Tire wear and tear revealed as a major contributor to waterway pollution

newatlas.com Tire wear and tear revealed as a major contributor to waterway pollution

Australian researchers have found that tire wear and tear is a major contributor to urban waterway pollution, producing particulate matter that includes microplastics. But, they also found that there are effective ways of reducing this type of pollution, which can affect the health of the…

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03949

You're viewing a single thread.

129 comments

Can we move away from cars already?? People act like this movement against cars is just some aesthetic aversion based on personal preference. But cars literally ruin everything they touch, from commute times, housing supply, local economic activity, household debt, air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, and just plain being the number one killer of children in the developed world. It’s mind boggling that cars are so normalized that many can’t see how obviously harmful they are.
- No most ppl can't, obviously. What we can stop doing is proposing no alternative when we tell ppl to stop doing something...you know. Like you just did.
  There is no viable alternative to a car when it is 20 below and you have to drive 30 min to get to work.
  
  You might notice I said we should “move away from cars” which obviously includes building alternatives not just abandoning cars.
  If you’re responding in good faith and genuinely wanting to learn about this topic, you might try looking into how other countries (I presume you’re American or Canadian?) manage with fewer cars. For example, other cold countries like Finland and northern Japan walk, bike, and use public transportation all year round, even in -20 weather. Check out this video. Totally possible. Obviously, the US and Canada had big cities before the invention of cars, so I’m not sure why you think there are no possible alternatives to cars.
  
  Am I wrong, or does Japan not have at least one car per household (obviously less in the cities, but the same is true with New York). I know this is less than the average American, but I'd suggest the reason for this has more to do with economics and space than public transportation options. In New York City, I can take the bus (why THE FUCK would I?) The rickety subway (which is quite good, despite its obvious age and lack of maintenance) The Railroads, or peddle down a hot, or frozen street on a Citibike. When all else fails, I can walk, which most for most places (in Manhattan at least) is a great option.....
  .......Yet, traffic in New York City is still horrendous, and I still have a car -- Because I need a car to get to places those other options can't reach, and I'll bet that's true for a lot of people. I don't have TWO cars like those in rural areas because of the expense, the difficulty of parking, and I have a decent public transit system.
  The second point being you can't get rid of cars. They're required for too many people to live and work. That's true for NYC. That's true for Japan and I'll bet it's even true for everyone's Darling Finland, which it doesn't take much googling to discover is true. The best you can hope for is 1 car per household ... unless we're going to start raising cities and completely redesigning them and even then I'm skeptical.
  
  Indeed, it's not a question of cars vs. no cars. It's about the extent of car dependence. We will always have some cars, even Tokyo and Amsterdam has cars, but right now, in the US and Canada, we are often forced to travel by car because we have no other options.
  It's also not just about whether one owns a car, but how much we use cars. The fact that most Japanese or Finnish families own one car doesn't mean much on its own. A lot of those families only use their car a few times a month. Most commute by train or bus, or just walk to the grocery store. As bad as New York city traffic is, it would be much worse if you didn't have options like subways and good sidewalks. It's a spectrum, not black and white. But, right now, we are FAR on the car-centric extreme.
  
  I will say that for most trips into Manhattan I'll use public transportation (Train or Subway) just because it's easier and less subject to traffic jams. It's also just nice to read a book while traveling to work. Overall it's a less stressful experience. Almost anything in the outer boroughs I need a car to get to (Parts of Brooklyn might as well be on the moon) However Manhattan is very different then anywhere in San Francisco, whose public transportation I found mind numbingly slow and less frequent.
  One place that could use some major improvement is cross-country train travel. My wife and I took a train to Montreal about five years ago and I swore never to do this again. It was painful how slow and shitty that experience was. It really wouldn't take a whole lot to improve this, the bar is that low. I would have paid more money! High speed rail will never get you to the West Coast as fast as an airplane, but if the experience and ease is worth it you can get more customers. However it doesn't seem like Amtrak gives a single good God damn. They might as well be carrying freight.
  
  You can build all the infrastructure you want but none of that matters if people won't take public transport. I don't do it because only the sketchiest, creepiest people take public transport in the US. You can't get on a train/bus/subway/whatever in this country without fear of getting stabbed.
  Until that problem is addressed, cars aren't going away.
  
  I know what you mean, but that turns out to be empirically untrue. Good transportation infrastructure encourages use in measurable ways (economists and urban planners call this "induced demand"). When you build out a train of bus network so that it's actually useful, people start using it.
  When it comes to safety and public transportation, I think the causality works the other way. In places with excellent public transportation, like New York and Toronto, everyone, including the middle class, uses public transportation. Not coincidentally, these places also have very low crime: New York is in the bottom 20% of US cities for crime severity, and Toronto is the safest city in North America. Under investing in the well-being of poor people, including public infrastructure, causes crime.
  
  I've used the public transportation in several large US cities, and have never felt threatened by or fearful of the other passengers.
  
  Finland and northern Japan are microscopic compared to Canada (or the USA). The reason it's feasible there does not make it feasible here.
  
  I hear this argument a lot but it doesn’t make any sense. The size of the country doesn’t matter for your daily commute.
  It’s also nonsensical because living without cars was feasible in Canada and the US 100 years ago, and remains feasible in many small towns and big cities. Winnipeg, Calgary, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Kansas City… they all had efficient and extensive tram and bus systems in the pre-war era. The walkable neighborhoods made before cars remain some of the most valuable and sought after real estate in North America.
  
  Maybe in the cities. However in the 20s, for rural areas, Horse and carts were still in use. Automobiles replaced them.
  
  A lot of rural areas built walkable town centres which still exist today. But sure, some areas will always need cars. That said, over 80% of the population of US and Canada today lives in urban areas, so let's at least work on that 80%. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
  
  Most of the people in both Finland and Japan live in cities, while most North Americans live in cities. Moving away from cars in rural areas may not be easy, but there is no reason why it would not be possible in the cities. The things that are needed are: denser cities (less tight zoning laws) and more alternatives to driving, like bike lanes or trams. These things are achievable by policy change. Also, the USA has around five times as much population density across the country as Finland, so while it may be big, it is not too big for decent alternatives to driving
  
  Quick googling says Finland has 3.6 Million passenger vehicles for about 5.5 Million people. You want to hold up a shining example of a carless culture? try North Korea.
  
  Have you ever heard of buses and trains? Almost every town over here with 10.000 inhabitants has trains running every 15 minutes in either direction.
  
  The town I lived in with 90,000 residents had buses that didn't run after 6pm or before 6am, so if you worked part time at a retail store that opened earlier or closed later at night buses were not an option.
  Yes I believe we should be expanding and funding out public transportation, but until that happens we can't just get rid of cars.
  Stop shaming people for driving and instead shame politicians for not making it easier to ditch cars. It's simply not possible for everyone everywhere.
  
  Ah I think I finally see the misunderstanding. I don’t see anyone in this thread shaming anyone for using cars. What you say about pressuring politicians is totally compatible with the person you’re responding to. So it’s confusing why you think you’re on opposing sides?
  I don’t think using cars is a personal moral failing. But if people are so fragile that we can’t criticize car dependence without it being taken personally, then progress is literally impossible.
  
  That's my point. Cars can easily be replaced, not abandoned. In my example, trains are sufficient to get to most cities with comparable speed. With enough funding for public transport - which isn't even that much compared to maintaining roads and bridges - you could remove 95+% of cars.
  Yet even here public transport is too unreliable too little service (note that I didn't mention buses) and apparently people will use cars as long as there is a minor time benefit.
  To illustrate my point: even though the bus service is mediocre regardless of where you live in my town, you are within one mile of everything you'd need on the daily basis (supermarket, pharmacy, bank...). However, there is a roughly 50 : 1 difference in parking spaces to bicycle racks because for some reason you either walk or drive a car.
  
  Even in New York, that bus is either a completely miserable experience, require strict departure times, and might make your commute a lot longer.
  I can't imagine how awful they are in other places.
  
  New York isn't a bastion of excellent public transport. Other places do it better and buses can be good.
  
  Who does it better?
  
  Most cities in Europe & Asia. I live in Zurich and the buses are pretty much just as good as the trains and trams (which are top notch).
  
  Bussing during rush hour sucks no matter what city it is. I'd rather bike, or if I could, I'd drive.
  Well actually.. driving during rush hour also sucks so I'm not sure between the two. During non-peak hours it's not bad, kind of expensive though.
  
  Where is over here? I think that might be important to establish.
  
  Southern Germany. You can see a public transportation map here. Red is buses, orange is trains, green is trams.
  
  "There is no viable alternative to a car when it is 20 below and you have to drive 30 min to get to work."
  Perhaps theres a solution buried in there. Organize society so were not burning our lifespan and the planet unecessarily commuting.
  "There is no viable alternative to a car when it is 20 below and you have to drive 30 min to get to work.
  Bus, train.
  "What we can stop doing is proposing no alternative"
  Bus, train, walkable cities, remote work, increased automation and reduced labour reducing commute requirements, production near consumption to reduce freight, tackling international economic inequities so it isnt cheaper to make a widget accross the world at poverty wages and ship it to those who live on the other side to buy within the means of their poverty wages - purchasing low quality quickly broken widgets that need consistent replacement and therefore further freight for that consistent supply.
  
  This all means higher taxes to fund it all.
  Good luck starting that initiative.
  
  You got that backwards. Suburbia and car dependency are already aggressively subsidized.
  https://medium.com/by-the-bay/subsidizing-suburbia-2c3b66f88d4c
  https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners
  
  You're missing the point. Infrastructure costs money.
  
  And cars require far more infrastructure than any other option…
  
  Already paid for.
  Again I can't tell if you simply don't get it or are intentionally obtuse in bad faith.
  
  And currently needs trillions of dollars of maintenance.
  If anyone is arguing in bad faith, it’s you
  
  The highways are already there. They don't need to be created. What are u talking about. U don't understand what bad faith means obviously...lol
  Yes they need to be maintained. Everything does.
  
  In the US, moving away from cars is a decade+ project. The alternatives are bicycles, trams, ebikes, walking, trains, busses, and subways.
  All of them require substantial zoning changes and a change in focus from transportation departments from car capacity to people capacity and safety.
  Most people in the US can't feasibly not drive. A good start are things like my neighborhood. I live 1.5 from a shopping center with grocery store and other essentials, but have to drive there. It would be a minimal change and cost to connect a few neighborhood streets to the back of the shopping center or finish the sidewalk/bike trail that abruptly ends half way there.
  Another good start is giving tax breaks for employers that do 32 hour work weeks or even 4 10 hour days to reduce driving.
  Another idea is allow for small general stores in residential areas.
  Another idea is HSR on easy routes like LA to Las Vegas.
  Another idea is trams along long strips with lots of foot traffic like public beaches and Las Vegas boulevard.
  Another is to add bollards in cities with bike lanes that are just painted lines on the road so people feel safer using them.
  
  Plus China is repeating our mistakes and building out a massive amount of car-centric infrastructure. Huge disappointment given the amount of resources and wonderful transit they have in major cities
  
  Idk, maybe public transportation? We're not getting rid of cars, but one bus full of people is better than if every individual had their own cars. It's not about elimination, it's about reduction.
  
  Exactly. I grew up on a farm and there's no way a regular bus route would efficiently service us. Cars are still necessary but their usage can be greatly reduced.
  For instance, in Europe most suburban/rural households can get by with one car. And in urban areas no car lifestyle is very easy to pull off
  
  There is no viable alternative to a car when it is 20 below and you have to drive 30 min to get to work.
  Funny you bring that up... bicycling in extreme cold is very similar to skiing, I've done it... no skin exposed, breathable layers, you have to worry more about getting too warm than too cold
- Ok so I move away from my car, and get a bike. Bike tires are still made of rubber. What do you say to that hmm? You got answer for that? If I just walk to work I'll still be putting wear and tear on my shoes which are made of rubber as well.
  
  There is a difference between cargo/kg of rubber tire. On your bike youre not carrying an external metal framework, liquid resirvoirs filled with liquids, air conditioning units, filters, fans, belts, double inaulated doors etc.
  You can make the logical leap that the amount of rubber waste generated per person is likely different in different vehicle types. Cars vs busses, vs personal bikes. And a smart bet would be less per person on a bike vs car, considering both the weight and physical differences - e.g. speed, momentum and required force against the tires to accelerate and stop.
  
  I shouldn’t have to say this: biking and walking do not pollute as much as driving a car.
- You gonna force everyone into dense cities and make them walk or do you know of some new transportation techniques that will allow people outside of city center to ditch all their cars?
  
  Go look at small towns in Europe and the fucking trains they have. Then weep when your city 100 times the size has worse public transportation than them.
  You don't need to live in a big fucking city for public transportation, you just need a government that fucking cares.
  
  That's the difference. The government doesn't have the desire, or the people don't vote in favor. In some cases, they don't even have the money.
  
  Hi I live in a small European town and still need a car. It's not the gotcha you think it is. The busses and trains are neat for young healthy people with one backpack. Turns out I don't go out and need one back pack of stuff.
  I'm moving back to the US because of the massive labor shortage and that shutting down your economy on Sundays is discriminatory towards non Christians.
  The train doesn't alleviate a ton of other car needs in daily life.
  Oh also my packages and my garbage don't get delivered or taken away reliably in large part because the roads are too narrow. Fuck this. I end up needing to drive anyway.
  I would rather have good car infrastructure than the ability to back pack around. It massively influences my quality of life. If I need a car once a week I'm going to use my car more than that and I have a lot more options once I'm doing so.
  Edit : just got told I need to go to the next town over to get a covid test. I can either hang out at the bus stop or train station for an hour sick af, then walk a bunch, to get a test. Or I could drive.
  
  The fact you're comparing small European towns built off rail stops to sprawling American cities with 100x the population says more than enough about your argument
  
  The fact you don't realize basically every American city was once a rail stop says enough about your intelligence.
  
  No, the idea that this is only possible in dense cities is a myth. Look at the town planning of small rural communities in the US established before the dominance of cars. They are way more walkable and bikable than most modern developments. People living in small towns probably still need to own a car, but they don’t need to use one nearly as much.
  This artificial division between super high density cities where public transportation is possible and super low density suburbs where you must have a car is also a very North American mindset. There are small towns and villages throughout Europe and Asia serviced by buses and trains, and with plenty of biking and pedestrian infrastructure. Cars aren’t inevitable, we just seem to be unable or unwilling to imagine anything else.
  
  You gonna force everyone into dense cities and make them walk
  I don't advocate completely getting rid of cars, but they aren't always a good way to get around.
  Why should large portions of the US be all but forced to drive a car? It requires registration, licensing, insurance, and sometimes inspections or emissions testing?
  Bicycles, pre-ww2 style small towns, mixed used zoning, and rail would all reduce car usage.
  For example, allow building small general stores in residential areas like mine so people don't have to drive to the store for every little thing. Lots of minor improvements add up.
  I'd be happy to answer any questions about reducing car usage.
  
  I live in a major metropolitan suburb. County population over 700k. It is over a mile to the front of my neighborhood, which is not even off of a major road. Are we as densely built as the city? No. Is there much room to put anything else? No. Rail? Unfortunately, hell no. People are so quick to tunnel vision in on their situation in their town and think its applicable to the whole world. Im not walking over a mile to potentially get to a bus stop. What about the disabled? They just mobility scootering miles to get to what is hopefully a handicap accessible bus? Inclement weather? There's so many things the rose tinted glasses don't see.
  
  TLDR: Reducing car dependency helps drivers too by reducing traffic and getting bad drivers off the road.
  There's so many things the rose tinted glasses don't see.
  A lot of people, like me, live in the US in similar environment so we are well aware of the issues. Super car dependent design like that is pretty hard to undo. I don't blame people for buying houses in these areas because it is often the best location and best financial decision. When I bought my house, it was the best location for reducing the amount of driving. Non SFH in more dense parts that aren't rentals are pretty much non-existent.
  Im not walking over a mile to potentially get to a bus stop. What about the disabled? They just mobility scootering miles to get to what is hopefully a handicap accessible bus?
  So, steps taken to reduce car usage help people that have to drive due to reduced traffic and hopefully getting people off the road that shouldn't be driving.
  It is over a mile to the front of my neighborhood
  The best you might be able to do in the near future is maybe lobby to rezone a property that goes up for sale to allow a small general store or other micro businesses that won't draw in much outside traffic.
  It won't be a fast or easy process, but car dependency at the scale it is in the US is not sustainable.
  
  I feel like we shouldn't be arguing with each other about this stuff? It's like class conflict, wrong enemy.

129 comments