Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boring Company FAQ

boringcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 472 posts

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#91

Post by mandude »

discodave wrote: post #48

The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence! "To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D" The word "must" is a very strong one here, there are other options: * Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping). * Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access). * Incre…

You can also fly. Skies are more 3D than digging and easier to access -- the problem with digging is that many people live and work and drive right above where you dig. At some point the holes could cause collapses. There's also water mains and other hazards and obstacles. Sounds dangerous.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#92

Post by cmac2992 »

>By placing vehicles on a stabilized electric sled, the diameter can be reduced to less than 14 feet.

Interesting. No chance of large commerical vehicles in tunnels at that size.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#94

Post by Baeocystin »

deftnerd wrote: post #41

I'm more interested in the nuances of tunneling, like how they'll handle water seepage and flooding. Flooding is actually a huge problem with climate change causing larger and more frequent major weather events. After Hurricane Sandy, it took almost a week to reopen the subway tunnels. I can just imagine the kind of kinetic force that'll occur if a sled carrying a car slams into a section that has a few feet of water…

>Any good paints or fabrics or metamaterials that could be used as a tunnel liner that only allow water to wick in one direction (from tunnel internals to surrounding soil)?

Thermodynamically impossible without an input of energy. FWIW.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#95

Post by ProAm »

Erik816 wrote: post #87
nihonde wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo is a much bigger city. They solved the problem by building elevated toll highways. Much simpler solution than digging new holes everywhere and keeping those silly carts running.

Isn't that still taking roads 3D?

What's more expensive and has long term track record success?

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#96

Post by cavemanklaus »

discodave wrote: post #48

The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence! "To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D" The word "must" is a very strong one here, there are other options: * Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping). * Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access). * Incre…

Agreed this is exactly the line of inquiry needed Dave. The Boring Company while novel, does not seem to be a representative "first principles" approach Elon has taken with other problems, it's we have cars how do we move more of them faster. I lived in London 10 years and happily moved from home, work, social activity on trains and buses very easily and happily. It's either you move to it, or it moves to you, or change the game so you don't need to physically move to be effective/productive/social i.e. remote work, home delivery, VR socialising. The Boring tunnel network - tunnel network as a service? TNaaS would be great for an automated freight and home delivery network, kind of like the modern scaled up pneumatic tube delivery system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd58w0CXQrM I can imagine Amazon scaling this up.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#97

Post by enraged_camel »

discodave wrote: post #48

The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence! "To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D" The word "must" is a very strong one here, there are other options: * Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping). * Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access). * Incre…

>>* Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access).

Nope. Denser cities are both more efficient and more walkable.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#98

Post by ktta »

Uhh, this isn't going to be the panacea many are making it out to be here. This will not come close to accommodating the current capacity of freeways.

The tunnel is being planned to be 14 feet wide, which is how it suddenly becomes viable. That's around two 'stabilized electric sleds' in one tunnel.

Current freeways are 8+ lanes and you'll have to consider how the specifics of group travel are going to be worked out.

Can anyone who've done their own research comment on the throughput once there are interconnected tunnels?

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#99

Post by yongjik »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #32
HappyTypist wrote: post #4

This does not answer the most obvious and important question: why not invest in public transport? It's boring but it will work.

This IS public transit. Public transit without the last mile (or in LA, the last 5 miles) problem. This freedom-supporting tech also thwarts the tyranny inherent in public transit (schedules, robbing your life with all the waiting, limited load carrying capacity, forced interactions with antisocial individuals, etc.)

I do love the "freedom" of driving to Lake Tahoe once a year or so, but it's a patently silly adjective for describing people commuting between two fixed points (home and work), at a fixed hour, five times a week. Which is what all these urban traffic ideas are trying to solve, basically.

I don't think all those people stuck at I-680 have a deep love of staring at the next car's bumper for two hours every day. Re-branding it as "freedom" doesn't make the experience particularly palatable.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#100

Post by zild3d »

ktta wrote: post #98

Uhh, this isn't going to be the panacea many are making it out to be here. This will not come close to accommodating the current capacity of freeways. The tunnel is being planned to be 14 feet wide, which is how it suddenly becomes viable. That's around two 'stabilized electric sleds' in one tunnel. Current freeways are 8+ lanes and you'll have to consider how the specifics of group travel are going to be worked out.…

"A large network of road tunnels many levels deep"

It's not just one tunnel...

Post reply on HN