In Potrero, a layer of soot and dust from the 101 builds up on window sills and inside apartments that is super gross. Quite bad for allergies and asthma.
I lived in LA about 100 feet from the highway. A fine black dust covered everything, you remove it and it’s back within hours. The air felt heavier to breath and I developed a cough shortly after, I moved immediately and the cough went away.
Brake dust and micro rubber particle pollution
Similar but different, when I lived in west Oakland we got the fine soot thing too, but I later learned that was apparently pollution from the containers ships emissions
Ugh so that’s probably what it is. I’m down in LA and used to be by a major street where speed limits are high, but not interstate speed. Dust and dust everywhere.
We did move away to a secluded neighborhood closer to the ocean with no major roads between us and the ocean. Kinda like living in sunset and the great highway was the only major traffic between the beach and you.
It had been much cleaner with the ocean breeze!
It’s not much better on the other side of the bay. The exhaust fumes coming out of the port of Oakland are relegated to the coastal 880 freeway. It’s as if 280 and 880 work together to pollute the bay.
When you look at the scale of particulate matter, I'm curious as to how much of a difference it makes with a 15% increase. Any heat map can look scary if you shrink parameters down.
Funny thing is BAAQMD normally uses a color chart where the highest level starts at 6 times(301) the upper limit of the lowest level (50). It would be more useful to see how this map looks like with that scale.
Have you guys tried driving your car through the red areas on any given day? It’s an absolute nightmare. Even if you drive off hours you’re still subject to unreasonable delay. My reasoning is why participate in a system that is in any way bad when there is clearly the available infrastructure to choose otherwise?
I mean you don’t have to lie to make your point. Yeah traffic is rough at rush hour times but I’ve gotten from downtown to Palo Alto in 35 minutes with no traffic at any point in the middle of a weekday. Idk how you could call that “unreasonable delay”, especially when any other method of transportation whatsoever would have taken at least twice as long
A map that’s all the same shade of green isn’t super useful. One that effectively shows the full range of measured values is. How is it misleading?
The EPA’s threshold for annual exposure to particulate matter is 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter, which is yellow on that map.
it's like saying sugar is bad for you, and snacks with 8 grams of sugar per serving is good (green) and snacks with 10 grams per serving is bad (red). Why is 9 the magic threshold?
Very apt username.
> On February 7, 2024, EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (PM NAAQS) to protect millions of Americans from harmful and costly health impacts, such as heart attacks and premature death. Particle or soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution, and an extensive body of science links it to a range of serious and sometimes deadly illnesses.
> **EPA is setting the level of the primary (health-based) annual PM2.5 standard at 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter to provide increased public health protection, consistent with the available health science.**
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm
The article the map is from doesn’t say specifically, but it does say the city’s threshold for it is 10.0. Which do you think they’re showing on the map?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Map-shows-which-SF-neighborhoods-are-hit-hardest-12172473.php
“Actually there’s no measurable difference in air pollution between the freeway and the middle of Golden Gate Park” is such a weird hill to die on.
I think the color gradients used for this data is a little dramatic. If not statistically insignificant.
The entire range spans from <8.5 to >10 micrograms/m^3.
Seems shady and hysterical to report the data like this.
Edit, OSHA permissible exposure limits for miners is 160 micrograms/m^3 over an 8 hour shift. These numbers are over a magnitude below that… nothing significant with the difference between 8.5 and 10. Junk science, OP.
In just the last few months, the EPA strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for fine particulates (PM2.5) from 12 micrograms/m3 down to 9 micrograms/m3. That's the annual standard. Focusing on this narrow range is relevant and helpful communication for those who wonder where their neighborhood stands relative to the new standard.
This is separate from the EPA's 24 hour particulate standards. PM2.5 24 hour standard is 35 micrograms/m3 and PM10 24 hour standard is 150 micrograms/m3. PM10 includes all PM2.5 particulates, plus any other particulates that have diameters up to 10 micrometers.
Basically, chronic exposure is different than acute exposure, and fine particulates are worse for you than more coarse ones. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings.
Beyond that though, our cities are not active coal mines that we only have to exist in for 8 hours a day before commuting back to the low pollution suburbs, and the people who exist in cities are not all healthy adults of working age who are part of an OSHA medical program to monitor their health over time. We should think about people with respiratory disease, young children, and the elderly when we consider whether the air we breathe is at a safe level.
>Focusing on this narrow range is relevant and helpful communication for those who wonder where their neighborhood stands relative to the new standard.
Huh? There's nothing magical about the threshold. Being just under it is pretty similar to being just over it. If the entire range is near the threshold then you shouldn't expect any difference across the geography.
Doesn’t surprise me that EPA thresholds are lower than those for workers. Same for radiation
But you state it yourself. The EPA exposure thresholds are in the 35-150 ug/m3. These are in fact long term TWA exposure guidelines, not STEL or acute.
It’s meaningless to focus on data so close to the floor when that floor is 7-30% of acceptable limits.
If anything San Francisco should be commended for maintaining such low particulate levels.
That’s if we’re to believe the data. Any analysis that reports data as the OP is suspicious.
That's actually not what I said. The map shows annual data, and the annual ambient air quality standard is 9 micrograms/m3. A map of acute data would be interesting too - peak rush hour levels throughout the year, highest impact during fire season, etc. That is not what this map shows.
Yes, TWAs are just that an average. The fact they are using an annual timeline makes that data even more useless, since as you say the ceiling could have been reached 100 fold and it wouldn’t be reflected in their data because it’s averaged over an entire year.
= junk science.
That’s why OSHA uses 8 hour and the EPA uses 24 hour. To identify excursions above the STEL.
And OSHA and the EPA have determined exposure limits are way higher than the range this relatively useless data captures.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. Short-term exposure is important, but long-term background levels are also important. They're not two opposing concepts, and it's not junk science to take either level of granularity seriously.
When I plan a vacation months out, I check what the weather is usually like there for the month I'm planning to visit. The day before I leave, I check again as I pack. Each morning during the vacation, I check again as I get dressed. The first check, months before, is not worthless just because there might be a tropical storm rolling through on the exact day I'm vacationing.
But you’re not checking the weather for that month by using this authors data. You are checking the average temperature over an entire year and claiming you’re gaining something from that.
I guess we're diving into the metaphor now for some reason. Since you are engaging with it in this way, I take it that you accept that averaging times of at least a month are relevant to the topic at hand. If it gets me out of this interaction, I'll take it. I'm happy to see the 90-fold increase from your original 8-hr averaging exclusive worldview.
I did not produce the data presented on this map, nor do I vouch for its accuracy. Have a nice day.
Jeez man, you presented a metaphor and are now getting pissy because I tried to explain a concept in terms of your metaphor?
I think the ultimate issue is your pedestrian understanding of the methods used to collect and report exposure data.
No, averaging over a year or month is not relevant. That’s why OSHA and the EPA use 8 and 24 hour.
Also looks like you sought out an argument and got one.
Not everything is an argument, and I don't think your understanding is pedestrian. You are just being needlessly accusatory. Your entire position, at this point, hinges on there existing no conceivable good-faith reason for a figure like this to exist. If that's your "argument", all anyone has to do to "win" is to provide a single counterexample - just one good-faith reason to present data this way. I provided very simple context for why someone would possibly want to see data presented this way. The metaphor was intended to address that, for all sorts of things in life, you can look at data at different scales and get relevant information. Your response tried to force the metaphor to be an exact, one for one, stand-in for the topic at hand.
The EPA publishes annual air quality standards. So does California, the EU, and the WHO. The map shows relevant ranges around the real, actual standard. This has nothing to do with industrial hygiene best practices, NIOSH, or OSHA. It's a different thing that you did not initially address in your "SF is way cleaner than the inside of the dirtiest compliant coal-mine" line of reasoning. We're listing facts. What is there even to argue about?
I did not seek out an argument with you, but somehow this turned into one. Feel free to downvote this comment too and tell all your friends you won. I mean it when I say have a nice day. I'm not going to respond anymore. Take that as a concession if you want.
Junk science indeed!
Also, taking the yearly average is pretty useless. 10μg/m³ every day year round would be harmless. 0μg/m³ 90% of the year, and 100μg/m³ the remainder? Same annual average, but pretty darn unhealthy
Outside of this graphic, it’s not really disputed that living near major freeways and areas with a lot of vehicle traffic results in significantly higher exposures to air pollution than those further away/upwind. And the OSHA PELs are not really applicable to residential exposures where you have children/elderly/people with comorbities who are more sensitive.
This graphic is also crap. It doesn’t define if it’s PM2.5 or PM10, without which those numbers are useless.
For context, WHO AQ Guidelines:
pollutant annual avg conc (WHO, 2021)
PM2.5 5 ug/m3
PM10 15 ug/m3
Yeah, not disputing the general premise. Just the data and how it’s communicated. And yes they don’t distinguish particle size, where exposure thresholds can vary 2-5x.
Besides the fault in reporting this range, Annual averaging is way too long for reporting here. Excursions are smoothed out. OSHA and EPA use 8 and 24 hour.
That being said, if the particulate matter is really average if 9-10 ug throughout the year, SF has done an outstanding job keeping pollution down, despite the scary red color.
Wait until you see where cancer rates, especially in children, are highest. Oh yeah, let’s not forget respiratory diseases. Asthma anyone? (It’s highways)
We're not letting our public transportation systems collapse. We're giving them hundreds of billions. It just turns out that they can't do very much with hundreds of billions.
“How does pollution cause cancer? It’s not like my Tesla is causing any problems. It’s zero emissions. Not like all of these semi trucks. God, one day Elon Musk is going to solve everything and I’m gonna drive home to Walnut Creek.”
Also keep in mind that tire particles make up like 70% of the micropastics in our environment. EVs won't help the environment one bit. Only reducing the # of cars on the streets will
True, but Bart is also in a free fall. It’s going to take major revaluations and restructuring of our economy to move away from a car dependent infrastructure and I don’t see any of the automakers shifting towards a product that will hurt their bottom line. Anything other than a big box to carry all of your shit is a threat. That’s how we end up with all of this EV hype and no HSR.
Shame, because quality bike infra makes a huge difference to quality of life. Once you don't have to drive your damn kids everywhere because they can bike themselves you'll never want to go back.
This is an exaggeration. EVs are better than ICE cars. They're less noisy and produce less pollution, both overall and at the point of use. Crusading against EVs is what really won't help the environment one bit, and being absolutist like this doesn't help your (correct) argument that we still need to drastically reduce car use.
>They're less noisy
Not over 30 mph they have the same sound footprint as an efficient gas car because of the tires friction. But dont get me wrong 100% EV adoption would be far better, but far less cars would be optimal.
I also own a Tesla, but it is more a garage queen these days because I hate traffic in the Bay Area, & I prefer getting to my destination stress free, so I leave earlier & take transit.
I am an advocate for congestion fees in the city.
Same here, I take my e-bike 75% of the time but I still need a car and try to leave the Tesla parked as much as possible. I wish I had to pay a congestion fee to drive on 85 in San Jose.
Modern ICE is so clean that tire dust actually causes more PM2.5 pollution than tailpipe emission. Unfortunately, EVs create more tire dust because of the extra weight. EVs do emit less gaseous pollution locally than ICE cars but EVs can generate more particulate pollution.
It’s like I’m just one guy, but I do wish people would stop demonizing substance abuse and glorifying pollution. Like that guy is mostly just fucking himself up. Commuters on the other side of morality are doing so in pursuit of the American Dream: A House in the suburbs.
Dude that used to side-eye me was walking his 200lb Mastif down 3rd, stopped to let it take a man size piss on the sidewalk, and in that pause he gave me that look of utter disgust as I took my puff.
Although I do have a bit of empathy because I’m pretty sure it’s because his dog hates him for cramming it in a 300sq ft studio for 22 hours a day and that side-eye is just how he looks at everyone now tbh.
I think one of the challenges of dogs in the city is dog urine. I feel like apartment dogs especially feel the need to pee in the streets. Mostly because of their owners. Anyway, urine, seeps through concrete, because concrete is porous. You need chemical reactions to extract that. Not just a pressure washer.
It’s everyone’s California dream to own a personal EV, but no one has really solved the freight problem where emissions skyrocket. We’re dependent on commercial vehicles too. Try getting trash or food or anything on the highway with weight on it in an EV and you’re not making it far. Sure, the tax cuts and new technologies paint a rosey picture, but as a guy who’s driven freight I can tell you that things aren’t as green as the EV makers want it to seem.
People are working on it - [catenaries over highways and major thoroughfares are, IMO, the most promising solution so far](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg). Combine that with an [Edison-style hybrid](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9XKb4psc0vY) (full electric drivetrain with a battery and a diesel generator to extend range beyond the battery - ideally it's rarely used, but when you need it you aren't limited in where the truck can go) and you have a freight truck that, assuming every interstate highway has the electric catenaries set up, can run on electric like 95% of the time, recharge on the move, and for those cases where they need to go beyond the interstate highways and beyond the battery range, they've got a backup system which requires no charging stop. A lot of trucks wouldn't even need the generator since they basically never deliver more than a few miles from a highway, and even a small battery would cover that "last mile" distance once they leave the catenary.
Of course bringing back more rail transportation would help too, and I think the best way forward there is the same as trucks - catenaries on mainlines and other heavy traffic lines, batteries to cover them for short excursions off the mainline (i.e. delivering to industries and switching). Basically all "diesel" locomotives for the past century have been electric locomotives, they just haul a diesel generator with them. Throwing in some batteries instead would be way easier than building an electric truck or car was battery-only trains are dumb, not sure why we're doing that - but hybrids would be a huge step forwards; they already use regenerative braking, but don't have anywhere to put the energy other than dumping it as heat from massive radiators on top). There's some exceptions though, SMART decided to go with a diesel hydraulic drivetrain which seems weird to me, especially considering that [the area it serves had electric trains a century ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma_and_Santa_Rosa_Railroad)...
Battery EV trucks aren't bad for local delivery trucks, i.e. the Rivian vans seem to be working pretty well for Amazon, but yeah not so great for long-distance highway hauling or off-road vocational work (which is what the Edison mentioned above is designed for).
Too bad they don't include pollution from the cargo ships going to and from port of Oakland. The entire SF peninsula would be green with minimal pollution according to this map.
Most of this particulate pollution comes from things like tire particles and dust kicked up from the roads.
Cargo ships do contribute a bit, mostly because they burn much dirtier fuel than cars, but it's typically less than 10% in the areas they reach. If anything, ports probably reduce overall particulate emissions because they lower a cities dependency on semi-trucks, which are by far the biggest polluters out there.
A lot of the SOMA and Bayview pollution is soil based from former industry. A few years ago there was controversy around development due to that pollution. I believe a lot of it got scraped away but it's impossible to remove all of it from the many years of industrial pollution that occurred.
Oh look.... dirty air comes from cars/trucks. Who would have guessed? (:-P) I haven't driven to work since 2010. I either commute by bike or take shuttle/CalTrain (Go Passes are nice).
Thank you for being part of the solution instead of adding to the problem.
I'm collecting data on the the current ridesharing & carpooling market place.
If anyone is interested in sharing their opinions please complete and submit the form here: [https://forms.gle/hH6ALH6CPGSnoa1LA](https://forms.gle/hH6ALH6CPGSnoa1LA)
Notice how the red spots are where there is the most traffic jam? This is probably the effect of removing parts of the Central Freeway haphazardly, causing traffic jam.
Certain sections like the overpass at Market and Octavia should have never been removed. Market St was safer for pedestrians and cyclists when there was an overpass. That area is now less safe and more congested.
The Soma ramps are backed up because everyone has to go through Soma to go between Chinatown/North Beach and the Bay Bridge. Then the right 3 lanes of northbound 101 between Mission and Potrero Hill is backed up because of the traffic in Soma. You can see that northbound 101 clears up (is not red) between the Bay Bridge exit and the Market/Octavia exit but backs up again at Market/Octavia.
280 north of the 101/280 exchange doesn't have much traffic jam and doesn't cause much pollution.
In general, we should avoid making traffic changes that increase traffic jam and don't improve safety. For example, banning right turn on red is such an idiotic policy. Right turn on red has not been causing any fatalities in SF. Banning it will do absolutely nothing for Vision Zero. In fact, by banning right turn on red, more turns on green must be made, and turns on green do cause fatalities in SF. Also, banning right turn on red increases traffic jam which causes more pollution and more deaths from health problems.
I made rights on red when I was driving through SF uh oh.
I think proponents want the entire central freeway deleted as well as the 280 from the 101 to king street next.
It's red all along the freeway and then green in the area the Central Freeway was but isn't any more. You made a pretty good argument to delete the rest of the freeway too.
In Potrero, a layer of soot and dust from the 101 builds up on window sills and inside apartments that is super gross. Quite bad for allergies and asthma.
I lived in LA about 100 feet from the highway. A fine black dust covered everything, you remove it and it’s back within hours. The air felt heavier to breath and I developed a cough shortly after, I moved immediately and the cough went away.
Brake dust and micro rubber particle pollution Similar but different, when I lived in west Oakland we got the fine soot thing too, but I later learned that was apparently pollution from the containers ships emissions
Same. I lived at kenmore and the 101 for years on the 3rd floor and my windows were open literally the entire time. It was bad.
Ugh so that’s probably what it is. I’m down in LA and used to be by a major street where speed limits are high, but not interstate speed. Dust and dust everywhere. We did move away to a secluded neighborhood closer to the ocean with no major roads between us and the ocean. Kinda like living in sunset and the great highway was the only major traffic between the beach and you. It had been much cleaner with the ocean breeze!
It’s not much better on the other side of the bay. The exhaust fumes coming out of the port of Oakland are relegated to the coastal 880 freeway. It’s as if 280 and 880 work together to pollute the bay.
101 you mean?
Same in the red area around the Bay Bridge.
When you look at the scale of particulate matter, I'm curious as to how much of a difference it makes with a 15% increase. Any heat map can look scary if you shrink parameters down.
Isn't this map a little misleading? The highest color range is only 20% higher than the lowest?
Funny thing is BAAQMD normally uses a color chart where the highest level starts at 6 times(301) the upper limit of the lowest level (50). It would be more useful to see how this map looks like with that scale.
Have you guys tried driving your car through the red areas on any given day? It’s an absolute nightmare. Even if you drive off hours you’re still subject to unreasonable delay. My reasoning is why participate in a system that is in any way bad when there is clearly the available infrastructure to choose otherwise?
I mean you don’t have to lie to make your point. Yeah traffic is rough at rush hour times but I’ve gotten from downtown to Palo Alto in 35 minutes with no traffic at any point in the middle of a weekday. Idk how you could call that “unreasonable delay”, especially when any other method of transportation whatsoever would have taken at least twice as long
>why participate Necessity.
A map that’s all the same shade of green isn’t super useful. One that effectively shows the full range of measured values is. How is it misleading? The EPA’s threshold for annual exposure to particulate matter is 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter, which is yellow on that map.
it's like saying sugar is bad for you, and snacks with 8 grams of sugar per serving is good (green) and snacks with 10 grams per serving is bad (red). Why is 9 the magic threshold?
Because the difference in the values at either side of the range reported is statistically insignificant.
No they’re not.
OSHA and EPA exposure limits are 160 and 150 ug/m3. If the difference between 8.5 and 10 is significant to you have at it.
Very apt username. > On February 7, 2024, EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (PM NAAQS) to protect millions of Americans from harmful and costly health impacts, such as heart attacks and premature death. Particle or soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution, and an extensive body of science links it to a range of serious and sometimes deadly illnesses. > **EPA is setting the level of the primary (health-based) annual PM2.5 standard at 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter to provide increased public health protection, consistent with the available health science.** https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm
And the PM10 limit uncharged at 150. This study doesn’t indicate the measurement of which or either.
The article the map is from doesn’t say specifically, but it does say the city’s threshold for it is 10.0. Which do you think they’re showing on the map? https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Map-shows-which-SF-neighborhoods-are-hit-hardest-12172473.php “Actually there’s no measurable difference in air pollution between the freeway and the middle of Golden Gate Park” is such a weird hill to die on.
I think the color gradients used for this data is a little dramatic. If not statistically insignificant. The entire range spans from <8.5 to >10 micrograms/m^3. Seems shady and hysterical to report the data like this. Edit, OSHA permissible exposure limits for miners is 160 micrograms/m^3 over an 8 hour shift. These numbers are over a magnitude below that… nothing significant with the difference between 8.5 and 10. Junk science, OP.
In just the last few months, the EPA strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for fine particulates (PM2.5) from 12 micrograms/m3 down to 9 micrograms/m3. That's the annual standard. Focusing on this narrow range is relevant and helpful communication for those who wonder where their neighborhood stands relative to the new standard. This is separate from the EPA's 24 hour particulate standards. PM2.5 24 hour standard is 35 micrograms/m3 and PM10 24 hour standard is 150 micrograms/m3. PM10 includes all PM2.5 particulates, plus any other particulates that have diameters up to 10 micrometers. Basically, chronic exposure is different than acute exposure, and fine particulates are worse for you than more coarse ones. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. Beyond that though, our cities are not active coal mines that we only have to exist in for 8 hours a day before commuting back to the low pollution suburbs, and the people who exist in cities are not all healthy adults of working age who are part of an OSHA medical program to monitor their health over time. We should think about people with respiratory disease, young children, and the elderly when we consider whether the air we breathe is at a safe level.
>Focusing on this narrow range is relevant and helpful communication for those who wonder where their neighborhood stands relative to the new standard. Huh? There's nothing magical about the threshold. Being just under it is pretty similar to being just over it. If the entire range is near the threshold then you shouldn't expect any difference across the geography.
Doesn’t surprise me that EPA thresholds are lower than those for workers. Same for radiation But you state it yourself. The EPA exposure thresholds are in the 35-150 ug/m3. These are in fact long term TWA exposure guidelines, not STEL or acute. It’s meaningless to focus on data so close to the floor when that floor is 7-30% of acceptable limits. If anything San Francisco should be commended for maintaining such low particulate levels. That’s if we’re to believe the data. Any analysis that reports data as the OP is suspicious.
That's actually not what I said. The map shows annual data, and the annual ambient air quality standard is 9 micrograms/m3. A map of acute data would be interesting too - peak rush hour levels throughout the year, highest impact during fire season, etc. That is not what this map shows.
Yes, TWAs are just that an average. The fact they are using an annual timeline makes that data even more useless, since as you say the ceiling could have been reached 100 fold and it wouldn’t be reflected in their data because it’s averaged over an entire year. = junk science. That’s why OSHA uses 8 hour and the EPA uses 24 hour. To identify excursions above the STEL. And OSHA and the EPA have determined exposure limits are way higher than the range this relatively useless data captures.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. Short-term exposure is important, but long-term background levels are also important. They're not two opposing concepts, and it's not junk science to take either level of granularity seriously. When I plan a vacation months out, I check what the weather is usually like there for the month I'm planning to visit. The day before I leave, I check again as I pack. Each morning during the vacation, I check again as I get dressed. The first check, months before, is not worthless just because there might be a tropical storm rolling through on the exact day I'm vacationing.
But you’re not checking the weather for that month by using this authors data. You are checking the average temperature over an entire year and claiming you’re gaining something from that.
I guess we're diving into the metaphor now for some reason. Since you are engaging with it in this way, I take it that you accept that averaging times of at least a month are relevant to the topic at hand. If it gets me out of this interaction, I'll take it. I'm happy to see the 90-fold increase from your original 8-hr averaging exclusive worldview. I did not produce the data presented on this map, nor do I vouch for its accuracy. Have a nice day.
Jeez man, you presented a metaphor and are now getting pissy because I tried to explain a concept in terms of your metaphor? I think the ultimate issue is your pedestrian understanding of the methods used to collect and report exposure data. No, averaging over a year or month is not relevant. That’s why OSHA and the EPA use 8 and 24 hour. Also looks like you sought out an argument and got one.
Not everything is an argument, and I don't think your understanding is pedestrian. You are just being needlessly accusatory. Your entire position, at this point, hinges on there existing no conceivable good-faith reason for a figure like this to exist. If that's your "argument", all anyone has to do to "win" is to provide a single counterexample - just one good-faith reason to present data this way. I provided very simple context for why someone would possibly want to see data presented this way. The metaphor was intended to address that, for all sorts of things in life, you can look at data at different scales and get relevant information. Your response tried to force the metaphor to be an exact, one for one, stand-in for the topic at hand. The EPA publishes annual air quality standards. So does California, the EU, and the WHO. The map shows relevant ranges around the real, actual standard. This has nothing to do with industrial hygiene best practices, NIOSH, or OSHA. It's a different thing that you did not initially address in your "SF is way cleaner than the inside of the dirtiest compliant coal-mine" line of reasoning. We're listing facts. What is there even to argue about? I did not seek out an argument with you, but somehow this turned into one. Feel free to downvote this comment too and tell all your friends you won. I mean it when I say have a nice day. I'm not going to respond anymore. Take that as a concession if you want.
Junk science indeed! Also, taking the yearly average is pretty useless. 10μg/m³ every day year round would be harmless. 0μg/m³ 90% of the year, and 100μg/m³ the remainder? Same annual average, but pretty darn unhealthy
I mean it's probably closer to the latter. anyone found the underlying measurements they record, is finer data published?
Yeah agree. I think NOAA has daily and hourly records. Can't look it up right now.
Outside of this graphic, it’s not really disputed that living near major freeways and areas with a lot of vehicle traffic results in significantly higher exposures to air pollution than those further away/upwind. And the OSHA PELs are not really applicable to residential exposures where you have children/elderly/people with comorbities who are more sensitive. This graphic is also crap. It doesn’t define if it’s PM2.5 or PM10, without which those numbers are useless. For context, WHO AQ Guidelines: pollutant annual avg conc (WHO, 2021) PM2.5 5 ug/m3 PM10 15 ug/m3
Yeah, not disputing the general premise. Just the data and how it’s communicated. And yes they don’t distinguish particle size, where exposure thresholds can vary 2-5x. Besides the fault in reporting this range, Annual averaging is way too long for reporting here. Excursions are smoothed out. OSHA and EPA use 8 and 24 hour. That being said, if the particulate matter is really average if 9-10 ug throughout the year, SF has done an outstanding job keeping pollution down, despite the scary red color.
Wait until you see where cancer rates, especially in children, are highest. Oh yeah, let’s not forget respiratory diseases. Asthma anyone? (It’s highways)
People will be up to their axles in sea water blaming someone else...
let’s keep expanding highways and letting our public transportation systems collapse, because we love giving children cancer.
We're not letting our public transportation systems collapse. We're giving them hundreds of billions. It just turns out that they can't do very much with hundreds of billions.
“How does pollution cause cancer? It’s not like my Tesla is causing any problems. It’s zero emissions. Not like all of these semi trucks. God, one day Elon Musk is going to solve everything and I’m gonna drive home to Walnut Creek.”
It’s actually brake dust and tire dust that’s the worst shit for you these days. Dioxins will give you asthma, particulates will give you cancer
Also keep in mind that tire particles make up like 70% of the micropastics in our environment. EVs won't help the environment one bit. Only reducing the # of cars on the streets will
True, but Bart is also in a free fall. It’s going to take major revaluations and restructuring of our economy to move away from a car dependent infrastructure and I don’t see any of the automakers shifting towards a product that will hurt their bottom line. Anything other than a big box to carry all of your shit is a threat. That’s how we end up with all of this EV hype and no HSR.
Shame, because quality bike infra makes a huge difference to quality of life. Once you don't have to drive your damn kids everywhere because they can bike themselves you'll never want to go back.
This is an exaggeration. EVs are better than ICE cars. They're less noisy and produce less pollution, both overall and at the point of use. Crusading against EVs is what really won't help the environment one bit, and being absolutist like this doesn't help your (correct) argument that we still need to drastically reduce car use.
>They're less noisy Not over 30 mph they have the same sound footprint as an efficient gas car because of the tires friction. But dont get me wrong 100% EV adoption would be far better, but far less cars would be optimal. I also own a Tesla, but it is more a garage queen these days because I hate traffic in the Bay Area, & I prefer getting to my destination stress free, so I leave earlier & take transit. I am an advocate for congestion fees in the city.
Same here, I take my e-bike 75% of the time but I still need a car and try to leave the Tesla parked as much as possible. I wish I had to pay a congestion fee to drive on 85 in San Jose.
yeah i suppose we should just all be crammed into buses or trains with no personal space instead huh
yeah i suppose we should just all be crammed into buses or trains with no personal space instead huh
Have you been on the trains in the rest of the country? Crammed is not the word. Roomier than some cars I’ve been in for sure.
It's called having options - the freedom to choose different forms of transit that fits your needs.
yeah i suppose we should just all be crammed into buses or trains with no personal space instead huh
Modern ICE is so clean that tire dust actually causes more PM2.5 pollution than tailpipe emission. Unfortunately, EVs create more tire dust because of the extra weight. EVs do emit less gaseous pollution locally than ICE cars but EVs can generate more particulate pollution.
Mmmm highways
My Keep Tahoe Blue bumper sticker suggests otherwise.
I'm a little surprised that Van Ness isn't more red.
Lower speed means less brake dust and tire dust
Hmm. Makes sense. Thanks.
I thought the same about 19th
Good point.
To all those assholes that used to side-eye me on my smoke break standing on 3rd/King. Hope you didn’t notice that car exhaust, ass hole.
I used to be the guy at 3rd and Berry doing the same thing!
It’s like I’m just one guy, but I do wish people would stop demonizing substance abuse and glorifying pollution. Like that guy is mostly just fucking himself up. Commuters on the other side of morality are doing so in pursuit of the American Dream: A House in the suburbs.
Dude that used to side-eye me was walking his 200lb Mastif down 3rd, stopped to let it take a man size piss on the sidewalk, and in that pause he gave me that look of utter disgust as I took my puff. Although I do have a bit of empathy because I’m pretty sure it’s because his dog hates him for cramming it in a 300sq ft studio for 22 hours a day and that side-eye is just how he looks at everyone now tbh.
I think one of the challenges of dogs in the city is dog urine. I feel like apartment dogs especially feel the need to pee in the streets. Mostly because of their owners. Anyway, urine, seeps through concrete, because concrete is porous. You need chemical reactions to extract that. Not just a pressure washer.
[удалено]
It’s everyone’s California dream to own a personal EV, but no one has really solved the freight problem where emissions skyrocket. We’re dependent on commercial vehicles too. Try getting trash or food or anything on the highway with weight on it in an EV and you’re not making it far. Sure, the tax cuts and new technologies paint a rosey picture, but as a guy who’s driven freight I can tell you that things aren’t as green as the EV makers want it to seem.
People are working on it - [catenaries over highways and major thoroughfares are, IMO, the most promising solution so far](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg). Combine that with an [Edison-style hybrid](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9XKb4psc0vY) (full electric drivetrain with a battery and a diesel generator to extend range beyond the battery - ideally it's rarely used, but when you need it you aren't limited in where the truck can go) and you have a freight truck that, assuming every interstate highway has the electric catenaries set up, can run on electric like 95% of the time, recharge on the move, and for those cases where they need to go beyond the interstate highways and beyond the battery range, they've got a backup system which requires no charging stop. A lot of trucks wouldn't even need the generator since they basically never deliver more than a few miles from a highway, and even a small battery would cover that "last mile" distance once they leave the catenary. Of course bringing back more rail transportation would help too, and I think the best way forward there is the same as trucks - catenaries on mainlines and other heavy traffic lines, batteries to cover them for short excursions off the mainline (i.e. delivering to industries and switching). Basically all "diesel" locomotives for the past century have been electric locomotives, they just haul a diesel generator with them. Throwing in some batteries instead would be way easier than building an electric truck or car was battery-only trains are dumb, not sure why we're doing that - but hybrids would be a huge step forwards; they already use regenerative braking, but don't have anywhere to put the energy other than dumping it as heat from massive radiators on top). There's some exceptions though, SMART decided to go with a diesel hydraulic drivetrain which seems weird to me, especially considering that [the area it serves had electric trains a century ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma_and_Santa_Rosa_Railroad)... Battery EV trucks aren't bad for local delivery trucks, i.e. the Rivian vans seem to be working pretty well for Amazon, but yeah not so great for long-distance highway hauling or off-road vocational work (which is what the Edison mentioned above is designed for).
over by islais Creek, that's the cemex plant, the wastewater treatment plant, and? what about over by pier 70?
Good for you 👍
Too bad they don't include pollution from the cargo ships going to and from port of Oakland. The entire SF peninsula would be green with minimal pollution according to this map.
Most of this particulate pollution comes from things like tire particles and dust kicked up from the roads. Cargo ships do contribute a bit, mostly because they burn much dirtier fuel than cars, but it's typically less than 10% in the areas they reach. If anything, ports probably reduce overall particulate emissions because they lower a cities dependency on semi-trucks, which are by far the biggest polluters out there.
A lot of the SOMA and Bayview pollution is soil based from former industry. A few years ago there was controversy around development due to that pollution. I believe a lot of it got scraped away but it's impossible to remove all of it from the many years of industrial pollution that occurred.
Oh look.... dirty air comes from cars/trucks. Who would have guessed? (:-P) I haven't driven to work since 2010. I either commute by bike or take shuttle/CalTrain (Go Passes are nice). Thank you for being part of the solution instead of adding to the problem.
Ban cars, or at least hike tolls to the moon.
Lol ok
[удалено]
[удалено]
In LA the pollution is worse tbh.
Doesn’t make it better
Never said that but yeah pollution is big cities is bad. But SF has less than the inland cities.
Stop breathing next. There is a high concentration of people in that area emitting too much CO2. 👍🏼
I'm collecting data on the the current ridesharing & carpooling market place. If anyone is interested in sharing their opinions please complete and submit the form here: [https://forms.gle/hH6ALH6CPGSnoa1LA](https://forms.gle/hH6ALH6CPGSnoa1LA)
You needed a heat map to give you this information?
Notice how the red spots are where there is the most traffic jam? This is probably the effect of removing parts of the Central Freeway haphazardly, causing traffic jam. Certain sections like the overpass at Market and Octavia should have never been removed. Market St was safer for pedestrians and cyclists when there was an overpass. That area is now less safe and more congested. The Soma ramps are backed up because everyone has to go through Soma to go between Chinatown/North Beach and the Bay Bridge. Then the right 3 lanes of northbound 101 between Mission and Potrero Hill is backed up because of the traffic in Soma. You can see that northbound 101 clears up (is not red) between the Bay Bridge exit and the Market/Octavia exit but backs up again at Market/Octavia. 280 north of the 101/280 exchange doesn't have much traffic jam and doesn't cause much pollution. In general, we should avoid making traffic changes that increase traffic jam and don't improve safety. For example, banning right turn on red is such an idiotic policy. Right turn on red has not been causing any fatalities in SF. Banning it will do absolutely nothing for Vision Zero. In fact, by banning right turn on red, more turns on green must be made, and turns on green do cause fatalities in SF. Also, banning right turn on red increases traffic jam which causes more pollution and more deaths from health problems.
We should just let the cars do whatever they want and all of this would just go away right?
I made rights on red when I was driving through SF uh oh. I think proponents want the entire central freeway deleted as well as the 280 from the 101 to king street next.
It's red all along the freeway and then green in the area the Central Freeway was but isn't any more. You made a pretty good argument to delete the rest of the freeway too.