto emissions. Their urban growth boundary and investment in rail have obviously paid off. Now Raleigh on the other hand, just keeps sprawling and sprawling and new freeways are being planned, so it'll just get worse. There is no countryside anymore outside Raleigh. Every half mile there is a new quasi subdivision on pocket of land with, for example 20 houses. These settlements are not urban, suburban, or rural. It's unsightly and just bad economics as well as bad for the environment.
12
Very informative. I wish people start talking more about this invisible huge problem. I don't have a car. Public transportation would be a great solution (specially electric) but in US there's a lot to be done in that direction. Major European cities not only do have excellent public options but some close center City to cars in the weekends.
3
Yea, transportation creates more greenhouse gas than electricity generation, 1% more according to the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Focusing only on transportation puts the bigger picture out of focus. We need clean inexpensive electricity production. Once that's in place, use of fossil fuels for other purposes, like transportation, will diminish.
I'd love to be driving an electric vehicle, but without ubiquitous charging stations, that's impossible. Putting the cart before the horse isn't going to get us to where we want to be.
5
@Michigander Did you look at the map for San Jose CA? It looks like they have already made real progress without the impacts you worry about. I hear they install charging stations as part of developer plan approval.
@Michigander You might be surprised to learn that charging stations (a.k.a. electric outlets) are more ubiquitous than gas stations.
I’ve driven an electric car (Nissan Leaf) for over four years and I always charge with a standard 110 volt outlet. With an electric car, you charge it overnight so you start every day with your full range. If you buy a car which has enough range for your needs, you’ll never need to charge it anywhere but home.
High speed charging stations are really only used for road trips. In two-car households or for people who make long trips by air or rail, even the shortest range electric cars can suffice with home-only charging. Electrics aren’t ready today to replace every car on the road, but they can replace most of them.
6
@David Leppik
Did you happen to notice where I live?
The scientists in the IPCC report show us that we must reduce GHG emissions in half by 2030 to have a shot at keeping the rise in temp around the earth to 1.5 degree C. (We are already at 1.2 degree C increase.) This data is great to see - but it is certainly apparent that virtually all the trend lines are going in the wrong direction.
How do we turn it around? How do we do so with urgency?
7
@Bernie It would help if we had a President and administration that believed in science, and set an initiative forth that would fund mass transit and infrastructure on a scale to have an impact, a world war II or moon shot type program with a sense of urgency and funding to make it possible. Some type of green new deal is certainly an imperative start.
6
@Bernie the first step would be to abandon zoning laws. Keeping shopping, work and homes all distant from each other makes driving and cars essential to survival.
@Bernie
The only solution, in a democracy, is that citizens engage in real, respectful debates with those who are still ill-informed and brainwashed by the GOP's Fox News fake news, AND with those who know the truth but are too "politically illiterate", as Saul Alinsky calls it, to understand that ALL radical, lasting, non-violent democratic change is step by step change, and as a consequence, tend to stay home instead of turning out to vote.
Look at how the GOP tried to destroy Hillary and now Biden (and if the'd succeed with Biden, then certainly also Warren, or whomever is the next front runner): they do so in the same way that they fire up their own base, by massively cultivating cynicism, suggesting that all politicians are corrupt.
For a conservative citizen, that simply reflects what he already imagines must be true, so he's happy that GOP politicians at least "acknowledge the truth", and that makes him show up and vote (against those hypocritical liberals who claim that the government can truly improve things, as if that would be what they're interested in).
For a non conservative citizen, however, having to believe that all politicians are corrupt means having to give up the hope THAT voting can help to improve things. So it makes him stay home instead of voting.
And that's how a wealthy minority in DC gets to destroy this country (and the Middle East, and the planet) today, time and again.
I understand the need to reduce heat trapping pollutants. However, this article indicates that reducing these pollutants will be be difficult and disruptive to the American lifestyle and economic system. We need some good solutions with good timelines before we make changes that may not be politically acceptable.
1
@Rod one solution that will still be disruptive is to abandon zoning laws. They contribute more to pollution by making driving essential to survival. The only people zoning laws help is the real estate industry
@Rod Did you look at the map for San Jose CA? It looks like they have already made real progress without the impacts you worry about. I hear they install charging stations as part of developer plan approval.
@Rod We've reduced per person rates in San Francisco, accomplished by a mix of less polluting vehicles and more folks mixing public transit and uber in lieu of owning a vehicle. This was done largely through good state standards and individual behavior change. No economic cost.
1
We will need a much more robust transit system in so many of these cities to show any significant improvement. I have a friend who lives in the SF Bay Area. She used to drive 35 miles each way for work. Why? Because she needed to be at work at 5 A.M. it was a two mile walk to the nearest BART station and a mile and a quarter to her work, an hour on BART and an hour walking. The Bay Area is spread out, it has to be because of geography (the bay and hills) and (for her) cost. A house closer to work for her was over twice as expensive as the house she lived in.
I love visiting London, the transit system is so useful. The populations of both metropolitan areas is fairly close (9 million to 7.5 million). But the geography is so different, about 11,000 sq. mi. for SF Bay Area, about 8,000 for London.
7
@AS Pruyn most zoning in California is single family housing which encourages the kind of sprawl yo see. Zoning needs to be abolished or the environment is doomed.
People congregate in culturally desirable areas of economic opportunity -- Brooklyn, Boston, SFO, Seattle, etc. As they do, the price of central-city housing goes up and up, forcing people of moderate means to the periphery and people of limited means out altogether. This is one of the reasons why the idea of abandoning cars and using public transit instead will never work -- a large part of the population keeps getting forced outside the transit network boundaries and so have no realistic option other than to use cars. The other reason is that money spent on public transit has proven to be an awful investment: full of waste, poor design, payoffs to contractors and unions, pension plans that allow employees to retire in their fifties, and so forth. All these billions, for ancient systems that only keep on getting worse, never significantly better, yet no one is ever held accountable. These are the kinds of problems these NY Times heads-in-the-clouds types will never talk about, because clucking and moralizing is cheap and easy: anybody can do it. Solving these problems, though, is something else -- for others to do.
14
@BostonReader Using public transit in lieu of cars would easily work, we just need to invert our federal and state funding priorities. Currently, the federal DOT gives 90% of its transportation money to roads and 10% to transit, with a rounding error to bicycle and pedestrian accommodation included in the road budget. Flip those numbers for a generation and change zoning laws to heavily restrict development outside of transit-accessible areas per the Danish or Japanese model and we too can have 90% transit and walking/cycling mode share.
13
@BostonReader zoning laws discourage high density housing and encourage single family housing to the delight and benefit of the real estate industry.
It is time to abandon zoning laws as combined with high building permit fees, these laws have only served polluters and decreased housing availability and made housing unaffordable.
3
@BostonReader Did you look at the map for San Jose CA? It looks like they have already made real progress without the impacts you worry about. I hear they install charging stations as part of developer plan approval.
1
Perhaps employers can be incentivized to adopt a 4 day work week or to create additional opportunities for telecommuting, which could significantly cut commute-related emissions. This could be implemented more quickly than expansion of public transportation and transition to electric vehicles (which I believe are also necessary).
12
@DP Unfortunately it is going in the other direction where many employers are only giving part time positions to employees. Which is creating a situation that people now need to work two or three different jobs.
4
This article is concerning because it seems to focus on a fairly modest amount of total CO2 emissions, and one that is fairly inflexible.
Working people are unlikely to move to reduce their emissions. Many people cannot switch cars because of a specific need or cost. Even shifting from a gasoline to an electric car only shifts most of the emissions to a power system (there is some overall savings and general local pollution reduction). Moving into a city center generally means breathing much worse air yourself.
But in the grand scheme, people would get much more pollution reduction out of eating a more vegan diet, avoiding new construction, maintaining and conserving their heating and cooling and flying as little as possible. These changes tend to save money wthout disruption of their typical day and without cost of moving, of buying a newer car, or of restricting oneself to the most local stores and other facilities.
Our goal is not to minimize transportation-related pollution, it is to minimize pollution. An excessive focus on personal ground transportation may be a pat on the back to New Yorkers, but it is little more than a misleading distraction in practice.
14
@Alan I agree!
Livestock breeding should be considered among the major contributors to greenhouse gases emissions.
The "agriculture" line of these charts does not include methane emissions from bovine farts (sounds ridiculous, but it's not) otherwise it wouldn't have been so low (let's not forget that CH4 has twice the "greenhouse potential" than CO2).
Red meat consumption is a huge contributor to global warming, too bad it's not eco-cool to say it!
5
I'd love to see a comparison of Amazon's growth with the increase of emissions in urban areas. In Seattle, the Amazon Fresh, Prime Now, and Pantry trucks are ubiquitous on all streets, blocking traffic so they can deliver $9 heads of lettuce to millennials "too busy" to grocery shop for the week. There's a lot of talk about saving the planet... unless it's not convenient.
16
@Alexia not just Amazon deliveries (of next-day packages as well as groceries), but also the growth of Uber and other ride-share drivers.
6
@Bruce aren't you missing the point of home delivery? Every package delivered is saving an individual trip to a store. Total miles driven has to be significantly less... and Amazon is moving toward use of electric vans. All local delivery trucks should be electric, or at least hybrid to stop the wasteful and polluting practice of idling on city streets.
7
@Alexia Here the deliveries are going to seniors 'aging in place' who don't have the physical ability to board the subsidized senior van while carrying enough grocery bags to last two days. The subsidized senior housing manager and the grocer have picked two days a week for everyone to get their order so less vehicle miles overall and less delivery charge. They've done similar with the van run to the major medical/dental providers for routine appointments.
3
According to the author of the BU study, “Even in the densest cities, the vast majority of trips still happen in a motor vehicle.” That’s sad commentary on the US public transportation system. Our political leaders need to make investment in our train system a real priority to change this trend line. We need to start emulating Europe (sans diesel cars). But oh wait, isn’t Infrastructure Week coming soon?
15
@Joe
Even if it makes perfect sense, we mustn't do anything like the Europeans—they're socialists.
It’s important to note that automobile emissions kill even more people than automobile collisions do. The impacts of cars are a case study in externalities. The only solution is to start building cities the way we did for millennia: dense, walkable, mixed use, pedestrian centric.
19
As I understand it, sixty percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by cars are emitted during the manufacturing and junking processes, so even electric cars aren’t going to solve this problem. We have to switch to public transportation. I don’t drive at all any more. The subways and buses here in NYC work fine for me. Occasionally slow, but no worse than the frequent traffic jams.
2
@marianronan
I find it hard to believe that 60% of gases are during the manufacturing and junking processes. Where does that number come from?
6
@Bernie
It is approximately correct. Buildings are even more extreme in the up-front share of their overall pollution.
"Buying new stuff" is generally the least environmentally-friendly thing to do.
Cars mostly sit there, and burn no fuel when not in use. The "greener" thing to do is keep an older car alive rather than to constantly upgrade to chase higher MPG.
4
@Alan
I recently sold my Toyota Tercel 2WD wagon which served me exceptionally well over 34 years. When I bought it new in 1984, it got 40mpg, and I remember thinking “Just think, by the year 2000, cars will get 100mpg!”
I drove the car gently, maintained it mechanically and physically, and until the end, it continued to get that great mpg. I finally sold it when the shocks and brakes began to waver. A young guy bought it for $700 - he said he could replace these himself. Thank you Toyota!
4
It’s important to note that automobile emissions kill even more people than automobile collisions do. The impacts of cars are a case study in externalities. The only solution is to start building cities the way we did for millennia: dense, walkable, mixed use, pedestrian centric.
41
@Isabella chu -- I take your point, but I live in a very small town in a rural part of a rural state. Our shopping options are about 5 miles away. Our solution was to invest a substantial amount of our retirement savings in a community solar farm a few towns away. Our next move is an electric car. When that happens our carbon footprint will consist solely of our propane cooking stove. This is not hard, America.
12
Actually, in the US ,*buildings* emit the most GHGs by far. 75% of electricity, which is not an independent sector, is used by buildings, which results in 30% higher emissions than the transportation sector.
On transportation in NYC, clearly the increase in traffic due to Uber and Lyft are a major contributor to the growth in emissions in the city.
7
@kilrwat I’m not so sure that is clear. As you can see from the charts, the NYC Area still has among the lowest per-capita transportation related emissions in the US, and the recent increase has been less pronounced than in most other metro areas. Further, transplantation related emissions tend to track the economic cycle; good economy, higher emissions. It is, in fact, possible that Uber and Lyft reduce per capita emissions because they have a more efficient model than taxis used to have: instead of driving around burning fuel looking for passengers, they are directed straight to passengers.
8
@jkl The few times I've spoken with on-demand drivers, they talk about dead-heading about the same amount of time as taxis, so it's not clear that the model is more efficient. It's basically a 'goldfish' model, where all the cars follow the 'heat map' supplied to them, just like goldfish swimming over to the place where people are putting crumbs into the pond.
1
And to think, our president in all his great and unmatched wisdom just barred California from setting more stringent auto emission standards. Where is his infrastructure program? We need to improve existing roads and more importantly, increase reliance on mass transit to reduce carbon and other global-warming gasses.
59
@Lleone Did you look at the map for San Jose CA? It looks like they have already made real progress without the impacts you worry about. I hear they install charging stations as part of developer plan approval.
6
It is humans breathing in all of this car exhaust on a daily basis that concerns me. As a long time NYC'er I suspect we are paying a large price in health. To see it on a map is eye opening.
14
“Cities and states have sought to green the vehicles on their roads by providing tax incentives for electric and hybrid models...”
Lest one think that climate issues are being taken seriously, in Wisconsin, the Republican legislature and former governor approved a $75 annual surcharge on hybrid vehicles and $100 for electric vehicles because neither burn enough gas (and carbon emissions) to pay for roads via the gas tax.
15
@Gleason The roads still need to be maintained, and some adjustment is required. A formula that reflects the deterioration of roads that each automobile makes needs to be created. Likely based on weight.
9
In Maryland, Republican Governor Hogan scrapped the Red Line, a desperately needed eat-west light rail line in Baltimore. While he did approve the Purple Line project in the Washington suburbs, he cut state funding for the project from $700 million to $168 million, transferring the burden to individual counties.
3
7 months ago I turned in my Honda CRV and switched to a Nissan Leaf EV. I get 3.1 miles per KWH which works out to about 4 cents per mile for my daily average of about 40 miles. The CRV ran about 16 cents per mile. Then the state of Georgia sent me a bill for $271 for a EV Tax because my fuel source does not pay my share of “road use” tax paid for at the gas pump. Exsqueeze me?
61
@Glenn Woodruff you did something which I have seriously been considering, going from my Honda CRV to the Nissan Leaf. Please tell me, does that means we would be emitting zero carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Thanks!
3
@Joseph YES! Of course it does depend upon where the electricity comes from. Coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, or solar. For me, my next step is a set of solar panels on top of the carport and a battery to store it prior to charging the car.
15
@Glenn Woodruff My tesla is totally solar supplied and my house and car "fuel" bill in Sept -with central air all month, was the $12 PSEG fee they force on us. I love my model 3 btw and it costs far less than most pick ups etc under 40,000.
15
And this year Toyota has discontinued its Prius, it’s hybrid with the most name recognition. Its sales dropped to 25% of its peak. A big reason: cheaper gas. A secondary reason: more hybrids built into other models. Let’s make better choices people.
21
@Maggie Toyota discontinued the Prius C, not the entire Prius line. The Prius C removed a number of features such as the limited service spare tire (replaced with an air pump) and a rear window wiper in order to reduce the vehicle weight. A friend who is a dedicated Prius owner said she never would have purchased the vehicle if she had known that these features were no longer in the vehicle.
My Prius is going strong at nearly ten years..still averages 50 mpg.
13
I would be interested in learning the correleation between the degradation of public transportation with cities that show large increases in single car emissions. I'm from Boston. We live a few steps from the train stop. We drive into the city for work because the Greenline subway has become overcrowded and unpredictable. I can spend anywhere between 45 min to 1:15 commuting 8 miles by train (squashed in a train car so packed I can't lift my arm to hold on to anything while moving or watching train after train pass me by because it's too crowded to get on) or 30 minutes commuting by car.
33
@Mohana I completely agree with you on this. The MBTA is such a cluster that they don't realize- or don't care- that their customers such as yourself and other commuters using the T are getting fed up of being trapped in essentially a can of sardines. Why can't they start sending more empty trains starting at stops along the route instead of having every stop add more and more people to the point of losing any personal space?
As a disabled woman in my early 30's with an invisible illness- I can't even go on the T around rush hour as no one will give up their seat to someone who doesn't look sick. This is my reasoning for avoiding the T and using my car or Uber.
People need to get where they are going as quickly as possible, and if the T actually did something about it maybe it would encourage more passengers. Raising the prices without increasing trans and busses is enough to make you want to take an Uber or drive into the city.
12
@Mohana 8 miles is a fairly easy bike commute if the route is bike friendly. And most likely faster or same as a vehicle.
6
@Mohana This 60 year old can make your commute in less than 30 minutes on a pedal assist bike. Of course I don't have to contend with your weather.
7
More tax on gas please!
128
Easily observable facts that any rational person can sense with their own eyes, ears and noses. I see humans driving vehicles they don’t need , but want for comfort, perceived safety and a somewhat idiotic machismo. The women driving huge SUVs, the men and women driving pick ups that will never go off road, never go hunting and certainly will never use them for construction or farming. Throw in increased truck traffic like I have never seen in my entire life in the motor city, non stop at all hours of the day. Multiply this by thousands of cities throughout the world, from mega cites in the US, Asia, South America and the EU, never ending gridlock. This is not sustainable, our eco systems are collapsing, we are like lemmings running off a cliff.
84
@Harry B I agree that people buy these huge cars that they don't "need". If everyone compromised and bought a smaller model of a car/SUV/truck, I'd imagine that would result in a huge drop of emissions.
It annoys me that my husband will not buy a sedan despite only needing to commute about 20 minutes each way from Allston to Dorchester. He drives a 2004 pickup with nothing in the bed of it. He is a bigger man at 240 pounds and finds smaller cars to be very uncomfortable for him to sit in. I think once the truck dies he will downsize to something like a Rav4 so that he still has a more comfortable bigger seat while also having 4 wheel drive which is ideal to have in New England winters.
3
@Harry B In Europe, where I live, you very seldom see pick up trucks in the traffic. You see European SUVs like VW Tiguan, T-Roc et cetera but it's very unusual with Suburbans and of that size. Here Gasoline is heavily taxed, around USD 1,50 for a liter=USD 5,60 for a gallon. Maybe it's a matter of fashion?
12
@Harry B
Amen.
6
Put solar panels on your roof, plug in your all electric, or your electric/gas hybrid and go. People say we can't afford it, but then go out and buy 50k+ vehicles...
92
@Paul thats so true. They dont want to afford it.
4
@Paul
I agree. Nobody every asks you for your payback on your big, expensive car, but they always ask your payback on your solar.
13
Most of us want a cleaner alternative for person transportation.
Until some genius comes up with an answer to gas and diesel this is what we have.
I refuse to ride in a bus or train over crowded with some people that don't wash every day....or have an eye to steal my wallet.
If I could I would walk or ride my bike to work.
Impossible for me.
Personally I just don't like being around crowds of people and being packed into an moving object to go somewhere.
We did that in Europe during our vacation.
Most of the folks were stressed out about it.
Those train stations were a pile of stress for the riders.
I talked to many of them and was told they rather live in the USA and drive their own cars.
Yep some of them had those silly scooters.
They looked even dumber riding in the pouring rain.
I want my car with my stuff in it.
2
@Joe Paper I hope you enjoyed the rest of your vacation Joe. I live in Edinburgh in the UK, I either get the bus or cycle to work even though I could drive if I wanted to. Many other people do the same, as far as I know none of them find it stressful.
I have friends in London who travel everywhere by public transport, bus, Crossrail or the tube. They're quite happy to do so, again I don't see them acting as if they're under pressure when sitting on the tube reading the news on their phone. Maybe people were just agreeing with you to be polite?
More importantly, commuting into city centres in cars using internal combustion engines has to stop before we trash the planet. We must find ways of doing this, either by accelerating the introduction of electric vehicles and carbon free electricity generation or by making public transport more attractive and convenient to all. If you care about future generations this isn't a matter of choice but a matter of necessity.
36
@Joe Paper Also, even big American cities like Boston and New York (comparable to European density) have much worse public transit than Europe due to chronic neglect. Maintenance is neither free not sexy (sigh...) and costs even more when you don't do it early...
3
@Joe Paper
That individual style is unsustainable.
1
Look at California. Lots of improvements or small backsliding. They actually want to do even better. You can see why Trump hates the state.
11
Incent the behavior you want or need. Which means raise the gas tax or make commuting by car painful economically. Offer realistic mass transit that's clean and comfortable and gets people where they need to be. Raise tolls and fees and slap a luxury tax on SUV's. There's only one way to change behavior. Also stop the trump administration from relaxing auto standards.
46
Unfortunately I don't think the bulk of Americans care about this. Anything to solve this adds cost and hassle for something that seems like a vanity issue.
FWIW - Report shows 88% increase in Nashville w/ a 9% per person increase. Davidson County (Nashville) charges an annual electric car surcharge (penalty). Clearly they don't care.
6
The state of Ohio is assessing a tax on hybrid and electric car owners in an attempt to collect the tax those owners are not paying at the pump. The State determined those owners are not paying their share of road repair taxes because the vehicles use less gas.
7
@Matt P I don't see anything wrong with that sir. Electric vehicles use the roadways..
I’m curious why there’s not more focus on idling in big cities. I live in Manhattan, and I can’t tell you how many times I see people parked and idling in their cars for extended periods of time - often times when I go to run an errand, they’re still there idling when I get back, sometimes even on a nice day when there’s no need to run the car for heat or AC. There’s a statute on the books restricting idling — I’d love to see police giving tickets for this more like they do for illegal parking to help improve our air quality in the city and raise awareness of the environmental impact.
111
@Amber C
See this article on NYC policy to pay people who alert authorities to idling vehicles:
https://nypost.com/2018/07/06/nyc-will-pay-you-big-bucks-for-ratting-out-idling-trucks-buses/
6
Cars work. If they didn't, they wouldn't still be popular in the face of alternatives. Especially here in America where distances are greater than in Japan or Europe. Cars still represent the American dream of freedom to go and do as you please when you please as opposed to living in a regimented society. We should not give up our freedoms (that we take for granted after the Model T) so easily.
We've learned that freedom comes with a price. Pollution that hurts all of us. But does that mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Rather than eliminating the thing that made Americans freer and brought the ability to move about the country to all let's change it. Let's seriously make an effort to adopt and improve the technologies that already exist to electrify, or use hydrogen, in cars, trucks, and buses. OK, electricity can still generate pollution, but it can do so from point generation facilities where emissions can be more easily controlled and located away from large population centers.
The change is already happening. But there is obviously a public benefit for it to happen sooner rather than later in terms of our health, longevity, and the places where we live. That is why the Republicans are wrong when they stand against public investment in the infrastructure, technology, and incentives (both to individuals and companies) to replace fuel burning vehicles with those using cleaner power sources.
I am saying this as a person who has only V8 powered cars.
16
@Marie I am genuinely confused by your comment. If you believe what you just said, why do you drive such high pollution vehicles?
7
@Marie and just think of all the gases and flies if the cars were all horses.!!
2
@Alan - Why?
I can see your point. I would love modern electric cars the equivalent of my gas cars (I don't have SUVs). If it would meet my needs and I could afford one that did.
A. I can't afford an electric vehicle that meets my needs.
B. They have yet to make an electric vehicle that of the type I like.
C. I bought one of my existing care before there even were Tesla Model S to buy and charging was pretty scarce. And I still drive it almost daily.
RE: "High pollution". Relative to to hybrids or electrics that is true. However my cars are still modern cars with the latest emissions technology are not "high pollution" like the old cars.
So really, the why, gets back to the last part of my post. If availability and cost of changing was less I'd happily do it. The final point was that I wasn't writing this comment as some "socialist commie tree hugger" as some might charge.
New Yorkers complain about mass transit, but NYC is at the bottom of emissions per person chart. This is a cause for celebration.
The real cost of more freeways is more pollution.
The real benefit of more mass transit tunnels is healthier air, and less greenhouse gas.
And more togetherness so people can complain about how slow mass transit is... (hey, nothing's perfect!)
16
@Trying... Totally agree! This New Yorker complains that we need more and better mass transit, greater walkability, safer streets and bike lanes as well as electrification of buses, school buses and what private vehicles that exist (although we should work hard to make them as unnecessary as possible). It amazes me that in other parts of the country where people like consumer choice in everything else, they can be ok with being locked into one (dangerous) mode of traveling). I love to use transit, walk and bike in the city- it is cheaper, healthy, sociable, often entertaining, safe and low carbon and low pollution. It helps make NYC, NYC.
3
@Jacqueline Klopp people like what they know. The campaign against public transportation has been very effective. We could change this in one generation—but it would take military level investment to do so.
1
@Trying... And what's the deal with truck deliveries in congested cities? Can't delivery times - A.K.A double parked insanity - be restricted to non-commuting hours of the day? I was in Beijing a decade ago and you didn't see a single truck on the road during the day. It was a real eye opener when I came back to NYC and unloading trucks were blocking lanes everywhere. It isn't uncommon to have 2 truck on opposite sides of the Ave blocking 2 lanes! Such a huge contributor to poor traffic flow wasting time and fuel economy.
3
The technology involved in creating this information and then customizing it for my area (the Charlotte, NC region) is what knocks me out. It helps move discussion about climate change and global warming from theory to fact, and may help nay-sayers see what is happening.
9
What I would like to see is the number of Americans who live and work (and shop, for that matter) within walking distance of any sort of mass transportation. Out here in flyover country, even in medium sized cities, there simply is no viable alternative to driving.
12
@Skip
And I would imagine that hurts the poor more than any other class of people. My kid in college in Cleveland has been able to get around quite well on the RTA and the buses often.
1
@Skip very true statement, that is why the NYC area has lower emissions.
2
It's a good thing to have adequate mass transit. But what about the hordes of cars driving on routes 78 and 80 into the NYC area from PA? People move there because it's affordable and without the killer taxes of NJ yet the jobs remain in the NYC area.
A solution to this serious commuting problem will also be a big step toward cleaner air. The Big Question is where will the money come from?
2
@Leslie Duval the money comes from all the waste that Trump has spent on everything that benefits him.
The methodology is described as estimates based upon fuel consumption by vehicle type, but that does not seem to allow for maintenance or operation.
In Memphis- near my town, many poor people drive cars that are not kept tuned up and maintained which results in significantly higher tailpipe emissions. It would seem that income data could be used to weight emissions per vehicle by zip code.
Also, in hotter parts of the country, it is not an uncommon practice to lock the doors and leave the engine and air conditioning running on errands. That would not be reflected in data based upon mileage.
3
This article would be much more interesting if it included metropolitan areas from other countries, including Canada. It’s widely known that the US is the most automobile dependent nation on earth. It would be interesting to see how emissions from this dependence compares with emissions from cities within countries that have taken aggressive action towards limiting automobile dependence.
32
It will be up to the younger generation to affect the situation. I assume they will want to breathe clean air and they will not want to live underground.
Then again, I'm an idealist.
3
Just wondering if all the package deliveries are contributing to emissions.
When you go to the mall, you may pick up 5 items with one car trip.
When you order an item from Amazon et al, it is often one delivery trip per one or two items.
Just saying.
58
"When you go to the mall, you may pick up 5 items with one car trip." It is debatable that is true for most consumers, plus malls are closing everywhere so even if one wanted to shop at a mall with lots of stores the choice is simply not there for the consumer.
Plus you might want to consider what it costs in energy to keep a various locations of a retail store open -- versus a centralized Amazon warehouse.
13
@marian Yes, but presumably, the delivery truck has more than just your packages.
29
@marian
Seems Amazon, etc used to bundle your delivery. Might take an extra day or two, but that was okay. Now the retailers have decided (and convinced consumers) that everything is a major rush and send you things piecemeal. Not only is this incredibly wasteful in packaging and shipping resources, but now I have to also waste time making sure every item (that I ordered together!) has come or is still being tracked.
I combine my trips when I drive, why won’t they combine my order when they deliver?
10
Population growth seems to be the biggest factor. Cities that lower per person emissions still have an overall increase. Fuel efficient vehicles, mass transit and reduced congestion are next. California, which has a Statewide approach for reducing GHGs has the most cities with a measurable per capita reduction. If we make it a priority, the technology is there to make the reductions.
13
@Toby Roy Population growth is the root cause of many of society's problems. Pollution (and global warming), traffic, demand for energy, trash. Plus all the ways people and countries compete for limited resources and deal with overcrowding. We can keep talking about these symptoms of overpopulation but we're not doing anything about the root cause. I think anyone who has more than 1 or 2 kids is either unaware of this or is being selfish.
2
You pay a price for the kind of mobility we have. One of the costs is air polution from car emissions. Detroit has been in bed with the petroleum industry way to long. Now at the11th hour the auto industry is playing catchup. It's not working. To me the answer is less mobility and more public transportation. No I don't like the idea either.
21
I just returned from three weeks in Spain. They have traffic congestion just like everywhere else. They manage it through controlling/limiting parking and therefore access in the Metro area. They benefit by wonderful efficient public transportation, both bus and rail that should be modeled elsewhere. Lastly they benefit from ancient roadways that are so narrow that driving a gas hog SUV or pick-up truck is insane. Perhaps we need to spend less on highway expansion and put some of those dollars into Mass Transit projects. More time consuming congestion may make efficient less time consuming mass transit more appealing.
63
@DKF The issue as always is that the USA is gigantic versus Spain (and most countries in the EU). So the logistics of wide area mass transport in the USA is also gigantic.
8
@K Henderson
You forget humans design their cities based on the regulations they pass. The question is who is benefiting from the urban sprawl that we design.
If we wanted more green space and more natural habitat (which is needed considering that 1/4 of the bird populations have disappeared from North American) we would allow denser cities. But for the most part we don’t allow it with think like minimum parking spaces and min widths of roads that are unnecessary etc.
3
There is no mention of the role played by outdated infrastructure. Overcrowded roads and poorly designed traffic management in urban areas cause vehicles to operate for much longer periods of time to travel the same distance. Commuting 20 miles in Boston metro takes over an hour on roads designed to take 20 minutes. Rush hour lasts almost all day now and major highways are stop and go even on weekends. In cities vehicles spend more time stopped at traffic signals than moving. Mass transit is so poor that it isn’t a viable alternative to driving for most people and housing in cities is so expensive that people live further and further from where they work. More efficient vehicles are great but what we need is a more efficient transportation system.
44
We are 70+ and both retired. We own only one car- an electric Tesla. We are reminded every day that we are driving emission-free when we follow a large SUV or a pickup truck used only for pleasure (not for necessity).
24
@Michael Talbert LOCAL emissions free, "emissions free" is not accurate.
You're still emitting less greenhouse gases than most other cars
From a total vehicle lifetime point of view (which includes production of the every component), there are contradictory reports as to whether an electric vehicle is less polluting than an ICE equipped one.
As of today, the only convincing solution seems to be a drastic boost in mass transit usage.
7
@Michael Talbert - How many emissions were generated in building your "emission-free" Tesla? How many toxins in the battery? Transportation of all the parts to the assembly site? Did the workers walk or bike to the assembly plant? Metals, rubber, and plastic all come at an ecological cost.
1
@Fighting Sioux
Do you happen to know the comparable emissions cost of building an ICE car? Extracting, refining oil, and transporting gasoline via tanker trucks? The emissions per mile driven burning gasoline? The emissions cost of idling in traffic, driving to the gas station, the environmental cost of engine oil changes, (etc.)?
The point is, while electric vehicles create emissions, they are are far better than comparable ICE cars cradle to grave.
The largest deficit is at production where it costs about 2X the emissions of comparable car, but it is quickly made up often in 6-12 months or less on the public grid. There is an Engineering Explained episode on this myth that is worth watching. It's chock full of sources to explore.
5
The article says many cities and states offer incentives for low-emission vehicles. Sadly, my state, Tennessee, has an extra tax on electric vehicles.
87
@Peter Kurland So does my state, Mississippi. I surmise some cuddling up between the oil industry and the Legislature led to that result.
24
@Peter Kurland Sorry to see this. My state gave rebates for buying electric vehicles.
13
Congestion charging works. We've had it here for some years and in April implemented the Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) to discourage the worst types of NOx pollution (from diesel vehicles), which sadly, remain common in the UK. Estimates are for a 20% decline in NOx this year alone. In my experience, the air is still toxic, but it's possible to cycle through it all as long as you keep a filter handy.
9
Politics is all local. Long Island has been overdeveloped since the 1960's. There has been a concerted effort by local politicians to resist public transportation. There has been a concerted effort by local politicians to encourage real estate development over critical ground water resources. There has been a concerted effort to resist infrastructure development that would be environmentally friendly. At the same time, there has been a concerted effort to mislead the public about how more roads and development will "lower taxes". In fact, it is the opposite. It will take the actions of individuals to make change in places like Long Island, unless, of course, a major hurricane does it for us.
57
Without behavioral changes any emissions battles are meaningless. The more efficient cars become the more people will use them. We’ve seen this with just about every resource. We should not be waiting until 2021 to charge people for congestion. We should start now and the price should be steep.
I’m married and I have one child. I’ve managed to own one car and only put 24,000 miles on it in 3 years. I’ve also managed to live a rich life where I do a lot of traveling.
I do this by using my bicycle to get just about everywhere when I’m close to home. I walk to the grocery store. I ride my bike to work in the heat, cold, rain and snow. Do I love it always? No. But when I ride I’m not destroying the world and I’m making no noise. I changed my behavior and I’m no savior. Why can’t other people make that switch?
Which brings me to my final point. Besides the emissions issue we are dealing with noise issues from cars. Vehicles cause stress in so many ways by polluting the air and destroying moments of silence. I’d love to see the study on the effects of cars and noise pollution.
Bottom line? Get out of your cars fat America.
172
@Greg Giotopoulos
You state:
"I ride my bike to work in the heat, cold, rain and snow. Do I love it always? No."
Good for you! I am glad you feel so moral, but be realistic about just how much asceticism you can expect from your fellow citizens.
I, for example, am 65 years old, and while I still have and use a bicycle, hills are out of the question. This is a problem in the rolling hills of exurban Baltimore County, Maryland.
This year, I am sojourning in Palm Beach County, Florida. This weekend, I am flying out of Miami (MIA) on an annual trip to the Midwest. I would love to take public transportation to the airport, and such does exist. According to Google Maps, it is 71 miles, or an hour and fifteen minutes by car. If I leave now, it is 3 hour and 59 minutes by public transportation, and trains do not start early enough for me to make a flight at 8:39 AM, which is hardly too early!
Hilariously, Google tells me that I could bicycle to MIA in just 5 hours and 49 minutes!
So what do you think I am going to do? You guessed it, I will move two tons of steel 142 miles round trip to save my sanity. As will most in a similar situation!
In theory, public transportation sounds lovely. In densely populated European countries without hills and a culturally homogeneous citizenry (e.g. Holland, the size of Connecticut), it works beautifully. In the U.S., it is mired in local politics and defeated by long distances.
Your world in greater Boston is the exception, not the rule.
37
@D I Shaw - "Your world in greater Boston is the exception, not the rule."
You are right. But even here the problems you speak of being outside the urban area exist - such as getting to the airport.
Somerville is a very densely populated area where the types of things that Greg writes about are much nearer and closer together than in a typical location making walking and bicycling more feasible. It is also where bicycles are given high priority in traffic where police strongly support bicycle riders.
Also, Greg speaks from the point of view as a male where things that he does would be considered risky behavior for a women alone.
18
@Greg Giotopoulos Drve an electric car. They are actually cheaper to own and operate over the life of the vehicle. It's just American's are not too sharp. Sit down and do the math.
17
Cars may be the biggest culprit but it all adds up. I live on a major flight path and get reminded about emissions on a regular basis. Remember how clear the skies were when our planes were grounded after 911?
44
@KJ
Contrails are not emissions, per se. They are clouds of ice crystals that form in cold, humid air. The water that creates the ice is a combustion product, but contrails reflect sunlight back into space, so their net effect is to cool the surface.
3
It would be interesting to see the correlation between the rise in CO2 emissions with the rise in the sales of SUV's.
101
@Kevin
Yes - but here's a plug for my Kia Niro hybrid (SUVish). It gets better MPG than my 2004 Prius.
But most people don't buy efficient SUVs.
6
@Kevin Another interesting correlation is to compare the fall in CO2 emissions with adoption of EVs.
1
Even though it is anathema to the various strains of right wing nonsense (conservative republicanism, libertarianism, survivalist hokum, etc.) we really do need to work together as a nation and as a planet to deal with the pollutants our species creates. We need to do this not for political or ideological reasons but rather for the simple reason that our children and future generations that will come after them will live in misery and experience early death if we don't. As for the political side those of us who live in democracies need to elect leaders who care more about the future of our species than about greed and power. We can start right here in the USA November 2020.
108
@greg you don't have to wait until 2020. There's an election next month, November 5th. You can start then. I don't know where you live, so I don't know what's on your ballot, but the State Board of elections (www.elections.ny.gov) will help you out with that. For non-NY residents, uselections.com is a good starting point.
No, we don't have time to wait. And what happens on November 5th will help inform the recalcitrants in DC going forward.
6
@Noodles Right you are Noodles and I have been working really hard here in my upstate town to elect two women democrats to two town council positions held by republicans. door to door canvasing, putting up campaign signs, registering voters , etc. so yeah I second your emotion!
4