Man Builds His Own Subway

jerryjamesstone writes "Everybody is into rail these days; it is the greenest way to get around next to a bike. Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh, building his own private underground Metro railway system. English-Russia says that he has been doing it with his pension, that it is all legal and approved and that he is still at it. Gizmodo calls it 'Partly the traditional, inspiring, one man against all odds type of persistence, but more the obsessive, borderline insane persistence.'" Update: 06/02 07:33 GMT by T : And if you're the type to visit Burning Man, you can actually ride a home-made monorail this summer, too.

Comments

Interesting

[Pojut]

Remind anyone of The Nite Owl, from Watchmen?

Re:Interesting

[ls671]

It reminds me Cray supercomputers creator digging a tunnel under his home where he said he would find solutions to his problems while getting visited by elves ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Cray#Personal_life

Re:Interesting

[Sulphur]

That's no elf.

Re:Interesting

[elrous0]

Poor old guy didn't realize they were just after his underpants.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no ELF.

- There, fixed it for you.

Digging a hole

[Kenoli]

Digging a hole, digging a hole

Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Re:Seriously?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

You sure about that? What about the environmental cost of growing more food for the biker to do his biking?

Re:Seriously?

[Em Emalb]

Cmon man, get with the times. Everyone knows Soylent Green is the best way to eat green.

It even has green in the name, that way you know it's good.

I bike to work on my made from fallen trees wooden bike, where I work at a recycling center re-using discarded plastics to make art, then I eat my yummy soylent green-brand gruel. It's fantastic.

Cmon, slashdot, go green, you jerks!

Re:Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

A lot less than the cost of smelting thousands of tons of steel for rails and cars, creating the energy to make the trains move, the sunk cost of human/vehicle weight (100 humans on 2000lbs of bikes vs. 100 humans on 150,000lbs of train car), and so on.

Then, you still have to have the bike because the train doesn't go everywhere.

Granted, you have to have roads that are passable to bikes, but a light-duty concrete suitable for bikes is a lot less costly than rail.

I ride my bike 21.9 miles each way to work. I could take the train, but it's not as green as riding my bike. And yes, I do eat more food to cover it. My PowerTap usually comes up with about 1500kJ of energy per trip, which is roughly equivalent to 1500 calories of food (once all the conversions and efficiencies are taken into account).

Crating 1lb of pasta (1600cal) costs a lot less than moving me and my share of a 150,000lb train car 22 miles.

I think.. :)

Re:Seriously?

[butterflysrage]

1.62 kJ/(kmkg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Energy_efficiency

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you're more likely to be hit by a car when riding a bike. My dad nearly died in college when he was hit by a drunk driver while riding his bicycle on the road.

Re:Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

I've been hit by cars three times, and I'm still here. I was mostly unhurt in all three accidents. But, I'm pretty damn lucky.

Of course, if we really wanted to be green, we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work, and employers would have bike racks, showers, and lockers.

Re:Seriously?

[couchslug]

"The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two."

The train is not a Green way to move a single cyclist, but bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Re:Seriously?

[jeffmeden]

The proper response is "Why more calories? You would have wasted them anyway."

A lot of people eat, store, and proceed to waste 1500 calories a day while severely raising their risk for health problems. The bike transportation solves all of these issues, and requires no "extra" calories unless you were already on a reduced calorie diet. The only downsides are dangerous roads (probably thanks to someone gorging a 1500 calorie "value meal" while steaming down the road in their SUV paying no attention to anything,) and showing up to work sweaty, rained on, and/or late.

Re:Seriously?

[IndustrialComplex]

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Of course it's off. You are taking a blanket term which really means everything and therefore nothing and trying to use it in a comparison.

What does your 'greenness' definition cover?

Probability to remove a vehicle from the road, probability to decrease the duration of congested traffic periods?, manufacturing costs, support infrastructure, aesthetic impact, air quality improvements, net impact on arable land availability, housing costs, quality of life, noise pollution,...

So what are you using to determine your 'orders of magnitude'?

Re:Seriously?

[gumbi west]

It's really hard to say. Most of the costs of the bike come from the high mortality rate of riders. These are very hard to compare to the more easily fungible costs of the train.

Does anybody know of really good statistics on mortality per mile for various modes of transportation and efficiency for various modes? I do remember that in the 1990s the 1e-6 risk for a bike is about 10 miles, car about 10 times that, and about 2000 miles for a bus. Subways would presumably be off the map for safety since passenger miles are huge but fatal crashes are very rare and no worse than a bad pileup.

Re:Seriously?

[hedwards]

Except that's not entirely true. Biking, as well as jogging, greatly increases the exposure of a person's lungs to pollution. It's why you can have somebody that appears to be in perfect health drop dead anyways. Here's a citation, it's more specific to jogging, but it applies just as much to any aerobic exercise undertaken near traffic.Pollution: Dangerous to Joggers

Re:Seriously?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Slashdot is green, but its more of a forest green, and less of the 'environmental green' color.

hell, sometimes its blue, and sometimes purple. So we should get to work on that

Re:Seriously?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

I would find you remarkably unlucky, having never been hit myself...yup, unlucky, or stupid

Re:Seriously?

[e9th]

bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Maybe not, but I believe you have just solved the unemployment problem.

Re:Seriously?

[poetmatt]

not everyone likes the taste of soylent green. It varies from person to person.

Re:Seriously?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Come to Amsterdam. Se bicycling in all its urban glory!

I kid you not, man. There are at least 7000 bicycles, piled up in front of the Centraal train station, alone - any time, day or night.

Re:Seriously?

[Eevee]

From the fine article you provided:

while a trial in Germany found that heart attack rates in a group of people sitting in traffic -- in a car or bus, or riding a bicycle -- rose in the hour after they had been exposed to the exhaust fumes.

It's not just the exercise, or it wouldn't affect people in cars.

Re:Seriously?

[vlm]

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Iff you do not count the greenness of the road the bike rides on, but do count the tracks the train runs on.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

bwahahahahaa. Somebody please mod this up.

Re:Seriously?

[cfzirbes]

Exhsaust fumes or stress derived from traffic? There are too many variables...

Re:Seriously?

[Anarki2004]

Studies have shown that indoor city air is often worse than the air outside. This gives some info. I can't seem to track down a specific reference, but I know I've heard it more than once.

Re:Seriously?

[Abstrackt]

bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Maybe not, but I believe you have just solved the unemployment problem.

Make the unemployed build bicycle bags?

Re:Seriously?

[cduffy]

Of course, if we really wanted to be green, we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work

Electric assist is great for extending "biking distance". Effort per unit time can remain constant (if one so desires) while the effort per unit distance decreases.

More topically, e-biking can actually be more environmentally sound than riding unassisted.

[...] and employers would have bike racks, showers, and lockers.

That's a matter of choosing one's employers wisely. My current one self-insures their medical coverage; as a result, they find it in their financial best interests to provide all of those things (even shampoo and conditioner are company-provided) -- but the ones prior did allow bicycles to be stored inside, and either had showers or helped to pay for membership at a nearby gym.

Re:Seriously?

[russotto]

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

In practice in most of the US (don't know about Europe), the energy efficiency of passenger rail is on the same order as that of the automobile.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trains are incredibly efficient movement systems.

Moving a single person, yeah, it fails there, but moving the thousands of peoples every day for work, and carrying mass packages, it completely wins hands down.

The whole process of Biking costs quite a bit of energy, from forming it to running it each day. Not to mention the upkeep required on them.
And they are particularly dangerous since the other 9999/10000 use cars.
A train is pretty much solid for decades, are safer, require little maintenance outside of testing and cleaning, and carry more than 1.

The real killer when it comes to "anti-greenness" is cars. Those things are huge, bulky, inefficient most of the time, unsafe, unclean for the most part.
Cars just plain aren't needed unless you travel large distances every day. (and by large, i mean several towns large.)
Cars just give most people an excuse to be lazy. I can't count how many times i have seen people throughout my life use cars to travel such stupidly small distances that could have been done on a bike easily.

I'd love to see the day where families bike with each other down the streets, or train / tram / subway / monorail systems becoming more popular.
Even bikes with covers over them so people don't get wet or cold would work. I have seen a few designs floating around the web.

Re:Seriously?

[Dare nMc]

It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15, and thus cost more to operate over those same miles as my car (lower maintenance wouldn't let me go as fast, granted, my choice). And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains. So the trains may make 1 million people miles before maintenance, no acceptable bike would. But the trains could have carried 100* more people. Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window. And compare that to a train. Your operating your bike within a window that allows you to borrow under utilized resources that probably makes it greener for you. But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.

Re:Seriously?

[elrous0]

With bike transport, you had better also factor in the cost of growing your own garden, taking care of your own cows and chickens. etc. Because you can forget getting any food from any distance away before it spoils.

Re:Seriously?

[CubicleView]

Not sure I'm on the same page, but I understood that we're refering to the "greeness" of a bike vs a train... I would have thought that taking a person out of the equation would be a net benifit to the environment. So it's just another category where bikes are more green than trains.

Re:Seriously?

[tattood]

I ride my bike 21.9 miles each way to work. I could take the train, but it's not as green as riding my bike.

I think you need to look at it from a distance vs. greenness perspective. For the shorter commute (22 miles is on the very outside of what I would call a short commute) a bike is greener. For a longer commute (30+ miles) where biking is not really a viable option, a train might be a greener solution as compared to the only other option of driving a car.

Re:Seriously?

[Kilrah_il]

Why is it that when something bad happens to someone (e.g. bike accident) someone has to reply with the adjective "stupid"? I mean, when you ride 22 miles X2/day each workday, accidents can happen - because you were tired, inattentive, unlucky, there was rain, whatever.
Yes, I know... this is /. and yes I am new here :)

Re:Seriously?

[xaxa]

It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15

You're very unlucky, or perhaps need more air in your tyres. I've cycled 6000km in the last year-and-a-bit, and repaired one tube (puncture repair kit: £1). I haven't replaced any rims, as I have disc brakes.

Also, I don't see any inner tubes costing $15; maybe bike stuff's expensive in the USA. You can buy cheap ones for £1 here, although I would probably spend ~£4.

And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains.

Hell no! Round here they run a special measurement train over every track every two weeks, measuring for twists and slips in the track (obviously on curves the track shifts). They also check for defects in the rails. This is necessary if you want to run trains at moderate to high speeds. A group of engineers walk the line regularly too, though I'm not sure how often. Most maintenance is done at night though, so you don't see it. The failure mode for broken track isn't good, a pothole in a bike trail isn't a big deal.

Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window.

1) They don't all need to do that -- people don't all work in the same building, and don't all live in the same building.
2) It's very easy to imagine, they're called "roads". Cities have a lot, lot, lot more road space compared to railway space.

But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.

Tell Denmark. Or some places in the far east.

In the USA you've already made the trade-off for cars, and they take up far more space than bicycles.

Re:Seriously?

[xaxa]

I think you need to look at it from a distance vs. greenness perspective. For the shorter commute (22 miles is on the very outside of what I would call a short commute) a bike is greener.

I think you need to realise 22 miles is not considered a short commute (even on the outside) in any country, anywhere, anytime, except in yours.

If the GP wants to be greener he should live closer to work.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually much "greener" to fill up a train with people and use an efficient electric motor using low rolling resistance steel tires on steel rails than to have each person riding their own bike with rubber tires on pavement. Furthermore, a train can return braking energy to the power grid to be used later, while most bikes can't store energy; and a train can be powered by falling water, while bikes can only be powered by food.

The problem with trains is that they have to run even when they're not full, while a bike only needs to be powered when going somewhere.

dom

Re:Seriously?

[arth1]

Never mind that whenever the biker needs to purchase something too heavy or bulky for the bike, he drives a car. Whereas the train rider can bring with him a couple of suitcases, a floor lamp, a pair of skis with little problem.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I too have heard this claim repeatedly, on commercials for indoor air purifiers from Sharper Image.

Re:Seriously?

[arkane1234]

Considering I've done it 20 miles one way, 20 miles back home, with a Cliff Bar for each ride, I'd call it pretty environmentally inexpensive. You don't shovel food into your face ravenously when you do something other than type...

Re:Seriously?

[arkane1234]

Mostly because everyone thinks that they are the pinnacle of intelligence and if you aren't existing without any problems then you are stupid.
It's arrogance at it's finest, it's okay. I've grown pretty used to it, around here.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

well I carry an AR-15 in my car. let's see you hit me from 250 yards.

Re:Seriously?

[delvsional]

All the bicyclists I've see are Stupid assholes, who deserve what they get. They blow through blind stop signs and red lights. They ride all the way across the road. A road BTW that is barely wide enough for two cars going in opposite directions and is full of potholes.

Bicyclists are supposed to follow the rules of the road, and if they don't bother to follow the rules that are supposed to keep them safe, why should I give a shit when a 4000 lb vehicle wins? BTW, I shoot back.

Re:Seriously?

[dAzED1]

I haven't owned a car for many years now. I use a backpack for shopping; works just fine. When I need to move something large, I go all communist and rent a farking car; why own for all 365days a year when I only need one for approx 2 of them? I hear that "what if I want to move something big" argument from people with trucks quite often...who, despite the argument, have spotless truck beds that tell a tale of never having been used to move something big. Bike+car rentals...it's not a complicated concept.

Re:Seriously?

[JWSmythe]

      That's a good start. Pick up a nice sniper rifle. With enough practice, you'll be able to do the same thing from far enough away where they already be laying on the ground before the sound reaches them.

Re:Seriously?

[JWSmythe]

    You're not kidding either. Even in the middle of the winter, I was standing outside of the Hotel Ibis, and I couldn't believe how many bicycles were there.

Re:Seriously?

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Screw you asshole...I go biking and follow every rule to the T. I know about 5 guys that I work with that do the same.

Re:Seriously?

[tchdab1]

I'm more surprised that when something bad happens, the victim often says "I was lucky", when if they were lucky it would not have happened at all.

Re:Seriously?

[Philip K Dickhead]

I'm always forced to adjust to the bicycle's imminent right-of-way in NL - over man, beast and machine.

Step back! Here come bikes!

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

But: If you produce something, lets say you're a scupltor, or you breed dogs, whatever. When you sell that item, its going to be shipped. You and your bike aren't going to be delivering any sculpture more than a few hundred yards. Bikes are nice. You cant ship a few thousand tons of goods very far on them. Pound for pound, that train is Way more green than any smugfuck on his bike.

Re:Seriously?

[darthdavid]

Confirmation bias. You only notice the bicyclists that piss you off so you associate that obnoxiousness with all cyclists.

Here's an experiment, next time you take out your 2 ton penis compensation mobile try actually paying some fucking attention make a conscious effort to disregard your biases and see if you can't spot the vast majority of cyclists that follow the rules of the road (at least as much as anyone else does in this country, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish there...). You might just be surprised...

Re:Seriously?

[fast turtle]

Stupid Idjit. Here in California a short commute is 30 miles that takes 45 minutes on the freeways. Now tell me another tale about what constitutes a short commute in the United States.

Re:Seriously?

[Macrat]

It's really hard to say. Most of the costs of the bike come from the high mortality rate of riders.

Especially when hit by the train.

Re:Seriously?

[ksemlerK]

I smoke green. Does that count?

Re:Seriously?

[LingNoi]

we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work

and what about pregnant women, injured people, older people, etc who might need to travel to work?

Re:Seriously?

[Kilrah_il]

Heck, if you are far enough you may hit them before they even hit the cyclist!

Re:Seriously?

[Kilrah_il]

Just like if you suffer for many years from a chronic disease and then you are cured, you thank God for the cure. Where was he during all those years of suffering?

Re:Seriously?

[JWSmythe]

    I'm not sure that I should really mess with the butterfly effect. If I stopped him before he hit the bike, it could adversely change the future.

    Then I have to wonder, would sniper golf have the same effect?

    Mind you, my version of sniper golf doesn't match what you'd find on the Internet. It would consist of two teams. To start, Team A has a golfer playing traditional golf. Team B has a sniper in a tree stand. The golfer plays normally. The sniper is to shoot the ball sometime between when it's hit, to when it stops moving. If the ball is hit, that team continues play from where the largest piece remains. Accidentally shooting the golfer results in a one-stroke penalty for the shooting team. When the teams switch, they switch roles. Obviously, it would require substantially larger teams than traditional golf, if there are too many penalties.

    I haven't had anyone agree to play sniper golf though. It could be the next biggest game, and probably make a really stressful reality TV show. I always had a problem with the "survivor" shows, where they're never really at risk of actually dying.

Re:Seriously?

[Kilrah_il]

Yeah, bloodless games are for pussies! Try this game in Texas, who knows, maybe it will be incorporated in their new educational system.

Re:Seriously?

[xaxa]

Did you miss the bit where I said "in any country ... except in yours"?

Re:Seriously?

[xaxa]

Never mind that whenever the biker needs to purchase something too heavy or bulky for the bike, he drives a car. Whereas the train rider can bring with him a couple of suitcases, a floor lamp, a pair of skis with little problem.

Why can't the cyclist take the train for a day? That's what I do...

(Alternatively, I'd get the bulky item delivered, or use a taxi.)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well a *fully laden* train works at around 1.6 kWh per 100 passenger-km versus a bike at 1 kWh per 100 person-km. So pretty close if the train is operating at maximum efficiency.

Source: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_119.shtml

Re:Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

I live 8.9 miles from work. I ride a 22 mile route because it's fun. Today I took a 26 mile route because I got out of the house earlier than normal and had some extra time.

Re:Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

I don't know what you're doing to your bike, but please stop it.

I have been riding the same set of rims for nearly 35,000 miles now at around 10k miles per year. I've only had to replace the freehub body once or twice per year, and a spoke here and there. I get, on average, one flat about every 500 miles, and I patch my tubes 2 or 3 times before replacing them. I do chew through about 6-8 tires every year. I can't imagine what you're doing that you blow through 5 rims in 5000 miles. Perhaps you need to rethink your riding technique.

You cannot compare bike maintenance to any motorized vehicle. The maintenance costs for cars and trains are astronomical in comparison. I spend MAYBE $500/year for 10k miles on my bike. That's the catalog operating and maintenance cost of driving a car 1000 miles. I've also worked as a part-time wrench in a bike shop for 7 years, so I know a thing or two about what the costs are to maintain a bike.

"But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society."

It clearly works just fine in Europe. I spent some time in Varkhaus Finland for my company and it was amazing how many people ride to work every single day. They have parking garages just for bikes, and there are thousands upon thousands of bikes in them.

I know that, on its face, it's difficult to accept that bike commuting is not just practical on a large scale, but is also the greenest way to move people. It doesn't take much scrutiny to realize it's an undeniable fact.

Re:Seriously?

[EmagGeek]

No, it is not. I guarantee you that if you do an energy audit of what it takes to move the 150,000lb train car, along with the losses involved in generating the energy to move it, you'll find that there's no comparison at all. The OP is exactly right. The people in the car don't even weigh 10% of what the car weighs, and so you're wasting at least 90% of the energy just to move the car.

Bikes >>> Trains ~> Cars

Re:Seriously?

[V!NCENT]

I don't think that burning tiny segments of the environment contributes a lot to the environment, or how it does not =}

Re:Seriously?

[ksemlerK]

If I smoke it, then I'm reducing the fire hazard. to "desired" plants. :)

Re:Seriously?

[V!NCENT]

You'd be disturbing the delicate balance of the local ecosystem...

Just say that you are smoking because you're an addict and everyone will forgive you xD

Re:Seriously?

[ksemlerK]

LOL. Me an addict? Ain't gonna happen. You know the last time I smoked before last night? 3 months ago. I can live with or without MJ. Honestly, I don't really care either way. Toke up as much as you want, just don't harass me to toke up with you. If you want to toke up dude, have fun. Hell, I sell more then I smoke, and I only have .5OZ in my residence at any given time. I am far from an addict. I'll smoke it if I have it, but if I don't, no big deal. Hell I have had some for a couple of months, and I have no "need" or "want" to ger any higher at this time. I have no problem w/ turning down MJ. Nate, is this you?

Re:Seriously?

[arth1]

When too many people bike, the trains stop running?

But yeah, where both are available, that's the logical thing to do. (Outside rush hours, obviously -- even eco-freaks can show a little compassion for his fellow travellers :-)

Re:Seriously?

[V!NCENT]

I was only joking and no I am Vincent, not Nate...

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It's a Futurama quote, poetmatt didn't create it.

Re:Seriously?

[IndustrialComplex]

Well a *fully laden* train works at around 1.6 kWh per 100 passenger-km versus a bike at 1 kWh per 100 person-km. So pretty close if the train is operating at maximum efficiency.

My point was that there is so much that can go into determining 'greenness' that EVERYTHING can be considered more green than something else if you pick the right criteria.

I wasn't really discussing Trains vs Bicycles but rather just hating the term 'green'.

(nice information tidbit there though, thanks!)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, your shitty bicyclist opinion is a troll. Slashdot said so.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's 50% troll and 50% insightful...

Re:Seriously?

[poetmatt]

I'm glad somebody realized it.

Unlikely

[dzerkel]

...given the type of construction used and the state of the tools in the tunnel.

Re:Unlikely

[PCM2]

If you look at the first link in TFA (not the Gizmodo one), you'll see it's by an architect who takes a very skeptical view of this story.

WFT

[zoomshorts]

This was on DIGG 3 days ago. Is Slashdot becoming a DIGG mirror or what?

Re:WFT

[jeffmeden]

DIGG had the SCOOP on this underground tunnel story... What's it to you?

har har har har har

Re:WFT

[Rude Turnip]

I like to think of Digg as a refreshed version of Slashdot without all the bitterness of Linux/OSS diehards lurking in every corner.

Re:WFT

[Anonymous Coward]

We all need a place to hang out, you apparently like it here since you're still reading... what's that tell you? There's a reason it's called Slashdot and not Backslashdot.

Get off my...

[Anonymous Coward]

...metro?

Opinion vs Fact

[notommy]

>>Everybody is into rail these days; it is the greenest way to get around next to a bike.

You're posting post your opinion as fact. They are different things. Please don't confuse them.

Re:Opinion vs Fact

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say it was a fact and shouldn't have to announce that it was opinion. Don't be a dick.

The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[thepainguy]

You say it like that's a BAD thing.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[hedwards]

Indeed, if you eliminated the obsessive, borderline persistant people from slashdot, you'd end up with maybe a hundred.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[roman_mir]

with a hundred owls you mean? Everyone knows that in the future instead of rats the problem is owl infestation.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[vlm]

you'd end up with maybe a hundred.

... a hundred really freaking boring people.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[frenchbedroom]

Indeed, that kind of persistence can lead to great things, see Ferdinand Cheval who spent 33 years of his life single-handedly building the "Palais Idéal", from 1879 to 1912. He wanted to be buried in it, but the clergy wouldn't have it ; so he spent another 8 years building his own mausoleum.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence

[V!NCENT]

The reason people come to /. is to excercize and relax the brain at the same time. If you do not like 'borderline obsessiveness' aka going into a little more dept than Fox news or equivalent than what is holding you back on going oul-out stupid and discuss what johny the football hero did last weekend -_-'

I don't believe this...

[alfredos]

I also found it hard to believe this one, too, but at least the Chicago system has a well-documented history. Here there is just a couple photos which clearly indicate very different tunnels, neither of which seems adequate for trains larger than G scale or so; also look at the comments in TFA.

Re:I don't believe this...

[gad_zuki!]

The abandoment of those tunnels as well a poor maps led directly to the great chicago flood of 1992:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood

Damn you kids!

[zill]

Get off my subway station!

Subway Builder

[RafaelAngel]

He likes to be called a sandwich artist.

Re:Subway Builder

[Em Emalb]

God he'd probably do a better job than the "sandwich artists" at the actual Subway stores these days.

Slapping on condiments willy-nilly does not a good sandwich make.

Re:Subway Builder

[Thud457]

Time: "internet wins"

Whatever keeps you going

[digitalsushi]

Some people watch M.A.S.H. for the second half of their life, this is no weirder

Trains?

[0123456]

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'; similarly a British university study a few years back found that the average commute on the London Underground was as harmful to your health as smoking a couple of cigarettes because of all the junk in the air down there.

Nor are they even particularly energy-efficient unless they're packed to capacity, which they won't be if you're using the full capacity of the tracks in order to make the best use of all that hugely expensive infrastructure; if you're running trains on a regular basis all day long you can pretty much guarantee that most will be half-empty.

Re:Trains?

[Anonymous Coward]

The green aspect comes from multiple people using one polluting device instead of lots of separate vehicles. The train will spew out less bad stuff then all those cars added up together.

Re:Trains?

[Anonymous Coward]

They use diesel on the London Underground? Seriously?

Most subways are electric-powered. Heck, most modern commuter trains run off electricity. Third rail, much?

Re:Trains?

[dkleinsc]

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'

Your evidence seems to about on the level of "I know some guy who says ...".

Yes, diesel trains burn diesel fuel, with all the pollution associated with that. The key is that they burn a lot less oil than moving the equivalent amount of stuff via cars and other road vehicles. For the Underground, you're looking at the energy usage of the train versus the energy usage (and other costs) of each person on that train driving their own car.

The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.

Re:Trains?

[mcfedr]

umm, have you ever been on the underground? and a) seen a diesel locomotive b) an empty train (before around 9pm) c) more than a gap of about 3-4 minutes, if thats not running to capacity, what is?

Re:Trains?

[Burning1]

if you're running trains on a regular basis all day long you can pretty much guarantee that most will be half-empty.

...as opposed to the car, which, based on my observations as a commuter, is typically run 4/5ths empty?

Re:Trains?

[iammani]

Not to mention the infrastructure (roads) required to handle the cars.

Re:Trains?

[GameMaster]

Not to mention the fact that one train being maintained by professional mechanics is much, much easier to keep running at peak efficiency that the equivalent number of privately owned cars. Regardless of that the "official" specs are for a car, the average owner isn't a mechanic and is, statistically, well know for not maintaining things like tire pressure, engine tuning, etc. Regardless of whether it's well implemented in the case of London's Underground, if you wanted to improve the situation the first place to do it would be to fix the regular maintenance of the trains rather than add more cars.

Re:Trains?

[Burning1]

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green.'

Remember kids: Pollution you can see is 5x worse for the environment than pollution you can't see.

Re:Trains?

[soliptic]

They use diesel on the London Underground?

No

Seriously?

No

Most subways are electric-powered.

So is the london underground.

Heck, most modern commuter trains run off electricity. Third rail, much?

London Underground actually uses a four-rail system. It's one better.

I don't know whether to blame GP for jamming together two discrete concepts (diesel trains and impure subway air) in such a way that a sloppy reader may infer causation, or to blame you for being a sloppy reader ("similarly" != "therefore") and failing to spend five seconds googling to confirm your healthy scepticism instead of spending it posting "Seriously?".

Re:Trains?

[xaxa]

The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.

Including London. The GP is, as we say in Britain, talking bollocks. The study comparing taking the London Underground to smoking compared only the mass of the particles in the air -- and the ones in subway tunnels are pretty harmless (dead skin and iron from the wheels/rails).

Diesel trains are still used on some rural routes in the UK, although two of the largest are to be electrified soon (starting this year, IIRC).

Re:Trains?

[xaxa]

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green.'

Remember kids: Pollution you can see is 5x worse for the environment than pollution you can't see.

Especially if it's made up for the shitty tabloid newspapers.

Re:Trains?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool according to that logic my Lotus Exige is as economical as the train, both of them by the way are crappy with the baby seat.

Re:Trains?

[JWSmythe]

That would depend on your car. Mine runs 1/4 to 3/4 empty. I've seen plenty of SUV's that are 7/8 empty. The best I've seen are motorcycles at 1/2 to 0/2 empty. :)

Re:Trains?

[Burning1]

I think the meta logic is more interesting... 'emptiness and fullness is a crappy way to compare vehicular efficiency.'

Re:Trains?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, it's worse than that. I could fit 2... maybe 3 people in my trunk.

Re:Trains?

[Burning1]

Probably more than 3 if you grind them up first.

Re:Trains?

[Burning1]

For what it's worth, when I think of British Rail, I think 'the combination of London Underground and National Rail that permits me to go pretty much anywhere without hiring a taxi.'

Following this example...

[interval1066]

...I'm building my own internet. Yeah. Using whatever I can find, spare copper, terminals, old POS systems, switches, whatever. I don't care that there already is one, and that it will be years behind in technology, I'm just going to do it.

Re:Following this example...

[archont]

I could tell you that it's the journey, not the destination that matters. I could tell you that after some time you'd be an expert at electronics and would gain so many different valuable skills.

But what would you need skills like that for? It's not in your job description.

Re:Following this example...

[vlm]

...I'm building my own internet. Yeah. Using whatever I can find, spare copper, terminals, old POS systems, switches, whatever. I don't care that there already is one, and that it will be years behind in technology, I'm just going to do it.

Its not the internet without pr0n. And Goatse. Just saying you got your work cut out for you.

Re:Following this example...

[GameMaster]

I could tell you that all of those skills could be acquired in a fraction of the time by checking out a couple good books on electronics from you local library. I could tell you that all of your points are rationalizations to explain away obsessive compulsive behaviors with delusions of grandeur.

But, what would you need reality for. You seem to prefer self delusion.

Re:Following this example...

[GameMaster]

Please, even on old hardware you shouldn't have a problem hosting pr0n, Goatse, and still have plenty of space/bandwidth to host Rick Astley and Tubgirl.

Re:Following this example...

[losfromla]

I could tell you that you'd probably retain only 20% of what you read in those books you checked out of the library and in two months time, probably 5%. I could tell you that an expert is someone who's made mistakes, who has bruises to show for his knowledge, and not someone who browsed a book and pondered the problems posed. But, what would you need that information for? You'd just forget anyhow.

Re:Following this example...

[interval1066]

I could tell you that it's the journey, not the destination that matters. I could tell you that after some time you'd be an expert at electronics and would gain so many different valuable skills.

You can tell me what you like; that fact is I already have those skills- and I would yet gain nothing from building my own internet. I think my time would be better spent building something new. Which I in fact am doing.

But what would you need skills like that for? It's not in your job description.

1) You have no idea what my job description is. 2) I do in fact do all these things, and a few more. See above.

I guess nobody's interested . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . in hearing about my missile silo.

The Russians...

[euyis]

...are they monsters?

Well...

[shutdown -p now]

This guy will at least survive the upcoming nuclear apocalypse, I guess. Should there be any.

Re:Well...

[elrous0]

I don't think any of those patchwork tunnels would survive a mild earthquake, much less a nuclear blast.

Re:Well...

[magarity]

You've got it backwards - it's a lot easier for an underground structure to survive a nuclear blast (one direction, less than a second) than an earthquake (random directions, half a minute).

Re:Well...

[JWSmythe]

    I'd bet he'd survive a nuclear attack in those tunnels. The chances of a direct strike are pretty slim unless you're in a pretty obvious target zone, or you're just damned unlucky.

    Historically, there's a better chance of being in an earthquake than a nuclear attack. :)

accomplishments

[roman_mir]

some people single-handedly try to build subways others put weapons on robots. It's all good.

in soviet russia train builds you!

[Joe The Dragon]

in soviet russia train builds you!

Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt

[linuxwrangler]

William “Burro” Schmidt started in 1902 and spent 33 years digging his 2087-foot tunnel through solid rock on Copper Mountain. About all people could get as a reason was that it was a "shortcut."

http://www.desertusa.com/mag05/sep/tunnel.html

Re:Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I'd think he'd be William "Burrow" Schmidt.

Re:Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt

[farmkid]

And Alfred Ely Beach built his own in 1870 Manhattan:

http://hoeffmeir.org/Richard_LeBlanc/Alfred_Beach.htm

Mind you, it was a one-block demo, rather than a working system, but you have to tip your hat to someone who built something like this in secret in such a high-density environment.

Re:Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt

[TapeCutter]

Great story, thanks :)

Reminds me of "Blaumilch Canal"

[AffidavitDonda]

That's an Israeli comedy by Ephraim Kishon, where a guy digs a canal on a main road in Tel Aviv. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaumilch_Canal

Re:Reminds me of "Blaumilch Canal"

[Anonymous Coward]

so?

Yes, I have.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been on the tube in London. The air stank of industrial effluvium; it reminded me of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel's chemical stench.

And I live in the 2nd most polluted area of the USA, so if I can smell it, it's nasty.

If you can't smell it, you've been in there so long your nose is dead.

The First Macintosh?

[MaWeiTao]

Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh

I didn't realize that the Macintosh was as significant an historical milestone as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It really speaks to how materialistic a society we've become that we define events by the advent of a some product.

Re:The First Macintosh?

[CannonballHead]

Well, considering that it seems most people are beginning to forget what communist Russia was like, what Nazi Germany was like, what the holocaust was like (and it wasn't just Jews, although they certainly bore quite a bit of it, it seems)...

It seems that we are tending to brainwash young folk to believe a certain thing about society and people (generally, we're good people, and society is good, and we can all reach peace and happiness if everyone just "gets along." And don't criticize me, either). When certain historical incidents don't match up with that general, nice-feeling idea - such as the holocaust, communist Russia, the Berlin Wall, wars in general, communist China, and many-many-many other bad things that have happened... the tendency seems to be to dismiss those incidents at strange, or consider those people to be somehow ... I don't know, less-highly evolved or something?

In other words, we're beginning to forget the past, because it "doesn't make sense" with what we want to think about ourselves.

Sorta like that electrical-shock game show that they did in France recently? the test, that is... people were "outraged" that the game show made them act that way. Because they KNEW they wouldn't have done those things if it wasn't for the peer pressure and game show situation and all that, but a psychological phenomena occurred where they did it even though they didn't want to! ... right. In my book, being willing to do something due to peer pressure means you don't really think it's all that bad to begin with.

But apparently, we think SO highly of ourselves and think we're above these sorts of bad behaviors, and thus - when shown that that is not true - we blame it on something else. Like ... "society" ("peer pressure" or the "game show" or whatever). Psychologically scarring? Sure. It should be. It should make people realize that they are capable of very bad behavior, and need to remember that and guard against going along with it, just because other people are telling them to.

Re:The First Macintosh?

[unkiereamus]

Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh

I didn't realize that the Macintosh was as significant an historical milestone as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It really speaks to how materialistic a society we've become that we define events by the advent of a some product.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about the significance of the event, it's about how well known the date of the event is.

Quick, when was the first Mac introduced? When did the Berlin wall fall? You probably know those off the top of your head, don't you? Year, if not month and day.

On the flip side, When was Agincourt? Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Re:The First Macintosh?

[TapeCutter]

"It should make people realize that they are capable of very bad behavior, and need to remember that and guard against going along with it, just because other people are telling them to."

The Stanford prison experiment - "Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early".

Broken window

[tepples]

Switching to a less efficient method just to solve unemployment is a fallacy of the broken window.

Re:Broken window

[SleazyRidr]

Or, you know, a joke.

Re:Broken window

[ComaVN]

It is only a fallacy from a direct economic standpoint. There's still something to be said for the idea that keeping someone employed will increase (or at least not decrease) his skills needed for a later job, when there's less actual unemployment.

There's also all kinds of social benefits to not having a load of people hanging around all day. See the suburbs of Paris for an example.

Re:Broken window

[tepples]

There's still something to be said for the idea that keeping someone employed will increase (or at least not decrease) his skills needed for a later job

It's possible to employ someone in making something useful as opposed to destroying something just to make busy-work.

Re:Broken window

[ComaVN]

Who's talking about destroying anything? The OP was talking about moving cargo by bike to battle unemployment. Surely that's useful, in some small way.

Re:Broken window

[tepples]

As I understand it, it would be far more efficient to burn the fossil fuel to move the cargo than to burn the fossil fuel to grow food to feed to an army of cyclists.

Personal Rapid Transit

[Colin Smith]

Fixes most of the deficiencies of the train and the car.

Uses less than 50% of the energy per passenger kilometer than a train does.

Meh.

[PPH]

Lots of these running under the Gaza-Egyptian border.

Re:Meh.

[JSBiff]

Also, the Mexico-U.S. Border.

Re:Meh.

[linzeal]

Those tunnels are the sole reason the remaining 5% of private businesses can remain open in the Gaza Strip selling goods 10x what they cost in Egypt. All that the blockade has done is consolidate the power into Hamas controlled government institutions.

Cathedral

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Spain we've got a man building a cathedral:

http://www.minusval2000.com/otros/reportajes/catedral_con_justo/

Link is in spanish.

Subway?

[Virmal]

When I read the headlines, I thought he was building a foot-long sandwich...

Fred Dibnah

[alanw]

And in England we had Fred Dibnah digging a replica coal mine in his back garden.

meter a day for 26 years =

[cheatch]

half a mile...
I would say this guy is more like building an underground escape route out of his house for some crazy reason, just look at his eyes.

Re:meter a day for 26 years =

[devjoe]

Off by an order of magnitude. 26 years x 365 days/year x 1 meter/day = 9490 meters, 9.49 km, or almost 6 miles.

Blaumilch

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of this

Passion!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. It is good to have a project. This is called a folly. Great fun.

WITH SWISS ****ING CHEESE

[Anonymous Coward]

What now?!

Damn cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I like these kinds of people a lot better than the "normal" ones or for that matter the plastic reptilian monsters on TV.
Wish I could have met him and if I ever dare go to the motherfucking crazy "United States" of America I'd like to walk that tunnel.

Thanks for the link!

Inspirational

[quadrupleclick]

BTW I am building a FTL drive.

Gizmodo?

[kuzb]

Kudos to this guy for pulling off what many would call an impossible feat. I'm surprised gizmodo had anything good to say, considering they're such trolls I'm amazed anyone frequents their terrible site.

Yeah nice idea BUT

[dogzdik]

Dead is forever, and you spend most of that underground too....

Yeah, but cyclists are self-righteous pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Yeah, but trains aren't driven by self-righteous cunts (mostly male) who run pedestrians down at crosswalks, disobey every traffic rule there is, and lord themselves as morally superior over everyone else while snarling traffic and thereby actually increasing greenhouse emissions.

Check this guy out

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Castle
http://sangre-de-cristo.com/westcliffe/visitors_guide/Bishops_Castle.htm

used to go there all the time.. the highest spire is incredible and the land around the castle in the Wet Mountains is amazing

Its a fake.

[tgd]

As pointed out by the more rational comments on the story.

1) Its English Russia. Go read the other stories on the site. Now as yourself if its likely to be true.

and

2) Someone posted a link to one of the photos which came from a stock photo service.