3 ms·
Hmm gotta agree with the authors that it pretty much looks like a subway without the actual efficiency of one. Purely from layman's perspective it doesn't seem
by tekkk 8y ago
Hmm gotta agree with the authors that it pretty much looks like a subway without the actual efficiency of one. Purely from layman's perspective it doesn't seem plausible that subway could be replaced with a tunnel full of people driving their own cars. The space, the logistics, the everything. Subways and their tunnels are very much utilized to their maximum, could a tunnel full of separate cars have the same throughput of people? I'd say it's highly improbable.
But, as the article mentions Boring Company seems pivoting more to "a tunnel for rich people to drive in". That seems like a more plausible use-case. Or well just build a subway. And as another perspective as European, public transportation is pretty cool also. No need for expensive tunnels. Would probably help with the congestion too although it seems like a lost cause in the US.
- chrisco255 8y agoHow many cities in the U.S. would actually benefit from a Subway system? The density of most U.S. cities isn't high enough to support NYC or DC style metros. It's completely unrealistic to expect cities to invest in them when people are already spread out over mass expanses of suburbia. Face it, America was built around the car. Most of our cities developed long after the car was already a staple. Building tunnels for cars, to solve traffic, is very smart. There are many cities where there's little room to expand highways. A tunnel network that avoids a lot of the exhaust problems (due to restricting traffic to electric vehicles) would encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, would relieve traffic on main highways, and would be practical for most cities, without the maintenance costs of a Subway system.
- gamblor956 8y agoWhy would it be cost effective for a city that isn't dense enough for a subway to waste time and money digging an underground tunnel for 1 lane of cars instead of just expanding their existing streets by 1 lane for a fraction of the time and cost?
- chrisco255 8y agoBecause in many cases the highways are as wide as they can get and they would have to imminent domain a ton of private property to expand...which is time consuming, prone to litigation and increases the cost of highway construction...plus you have the three-four year disruption in existing traffic flows.