If NYC didn't have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don't see why it would reduce the density of cities. Cities are still highly desired to live in outside of work
> If NYC didn't have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic.
Yes they would. If you took the existing surface street network and made it 100% buses and/or ground-level trains you could accomodate current subway and road capacity with room to spare, even before you reclaimed all the space currently used for car parking. Private cars are an astonishingly inefficient use of space, and taxis are barely any better.
> The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph.
We don't need to though. There's no conceivable need for a city to accommodate more people than could live within a 30-minute commute at current speeds if we were willing to build at the high densities that are actually possible.
"Private cars are an astonishingly inefficient use of space, and taxis are barely any better."
... and buses are even worse.
NYC works because of trains and as a proponent of train travel and public transportation (except buses) I believe they have indeed solved many problems with their diverse rail network.
Buses are a canard - they are the minimum viable public transport option that were pried out of suburban taxpayer hands and presented to poor urban (usually black) riders by planners who didn't care about public transportation at all.
This ruse has gone on so long that in 2017, well meaning (and brainwashed) proponents of public transportation see buses as one of the core components of a transport network. Wake up. This is false. You need subways and trains.
Well-functioning transit in cities that prioritize it use very few buses and they use them for weird stopgap or edge cases (or emergencies). BRT is a farce[1]. You should be demanding real, not fake, investment in transit networks. You should be demanding trains.
[1] To be fair, I have seen two very functional BRT models - both in very specific (and wealthy) environments: VelociRFTA in Aspen and Hop/Skip in Boulder. In both cases, however, a well-designed rail corridor would be even better.
London buses have a capacity of 80 to 130 people and are often full. How can that be worse than 60 to 110 cars for each bus?
Even at half the capacity (single deck) you use the space way more efficiently than cars.
Now if you live in a city where the planning was botched, the transit routes made inefficient, and poorly targeted at ghetto areas that's a different problem. In fact you'd probably have the same problem if the same routes were done by trains.
Buses are just a way to transport a lot more people than cars and I can't see how that's a problem...
I agree that buses a terrible solution, but are definitely better than no public transit at all. Sadly, Seattle is almost entirely dependent on buses for public transit, although things are getting slightly better here with recent investments in light rail. Of course, the costs are astronomical and the most important parts of the project won't be complete for decades, so it's cold comfort for anyone currently stuck with a 7 mile, 1 hour commute by bus (or worse).
What's baffling to me is that, in addition to "real" light rail, Seattle is also building out a network of street-level trains. These trains barely carry more passengers than an articulated bus, are subject to the same traffic issues as the buses since they don't have a dedicated right of way, cost way more than adding bus lines, and their tracks create significant hazards for cyclists. I could be wrong, but it seems like this is an example of "buses = bad; trains = good" thinking gone awry.
Tokyo is a much bigger city. They solved the problem by building elevated toll highways. Much simpler solution than digging new holes everywhere and keeping those silly carts running.
Doesn't this just mean that they are expensive? I heard complaints about how expensive Tokyo's subway is. Reducing price and propping the system with tax can be a better approach in the long term, because that can encourage more people to use public transit and reduce demand for costly highways.
(Also, one could argue that the freedom to move around at an affordable price is a basic service the government should strive to provide, although I'm sure some people will regard such an idea as socialist nonsense.)
I was in Tokyo recently. You can cross most of the city by subway/train for ~300 yen, or $2.66 USD at today's change rate. Compare to San Francisco, where I live. A Muni ticket is around $2.25, and a BART ticket ~$4... both with much worse service and smaller coverage.
You could argue, perhaps, that the price is expensive relative to what Japanese people earn, but from my impression it was a very effective and reasonably priced public transportation system.
I can only speak from experience for Hong Kong's MTR system. It has over 100% farebox recovery as well. Fares are distance-based [0] so it's hard to tell, but the average seems to be US$1.20 or so per person (unless you are traveling to Shenzhen) one way, which doesn't include transfers to the privately-run buses. If you believe in the Big Mac index at all this doesn't seem to be much more expensive compared to the US. (Note that it doesn't include transfers to buses.)
But the MTR actually was subsidized by the government, which let MTR Corporation develop the land above the subway to make malls and stuff, which they make even more money on. Presumably some of this profit gets reinvested into the system itself.
It's hard to say, because there's a few different subway operators in Tokyo, and if you switch between them your fare doesn't transfer. An example is JR and Tokyo Metro. There also exists Tobu lines, which run on Tokyo Metro lines, but sometimes have a different schedule. In my experience, the base fare (the price of entry) seems a little high, but the price stays the same for the first few stops, meaning that going 2 stops is more expensive than 4 stops. I think this effect continues into longer subway lines, and the prices of going to different stations is staggered if they are close together (e.g. if two stations are close enough, the price will be the same to go to if you come from the same location). I would argue that Tokyo's subway, overall, is probably about the same price if Bart was the same size.
Beyond the price, Tokyo Metro is almost always on time and pretty clean, and generally the delays happen late at night (the delays are only for a minute or two). Having been here for over a month, I've only experienced one daytime delay that lasted more than 30 seconds.
It only costs that much if you're staying far away or going pretty long distances. I stay in a station pretty far from Central Tokyo (past Kita Senju on the Tobu line) and to get to somewhere like Ginza costs less than 400 Yen, which is about $3.75. However, a chunk of that cost is due to Tobu, and if I was staying in Kita Senju or Ueno my trip would only be about 200-250 Yen.
If you are going from Kita Senju to Ginza then you would be using the Hibiya line. That trip will cost 195yen. Which is the same price for going all the way down to Roppongi where Google is. The Tokyo Metro and Toei lines tend to only have two or three prices depending on distance. This is why going two and three stations almost always costs the same.
Since employers always pay for commuting costs a regular working person spends very little on train tickets day to day. Me and my wife spend about $100 per month between us. With our companies paying a further $70 per month for each of us for our passes to work.
Living in another crowded city, Hong Kong, perhaps I can offer some perspective: We have tons of elevated tools highways and bypasses aimed at reducing traffic, the problem is all these elevated roads needs to go around a lot of tall buildings. Going underground with subway already provides us with better solution to a lot more of our traffic problem. What the boring company's proposing isn't all that different from the subway solution (we already have subway going three or four level deep), it simply allows cars to transported via subway.
That's the difference though, they're not talking about putting tons of people down there, they're talking about putting a small handful at a time (at most) by using cars. It appears much less efficient.
Pay today or pay tomorrow. I don't think it is an outlandish thought IF $100M/mile tunnels are achieved that the TCO for an elevated roadway will be higher. Elevated roadways have to be replaced eventually. Tunnels are more durable, look at the Holland Tunnel for example, 89 years old and no need for replacement in sight. And it's $48M price tag would be $3.3B today for 1.62 miles.
Well, given that both tunnels and elevated roads are still being built, the most expensive likely varies depending on the situation. If Musk really reduces the cost of tunneling by 10x, that calculus will shift in the direction of tunneling, obviously.
Dirt roads are extremely cheap and have been around forever. That doesn't make them the best choice in a modern society.
But rock comes with supporting structure, whereas you need to build those into "sky tunnels". This limits just how much "sky tunnels" you can make in two ways - there's only so much space on the ground you can use, and there's only so much weight it can support. That, and people will get anxious if their sky is totally obstructed by highways in the sky.
Tensile-strength-to-volume ratios for many materials is ridiculously high. Tunnel wall, ceiling, and floor quantities represent massive overengineered for that purpose
A cable tramway is one option for an aerial system. The load-bearing capacity of a 15mm steel cable is impressively high, and it can be strung along pylons.
Not that you'd want to bolt street cars to such a system, but it's an example of a possible people-mover that doesn't require persuading a multiple-kilometers-long bolus of solid granite it'd prefer being elsewhere.
Whilst I'm aware that Musk's premise here is that he can be the boringest guy ever, I'll note that the Gotthard Base Tunnel, in Switzerland, required 17 years of excavation to extend 35.5 km.
Tunnel systems can also give rise to some interesting cascade failure modes. Cab-forward deisel locomotives aren't generally considered a risk factor, until they are. Summary of an accident report, here, five souls lost to bad design of stock and tunnel, inadequate maintenance, poor judgement, and panic response:
Parking is a bigger problem in tokyo if you drive, and the tolls are expensive.
The newer the subway lines in Tokyo are fun because they have to built in under the others (as referenced in the FAQ), you can tell you're on a new line when you descend down flights and flights of stairs.
Yes, for a MagLev train that achieves the fantasy of hyperloop (but is actually happening now). From my perspective, hyperloop and TBC are each 100% upside down in terms of their approach. America can only dream of 505km/hr interstate ground transport.
I'm writing this from aboard the Nozomi express Shinkansen at around 300km/hr, by the way. Just left 名古屋駅.
Hah, amused to be able to read kanji after so many years (nagoya-eki :P)
I have ridden on the Nozomi and it's a fantastically smooth ride. There are indicators of the current speed on the wagon passage doors and it is incredible when it achieves 270+ km/h and everything is passing by so quickly, and yet you can drink your beverage from a cup just fine, just like in an airplane :)
That is still going 3D but without the significant speed increase. Also it is much more beautiful and less noisy to have highways out of sight so that the city is left for people and bikes, as opposed to stacked highways towering over head.
Next to NYC, commuting in Tokyo is effectively trouble-free. It may be crowded, but it's also predictable when the crunch times will be. Trains are on time. Cars keep moving and don't block every intersection with incessant honking.
The "problem of soul-destroying traffic" will exist for as long as driving remains the best all-round option. It's induced demand: build more roads > capacity increases > driving becomes easier > traffic increases until driving is as hard as it was.
Add a congestion charge or tolls, and a proper public transport network. The solution is not more roads, it's fewer cars.
America suffers from one more blight: too much parking. Large chunks of LA have mandatory parking no-one needs. This spreads the city out further whilst not actually providing parking where it's needed.
Cities like LA will become denser over time. It might seem counterintuitive but increasing density alleviate traffic (people walk).
You can't clean a hotel or flip a burger remote.
Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start.
Cycling... in LA...
I don't think the Boring Company is trying to solve the gridlock. They will, however, provide an option for those who can afford to pop down into a Teslalane [sic] for a trip to the airport. And that's fine. It's [Teslalanes] infrastructure that ultimately helps the city thrive until the time that the land use patterns rebalance. There will always be traffic - but it won't always have the same overall impact.
>Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start.
I take objection to this because, aside from other cities where public transit is the norm, the interurban system in LA [0] was dismantled, partially because it was forced out by cars that increased congestion to the point that streetcars could no longer run on time, and partially because of car companies advocating that buses could replace the streetcars (they didn't).
Things don't exist in a vacuum, and LA decided to make itself a city where you could only be comfortable getting from place to place inside a car.
> Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start.
So the question here really is "which would improve LA more: tunnels that carry trains, or tunnels that carry carts that hold single cars?"
There is plenty of strong evidence that shows adding additional road capacity increases overall traffic. I'm not sure that adding ways to move cars around faster wouldn't have the same impact, versus a train.
If the boring company solves issues with personal travel then cities like LS will become less dense. There's a reason urban sprawl didn't exist before the car.
Agreed this is exactly the line of inquiry needed Dave. The Boring Company while novel, does not seem to be a representative "first principles" approach Elon has taken with other problems, it's we have cars how do we move more of them faster. I lived in London 10 years and happily moved from home, work, social activity on trains and buses very easily and happily.
It's either you move to it, or it moves to you, or change the game so you don't need to physically move to be effective/productive/social i.e. remote work, home delivery, VR socialising.
The Boring tunnel network - tunnel network as a service? TNaaS would be great for an automated freight and home delivery network, kind of like the modern scaled up pneumatic tube delivery system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd58w0CXQrM I can imagine Amazon scaling this up.
Freight would be a great case for tunnels, if you could find a way to make the freight companies (say, Amazon) pay to use it. There's a reason why Amazon is pushing drone delivery, and I bet it's because they think they can get the rights to use the skies for free.
There's another obvious solution, wait a few years and the end of cheap oil will fix traffic. Then the countries that built themselves around roads, cars and cheap oil will face larger issues (mostly US and Australia IIANM).
The worst part is that this had been foreseen and warnings have been made but nothing is done to deal with it.
If you wait a few years you'll have electric cars that are independent of cheap oil. And there will still be traffic.
Perhaps it will no longer be soul-destroying because you'll be able to watch a movie, take a nap or get work done on your PC in your self-driving car.
There will be no end to cheap oil in the next 50 years. As demand decreases due to electric cars we'll see nearly 30-40% of the use of crude oil going away. The world has absolutely massive reserves of crude.
"I feel like only somebody who lives in LA would make the "must" assertion and not think about all the other options..."
I live in San Francisco and I assert that: To solve the soul-destroying practice of driving from (north of golden gate bridge) to SFO, roads must go 3D (tunnel).
You may not be aware of this, but if you need to go to SFO from Marin (or anywhere north of the city) you need to drive through small residential neighborhoods, stopping at up to 12 stoplights. It's incredibly wasteful of time and gas and degrades the lives of everyone involved. You find yourself stopped in traffic on a four lane boulevard in front of a single family home with a yard. That's how you get to SFO.
San Francisco desperately needs a tunnel from the GGB to SFSU/ParkMerced.
Reducing density of cities actually increases a lot of problems. It means you have to spend a lot more of your time traveling, which will make all these problems worse. LA is a fairly low density city and has terrible traffic problems. It reduces economic efficiency, too.
Additionally, public transport often interferes with regular road traffic, making the problem worse. The solution is to use an elevated train (Chicago) or subways. So now you're back at 3D.
And biking in a low-density city isn't a practical solution.
I think remote work and online shopping are developing perfectly well without Musk's help. And I think we need to increase the density of cities (at least, city centres and inner suburbs).
How do the sleds preclude developing public transport? Why wouldn't we see mini-vans pick people up from homes or community hubs and then use the tunnels to take an express route to the CBD? Or larger sleds that accommodate a bus or truck sized pod? If these HOV pods avoided a congestion charge, there would be an incentive to use them.
Obviously drivers and their cars will fill any space given to them, and cycling tunnels might be too expensive, but hopefully a change in traffic flow and parking availability would make room and safety for cycling above ground.
Imagine buses with good cycling storage so you could ride to the hub, board a bus, zip to the CBD, alight and ride the last few kilometres to your destination.
Entrenched interests will fight it for a time, but it wouldn't surprise me if these guys could make it happen.
Your solutions are proportional reductions, a % reduction in the number of drivers. The problem of traffic rises with the ~2nd power of population because not only are there more people, there are more intersections.
Intersections can only be solved with 3d roads, by eliminating overlaps. The bigger the city, the more artery roads you need with uninterrupted flow, and they eventually choke each other. Build tunnels and you can have point-to-point connections without choking off local flow.
Reducing the number of drivers can't fully solve gridlock because at some point you have to hit a long light when you try to move from a high flow to low flow area. The only way to avoid that is with onramps and elevated freeways, but you can't build enough of those.
Every point you brought forward is also true for subways, but it's again at least an order of magnitude more space-efficient than sending cars through tunnels.
Reduced density of cities leads to longer distances and higher transportation needs, and less than ideal utilization of public transport. So that's counter-productive.
You can also fly. Skies are more 3D than digging and easier to access -- the problem with digging is that many people live and work and drive right above where you dig. At some point the holes could cause collapses. There's also water mains and other hazards and obstacles. Sounds dangerous.
I mean, it's also art. I would want it in my city just for that pissing-contest factor of 'hey, look at this cool shit we've got'. We deserve to make our cities beautiful and to build monuments to be proud of.
"To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D"
The word "must" is a very strong one here, there are other options:
* Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping).
* Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access).
* Increase public transport options (higher passenger density).
* Encourage cycling.
I feel like only somebody who lives in LA would make the "must" assertion and not think about all the other options... oh wait:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/6e27fcba-309d-494e-b...