9 ms·

Elon Musk is getting serious about digging a tunnel under Los Angeles

67 points by paulsutter 10y ago

melling 10y ago
Probably a joke? I saw a 60 Minutes(?) episode a few decades ago about how people in LA(California?) loved their cars. There was no way you were getting them out of their cars and into mass transit. At least they're finally adding some mass transit with the light rail. Give it 3 or 4 decades and LA will be livable without a car. [Update] I wasn't implying that Elon was going to build mass transit. Simply pointing out that people are paying for poor choices made decades ago. Since, I've already been downvoted to the max, I can simply point out that stupid decisions made decades ago by won't be fixed by building more roads. In fact, it's probably a really bad idea. http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_since.php http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_si...
- mrspeaker 10y ago
  Isn't this article about "car tunnels", not public transport transit tunnels?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway2016a 10y ago
As a Bostonian for much of my life the thought of any sufficiently large tunnel project is cringe inducing. Maybe he can call it "The Bigger Dig"? Edit: Context for anyone who doesn't get the joke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
- averageweather 10y ago
  ... and traffic is still horrible.
  - Anechoic 10y ago
    ... and traffic is still horrible. Compared to pre-big dig days? It's not even close. Boston traffic has mostly normal rush hour periods now. I can get from Somerville to Braintree in 30 minutes during peak periods. That same trip could have taken 60-90 minutes during the elevated artery days. It was often faster to take 128 and go around Boston to get from the north shore to the south shore rather than take 93 though Boston.
cylinder 10y ago
How does a tunnel eliminate traffic? That doesn't make any sense.
- ggregoire 10y ago
  I'm not a civil engineer but I'd say it works because you distribute the traffic? Before building the tunnel: - city = 100% traffic After building the tunnel: - city = 50% traffic - tunnel = 50% traffic Edit: seems to be a "traffic flow" problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow
  - city41 10y ago
    Isn't this similar to adding lanes to freeways? I was always under the impression that actually makes traffic worse, like this article suggests: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
    - zardo 10y ago
      We can let traffic get so bad it reaches an equilibrium that stiffles the growth of the region by preventing movement, or continue to expand capacity indefinitely.
    - sparky_z 10y ago
      It's more like adding a new road. You can't "change lanes" between the tunnel and the freeway.
      - city41 10y ago
        I'm a complete novice when it comes to road infrastructure so I really have no idea. But I always thought the argument was expanding road capacity just caused more people to consider using it and it always naturally expanded to the point of congestion regardless of size. I'd think a road plus a tunnel would have a similar effect.
    - 10y ago
rocky1138 10y ago
What about all the oil under there?
- rocky1138 10y ago
  For reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/100799/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fiel...
majewsky 10y ago
Honest question: How can he get all the required permits in such a short amount of time? (Unless, of course, the usual processes are being overridden by a presidential order.)
- johnm1019 10y ago
  I imagine there are two factors at play here: 1. Since digging takes time, you really only need the permits where you are actually digging. So if you start on a piece of land you largely control, or can quickly get permits for, you could theoretically bore until where you need the next permit. 2. For all these permits, you would apply for them in parallel, so you don't really need 100% of the permits for the entire length of the tunnel to start.
  - Anechoic 10y ago
    So if you start on a piece of land you largely control, or can quickly get permits for, you could theoretically bore until where you need the next permit. It's not quite that simple - you may largely control the land you're tunneling under/through, but when you remove a large amount of soil, the surround ground may shift or you can affect water tables and those can cause issues for adjacent parcels and structures. Spoil removal (meaning muck trains and/or dump trucks to haul away dirt) will also affect adjacent properties through dust and noise. Unless he owns hundreds of acres of property, any tunneling activity will cause issues that will come up through the permitting process. And if he does down hundreds of acres of property, why not just build a surface road?
  - Someone 10y ago
    Theoretically, yes, but you wouldn't want to dig significant parts of the tunnel before you're certain to get the rights to finish it, either. Imagine negotiating with a land owner for the rights to dig the last 10 meters of tunnel, somewhere in the middle of already built parts stretching over kilometers. That owner probably will be able to get 50% of the completed tunnel in exchange for those rights.
    - 10y ago
jgh 10y ago
Will the tunnel go from Space X to Elon Musk's house?
- mlvljr 10y ago
  To his laser shark pool.
- foxyv 10y ago
  How did you guess!?! Industrial espionage I say!
- hncommenter_ 10y ago
  Nah, he has the Falcon 9 for that
SlipperySlope 10y ago
I will miss Elon Musk when he becomes the president of Mars.
paulsutter 10y ago
Self-driving electric cars are especially well suited to tunnels. Self driving means higher capacity (higher speeds and less space between cars), fewer accidents, narrower lanes (better tolerances than humans), and electric means less tunnel ventilation needed. Cost per passenger mile should be considerably lower than existing tunnels. Even better if you can bring technological deflation to tunnel construction.
- Anechoic 10y ago
  electric means less ventilation needed Ventilation isn't just for exhaust fumes, it's also needed for fire fighting. A tunnel geared for self-driving electric fans won't make much of a difference there (look at subway tunnels for example).
midgetjones 10y ago
Nobody's mentioned the San Andreas fault yet. Surely that's a pretty good reason not to fill a tunnel with people? Or is a tunnel actually a much better place to be during an earthquake?
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  "Earthquakes tend to have the biggest effect on the surface, like waves on water. That's why LA can have a (lame, but getting better) subway." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945
tarikjn 10y ago
A problem in long tunnels, is that accidents brings nightmare scenarios [1]. This is one of the reasons why cars are loaded on trains in the Eurotunnel. I also hope they do proper traffic simulations that take into account the Braess’ paradox. My guess is that there are probably a host of other lower hanging fruits they may be able to take to reduce traffic before boring tunnels. One such thing is parking space markets, you wouldn't know, but a lot of the traffic in congested cities is actually caused by cars looking for parking. Furthermore, In NYC, I believe traffic could be significantly reduced by simply enforcing violations for cars blocking intersections. At rush hours, some intersections on the roads leading to bridges and tunnels are constantly blocked by cars, trucks, buses etc. A lot of the traffic can also be reduced by developing smarter traffic grids, where lights are not simply programmed on time intervals. And developing the unrealized potential of friendlier cities for bike. In a lot of these ideas, the problems are not necessarily technical but rather governance. Finally, self-driving cars will allow better carpooling and car-sharing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fir...
- fluidcruft 10y ago
  As for the weather thing he's touting, maybe cheaper to just enclose existing highways with a solar panel helmets.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  “traffic could be significantly reduced by simply enforcing violations for cars blocking intersections” this, a thousand times this
- Eridrus 10y ago
  Maybe the only cars which will be able to use these tunnels will be Teslas with autopilot that they're convinced will not have accidents?
Fricken 10y ago
This is about as audacious as the great wall of Mexico. In mastering Trumponomics, Musk has demonstrated himself to be a quick study. He announced 'The Boring Company' on Twitter a day after the inaugral Trump-tech billionaires meeting in Novemeber, and the announcement fell flat in every corner of the internet I peruse, in spite of Musk's rabid fanbase. People thought it was a joke. It's apparently less of a joke now.
- tim333 10y ago
  I was thinking the announcement might be more aimed at Trump than anything else. There's no way he can just just digging in a month - you'd need heaps of permits etc. But if pres Trump latches on they could push legislation through.
niftich 10y ago
In the US, major infrastructure projects are routinely much, much more expensive [1][2][3][4][5] than anywhere else. Without details, I'm skeptical of how Musk intends to solve this problem. Of course, he doesn't have to. If he merely intends to absorb as much PPP/government spending as possible -- like partially does now with SpaceX -- then it could still be a sound business model. This works out rather well for the likes of other infrastructure companies like Fluor, Skanska, Strabag, and many more -- companies that are hardly household names, but form consortiums to construct just about every major infrastructure project we have today. I wouldn't put it Musk to try to explore using as minimal human labor as possible and deploy completely automatic Tunnel Boring Machines, enabling him to underbid everyone and win contracts. Then with a few projects under his belt, and a few construction journals writing about his company's innovations, his company will achieve name recognition on a level that few construction companies have. This will confer prestige to projects he's worked on, potentially making it an non-negligible selection criteria, especially in countries where prestige and demonstrating being on the cutting-edge is held in high regard. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-do-we-get-our-infrastructure-buck http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-... [3] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r... [4] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative-subway-construction-costs-revised/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp... [5] http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridge-america http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridg...
- tim333 10y ago
  You'd need some legislation to let a private company crack ahead and build without the usual political and union restrictions. It seems silly that this sort of construction costs 3x as much as in Spain say.
temp246810 10y ago
LA's traffic problem is the sheer volume of traffic. If you introduce another pipe, that pipe will immediately get saturated. LA has a TON of infrastructure, tons of long, expansive 6 lane highways, HOV lanes, Express lanes, tons of wide boulevards with 2-3 lanes in each direction. LA is massive on a scale people don't realize - it's not as crazy as when you go to Manhattan for the first time because it's not built up. But spend some time there and you will be impressed by how big that city is. Think of the suburb you grew up in - big parking lots, wide streets, strip malls. LA is like a giant, oversprawled suburb with 16MM+ people in the metro area. Not saying we should just say screw it and give up, but the answer here isn't more roads or highways or tunnels. It's things like uber, public transporation, car shares, things that get cars off the road.
- goda90 10y ago
  Self driving cars may also help fix traffic issues. With fewer accidents, cars able to communicate with each other, and no overly aggressive or timid driving to cause slow downs, an entirely full freeway might be able to flow at high speed.
  - temp246810 10y ago
    For sure - I've always wondered what the theoretical maximum of a road system is vs it's practical maximum. That is, how many cars can a system accommodate where the cars drive perfectly, vs how many cars driven by humans a highway can accommodate. I wonder if this analysis has been done somewhere.
  - wavesounds 10y ago
    Self driving cars might actually make traffic worse because people can live farther away where houses are cheaper because now they can work or sleep during their commute. This means any given section of road will have more cars on it because people have to travel farther.
    - sschueller 10y ago
      There will also be cars driving around with no drivers. So even more cars!
analogmemory 10y ago
I can't find the article. But it had a great solution. In California, we have a system for paying tolls automatically. Called FasTrak, you install a device in your car and when you pass a toll booth it deducts the amount required. Super easy. The idea was that we should implement a micro toll system for all freeways. During peak hours the charge is maybe $2, during off-peak there's still a charge but it's maybe $0.50. Even major streets would have small tolls of 5-10 cents. This helps in two ways. Many people are weirdly resistant to paying even small fees to things (see $0.10 bag tax). and would maybe just stay home. This hopefully would encourage people to ride public transportation, which is now funded by the tolls.
- yo-code-sucks 10y ago
  FasTrak is a flaming pile of shit. Washington state hasn't implemented the same program but it's merely a sticker, whereas California's is a big ass puck on your windshield that you have to open/close or set a switch depending on passengers. It's a major fucking distraction and is somewhat illegally using your windshield space.
- Tharkun 10y ago
  Yeah, it's a great solution if you don't value your privacy. /s
  - analogmemory 10y ago
    I mean "big brother" is already watching everyone via "freeway traffic cameras" Public transportation is what I'm pushing for.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  California has a lot of rural areas that lack even AmTrak or Greyhound service, let alone full-blown public transportation networks. Applying this to all highways would put an undue burden on those living in such areas (including a significant chunk of California's immigrant population) without actually doing much good congestion-wise (since these rural stretches of I-5 and such aren't usually congested to nearly the same degree as, say, LA or San Francisco or Sacramento). This might work in cities, though, but if the alternative (public transit) is not even slightly cheaper than paying the toll, folks are probably just going to pay the toll (especially with a system like FasTrack, where they just drive through a sensor rather than having to pay physical money).
davidf18 10y ago
If you're taking the time to build a tunnel, might as well put a subway in it. Come to NYC (or London or Paris or ....) and Chicago and see real subways are a much better use of building tunnels. If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA? It is a much greener solution than using electric autos which after all, must be charged with electric power which is often carbon-based. Subways are also far faster than using automobiles during much of the day but especially during Rush hour. Much of the NYC subway system is powered by Hydro Quebec. As stated earlier, much of even electric autos are charged by electric power generated with carbon-based fuels (e.g., natural gas). Building a subway in LA would have a much lower carbon footprint than building a tunnel for cars. Trump comes from NYC, and while he probably doesn't take the subway, he might likely understand the importance of them.
- cbr 10y ago
  If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro...
  - davidf18 10y ago
    Well, that's great! So why does Musk want to build a car tunnel? He should want to build an additional subway tunnel. The city of LA should be encouraging more transport that lessens global warning, not encourage it. As stated previously, much of the electric power in California (and elsewhere) is generated by carbon-based fuels, so electric cars are really adding to global warming.
- the_hangman 10y ago
  My understanding is that building subways in LA is costlier and more labor-intensive than in a lot of the cities you mentioned, but the subway system is currently undergoing a massive expansion in LA. The main difficulties are the fault lines: Subway lines have to be meticulously planned to avoid the dozens of faults as well as other areas that are susceptible to major movement. http://www.cccarto.com/faults/la_faults/ http://www.cccarto.com/faults/la_faults/
legohead 10y ago
Every time I visit LA I wonder how the rich and famous survive there. The traffic is so maddening, I just can't think of any "Pro" that would counter the Con of traffic. And I live in OC, where traffic is bad enough already.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  If you're sufficiently rich/famous, you can probably afford a helicopter or some other aircraft to bypass road traffic entirely. At the very least, rich/famous people can likely hire personal drivers to worry about that stress for them.
- zardo 10y ago
  It's their career in LA that makes them rich and famous.
swamp40 10y ago
I don't think people fully understand yet the potential of self driving cars and AI traffic management to massively increase the density and flow rates on highways. I'm fairly certain it will be quite easy to double the density while simultaneously quadrupling the existing flow rates - with much better improvements coming later. Which means right now we are at the "peak delay" point for the next hundred years or so.
paul 10y ago
So awesome. And maybe the tunnels will only allow self-driving electric cars :)
pasta 10y ago
Elon isn't very clear about what he is going to use these tunnels for. I would not be surprised if he was thinking bigger than cars and put a hyperloop in it. Digging the tunnels will take a lot of time so in theory he could wait for a working version of a hyperloop.
rottyguy 10y ago
so when this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science says "It is not possible to teleport macroscopic objects such as human beings, ..." does it mean impossible per laws of physics or that we can't do it with today's technology? Because if it's the latter, let's say it costs 1T to develop the tech to do so, I'm betting the ramification would be > 1T to the overall economy almost overnight (communication and transportation are the biggest drivers of several things, one of which is the economy, IMO).
tankerdude 10y ago
LA is building out subways and light rail. But it's definitely still too slow. Since there's so much sprawl, it would seem that a spoke and hub system would be most likely what needs to happen, with a few hubs. Imagine a mass transit vehicle that can hit 100+ mph between union station and LAX? The biggest thing to ensure is that once you exit LAX or wherever that spoke ends that there is infrastructure to hold that type of capacity. Imagine, union station to LAX in 5-8 minutes. Elon's commute might be slightly longer as he would have to take a surface street from that hub to his end location. Have the hubs at the densest areas and have spokes for them. Santa Monica<->Sherman Oaks Santa Monica<->LAX LAX<->Union Station Santa Monica<->Union Station Union Station<->Pasadena Union Station<->Burbank etc. etc. Each hop taking just a few minutes due to the speed and no stops in between.
maxander 10y ago
If Musk can get the permits for this sort of project in any reasonable time frame he's even more of a genius than we thought. I suspect, however, that the main objective for this plan is to get in with Trump and his apparatus. If Musk makes himself known as one of the president's prized elite job-making businessmen, it generates another layer of defense against the various attacks SpaceX and Tesla have been under recently.

67 points by paulsutter 10y ago

Probably a joke? I saw a 60 Minutes(?) episode a few decades ago about how people in LA(California?) loved their cars. There was no way you were getting them out of their cars and into mass transit. At least they're finally adding some mass transit with the light rail. Give it 3 or 4 decades and LA will be livable without a car. [Update] I wasn't implying that Elon was going to build mass transit. Simply pointing out that people are paying for poor choices made decades ago. Since, I've already been downvoted to the max, I can simply point out that stupid decisions made decades ago by won't be fixed by building more roads. In fact, it's probably a really bad idea. http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_since.php http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_si...

mrspeaker 10y ago
Isn't this article about "car tunnels", not public transport transit tunnels?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway2016a 10y ago

As a Bostonian for much of my life the thought of any sufficiently large tunnel project is cringe inducing. Maybe he can call it "The Bigger Dig"? Edit: Context for anyone who doesn't get the joke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

averageweather 10y ago
... and traffic is still horrible.
- Anechoic 10y ago
  ... and traffic is still horrible. Compared to pre-big dig days? It's not even close. Boston traffic has mostly normal rush hour periods now. I can get from Somerville to Braintree in 30 minutes during peak periods. That same trip could have taken 60-90 minutes during the elevated artery days. It was often faster to take 128 and go around Boston to get from the north shore to the south shore rather than take 93 though Boston.

cylinder 10y ago

How does a tunnel eliminate traffic? That doesn't make any sense.

ggregoire 10y ago
I'm not a civil engineer but I'd say it works because you distribute the traffic? Before building the tunnel: - city = 100% traffic After building the tunnel: - city = 50% traffic - tunnel = 50% traffic Edit: seems to be a "traffic flow" problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow
- city41 10y ago
  Isn't this similar to adding lanes to freeways? I was always under the impression that actually makes traffic worse, like this article suggests: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
  - zardo 10y ago
    We can let traffic get so bad it reaches an equilibrium that stiffles the growth of the region by preventing movement, or continue to expand capacity indefinitely.
  - sparky_z 10y ago
    It's more like adding a new road. You can't "change lanes" between the tunnel and the freeway.
    - city41 10y ago
      I'm a complete novice when it comes to road infrastructure so I really have no idea. But I always thought the argument was expanding road capacity just caused more people to consider using it and it always naturally expanded to the point of congestion regardless of size. I'd think a road plus a tunnel would have a similar effect.
  - 10y ago

rocky1138 10y ago

What about all the oil under there?

rocky1138 10y ago
For reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of-los-angeles/100799/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fiel...

majewsky 10y ago

Honest question: How can he get all the required permits in such a short amount of time? (Unless, of course, the usual processes are being overridden by a presidential order.)

johnm1019 10y ago
I imagine there are two factors at play here: 1. Since digging takes time, you really only need the permits where you are actually digging. So if you start on a piece of land you largely control, or can quickly get permits for, you could theoretically bore until where you need the next permit. 2. For all these permits, you would apply for them in parallel, so you don't really need 100% of the permits for the entire length of the tunnel to start.
- Anechoic 10y ago
  So if you start on a piece of land you largely control, or can quickly get permits for, you could theoretically bore until where you need the next permit. It's not quite that simple - you may largely control the land you're tunneling under/through, but when you remove a large amount of soil, the surround ground may shift or you can affect water tables and those can cause issues for adjacent parcels and structures. Spoil removal (meaning muck trains and/or dump trucks to haul away dirt) will also affect adjacent properties through dust and noise. Unless he owns hundreds of acres of property, any tunneling activity will cause issues that will come up through the permitting process. And if he does down hundreds of acres of property, why not just build a surface road?
- Someone 10y ago
  Theoretically, yes, but you wouldn't want to dig significant parts of the tunnel before you're certain to get the rights to finish it, either. Imagine negotiating with a land owner for the rights to dig the last 10 meters of tunnel, somewhere in the middle of already built parts stretching over kilometers. That owner probably will be able to get 50% of the completed tunnel in exchange for those rights.
  - 10y ago

jgh 10y ago

Will the tunnel go from Space X to Elon Musk's house?

mlvljr 10y ago
To his laser shark pool.
foxyv 10y ago
How did you guess!?! Industrial espionage I say!
hncommenter_ 10y ago
Nah, he has the Falcon 9 for that

SlipperySlope 10y ago

I will miss Elon Musk when he becomes the president of Mars.

paulsutter 10y ago

Self-driving electric cars are especially well suited to tunnels. Self driving means higher capacity (higher speeds and less space between cars), fewer accidents, narrower lanes (better tolerances than humans), and electric means less tunnel ventilation needed. Cost per passenger mile should be considerably lower than existing tunnels. Even better if you can bring technological deflation to tunnel construction.

Anechoic 10y ago
electric means less ventilation needed Ventilation isn't just for exhaust fumes, it's also needed for fire fighting. A tunnel geared for self-driving electric fans won't make much of a difference there (look at subway tunnels for example).

midgetjones 10y ago

Nobody's mentioned the San Andreas fault yet. Surely that's a pretty good reason not to fill a tunnel with people? Or is a tunnel actually a much better place to be during an earthquake?

nerfhammer 10y ago
"Earthquakes tend to have the biggest effect on the surface, like waves on water. That's why LA can have a (lame, but getting better) subway." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945

tarikjn 10y ago

A problem in long tunnels, is that accidents brings nightmare scenarios [1]. This is one of the reasons why cars are loaded on trains in the Eurotunnel. I also hope they do proper traffic simulations that take into account the Braess’ paradox. My guess is that there are probably a host of other lower hanging fruits they may be able to take to reduce traffic before boring tunnels. One such thing is parking space markets, you wouldn't know, but a lot of the traffic in congested cities is actually caused by cars looking for parking. Furthermore, In NYC, I believe traffic could be significantly reduced by simply enforcing violations for cars blocking intersections. At rush hours, some intersections on the roads leading to bridges and tunnels are constantly blocked by cars, trucks, buses etc. A lot of the traffic can also be reduced by developing smarter traffic grids, where lights are not simply programmed on time intervals. And developing the unrealized potential of friendlier cities for bike. In a lot of these ideas, the problems are not necessarily technical but rather governance. Finally, self-driving cars will allow better carpooling and car-sharing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fir...

fluidcruft 10y ago
As for the weather thing he's touting, maybe cheaper to just enclose existing highways with a solar panel helmets.
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
“traffic could be significantly reduced by simply enforcing violations for cars blocking intersections” this, a thousand times this
Eridrus 10y ago
Maybe the only cars which will be able to use these tunnels will be Teslas with autopilot that they're convinced will not have accidents?

Fricken 10y ago

This is about as audacious as the great wall of Mexico. In mastering Trumponomics, Musk has demonstrated himself to be a quick study. He announced 'The Boring Company' on Twitter a day after the inaugral Trump-tech billionaires meeting in Novemeber, and the announcement fell flat in every corner of the internet I peruse, in spite of Musk's rabid fanbase. People thought it was a joke. It's apparently less of a joke now.

tim333 10y ago
I was thinking the announcement might be more aimed at Trump than anything else. There's no way he can just just digging in a month - you'd need heaps of permits etc. But if pres Trump latches on they could push legislation through.

niftich 10y ago

In the US, major infrastructure projects are routinely much, much more expensive [1][2][3][4][5] than anywhere else. Without details, I'm skeptical of how Musk intends to solve this problem. Of course, he doesn't have to. If he merely intends to absorb as much PPP/government spending as possible -- like partially does now with SpaceX -- then it could still be a sound business model. This works out rather well for the likes of other infrastructure companies like Fluor, Skanska, Strabag, and many more -- companies that are hardly household names, but form consortiums to construct just about every major infrastructure project we have today. I wouldn't put it Musk to try to explore using as minimal human labor as possible and deploy completely automatic Tunnel Boring Machines, enabling him to underbid everyone and win contracts. Then with a few projects under his belt, and a few construction journals writing about his company's innovations, his company will achieve name recognition on a level that few construction companies have. This will confer prestige to projects he's worked on, potentially making it an non-negligible selection criteria, especially in countries where prestige and demonstrating being on the cutting-edge is held in high regard. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-do-we-get-our-infrastructure-buck http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-... [3] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r... [4] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative-subway-construction-costs-revised/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp... [5] http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridge-america http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridg...

tim333 10y ago
You'd need some legislation to let a private company crack ahead and build without the usual political and union restrictions. It seems silly that this sort of construction costs 3x as much as in Spain say.

temp246810 10y ago

LA's traffic problem is the sheer volume of traffic. If you introduce another pipe, that pipe will immediately get saturated. LA has a TON of infrastructure, tons of long, expansive 6 lane highways, HOV lanes, Express lanes, tons of wide boulevards with 2-3 lanes in each direction. LA is massive on a scale people don't realize - it's not as crazy as when you go to Manhattan for the first time because it's not built up. But spend some time there and you will be impressed by how big that city is. Think of the suburb you grew up in - big parking lots, wide streets, strip malls. LA is like a giant, oversprawled suburb with 16MM+ people in the metro area. Not saying we should just say screw it and give up, but the answer here isn't more roads or highways or tunnels. It's things like uber, public transporation, car shares, things that get cars off the road.

goda90 10y ago
Self driving cars may also help fix traffic issues. With fewer accidents, cars able to communicate with each other, and no overly aggressive or timid driving to cause slow downs, an entirely full freeway might be able to flow at high speed.
- temp246810 10y ago
  For sure - I've always wondered what the theoretical maximum of a road system is vs it's practical maximum. That is, how many cars can a system accommodate where the cars drive perfectly, vs how many cars driven by humans a highway can accommodate. I wonder if this analysis has been done somewhere.
- wavesounds 10y ago
  Self driving cars might actually make traffic worse because people can live farther away where houses are cheaper because now they can work or sleep during their commute. This means any given section of road will have more cars on it because people have to travel farther.
  - sschueller 10y ago
    There will also be cars driving around with no drivers. So even more cars!

analogmemory 10y ago

I can't find the article. But it had a great solution. In California, we have a system for paying tolls automatically. Called FasTrak, you install a device in your car and when you pass a toll booth it deducts the amount required. Super easy. The idea was that we should implement a micro toll system for all freeways. During peak hours the charge is maybe $2, during off-peak there's still a charge but it's maybe $0.50. Even major streets would have small tolls of 5-10 cents. This helps in two ways. Many people are weirdly resistant to paying even small fees to things (see $0.10 bag tax). and would maybe just stay home. This hopefully would encourage people to ride public transportation, which is now funded by the tolls.

yo-code-sucks 10y ago
FasTrak is a flaming pile of shit. Washington state hasn't implemented the same program but it's merely a sticker, whereas California's is a big ass puck on your windshield that you have to open/close or set a switch depending on passengers. It's a major fucking distraction and is somewhat illegally using your windshield space.
Tharkun 10y ago
Yeah, it's a great solution if you don't value your privacy. /s
- analogmemory 10y ago
  I mean "big brother" is already watching everyone via "freeway traffic cameras" Public transportation is what I'm pushing for.
yellowapple 10y ago
California has a lot of rural areas that lack even AmTrak or Greyhound service, let alone full-blown public transportation networks. Applying this to all highways would put an undue burden on those living in such areas (including a significant chunk of California's immigrant population) without actually doing much good congestion-wise (since these rural stretches of I-5 and such aren't usually congested to nearly the same degree as, say, LA or San Francisco or Sacramento). This might work in cities, though, but if the alternative (public transit) is not even slightly cheaper than paying the toll, folks are probably just going to pay the toll (especially with a system like FasTrack, where they just drive through a sensor rather than having to pay physical money).

davidf18 10y ago

If you're taking the time to build a tunnel, might as well put a subway in it. Come to NYC (or London or Paris or ....) and Chicago and see real subways are a much better use of building tunnels. If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA? It is a much greener solution than using electric autos which after all, must be charged with electric power which is often carbon-based. Subways are also far faster than using automobiles during much of the day but especially during Rush hour. Much of the NYC subway system is powered by Hydro Quebec. As stated earlier, much of even electric autos are charged by electric power generated with carbon-based fuels (e.g., natural gas). Building a subway in LA would have a much lower carbon footprint than building a tunnel for cars. Trump comes from NYC, and while he probably doesn't take the subway, he might likely understand the importance of them.

cbr 10y ago
If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro...
- davidf18 10y ago
  Well, that's great! So why does Musk want to build a car tunnel? He should want to build an additional subway tunnel. The city of LA should be encouraging more transport that lessens global warning, not encourage it. As stated previously, much of the electric power in California (and elsewhere) is generated by carbon-based fuels, so electric cars are really adding to global warming.
the_hangman 10y ago
My understanding is that building subways in LA is costlier and more labor-intensive than in a lot of the cities you mentioned, but the subway system is currently undergoing a massive expansion in LA. The main difficulties are the fault lines: Subway lines have to be meticulously planned to avoid the dozens of faults as well as other areas that are susceptible to major movement. http://www.cccarto.com/faults/la_faults/ http://www.cccarto.com/faults/la_faults/

legohead 10y ago

Every time I visit LA I wonder how the rich and famous survive there. The traffic is so maddening, I just can't think of any "Pro" that would counter the Con of traffic. And I live in OC, where traffic is bad enough already.

yellowapple 10y ago
If you're sufficiently rich/famous, you can probably afford a helicopter or some other aircraft to bypass road traffic entirely. At the very least, rich/famous people can likely hire personal drivers to worry about that stress for them.
zardo 10y ago
It's their career in LA that makes them rich and famous.

swamp40 10y ago

I don't think people fully understand yet the potential of self driving cars and AI traffic management to massively increase the density and flow rates on highways. I'm fairly certain it will be quite easy to double the density while simultaneously quadrupling the existing flow rates - with much better improvements coming later. Which means right now we are at the "peak delay" point for the next hundred years or so.

paul 10y ago

So awesome. And maybe the tunnels will only allow self-driving electric cars :)

pasta 10y ago

Elon isn't very clear about what he is going to use these tunnels for. I would not be surprised if he was thinking bigger than cars and put a hyperloop in it. Digging the tunnels will take a lot of time so in theory he could wait for a working version of a hyperloop.

rottyguy 10y ago

so when this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science says "It is not possible to teleport macroscopic objects such as human beings, ..." does it mean impossible per laws of physics or that we can't do it with today's technology? Because if it's the latter, let's say it costs 1T to develop the tech to do so, I'm betting the ramification would be > 1T to the overall economy almost overnight (communication and transportation are the biggest drivers of several things, one of which is the economy, IMO).

tankerdude 10y ago

LA is building out subways and light rail. But it's definitely still too slow. Since there's so much sprawl, it would seem that a spoke and hub system would be most likely what needs to happen, with a few hubs. Imagine a mass transit vehicle that can hit 100+ mph between union station and LAX? The biggest thing to ensure is that once you exit LAX or wherever that spoke ends that there is infrastructure to hold that type of capacity. Imagine, union station to LAX in 5-8 minutes. Elon's commute might be slightly longer as he would have to take a surface street from that hub to his end location. Have the hubs at the densest areas and have spokes for them. Santa Monica<->Sherman Oaks Santa Monica<->LAX LAX<->Union Station Santa Monica<->Union Station Union Station<->Pasadena Union Station<->Burbank etc. etc. Each hop taking just a few minutes due to the speed and no stops in between.

maxander 10y ago

If Musk can get the permits for this sort of project in any reasonable time frame he's even more of a genius than we thought. I suspect, however, that the main objective for this plan is to get in with Trump and his apparatus. If Musk makes himself known as one of the president's prized elite job-making businessmen, it generates another layer of defense against the various attacks SpaceX and Tesla have been under recently.