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

421–430 of 472 posts

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#421

Post by criddell »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #265
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans are adverse to change I don't get it, where does that come from anyway? I mean America's mostly a country of immigrants; most inhabitants' forefathers, only a couple generations ago, abandoned everything they know to build up a new life. If that's not change, then IDK what is. I think that at one point it's not about what they want - having the option even to drive anywhere is a luxury a lot of people don…

> I don't get it, where does that come from anyway? The best answer I have: the more people are individualistic, the more difficult it is for them to coordinate. Big changes like fundamental infrastructure require collective buy-in, and when you have lots of self-interested individuals who stand to gain by introducing friction into the process, costs skyrocket. The alternative ends of the spectrum (it's not 1D) of th…

> The best answer I have

That's an excellent answer and I think you are right. Car culture is a big deal in the US and I think the perceived independence it represents is part of the reason why.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#422

Post by ferongr »

Animats wrote: post #412
ferongr wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric car motors are not anywhere near high torque. They're mostly designed for high speeds and go through a reduction gearbox (in addition to the reduction of the differential itself). Furthermore, the motors in Tesla cars are pedestrian in design.

Tesla pioneered mass-produced liquid-cooled electric motors. Those were rare before Tesla. Now they're much more widely used. Tesla was forced into that technology. The original Roadster had a two-speed transmission and an air-cooled motor. The huge jolt on the transmission when it shifted during acceleration wore it out in months. So Tesla had to develop a motor with a wider power range that would fit in the origina…

Liquid-cooled motors are widespread in many applications already and technically it's not something complicated. Furthermore, high torque, multi-pole motors (assuming you want to direct-drive a cutting head moving at 2-4 RPM) have little to do with with the kinds of motors used in cars.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#423

Post by djsumdog »

lmm wrote: post #296
aninhumer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and station location is an aspect in which US trains could be made better, by building new ones.

There is no right place for a train station in a sprawling city. An effective train station needs a certain amount of stuff within walking distance, which is only possible if the city is built that way.

They didn't become sprawling cities on their own. If you plant down rail, the city reshapes over time. The areas right next to stations becomes high value retail space. Their sales immediately jump up. Rails literally change the commerce and economy around their points.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#425

Post by gfodor »

ktta wrote: post #230
gfodor wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably we would get better at building more tunnels after the first one, and presumably once an existence proof is in place the economics will justify accelerated R&D, resulting in a technological feedback loop. You can only layer so many roads above ground. But as said in the post, tunnels have no such limit. 100 years from now one could imagine a very thick subterranean transportation network. The interchange a…

Tunnels might look more futuristic, but I can't imagine a world where building layers of tunnels will be cheaper than larger roads. We've already put the R&D into roads, and the cars that run on them. Routing problems have also been solved. No matter that feedback loop, it wouldn't get cheaper than laying a road. It's true that you can build many tunnels, but why? Congestion is really a problem in inner city roads. I…

The company is based in LA, a city known for its hellscape of congested freeways.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#426

Post by hwillis »

rsync wrote: post #388
hwillis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air isn't really a problem. A person breathes about .5 cubic meters of air per hour, so 100 people trapped for 6 hours will go through 300 cubic meters of air. The diameter of the tunnel being 14', that air supply would take up 68' of tunnel lengthwise. And that's one breath, the air can be breathed many times before the co2 level becomes too high. The air inside the volume of a coffin can last you a few hours. Unles…

"The air inside the volume of a coffin can last you a few hours. Unless you are literally shoulder to shoulder with no other air, your oxygen will last as long as you need." ... unless there is a fire: "Most drivers rolled up their windows and waited for rescue. The ventilation system in the tunnel drove toxic smoke back down the tunnel faster than anyone could run to safety. These fumes quickly filled the tunnel and…

In that case ventilation was the cause of those deaths, or at least made the situation worse. It doesn't have much to do with the availability of oxygen.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#427

Post by schlipity »

Couldn't we have a problem with tunnels that cross a tectonic plate? During an earthquake, if one plate moves up or down and the adjoining doesn't move, wouldn't that sheer the tunnel closed?

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#428

Post by lh7777 »

rsync wrote: post #379
lmm wrote: post #300

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. Yes they would. If you took the existing surface street network and made it 100% buses and/or ground-level trains you could accomodate current subway and road capacity with room to spare, even before you reclaimed all the space currently used for car parking. Private cars…

"Private cars are an astonishingly inefficient use of space, and taxis are barely any better." ... and buses are even worse. NYC works because of trains and as a proponent of train travel and public transportation (except buses) I believe they have indeed solved many problems with their diverse rail network. Buses are a canard - they are the minimum viable public transport option that were pried out of suburban taxpa…

I agree that buses a terrible solution, but are definitely better than no public transit at all. Sadly, Seattle is almost entirely dependent on buses for public transit, although things are getting slightly better here with recent investments in light rail. Of course, the costs are astronomical and the most important parts of the project won't be complete for decades, so it's cold comfort for anyone currently stuck with a 7 mile, 1 hour commute by bus (or worse).

What's baffling to me is that, in addition to "real" light rail, Seattle is also building out a network of street-level trains. These trains barely carry more passengers than an articulated bus, are subject to the same traffic issues as the buses since they don't have a dedicated right of way, cost way more than adding bus lines, and their tracks create significant hazards for cyclists. I could be wrong, but it seems like this is an example of "buses = bad; trains = good" thinking gone awry.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#429

Post by picosat »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #208
picosat wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American obsession with "alone time" is exactly why Musk's idea is the only effective way to relieve the traffic problem. Americans are adverse to change, and the result of this is a solution needs to leverage our existing infrastructure. Putting the cars on sleds allows people to keep the luxury and flexibility of personal cars without requiring a lifestyle shift. Furthermore, a solution that leverages personal…

> Americans are adverse to change I don't get it, where does that come from anyway? I mean America's mostly a country of immigrants; most inhabitants' forefathers, only a couple generations ago, abandoned everything they know to build up a new life. If that's not change, then IDK what is. I think that at one point it's not about what they want - having the option even to drive anywhere is a luxury a lot of people don…

I think LA is an even better example of where it will work. There are no trains, and the bus system is very poor.

The tunnels obviously don't make sense in places that have well established train systems, but a lot of places don't have that. Often in America, the only 'practical' way to get around is using a personal vehicle.

Re: The Boring Company FAQ

#430

Post by macNchz »

shadeless wrote: post #366
luca_ing wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I posit that for a city of 500,000 - 1,000,000 it might become practical to have subways and that radically changes the transit equation. Cities of 500000 inhabitants which have a subway exist. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberg

It's worth mentioning that the smallest city with a rapid transit system (2 metro lines, 28 stations) has a population of only 135,629. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne

Lausanne recently took the smallest-city-with-a-subway title from Rennes, France (214k).

My family is from Lausanne and I spent a few months studying in Rennes–the size and density plus the metro system makes these cities really pleasingly 'human scaled' in my view. Walking-first center city areas with lots of restaurants/shops, easily accessed from less dense areas by metro+good bus systems+intercity train, but small enough overall to not feel sprawling.

Post reply on HN