5 ms·

And yet development should take the environment into consideration because it can have massive consequences. Those consequences are ultimately an externality of

And yet development should take the environment into consideration because it can have massive consequences. Those consequences are ultimately an externality of the development project and evaluating it in advance can help inform the true financials of the project.

dpcx 8y ago
I wonder whether those that were taking the environment in to consideration for the development thought beyond the project to what environmental impacts could be lessened by the project. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but if these tunnels will work the way he's suggesting, the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution) would probably be a net benefit to the environment.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution) I don't understand how any pollution would be removed, just because it's now in tunnels doesn't equal it being gone. Wouldn't it just be blasted back out through the ventilation system? Or were there plans to build some kind of "pollution scrubbing" into those?
  - deegles 8y ago
    I think the tunnels would run electric cars/trains only.
    - Symmetry 8y ago
      Also, cars use a minimum of CO2/mile when traveling at 40mph. Time spent idling in traffic is time spent burning gas to no purpose and to the extent that these tunnels decrease surface traffic there are add on benefits.
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      Okay, but what about the (probably massive) upfront environmental costs of digging the tunnels and building their infrastructure?
- cujo 8y ago
  I would question if it would actually lower traffic, or just allow more people to travel.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >or just allow more people to travel. Which is an increase in quality of life for those who would have otherwise forgone those trips. Either way it's a win. Whether it's a big enough win to be worth the cost is a perpetual debate with projects like this.
    - anonymou2 8y ago
      An increase in quality of life? Really? Who is to tell? Maybe those people would have done something more fulfilling instead of whatever they did as the porpose of those trips.
      - njarboe 8y ago
        "Who is to tell?" Generally the person themselves should be the one to tell. Other systems have not worked out so well.
    - mattigames 8y ago
      The biggest win -if it works as expected- would be the influence on other cities to do similar projects and focus on creating fast-and-electric-powered alternatives to move cars; also there may be a gain in safety issues due not relying in the driving skills of its users.
- Anechoic 8y ago
  Which is the point of an environmental assessment: to look at the benefits and cost to the environment and document the net result. This isn’t about declaring the project a hazard to the environment, this is skipping the process to determine if it is or isn’t a net good.
  - zebrafish 8y ago
    Who foots the bill for such an assessment?
    - dawnerd 8y ago
      Whoever is paying for the project. The same as who pays for all the permits and inspections.
      - zebrafish 8y ago
        I would think that's the reason why Boring Co. cancelled the project then. They probably need to get some "MVP" tunnels up and running as soon and as cheaply as possible.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads seriously, how would that work? any expansion of road capacity in LA is immediately used up and oversaturated. if you build it they will come. if you free roads up by providing an alternative like Musk's tunnel system, someone else will still come and fill the roads back up, because, "hey, traffic is moving again."
- drb91 8y ago
  Cars fill the capacity of the roads. LA will just get more cars. LA deserves better public transit.
- mayamatrix 8y ago
  Where do you think the pollution from all those added cars is going to go?
chrisco255 8y ago
All states have some form of this, but CA takes it to another level.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pj_mukh 8y ago
Oddly enough, currently the opposite is true. All the construction blocks being put up sometimes in the name of environmental assessment are pushing people out of dense areas and into sprawling suburbs, with people taking on huge commutes to get to work. Where is the environmental assessment on NIMBY-ism I wonder? :/
- wyldfire 8y ago
  I've read articles that talk about that debate. Indeed, I tend to agree that development to support denser population is often an environmental net win over the immediate local environmental impacts, but I suppose it should be case-by-case.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  There is a lot of construction going on in LA right now. It's actually quite easy to get new construction approved if you just follow the rules. Of course, if you choose not to follow the rules and processes for development...it's very difficult. Elon's learning the hard way that not following the rules can make his pet projects difficult or even impossible.

dpcx 8y ago

I wonder whether those that were taking the environment in to consideration for the development thought beyond the project to what environmental impacts could be lessened by the project. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but if these tunnels will work the way he's suggesting, the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution) would probably be a net benefit to the environment.

freeflight 8y ago
> traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution) I don't understand how any pollution would be removed, just because it's now in tunnels doesn't equal it being gone. Wouldn't it just be blasted back out through the ventilation system? Or were there plans to build some kind of "pollution scrubbing" into those?
- deegles 8y ago
  I think the tunnels would run electric cars/trains only.
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    Also, cars use a minimum of CO2/mile when traveling at 40mph. Time spent idling in traffic is time spent burning gas to no purpose and to the extent that these tunnels decrease surface traffic there are add on benefits.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Okay, but what about the (probably massive) upfront environmental costs of digging the tunnels and building their infrastructure?
cujo 8y ago
I would question if it would actually lower traffic, or just allow more people to travel.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >or just allow more people to travel. Which is an increase in quality of life for those who would have otherwise forgone those trips. Either way it's a win. Whether it's a big enough win to be worth the cost is a perpetual debate with projects like this.
  - anonymou2 8y ago
    An increase in quality of life? Really? Who is to tell? Maybe those people would have done something more fulfilling instead of whatever they did as the porpose of those trips.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      "Who is to tell?" Generally the person themselves should be the one to tell. Other systems have not worked out so well.
  - mattigames 8y ago
    The biggest win -if it works as expected- would be the influence on other cities to do similar projects and focus on creating fast-and-electric-powered alternatives to move cars; also there may be a gain in safety issues due not relying in the driving skills of its users.
Anechoic 8y ago
Which is the point of an environmental assessment: to look at the benefits and cost to the environment and document the net result. This isn’t about declaring the project a hazard to the environment, this is skipping the process to determine if it is or isn’t a net good.
- zebrafish 8y ago
  Who foots the bill for such an assessment?
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    Whoever is paying for the project. The same as who pays for all the permits and inspections.
    - zebrafish 8y ago
      I would think that's the reason why Boring Co. cancelled the project then. They probably need to get some "MVP" tunnels up and running as soon and as cheaply as possible.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads seriously, how would that work? any expansion of road capacity in LA is immediately used up and oversaturated. if you build it they will come. if you free roads up by providing an alternative like Musk's tunnel system, someone else will still come and fill the roads back up, because, "hey, traffic is moving again."
drb91 8y ago
Cars fill the capacity of the roads. LA will just get more cars. LA deserves better public transit.
mayamatrix 8y ago
Where do you think the pollution from all those added cars is going to go?

chrisco255 8y ago

All states have some form of this, but CA takes it to another level.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pj_mukh 8y ago

Oddly enough, currently the opposite is true. All the construction blocks being put up sometimes in the name of environmental assessment are pushing people out of dense areas and into sprawling suburbs, with people taking on huge commutes to get to work. Where is the environmental assessment on NIMBY-ism I wonder? :/

wyldfire 8y ago
I've read articles that talk about that debate. Indeed, I tend to agree that development to support denser population is often an environmental net win over the immediate local environmental impacts, but I suppose it should be case-by-case.
gamblor956 8y ago
There is a lot of construction going on in LA right now. It's actually quite easy to get new construction approved if you just follow the rules. Of course, if you choose not to follow the rules and processes for development...it's very difficult. Elon's learning the hard way that not following the rules can make his pet projects difficult or even impossible.