4 ms·
Indeed, strange how that's not mentioned at all. Or whether any transportation engineers have evaluated what kind of traffic reduction would occur from using al
by windlep 9y ago
Indeed, strange how that's not mentioned at all. Or whether any transportation engineers have evaluated what kind of traffic reduction would occur from using all these tunnels for a subway system instead of just moving a few cars around.
Edit: The more I think about it, the worse it seems. Compare how much space is eaten out of the road above for a few cars... per minute?...to go up/down to this tunnel vs. how many a stairwell could take up/down to the subway. Even if the car's were relatively crammed close together in the tunnel, I can't imagine it would be anywhere near the density you could fit on subway trains. The economics of this make no sense.... unless you consider that this will be something that only the incredibly elite will be able to afford. The majority of people in rush hour LA traffic will remain stuck there, the rich will go down I guess.
- so33 9y ago>Even if the car's were relatively crammed close together in the tunnel, I can't imagine it would be anywhere near the density you could fit on subway trains. Indeed. The problem always fundamentally reduces to geometry, and the only way to solve it is to increase density. People always say, "we can just build more tunnels", but you'll just end up with congestion at interchange and entry/exit points, just like on freeways today. And the more tunnels you build, the more it takes for the operating company to recoup the costs, meaning higher fares to use the tunnels. Best case scenario, this company reduces the cost of developing rail transit. Likely scenario, we just get the same awful freeway situation but below. Worst-case scenario is the unfortunate situation you described.
- gfodor 9y agoarguably layering tunnels is increasing the density of humans in transport along the Y axis. right now its approximately one.