4 ms·

Buses are good too, though bus rapid transit doesn't have the appeal of trains. I'm not sure if this is a problem inherent to buses or BRT systems having worse

Buses are good too, though bus rapid transit doesn't have the appeal of trains. I'm not sure if this is a problem inherent to buses or BRT systems having worse service on average giving them a bad image. 200kph close packed cars would be nice, though you have to deal with: - Close packing which definitely needs autonomous driving. I want something we can build in 2018. - Merging at 200kph in tunnels. Those on and off ramps are expensive to dig. - Load balancing between on/off ramps. If everyone wants to get off the same exit at 200kph I don't know where the load goes when you have to transition to 50kph traffic. Are you going to disallow exiting from an off ramp if it's at capacity and would slow down the tunnel? Where do these people get off? - Where do you park all of these cars? That's a hell of a lot of downtown parking! How much does downtown land cost per square metre, multiplied by the area of the sum of cars in the city? Trains solve all these problems, and more importantly are here right now! It's not a technical problem, it's a political one. I don't understand the obsession with all these far off possibilities that might be better than rail. I'm just as big a fan of Elon Musk as the next person but Hyperloop has given a lot of ammunition to opponents of rail. "Hyperloop/The Boring Company is coming so we shouldn't build efficient metros that are already implemented in Japan/China/Europe and reduce reliance on cars and foreign oil."

njarboe 9y ago
"lose packing which definitely needs autonomous driving. I want something we can build in 2018" Yes, automatic driving only in these tunnels. Current tech in a Tesla Car (and some others) would already be able to automatically drive in a tunnel today with very short spacing, no problem. Here in 2018. "Merging at 200kph in tunnels. Those on and off ramps are expensive to dig." Yes. Tunnels are expensive. They are getting more expensive to dig. Thus the Boring company. This is the biggest problem with a tunnel system, but tunneling for trains is not cheaper. "Load balancing between on/off ramps." An automatic car can know if an off ramp is going to be full. Pay extra(congestion pricing, progressives love that) to exit or take one before or after. "Where to park" Automatic electric car goes back home until Miller Time or is rented to other people for the day. Rail is not a point to point system. This is the problem. How are you getting trains to within a 5 minute walking distance of everyone's home in LA and can go direct (no train transfers) to a 5 minute walk to anywhere else they want to go. Not likely. With this system, being a 5 minute drive to the nearest tunnel entrance and then the connected tunnel system puts you out with a 5 minute drive to your destination. This would be possible. The great thing about cities are the people. Being able to have a huge set of people that people can interact with and have long term relationships with. Groups formed by these people. I think it would be cool to have a city where most people can have a piece of land to grow things on and also have the possible interaction and long term relationships with >10 million other humans.
- jakecopp 9y ago
  "Pay extra(congestion pricing, progressives love that) to exit or take one before or after." It's a physical impossibility, no congestion pricing will make more supply. If it's 8:30am on a weekday, and you have a large suburban area serviced by a tunnel exiting in a much smaller downtown area, how will there ever be enough exits? Have you seen how crowded a European train station is at peak hour? All these cars would have to go somewhere. Some back of the napkin maths in an ideal scenario: 200kph = 55.5556ms tunnel, 1 lane, 3 metre windscreen to next windscreen distance (car length + distance in between). 55.556 / 3 = 18.51 ish cars/second = 66,636 cars per hour. This site [1] says LA's average off peak average speed is 26.8mph. Super rough estimate. This graph [2] says 26.8mph gives you ~1800 cars/hour/lane. So that's 37 downtown lanes per one lane of 200kph Boring Tunnel traffic. 37 lanes are 3.7m wide, so that's 137 metres wide! Sydney's current trains take 28,000 people per hour [3] in the real world, in 2018, driven by humans, with humans exiting stations. Put in 2 - 3 train lines underground, which is say 6 metres wide, chuck a station on top with escalators pumping people in and out, and people can walk through the city. Put a park on top. Sydney Central Station has 27 platforms, 10 underground. That's like 280,000 people per hour on the underground lines by those dodgy estimates, or 5 x 200kph 3 back to back traffic lanes (not tested yet), or 185 lanes of 26mph traffic which is ¾ of a kilometre wide! And it was built in 1906 out of sandstone! There are ~ 5 CBD stations in Sydney. A 925 lane wide road sounds like fun. And its here in 2018 and it costs me AU$1.50 to use. Cars don't belong in cities. Cars belong in the suburbs, which is where they can drive you to your train station. Tokyo's Shinkansen was opened in 1964 and went 220kph. If the train is more than 1 minute off the timetable you get an apology letter for your employer. They took the original trains out of service in 2008. The USA is so behind. As I said, transport isn't a technical problem, it's a political one. The future is here (high speed rail), it just isn't evenly distributed yet. [1]: http://infinitemonkeycorps.net/projects/cityspeed/ http://infinitemonkeycorps.net/projects/cityspeed/ [2]: http://moderntransit.org/solution.html http://moderntransit.org/solution.html [3]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-trains-claim-doubtful/5371446 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-...

njarboe 9y ago

"lose packing which definitely needs autonomous driving. I want something we can build in 2018" Yes, automatic driving only in these tunnels. Current tech in a Tesla Car (and some others) would already be able to automatically drive in a tunnel today with very short spacing, no problem. Here in 2018. "Merging at 200kph in tunnels. Those on and off ramps are expensive to dig." Yes. Tunnels are expensive. They are getting more expensive to dig. Thus the Boring company. This is the biggest problem with a tunnel system, but tunneling for trains is not cheaper. "Load balancing between on/off ramps." An automatic car can know if an off ramp is going to be full. Pay extra(congestion pricing, progressives love that) to exit or take one before or after. "Where to park" Automatic electric car goes back home until Miller Time or is rented to other people for the day. Rail is not a point to point system. This is the problem. How are you getting trains to within a 5 minute walking distance of everyone's home in LA and can go direct (no train transfers) to a 5 minute walk to anywhere else they want to go. Not likely. With this system, being a 5 minute drive to the nearest tunnel entrance and then the connected tunnel system puts you out with a 5 minute drive to your destination. This would be possible. The great thing about cities are the people. Being able to have a huge set of people that people can interact with and have long term relationships with. Groups formed by these people. I think it would be cool to have a city where most people can have a piece of land to grow things on and also have the possible interaction and long term relationships with >10 million other humans.

jakecopp 9y ago
"Pay extra(congestion pricing, progressives love that) to exit or take one before or after." It's a physical impossibility, no congestion pricing will make more supply. If it's 8:30am on a weekday, and you have a large suburban area serviced by a tunnel exiting in a much smaller downtown area, how will there ever be enough exits? Have you seen how crowded a European train station is at peak hour? All these cars would have to go somewhere. Some back of the napkin maths in an ideal scenario: 200kph = 55.5556ms tunnel, 1 lane, 3 metre windscreen to next windscreen distance (car length + distance in between). 55.556 / 3 = 18.51 ish cars/second = 66,636 cars per hour. This site [1] says LA's average off peak average speed is 26.8mph. Super rough estimate. This graph [2] says 26.8mph gives you ~1800 cars/hour/lane. So that's 37 downtown lanes per one lane of 200kph Boring Tunnel traffic. 37 lanes are 3.7m wide, so that's 137 metres wide! Sydney's current trains take 28,000 people per hour [3] in the real world, in 2018, driven by humans, with humans exiting stations. Put in 2 - 3 train lines underground, which is say 6 metres wide, chuck a station on top with escalators pumping people in and out, and people can walk through the city. Put a park on top. Sydney Central Station has 27 platforms, 10 underground. That's like 280,000 people per hour on the underground lines by those dodgy estimates, or 5 x 200kph 3 back to back traffic lanes (not tested yet), or 185 lanes of 26mph traffic which is ¾ of a kilometre wide! And it was built in 1906 out of sandstone! There are ~ 5 CBD stations in Sydney. A 925 lane wide road sounds like fun. And its here in 2018 and it costs me AU$1.50 to use. Cars don't belong in cities. Cars belong in the suburbs, which is where they can drive you to your train station. Tokyo's Shinkansen was opened in 1964 and went 220kph. If the train is more than 1 minute off the timetable you get an apology letter for your employer. They took the original trains out of service in 2008. The USA is so behind. As I said, transport isn't a technical problem, it's a political one. The future is here (high speed rail), it just isn't evenly distributed yet. [1]: http://infinitemonkeycorps.net/projects/cityspeed/ http://infinitemonkeycorps.net/projects/cityspeed/ [2]: http://moderntransit.org/solution.html http://moderntransit.org/solution.html [3]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-trains-claim-doubtful/5371446 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-...