Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 19 2016, @07:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the boring-doesn't-have-to-be-boring dept.

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/elon-musk-hates-sitting-in-traffic-so-now-hes-going-to-build-tunnels/

Brunel had his ships. Trump had his walls. And now Musk wants to make... tunnels, tunnels under cities to reduce traffic congestion and make the world a better, cleaner, less rage-filled place.

Over the weekend, probably while sitting in traffic behind the wheel of an autonomous Tesla, Musk tweeted: "Traffic is driving me nuts. Am going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging." An hour later, probably while still sitting in traffic, giving him plenty of time to think of a witty pun, he declared: "It shall be called 'The Boring Company.' Boring, it's what we do."

And finally, an hour after that, just in case any of us were foolish enough to think the billionaire multi-CEO was joking, Musk said, "I am actually going to do this." He also changed his Twitter bio to include "Tunnels."

So, unless Musk was suffering from a prolonged bout of entrepreneurial road rage, we now know roughly how long it takes a pedigree industrialist to pick a new disruptible domain: two hours, give or take.

Tunnels are indeed a pretty good solution for traffic congestion, though they take a long time to build, and the construction usually causes a huge amount of disruption above ground—especially if those tunnels are being built in a metropolitan area, which is where you'll find most of the world's congestion.

Depending on the setting, it can be very difficult and expensive to build tunnels as well. Cut-and-cover—where you dig up an existing road, build a tunnel, and put the road back—is the only "cheap" tunnel building method, but it's so incredibly disruptive that most tunnels nowadays are built at deeper depths by automated tunnel boring machines (TBMs). Cost-wise, you're looking at about £1 billion per mile for TBMs: London's Crossrail, with 13 miles of new tunnel, will cost around £15 billion; Manhattan's second avenue subway line, with 8.5 miles of new tunnel, will cost about $17 billion. The costs are much lower if you just want to bore through a mountain—the just-completed 35-mile Gotthard Base Tunnel through the Alps in Switzerland cost a mere £10 billion (and took 17 years to build!)—but I doubt Musk has those kinds of tunnels in mind.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 20 2016, @04:29AM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @04:29AM (#443544) Homepage

    >Most commuters don't travel that far

    I suppose if you live and work in a city, that might be true (assuming you don't take public transportation already), but given the sprawling suburbs around most (all?) cities, that won't work if you plan on sleeping at all during the work week.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 20 2016, @12:37PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @12:37PM (#443721) Journal

    The average American commute is around 23 miles. That's bikeable, if you have a protected bike lane to ride on. I drive that distance every week and with traffic it can take 2 hours. Commuting 15 miles by bike it takes me 1 hr, 5 minutes.

    You don't necessarily have to bike the whole way if you live in the suburbs, too, per my original comment about taking bikes on regional bus/rail. If you have a folding bike it's even easier to do that.

    Many Americans believe they could never commute by bike from a suburb to a job in the city, but it could well be more a mental limitation imposed by social conditioning more than a physical one.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:04PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:04PM (#443976) Homepage

      In other words, it's only reasonable when the traffic is so bad that driving is significantly slower than biking, which is generally not true, here at least. Using bus/rail requires there being reasonable good, on time service with reasonably positioned stops and time tables. For me, that would be 20 minutes biking in the OPPOSITE direction, and an additional 30 minutes on a less comfortable vehicle, on someone else's schedule and possibly running late.

      Bottom line, you are not going to convince people to give up a 30-60 minute car commute for a 60-120 minute bike commute.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:24PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:24PM (#443989) Journal

        You also have to factor in parking time. If you consider bike commuting for time spent in a gym, that can help erase the time differential as well.

        It might not work for you or others, even taking that into account. But there are a lot of people who could, but don't think they could, because they're not looking at the whole picture.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:38PM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:38PM (#444028) Homepage

          From talking to some coworkers (which is of course not conclusive), it seems like the two biggest factors are how much more time it takes, the increased danger (a cyclist on the road is more vulnerable than a driver protected by a metal frame and inertia, all else being equal), and the increased discomfort (in a car, you have AC, don't arrive covered in sweat, safe from rain, etc.).

          I think having more cyclists and fewer drivers is good, but my opinion is that it's basically impossible, for good reasons, barring some kind of social paradigm shift. It's not because "they're not looking at the whole picture", but rather because they ARE "looking at the whole picture", albeit centered around themselves. After all, I don't personally care about traffic or pollution when my own contribution has zero impact if everyone else continues driving; it's the classic sucker dilemma.

          --
          Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:01PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:01PM (#444067) Journal

            Right--my original comment was predicated upon protected bike lanes being a far cheaper way to eliminate traffic than boring multi-billion dollar tunnels. The protected bike lanes eliminate most of the anxiety about safety. If you did it China-style, with a dedicated system of bike overpasses and underpasses, then it's even better. When you have something like that, possibly with electric assist for the people who can't or don't want to ride strenuously, you can manage the commuting challenge pretty darn well.

            Personally I prefer biking at the pace I prefer to sitting in car traffic where idiots are always cutting you off or texting on their phone instead of watching the road. That frustration takes years off my life. Biking gets all the kinks out on the way to work, and bleeds off the work stress on the journey home. I arrive in both places relaxed and alert.

            But you're right, it's a social paradigm shift. Not so much physically, but psychologically. It can be done, though. Times change, mindsets change.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.