3 ms·
I'm no starry-eyed admirer of The Boring Company, but it's funny how many peoples' argument here seem to be: "The Boring Company's plan to alleviate traffic con
by nmeofthestate 9y ago
I'm no starry-eyed admirer of The Boring Company, but it's funny how many peoples' argument here seem to be: "The Boring Company's plan to alleviate traffic congestion is flawed and non-optimal. It would make more sense to replace American cities with high-density ones and build mass transit instead".
- mangodrunk 9y agoWhy is that funny? I see a proposal that requires cars as something that at best maintains status quo. A walkable/bikeable city seems far better to me than one that is made for cars. Roads are for cars instead of people. All that parking is for cars.
- crush-n-spread 9y agoYeah but people don't want that! No one is going to invest in getting rid of roads or giving away bicycles. That serves no one but the poor. People will invest in an underground transport network that solidifies Tesla's advantage. Think about what will actually work, what is actionable. Getting rid of cars is completely unactionable. Tunnels are. So Elon does tunnels.
- nmeofthestate 9y ago>Why is that funny? Replacing existing cities with new ones is non-trivial.
- kerbalspacepro 9y agoI have to assume that the same set of people complaining about high rent prices because of NIMBYism are not the same people dismissing this solution, which has the subtext of being NIMBY-proof. But they're probably the same.