3 ms·

> continuing (over-)emphasis on cars is inefficient and wasteful compared to other options Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have

> continuing (over-)emphasis on cars is inefficient and wasteful compared to other options Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have done it decades ago. It's not like this is a new idea. Quite ironic to call AVs "pie-in-the-sky," then propose a gargantuan fixed infrastructure overhaul (which has been consistently mired in inaction for decades) instead. > tire noise will become a larger proportion. Who cares about "proportion?" Absolute quantity is what matters here. Anyway I think this has played out. Good discussion, cheers

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
The video points out that the Netherlands only began this "gargantuan fixed infrastructure overhaul" in the '90s, and until then Dutch cities were car-centric and looked pretty much just like North American ones, so it shouldn't really be that hard.
throw0101d 2y ago
> Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have done it decades ago. It's not like this is a new idea. It was done decades ago… like in the Netherlands. As he explains in the video (@43:28), Utrecht and "Fake London" (London, ON, CA, where he grew up) have similar populations (300K vs 400K), and at one point were about equally car-focused. But one city deemphasized car use and the other continue to emphasize it. Similarly Amsterdam switched focus and now is a poster child for active transportation: * https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-... * https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amsterdam-historic-images-depicting-the-transition-from-cars-to-bikes/ https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amster... Paris seems to have begun the process: * https://momentummag.com/paris-cycling-numbers-double/ https://momentummag.com/paris-cycling-numbers-double/ * https://www.cntraveler.com/story/biking-cycling-in-paris-france https://www.cntraveler.com/story/biking-cycling-in-paris-fra... In contrast, many US cities are enacting policies and street designs that make things car centric (discussed @34:16) and hostile towards humans. Contrast that with designs that don't hinder humans as much: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUZA76L09M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUZA76L09M > Who cares about "proportion?" Absolute quantity is what matters here. If there is X dB of noise, and (say) 80% of it is produced tire-road interaction, there is a floor that it cannot go below. And if "More traffic = more transportation services provided" is desired as you stated above, the proportion reduced by aerodynamic improvements will be eaten by by more vehicles on the road, for no net gain. And you'll still have non-noise pollution like tire and brake dust.
oblio 2y ago
> Quite ironic to call AVs "pie-in-the-sky," then propose a gargantuan fixed infrastructure overhaul (which has been consistently mired in inaction for decades) instead. Action happens, but it's hard to spot: https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=VC50ougKXQJp4nSz https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=VC50ougKXQJp4nSz https://youtu.be/PUnRr69GHJg?si=nopp1t0Sagj_YnXi https://youtu.be/PUnRr69GHJg?si=nopp1t0Sagj_YnXi Many places are adding roundabouts, bike lanes, etc. It's just slow and in some places they still don't get it (the South, Texas and Florida in particular).
bakemawaytoys 2y ago
> Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have done it decades ago. It's not like this is a new idea. The Netherlands did do this decades ago (Utrecht from the video). What's North America's excuse?
mcv 2y ago
It has been done decades ago. Just not in the US. And not because it's somehow a bad idea there, but because it has a powerful oil lobby. The video even discussed how private tram companies in the US were bought up and dismantled in order to create more demand for cars.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

The video points out that the Netherlands only began this "gargantuan fixed infrastructure overhaul" in the '90s, and until then Dutch cities were car-centric and looked pretty much just like North American ones, so it shouldn't really be that hard.

throw0101d 2y ago

> Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have done it decades ago. It's not like this is a new idea. It was done decades ago… like in the Netherlands. As he explains in the video (@43:28), Utrecht and "Fake London" (London, ON, CA, where he grew up) have similar populations (300K vs 400K), and at one point were about equally car-focused. But one city deemphasized car use and the other continue to emphasize it. Similarly Amsterdam switched focus and now is a poster child for active transportation: * https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-... * https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amsterdam-historic-images-depicting-the-transition-from-cars-to-bikes/ https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amster... Paris seems to have begun the process: * https://momentummag.com/paris-cycling-numbers-double/ https://momentummag.com/paris-cycling-numbers-double/ * https://www.cntraveler.com/story/biking-cycling-in-paris-france https://www.cntraveler.com/story/biking-cycling-in-paris-fra... In contrast, many US cities are enacting policies and street designs that make things car centric (discussed @34:16) and hostile towards humans. Contrast that with designs that don't hinder humans as much: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUZA76L09M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUZA76L09M > Who cares about "proportion?" Absolute quantity is what matters here. If there is X dB of noise, and (say) 80% of it is produced tire-road interaction, there is a floor that it cannot go below. And if "More traffic = more transportation services provided" is desired as you stated above, the proportion reduced by aerodynamic improvements will be eaten by by more vehicles on the road, for no net gain. And you'll still have non-noise pollution like tire and brake dust.

oblio 2y ago

> Quite ironic to call AVs "pie-in-the-sky," then propose a gargantuan fixed infrastructure overhaul (which has been consistently mired in inaction for decades) instead. Action happens, but it's hard to spot: https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=VC50ougKXQJp4nSz https://youtu.be/XOpjDSUmPtU?si=VC50ougKXQJp4nSz https://youtu.be/PUnRr69GHJg?si=nopp1t0Sagj_YnXi https://youtu.be/PUnRr69GHJg?si=nopp1t0Sagj_YnXi Many places are adding roundabouts, bike lanes, etc. It's just slow and in some places they still don't get it (the South, Texas and Florida in particular).

bakemawaytoys 2y ago

> Again I don't disagree, but if it were really so easy we would have done it decades ago. It's not like this is a new idea. The Netherlands did do this decades ago (Utrecht from the video). What's North America's excuse?

mcv 2y ago

It has been done decades ago. Just not in the US. And not because it's somehow a bad idea there, but because it has a powerful oil lobby. The video even discussed how private tram companies in the US were bought up and dismantled in order to create more demand for cars.