3 ms·

I think the author mostly makes a compelling case (especially the point about how it's effectively a subway but less efficient and for rich people) but I don't

by simias 8y ago

I think the author mostly makes a compelling case (especially the point about how it's effectively a subway but less efficient and for rich people) but I don't get this particular point: >L.A.’s highways are congested. Simply putting new ones underground doesn’t really solve this problem. I mean, more capacity should mean less congestion, shouldn't it? >Drivers will need to line up to wait their turn on the elevator. If the tunnels were really able to deliver lightning fast commutes across Los Angeles, demand would likely be quite high. That also doesn't make sense to me. The tunnel will be unsuccessful because it'll be too successful? People won't want to use the tunnel because too many people will use the tunnel? If Musk reaches that point he'll probably already have won.

alexhutcheson 8y ago
> I mean, more capacity should mean less congestion, shouldn't it? Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to induced demand[1]. > That also doesn't make sense to me. The tunnel will be unsuccessful because it'll be too successful? People won't want to use the tunnel because too many people will use the tunnel? If Musk reaches that point he'll probably already have won. I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few people would actually be able to benefit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- simias 8y ago
  >Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to induced demand[1]. I see what you mean but couldn't you raise the same objection if somebody wanted to, say, create a new subway system or something similar? More people in the new transport system means fewer people in cars on the streets means induced demand... I don't see why this particular project is different. >I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few people would actually be able to benefit. I agree with that, it's also a problem with hyperloop. It seems like Musk's vision of the future is great if you're rich, not so much if you're poor.

by simias 8y ago

alexhutcheson 8y ago

> I mean, more capacity should mean less congestion, shouldn't it? Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to induced demand[1]. > That also doesn't make sense to me. The tunnel will be unsuccessful because it'll be too successful? People won't want to use the tunnel because too many people will use the tunnel? If Musk reaches that point he'll probably already have won. I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few people would actually be able to benefit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

simias 8y ago
>Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to induced demand[1]. I see what you mean but couldn't you raise the same objection if somebody wanted to, say, create a new subway system or something similar? More people in the new transport system means fewer people in cars on the streets means induced demand... I don't see why this particular project is different. >I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few people would actually be able to benefit. I agree with that, it's also a problem with hyperloop. It seems like Musk's vision of the future is great if you're rich, not so much if you're poor.