News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by gamblor956 on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @12:30PM (#18980335)
Elon's tunnels are the worst 3D alternative. The hourly capacity of a single city bus exceeds the daily capacity of an Elontunnel.

For example: Elon has proposed a tunnel to Dodger stadium. However, the existing Union Station-Stadium shuttles can (and do) handle 10x the proposed Elontunnel's max daily capacity in about an hour or two depending on traffic.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by njarboe on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @02:16PM (#18981609)
Couldn't one put buses in these tunnels? One could even mix buses and cars when the buses aren't taking up all the space.

I don't quite get the hate for Elon's tunnels. Let him and his team try and build them and see if they work. Super cheap tunneling would be great for so many things. That is, unless you think that humans have too much power and think we should regress back to some more primitive lifestyle. "Try to help make a future that you would like to live in." Traffic congestion sucks. It would be great to get rid of it. Cheap tunnels could be one way to help. Why stop people from trying?

He did start and still runs a company that makes reusable rockets. You have to try to do something before you know what is possible.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by bobthepanda on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @05:02PM (#18983557)
As a cynical person, I've seen many US discussions of "why invest in public transport when Hyperloop and the Boring Company have the solution coming up in a few years?"

Transport investment is like planting a tree. The best time to build it is twenty years ago, and the second best time to do it is now. Elon has basically given cover to NIMBYs to hide behind a supposedly new amazing future solution that may never come.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by njarboe on Thursday January 24, 2019 @12:04PM (#18990484)
There is plenty of capital in the world right now that there is no reason not to build all different kinds of new transportation schemes. Elon's first tunnel got NIMBYed. One main feature of tunnels is that you can, hopefully, put them lots of places where surface building is impossible. What people put in them will be up to the builders.

Construction costs has not come down in price over time like many other things have. I think he hopes that the Boring Company can list a price/mile for tunneling that is much lower than current costs and let people actually budget them. Maybe sell these better machines to other construction companies at some point. He broke the cost-plus pricing for satellite launches. Just think what something like that for tunneling could do for transportation systems. Billion dollar overruns are on the digger not the public. That would be great.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by bobthepanda on Thursday January 24, 2019 @04:07PM (#18992974)
If you actually look into construction projects, including extremely expensive American ones, tunnel boring is not a significant cost.

The actual cost comes in station digging; stations need to be high throughput and extremely reliable, which favors complexes with a large footprint and thus more required property taking, usually in dense urban areas that require complicated engineering. For highway tunnels the similar cost factor are onramps and offramps; if you want a ramp to be safe and efficient at high speed you need a lot of space.

Hyperloop “solves” this problem by proposing elevators. Very few metro stations are elevator only because they are low throughput and are prone to mechanical failure, as opposed to staircases that are not.

An interesting writeup on the case study of the Second Avenue Subway: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/01/27/construction-c...

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by njarboe on Friday January 25, 2019 @03:11PM (#19002030)
Yes. With cheap tunnels one could hope to plan for many exits and a large network that goes everywhere. Like a road system, but underground. Imagine an early city where all the roads are really just paths in the dirt that are completely rutted and almost impassible when it rains. Someone proposes to pave the main road with cobblestones. This is really expensive and wont help people travel on all of the other paths that still won't be paved.

Ok. Give up I guess; bad idea.

No. Let's start with this one, fix the various problems that arise, discover how to make a good paved road with the least amount of labor and resources, and continue to expand the paved network to reach everywhere in the city.

This is what happened. Would you want to go back to unpaved roads in a city? Traffic congestion is killing American society. I like American society. Many people don't like to live all packed together but still want to work with other people and have the amenities that cities enable. Cars and interstate roads allowed that for a few decades but now we need a new system to continue expansion of the free flow and interaction of people. Underground roads could replace interstates and we could turn them into grand boulevards for pedestrians, bikes, and other slow vehicles. Wouldn't that be great? Almost all car traffic is underground. Would you support such an idea?

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by stcredzero on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @03:52PM (#18982798)
Elon's tunnels are the worst 3D alternative. The hourly capacity of a single city bus exceeds the daily capacity of an Elontunnel.

For example: Elon has proposed a tunnel to Dodger stadium.

Fixed wing airplanes are the worst flight alternative. The passenger capacity of a single hot air balloon far exceeds the passenger capacity of an airplane. For example: A Wright Flyer.

Sorry, but this is a bit strawmannish. You do realize it's a proof of concept project, right? It's not like the Falcon 1 disproves the capacity of all SpaceX rockets, ever.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by Retric on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @12:42PM (#18980467)
That’s wildly inaccurate. First busses reduce the ability of a road to transit cars \ trucks. So actual gain is significantly less than nominal gain.

Second even with a single passenger vehicle, a tunnel can move people over it’s full distance at the same time. Consider a bus moving people on a 5 minute trip vs 50 minute trip on the second case it’s got 1/10 the capacity.

Sure, a 3.5 mile tunnel adds little on it’s own. But, then again it’s also short.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by eropple on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @01:22PM (#18980945)
It's not inaccurate at all. A tunnel is strictly bound on surface traffic--because traffic has to enter and exit it--when it doesn't involve slow, failure-prone, low-capacity access points at either end.

While we're at it, optimizing for number of vehicles rather than number of passengers is a very...how do I put it...rich way of thinking about things. Which jibes very well with Elon Musk's whole thing: "mass transit is great so long as I don't have to see the poors."

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by joshe on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @02:57PM (#18982107)
If you watch the talk, the plan is for autonomous pods that holds passengers with their bikes. Little buses basically. And also cars. You can’t just read the media reports, they are always about max outrage.
Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by stcredzero on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @03:54PM (#18982822)
I miss the days when I could mostly read news that played on awesome, not outrage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by jandrese on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @01:04PM (#18980726)
Is this assuming a single car at a time in the tunnel? Otherwise I don't see how it could possibly be true. That's absurdly low volume. Like a regular road would beat it easily.
Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by eropple on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @01:27PM (#18981017)
Not a single car, but a lot fewer than Elon wants you to believe. We already know that the baseline technology being proposed works. Guided buses have been in use for a long time now. But there's a reason it's used with buses, not individual cars. And it's for a pretty simple reason: the loading process into the tunnels can't be fast. Much hay is being made about minimal surface disruption, but elevators are slow. As is driving into a guide tray that moves the car along.

donoteat01 does pretty fantastic video work about a number of urban planning topics and he's shot this one full of holes already. You should watch it if you're curious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn6ZVpJLxs

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by njarboe on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @02:31PM (#18981810)
"the loading process into the tunnels can't be fast"

Why is that the case and can it be fixed? I would say that this problem would be easier to solve than the problem of getting a orbital class rocket booster to go into space, launch the second stage, and then return to the launch pad and land.

Musk likes to work from first principles to try and understand what is possible. What is the physics behind why you can't have a very full, steady stream of vehicles going through a tunnel? Nothing really. The vehicles just have to be very well controlled. With a good auto-vehicle you should be able to pack them in and have them enter and exit into the stream of traffic. Like a real road, only better. Why would you not want someone of Musk's caliber to not try to do this? My dad would rather have him working more on getting the automatic car working so he can continue commuting to work. I can understand that objection, but he says the Boring Company is only about 2-5% of his time. If you want something to happen you try and decide if it is possible, and then try and do it. Not spend you time figuring out how not to do it.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by jandrese on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @02:39PM (#18981897)
From what I can tell the bottleneck is a single slow freight elevator. It doesn't seem like a fundamental problem with the underlying technology, just an implementation detail.
Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by eropple on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @02:36PM (#18981868)
It can't be fast because the constraints he's laid out don't allow them to. Elevators don't work that way. Neither does braking safety. (Run the numbers yourself, or go watch that donoteat01 video. It's farcical on its face.)

The rest of your post is weird heroification and I'd have to bleach myself after interacting with it, so I won't.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by BurningFrog on Wednesday January 23, 2019 @11:31PM (#18985987)
> the loading process into the tunnels can't be fast

True, but a loading/unloading time of 30-60 seconds only means the tunnels are less feasible for short trips.

Re:Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off by eropple on Sunday January 27, 2019 @05:23PM (#19014116)
This is true--but then a top speed of 140mph, as asserted by Elon and company, is unlikely to be feasible because the cars involved won't have time to accelerate to that speed before needing to decelerate at a human-comfortable speed for arrival (which then causes knock-on effects on everybody else in that tunnel system, and I hope their braking systems all work perfectly forever).

And we haven't even gotten into how a top speed of 140mph will burn the hell out of street tires.

It's just...dumb. It's not thought out. It's aggressively reality-averse. It's thought-leadery as hell.