Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk Outlines His 'Boring' Vision For Traffic-Avoiding Tunnels (axios.com)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed new details about his futuristic tunnel-boring project during his TED talk on Friday. Ina Fried, writing for Axios: In an appearance at the TED conference in Vancouver, Musk showed off a new video visualization of electric skates transporting cars in a narrow tunnel, then raising them back to street level in a space as small as two parking spaces. Inside the tunnels, Musk said cars could travel as fast as 200 kilometers per hour (roughly 130 MPH). "You should be able to go from say Westwood to LAX in 5-6 minutes," the Tesla and SpaceX founder said, adding he is spending only 2-3 percent on the tunnel effort. The Boring Company is currently building a demo tunnel in SpaceX's parking lot, but will need permits from the city of Los Angeles to extend beyond the property line. Musk added, "I'm not trying to be anyone's savior. I'm just trying to think about the future and not be sad." You can watch the video here.

171 comments

  1. With someone else's equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >The Boring Company is currently building a demo tunnel in SpaceX's parking lot

    Before the inevitable post about how he has revolutionized yet another industry, realize the borer on site was purchased from another company that makes such things.

    1. Re:With someone else's equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see...

      We could allow our workers to telecommute, since they just sit in front of a computer all day anyway but...

      Let's drill tunnels instead like mole people.

    2. Re:With someone else's equipment by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes. Utterly stupid, but all too human.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re: With someone else's equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - next thing he'll write some awesome software in C and give no credit to Dennis Ritchie

    4. Re:With someone else's equipment by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 1

      >The Boring Company is currently building a demo tunnel in SpaceX's parking lot

      Before the inevitable post about how he has revolutionized yet another industry, realize the borer on site was purchased from another company that makes such things.

      You've got to be a special kind of oblivious to think Musk invented tunnels. Still, revolution often comes not from creating completely new ideas, but from using existing ideas in completely new ways.

  2. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...you just invented an even more expensive version of Amtrak's Auto Train.

  3. What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The roads were actually belts (think belt sander) you stepped on it and you would go faster, now if you drove on it. You would get places faster, like wow.

    Invest in me.

    (idea was actually from old scifi)

    1. Re:What if by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      (idea was actually from old scifi)

      Heinlein, to be exact.

  4. Trains by nycsubway · · Score: 1

    How about trains? They're remarkably efficient at transporting lots of people long distances in short periods of time. Seriously.

    I understand the obsession people Americans with cars, but there's a lot of extra materials required for a car that used just to allow people to keep their own personal bubble. It's really a waste of space and materials.

    1. Re:Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, so you get in a train that drops you off in the middle of LA. Now, how do you get to where you're going from there? LA is hundreds of square miles of urban area, all spread out so there's no way any train will take you to all parts of it. You'll need a car to drive yourself to your destination. Now you're looking at spending a bunch of time and money dealing with a rental car agency, instead of just using your own car to get you there.

      Trains are just like planes, only a lot slower. Planes are great for getting a medium number of people between two points all at once, in a short amount of time (except for TSA groping). But they don't help you much in getting from the airport to your final destination. Trains are worse because they're so slow, it ends up not being sensible to use them too much because if the distance is short, you might as well drive, and if it's longer, you're better off flying. If you happen to live in an urban downtown and want to travel to another urban downtown not too far away, trains make a lot of sense. That's about it though.

      What would make a lot more sense is if they'd build SkyTran, but no one believes that'll possibly work so we can't have it.

    2. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also I can't see this vision working. When the car drops down it leaves a hole for people to fall into?

    3. Re:Trains by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Trains are efficient on a cost-per-pound depot-to-depot basis... but the moment you want your trip to start or end somewhere other than a train station, or start or end at something other than the scheduled time, they suck.

      Now, if we all drove little electric cars and - when it made sense - drove them onto a train designed to carry them - that'd be efficient. And once you're doing that, you can eliminate the train and just have the little electric car run off rail-provided power during its trip.

      If the cars are small enough - can you say 'tandem two-seater'? - you could use existing railway track as dual monorails to instantly support travel in both directions simultaneously without laying new track. (There's still the electrification issue, of course...)

      For most suburb-to-city commuting, such a system would be incredibly efficient; you'd get range and speed out of electric cars that couldn't be matched with current battery tech., and you'd get 'self-driving' that's essentially foolproof while following the rails without any advances in self-driving technology.

      The rail system would even be more efficient, since it could be filled with almost bumper-to-bumper cars, optimally spaced based on time of day and anticipated traffic levels at each station.

    4. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ride the train with smelly hobos? Fuck you! Buses/trains (in America) are for the dirty poor.

      You think Elon wants to ride the train with peons? Go fuck yourself!

    5. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you get from your house to the train station? how do you get from the other train station to where you need to go?

      That's the fundamental problem with 'public transportation' be it planes, trains, or busses.

      In some areas (New York City, Washington DC for example) you have a high enough population density and more importantly a very high destination density (lots of people working in a small area) then you can have stations within walking distance of enough destinations to make things work, but where things are more spread out (Los Angeles area) where both the population density is lower and more importantly the destinations (work etc) are spread out all over the place, it is a LOT harder to provide access.

    6. Re:Trains by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why am I obsessed with cars? Because my crappy 35 minute commute by car becomes a 2 hour 20 commute by BART + Bus + walking (according to Google Maps). And trains can't take me to the hikes or parks I like, aren't really a practical way to bring around my kid and all the random shit he needs, etc.

      I suppose we could bulldoze the entire Bay Area to organize it around a train system, but that's not going to happen.

      Good username/comment synergism, though. I will say that even in NYC, taking the subway to go between my brother in North Brooklyn to my friend in South Brooklyn is like an hour, even though they're just about 4 miles away. Even NYC needs cars, although it makes more sense to use Uber/taxi for many people.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    7. Re:Trains by number17 · · Score: 1

      How much would they need to charge to break even?

      Toronto is looking at building a 1-stop 6.2km subway for a current price of $3.35B CAD. They are projecting ridership of 7,400 per hour when the breakeven is 15,000 per hour. Our bulk fare is $3 per trip.

    8. Re:Trains by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Trains are great, if you're going from station A to station B on their time table (and back) and they have enough passenger cars. Trains are less great when it's >15 minutes between trains and/or your final destination is >1 mile from the nearest station.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    9. Re:Trains by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Trains are fine if you happen to be near one that is going to where you want to go. Otherwise taking the train adds a lot of travel time, even in areas with a dense network of them. And sometimes they are overcrowded and/or inhabited with inconsiderate asshats.

      This tunnel idea is cute and the lifts are a nice solution to the problem of on/off ramps that require a huge footprint. The lifts don't allow a large volume of traffic though, even if they only take a few seconds to cycle (all existing car lifts I have seen are slooooow). And in an urban environment you're going to have to dig deep.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like the Auto Train that exists between the DC and Orlando areas...

      https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train

    11. Re:Trains by Altus · · Score: 1

      of course if the cars were self driving then you could have your "rail provided power" on the freeway be good to go. If we got to the point where freeway access required a self driving car then we could probably increase the speed of those freeways safely. This seems like it is avoiding those requirements by putting the self driving ability on these little carts, which is good in that it would let us get to this vision sooner, but it is bad in that it requires an amazing amount of infrastructure to be built to make this work (tunnels everywhere).

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:Trains by zlives · · Score: 1

      yes but is is it a boring train?

    13. Re:Trains by Altus · · Score: 1

      In small, self driving electric cars that you rent on demand... possibly from tesla.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    14. Re:Trains by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      This, in Miami I could drive 35 minutes pre-rush, or 55 minutes for the same commute during rush hour in a car. Or, I could drive 20 minutes in the car, park at the rail station, take a train for 20 minutes, transfer to the people mover for another 10 minutes, then walk exposed to sun and rain for 1/4 mile to work, paying $4 per day for the privilege of riding the trains.

      Gee, what would you do?

    15. Re:Trains by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Musk seems to have a tunnel & tube fixation. I wonder what Freud would say about that.

    16. Re:Trains by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >of course if the cars were self driving then you could have your "rail provided power" on the freeway be good to go. If we got to the point where freeway access required a self driving car then we could probably increase the speed of those freeways safely.

      The nice thing about rails is they're a lot better than asphalt if you want to deliver power with them, and they're also a lot better at steering. Inducted power and reliable self-driving tech just isn't there yet.

      >This seems like it is avoiding those requirements by putting the self driving ability on these little carts,

      Actually, mostly on the rail. Because we don't have trustworthy self-driving yet.

      > but it is bad in that it requires an amazing amount of infrastructure to be built to make this work (tunnels everywhere).

      Musk wants tunnels. I'm just talking about leveraging exiting rail, probably just during rush hour and leaving the rail for freight the rest of the time.

      I mean, my plan is still impractical because it would require a major rail electrification project, building entrance and egress capability at each train station, and getting everyone to buy a commuter car to get to work. Still, we're a lot closer to that than to having everyone in a self-driving electric car running on induction-based grid power.

    17. Re:Trains by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      OK, so you get in a train that drops you off in the middle of London. Now, how do you get to where you're going from there?

      The answer is not "MOAH CARS!" The answer is better city planning.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You'll need a car to drive yourself to your destination. Now you're looking at spending a bunch of time and money dealing with a rental car agency, instead of just using your own car to get you there."

      Or, LA could redesign itself into a proper livable city instead of the horrible suburban ghetto that it is.

      (The "sub" in suburban means "less than").

    19. Re:Trains by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      The answer is better city planning.

      Keep in mind that the city is already there.

    20. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! 1/4 a mile? Terrible!

    21. Re:Trains by tsqr · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Suburb is from Latin suburbium, from sub- close to + urbs a city.

    22. Re:Trains by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Probably that musk wants to have intercourse with his mother and kill his father.

      Isn't that pretty much the sum total of Freud? (cocaine, it's a helluva drug)

    23. Re:Trains by gmack · · Score: 1

      Break even is $45 000 CAD per hour? I think you need to rethink your math.

      The subway runs 20 hour a day from Monday to Saturday and 18 hours a day on Sunday that's 138 hours a week or 7176 hours a year.

      The TTC cost $1.795 Billion to run last year. Divide that by 7176 and you get $250 139.35 per hour to run the entire system / 69 stations and you get $3625 per hour for each station to run.

    24. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      London was there for 800 years before cars they seem to be ok

    25. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (The "sub" in suburban means "less than").

      So "suburban" means "less than urban". Are you implying there is something wrong with areas being less than fully urban? Otherwise, I don't quite get why you felt the need to point out that "sub" means "less than" (although generally it means "below" rather than "less than")

    26. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually tried to get around London without getting stuck in a bottleneck somewhere? Hardly a bastion of transportation efficiency.

    27. Re:Trains by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Trains work fine in Tokyo, London, etc. And even in the US in Boston and NYC which have decent if elderly public transportation. LA is a different story. Its marginal public transportation pretty much vanished after 1950.

      But I have to have serious doubts about the economics of Musk's scheme. Even with relatively small diameter tunnels (a bit under 4 meters for the one in Musk's parking lot) it's going to be expensive. And it has to avoid a century's worth of infrastructure pockets of natural gas, and who knows what else.

      Maybe it's workable ... maybe ...

      I suspect that abandoning LA and moving the population someplace East of Barstow where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a thirst would be cheaper.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    28. Re:Trains by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Or, LA could redesign itself into a proper livable city instead of the horrible suburban ghetto that it is."

      You want to pave paradise, put up a parking lot?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    29. Re:Trains by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Not a dumb idea at all. Probably in a couple of decades batteries will be good enough to dispense with the track electrification. It'll probably take that long for the CARB, NTHB, EPA, etc, etc, to hold hearings, promulgate standards, run tests., dictate updated standards, issue the necessary permits, etc to allow your little cars to be actually be built.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    30. Re:Trains by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      "Gee, what would you do?"

      Move?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    31. Re: Trains by nukenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you ever actually tried to get around London without getting stuck in a bottleneck somewhere? Hardly a bastion of transportation efficiency.

      I think you missed the point. London has a very good transport system for getting you beween points including the centre and the suburbs : a system of several railways incuding the Underground , the Overground and others. I worked in central London, commuting from the suburbs, for 15 years and only once ever drove into the centre (to collect a heavy office item). Only idiots drive in London regularly.

    32. Re:Trains by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Trains are just like planes, only a lot slower.

      And sometimes jetliners are slower than bicycles.

      Another nice thing about trains, besides not wasting time getting to altitude and besides being 3-5x as energy efficient as airplanes (if it's an electric train) and besides not making you stand in line to get groped and besides allowing to use your laptop and cell phone the whole trip, is that you can build a train station right in the middle of downtown where there's good transit and where a lot of travelers want to be anyway.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    33. Re: Trains by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      You seem to be conflating "transport" with "car". In densely populated cities, personal cars are never going to be an efficient way of getting around.

      The majority of people who live within London use public transport, of which it has one of the most comprehensive systems in the world.

    34. Re:Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The US trains only work for shorter distances. Even going from DC to Boston is just too far: it's cheaper, and MUCH faster to go by plane (1.5 hours vs. 8 hours). So yeah, going from DC to Baltimore by train is OK (if you don't need a car on either end), or even DC to NYC, but that's about it, unless you have a lot of time. And Amtrak prices aren't cheap either.

      Musk's scheme makes little sense because of the high cost of tunneling. It would make far more sense to embrace SkyTran PRT: it's cheap to build, it uses utility towers and suspends rails from it (instead of tunneling), the rails can be built alongside existing roads, using existing rights-of-way, and you're only moving people and lightweight little pod-cars, not thousands of pounds of metal.

    35. Re: Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It also has an absurdly high cost of living. The public transit doesn't make up for that, and (not being a Londoner or UKer I'm speculating) many people who work there probably don't live near a public transit station. There's also the time cost: even if you're riding a train, sitting on it for hours and hours every day to go back and forth to work is a massive waste of your time and your life. This isn't much different from some places here in the US, such as NYC.

    36. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of Elon's idea as a packet network. People (data) register their destination, hop into a packet (car-like thing) with a few others and get automatically routed to their destination. The beauty of this (imho) is that you can now apply everything we've learned from networking to get people from a to b as fast as possible.

      Trains also fit this model, but they're very large, slow moving packets. For economic reasons you don't want to send these packets unless they are close to full, which limits you to routes where you know this is likely to happen: and even then they often end up running close to empty a lot of the time. Smaller packets means you can run as many (or as few) packets as required at a given time, and opens up the possibility of connecting to many more destinations than you could feasibly connect via train.

    37. Re:Trains by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "OK, so you get in a train that drops you off in the middle of London. Now, how do you get to where you're going from there?"

      In London, there's already a Tube that will take you there. In Los Angeles, you will be able to take autonomous Ubers to your spread-out destinations long before this entirely new infrastructure gets built.

    38. Re:Trains by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trains work fine in Tokyo

      Workers in Tokyo spend an average of 2 hours per day commuting.
      Not many of them would call that "working fine".

    39. Re:Trains by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      "Probably that musk wants to have intercourse with his mother and kill his father.
      Isn't that pretty much the sum total of Freud? (cocaine, it's a helluva drug)"

      Hmmm ...says something about Freud as well...

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    40. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's really a waste of space and materials.

      Or it would be in a densely a populated country; definitely not so much out here in the Western U.S.

      Granted, the Bay Area is another story... but the problem there is excessive bureaucracy and NIMBY's... which make engineering and even physics challenges look easy to overcome by comparison. Of course, you won't find me entering a tunnel in one of the most seismically-active zones in the world... but I'm just weird like that.

    41. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Isn't that pretty much the sum total of Freud?

      Nope. ;)

    42. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So true. If I don't walk to the train station 6 minutes from my house I have to walk to the one on another line 12 minutes away. Or take the bus which is 1 minute walk away. But then I do live out in the sticks, 15 miles from central, and I have short legs. Also the trains don't run on Christmas day.

    43. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      In other words, the whole world is like London. Who'd have figured?!

    44. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      LA could redesign itself into a proper livable city instead of the horrible suburban ghetto that it is.

      Apparently Fatso wants to do that for us... too bad for him all the Nazi rocketry experts seem to've been spoken for...

    45. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'd never call Metro North or Amtrak decent.

    46. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      London was shit hole for 800 years before cars

      Fixed that for you.

    47. Re: Trains by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      True story: my mom and I were riding the train home from Tokyo to Kamakura. I was two and not feeling very well; my mom had just fed me Kraft Mac n' cheese (she was obviously rather ignorant of nutrition). She was holding me in her arms while having to stand (nobody'd offered her a seat as Japanese culture didn't include provisions for doing empathic/non-sociopathic things like that)... and I suddenly leaned over a heaved freshly-digested mac n' cheese right down the neckline and into the cleavage of a lady wearing a kimono...

    48. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Americans spend far more time than that commuting less distances in their cars daily.

    49. Re:Trains by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I think Americans first need to change their mindset. Unlike developed countries around the world that view trains as transportation systems (called high speed rails), Americans view trains as those clackety-clack things their grandparents rode. And those things that cause gates to come down and block traffic.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    50. Re: Trains by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And Americans spend far more time than that commuting less distances in their cars daily.

      No they don't. The average commute in America is 25 minutes each way. That is less than half the average commute in Tokyo.

    51. Re: Trains by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      well it would have been, but somewhere along the line the concept of colonialism got turned into a negative.

    52. Re:Trains by antdude · · Score: 1

      What we really need are t(ele/rans)porters. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    53. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget rockets

    54. Re:Trains by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to say: Yay to SkyTran! Always liked that concept. What is the current status? I thought they were building a test track but I am not sure they have done this yet.

    55. Re: Trains by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      Not really fair to compare "America" with "Tokyo". What about LA and Tokyo?

    56. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem rather ignorant of two year olds.

    57. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to have an extensive rail road network that connected every single village with a city. This was from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century when they were destroyed so they could be replaced with cars as envisioned in the new Keynesian economic model. The trains were electric and were free for the working class. They were build to bring products from the villages (farm products) and the factories to the cities and harbors. The only thing that is left from this old rail road system are the trams that drive through our cities. And that is what probably answers your question about where to go from being dropped of in LA: a train drops you off in LA and a tram brings you to the area you need to be.

    58. Re:Trains by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Two words: packet loss.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    59. Re: Trains by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not really fair to compare "America" with "Tokyo". What about LA and Tokyo?

      The average commute in LA is 29 minutes. Tokyo is much worse.

      Anyway, nobody is trying to promote LA traffic as "working fine" and an example for others to emulate. The OP was doing exactly that with Tokyo's trains, which are actually far worse for the average commuter.

      Commuters in LA who use public transit have an average commute of about 50 minutes, which is almost the same as the average Tokyo commute.

    60. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I live in la, and even with the convenience of riding a motorcycle it takes me 40 minutes a day to commute a bit over 13 miles. Shanghai bill is an idiot

    61. Re: Trains by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Thinking just of transport of people, is thinking of the provision of services into metropolitan and suburban areas upon a too shallow basis. It needs a much broader approach ie one ring to bind them all (heh heh, actually a tunnel). So rather than a tunnel just providing human transport and tunnel that transports everything. So a tunnel for all services, fresh water in, sewerage out, storm water collection for reuse, supplemental energy in (with a growing amount locally generated), communications in and out, and of course the primitive equivalent of turbolifts. All in the one tunnel, water services at the bottom, communications and power at the side and transport with it's power supply middle to top.

      How far the entries and exits being a big thing. Obviously individual could pay for an underground access point to their home, so a car comes to their door, whether they retain a standby one (fancy internal fit out) or just use at call ones (easy clean fit out). Need to go somewhere, either call one to your access point or access one at a public access point, program in the destination and away you go, no parking, no driving, no hassles, all a controlled safe space.

      Just doing human transport would be too expensive but doing all services transport spreads that cost over a whole range of services, making them all cheaper, whilst providing out of the way human transport. Jams are less likely as load can be distributed and over and under as well as additional side by side corridors can be used for major trunk routes. Provisioning and maintenance of those other services becomes much easier, nice big roomy tunnel and service personal simply catch a ride to the required service point. Public roads, the remnants of above ground transport for service vehicles and emergency services as well as regional private transport and of course people walking and pedalling. Straight up the way of doing modern cities and of course refurbishing old ones to make them far more liveable and safe. Smart public transport and services provision, never underestimate Elon.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    62. Re:Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Their website (skytran.net) says they got a new CEO recently, with Jerry Sanders staying on the board, and last I heard they were building a demo track in Tel Aviv but that was supposed to be done at least a year or two ago and apparently isn't yet. The WIkipedia page says Israel Aerospace Industries contracted with them (Unimodal) to build a 4-500 meter test track, and if successful IAI will build a commercial SkyTran network in Tel Aviv, Herzliya, and Netanya.

    63. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's trying to upgrade the internet duh. Sen Ted Stevens would certainly see it that way.

    64. Re:Trains by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The US is not a modern country in many regards. Its lack of a good train system is just one of them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    65. Re:Trains by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And you think countries with good train systems do not have that issue? And maybe they have solutions for it? All your posting shows how unaware you are of what is possible and being done in modern countries. (No, the US does not qualify as "modern".)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    66. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoring that everyone can't live and work directly next to adjacent train stations, if everyone was to TRY and do that, the price of houses and apartments near train stations would be exhuberantly expensive.

      Oh wait, it already is.

    67. Re:Trains by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I understand the obsession people Americans with cars

      You clearly don't understand the issue at all. So many questions. Why do you think it's not more efficient to have transit occurring on two entirely separate planes? Why do you not understand the size of the US? Why do you not understand the history of transportation in the US? You really just need to educate yourself on the issue.

    68. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention the stinky homeless guy on the train panhandling you, the drunk kid barfing on you, the fact that the train is 20 minutes late because something broke due to incompetent maintenance, the train operator strike that week, having to schlep a 20 pound backpack of your stuff all over, a very uncomfortable dirty seat, standing room only, the guy yelling on his cell phone, and it goes on and on and on.

    69. Re: Trains by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      It also has an absurdly high cost of living. ......., and (not being a Londoner or UKer I'm speculating) many people who work there probably don't live near a public transit station.

      Yes, you are speculating.

      The cost of living in the London suburbs is not greatly different from elsewhere in the UK. Of course, there is huge variation between desirable areas and grotty areas - both in London and the UK generally. And the vast majority of people who live in the Greater London area do in fact live "near a public transit station"; say 10 minutes walk from a railway station or less to a bus stop.

    70. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like your royalty?

    71. Re:Trains by vtcodger · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Workers in Tokyo spend an average of 2 hours per day commuting."

      Assuming that things haven't changed since I lived in Tokyo many, many years ago, that's because:

      1. Housing of any sort in Tokyo itself is very expensive.
      2. Japanese employers pay transportation costs for workers.

      At least on a train to the distant suburbs of Tokyo, you can sleep. And many Japanese do exactly that. How do they wake up when the train gets to their station? Damned if I know. But they do.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    72. Re: Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you've never actually read Freud's books. Reading them back as an undergrad was my first realization that much of what the profs were teaching was just plain lies.

    73. Re: Trains by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Have you been to Los Angeles in the past few years? The city has made great strides in improving public transport. Last year's completion of the Expo Line "subway to the sea" was the last component needed to make a truly useful system.

      The subway system - already the second largest in America by mileage - is finally getting big enough to be genuinely useful. Downtown LA has seen an incredible urban renaissance. All neighborhoods with subway service are rapidly urbanizing.

      Imho there are two factors making this work so well for LA. First, the traffic is line some sort of biblical plague. Surface transport is ridiculously broken. At rush hour cars often move little faster than pedestrians.

      Second is Uber/Lyft. They handle that critical last mile of many journeys. Remember, during busy hours, a subway trip can take less than 1/3 the time of a car trip. So the small inconvenience of hailing an Uber to go the last mile is a great trade off.

      If I eventually repatriate, I'll most likely live in LA. :)

    74. Re:Trains by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you get in a train that drops you off in the middle of LA. Now, how do you get to where you're going from there? LA is hundreds of square miles of urban area, all spread out so there's no way any train will take you to all parts of it.

      So you've actually identified the real problem but skimmed right over it. The problem is poorly designed large sprawling cities that were sort-of designed for cars but not really because they don't scale to suit. The solution to this isn't more cars, it's more intelligent city design, one that takes both development AND transport into account, not just one or the other.
      If you were to design a brand new city of 3 million plus today you wouldn't build LA, it'd probably look more like Hong Kong or Paris. Smaller geographical area but still just as many people. But much less cars, more trains and more walking.

    75. Re:Trains by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The answer is better city planning.

      Keep in mind that the city is already there.

      But constantly evolving, like most cities.
      You can throw your hands in the air in despair and in 50 years you grand-kids will face even worse problems than you, or we can try and turn it around so that in 50 years our grand-kids thanks us for creating a great space to live and work.

    76. Re: Trains by Gussington · · Score: 1

      There's also the time cost: even if you're riding a train, sitting on it for hours and hours every day to go back and forth to work is a massive waste of your time and your life. This isn't much different from some places here in the US, such as NYC.

      The problem is moving large amounts of people in a large city. A car focused strategy will move less people and take longer than a train focused strategy.

    77. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's finish this turbo-tube network first.

    78. Re:Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of personal electric vehicles / last-mile solutions coming out these days. I preordered one that I can take on the train with me. Can't wait! No affiliation: raptor2.enertionboards.com

    79. Re: Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not true. You're assuming everyone wants to travel along a line. If a city is spread out equally in a grid in both axes, you'll need a lot of train lines. Trains work well when a city is long and narrow, like Manhattan. Not so much when it isn't, like Queens.

      Trains are great when you need to move a lot of people from one point to another point all at once. They don't work very well when people are moving between all different points, all going to all different endpoints. They also don't work so well if the city isn't very dense.

    80. Re:Trains by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Intelligent city design isn't a solution, unless your name is Captain Hindsight. You can't design a city that's already been built.

      Almost no one has ever, in all of history, designed a brand new city of 3 million plus people. Cities aren't designed; they evolve. They start out as small settlements or towns, and then grow from there. No one planned for LA to become a giant sprawling metropolis. Hong Kong isn't just a city, it's an island: the city is dense because the water limited the growth. Paris was (re-designed) by Napoleon, a dictatorial emperor. And Paris has suburbs, it's not all highly dense.

      The US has places with more trains and more walking too. They're nice, but they're also absurdly expensive, so not that many people live there, and they frequently move out to the suburbs when they have kids. Personally, as an engineer and not a millionaire, I can't afford $1-2M for a townhouse, or
      $5000/month for rent in a small apartment, so I can't live in such places, I can only walk around them sometimes as a weekend excursion (the nearest place like that to me is Alexandria's Old Town; I have to drive there and try to find street parking).

    81. Re:Trains by Rande · · Score: 1

      Not Tokyo, but I've done commutes into London.
      Because the train is light instead of dark, you're only dozing, and hearing your stop is like hearing someone calling your name.
      You can even learn to doze standing up by resting your head against the arm hanging on to the strap.

    82. Re:Trains by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The answer is not "MOAH CARS!" The answer is better city planning.

      LA is not a city. It's just a collection of suburbs.

    83. Re: Trains by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Not true. You're assuming everyone wants to travel along a line. If a city is spread out equally in a grid in both axes, you'll need a lot of train lines.

      Like London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore you mean? Well yes if that's the solution then that's what you do.

      Trains are great when you need to move a lot of people from one point to another point all at once. They don't work very well when people are moving between all different points, all going to all different endpoints.

      Like London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore you mean?

      They also don't work so well if the city isn't very dense.

      True, but that's why city design should fit within a range of density that promotes efficient transport solutions.

    84. Re:Trains by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Cities aren't designed; they evolve. They start out as small settlements or towns, and then grow from there. No one planned for LA to become a giant sprawling metropolis.

      Yes they did. Someone was always in charge and someone allowed zoning for large tracts of land and large freeways and a city designed around the automobile. You may not be aware of that fact, but all of that was designed by people, over time resulting in repeated failures to plan for the future.

      Hong Kong isn't just a city, it's an island: the city is dense because the water limited the growth.

      But someone designed a train system to service most of it after most of it had been built. At some point someone made that decision.

      Paris was (re-designed) by Napoleon, a dictatorial emperor.

      So some design activity happened at some point yeah?
      Of course it isn't easy, but it doesn't change the fact that the most liveable cities are a result of constant planning and design effort from those charged with running them.

  5. Can we stop with this pun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's getting rather...uhm...boring

  6. Cities Skylines by MangoCats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The single best solution to traffic in Cities Skylines is tunnels, lots of tunnels, put those freeways underground. I put my tunnel on-off ramps on the inside of big roundabouts, then the surface traffic is tremendously diminished, the freeway traffic has ready access to most areas, and the freeways don't add noise to neighborhoods or bisect and separate them.

    1. Re:Cities Skylines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new expansion coming out soon adds a bunch more useful transportation options that make it even better. Need to see if we can get musk to comment on and improve the expansion too!

    2. Re:Cities Skylines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...put those freeways underground.

      How the SHIT did I never think of this? You -my hive-minded, vaguely citrusy, feline friend- are a god.

  7. Re:OMG, could cars go 200km/h??!! wow by netsavior · · Score: 1

    How about private infrastructure, like private roads built with private money and the owner of the road charging to build/operate/maintain it? Naah, impossible, that's a government's job.

    I mean... lots of areas have that. I live in Dallas where just about any highway worth driving on is a private toll road. Even people who claim to be free-market libertarians love to complain about private toll roads. The roads are awesome, and almost always have a higher speedlimit, better quality, and included roadside assistance.

    The main problem with "private infrastructure" in Los Angeles is that if there were space for more roads, they would already be there. Which leads us to some sort of BORING (get it!?) proposition.

  8. Re:OMG, could cars go 200km/h??!! wow by zlives · · Score: 1

    i never understood why on a private toll road there is ANY speed limit. i always use those private toll roads because there is typically less of a traffic cop presence and most people don't want to pay extra so the traffic is less.

  9. People like Musk need to do more homework by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solutions like this are classic examples of tech-rich people thinking they have all the answers when there's a whole bank of qualified specialist people already working in that field who know what's really needed to fix the problem but have only been stymied by politics.

    If traffic is driving Musk nuts then the solution is not to find innovative new ways to handle more traffic. The solution is to ask why is traffic so bad in the first place.

    Recommended reading: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jacobs

    Or if that's too heavy, try Suburban Nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream.

    Only then will you come to see the culprit: Single Use Zoning, aka the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) rules. Single-use zoning forces everybody to make several car journeys just to get through a typical day. Going to work? Car. Going out for lunch? Car. Going home form work? Car. Need to go out for a bottle of milk and postage stamp? Car. Going to a movie? Car.

    No bloody wonder the place is flooded with traffic. You try to build a city around the automobile and it becomes a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists. You try to widen roads to accommodate more cars and the laws of induced demand kick in, resulting in even more traffic and roads as choked as they were before.

    Learn a few things about urban planning, Elon. Don't arrogantly assume that you're the first person to want to address this problem. Smart growth and sustainable, walkable, transit-oriented development is a far better solution than drilling holes in the ground and cracking puns about the word "boring." It requires years of tedious work and politicking to build support for smart growth. A city is not a private company with which you can do what you like. There are elected councils, public advisory committees, public hearings, tax implications, and all manner of complex bureaucratic hoops that you have to jump through to fix these things.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      What are the ecological impacts of boring thousands of miles of tunnels? What is the cost? Do we really need to get places that fast if we are in automated cars and can use that time to be productive or be entertained?

    2. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there's another solution here. Today's traffic is mainly moving *people* around. Perhaps we can reduce/replace those trips.

      The last one on your list is a good example: going to a movie. The vast majority of movies I see now are in my home. I don't go to the movie theater. Didn't even drive to a BlockBuster. No travel involved at all.

      Other things are harder to replace, but we're getting there. With technology, having lunch or your shopping delivered is becoming a practical option- and there's a lot more delivery options for a small package than a car full of humans.

    3. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The solution is to ask why is traffic so bad in the first place."

      That's an obvious answer; nobody knows how to fucking drive in the first place. Have you driven SoCal highways? The only place I've seen worse is the LBJ.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "What are the ecological impacts of boring thousands of miles of tunnels?"

      In SoCal? Quite heavy, given we're sitting on a ton of oil and gas.

      Good luck doing this without hitting a gas pocket by accident and blowing everything to shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Oh, and then to boot, in Los Angeles and many parts of SoCal, lots of those tall nondescript buildings Elon might want to tunnel under are actually hidden oil rigs. Again, good luck with that, or even thinking about tunneling anywhere NEAR them.

      I think Elon simply has no clue about this state's geology.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Smart growth and sustainable, walkable, transit-oriented development...

      Transit-oriented development is exactly what is being proposed. From the fine summary:

      "[The system would contain] electric skates transporting cars in a narrow tunnel, then raising them back to street level in a space as small as two parking spaces... cars could travel as fast as 200 kilometers per hour [through the tunnel.]"

      This is a subway for cars, which is _exactly_ the sort of short-to-medium-term fix that you need in a metro area that is obscenely car-heavy, has next-to-no underground rail system, and next-to-no political will for constructing one.

      Musk understands the political realities on the ground in the LA metro area far, far better than you do.

    7. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never been to Boston?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The solution is to ask why is traffic so bad in the first place.

      Because people tolerate that traffic enough to create it and sit in it at the same time. Because sitting in traffic is more desirable than the alternatives available to them.

      Because traffic congestion is a sign of prosperity, and so the only thing worse than having congestion is not having congestion.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good luck doing this without hitting a gas pocket by accident

      How deep exactly do you think tunnels are being built? Certainly not remotely near the water table, let alone natural gas deposits BELOW the water table where they typically are.

      Also you know there is this field of science called geology and you know if you are going to be digging tunnels you might hire one or two of these guys so that you avoid things like that.

      Perhaps you should get on the phone with Elon Musk and let him know he needs to hire geologists....

    10. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by taustin · · Score: 1

      What he really needs to do is find out how impossible it is to dig under other people's property in a heavily populated city like Los Angeles. Building an above ground highway in LA is a billion dollars a mile, or more, plus decades of lawsuits. That's with government backed eminent domain to seize property.

      Now translate that underground, where you have power lines, sewer lines, water lines, traffic light control lines, all manner of existing tunnels, all belonging to other people, going down dozens, if not hundreds of feet, that all have to be avoided or moved.

      LA has subways, and has spent tens or hundreds of billions on them. And they go from nowhere that people are to nowhere people want to go. Hell, the fare card system for LA Metro cost $150 million, and doesn't work worth a damn.

      Musk won't live long enough to see the first lawsuit go to trial, nor will anyone else alive today. Either he's making yet another bid for government handouts (like all his other companies profit from) or he's spent his billions on the best drugs in the world.

    11. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by taustin · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that building subway tunnels in wet sand that is geologically active is a bad idea.

      Welcome to LA.

    12. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      > Smart growth and sustainable, walkable, transit-oriented development...

      Transit-oriented development is exactly what is being proposed. From the fine summary:

      "[The system would contain] electric skates transporting cars in a narrow tunnel, then raising them back to street level in a space as small as two parking spaces... cars could travel as fast as 200 kilometers per hour [through the tunnel.]"

      This is a subway for cars, which is _exactly_ the sort of short-to-medium-term fix that you need in a metro area that is obscenely car-heavy, has next-to-no underground rail system, and next-to-no political will for constructing one.

      Musk understands the political realities on the ground in the LA metro area far, far better than you do.

      Bollocks. An underground train/elevator for cars is way less efficient than building a city where people can walk from point to point.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    13. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The meme you've posted is a sarcastic image of a desolate road. It mocks the people who say that congestion is good.

      You can have prosperity without congested roads, you know. Try visiting Europe once in a while.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    14. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Bollocks. An underground train/elevator for cars is way less efficient than building a city...

      Okay. The more efficient, more politically expedient approach is to level the majority of the LA metro area and start over from scratch?

      Got it!

    15. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Maybe his plan is to fill in the bay with all the dirt from his tunnels... wait 'till Lex Luthor hears about it though. It'll take Superman to break up a fight between the evil genius and the benevolent genius.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    16. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 2

      This is an excellent presentation delivered to the City of Austin about exactly what you outline. I highly recommend it! http://www.austintexas.gov/blog/false-prosperity-hidden-cost-suburban-sprawl

    17. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      Why do we not build more car carrying trains? That's what the Chunnel did. A tunnel, by definition, severely limits your choices of entrances and exits. So do trains. Therefore tunnels and trains are a good match for each other.

      However people need to get to the tunnel entrance, and they need to go someplace rather far away from the tunnel exit. A car would be a good answer to this.

      The idea of most cars, anywhere other than Germany, travelling at 200 km/hr is terrifying. Lots of cars can't safely do this and lots of drivers can't either. A train however, can go much faster than this if you design it correctly. The maglev trains are hitting upwards of 500 km/hr.

      The one thing is, such a vision is mainly for long-haul transport. A car carrying train isn't a good answer for short hops.

    18. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Boston Traffic can at least get past 15 MPH most times of the day.

      Come on over to the 60/15/10 junction strip and let's see what you think of 3 hours for 2 miles just to switch highways.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Either he's making yet another bid for government handouts (like all his other companies profit from)...

      His companies profit from the sales of the goods and services that they provide. Even if the _only_ thing SpaceX ever does is take over all of ULA's business it will more than make back all of the money that it received to get started. Tesla's energy production and storage arms are going to be significant money makers; to say nothing of the automobile production arm of the company.

      Governments helped to _bootstrap_ his companies. A big part of the role of government is to correct market failures by throwing money at organizations who will fix those failures, but would otherwise not get funded. Were it not for government funding, ULA would still be _massively_ overcharging for flights and there would be _no_ all-electric mass-produced car, luxury or otherwise that wasn't a useless tech demo from Big Auto.

      And to get back to the ULA thing... for a launch to -I think- LEO, ULA charges 109 million USD to launch an Atlas V. SpaceX charges 60 million USD for a launch on a disposable Falcon 9, and that cost will come down by at _least_ 50%, and more likely an order of magnitude once the F9s are regularly reused. It looks like ULA performs roughly five Atlas launches per year. If SpaceX _only_ consumes all of ULA's Atlas V business, that's a savings of ~50 million USD per year. The only government incentives I can find that SpaceX has received is a set of incentives from Texas valued at ~20 million USD to put a SpaceX launch facility in the state.

      Let's see... that cost works out to 20-50 = -30 million. Wait. That's a net savings, even after the first year! It "sucks" that Texas takes the on-paper hit for this, but the nation as a whole comes out substantially positive... and I bet you a nickel that (unlike sportsball stadiums) Texas actually sees substantial income from the launch facility, despite the incentives.

    20. Re: People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is LA we're talking about. The really efficient approach is to just wait, and an earthquake will level half the city for you.

    21. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 lanes for the 60, and 1 lane for the 5
      Your tax dollars at work people!

    22. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A nice compromise they have in Japan is to allow small shops and businesses in residential areas. They also have a lot of elevated and underground public transport.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Learn a few things about urban planning, Elon.

      Now it's time for your lesson. When dealing with an existing city that has the problems you so beautifully and correctly described, what do you do:

      a) Rezone everything. Raze buildings to the ground, dissect shopping centres and spread them throughout the suburbs. force mass relocation of corporations, move skyscrapers and campuses. Reclaim even more land ripping even more houses and buildings down to redesign roads for better access for alternative transport. Put in more public transport that is able to navigate outside of traffic. And all of that while basically throwing the local economy into a blender fuelled by radically changing land values and the sudden obsolescence and devaluation of people's motor vehicles all of which sounds like it may be achievable in the next 100 years?

      or

      b) Come up with an innovative way of bringing people from a to b without doing any of the above, and preferably his century.

      Don't arrogantly assume that you're the first person to want to address this problem.

      He never did. But he is assuming that he is the first person to want to address this with money, a plan, a will and a way.

    24. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Musk has a lot of money and one good product (much like other super-rich people). Even if he claims the most outrageous bullshit, it will still be heralded as the next great thing in the press. Also typical for the super-rich, it looks very much like he has surrounded himself with yes-men.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There are a few numbers, and they are not good at all. Also, time-frame would be multiple decades.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    26. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Simulant · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't own a space ship company.

    27. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who lives only a few blocks from SpaceX and Tesla here in Hawthorne, you don't know what you are talking about. GP had it right when he described the traffic situation here. The LA metropolitan area was not designed for walking or mass transit, it was designed around the car. Everything is spread out so much that it's simply the only realistic means of getting around.

      Digging automobile tunnels under a heavily populated, earthquake prone area just sounds idiotic to me.

    28. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Okay. The more efficient, more politically expedient approach is to level the majority of the LA metro area and start over from scratch?"

      That idea has much to recommend it. But, I imagine that were it attempted, the result would be something even worse -- assuming that's possible.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    29. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      S cal traffic sucks, but Bostonians are much worse drivers. They don't signal lange changes, because they know if they did, some other masshole whole put their car into the spot just to block them, even if that one needed to be three lanes the other way in a quarter mile.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:People like Musk need to do more homework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

  10. Combine them: a boring car by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want a Tesla Roadster with a drill on the front, so that I could create my own tunnel on my way to work at 125mph. It would be the most boring car ever!

    1. Re:Combine them: a boring car by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Just give me any machine that could actually full-tilt bore without stopping at 125MPH. Just one machine like that would make me the best prospector on the planet.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Combine them: a boring car by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Just give me any machine that could actually full-tilt bore without stopping at 125MPH. Just one machine like that would make me the best prospector on the planet.

      That's been done (in a movie, anyway).

  11. Most of USA's cities... by matbury6017 · · Score: 1

    ...were built around individual car ownership. If you want convenient, easy public transport, you have to build urban areas around that in an integrated, systemic way. Just sticking in trains, underground skate parks, or whatever hair-brained idea some oligarch comes up with ain't gonna solve any complex problems.

    For examples of better designed urban transport systems, have a look at older cities that were built before cars were a thing.

  12. Reminds me of the slot cars of my youth... by klubar · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think the tracks looked like the slot car racing tracks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_car) I can just imagine some kids running the controllers to see how fast they can take the corners.

    The idea isn't new... there are science fiction books with moving walking ways. Isaac Asimov, in the novel The Caves of Steel (1954) and its sequels in the Robot series, uses similar enormous underground cities with a similar sidewalk system. The period described is about the year 3,000.

    I guess we only have about 1000 years to wait....

    1. Re:Reminds me of the slot cars of my youth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving walkways are really futuristic if you've never been inside an airport :)

    2. Re:Reminds me of the slot cars of my youth... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I have.... and fuck the assholes that stand still on them side by side preventing anyone passing them.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  13. Re:OMG, could cars go 200km/h??!! wow by link-error · · Score: 1

    They aren't private in Dallas... the companies have paid Texas for the right to 'manage' and toll for 25 or 50 years with rights to raise tolls 10% per year or some insane amount.

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  14. Bad Location by kwiecmmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a nice idea, and it could be practical in 50 or so years. But why would you start in or around any city on the west coast. One earthquake during the early stages and this will die a terrible death, as would anyone buried in those tunnels.

  15. Elon is a Stonecutter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google Maps says Westwood to LAX takes over an hour during rush hour, or 18 minutes when traffic is light. So all they have to do is charge a variable congestion toll on the 405. If the price is set correctly, this would permanently eliminate traffic congestion on the 405 without overcharging anyone, and as a bonus it would replace taxes as a revenue source for maintenance or even, if people want it, to build the tunnel.

    Lower taxes and congestion-free travel at the cost of a toll. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If the price is set correctly, this would permanently eliminate traffic congestion on the 405 without overcharging anyone

      Because everyone going home after work would... what... exactly? Not go home after work?

      Rush hour here is already 3+ hours long... so your plan is for me to finish at 5pm and then sit around at the office until 8:30pm or so to save how much in tolls exactly?? And do I come in at 5:30am to avoid rush hour starting at 6? So Now the middle class spends 15 hours a day 'at the office'? But getting paid for 8? While the executives pay $250 each way in tolls and get to and from work in 20 minutes during rush hour?

    2. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      So all they have to do is charge a variable congestion toll on the 405.

      Judging from the number of single-driver cars I regularly see in the 405 HOV lanes, the congestion toll would probably have to be pretty onerous to be effective. Probably so high as to raise objections about being discriminatory against the 99%.

    3. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Because everyone going home after work would... what... exactly? Not go home after work?

      That's one alternative to (1) commuting (versus telecommuting), (2) during rush hour, (3) in a car, (4) solo, (5) on that congested freeway, when you (6) work at one end of that traffic jam, and (7) live at the other end of it.

      As you can guess from my numbered hints above, there are many other alternatives.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Actually, the poor like tolls more than those who would actually pay them: The survey found that support for tolls was higher among low-income individuals (58 percent support for tolls) than among high-income individuals (42 percent support for tolls).

      I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people without much money like the idea of tolls being paid by people with more money. I suspect that if this sort of thing was implemented on the 405, traffic on Sepulveda Blvd. would get a lot uglier that it already is.

    6. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1
      So, you're saying I should (1) telecommute to my construction job. No wait, that's not going to work.

      I know, I'll (2) show up 2 hours late to work to miss rush hour. Oops, boss doesn't like that one.

      Hmm, I could (3) bike to work with a minimum of 200lbs. of tools and materials on my back. No, that won't work either.

      And 4, 5, 6, and 7 amount to relocate.

      What wonderful alternatives you've offered.

    7. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      (1) commuting (versus telecommuting)

      -- yeah, most jobs in the real world do actually require going to work. you know to meet customers and/or build/install/repair/sell/ship/ a thing.

      Telecommuting is only applicable for a small number of people, and even of those people that could do it, most of them are not given the choice. You think upper management cares what your tolls are to get to work?

      (2) during rush hour

      Most people work business hours because they need to do business. They need to interact with customers and vendors etc. Most people do not choose the hours they work. See (1) above.

      Besides, the people who CAN easily choose avoid rush hour traffic times or work from probably ALREADY have chosen to. Nobody chooses being stuck in gridlock for 2 hours a day.

      (3) in a car, (4) solo,

      Yeah, this fair. Car pooling and so forth for the win right? Or public transit.

      But why do people choose cars? Usually because the alternatives aren't any better. Transit usually takes even longer is crowsed, smells, and the schedules can be punishing and in-flexible. Car pooling isn't much better... you can spend an hour in the car going to and from work straight... or you load up the car, take the HOV lane, but end up spending the same amount of time due to the milk run picking the other people up.

      Cranking a toll up on cars IS going to make car pooling and public transit suck slightly less by comparison, but its still going to suck unless there is real investment improving it.

      , (5) on that congested freeway

      Nobody takes a congested route when better routes exist. Your 'hint' proposes no alternatives. If there is more than one route, and you are spending an hour on THAT congested freeway... its probably because the other one is just as bad or worse.

      (6) work at one end of that traffic jam, and (7) live at the other end of it.

      This is another single argument despite numbering it twice. Again, think about it, the shitty long congested commute to work is ARLEADY a deterrent; nobody wants to sit in gridlock for 2 hours a day, every day ... so if people are putting up with it there must be a reason.

      a) The cost of housing on the 'side of work' is probably far too high.
      b) Or the size of housing on the 'side of work' is much to small.
      c) Or it is a family and one spouse found work close to home, while the other has to commute.
      d) Or there are other compelling reasons to live where they live. They are close to freinds, family, the kids are attending a good school, they enjoy the parks. It's absurd to think that everyone who works in the factory district next to the train tracks just because the corporate lease on that space was cheap wants to live in the shithole ghetto next to it.

      Adding punishing tolls on the commuters will make housing close to work that much more valuable, driving prices UP.

      So, yes you can raise the tolls to rebalance the equation, but that's not going to get them to move their family of four into a studio apartment that they still can't afford. Nor is the husband or wife going to separate from his family to each live closer to work in a separate home they can't afford. Nor should everyone uproot their entire family every time the company can save 2% on their lease and moves 20 miles in a random direction.

      Tolls can realistically nudge things a bit, but they are not a solution. There is no solution. Nothing quick anyway. But long term city planning can make improvements over time measured in generations. Creating communities people can afford to live in and want to live in near employers works. But that's not something you can just decide to do; especially in a relatively free market. It takes time, and planning.

    8. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to take 200lbs of tools home every night?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You think upper management cares what your tolls are to get to work?

      What would upper management do if nobody can afford to commute to work at the current wage? Clean the toilets themselves?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    10. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "What would upper management do if nobody can afford to commute to work at the current wage? Clean the toilets themselves?"

      I'd expect them to Lobby government to lower the tolls, give them an exception to the tolls, demand local taxpayer subsidized housing for imported mexican indentured servants, or threaten to move their "job creating" "tax revenue" business somewhere else.

    11. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to take 200lbs of tools home every night?

      Because (1) they're yours, and (2) that's the only way to guarantee they won't disappear before you return in the morning.

    12. Re:How about 18 minutes without the tunnel? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Here in Seattle's 405 loop, our DOT added tolling to the HOV lanes with this sort of variable pricing about a year and a half ago. Result? $10 for a one-way trip during rush hour for just 15-20 miles or so (not exactly sure of the distance). They hit the max price they promised the public, and was STILL too crowded.

      Please learn from our mistakes. This doesn't work. People HAVE to get from Point A to Point B at a certain time every day, because their job demands it. It's going to happen, no matter what financial disincentives you put in the way.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  17. no pillars mods and over head by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    no pillars mods and over head

  18. Montreal A-720 ville-marie express highway tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Guess how we fixed that problem over here?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Autoroute_720

    Yes, a 3-5 lanes highway (each direction) digged under all the city sky scrapper
    with many entrances / exits all over downtown.

    It gets you in the middle of the city or through the entire downtown area in no time,
    so instead of being stuck at 5 mph in a 30 mph dense street city zone,
    you can safely drive under all this crowded area at 45 mph
    (even though most people actually drive up to a max speed of 60 mph on it).

    The best part is that when it snow a lot during winter and the city blue collars are working hard to shovel it all
    and block the streets shoveling the snow at low speed while doing so,
    those tunnels are already free of snow, because physics.

    I have no idea why other cities just don't do the exact same thing.

    Oh and if you don't have a car, then you can also take the crowded subway:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro

  19. need more roads like lower wacker drive! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Just need to an have high lighting level 24/7 to keep the bums out. Or an speed limit of 60-70+

  20. Swarms by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Swarms of self driving car orbiting the city. Call and get one to take you to the store or the train station or the restaurant, wherever you need to go, release it to join the swarm/flock/herd and do your thing, calling for another just few minutes before you need to go. Automated monitoring could have enough cars at the train depots to take the occupants to their final destinations, and if done right a transfer from the train could cover the final mile cost just like a single bus bas does multiple transfers or a rail pass handles all the switches you need.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  21. Tunnel to China by avandesande · · Score: 1

    It's just a matter of cooling... once you get to hot magma if you can provide enough cooling it will harden naturally and you can create a tube right through the earth.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  22. The city is already built by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Now the question is what to do about it.

    It's easier to build tunnels than rebuild an entire city organically.

    It's basically a subway system with individual cars rather than trains.

  23. Yes I would love to see it by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    The reason there is so much traffic and politics is because people don't like change and then they think they know better. Its people like Elon that don't listen to them and just go out and make the change. Don't listen to those that don't think we need change, or want to spend years studying what the change will do. Make smart decisions and go for it.

  24. Re:Montreal A-720 ville-marie express highway tunn by shadowknot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is definitely the solution. In my home city of Birmingham in England there was a smaller scale system of tunnels called Queensway that, although scaled back in recent years, really did a good job of easing inner city traffic. They also gave me, and I'm sure many other kids, the wonderful opportunity of attempting to hold our breath all the way through. Something I wouldn't advise given the length of the tunnel in Montreal!

  25. Re:Montreal A-720 ville-marie express highway tunn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boston did (the "Big Dig"), but it was astronomically over budget and schedule.

  26. 1950s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... electric skates transporting cars in a narrow tunnel ...

    Many cities around the world are building tunnels to bypass the outer suburbs but Musk wants to add speed to the solution. How long does it take to fit these electric skates? What's the battery life when moving 2 tonnes of metal at 200 km/h?

    I still like the 1950s idea of double-decker roads.

  27. Safety hazard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just know somebody on their phone is going to blindly step into that hole.

    1. Re:Safety hazard. by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, this is beyond impractical, but on that specific front, it wouldn't be too hard to do, and I can swear I remember already seeing that. You have barriers that rise up before descending and the walls close over the hole like doors.

      Of course, you could only go so far without destabilizing the ground, no way you could practically avoid all the underground infrastructure and have decent paths, the energy required to zip things around that fast would be significant unless you evacuated a lot of the air (like hyperloop), but a car cabin wouldn't be designed for it (instead of sled, a sealed capsule maybe....).

      Either way, it won't happen because it would be impossibly expensive even if possible.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  28. Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1900 is a little before his time. It is the sort of idea that sounds good until you start confronting the reliability/safety problems of a real device, so many moving parts, as such it has turned up more than once and promptly failed.

    https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/rare-photos-of-pariss-mechanical-moving-sidewalks-from-1123349748

  29. Tunnels in LA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about earthquakes?

  30. I'm just trying to think about the future and not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be sad.

    Referee: Presenting Bender the Offender!
    Bender: I'm just an ex-con trying to go straight and get my kids back.

  31. Wow! Amazing new technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love this idea from Elon. He proposes building underground tunnels to carry cars with people in them from one part of a city to another. It's a subterranean motorway - a "subway,' if you will. This is a great time to be alive! And to think my grandmother only lived in the period when humans first took flight to walking on the moon.