5 ms·

> besides getting a few folks home faster. How is that not solving a problem? Isn't this the purpose of undergrounds/metros?

almost_usual 8y ago
Yeah, it gets 5% of people home faster.
- evfanknitram 8y ago
  Faster, cheaper (than car) and with less emission right? Seems quite good to me.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tigershark 8y ago
    It seems an awful solution compared to the worst underground line. Modern lines, as I said, can transport more passengers than they move per day in a mere minute... If you add the time to make 3.6 miles probably they will complete the journey in 10-15 minutes.
    - Reason077 8y ago
      Yes, but full scale metro lines are very expensive and not every situation justifies that kind of spending. If this system can be built more quickly and at much lower cost than traditional transit systems, then it could well be very successful.
- r00fus 8y ago
  It removes those 5% from clogging up the roadways and parking lot. If you attend games, why would that be a bad thing?
  - pantalaimon 8y ago
    When they are building a tunnel anyway, why not run a normal metro line through it and be able to transport much more people?
    - marssaxman 8y ago
      Why would they waste the enormous amount of additional money it would take to construct a normal metro line, when the entire premise of the company is the proposition that it is possible to construct a useful underground transportation system which is much simpler and therefore much less expensive than a normal metro?
- Heliosmaster 8y ago
  Don't underestimate that if those 5% instead of taking the car take this Loop, there'll be less cars and less traffic. So a higher % will be home faster.
- roel_v 8y ago
  Nr of cars vs congestion follows an S-curve with a very narrow/steep middle section. Removing a single digit percentage of cars/passengers can mean the difference between 'busy but only a little slow down' and 'complete stand still'. I don't know about the numbers in this specific case, but transport systems work in not very intuitive ways.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    Indeed and adding this capacity could easily make things worse with induced demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
    - SECProto 8y ago
      While induced demand is definitely a thing, they're not going to start selling more tickets to baseball games because the road to the park isnt quite as congested. Induced demand is because of the effects it has (encourages more spread out development and 1PV usage).
extralego 8y ago
Depends on your standards for “problem”, which is conceptually a statement I myself find frustrating, so i can see where you’re coming from. But, we should try and be considerate when we define “problem”. LA has no shortage of serious transportation problems. This solves exactly none of them. Outside of Startupland, a problem is usually something that gets acknowledged before you find it.

almost_usual 8y ago

Yeah, it gets 5% of people home faster.

evfanknitram 8y ago
Faster, cheaper (than car) and with less emission right? Seems quite good to me.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tigershark 8y ago
  It seems an awful solution compared to the worst underground line. Modern lines, as I said, can transport more passengers than they move per day in a mere minute... If you add the time to make 3.6 miles probably they will complete the journey in 10-15 minutes.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    Yes, but full scale metro lines are very expensive and not every situation justifies that kind of spending. If this system can be built more quickly and at much lower cost than traditional transit systems, then it could well be very successful.
r00fus 8y ago
It removes those 5% from clogging up the roadways and parking lot. If you attend games, why would that be a bad thing?
- pantalaimon 8y ago
  When they are building a tunnel anyway, why not run a normal metro line through it and be able to transport much more people?
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    Why would they waste the enormous amount of additional money it would take to construct a normal metro line, when the entire premise of the company is the proposition that it is possible to construct a useful underground transportation system which is much simpler and therefore much less expensive than a normal metro?
Heliosmaster 8y ago
Don't underestimate that if those 5% instead of taking the car take this Loop, there'll be less cars and less traffic. So a higher % will be home faster.
roel_v 8y ago
Nr of cars vs congestion follows an S-curve with a very narrow/steep middle section. Removing a single digit percentage of cars/passengers can mean the difference between 'busy but only a little slow down' and 'complete stand still'. I don't know about the numbers in this specific case, but transport systems work in not very intuitive ways.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  Indeed and adding this capacity could easily make things worse with induced demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
  - SECProto 8y ago
    While induced demand is definitely a thing, they're not going to start selling more tickets to baseball games because the road to the park isnt quite as congested. Induced demand is because of the effects it has (encourages more spread out development and 1PV usage).

extralego 8y ago

Depends on your standards for “problem”, which is conceptually a statement I myself find frustrating, so i can see where you’re coming from. But, we should try and be considerate when we define “problem”. LA has no shortage of serious transportation problems. This solves exactly none of them. Outside of Startupland, a problem is usually something that gets acknowledged before you find it.