3 ms·

Shifting to a less hidebound / bureaucratic location is a great solution. Also: Elon’s goal is a more than 10x reduction in costs, and he’ll be able to charge r

Shifting to a less hidebound / bureaucratic location is a great solution. Also: Elon’s goal is a more than 10x reduction in costs, and he’ll be able to charge related to the value of people’s time.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
So, Suburbs 2.0?
x0x0 9y ago
I think you're crazy to believe that if you go build a bunch of very dense housing anywhere, you won't shortly thereafter have a bunch of bureaucracy as a lot of people have to figure out how to live in close quarters. Again, as near as I can tell, the best possible outcome of ultra high speed tunnel transport is you move the dense housing problem (or the traffic problem) elsewhere. That's not actually a solution. I also think it only appears easier than eg fixing sfbay's housing problems.
- paulsutter 9y ago
  Ok then what’s your solution? Or, you’re saying there is no solution and we’re permanently stuck with commutes and housing prices from hell?
  - akgerber 9y ago
    Run an S-bahn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train) through the tunnel for 10x the throughput of humans for a given tunneling cost. Cars are a profoundly inefficient use of space in a dense area. The only way an auto tunnel network would solve traffic is by charging a sufficiently-high toll to match supply with demand. Otherwise, in an area dense enough that traffic congestion is a problem, induced demand will lead to congestion: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
    - paulsutter 9y ago
      Boring Company tunnels are NOT for cars-only, they do envision public-transportation-like services which will be much better to move between dense areas: https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/05/26/104494945-Boring-electric-vehicle-2.1910x1000.jpg?v=1495813998 https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/edit...
  - ghaff 9y ago
    The attractive areas of denser cities do tend to be more expensive than in less built-up areas. But there are plenty of cities that don't have housing prices from hell. Some also have fairly reasonable commuting times by rail although it's always going to take time to get from outside a city into a city. Furthermore, there are plenty of companies and housing on the outskirts of cities where there are reasonable housing and commutes. If everyone wants to live within 30 minutes of a Manhattan office, no, then there's probably no solution.
  - balls187 9y ago
    Virtual Offices along with Self Driving Cars

pavel_lishin 9y ago

So, Suburbs 2.0?

x0x0 9y ago

I think you're crazy to believe that if you go build a bunch of very dense housing anywhere, you won't shortly thereafter have a bunch of bureaucracy as a lot of people have to figure out how to live in close quarters. Again, as near as I can tell, the best possible outcome of ultra high speed tunnel transport is you move the dense housing problem (or the traffic problem) elsewhere. That's not actually a solution. I also think it only appears easier than eg fixing sfbay's housing problems.

paulsutter 9y ago
Ok then what’s your solution? Or, you’re saying there is no solution and we’re permanently stuck with commutes and housing prices from hell?
- akgerber 9y ago
  Run an S-bahn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train) through the tunnel for 10x the throughput of humans for a given tunneling cost. Cars are a profoundly inefficient use of space in a dense area. The only way an auto tunnel network would solve traffic is by charging a sufficiently-high toll to match supply with demand. Otherwise, in an area dense enough that traffic congestion is a problem, induced demand will lead to congestion: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
  - paulsutter 9y ago
    Boring Company tunnels are NOT for cars-only, they do envision public-transportation-like services which will be much better to move between dense areas: https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/05/26/104494945-Boring-electric-vehicle-2.1910x1000.jpg?v=1495813998 https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/edit...
- ghaff 9y ago
  The attractive areas of denser cities do tend to be more expensive than in less built-up areas. But there are plenty of cities that don't have housing prices from hell. Some also have fairly reasonable commuting times by rail although it's always going to take time to get from outside a city into a city. Furthermore, there are plenty of companies and housing on the outskirts of cities where there are reasonable housing and commutes. If everyone wants to live within 30 minutes of a Manhattan office, no, then there's probably no solution.
- balls187 9y ago
  Virtual Offices along with Self Driving Cars