'Carmageddon' in LA makes 'Carmaheaven'

From the University of California – Los Angeles  and the WUWT Obvious Science Department:

With Westwood and UCLA in the middleground
UCLA in the middleground on a clear day (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

‘Carmaheaven’: Closure of 405 in 2011 improved air quality up to 83 percent

Take the time to enjoy a deep breath next weekend when the 405 freeway closes for Carmageddon II. If it’s anything like last year, the air quality is about to get amazing.

In study findings announced Sept. 28, UCLA researchers report that they measured air pollutants during last year’s Carmageddon (July 15) and found that when 10 miles of the 405 closed, air quality near the shuttered portion improved within minutes, reaching levels 83 percent better than on comparable weekends.

Because traffic dipped all over Southern California that weekend, air quality also improved 75 percent in parts of West Los Angeles and Santa Monica and an average of 25 percent regionally — from Ventura to Yucaipa, and Long Beach to Santa Clarita.

The study was led by two professors at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability: Yifang Zhu, who is also an associate professor of environmental health sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, and Suzanne Paulson, who is also a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

While the researchers expected cleaner air, they didn’t expect the improvement to be so dramatic.

“The air was amazingly clean that weekend,” Paulson said. “Our measurements in Santa Monica were almost below what our instruments could detect, and the regional effect was significant. It was a really eye-opening glimpse of what the future could be like if we can move away from combustion engines.”

The research gives a peek at what the air would look like in a healthier Los Angeles with a vast majority of hybrid and electric vehicles and shows how quickly less driving can improve key measures of air quality. But to get a regional effect, the researchers said, you need a regional drop in traffic, like what Los Angeles saw during the first Carmageddon — and it doesn’t last if traffic returns.

“The effect was gone by the next week,” Paulson said. “We measured fresh emissions: pollutants that come directly from cars. It’s a very short-term effect.”

Taking measurements

The researchers measured ultrafine particles (less than 0.1 microns in diameter), which are key indicators of real-time traffic levels, and also fine particulate matter known as “PM2.5” (less than 2.5 microns in diameter), which includes tailpipe emissions and new particles created when the emissions interact with the atmosphere. PM2.5 can spread farther from the freeway and last longer than ultrafine particles, but both are pollutants with health risks. Exposure to near-roadway pollutants has been linked to increases in asthma, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, low birth weight, pre-term births and other ailments, the researchers noted.

Zhu and Paulson found that when traffic dropped more than 90 percent on the closed 405, with only construction vehicles still on the move, ultrafine particles dropped by 83 percent. PM2.5 concentrations dropped 36 percent.

More broadly, ultrafine particles and PM2.5 levels dropped 75 percent across a swath of West Los Angeles near the I-405/I-10 interchange stretching from Santa Monica to Westwood. Elsewhere, they measured PM2.5 and found the air 31 percent cleaner in Ventura, 19 percent cleaner in Yucaipa, 30 percent cleaner in Long Beach, 23.2 percent cleaner in Santa Clarita and 19.9 percent cleaner in Northridge.

“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations, where you would no longer observe health impacts, so any reduction is an improvement,” Zhu said. “This study shows that with such dramatic traffic reductions, there are specific air-quality improvements. It gives policymakers and the public incentives to put more effort into reducing traffic emissions.”

Zhu’s team set up instruments 50 meters upwind and downwind of the 405 near UCLA, where Constitution Avenue crosses the freeway, and measured pollutant levels for 12 hours each Friday, Saturday and Sunday the weekend before, during and after the first Carmageddon.

Zhu used a condensation particle counter and a scanning mobility particle sizer to measure ultrafine particles, a dusttrack to measure PM2.5 amounts, and a video of traffic on the 405 that allowed her team to count and compare traffic volumes.

“People knew about the closure, so we started to see a traffic reduction early Friday, and our data showed a similar trend almost immediately,” Zhu said. “Pollutant levels drop in real time.”

Paulson’s team drove instruments around in their “mobile measurement platform” — a late-1990s electric Toyota Rav-4 equipped with a fast mobility particle sizer to detect ultrafine particle levels and a dusttrack to measure PM2.5 concentrations. The team has used the same route since 2008 and can compare measurements over the years, from Santa Monica’s Sunset Park neighborhood to the Santa Monica Airport, and from north of the 10 freeway, across the 405, and into Rancho Park and Westwood.

For measurements across the Southern California basin, Zhu and Paulson used South Coast Air Quality Management District measures of PM2.5 levels and CalTrans measures of traffic.

Carmageddon II: To breathe, or not to breathe?

Though the pair will not duplicate their research for Carmageddon II this weekend, if there’s less traffic again, the basin will get a brief reprieve from pollution.

“It has to be a significant, regional change, not just 10 miles of freeway closing,” Paulson said. “It was really, really, really clean in Santa Monica, and I don’t think that was due just to the 405, because the wind blows in from the ocean. I think it was due to people not driving around in Santa Monica.”

Indeed, traffic was measurably lower across the Southland, compared with a normal weekend: down 56 percent in Northridge, 21 percent in Ventura, 17 percent in Santa Clarita and Westminster, and 4 percent to 7 percent in Yucaipa, Long Beach, Pomona and Chino.

In fact, without fancy instruments like the dusttrack or a fast mobility particle sizer, traffic may be the only way the average person will know whether air quality is better this weekend.

“These pollutants are too small to see,” Zhu said. “The public will notice if there’s less traffic, but they won’t detect the particles in the air.”

It’s not clear whether Los Angeles will get a repeat of last year’s “Carmaheaven” traffic, but now we know to take advantage, Paulson said.

“If it turns out there’s very little traffic on the freeways,” she said, “everyone should go out and experience what clean air can be like.”

###

The UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability is an educational and research institute that unites disciplines: physical, life and social sciences; business and economics; public policy and urban planning; engineering and technology; and medicine and public health. IoES includes multiple cross-disciplinary research centers, and its environmental science undergraduate degree program is one of the fastest growing majors at UCLA. IoES advises businesses and policymakers on sustainability and the environment and informs and encourages community discussion about critical environmental issues.

For more news, visit the UCLA Newsroom and follow us on Twitter.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 eyes
September 28, 2012 3:43 pm

Air moves, sorta as in wind. Of course if you measure the particulates after the freeway is shut the air will be better because the contaminated air has shifted to somewhere else in a matter of minutes. Research is not required to know this.

Lancifer
September 28, 2012 3:46 pm

“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations…”
Hello new environmental weenie cash cow.

Ben Wilson
September 28, 2012 4:03 pm

Gee, I wonder if any of them thar’ researchers make use of internal combustion engines for their daily transportation. . . . .

Arno Arrak
September 28, 2012 4:21 pm

And the point of measuring these invisible particles is? That is a question someone should have asked before they opted to fund this project. I have no idea from their description of how they justified this boondoggle but I sure would like to hear their answer to this question. I am also so stupid that I have no idea why they have to have a carmaggedon in the first place. Is it a part of their project? Precisely why are public funds dedicated to to something that produces no observable benefit for the public? Is it because California budget is in surplus and they need to unload their excess revenue? Or is this another stealth project the public does not know about until it is decided for them by their betters? Perhaps I am just unreasonable to assume that in a democracy the public has a say about matters affecting public interest.

Richdo
September 28, 2012 4:23 pm

“PM2.5 can spread farther from the freeway and last longer than ultrafine particles, but both are pollutants with health risks. Exposure to near-roadway pollutants has been linked to increases in asthma, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, low birth weight, pre-term births and other ailments, the researchers noted.”
Hey I have an idea…let’s set up an inhalation chamber at a major university and have “volunteer” human subjects breath this sh!t and see what happens to them.
Oh, wait, the epa’s already done that. Never mind.

theBuckWheat
September 28, 2012 4:55 pm

“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations, where you would no longer observe health impacts, so any reduction is an improvement,” Zhu said.
Then how does the EPA justify exposing human test subjects to it, except that they gave themselves a pass, something they would never give to any private researcher.

FerdinandAkin
September 28, 2012 4:56 pm

FOUR OH FIVE (the movie)
[Has someone giving ‘the finger’ at the end. Anthony? Judgement? -ModE]

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 5:04 pm

“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations, where you would no longer observe health impacts, so any reduction is an improvement,” Zhu said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no safe speed for cars below which accidents don’t occurr.
There is no safe number of steps on a staircase below which there is no chance that people will fall down the stairs.
There is no safe amount of food to eat below which your chances of getting a food born disease are zero.
There is no safe distance to walk short of which your chances of being struck by lightning are zero.
I love the “no safe limit” argument. So easily exposed as completely absurd.

rogerknights
September 28, 2012 5:10 pm

There’s no safe speed for traffic, so let’s set the speed limit at zero.

September 28, 2012 5:10 pm

OOOH 83% better! But that’s not 97%!….

September 28, 2012 5:22 pm

Wonder what would result if all the “combustion cars” were converted to run on natural gas? Of course, electric cars create their own emissions back at the power plant, How much depends upon how “electrically efficient” the cars are and what kind of plants they draw their power from. Natural gas cars probably produce fewer particulates than electric cars at this point in time at many locales. But I think the issue is moot – practical batteries look to be not far off. A cheap, fast recharging battery will quickly make ICE powered vehicles obsolete, and it won’t have much to do with emissions. They’re simply more cost effective, given a cheap battery. And subsidizing those folks buying $80,000 Tesla electrics ain’t gonna make cheap batteries show up any faster.
Everybody and his brother is trying to invent a better battery these days.

September 28, 2012 5:29 pm

Lancifer says September 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm:
“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations…”
Hello new environmental weenie cash cow.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Three bells in a row! Pay the man as he’s spot on I think; another round of ‘rent seekers’ (or what used to be called here in the US: “ambulance chasers” – client-seeking attorneys willing to sue for negligence at the drop of a hat) re: PM2.5 et al …
.

temp
September 28, 2012 5:34 pm

Maybe if they made a freeway that wasn’t a parking lot much of the time that would help as well…

Steve C
September 28, 2012 5:37 pm

With all that lovely fresh air around, perhaps someone will write a carmagnole to celebrate it. [Since you ask, it was a popular song and round dance of the French Revolutionary period, but I’m sure the period could be a little more flexibly defined for a good wordplay.]

Doug Huffman
September 28, 2012 5:52 pm

NAS-BEIR VII continues to force Linear No Threshold hypothesis into public policy despite good evidence of Radiation Hormesis. Thanks John William Gofman NOT!

Dilligas
September 28, 2012 6:03 pm

Lancifer says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
“There is no safe level of PM2.5 concentrations…”
Hello new environmental weenie cash cow.
It is the reason why hundreds of coal mines and coal fired electric plants will be shuttering their doors recently and in the near future. And one of the main reasons why energy prices are set to skyrocket in 2015.
Do I need to go on?

RoyFOMR
September 28, 2012 6:04 pm

Dunno where I heard this or maybe I just made it up. I’m getting old so forgive me.
‘Twas a dark dreary night about 30K years ago, a couple of very wise Neanderthals were talking about climate change.
‘All this wood-burning isn’t sustainable. What happens when all the trees are gone?”
The elder of the two thought for a moment and rubbed his beard.
‘You’re right of course’ he said.
‘It’s morally repugnant that we should deprive our descendents of the very stuff of existence while we wallow in such riches’ he continued
The discussion went on and on until, finally, they came to a consensus.
All the tribes, all the elders and all the academies gathered to hear the wise words of their most able intellects.
Votes were taken and despite a few, well-meant but misguided sceptical voices the decision was taken
Homo Sapiens would have to do all the dirty stuff.
Old age forgetfulness strikes again.
Don’t ‘member how it worked out.
Sigh.

September 28, 2012 6:20 pm

This is largely the same game that’s played with the secondhand smoke PM 2.5 studies. See p. 9 at http://tinyurl.com/SmokingBanLies (Bans Reduce Bar Air Pollution by 81, no, 87, no, 93%!) for a critical (although superficial) analysis of the same type of PM2.5 study applied to bars. Basically they’re saying “Gee, if we remove the main (and almost unique) source of this type of pollution, the pollution levels go down!” Gee, big surprise.
The only way in which the finding would be notable would be if we’d had no idea why urban hubs congested with auto traffic had higher PM 2.5 counts than rural farmland. *OF COURSE* the reading goes down when you remove the source.
Now… the second part of the question is where it gets tricky: the health impact. Despite the “no safe level” claims for 24 hour average urban exposures, the lower ends of impact of lower levels of exposure have not, to my knowledge, been decisively defined. On the plus side for the researchers though, at least automotive air pollution studies follow EPA guidelines for 24 hour comparisons — unlike the bar-smoking studies that deliberately ignore EPA guidance and try to apply 24 hour standards to exposures dealing with 8 hours or 1 hours: a very different kettle of fish.
BuckWheat: yes, the justifications for exposing human test subjects is a story in itself. See Steve Milloy’s take on this at: http://epahumantesting.com/
Again, there’s a parallel in the secondhand smoke research area: James Repace (The “Health Physicist” who styles himself as a world-class “secondhand smoke consultant”) sends folks into smoky situations to measure PM 2.5 all the time, and holds forth at great length on its deadlinesss at any level. Yet, if you look at his research papers themselves you find gems like this:
“No risk is expected to volunteers in collecting the data or to anyone in the restaurants during data collection via the air monitor.” http://www.co.marquette.mi.us/departments/health_department/docs/Marquette_Air_Report_Repace_2011.pdf
So, do these pollutants at low levels or for short exposure durations have a real health impact? I don’t believe they do — at least not in any real sense of the words “health impact” in terms of individual concerns and life decisions. On the other hand, you’re probably healthier if you don’t spend 24 hours a day living in Los Angeles or the pool room of a smoky bar.
Finally, if you want to read more on this debate, I’d recommend Googling the following:
( “James Enstrom” PM2.5 )
in parentheses just like that. Enstrom’s been the victim of “Lysenko politics” for daring to speak out against PM2.5 extremists in both the smoking and the diesel exhaust battles and was actually fired from a decades long stint at UCSF (?UCLA?) a couple of years ago and then reinstated after a battle.
– MJM

pat
September 28, 2012 6:21 pm

as i’m getting Superannuation (retirement funds) adverts on this page, anthony, including “switzer super report” which is on australia’s sky business channel, i feel this is not O/T:
29 Sept: News Ltd: The $60 trillion push to turn funds green
A GLOBAL project aims to encourage pension and superannuation fund members to shift some of their $60 trillion in savings into funds that support clean and green technology.
Deutsche Bank estimates less than two per cent of money held by pension, superannuation and sovereign wealth funds is invested in low-carbon assets.
Now the independent, not-for-profit Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP) is asking the world’s largest 1000 asset owners to reveal how they are addressing climate change and the “green economy”…
A related project, The Vital Few, launched in New York overnight, is aimed at getting fund members to join forces and put pressure on fund trustees to shift assets to climate-friendly investments and protect their savings from the risk posed by climate change.
Some of the biggest Australian funds to be covered by the global index include ARIA, AMP, AustralianSuper, Colonial First State, Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and Perpetual.
John O’Connor, from the Climate Institute which is the Australian home of the AODP, said there were dual benefits from the projects.
“It’s about encouraging people to redirect their savings from ***high-carbon, high-risk investments to ones that can help secure a sustainable and prosperous low-carbon future and ensure safe member returns,” Mr O’Connor told AAP…
http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/the-60-trillion-push-to-turn-funds-green/story-e6frfkur-1226483864148
who are they trying to fool? what could be more high-risk than sinking people’s retirement funds into CAGW (ad)ventures? anyone whose money is tied up in such funds, and who objects, needs to write to their fund and complain.

Steve in SC
September 28, 2012 6:22 pm

temp says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Maybe if they made a freeway that wasn’t a parking lot much of the time that would help as well…

I believe we have a winner.
I must say that this being California, my sympathies are extremely limited.

Ian L. McQueen
September 28, 2012 6:23 pm

@Arno Arrak:
September 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm
And the point of measuring these invisible particles is? That is a question someone should have asked before they opted to fund this project.
Arno-
You probably live in Europe and may not have read of the temporary closing of expressway 405 for necessary construction work. For details see: http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-revives-traffic-jam-warnings-carmageddon-2-194914169.html. There may be more by googling ‘carmageddon”, where I found this.
IanM

jim
September 28, 2012 6:39 pm

No safe level??
Look up hormesis
Thanks
JK

September 28, 2012 6:40 pm

“The air was amazingly clean that weekend,” Paulson said. “… It was a really eye-opening glimpse of what the future could be like if we can move away from combustion engines.

Even zero-emission vehicles lift and mobilize fine particulate materials on and near the road surface by their passage. Prof. Paulson is absolutely mistaken if she thinks that the road closure approximates the effect of replacing a normal volume of traffic with zero-emmission vehicles.

theduke
September 28, 2012 6:57 pm

I’m 64 years old and they are going to have to pry that gas pump from my cold dead hands.
Next year I plan to buy a Grand Cherokee hemi with 8 speed transmission. Can’t wait.

Bart
September 28, 2012 7:16 pm

Yeah, there is a danger of taking things to extremes. But, LA sure would be a lot nicer without all the air pollution. On some clear days, it actually is quite beautiful. Granted, it’s probably better now than any time in at least the last 50 years, but still not stellar. Maybe if pollution were not so visible to Angelenos, they wouldn’t be so whackadoodle about environmental stuff.
FerdinandAkin says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“[Has someone giving ‘the finger’ at the end. Anthony? Judgement? -ModE]”
Of course, that only served to make me watch it. Pretty funny.

1 2 3