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

Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 278 posts

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#161

Post by paulddraper »

foobarrio wrote: post #53
adamjc wrote: post #2

I thought the current thinking was that building more roads means that there will be more roads to use, and therefore more cars on the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Then why build roads at all? If N + 1 means more traffic than surely N - 1 means less? So 0 roads, no traffic! Seriously though isn't this a related rates problem? Adding roads adds capacity and also induces demand. Are the two in lockstep? Can the capacity added be greater than the demand induced?

Not only that, but the more hyperloops we have, the more overburdened they will be.

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#162

Post by cozzyd »

agumonkey wrote: post #120
monodeldiablo wrote: post #39

I generally find Elon Musk to be an offputting individual, but I struggle to disagree with most of his ideas. In dense urban areas, skyrocketing property costs and the erosion of eminent domain have made mass transit expansion unsustainable in terms of time and money. Tunneling under it all has the potential to sidestep so many costs. To do so, of course, he'll need to reduce the costs of tunnel boring by an order of…

Talking about underground transport, Musk, and potentially truck driver industry metamorphosis... I had this vision of underground transport network, but not for people, just for things. It would have extremely simple, rail like or stupidly easy to Computer Vision track the lanes for big wagons of stuff. It would make streets for human mobility 80% with occasional trucks and we could have automated Network of Things…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#163

Post by hx87 »

lmm wrote: post #106
grey-area wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars and public transport are vastly different in capacity. A tunnel for cars is obviously a crazy idea but what if it carried some sort of pods that carried lots of people at once, maybe in a vacuum, at fast speeds?

You couldn't make efficient pods while complying with US railroad regulations (the US high speed trains are the heaviest in the world because the laws basically require trains to be armoured. Comparison to the US love of SUVs left as an exercise to the reader). If you can find a way around those regulations that would work, but seems overcomplicated compared to just applying your way around those regulations to ordin…

US railroad regulations don't apply to rail systems that don't carry freight and don't share rails with freight.

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#164

Post by paulddraper »

alex_duf wrote: post #104

If I can agree that building tunnels for public transport may be a good idea, building tunnels to encourage people to use their car doesn't sounds like it's taking humanity in the right direction. I'd rather see disruption to encourage people to use their bicycle and walking. Granted American cities aren't build for that but it's never too late. http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_4_ways_to_make_a_city_mo...

Bicycles and walking are slower, more subject to weather conditions, and work for a smaller portion of the population.

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#165

Post by arprocter »

monodeldiablo wrote: post #79
throwanem wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He must've been writing before the Acela Express made its debut. But Boston and New York are close enough that I'd argue true high-speed rail isn't all that much needed. Which is good, because there's no way in hell our government-supported passenger rail monopoly could ever implement it. That's half the problem right there - nobody can compete with Amtrak because Amtrak can undercut everyone, so Amtrak's service can…

I've never had any issues with Amtrak's service. People forget that they're second-class citizens to freight on the track, so they're usually not to blame for being late and they're held back by the infrastructure, which is designed, owned, and maintained by freight companies. I know it's accepted in the HN community to be down on government monopolies, but a quick glance at the privatization disaster of British Rail…

Say what you will about BR privatization, but this[0] goes from London to Manchester in 2 hours (takes about 3 by road if you really push it on the M6 toll and M40). They also serve (overpriced) beer.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#169

Post by grey-area »

motoboi wrote: post #146
grey-area wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars and public transport are vastly different in capacity. A tunnel for cars is obviously a crazy idea but what if it carried some sort of pods that carried lots of people at once, maybe in a vacuum, at fast speeds?

I think you probably made a joke, but this is exactly what Hyperloop is.

;)

Re: Elon Musk is boring a tunnel to skirt gridlock

#170

Post by cgriswald »

nradov wrote: post #122
emodendroket wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense has eminent domain been eroded? Given that the Supreme Court ruled about ten years ago that eminent domain may even be used to make way for private enterprise it seems to me that it is quite powerful.

Sure eminent domain remains legally powerful. But politically it has become more of a hot button issue in certain conservative circles who actively lobby against its use. And when eminent domain is used the takers have to pay fair market price so with the huge increase in urban real estate values over the past few years it's much harder to just find the money.

Given its frequency of use and the fact that since Kelo it can be used to the benefit of private businesses, I'd say it is very much politically powerful as well as legally powerful.

You don't think the decisions to remove people from their homes, which people to remove from their homes, and the price they should be paid for this major disruption to their lives is already a massively political issue?

The poorest among us are disproportionately affected by eminent domain, because their property is the cheapest and because they are least able to defend themselves. Kudos to the 'certain conservative circles' who are trying to defend those people and shame on anyone who tries to trivialize that battle.

Post reply on HN