4 ms·

But it’s a horrible POC. It’s not solving any serious mass transit problem. No, the Boring company exists to solve Musk’s “I don’t want to share space with othe

But it’s a horrible POC. It’s not solving any serious mass transit problem. No, the Boring company exists to solve Musk’s “I don’t want to share space with other people” problem. The real problem with The Boring Company is the fact that anyone takes it seriously as a form of mass transit. The damn idea is crowding out real solutions while we indulge Musk’s pipe dream.

Skunkleton 8y ago
I understand the outrage, but what are the "real" solutions, who is pushing them, and why aren't they gaining traction? Maybe tunnels suck, but at least there is something happening.
- erentz 8y ago
  > but what are the "real" solutions Trains. Lots of trains. Inside tunnels. On the surface. On elevated tracks. That interconnect in a network so you can get from anywhere to anywhere. On trains. > and why aren't they gaining traction? Because everytime someone points out mass transit is a solved problem, has been for over 100 years, everyone responds somehow saying "that's unrealistic!" or "eww gross you want me to sit next to someone else!"
  - piyh 8y ago
    There's a reasonable limit on how high you can build, as well as noise concerns and NIMBY. Building over existing neighborhood is a nogo. Train transfers are a pain in the ass. I live a block away from a rail station and only use it when going to the absolute heart of downtown. Even then I drive as close as I reasonably can and take the train for the last 3 miles. It saves me at least an hour round trip vs taking the train the whole way.
  - Skunkleton 8y ago
    I love trains. Still, other than a few major cities, they aren't a great way to get around in the states. It is a shame there isn't more public support for building more rail.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Bicycles and electric scooters combined with changes to the roads to give them priority over cars. We'd be better off in general if we didn't waste so many resources on making our countries work for cars.
  - favorited 8y ago
    Bicycles and scooters aren't year-round solutions for huge parts of the US. You can't optimize your roads for something that is a non-starter for 1/3 to 1/2 of the year.
    - radicalbyte 8y ago
      I doubt that any single solution would work for your entire country. It works fairly well here in The Netherlands. The country is flat but it does have cold winters (two weeks of snow/ice and two-three months of close-to-or-under-freezing temperatures). Whenever I have worked within cycling distance (15km or somewhere with a viable train connection) I've cycled all year round. It would work in a city such as New York (which has a similar climate to here); the metro is already great for the bulk of the journey and bikes/e-bikes would work great for the last part. You'd just have to replace the cars.
    - kgermino 8y ago
      Where in the US are bikes not suitable for 1/2 the year? Are you thinking areas like Florida and Texas? I can see biking being tough in the hot/humid summer but wouldn't something like an electric scooter (where you're just standing there) be fine?
      - Helloworldboy 8y ago
        Ever try to take an electric scooter through snow?
      - favorited 8y ago
        The last time I was in Florida in August, I was sweating in shorts and a t-shirt. I can't imagine trying to commute to a job that requires a suit.
_Microft 8y ago
No, the Boring Company exists to solve Musk's "How do we create habitats and automated mining on Mars" problem.
Nasrudith 8y ago
We have known about real solutions for decades - but people won't accept them for various selfish NIMBY reasons. Hell look at the sheer irrational hostility Google Bus faced - despite its sole purpose being to get the Googler traffic they were complaining about off the road. The cure is clear but they don't want to take their medicine.
- discodave 8y ago
  The Google bus actually has something in common with this tunnel nonsense. Both are private enterprises. Google could have given money to expand the city bus network instead of running private buses. Elon could work with the LA public transport companies, but he is choosing not to. The thing about contributing to public goods is that it benefits everybody. The problem with building private solutions is that even-if it has some public good (e.g. replacing many cars with one bus) it still creates an us-vs-them situation where mere mortals cannot take advantage of the Google bus.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Expecting people much less corporation to give away for public infrastructure is unrealistic in itself. That isn't Google's job. The city and its residents need to take responsibility. By definition municipal transportation either is doing things more efficiently than Google to be able to fund others or Google is paying more than they have to. Given that they aren't trying to undercut Google Bus expenses in a "Hey we could operate it cheaper for you and buy up the buses you already have for a long term contract" it is clearly not the previous. I fully support improved public transit and good governance but it isn't Google's job to support it but the transit's job to support everbody and make the additional taxes worth it. Why should Google pay? They already get their share and it is up to the city and its residents to decide to use it that way. The public transit option always has to compete with private regardless of what the delusional gatekeeper attitude. Not to mention flexibility - if Google wants to bus their people to a convention instead of the usual routes they can. Resentment is still an absurd case of sour grapes. Especially given the resistance to public transit infastructure expansion for fear it may bring them in contact with poor and minorities, housing expansion for it may change the facade from when they got their or devalue their absurdly inflated nest egg from artificial property tax stagnation. I bet anything the same people would flip out if they were told they couldn't use their private vehicles on public roads yet they want to do the same thing to Google buses. After they themselves vetoed alternatives. Lets face it - the area's biggest root problem is an entitlement issue. It is one thing to want corporations to pay more taxes, it is another to stop every possible solution and then screech like howler monkeys over solutions that don't harm them. By all means hold corporations accountable for misconduct but this is just irrational. Other areas have been trying anything to replicate their success and failing. As an outsider it is painful to watch an already objectively great area squander their potential for further improvement and act so damn bratty and crazy.
skybrian 8y ago
I think it might prove something more specific: is the cost as cheap as they claim? If so, it can be scaled up by building more, cheaper tunnels. Even if stations are the main cost, this might change the architecture. As proof it only goes so far because each site is different, but it's a step towards justifying their claims. As for crowding out, I haven't seen any other mass transit projects delayed because of them. Have you?

Skunkleton 8y ago

I understand the outrage, but what are the "real" solutions, who is pushing them, and why aren't they gaining traction? Maybe tunnels suck, but at least there is something happening.

erentz 8y ago
> but what are the "real" solutions Trains. Lots of trains. Inside tunnels. On the surface. On elevated tracks. That interconnect in a network so you can get from anywhere to anywhere. On trains. > and why aren't they gaining traction? Because everytime someone points out mass transit is a solved problem, has been for over 100 years, everyone responds somehow saying "that's unrealistic!" or "eww gross you want me to sit next to someone else!"
- piyh 8y ago
  There's a reasonable limit on how high you can build, as well as noise concerns and NIMBY. Building over existing neighborhood is a nogo. Train transfers are a pain in the ass. I live a block away from a rail station and only use it when going to the absolute heart of downtown. Even then I drive as close as I reasonably can and take the train for the last 3 miles. It saves me at least an hour round trip vs taking the train the whole way.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  I love trains. Still, other than a few major cities, they aren't a great way to get around in the states. It is a shame there isn't more public support for building more rail.
radicalbyte 8y ago
Bicycles and electric scooters combined with changes to the roads to give them priority over cars. We'd be better off in general if we didn't waste so many resources on making our countries work for cars.
- favorited 8y ago
  Bicycles and scooters aren't year-round solutions for huge parts of the US. You can't optimize your roads for something that is a non-starter for 1/3 to 1/2 of the year.
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    I doubt that any single solution would work for your entire country. It works fairly well here in The Netherlands. The country is flat but it does have cold winters (two weeks of snow/ice and two-three months of close-to-or-under-freezing temperatures). Whenever I have worked within cycling distance (15km or somewhere with a viable train connection) I've cycled all year round. It would work in a city such as New York (which has a similar climate to here); the metro is already great for the bulk of the journey and bikes/e-bikes would work great for the last part. You'd just have to replace the cars.
  - kgermino 8y ago
    Where in the US are bikes not suitable for 1/2 the year? Are you thinking areas like Florida and Texas? I can see biking being tough in the hot/humid summer but wouldn't something like an electric scooter (where you're just standing there) be fine?
    - Helloworldboy 8y ago
      Ever try to take an electric scooter through snow?
    - favorited 8y ago
      The last time I was in Florida in August, I was sweating in shorts and a t-shirt. I can't imagine trying to commute to a job that requires a suit.

_Microft 8y ago

No, the Boring Company exists to solve Musk's "How do we create habitats and automated mining on Mars" problem.

Nasrudith 8y ago

We have known about real solutions for decades - but people won't accept them for various selfish NIMBY reasons. Hell look at the sheer irrational hostility Google Bus faced - despite its sole purpose being to get the Googler traffic they were complaining about off the road. The cure is clear but they don't want to take their medicine.

discodave 8y ago
The Google bus actually has something in common with this tunnel nonsense. Both are private enterprises. Google could have given money to expand the city bus network instead of running private buses. Elon could work with the LA public transport companies, but he is choosing not to. The thing about contributing to public goods is that it benefits everybody. The problem with building private solutions is that even-if it has some public good (e.g. replacing many cars with one bus) it still creates an us-vs-them situation where mere mortals cannot take advantage of the Google bus.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Expecting people much less corporation to give away for public infrastructure is unrealistic in itself. That isn't Google's job. The city and its residents need to take responsibility. By definition municipal transportation either is doing things more efficiently than Google to be able to fund others or Google is paying more than they have to. Given that they aren't trying to undercut Google Bus expenses in a "Hey we could operate it cheaper for you and buy up the buses you already have for a long term contract" it is clearly not the previous. I fully support improved public transit and good governance but it isn't Google's job to support it but the transit's job to support everbody and make the additional taxes worth it. Why should Google pay? They already get their share and it is up to the city and its residents to decide to use it that way. The public transit option always has to compete with private regardless of what the delusional gatekeeper attitude. Not to mention flexibility - if Google wants to bus their people to a convention instead of the usual routes they can. Resentment is still an absurd case of sour grapes. Especially given the resistance to public transit infastructure expansion for fear it may bring them in contact with poor and minorities, housing expansion for it may change the facade from when they got their or devalue their absurdly inflated nest egg from artificial property tax stagnation. I bet anything the same people would flip out if they were told they couldn't use their private vehicles on public roads yet they want to do the same thing to Google buses. After they themselves vetoed alternatives. Lets face it - the area's biggest root problem is an entitlement issue. It is one thing to want corporations to pay more taxes, it is another to stop every possible solution and then screech like howler monkeys over solutions that don't harm them. By all means hold corporations accountable for misconduct but this is just irrational. Other areas have been trying anything to replicate their success and failing. As an outsider it is painful to watch an already objectively great area squander their potential for further improvement and act so damn bratty and crazy.

skybrian 8y ago

I think it might prove something more specific: is the cost as cheap as they claim? If so, it can be scaled up by building more, cheaper tunnels. Even if stations are the main cost, this might change the architecture. As proof it only goes so far because each site is different, but it's a step towards justifying their claims. As for crowding out, I haven't seen any other mass transit projects delayed because of them. Have you?