AVs can be buses, so the point about "private transportation" is orthogonal to AVs.
It went unmentioned that noise also correlates with drag, and upcoming mass market AVs are far more aerodynamic than existing cars. Quantity of noise matters here, not just "makes [non-zero] noise."
If we want to restrict speed, AVs can reliably achieve that (vs speed enforcement of human drivers). Computers never get impatient! Again AV buses are left out in your analysis.
Restructuring all American cities to be like Swedish cities is far more "pie-in-the-sky," sorry to break it to you.
"Will destroy cities" remains vastly overblown given the actual concerns being voiced here. And again, zero credit for ultimately preventing millions of fatalities annually (which is literally "cities" worth of people being "destroyed"). Where is your concern for those people?
> AVs can be buses too, so your point about "private transportation" is orthogonal to the AV issue.
AV public transit mentioned @30:58. More general point is continuing (over-)emphasis on cars is inefficient and wasteful compared to other options, regardless of whether the cars are human- or computer-driven.
> You neglect to mention that noise is correlated with drag, and upcoming mass AVs are far more aerodynamically efficient than existing cars. Quantity matters here, not just "makes noise.
Even now, with perhaps less aerodynamically efficient cars, tire noise is the largest source, so if aerodynamic efficiency goes up then tire noise will become a larger proportion:
> 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
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.
> 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:
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:
> 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.
> 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.
It went unmentioned that noise also correlates with drag, and upcoming mass market AVs are far more aerodynamic than existing cars. Quantity of noise matters here, not just "makes [non-zero] noise."
If we want to restrict speed, AVs can reliably achieve that (vs speed enforcement of human drivers). Computers never get impatient! Again AV buses are left out in your analysis.
Restructuring all American cities to be like Swedish cities is far more "pie-in-the-sky," sorry to break it to you.
"Will destroy cities" remains vastly overblown given the actual concerns being voiced here. And again, zero credit for ultimately preventing millions of fatalities annually (which is literally "cities" worth of people being "destroyed"). Where is your concern for those people?