5 ms·

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 alt

• 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.
      • CodeWriter23 9y ago
        Pay today or pay tomorrow. I don't think it is an outlandish thought IF $100M/mile tunnels are achieved that the TCO for an elevated roadway will be higher. Elevated roadways have to be replaced eventually. Tunnels are more durable, look at the Holland Tunnel for example, 89 years old and no need for replacement in sight. And it's $48M price tag would be $3.3B today for 1.62 miles.
    • dredmorbius 9y ago
      It's a lot easier to tunnel through sky than rock.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        But rock comes with supporting structure, whereas you need to build those into "sky tunnels". This limits just how much "sky tunnels" you can make in two ways - there's only so much space on the ground you can use, and there's only so much weight it can support. That, and people will get anxious if their sky is totally obstructed by highways in the sky.
        • dredmorbius 9y ago
          Tensile-strength-to-volume ratios for many materials is ridiculously high. Tunnel wall, ceiling, and floor quantities represent massive overengineered for that purpose A cable tramway is one option for an aerial system. The load-bearing capacity of a 15mm steel cable is impressively high, and it can be strung along pylons. Not that you'd want to bolt street cars to such a system, but it's an example of a possible people-mover that doesn't require persuading a multiple-kilometers-long bolus of solid granite it'd prefer being elsewhere. Whilst I'm aware that Musk's premise here is that he can be the boringest guy ever, I'll note that the Gotthard Base Tunnel, in Switzerland, required 17 years of excavation to extend 35.5 km. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel Tunnel systems can also give rise to some interesting cascade failure modes. Cab-forward deisel locomotives aren't generally considered a risk factor, until they are. Summary of an accident report, here, five souls lost to bad design of stock and tunnel, inadequate maintenance, poor judgement, and panic response: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qfkx-7qsggpi0bgnvplwmq https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qfkx-7qsggpi0bgnvplwmq
          • dredmorbius 9y ago
            Also, noting: the incident inquiry found for operator error of the crew. I find that conclusion difficult to justify based on the presented evidence.
  • rangibaby 9y ago
    OTOH JR Central is in the process of building a tunnel from Tokyo to Nagoya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūō_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūō_Shinkansen
    • nihonde 9y ago
      Yes, for a MagLev train that achieves the fantasy of hyperloop (but is actually happening now). From my perspective, hyperloop and TBC are each 100% upside down in terms of their approach. America can only dream of 505km/hr interstate ground transport. I'm writing this from aboard the Nozomi express Shinkansen at around 300km/hr, by the way. Just left 名古屋駅.
      • fb03 9y ago
        Hah, amused to be able to read kanji after so many years (nagoya-eki :P) I have ridden on the Nozomi and it's a fantastically smooth ride. There are indicators of the current speed on the wagon passage doors and it is incredible when it achieves 270+ km/h and everything is passing by so quickly, and yet you can drink your beverage from a cup just fine, just like in an airplane :)
        • rangibaby 9y ago
          I actually get more excited about riding the Shinkansen than planes these days. Planes are like buses now...
  • zild3d 9y ago
    That is still going 3D but without the significant speed increase. Also it is much more beautiful and less noisy to have highways out of sight so that the city is left for people and bikes, as opposed to stacked highways towering over head.
  • suls 9y ago
    I wouldn't consider to daily commute problem as "solved" in Tokyo ..
    • nihonde 9y ago
      Next to NYC, commuting in Tokyo is effectively trouble-free. It may be crowded, but it's also predictable when the crunch times will be. Trains are on time. Cars keep moving and don't block every intersection with incessant honking.
  • benliong78 9y ago
    Living in another crowded city, Hong Kong, perhaps I can offer some perspective: We have tons of elevated tools highways and bypasses aimed at reducing traffic, the problem is all these elevated roads needs to go around a lot of tall buildings. Going underground with subway already provides us with better solution to a lot more of our traffic problem. What the boring company's proposing isn't all that different from the subway solution (we already have subway going three or four level deep), it simply allows cars to transported via subway.
    • arcticbull 9y ago
      That's the difference though, they're not talking about putting tons of people down there, they're talking about putting a small handful at a time (at most) by using cars. It appears much less efficient.
      • yetihehe 9y ago
        They talk about ALSO putting cars. There will be pods for transporting people, like in subways.
  • sien 9y ago
    Also by going underground. Tokyo's metro is fantastic and one of the few globally that has more than 100% farebox recover ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#Farebox_ratios_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#Farebox...
    • yongjik 9y ago
      > more than 100% farebox recover ratio Doesn't this just mean that they are expensive? I heard complaints about how expensive Tokyo's subway is. Reducing price and propping the system with tax can be a better approach in the long term, because that can encourage more people to use public transit and reduce demand for costly highways. (Also, one could argue that the freedom to move around at an affordable price is a basic service the government should strive to provide, although I'm sure some people will regard such an idea as socialist nonsense.)
      • chronic940 9y ago
        For those wondering, it costs 4-5 USD one way.
        • yladiz 9y ago
          It only costs that much if you're staying far away or going pretty long distances. I stay in a station pretty far from Central Tokyo (past Kita Senju on the Tobu line) and to get to somewhere like Ginza costs less than 400 Yen, which is about $3.75. However, a chunk of that cost is due to Tobu, and if I was staying in Kita Senju or Ueno my trip would only be about 200-250 Yen.
          • Danieru 9y ago
            If you are going from Kita Senju to Ginza then you would be using the Hibiya line. That trip will cost 195yen. Which is the same price for going all the way down to Roppongi where Google is. The Tokyo Metro and Toei lines tend to only have two or three prices depending on distance. This is why going two and three stations almost always costs the same. Since employers always pay for commuting costs a regular working person spends very little on train tickets day to day. Me and my wife spend about $100 per month between us. With our companies paying a further $70 per month for each of us for our passes to work.
  • advertising 9y ago
    Parking is a bigger problem in tokyo if you drive, and the tolls are expensive. The newer the subway lines in Tokyo are fun because they have to built in under the others (as referenced in the FAQ), you can tell you're on a new line when you descend down flights and flights of stairs.
  • TorKlingberg 9y ago
    Tokyo also have subways and trains absolutely everywhere, and most people use them. You only drive in Tokyo if you have a good reason to. Also people have to accept having a highway right next to their window: https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/141562/121011859/stock-photo-curved-highway-through-city-of-tokyo-121011859.jpg https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/141562...
• lmm 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. Yes they would. If you took the existing surface street network and made it 100% buses and/or ground-level trains you could accomodate current subway and road capacity with room to spare, even before you reclaimed all the space currently used for car parking. Private cars are an astonishingly inefficient use of space, and taxis are barely any better. > The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We don't need to though. There's no conceivable need for a city to accommodate more people than could live within a 30-minute commute at current speeds if we were willing to build at the high densities that are actually possible.
  • rsync 9y ago
    "Private cars are an astonishingly inefficient use of space, and taxis are barely any better." ... and buses are even worse. NYC works because of trains and as a proponent of train travel and public transportation (except buses) I believe they have indeed solved many problems with their diverse rail network. Buses are a canard - they are the minimum viable public transport option that were pried out of suburban taxpayer hands and presented to poor urban (usually black) riders by planners who didn't care about public transportation at all. This ruse has gone on so long that in 2017, well meaning (and brainwashed) proponents of public transportation see buses as one of the core components of a transport network. Wake up. This is false. You need subways and trains. Well-functioning transit in cities that prioritize it use very few buses and they use them for weird stopgap or edge cases (or emergencies). BRT is a farce[1]. You should be demanding real, not fake, investment in transit networks. You should be demanding trains. [1] To be fair, I have seen two very functional BRT models - both in very specific (and wealthy) environments: VelociRFTA in Aspen and Hop/Skip in Boulder. In both cases, however, a well-designed rail corridor would be even better.
    • alex_duf 9y ago
      > ... and buses are even worse. London buses have a capacity of 80 to 130 people and are often full. How can that be worse than 60 to 110 cars for each bus? Even at half the capacity (single deck) you use the space way more efficiently than cars. Now if you live in a city where the planning was botched, the transit routes made inefficient, and poorly targeted at ghetto areas that's a different problem. In fact you'd probably have the same problem if the same routes were done by trains. Buses are just a way to transport a lot more people than cars and I can't see how that's a problem...