4 ms·

One can dream. Cities would be so much more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations.

by trgn 3y ago

cglace 3y ago
Probably replaced by fast charging stations?
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations. They are less noisy, less stinky and much smaller, they blend in much better with existing infrastructure e.g. parking spots, driveways.
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    And usually they are combined with existing parking spots.
- trgn 3y ago
  Sure. It's better than a gas station, which pollute the soil for decades, and they really degrade the experience for the neighbors (constant roaring in/out of cars/trucks/...).
- jayd16 3y ago
  You can put those in parking spaces with essentially no impact to footprint, though.
- natch 3y ago
  And at-home plugs for some. I don’t miss the aromas and the fake-story panhandlers.
ericmay 3y ago
Better yet, replace most of the car traffic with walking and bikes and trams. I'm continually bewildered at the additive approach to cars versus a much better subtractive approach. Though I guess cars are more easy to measure for GDP. What's the GDP contribution of a sidewalk? Hard to relate that directly to new businesses and such.
- wombat-man 3y ago
  Having to re-think and rebuild our communities definitely feels like a bigger lift. At least in the US
  - ericmay 3y ago
    I think in a lot of cases (all?) you don't actually have to rebuild. There are easy wins like removing mandatory parking minimums. In downtown Columbus, Ohio around where I live we have a lot of surface parking lots. Those could be housing. We can run a street tram on a 5 mile N/S loop and eliminate traffic, etc. We don't have to build suburban sprawl either. It's not rocket science. We spent I think a billion dollars reconfiguring a highway that runs through downtown. Projects like that are low ROI and largely just make existing problems worse. I would say it certainly requires thinking, but we also know that we can't (and economic physics will dictate this whether we like it or not) continue with car-only infrastructure and we also know for a fact that EVs won't fix many of the problems they seek to address. Emissions can be one area that they help in, but they're not a silver bullet and they're laughable compared to things like busses, biking, walking, street trams, etc. when it comes to addressing emissions (never mind traffic, premature deaths, cost, etc.).
    - wombat-man 3y ago
      Stuff like getting rid of parking minimums might help, but making it less convenient to have a car is one part of the solution alternative transit option, it's mostly just going to frustrate all involved. I think the problem is we already have suburban sprawl. Rezoning and rebuilding the community with mass transit, buses or better yet subways/trams is not cheap. Then you need to get the community that has already invested in their suburban homes, to put their tax money into such public infrastructure.
      - ericmay 3y ago
        There isn’t anything that needs rebuilt in the suburbs (at least where the housing is) you just need density and allowing other types of dwellings and structures to be built, like parks or neighborhood grocery stores and cafes. Really we don’t even need to do the mass transit piece of it to start with and I think when you focus on the huge undertakings you psyche yourself out from being able to do smaller things that have an impact. I do think it would be a monumental task to get people to re-examine how they live and are handicapped by cars, but transit is just one piece of the puzzle there.
Dah00n 3y ago
No, cities would not. EVs make more noice at city speeds than an equivalent ICE. The biggest problem is the tyres they use, so an easy fix some day. (PDF warning) https://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/sites/default/files/publications/noise_from_electric_vehicles_0.pdf https://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/sites/default/files/publicati...
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Your pdf does not support your assertion. Quoting the conclusion: EV’s are 4-5 dB less noisy than similar ICE at low speed when driving at steady speed. But at about 30 km/h the difference in emitted noise is not significant. For speeds higher than 30 km/h the tire/road noise gets dominant and from there on the choice of tire is more essential to noise reduction.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    That's exactly what I said. >For speeds higher than 30 km/h the tire/road noise gets dominant and from there on the choice of tire is more essential to noise reduction. City speed is 50km/h and EVs for some reason comes with loud tires.
- ladberg 3y ago
  Define city speeds? Because this is pretty objectively false at the speeds cars usually drive in all the cities I've lived in. Even the pdf you linked has an EV being recorded louder than an ICE at only a single speed out of all the different speeds and cars they chose.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    No need for me to define anything. The research is from Denmark where, like most of EU cities, the city limit is 50km/h. I have never lived in any city with anything else than 50km/h being the limit and closely to the average.
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  Love it when people make a claim and post a PDF like it's evidence. From your PDF: "The steady speed results of the Nissan Leaf and the Golf variant and the polynomial trend lines are shown in Figure 8. For all the measurements speeds the Leaf [EV] emits less noise than the Golf [ICE]." This is measuring 10kph to 70kph. Also these are small European vehicles compared to other small European vehicles. You won't see those so much in a downtown US city. Consider that the volume in US cities is from the noisiest cars. It doesn't matter if the average car is just as quiet as an EV - it matters what the average total noise is, and that depends on a few loud cars. Likewise pollution. One "rolling coal" fuckwit is all it takes.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
I was pleasantly surprised to realize my little part of town is getting quieter and quieter because more and more EV are getting in. It's a delight. Even if it were polluting just the same forever, it would be a significant improvement.

One can dream. Cities would be so much more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations.

by trgn 3y ago

One can dream. Cities would be so much more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations.

cglace 3y ago

Probably replaced by fast charging stations?

barbazoo 3y ago
> more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations. They are less noisy, less stinky and much smaller, they blend in much better with existing infrastructure e.g. parking spots, driveways.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  And usually they are combined with existing parking spots.
trgn 3y ago
Sure. It's better than a gas station, which pollute the soil for decades, and they really degrade the experience for the neighbors (constant roaring in/out of cars/trucks/...).
jayd16 3y ago
You can put those in parking spaces with essentially no impact to footprint, though.
natch 3y ago
And at-home plugs for some. I don’t miss the aromas and the fake-story panhandlers.

ericmay 3y ago

Better yet, replace most of the car traffic with walking and bikes and trams. I'm continually bewildered at the additive approach to cars versus a much better subtractive approach. Though I guess cars are more easy to measure for GDP. What's the GDP contribution of a sidewalk? Hard to relate that directly to new businesses and such.

wombat-man 3y ago
Having to re-think and rebuild our communities definitely feels like a bigger lift. At least in the US
- ericmay 3y ago
  I think in a lot of cases (all?) you don't actually have to rebuild. There are easy wins like removing mandatory parking minimums. In downtown Columbus, Ohio around where I live we have a lot of surface parking lots. Those could be housing. We can run a street tram on a 5 mile N/S loop and eliminate traffic, etc. We don't have to build suburban sprawl either. It's not rocket science. We spent I think a billion dollars reconfiguring a highway that runs through downtown. Projects like that are low ROI and largely just make existing problems worse. I would say it certainly requires thinking, but we also know that we can't (and economic physics will dictate this whether we like it or not) continue with car-only infrastructure and we also know for a fact that EVs won't fix many of the problems they seek to address. Emissions can be one area that they help in, but they're not a silver bullet and they're laughable compared to things like busses, biking, walking, street trams, etc. when it comes to addressing emissions (never mind traffic, premature deaths, cost, etc.).
  - wombat-man 3y ago
    Stuff like getting rid of parking minimums might help, but making it less convenient to have a car is one part of the solution alternative transit option, it's mostly just going to frustrate all involved. I think the problem is we already have suburban sprawl. Rezoning and rebuilding the community with mass transit, buses or better yet subways/trams is not cheap. Then you need to get the community that has already invested in their suburban homes, to put their tax money into such public infrastructure.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      There isn’t anything that needs rebuilt in the suburbs (at least where the housing is) you just need density and allowing other types of dwellings and structures to be built, like parks or neighborhood grocery stores and cafes. Really we don’t even need to do the mass transit piece of it to start with and I think when you focus on the huge undertakings you psyche yourself out from being able to do smaller things that have an impact. I do think it would be a monumental task to get people to re-examine how they live and are handicapped by cars, but transit is just one piece of the puzzle there.

Dah00n 3y ago

No, cities would not. EVs make more noice at city speeds than an equivalent ICE. The biggest problem is the tyres they use, so an easy fix some day. (PDF warning) https://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/sites/default/files/publications/noise_from_electric_vehicles_0.pdf https://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/sites/default/files/publicati...

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Your pdf does not support your assertion. Quoting the conclusion: EV’s are 4-5 dB less noisy than similar ICE at low speed when driving at steady speed. But at about 30 km/h the difference in emitted noise is not significant. For speeds higher than 30 km/h the tire/road noise gets dominant and from there on the choice of tire is more essential to noise reduction.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  That's exactly what I said. >For speeds higher than 30 km/h the tire/road noise gets dominant and from there on the choice of tire is more essential to noise reduction. City speed is 50km/h and EVs for some reason comes with loud tires.
ladberg 3y ago
Define city speeds? Because this is pretty objectively false at the speeds cars usually drive in all the cities I've lived in. Even the pdf you linked has an EV being recorded louder than an ICE at only a single speed out of all the different speeds and cars they chose.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  No need for me to define anything. The research is from Denmark where, like most of EU cities, the city limit is 50km/h. I have never lived in any city with anything else than 50km/h being the limit and closely to the average.
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Love it when people make a claim and post a PDF like it's evidence. From your PDF: "The steady speed results of the Nissan Leaf and the Golf variant and the polynomial trend lines are shown in Figure 8. For all the measurements speeds the Leaf [EV] emits less noise than the Golf [ICE]." This is measuring 10kph to 70kph. Also these are small European vehicles compared to other small European vehicles. You won't see those so much in a downtown US city. Consider that the volume in US cities is from the noisiest cars. It doesn't matter if the average car is just as quiet as an EV - it matters what the average total noise is, and that depends on a few loud cars. Likewise pollution. One "rolling coal" fuckwit is all it takes.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

I was pleasantly surprised to realize my little part of town is getting quieter and quieter because more and more EV are getting in. It's a delight. Even if it were polluting just the same forever, it would be a significant improvement.