111–120 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not being facetious when I say "it won't help establish humanity on Mars".
Quite the contrary. The colonies must be builded underground to protect them from radiation and cold, so boring'll be used a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NYC didn't have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don't see why it would…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
But there is still a last mile problem, you have to enter and exit out of the tunnels. That's the last mile. Or do you suggest that tunnel building will become so viable from an economic and engineering standpoint that everyone will have an entry point in their garage? > This freedom-supporting tech also thwarts the tyranny inherent in public transit (schedules, robbing your life with all the waiting, limited load ca…
The idea of public transit being redefined as 6-8 passenger vehicles you get paired with at the bus stop that then use the tunnel network to decrease transit time for those who need to use public transit is also absent from your retort. As is the honesty about the typical case for public transit, non-peak. This case in the tunnel system suddenly realized for a fraction of the cost because vehicles are on-demand instead of driving a mostly empty big ass bus (or light rail car) on a route according to a schedule. It's basically for public transit what streaming is for TV.
Also, all of the things you describe as "tyranny" are actually choices, making them "freedom", the opposite of "tyranny". I've lived in Los Angeles for almost 35 years and I've never chosen a 1+ hour commute, though you are free to if you choose. I also don't choose to go to the parking insane areas. Again, your choice. But there is little choice with current public transit solutions. You go where they tell you when they tell you and that's that. And don't forget your mandatory sampling of the, I'll put it nicely, culture du jour.
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 cha…
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...
It'll obviously be more efficient to dig a wider tunnel than multiple tunnel on a single route. So, unless I'm wrong, to me it looks like it'll only be one tunnel, with one track to and one track back.
How many people do you think can be transported in a direction in a 'sled' in one lane? I'm talking about one point to another point throughput not the complete network. I'm betting the numbers will be very underwhelming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NYC didn't have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don't see why it would…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NYC didn't have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don't see why it would…
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#Farebox...
heh, sorry Miami, Orlando, Tampa and I'm sure many others.
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.
Easier, yes. Cheaper, no.
> At some point the holes could cause collapses.
The risk is extremely low, and car accidents have caused a vastly greater number of deaths than any other form of transportation.
> There's also water mains and other hazards and obstacles.
Pretty sure there were some pretty massive hazards with flying too.
> Sounds dangerous.
Which a lot of people said about flying as well. And it's vastly safer than a car.