4 ms·

Would this be a problem if these cars exclusively took off from the top of sky scrapers? If I remember from my time in Nyc, above the 20th floor it’s quite hard

Would this be a problem if these cars exclusively took off from the top of sky scrapers? If I remember from my time in Nyc, above the 20th floor it’s quite hard to hear even the loudest noises from the street. Presumably from the ground, it’d be hard to hear one of these taking off on the 30th floor.

downtide 7y ago
I live rurally near a busy trunk road. I can walk about 1/2 mile away and the road is still in my line of sight, and it is still 'loud' (as in irritating). However, I'm blighted by this road as I'm so close to its proximity. And it disturbs me. However, I did notice when visiting a busy part of town recently that it was a complete aural assualt, and as such, you might hear/perceive less under the cacaphony of much. I can hear drones that fly over, but it's not a horrible noise. Much car noise these days seems to come from friction on the road as engines have gotten much quieter. So with that in mind, perhaps in all they'd be quieter, but I can't see an easy way to environmentally muffle the sound, could you invert the sound?
- ses1984 7y ago
  I would like to know what the measurement of the loudness when you are 1/2 mile away from the road.
  - downtide 7y ago
    The quotes around 'loud' here, is an emphasis on relativeness. There is a flyover down the valley and sound flies off that. You only recognise silence in the event of road closure. Then momentary bliss is attained through someone elses misery.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
It severely restricts the potential market if you do this (only travels from one skyscraper to another are supported). For instance you can just completely forget about Washington DC, London and Paris, and many more cities. And even in cities with skyscrapers, they tend to be clustered in one or two districts, so you can only travel within a very small part of the city. My feeling about the current push for flying cars and autonomous transport, is that when our grandchildren ask us about it, it will be in the same way as children today ask why they were still playing violins when the Titanic went down.
- pilsetnieks 7y ago
  Well, skyscraper to skyscraper (or helipad, or other permitted areas) would be a start. Eventually the tech could catch up - for example, with materials like these - https://phys.org/news/2019-03-acoustic-metamaterial-cancels.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-acoustic-metamaterial-cancels.... - being developed.
  - imhoguy 7y ago
    Skyscraper cable cars would be less expensive/noisy/power hungry and with more capacity. https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/envisioning-the-urban-skyscraper-of-2050/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/envisioning-the-urba...
    - vidarh 7y ago
      Skyscraper cable cars require them to be near enough to each other, which would limit them to far fewer city centres. London for example has very few skyscrapers, but several parts of town have some and quite a few more have a bunch of 20+ story buildings, but only two areas (City and Docklands) have many buildings like that clustered close enough for cable cars to seem potentially viable by far enough for it to possibly be interesting.
    - xvilka 7y ago
      It reminds me of Canopy from the Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space book series.
- vidarh 7y ago
  If going by an aim to only land them above 20th floor, then my suburb of London alone is up to 5 buildings over 20 floors, with the highest (not yet complete) at 44, and planning permission given for about half a dozen in the 20-55 floor range given. Lots of parts of London have at least one building that high,and several has buildings quite a bit taller. Not all of town would be covered, but even just the ability to get to/from a handful of central points that are on the train and tube network would be valuable even if that will prevent them from being as useful as they otherwise could. Sure,if you only allow that, then it will be a quite severely limiting factor, but places less densely populated are also more likely to have at least some suitable spots where allowing landings on lower buildings will be ok. And it doesn't need to work everywhere to be worthwhile.
vkou 7y ago
Helicopters are much louder than street noise. You may barely hear the street at the 30th floor, but a helicopter flying 300 feet above the ground is going to be incredibly loud.
taneq 7y ago
We could solve the skyscraper-to-skyscraper problem much more effectively with a series of ziplines.
- benj111 7y ago
  I would guess that would be the pivot for Zipcar.
nradov 7y ago
Most skyscrapers don't have a safe space to land on the roof due to weight restrictions, antennas, HVAC equipment, etc. Modifications to allow flight operations would be expensive. Only a few existing skyscrapers have helipads.
leoedin 7y ago
The Pan Am building in NYC used to have a helipad, but there was a crash [1] and it was removed. Today most western cities have helipads tucked out the way - on the river in London and NYC for instance - for safety. Every time a helicopter falls out the sky and lands on an unfortunate pedestrian, the rules tighten. That's not going to change with drones. [1]: https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-helicopter-accident-on-top-of-pan-am-building-kills-five/ https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-he...
smacktoward 7y ago
Forget helicopters, the top of the Empire State Building has a Zeppelin dock: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html

downtide 7y ago

I live rurally near a busy trunk road. I can walk about 1/2 mile away and the road is still in my line of sight, and it is still 'loud' (as in irritating). However, I'm blighted by this road as I'm so close to its proximity. And it disturbs me. However, I did notice when visiting a busy part of town recently that it was a complete aural assualt, and as such, you might hear/perceive less under the cacaphony of much. I can hear drones that fly over, but it's not a horrible noise. Much car noise these days seems to come from friction on the road as engines have gotten much quieter. So with that in mind, perhaps in all they'd be quieter, but I can't see an easy way to environmentally muffle the sound, could you invert the sound?

ses1984 7y ago
I would like to know what the measurement of the loudness when you are 1/2 mile away from the road.
- downtide 7y ago
  The quotes around 'loud' here, is an emphasis on relativeness. There is a flyover down the valley and sound flies off that. You only recognise silence in the event of road closure. Then momentary bliss is attained through someone elses misery.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

It severely restricts the potential market if you do this (only travels from one skyscraper to another are supported). For instance you can just completely forget about Washington DC, London and Paris, and many more cities. And even in cities with skyscrapers, they tend to be clustered in one or two districts, so you can only travel within a very small part of the city. My feeling about the current push for flying cars and autonomous transport, is that when our grandchildren ask us about it, it will be in the same way as children today ask why they were still playing violins when the Titanic went down.

pilsetnieks 7y ago
Well, skyscraper to skyscraper (or helipad, or other permitted areas) would be a start. Eventually the tech could catch up - for example, with materials like these - https://phys.org/news/2019-03-acoustic-metamaterial-cancels.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-acoustic-metamaterial-cancels.... - being developed.
- imhoguy 7y ago
  Skyscraper cable cars would be less expensive/noisy/power hungry and with more capacity. https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/envisioning-the-urban-skyscraper-of-2050/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/envisioning-the-urba...
  - vidarh 7y ago
    Skyscraper cable cars require them to be near enough to each other, which would limit them to far fewer city centres. London for example has very few skyscrapers, but several parts of town have some and quite a few more have a bunch of 20+ story buildings, but only two areas (City and Docklands) have many buildings like that clustered close enough for cable cars to seem potentially viable by far enough for it to possibly be interesting.
  - xvilka 7y ago
    It reminds me of Canopy from the Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space book series.
vidarh 7y ago
If going by an aim to only land them above 20th floor, then my suburb of London alone is up to 5 buildings over 20 floors, with the highest (not yet complete) at 44, and planning permission given for about half a dozen in the 20-55 floor range given. Lots of parts of London have at least one building that high,and several has buildings quite a bit taller. Not all of town would be covered, but even just the ability to get to/from a handful of central points that are on the train and tube network would be valuable even if that will prevent them from being as useful as they otherwise could. Sure,if you only allow that, then it will be a quite severely limiting factor, but places less densely populated are also more likely to have at least some suitable spots where allowing landings on lower buildings will be ok. And it doesn't need to work everywhere to be worthwhile.

vkou 7y ago

Helicopters are much louder than street noise. You may barely hear the street at the 30th floor, but a helicopter flying 300 feet above the ground is going to be incredibly loud.

taneq 7y ago

We could solve the skyscraper-to-skyscraper problem much more effectively with a series of ziplines.

benj111 7y ago
I would guess that would be the pivot for Zipcar.

nradov 7y ago

Most skyscrapers don't have a safe space to land on the roof due to weight restrictions, antennas, HVAC equipment, etc. Modifications to allow flight operations would be expensive. Only a few existing skyscrapers have helipads.

leoedin 7y ago

The Pan Am building in NYC used to have a helipad, but there was a crash [1] and it was removed. Today most western cities have helipads tucked out the way - on the river in London and NYC for instance - for safety. Every time a helicopter falls out the sky and lands on an unfortunate pedestrian, the rules tighten. That's not going to change with drones. [1]: https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-helicopter-accident-on-top-of-pan-am-building-kills-five/ https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-he...

smacktoward 7y ago

Forget helicopters, the top of the Empire State Building has a Zeppelin dock: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html