Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

Noise and day-to-day quality of life

• Many comments say the most striking change from fewer cars isn’t just cleaner air but quieter streets: easier conversation, less stress, more pleasant walking.
• Covid lockdowns and early congestion pricing in Manhattan are cited as “previews” of what reduced traffic sounds and feels like.
• Electric vehicles in Chinese cities are described as transforming soundscapes; others note that in parts of Europe, poor window sealing still lets in moped and scooter noise.

Policies: congestion pricing, parking, and taxes

• Road pricing and expensive parking are seen as powerful levers to cut traffic, free up space, and fund transit.
• Debate over fairness: some call road-use taxes a “poor tax,” others argue most car commuters into dense cores are not poor and exemptions/discounts can handle edge cases.
• Several insist pricing alone is insufficient: without safe streets, good transit, and zoning reform, you can end up with fewer cars but more danger and little modal shift.

What actually reduced pollution?

• Discussion splits between:
  • Urban design changes (removing parking, adding bike lanes, pedestrianization, speed limits, Crit’air restrictions),
  • And technological change (stricter standards, catalytic converters, especially banning older diesels).
• Some visitors and residents say Paris genuinely feels cleaner, quieter, and less chaotic than in the 2000s, though cars and two-stroke scooters are still very present.
• Others argue the article over-attributes gains to “car bans” when much could be from diesel phaseouts and better engines.

Cars vs alternatives: transit, bikes, and city form

• Strong current arguing that even electric cars remain problematic in cities: danger, space consumption, congestion, ugliness, and social fragmentation.
• Pro–bike and transit voices point to Dutch and other European examples: car ownership can remain high but car use drops if walking, cycling, and transit are safe and convenient.
• Counter-arguments stress hardships for families, tradespeople, and disabled people in cities like Paris where car use is discouraged but legacy transit is overcrowded, inaccessible, or unsafe-feeling.

Non-exhaust pollution (tires, brakes, weight)

• Multiple threads dissect studies claiming over half of modern road-traffic particulates now come from tires, brakes, and road dust.
• Points raised:
  • EVs generally produce less brake dust (regenerative braking, slower pad wear) but may produce more tire wear if heavier and driven aggressively.
  • Tire/brake particles differ toxicologically from diesel exhaust; comparing by mass alone is misleading.
  • Proposals include lighter vehicles, drum brakes, harder-compound tires, better materials, and simply fewer/lower-speed cars.

Equity, suburbs, and systemic change

• Several commenters emphasize that car-centric design deepens inequality: in many US cities, lacking a car can lock people out of jobs and food access.
• Others sketch extensive reform agendas: tearing down urban freeways, upzoning, reallocating road space to bikes and buses, building serious regional rail, and shifting taxes from property to land.
• There’s broad agreement that transforming North American suburbs is politically and financially hard, but not technically impossible.

Skepticism about Paris data and institutions

• A minority calls the article “propaganda,” claiming conflicting air-quality studies, deceptive “before/after” imagery, and that industry, not cars, dominates regional pollution.
• One thread questions the neutrality of Airparif (the monitoring body) because of public and EU funding; others counter that all actors have some bias and the methodology and results must be judged on their merits.

Deeper attitudes toward cars in cities

• Many see car-centric planning as a historic mistake and a key driver of health problems, noise, danger, and isolation.
• Others push back that cars solved earlier urban problems (horse waste, safety, mobility) and remain essential tools—arguing for “less and cleaner” rather than “none.”
• The Paris case is read as evidence that meaningful reductions are possible—but how far to go, and how to do it fairly, remains hotly contested.