8 ms·

The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence! "To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D" Th

• m3kw9 9y ago
  All those things you propose are controlled by individual companies or the government. Musk is only doing what he thinks he can to reduce traffic.
• cft 9y ago
  Musk is proposing a technology. You are proposing social(ist?) ideas.
  • klipt 9y ago
    Darn those socialist Wall Street bankers and their well functioning New York subway!
  • zild3d 9y ago
    why is one superior to the other in your opinion? If it solves the problem, it solves the problem
  • xpaqui 9y ago
    Is socialism the new communism? I once saw a socialist on the street didn't eat my children.
• flashman 9y ago
  The "problem of soul-destroying traffic" will exist for as long as driving remains the best all-round option. It's induced demand: build more roads > capacity increases > driving becomes easier > traffic increases until driving is as hard as it was. Add a congestion charge or tolls, and a proper public transport network. The solution is not more roads, it's fewer cars.
  • JonRB 9y ago
    This worked really well in London, imo. Lots of really good transport infrastructure + city tolls make for a relatively nice driving experience.
  • moomin 9y ago
    America suffers from one more blight: too much parking. Large chunks of LA have mandatory parking no-one needs. This spreads the city out further whilst not actually providing parking where it's needed.
• mrout 9y ago
  >Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access). I hope you mean increase the density of cities. Low density is what creates bad traffic. Sprawling cities like LA and Auckland in NZ have awful, awful traffic while dense cities have much more manageable traffic, as public transport is viable.
• zild3d 9y ago
  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. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don't see why it would reduce the density of cities. Cities are still highly desired to live in outside of work
  • nihonde 9y ago
    Tokyo is a much bigger city. They solved the problem by building elevated toll highways. Much simpler solution than digging new holes everywhere and keeping those silly carts running.
    • Erik816 9y ago
      Isn't that still taking roads 3D?
      • ProAm 9y ago
        What's more expensive and has long term track record success?
        • Turing_Machine 9y ago
          Well, given that both tunnels and elevated roads are still being built, the most expensive likely varies depending on the situation. If Musk really reduces the cost of tunneling by 10x, that calculus will shift in the direction of tunneling, obviously. Dirt roads are extremely cheap and have been around forever. That doesn't make them the best choice in a modern society.
        • jhall1468 9y ago
          Elevated roads require surface space. A tunnel requires a small entry-point.
        • 9y ago
• smhost 9y ago
  I mean, it's also art. I would want it in my city just for that pissing-contest factor of 'hey, look at this cool shit we've got'. We deserve to make our cities beautiful and to build monuments to be proud of.
• kstenerud 9y ago
  Those avenues are already being pursued. He's pursuing one that is not. That's a good thing.
  • arcticbull 9y ago
    Not every avenue not actively pursued is a good one though, I think thats the question people are asking.
• sAuronas 9y ago
  Cities like LA will become denser over time. It might seem counterintuitive but increasing density alleviate traffic (people walk). You can't clean a hotel or flip a burger remote. Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start. Cycling... in LA... I don't think the Boring Company is trying to solve the gridlock. They will, however, provide an option for those who can afford to pop down into a Teslalane [sic] for a trip to the airport. And that's fine. It's [Teslalanes] infrastructure that ultimately helps the city thrive until the time that the land use patterns rebalance. There will always be traffic - but it won't always have the same overall impact.
  • advertising 9y ago
    Exactly. Cycling in LA is suicide.
    • Tiktaalik 9y ago
      Solve this problem by actually building protected cycling infrastructure and you'll make cycling viable and increase the amount of cyclists.
  • objclxt 9y ago
    > Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start. So the question here really is "which would improve LA more: tunnels that carry trains, or tunnels that carry carts that hold single cars?" There is plenty of strong evidence that shows adding additional road capacity increases overall traffic. I'm not sure that adding ways to move cars around faster wouldn't have the same impact, versus a train.
  • so33 9y ago
    >Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start. I take objection to this because, aside from other cities where public transit is the norm, the interurban system in LA [0] was dismantled, partially because it was forced out by cars that increased congestion to the point that streetcars could no longer run on time, and partially because of car companies advocating that buses could replace the streetcars (they didn't). Things don't exist in a vacuum, and LA decided to make itself a city where you could only be comfortable getting from place to place inside a car. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric
• mandude 9y ago
  You can also fly. Skies are more 3D than digging and easier to access -- the problem with digging is that many people live and work and drive right above where you dig. At some point the holes could cause collapses. There's also water mains and other hazards and obstacles. Sounds dangerous.
  • jhall1468 9y ago
    > You can also fly. Skies are more 3D than digging and easier to access Easier, yes. Cheaper, no. > At some point the holes could cause collapses. The risk is extremely low, and car accidents have caused a vastly greater number of deaths than any other form of transportation. > There's also water mains and other hazards and obstacles. Pretty sure there were some pretty massive hazards with flying too. > Sounds dangerous. Which a lot of people said about flying as well. And it's vastly safer than a car.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > You can also fly. Skies are more 3D than digging and easier to access And also a huge waste of energy on an ongoing basis. An aircraft has to continuously expend energy on fighting the gravity. > the problem with digging is that many people live and work and drive right above where you dig. The FAQ addresses that by noting that below ~2 tunnels height, people wouldn't even notice.
• cavemanklaus 9y ago
  Agreed this is exactly the line of inquiry needed Dave. The Boring Company while novel, does not seem to be a representative "first principles" approach Elon has taken with other problems, it's we have cars how do we move more of them faster. I lived in London 10 years and happily moved from home, work, social activity on trains and buses very easily and happily. It's either you move to it, or it moves to you, or change the game so you don't need to physically move to be effective/productive/social i.e. remote work, home delivery, VR socialising. The Boring tunnel network - tunnel network as a service? TNaaS would be great for an automated freight and home delivery network, kind of like the modern scaled up pneumatic tube delivery system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd58w0CXQrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd58w0CXQrM I can imagine Amazon scaling this up.
  • zild3d 9y ago
    Elon did mention the tunnels being used for hyper loop
  • so33 9y ago
    Freight would be a great case for tunnels, if you could find a way to make the freight companies (say, Amazon) pay to use it. There's a reason why Amazon is pushing drone delivery, and I bet it's because they think they can get the rights to use the skies for free.
• enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>* Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access). Nope. Denser cities are both more efficient and more walkable.
• crush-n-spread 9y ago
  Bollocks. Let me refute your central points. You suggest that 1. People should leave their houses less 2. Cities should become less dense 3. Busses should get more crowded 4. Somehow, get everyone on a bike. Actually, these points are so ridiculous, I'm not gonna wasted my time.
• prawn 9y ago
  I think remote work and online shopping are developing perfectly well without Musk's help. And I think we need to increase the density of cities (at least, city centres and inner suburbs). How do the sleds preclude developing public transport? Why wouldn't we see mini-vans pick people up from homes or community hubs and then use the tunnels to take an express route to the CBD? Or larger sleds that accommodate a bus or truck sized pod? If these HOV pods avoided a congestion charge, there would be an incentive to use them. Obviously drivers and their cars will fill any space given to them, and cycling tunnels might be too expensive, but hopefully a change in traffic flow and parking availability would make room and safety for cycling above ground. Imagine buses with good cycling storage so you could ride to the hub, board a bus, zip to the CBD, alight and ride the last few kilometres to your destination. Entrenched interests will fight it for a time, but it wouldn't surprise me if these guys could make it happen.
• hwillis 9y ago
  Your solutions are proportional reductions, a % reduction in the number of drivers. The problem of traffic rises with the ~2nd power of population because not only are there more people, there are more intersections. Intersections can only be solved with 3d roads, by eliminating overlaps. The bigger the city, the more artery roads you need with uninterrupted flow, and they eventually choke each other. Build tunnels and you can have point-to-point connections without choking off local flow. Reducing the number of drivers can't fully solve gridlock because at some point you have to hit a long light when you try to move from a high flow to low flow area. The only way to avoid that is with onramps and elevated freeways, but you can't build enough of those.
  • legulere 9y ago
    Public transport is at least an order of magnitude more efficient: http://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs3844236/5854568718-w630-h299-o-q75-p5/fahrradtage-bus-autos-raede.jpg http://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs3844236/5854568718-w630-h2... (note that car sizes have increased significantly since then) Every point you brought forward is also true for subways, but it's again at least an order of magnitude more space-efficient than sending cars through tunnels.
    • hwillis 9y ago
      Then think of this as a first-class and/or freight subway, I suppose. An extension of public transport to a new sector.
• hwillis 9y ago
  Your solutions are proportional reductions, a % reduction in the number of drivers. The problem of traffic rises with the ~2nd power of population because not only are there more people, there are more intersections. Intersections can only be solved with 3d roads, by eliminating overlaps. The bigger the city, the more artery roads you need with uninterrupted flow, and they eventually choke each other. Build tunnels and you can have point-to-point connections without choking off local flow. Reducing the number of drivers can't fully solve gridlock because at some point you have to hit a long light when you try to move from a high flow to low flow area. The only way to avoid that is with onramps and elevated freeways, but you can't build enough of those.
• simooooo 9y ago
  My exact first thought also... Closed the link after that :)
• bigbugbag 9y ago
  There's another obvious solution, wait a few years and the end of cheap oil will fix traffic. Then the countries that built themselves around roads, cars and cheap oil will face larger issues (mostly US and Australia IIANM). The worst part is that this had been foreseen and warnings have been made but nothing is done to deal with it.
  • Tepix 9y ago
    If you wait a few years you'll have electric cars that are independent of cheap oil. And there will still be traffic. Perhaps it will no longer be soul-destroying because you'll be able to watch a movie, take a nap or get work done on your PC in your self-driving car.
  • shiftpgdn 9y ago
    There will be no end to cheap oil in the next 50 years. As demand decreases due to electric cars we'll see nearly 30-40% of the use of crude oil going away. The world has absolutely massive reserves of crude.
• hnnsj 9y ago
  Reduced density of cities leads to longer distances and higher transportation needs, and less than ideal utilization of public transport. So that's counter-productive.
• Robotbeat 9y ago
  Reducing density of cities actually increases a lot of problems. It means you have to spend a lot more of your time traveling, which will make all these problems worse. LA is a fairly low density city and has terrible traffic problems. It reduces economic efficiency, too. Additionally, public transport often interferes with regular road traffic, making the problem worse. The solution is to use an elevated train (Chicago) or subways. So now you're back at 3D. And biking in a low-density city isn't a practical solution.
• rsync 9y ago
  "I feel like only somebody who lives in LA would make the "must" assertion and not think about all the other options..." I live in San Francisco and I assert that: To solve the soul-destroying practice of driving from (north of golden gate bridge) to SFO, roads must go 3D (tunnel). You may not be aware of this, but if you need to go to SFO from Marin (or anywhere north of the city) you need to drive through small residential neighborhoods, stopping at up to 12 stoplights. It's incredibly wasteful of time and gas and degrades the lives of everyone involved. You find yourself stopped in traffic on a four lane boulevard in front of a single family home with a yard. That's how you get to SFO. San Francisco desperately needs a tunnel from the GGB to SFSU/ParkMerced.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]