7 ms·

In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the

In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.

fgheorghe 8y ago
In the “old world” cities like London, Paris, Berlin and others are facing the eact same problems, with or without those overcrowded, overpriced buses you mentioned.
- lmm 8y ago
  I live in London. Many people don't own cars. Many who moved here with a car give up their cars. Working public transport systems leave everyone better off.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Public transport in London is incredibly good, I'm always amazed. But then it's NOT run by 5 competing companies that couldn't care less about linked up journeys.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      On the other hand, transit in Tokyo and Osaka is run by a number of public and private companies, some of which compete with each other, and linked-up journeys are no problem at all. It's totally doable.
      - lmm 8y ago
        Japanese companies do not have much of a reputation for red-in-tooth-and-claw competition (e.g. the "gentleman's agreement" about advertised car horsepower).
  - icelancer 8y ago
    Your cities are built for mass transit. Ours are not, owing to the enormous landmass we utilize in the ways that we do. This is not a simple problem to solve by just adding more trains and bus units.
- fridek 8y ago
  I live in London and commute 10 miles each way daily. It takes me ~45 minutes in rush hour. Driving the same distance is, in the middle of the night, 30-40 min (in rush hour you can be stuck simply until it's over). Total cost is also lower at 2000 pounds a year for round trips on my route (which would cover only insurance and gas at best). Also, I haven't taken a bus to work, ever. Tube serves 5 million passengers a day and whilst sometimes crowded, seems to be scaling pretty well.
awakeasleep 8y ago
Musk is trying to solve the transit problem of people making over 200k a year- Maintain the standard of absolute luxury and privacy provided by the car, while reducing the concentration required to drive and the time it takes to be stuck in traffic.
- erik_seaberg 8y ago
  Sometimes I wonder how buses with private compartments would be received, compared to today's cattle cars.
twblalock 8y ago
> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s. The problem is that many American cities, including those in Silicon Valley, would need to be torn down and rebuilt for European- or Japanese-style transit to make sense. Everything is very spread out. Most people in London or Paris or Tokyo live within a short walking distance of a train station. In cities like LA, many people could walk over a mile from their house and only see other houses. Because everything is so spread out, we would require many stations in suburban residential neighborhoods or nobody would have a station within walking distance of their home. However, those stations would only be useful to the small number of people who live in those neighborhoods because nobody else would have a reason to go there. It's hard to imagine those stations would get enough ridership to make economic sense. So we are stuck with transit restricted to downtown areas, and if you want to go downtown or leave downtown you need a car. The Boring Company is attempting to recognize that reality and solve the "last mile problem" by turning cars themselves into public transit. It will be pretty cool if it works.
reaperducer 8y ago
In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. If you include London in "the Old World," it has the same horrible freeway congestion problems every other city does. Being European doesn't change the laws of physics.
belenos46 8y ago
Likely the latter, and for that we can largely thank large motorist groups in the US. Michelin comes to mind, as they created their "Michelin star" metric to give people a reason to drive places, and then lobbied like hell to create town/city layouts that mandated driving. A hundred years later, driving is a massive part of US culture, and we have trouble seeing the problem because that's "just how things are".
- twblalock 8y ago
  This scheme would not have succeeded if people preferred public transit to driving. Honestly it's not hard to see why it succeeded. Back in the early postwar period, driving was cheap and easy, parking was plentiful, traffic was light, and the new interstate highway system made long-distance car travel practical. Even if the motorist groups had not lobbied for it, cars would have taken over anyway because people liked them so much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lazyjones 8y ago
> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s. That, or the Old World is simply stuck with cities where no more roads can be built without tearing down many inhabited buildings, so people are forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport. I'd appreciate more honesty and less ideology in such debates.
- chadcmulligan 8y ago
  > I'd appreciate more honesty and less ideology in such debates and yet > forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport There is no need to public transport to be smelly and uncomfortable if enough money is spent on maintenance.
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > There is no need to public transport to be smelly and uncomfortable if enough money is spent on maintenance. I live in Vienna, which has arguably some of the best maintained and expensive public transport. It's still smelly, because people. They forbid food (initially only smelly food, but signs - pictograms in the subway - show any/all types of food) recently because people complained and during last summer the administration handed out free deodorants to passengers. Sorry, public transport IS uncomfortable and smelly, like most places with many people.
    - chadcmulligan 8y ago
      I'm in Australia and the public transport is clean here. No food is allowed, and its enforced. There is the occasional smelly person, particularly in summer, unavoidable. In general though it works well.
      - lazyjones 8y ago
        I'd like to see some pictures of the inside of a subway train in the center of Melbourne on 6am on a Saturday... ;-) It's a mentality issue - Singapore and Japan are also famous for clean public transport, but in most countries it's simply not possible.

fgheorghe 8y ago

In the “old world” cities like London, Paris, Berlin and others are facing the eact same problems, with or without those overcrowded, overpriced buses you mentioned.

lmm 8y ago
I live in London. Many people don't own cars. Many who moved here with a car give up their cars. Working public transport systems leave everyone better off.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Public transport in London is incredibly good, I'm always amazed. But then it's NOT run by 5 competing companies that couldn't care less about linked up journeys.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    On the other hand, transit in Tokyo and Osaka is run by a number of public and private companies, some of which compete with each other, and linked-up journeys are no problem at all. It's totally doable.
    - lmm 8y ago
      Japanese companies do not have much of a reputation for red-in-tooth-and-claw competition (e.g. the "gentleman's agreement" about advertised car horsepower).
- icelancer 8y ago
  Your cities are built for mass transit. Ours are not, owing to the enormous landmass we utilize in the ways that we do. This is not a simple problem to solve by just adding more trains and bus units.
fridek 8y ago
I live in London and commute 10 miles each way daily. It takes me ~45 minutes in rush hour. Driving the same distance is, in the middle of the night, 30-40 min (in rush hour you can be stuck simply until it's over). Total cost is also lower at 2000 pounds a year for round trips on my route (which would cover only insurance and gas at best). Also, I haven't taken a bus to work, ever. Tube serves 5 million passengers a day and whilst sometimes crowded, seems to be scaling pretty well.

awakeasleep 8y ago

Musk is trying to solve the transit problem of people making over 200k a year- Maintain the standard of absolute luxury and privacy provided by the car, while reducing the concentration required to drive and the time it takes to be stuck in traffic.

erik_seaberg 8y ago
Sometimes I wonder how buses with private compartments would be received, compared to today's cattle cars.

twblalock 8y ago

> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s. The problem is that many American cities, including those in Silicon Valley, would need to be torn down and rebuilt for European- or Japanese-style transit to make sense. Everything is very spread out. Most people in London or Paris or Tokyo live within a short walking distance of a train station. In cities like LA, many people could walk over a mile from their house and only see other houses. Because everything is so spread out, we would require many stations in suburban residential neighborhoods or nobody would have a station within walking distance of their home. However, those stations would only be useful to the small number of people who live in those neighborhoods because nobody else would have a reason to go there. It's hard to imagine those stations would get enough ridership to make economic sense. So we are stuck with transit restricted to downtown areas, and if you want to go downtown or leave downtown you need a car. The Boring Company is attempting to recognize that reality and solve the "last mile problem" by turning cars themselves into public transit. It will be pretty cool if it works.

reaperducer 8y ago

In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. If you include London in "the Old World," it has the same horrible freeway congestion problems every other city does. Being European doesn't change the laws of physics.

belenos46 8y ago

Likely the latter, and for that we can largely thank large motorist groups in the US. Michelin comes to mind, as they created their "Michelin star" metric to give people a reason to drive places, and then lobbied like hell to create town/city layouts that mandated driving. A hundred years later, driving is a massive part of US culture, and we have trouble seeing the problem because that's "just how things are".

twblalock 8y ago
This scheme would not have succeeded if people preferred public transit to driving. Honestly it's not hard to see why it succeeded. Back in the early postwar period, driving was cheap and easy, parking was plentiful, traffic was light, and the new interstate highway system made long-distance car travel practical. Even if the motorist groups had not lobbied for it, cars would have taken over anyway because people liked them so much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lazyjones 8y ago

> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s. That, or the Old World is simply stuck with cities where no more roads can be built without tearing down many inhabited buildings, so people are forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport. I'd appreciate more honesty and less ideology in such debates.

chadcmulligan 8y ago
> I'd appreciate more honesty and less ideology in such debates and yet > forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport There is no need to public transport to be smelly and uncomfortable if enough money is spent on maintenance.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > There is no need to public transport to be smelly and uncomfortable if enough money is spent on maintenance. I live in Vienna, which has arguably some of the best maintained and expensive public transport. It's still smelly, because people. They forbid food (initially only smelly food, but signs - pictograms in the subway - show any/all types of food) recently because people complained and during last summer the administration handed out free deodorants to passengers. Sorry, public transport IS uncomfortable and smelly, like most places with many people.
  - chadcmulligan 8y ago
    I'm in Australia and the public transport is clean here. No food is allowed, and its enforced. There is the occasional smelly person, particularly in summer, unavoidable. In general though it works well.
    - lazyjones 8y ago
      I'd like to see some pictures of the inside of a subway train in the center of Melbourne on 6am on a Saturday... ;-) It's a mentality issue - Singapore and Japan are also famous for clean public transport, but in most countries it's simply not possible.