Commuting - Commuting and the air

This is the third day of dangerous air in the DC area. Code red, code orange all mean the same thing to me- the air is not breathable. For those of us who commute by bike this should be galling. As I look in the cars on these days and see a lot of single drivers. What the heck is going on. Our commuting is becoming deadly to our lungs and overall health. We have got to do something. I am not a lunatic, I own a car but the last few days and the non reaction by the public to un-breathable air has opened my eyes to creeping acceptance of the situation. If you have any ideas on effective lobby or advocacy groups sign me up, I am ready to march.

Yeah, living in Annapolis I've really been feeling the weather. I didn't commute on Tuesday because my asthma was killing me on Monday when I was swimming after work. I felt incredibly bad driving instead and helping to make the air worse.

I don't know much about them, but the Washington Area Bicyclists Association is very large and could help you find a way to advocate cycling. Their website is www.waba.org.

Good luck!

Teresa

Originally posted by Djudd
This is the third day of dangerous air in the DC area. Code red, code orange all mean the same thing to me- the air is not breathable. For those of us who commute by bike this should be galling.
Exactly!

In the mean time, as we think of ways to fight this thing, I would suggest getting very familiar with the smog patterns in your area.
Do whatever you can to limit your exposure to smog.

Mornings are often free of significant smog, since it has dissipated the night before. Rain somehow lowers smog levels by an amazing amount, very quickly. Even on a smog alert day,
sometimes you can still make it home ok by leaving as early as possible (before ozone levels get too high) and by avoiding heavily trafficked areas.

We also have this problem in Atlanta. Automobiles are the real culprit in my city. To solve our smog problem, we would have to do something to cut emissions, either by making them cleaner (good idea) and/or by limiting the number of drivers on the road. I think the most effective solution is using alternative fuels. This is the most obvious thing to do, yet it may also be the hardest, since there is too much profit in gasoline.

Let's tell it like it is, shall we?

I don't know if this needs to go here, or as a new thread. But I want to rant a moment.

In the thread about the sulbtities, there is a post about the San Jose Metro rail system, that is there and is not getting used. In this thread we have the DC area speaking out about the pollution and problems with the steel coffin with there single passengers, I'm sure it is the same in SJ, because it is the same here in the Twin Cities, and thus my rant.

Our good people in government have deemed it necessary for the good people of Minneapolis to have a "light rail" system. Presently we have no rail system at all, the old mid 20th centry stuff was long ago dismantled, all we have today are buses. This light rail will run from down town Minneapolis to the consummer Taj Mahal known as the Mall of America, with a stop at the airport. This seems ludicrous to me, the time energy and money wasted on a system that is far from being adequate.

There are the greenways(bike paths) for commuting, that will come under demolition as light rail gets going. I fear that taxes will continue to fund this boondogle, as it will never reach a point where it will be self supporting. All my "liberal" friends think this is what is needed, etc...

In the mean time Minneapolis/the Twin Cities, has grown alarmingly faster than the Met council had projected, and in areas they weren't planning, or didn't have the forsight to plan for the growth, as highways and freeways are a mess, and there is no solution. We don't have light rail or a rail system, so people are in their cars. We are trying the "Sane Lane" approach, but that is not patroled, and you are still stuck in traffic, it's not any faster.

Real solutions like tax credits/rebates for bicycle commuting/ alternative transportation, where there is some positive incentives to lessen the load on the roads, and the system are a good start. Our cities continue to grow. We aren't keeping up with the needs of the masses. There are those, like the B-cers who have found a niche. In stead of heralding us, we are run over with trucks cars and strollers. We are lambasted in local rags by unknowing victims of SUVism. I don't get it. Maybe one day there will be a bike to work day and the odd man who drives that day will be chastized. Hope it's soon.

Originally posted by Djudd
.For those of us who commute by bike this should be galling.
I think it should be apalling. To everyone! In many places, we can no longer take drinking water for granted, now air, too. Complain about it and you will be labeled a treehugger. What do we call them, carhuggers?

I think "carhuggers" is an excellent name. It is particularly arrogant, in my view, to sit alone in your car, on a bad air day and scream about the cyclists that are in your way.
Here in DC there are newspaper columnists dedicated to getting bikers off the road. No info from them on not driving during "code red" days. I fear the only solution will be running out of oil.

An old chestnut, but one I haven't answered for a while, so here goes:

Yes, we all know the air pollution thing is a problem caused primarily by cars (more so than all factors combined). The biggest problem I see here is getting people to actually care. I've already been in too many arguments on this one so I'll try to avoid one in this thread. The fact is, most people would rather deny it than give up their cars.

I'm not even sure higher fuel prices are the answer anymore, as most motoring primates would happily sell their own children into slavery if it meant they could drive their big fat ineffecient smogboxes around. The only solution is for governments to actually start doing what they were put there for in the first place (i.e. to actually provide public goods like public transport and so on).

Something I found on bicyclinglife.com earlier:


-- Myth: Car Drivers Pay Taxes, Bicyclists Don't.

At $20-40 million dollars per mile, vehicle and gas taxes don't even begin to cover highway costs. Local streets are mostly paid for from local property & sales taxes. Overall, the USDOT estimates every car gets a $3000+ subsidy every year..

How is it that public transport is expected to pay it's own way and be economically viable while private transport gets this sort of subsidy. $3000 x how many cars? That's a lot of taxpayer's $.

I don't understand how second-hand cigarette smoke can be demonized while car exhaust is ignored.

Perhaps it's because smokers are a minority, while drivers are not.

Hypocrisy to the hilt. Tobacco companies are no more guilty of causing lung cancer than oil companies or car companies. In fact, car and oil companies are more guilty, because no one has a choice about breathing air pollution. Smokers have at least some choice in the matter (in spite of the addiction.)

Originally posted by LittleBigMan
Smokers have at least some choice in the matter (in spite of the addiction.)

Yeah, but passive smokers don't (unless they have a small nuclear device handy). That's the real problem with cigarette smoke.

And a couple of practical tips on dealing with this issue.

1. Use backstreets wherever possible.

2. Breathe through the nose rather than the mouth. The nose will be able to trap some of the particles from the polluted air.

3. If there is a particularly polluting vehicle in front of you, slow down and let it have enough space for the really bad stuff to clear up a bit before you have to breathe it. I'd rather ride like a granny for 400 metres or so than screw my lungs.

4. People wonder why I always pick my way to the front of traffic light queues?

Originally posted by naisme
Real solutions like tax credits/rebates for bicycle commuting/ alternative transportation, where there is some positive incentives to lessen the load on the roads, and the system are a good start. Our cities continue to grow. We aren't keeping up with the needs of the masses.

This paragraph strikes a chord with me. There have been a number of proposals for a 'population cap' on the Gold Coast, aimed at preventing pollution from totally destroying the local tourist industry. I've never really understood how such a solution would ever work. Seems to me it would just trigger a massive population growth in the neighbouring Tweed and Beaudesert shires.

What is never mentioned, of course, is some way of managing the population growth that continues around here. To be honest, I like the idea of tax credits very much. After all, it would pay for itself in time by an increased level of overall health (reducing pressure on the hospital system), reduced stress on roads etc etc.

I heard an interesting stat today, as cig prices in thirteen States are going up. That the State of New York sees a 1/2 percent decrease in smokers for every 10% increase in tobacco taxes.

I don't know if that has an application here, well, if Americans had to pay what Europeans pay for petrol there might be a whole different build to our cities, communities, lifestyles.

as much as i agree with almost everything said here, i have come to some sad conclusions about this problem.

1st, to sort of state my personal position: i think cars have a use for rural transportation or carrying larger loads, but NOT as personal transportation in cities which i think ideally would be served by walking, biking and transit for progressively longer distances in the city and then train and plane for long-distance travel.


I don't know if that has an application here, well, if Americans had to pay what Europeans pay for petrol there might be a whole different build to our cities, communities, lifestyles.

unfortunately i don't think pollution, safety (deaths caused by cars), or even cost (barring something like an energy shortage) will end the continuing rise and dominance of the auto. in Germany gas costs 3-4 times what it does in the US, and there is a good transit and fair train system, yet a large number of people still choose to drive - yes, maybe they drive smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, and drive a little less, but many just accept the additional cost and drive. i think anything up to 10 times what we pay for gas in the US would be received the same way - people would scream and complain and then keep on driving -- this is almost exactly what happened durig the gas-price surges in 2000 when a few people thought about car-pooling, but total vehicle sales and miles driven continued to increase almost just as fast as before.

i think the only way for change is that one day soon it will just be too INCONVENIENT to drive because of standstill stree-causing time-wasting traffic everywhere.

and the sad fact of the human social animal is that the individual won't take any steps to prevent this until it's too late despite the fact that we should be able to see this already. Who doesn't believe traffic is a problem in large US cities and getting worse? we all know there's a problem we just continue to ignore it. basically driving is a "tragedy of the commons" resource issue where the "common" is public space and every person believes he should be able to drive on well-maintained traffic-free roads wherever he wants and find ample parking. BUT as millions and millions driver more and more miles, the "common" gets used up.

while i like all of the things below, none of them will solve the real social problem of cars:
* reducing pollution
* alternative fuels
* safety

i think some time in the next 15-25 years traffic will be sooo bad, that we as a society will banish the private motor car in it's current form from most urban areas and rapidly build up and use some other form of transportation - my prediction is some kind of small personal pod that then joins into a larger transit system - like a small mini-car where lazy people still don't have to walk or bike to the rail station and can also carry their own private "space" with them and not have to sit with the "undesirables" in public transit. On the encouraging side, it could actually improve things a lot for cycling - on the other hand as more small but high-powered motorized vehicles (for example motorized scooters of the Segway "it") are created maybe the bicycle will become obsolete except for a few of us then "old-timers" who do it for fun

So banish the cars along with the associated industry?!?:confused:

We're talking MILLIONS of lost jobs...BILLIONS in lost taxes (there go all of your tax credits)...BILLIONS in increased spending on social programs...

Today's cars are much cleaner, and efficient than those of only 10 years ago. Does more need to be done....Sure, but realistically who is going to ride 5 miles to work in a Michigan winter (of course with no industry, who needs to ride to work?).

There is no "perfect" answer, only progress toward "greener" technologies.

-Marstenite

Originally posted by Marstenite
So banish the cars along with the associated industry?!?:confused:

We're talking MILLIONS of lost jobs...BILLIONS in lost taxes (there go all of your tax credits)...BILLIONS in increased spending on social programs...

Are you trolling? The simple fact is that the automobile is the most heavily subsidised form of transport ever invented. If you bothered to read a few posts you might realise that nobody here ever actually suggested an outright ban on cars. Personally, I'd just prefer to make people pay their own way to drive (the same way I do to ride).

I don't think anyone has brought up closing the car industry...but sinc you bring it up...In the event the car industry would disappear , would the billions lost on one end be made up on the other? i.e. Northern Virginia is proposing spending billions of dollars in road improvements over the next four years. That is one part of one state...think of all parts of fifty states.
Additionally, it is true the car industry worked and lobbied to keep the train industry and other forms of transportation down. What if they weren't here to do that? How many jobs have been lost to that effort by the car industry?
If there were no car industry I'm sure entreprenuership would dictate other business alternatives to what we have now.

Ther is life without GM, FORD, TOYOTA and all the other boys

i think some time in the next 15-25 years traffic will be sooo bad, that we as a society will banish the private motor car in it's current form from most urban areas and rapidly build up and use some other form of transportation

The above would have calamitous ramifications with most industry…

There is no substitute for the trillions in revenue created by the auto industry. There may be life without GM, Ford, DCX, etc, but its with much greater poverty, unemployment and dependence on the government.

Of the billions spent to update roads, how much is recouped by taxes? How much of the economy does that support? How many social programs would be affected?

Again, let me say this, we do need to do better. We must make cleaner safer cars. Technologies are being developed to make cars cleaner, more efficient and safer.

I think you miss a big part of the debate. That is cleaner cars are meaningless if there are 10 times more of them. We have cleaner cars now but the sheer volume negates that. We need less cars. The problem will not be solved with an increasing number of cleaner cars.
Additionally, the country does not run on the back of the car industry. As a matter of fact more jobs in the industry go overseas than here. The country runs on small businesses. These are the biggest employers by far. If the car industry, as we know it, were to disappear tomorrow the hole it left would be replaced by small businesses. Ask the folks in Pittsburgh whta happened when the steel industry dried up. It takes a while but soon people realize being a company town is no bargain.

You are exactly right about small business being the backbone on the American economy. But, how much are they dependent on the hundred's of thousands of workers related to the auto industry? If you remove that much money, thus liquidity, from the economy, what are you left with?

It took PGH many many years to undergo its change from a steel town to what it is today...

It's illogical to think the specific example of PGH can be applied to a global economy...

I actually had a question about air quality, but as to the replacement of the auto industry with something else; This sort of thing happens from time to time (with a certain regularity).

This may sound a little strange, because we think of autos as something that have been here forever, but they haven't.

Beginning in the 19th century, the gradual mechanization of agriculture displaced millions of people, they were shifted from farms to factories.

If you look at railroads today, you wouldn't be able to imagine how important they were to farming, industry, transporting people, etc. The whole country virtually ran on rails. Today they are a mere shadow of their former selves. That was then, this is now.

If you look at the Fortune 500 from 100 years ago, you will find that almost none of them are in the Fortune 500 now. Bear in mind that these were the largest and most powerful corporations in existence. Gone now, replaced with something else. Why should the next hundred years be any different ?

When automobiles become irrelevant, they will be replaced by something, and the economies of the world will adjust and adapt, just as they always have.

regards
Dan

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
When automobiles become irrelevant, they will be replaced by something, and the economies of the world will adjust and adapt, just as they always have.

I agree. The world is full of human and natural resources. The question is, who is controlling them and towards what ends?

I also wonder: will profitable companies who employ thousands of workers look ahead to prepare those workers (and their families) for future changes in job availability, or will they just lay people off and say, "Sorry, we are just as shocked as you are."

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
This may sound a little strange, because we think of autos as something that have been here forever, but they haven't.

If you look at the Fortune 500 from 100 years ago, you will find that almost none of them are in the Fortune 500 now. Bear in mind that these were the largest and most powerful corporations in existence. Gone now, replaced with something else. Why should the next hundred years be any different ?

When automobiles become irrelevant, they will be replaced by something, and the economies of the world will adjust and adapt, just as they always have.


That is exactly right. People seem to forget that there was a pre-oil economy, just as there will one day be a post-oil economy. I, for one, believe that this change is inevitable and the sooner it happens the easier it will be.

Whew, after all that discussion on the merits of taxes, and cars, the roads and jobs created, I forgot what the topic was about, commuting and the air, and it sucks.

I was doing a hill climb on my way to work this AM, and my favorite machine to hate came by spewing its soot deisel exhaust. I hate buses, they are bigger than me, and their drivers tend not to see me, or other cyclists. There was no inhale through the nose, but a back off, but that meant loosing inertia, which on my fixie(52x20) is tough when you have this massive hill. The driver seemed to know this too, and slowed down to stay in my face with his exhaust.

cough... gasp... my lungs are burning.

How long do you plan on keeping your knees riding around on fixed 52x20? OUCH!!! (just saying it makes my knees hurt)