air quality

[Knight22]

I love coming to this site and seeing what everybody has to say. I think the thing that excites us is that the Dallas/Ft. Worth area is growing so rapidly and depending on how that growth is channeled could make or brake this place in terms of quality of life.

One thing that I am particularly concerned with is the future air quality of the region. Even with the downtown revitalization, the expansion of DART, and more infill development, lets face it most of the growth in this area will be towards the suburbs (even though I hope thats not the case!) That means more cars driving greater distances and more pollution. I have a cousin that lives in the LA area and there is a very distinct smell during the night in the summer. I have started to recognize that same smell at night in the Dallas are and it really kind of surprised me. I hope that in 40 years the area won't look or smell like LA but I don't know how realistic that is. I can't imagine what Houston is going to be like in 40 years. Even with all of mass transit and more inner city development, the outlook can't look good for the region. Does anyone know where I can find air pollution future predictions for the region?

[GarrettCarey]

I agree! The pollution is continually getting worse and I would hate to see it get as bad as other cities. This is truly a metroplex problem that requires cooperation. We need to continue to improve/enforce pollution laws, REDUCE driving, improve TRANSIT, and encourage growth in metroplex core! Unfortunatley, etc.....some of those things will never occur or they will occur too late.

The question of the day.....

Why can't our metroplex use other cities as models of what not to do?

[jsoto3]

www.dfwcleanair.com (http://www.dfwcleanair.com)

[smontgomery]

I think that one of the things that is in our favor is the fact that we realize that we have a problem, and there are people (although not nearly as many as I would like) who are concerned. Dallas has a couple of things going for it though: no valleys (LA, Phoenix), and no overwhleming industrial activity (Houston). And I think that in time, DART will change some of the car-dependent mentality: just look at Trinty Fest. For a lot of the other cities, it is too late. They are so set in their ways that I can't imagine what they will be like 40 years from now. (I wonder which American city will beat out Mexico City for the worst air?)
I agree that we need to improve the pollution laws. I think that one of the problems is that the solutions are not affordable to the lower middle-class and the working poor. I was in the barber shop yesterday listening to how many people failed the new inspections. Do you think that this group will care about enforcement of pollution laws if they can't afford to do what is necessary to pass inspection? And think about how many times you've been sitting in traffic behind an early 80's beater-mobile that's spitting pure death out of the tailpipe. These solutions, and the Metroplex anti-pollution strategy in general (if there is one) need to be spelled out in plain English to the entire public, otherwise we're just wasting calories typing on a chat board. Does anyone have any ideas of how to do that?

[Fobulous88]

smontgomery, Which city will beat Mexico City in the U.S.? My guess is Houston. Heck she's on a roll in these recent years!

However bad it might be. i think it will take a long long long time for Houston or L.A. to be like Mexico City or any other cities in Asia. You just have to be there to see the smog...

[tamtagon]

In most cities, personal vehicles are the source of about half of the air quality problem. The DFW break down is (http://www.dfwcleanair.com/emissions/sources.html):

Mobile Sources 48% - cars, trucks
Non-Road Sources 33% - Construction & mining, Airport, Industry
All Other 19%

DFW and Texas can learn from the experiences of California. Recognizing problems, the state of California took several steps to clean up the air. Reduction in air pollution in California was widely attributed to the use of specially blended gasoline.

The results in Los Angeles have been dramatic (http://www.aqmd.gov/).

The number of days ozone levels exceeded the Federal standard peaked in 1977 at 208 days over the limit -- it's like, all the Brady's suffered from asthma. However, in 2001, only 36 days saw the area experience over the limit Ozone levels. During the 80's, air pollution levels remained roughly consistent, and the area exceeded levels between 149 to 180 days. When the 'special' gas usage became mandatory beginning in the 90's, air quality began to improve steadily. The state has also mandated that a percentage of all new car sales (10% I think, but am not sure) operate on electric or hybrid engines. Another program incents the trade in of older gas guzzling autos. Despite millions more cars on the road, air quality has improved.

However, and this is a big however. First, while air quality in the LA basin has improved under Federal standards - 0.12 ppm, the improvement is much less marked when viewed under more stringent state standards 0.09 ppm. As with the Federal Standard, the LA basin's air quality measured it's worst year under state standards in 1977 with 242 days over the limit. In 2001, air quality was still 121 days over the state limit. Under Federal measurements, air pollution is one fifth the problem it was 23 years ago; under state measurements, air pollution is half the problem. Air quality has improved, and the federal dollar availability is more secure, but the health problems persist.

Gasoline industry stated an increase of 10-15 cents per gallon resulted when the state law required the use of the clean gas. In an Erin Brocovich styled investigation, many consumer groups are scrutinizing claims of oil and refinery company's that new refinery construction was mandatory to have the cleaner burning gas. Word on the street is that the oil companies and refinery owners could easily have upgraded existing refineries at almost no additional cost beyond regular maintenance. Industry standard upgrades to refineries were canceled, refinery efficiency declined and when the new gas standard was announced, the existing refineries were in such bad shape, whole new ones had to be build to make the gas. One variable suspicious consumer groups are leveraging is a refinery in Scandinavia - source of much of California gas. Apparently that facility cost much less to build than the new refineries in CA. Consumer groups are also still questioning the politicians who allowed the industry to self-report the refinery dilemma without an outside review. It's the standard suspicion of enormous corporate profit hidden through cleaver accounting and convenient mismanagement -- all at the expense of the consumers.

Possibly the worst result of the new gas is the affect on drinking water. Apparently, the new gas needed new storage containers in addition to new refineries. Unlike the gas used by the rest of the country, California's new, cleaner burning gas contains ingredients which are able to seep through holding tanks and into the ground water. Air pollution became water pollution. From what I understand, the gas responsibile for much of the reduction in air pollution recognized in the 90's is on hold until water pollution is not a factor. What a mess. The monetary cost to Californians is in the billions, easily.

Nevertheless, Texas can learn from and work with California to find a solution.

[freewaytincan]

I can say this, the widespread pollution problems were really not common until post-WWII. It's mainly based on the suburban expansion. After all, half of the emissions in our country are from transportation, and about 42% of all of that is from personal transportation. And you're right, as sad as it is, a lot of the future development will exist outwards. Seems to contradict what people say they want, eh? Downtowns are slowly becoming novelties in America, and because so many people live in the opposite, the air won't just clean up. It's like the people who drive everywhere and live in a former North Texas forest region, and then turn around and fight for the rain forests so far away. It's all a matter of selfish wants and needs.

[freewaytincan]

The problem with it doesn't stop at pollution. Think about this: number one on any government's list in the US is almost always transportation, and that means roads. Schools, on the other hand, are usually third, fourth, or even as low as tenth. Straight priorities? And another example is in today's Metropolitain section of The News. They are installing even more of these "smart signs", but this time, not on the highways. No, they are putting them on Loop 12, Preston, and in the Fair Park area, primarily. It's going to cost a lot, but of course, it will happen. They got federal money. So why the blazes doesn't the DISD get a share of this stuff? Because they - we - don't have much of a choice.