Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

Post by lucaspiller » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #60

ProblemFactory wrote: post #21

Is technology really the slow and expensive part of boring tunnels? To me it has always seemed that tunnels are expensive because: * Planning the traffic impact and how it interacts with other transport lanes, all the above-ground building work to make the tunnel useful, * Emergency ventilation and escape routes, and all other infrastructure that goes into the hole, * Avoiding any building foundation piles, unmapped…

I believe they're hoping to mitigate 3 and 4 by going deeper than most things. But wouldn't that make 2, emergency escape routes, a lot more expensive? How do you make a very long, very deep, narrow-diameter, elevator-accessed tunnel safe from fires and toxic gas releases? You can make it a vacuum but then what if you have to escape a vehicle? How does this thing not become a death trap in the event of a fire? Fire i…

Post by bpodgursky » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #63

jws wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be time to legislate the concept of "tunnel space". This would be similar to air space. In the US a property owner doesn't control the air above their land (subject to details). Maybe Congress should declare the Earth below say 100' as not controlled by the land owner and allocated by some new agency, say the Federal Crust Administration. Remove all of this from state, county, and municipal jurisdiction. Centr…

Every mining company will lobby against that. It's probably easier to do it with easements and eminent domain.

Post by stcredzero » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:31 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #25

LurkingPresence wrote: post #18

Wouldn't it be smarter to start with a smaller project? Like maybe do the Chicago airport project before tearing up the east coast for a super tunnel. That seemed to work for Space X (start small, iterate).

Or to start someplace that is much easier to develop, like in Texas. I understand the economics might not be as favorable, but there is a ton of truck traffic going N/S in TX that would be thrilled to skip over (or, I guess under) the major population centers.

Post by pavel_lishin » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

hanklazard wrote: post #51

pavel_lishin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling residents would throw a complete shit-fit if someone proposed something like that. At best, you'd have clickbait headlines like "MUSK PROPOSES NUKING HIS WAY THROUGH YOUR BASEMENT".

He discussed this concern here: https://youtu.be/hpDHwfXbpfg?t=9m15s It sounds like he's less concerned about disturbing the people above, as it's apparently not an issue at certain depths (I am not an engineer). Seems like the existing underground infrastructure might be a bigger problem.

Post by placeybordeaux » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

std_throwaway wrote: post #64

abalone wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they're hoping to mitigate 3 and 4 by going deeper than most things. But wouldn't that make 2, emergency escape routes, a lot more expensive? How do you make a very long, very deep, narrow-diameter, elevator-accessed tunnel safe from fires and toxic gas releases? You can make it a vacuum but then what if you have to escape a vehicle? How does this thing not become a death trap in the event of a fire? Fire i…

You won't get fires if there is nothing that burns.