Do we need futuristic tunnels? Elon Musk and The Boring Company
video description
Date: 2019-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Riley O'Neill
I think we are making a mistake by taking today's current technology, traditional cars with their human drivers and internal combustion engines, and projecting them on to some sort of boring tunnel. Then we can come up with all sorts of reasons why this technology won't work. However, lets be a little creative and perhaps make some future predictions. We will likely have a driverless car marketplace 'soon' in a city like LA. This is where a car comes, picks you up, takes you to your destination, drops you off, and then moves on to the next one. We currently don't even have a word for these, is it a pod, is it an uber, is it an auto, is it just a 'ride'. Either way. This is going to eliminate the need for street parking as you won't need a close parking space to your destination, the car drops you off close, but it won't park and wait for you. So we may have a whole bunch of road space that is currently used for parking freed up and some of it can be used for Boring Tunnel access points. So what I imagine happening is that a person will never drive their car to be used in one of these. They will summon a ride, the car will pick them up, drive to the boring spot, get on the tunnel, zip to the end spot, come out of its tunnel, keep driving to its destination, drop off the passenger(s) and then go on to the next one. I do think we will see metro services that resemble the glass encased vehicles in the video where they are much smaller than a bus and carry 10-12 people but will come around at much more frequent intervals than the current buses. There will be AI systems in place which measure where people currently are and can accurately predict when and where they will need more pods. The boring tunnels could be used to link up two removed locations which there is a great deal of congestion or activity. I also think these under ground wonder tunnels can be used for moving cargo between places like Port of LA and Long Beach Habor to distribution centers all over Southern California to get the big trucks off the road. A large cargo vessel comes into the harbor, the cargo containers (which may be redesigned to work better with the technology) are then automatically loaded on to skateboards and into tunnels which wisp it to outside the city center to logistics hubs. So instead of having trucks drive cargo from Long Beach to Riverside or Long Beach to Ventura, or Long Beach to San Diego there can be a system with a few dozen tunnels that does all this automatically. So this cargo doesn't in any way impact the entire metrozone and instead pops out out at various points far removed from the city where it is loaded on trains to be taken to the rest of the country.
reply
I think we are making a mistake by taking today's current technology, traditional cars with their human drivers and internal combustion engines, and projecting them on to some sort of boring tunnel. Then we can come up with all sorts of reasons why this technology won't work. However, lets be a little creative and perhaps make some future predictions. We will likely have a driverless car marketplace 'soon' in a city like LA. This is where a car comes, picks you up, takes you to your destination, drops you off, and then moves on to the next one. We currently don't even have a word for these, is it a pod, is it an uber, is it an auto, is it just a 'ride'. Either way. This is going to eliminate the need for street parking as you won't need a close parking space to your destination, the car drops you off close, but it won't park and wait for you. So we may have a whole bunch of road space that is currently used for parking freed up and some of it can be used for Boring Tunnel access points. So what I imagine happening is that a person will never drive their car to be used in one of these. They will summon a ride, the car will pick them up, drive to the boring spot, get on the tunnel, zip to the end spot, come out of its tunnel, keep driving to its destination, drop off the passenger(s) and then go on to the next one. I do think we will see metro services that resemble the glass encased vehicles in the video where they are much smaller than a bus and carry 10-12 people but will come around at much more frequent intervals than the current buses. There will be AI systems in place which measure where people currently are and can accurately predict when and where they will need more pods. The boring tunnels could be used to link up two removed locations which there is a great deal of congestion or activity. I also think these under ground wonder tunnels can be used for moving cargo between places like Port of LA and Long Beach Habor to distribution centers all over Southern California to get the big trucks off the road. A large cargo vessel comes into the harbor, the cargo containers (which may be redesigned to work better with the technology) are then automatically loaded on to skateboards and into tunnels which wisp it to outside the city center to logistics hubs. So instead of having trucks drive cargo from Long Beach to Riverside or Long Beach to Ventura, or Long Beach to San Diego there can be a system with a few dozen tunnels that does all this automatically. So this cargo doesn't in any way impact the entire metrozone and instead pops out out at various points far removed from the city where it is loaded on trains to be taken to the rest of the country.
reply
S.
I could NOT disagree with you more, although I attribute this to your consideration toward the pedestrian and desire for optimum city planning and consideration of practical engineering (ie: avoiding the hurdles presented by car tunnels. I think pedestrian and cyclist tunnels are such a horrible idea, and I can't see how others can't unsee that. I'll explain to you why. 1) Where people go, there will be the so-called the lowest tier of people of that particular society (in EVERY society) ruining it for the rest. WE all know what private business (ie: bars) toilets look like. Now New York City toilets. So suddenly we will let pedestrians access to these long tunnels. Nice, until you get one guy who takes a nap or a dump in it. Sounds like fun to clean Not to mention all the garbage that will collect as people spit, spit out gum, throw away cups, drop things accidentally. 2) As a cyclist, I want to be protected from cars. But I also don't want to be biking in some eternal tunnel. The best is to be able to bike down a trail outdoors without worry with cars. I will prefer being rained on and bicycle outdoors over being in a tunnel for 5 miles. Even 3 miles. SAME WITH PEOPLE. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE ENJOYING WALKING EVEN 1 MILE IN SOME TUNNEL? The only exception I can see to this is if its a place thats very cold in the winter. Which isnt LA where Elon is starting this. 3) Cars have risk of accidents, which is why these transporting mechanisms that actually carry the cars as oppose to having cars being driven in the tunnels is amazing. Sure, theres logistical issues that make this insanely sci-fi, but so was landing #-stage burners on the SpaceX rockets. Also, nobody cares about being in a tunnel for even 10 minutes if they're making crazy progress. You know people will not mind. of course, theres the problem of how to direct the car which exit to get off of. Unless its literally a car conveyor belt taking you from A to B, and B to A, like a car wash, that's gonna be weird. So in the end, I suppose it sorta makes sense if they just make this into a public trans friendly Bus tunnel, and maybe a premium user traffic avoiding route. That may seem kinda crappy being that it doesnt solve the worlds traffic problems, but in terms of usability, I can't understand how walking underground is the solution. If anything, push all the cars underground, so we can reclaim the god damn sun and skies. Can we make normal parks and biking paths on the earth and push more cars underneath? PLEASE?
reply
I could NOT disagree with you more, although I attribute this to your consideration toward the pedestrian and desire for optimum city planning and consideration of practical engineering (ie: avoiding the hurdles presented by car tunnels. I think pedestrian and cyclist tunnels are such a horrible idea, and I can't see how others can't unsee that. I'll explain to you why. 1) Where people go, there will be the so-called the lowest tier of people of that particular society (in EVERY society) ruining it for the rest. WE all know what private business (ie: bars) toilets look like. Now New York City toilets. So suddenly we will let pedestrians access to these long tunnels. Nice, until you get one guy who takes a nap or a dump in it. Sounds like fun to clean Not to mention all the garbage that will collect as people spit, spit out gum, throw away cups, drop things accidentally. 2) As a cyclist, I want to be protected from cars. But I also don't want to be biking in some eternal tunnel. The best is to be able to bike down a trail outdoors without worry with cars. I will prefer being rained on and bicycle outdoors over being in a tunnel for 5 miles. Even 3 miles. SAME WITH PEOPLE. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE ENJOYING WALKING EVEN 1 MILE IN SOME TUNNEL? The only exception I can see to this is if its a place thats very cold in the winter. Which isnt LA where Elon is starting this. 3) Cars have risk of accidents, which is why these transporting mechanisms that actually carry the cars as oppose to having cars being driven in the tunnels is amazing. Sure, theres logistical issues that make this insanely sci-fi, but so was landing #-stage burners on the SpaceX rockets. Also, nobody cares about being in a tunnel for even 10 minutes if they're making crazy progress. You know people will not mind. of course, theres the problem of how to direct the car which exit to get off of. Unless its literally a car conveyor belt taking you from A to B, and B to A, like a car wash, that's gonna be weird. So in the end, I suppose it sorta makes sense if they just make this into a public trans friendly Bus tunnel, and maybe a premium user traffic avoiding route. That may seem kinda crappy being that it doesnt solve the worlds traffic problems, but in terms of usability, I can't understand how walking underground is the solution. If anything, push all the cars underground, so we can reclaim the god damn sun and skies. Can we make normal parks and biking paths on the earth and push more cars underneath? PLEASE?
reply
Mark Jochum
I'm Pro Tunnel. I think that a shift to focusing on pedestrian traffic doesn't reduce down to an intent to reinvent the subway as most of the commenters speculate. All of the originally proposed routes indicated Hyperloop would compete with another mode of transit that moves people on foot, people with bikes, pets, etc; Airlines have an enormous time and financial cost added on by having commuters find transit to an airport, only to then unpack all of their luggage, and possibly find a place to store their private conveyance. Then it's through the security gates and into the terminal where access is restricted creating needlessly inflated costs for basic goods and time pressures to arrive early. Provided your flight is not delayed or canceled (I hope you paid extra for insurance, and tail winds are in your favor (not necessary in a vacuum tube, you will make it to your destination now looking to find a third form of conveyance to either rent or hire to load your bags into on your way to your actual destination. Consider the cost in time and money of all three legs (and maybe through in impulse buys in the terminal to be generous to my pov) and tell me that you don't think self-driving pods that can have the same destination flexibility (based on an assumed low comparative cost of providing individualized destinations) as air travel wouldn't be a benefit to a broader income class looking to locomote. I dare say it might Induce Demand for students in NYC to visit their nation's capital in DC for a long day trip, saving on hotel costs. While short term plans would clearly need much shorter prototypes that might not be as revolutionary (Dugout Loop, I'd point out that the plans for Musk's companies tend to unfold on a grander time scale.
reply
I'm Pro Tunnel. I think that a shift to focusing on pedestrian traffic doesn't reduce down to an intent to reinvent the subway as most of the commenters speculate. All of the originally proposed routes indicated Hyperloop would compete with another mode of transit that moves people on foot, people with bikes, pets, etc; Airlines have an enormous time and financial cost added on by having commuters find transit to an airport, only to then unpack all of their luggage, and possibly find a place to store their private conveyance. Then it's through the security gates and into the terminal where access is restricted creating needlessly inflated costs for basic goods and time pressures to arrive early. Provided your flight is not delayed or canceled (I hope you paid extra for insurance, and tail winds are in your favor (not necessary in a vacuum tube, you will make it to your destination now looking to find a third form of conveyance to either rent or hire to load your bags into on your way to your actual destination. Consider the cost in time and money of all three legs (and maybe through in impulse buys in the terminal to be generous to my pov) and tell me that you don't think self-driving pods that can have the same destination flexibility (based on an assumed low comparative cost of providing individualized destinations) as air travel wouldn't be a benefit to a broader income class looking to locomote. I dare say it might Induce Demand for students in NYC to visit their nation's capital in DC for a long day trip, saving on hotel costs. While short term plans would clearly need much shorter prototypes that might not be as revolutionary (Dugout Loop, I'd point out that the plans for Musk's companies tend to unfold on a grander time scale.
reply
Float Circuit
That was an exceptional video: )I'd like to share my view on flying cars, since no-one has discussed that: The interesting thing about flying cars is the question, what is a flying car? Most people think of vehicles with dangerous propellers, lengthy wings, or powerful jet engines. In any cases, these conceptions are loud, energy inefficient, require huge amounts of space to operate (e. g. runways, minimum flight separation distance of 500ft between any two vehicles according to the FAA, etc. Essentially, any flying machine that uses air seems destined to fail, and flying cars are simply not mass-market friendly. I completely agree. But this really begs the question: why should flying cars necessarily gain thrust by support from the air? Of course, using the air is all we know for flying around, so I get it. Yet, from another point of view, maybe there are alternate technologies waiting to be discovered. propulsion systems that allow us to fly through the air without wings, propellers, or jet engines. Maybe then we could rethink flying cars as a part of our hypothetical future cities. In my mind, the allure of a flying car is the creation of virtual highways, and more fluid motion than you'd get on a pedestrian-filled 2D road. I understand being wary of flying cars because you don't want to get guillotined by a hubcap or lose your life when a drone comes crashing into your home, but these are fundamentally questions of engineering and design. My contrarian view is that with the right innovators, it's not obvious that flying cars are such a bad idea. Maybe I'm wrong. It's just an opinion.
reply
That was an exceptional video: )I'd like to share my view on flying cars, since no-one has discussed that: The interesting thing about flying cars is the question, what is a flying car? Most people think of vehicles with dangerous propellers, lengthy wings, or powerful jet engines. In any cases, these conceptions are loud, energy inefficient, require huge amounts of space to operate (e. g. runways, minimum flight separation distance of 500ft between any two vehicles according to the FAA, etc. Essentially, any flying machine that uses air seems destined to fail, and flying cars are simply not mass-market friendly. I completely agree. But this really begs the question: why should flying cars necessarily gain thrust by support from the air? Of course, using the air is all we know for flying around, so I get it. Yet, from another point of view, maybe there are alternate technologies waiting to be discovered. propulsion systems that allow us to fly through the air without wings, propellers, or jet engines. Maybe then we could rethink flying cars as a part of our hypothetical future cities. In my mind, the allure of a flying car is the creation of virtual highways, and more fluid motion than you'd get on a pedestrian-filled 2D road. I understand being wary of flying cars because you don't want to get guillotined by a hubcap or lose your life when a drone comes crashing into your home, but these are fundamentally questions of engineering and design. My contrarian view is that with the right innovators, it's not obvious that flying cars are such a bad idea. Maybe I'm wrong. It's just an opinion.
reply
Carnage Kabuto
Unfortunately public transit is not the solution to private cars. Don't get me wrong, I too want it to work; when I see a high number of road fatalities, traffic nightmares, pollution and health problems, I want things to change just as much as you do but truth is that the general populace will stick to cars. To understand why we need to go back in time to understand why people transitioned from street cars (trams) and trains to private cars. It's about the freedom to make your own decision to go wherever you want to at the time of your convenience. Plus, less contact with strangers gives you a sense of security and comfort. Modern public transits don't really solve these problems. In my city, Kuala Lumpur, we just built a new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system. It is modern, hi-tech, very safe and very clean. They also built parking buildings with affordable parking fees in a few stations and offered feeder bus services. 2 years down the line, the ridership is still stubbornly low and this is causing the govt money. The simple reason is because it doesn't solve the problem of 'going wherever you want, whenever you want'. You need to drive to the station, then take the train to your destination and then use a ride-hailing service like Uber to go to your destination. It's very time and cost consuming. I'm sure the same problem will be faced by all less-dense cities that were originally built around cars and highways.
reply
Unfortunately public transit is not the solution to private cars. Don't get me wrong, I too want it to work; when I see a high number of road fatalities, traffic nightmares, pollution and health problems, I want things to change just as much as you do but truth is that the general populace will stick to cars. To understand why we need to go back in time to understand why people transitioned from street cars (trams) and trains to private cars. It's about the freedom to make your own decision to go wherever you want to at the time of your convenience. Plus, less contact with strangers gives you a sense of security and comfort. Modern public transits don't really solve these problems. In my city, Kuala Lumpur, we just built a new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system. It is modern, hi-tech, very safe and very clean. They also built parking buildings with affordable parking fees in a few stations and offered feeder bus services. 2 years down the line, the ridership is still stubbornly low and this is causing the govt money. The simple reason is because it doesn't solve the problem of 'going wherever you want, whenever you want'. You need to drive to the station, then take the train to your destination and then use a ride-hailing service like Uber to go to your destination. It's very time and cost consuming. I'm sure the same problem will be faced by all less-dense cities that were originally built around cars and highways.
reply
Supadubya
Also, the best way to reduce road traffic is to start off by charging motorists for the FULL cost of the nation's road/bridge/tunnel/highway networks (about 240/month per motorist in total. If we charged car owners a vehicle excise tax of nearly 240/month and raised the rest in tolls, we wouldn't have nearly so many traffic problems because a lot of price-sensitive motorists (particularly the poor) would sell their cars and walk, bike, or take Mass Transit. Mass Transit networks could raise their fares and still remain cost-competitive, and use the extra money to expand their networks (so people can go more places by mass transit for a given fare) and add more express lines. We should also remove all zoning laws requiring on-site parking (which would make parking a LOT harder to find and more expensive) as these laws are a giant unfunded subsidy to motorists (parking SHOULD be expensive, as it requires significant land use) if we made these two changes market-forces would take care of a lot of the rest. It would reduce Urban Sprawl by making transportation more expensive (because it would no longer be subsidized, and raise a lot of tax revenue- which could be used to reduce various other taxes and and provide a tiny Universal Basic Income or some modest Wage-Subsidies (to offset how an increase in the cost of transportation would raise everyone's Cost of Living- but particularly hurt the poor)
reply
Also, the best way to reduce road traffic is to start off by charging motorists for the FULL cost of the nation's road/bridge/tunnel/highway networks (about 240/month per motorist in total. If we charged car owners a vehicle excise tax of nearly 240/month and raised the rest in tolls, we wouldn't have nearly so many traffic problems because a lot of price-sensitive motorists (particularly the poor) would sell their cars and walk, bike, or take Mass Transit. Mass Transit networks could raise their fares and still remain cost-competitive, and use the extra money to expand their networks (so people can go more places by mass transit for a given fare) and add more express lines. We should also remove all zoning laws requiring on-site parking (which would make parking a LOT harder to find and more expensive) as these laws are a giant unfunded subsidy to motorists (parking SHOULD be expensive, as it requires significant land use) if we made these two changes market-forces would take care of a lot of the rest. It would reduce Urban Sprawl by making transportation more expensive (because it would no longer be subsidized, and raise a lot of tax revenue- which could be used to reduce various other taxes and and provide a tiny Universal Basic Income or some modest Wage-Subsidies (to offset how an increase in the cost of transportation would raise everyone's Cost of Living- but particularly hurt the poor)
reply
Something something username
Oh shit. Long story here, but I actually had a pretty detailed dream a while back that I was in a very old car (I assume it was a vw beetle, as I own one, so my dream probably put it in, but It never materialized enough to tell) in the future, where old non self-driving cars were deemed dangerous to be used, and were banned. I was illegally driving the vw in areas it wasn't meant to handle, and I somehow drove into a tunnel that transported not just self driving cars that were clamped on platforms, but also massive shipping containers of some sort, being carried at very high speeds above the cars by mechanical arms. It was a type of future super highway used to transport pretty much everything at great speeds, all over the planet. Occasionally The containers would go down to The cars levels when shifting paths for some reason. The car platforms and containers were moving at speeds a normal car wouldn't be able to travel at normally, let alone a now possibly 100+ year old vw. I was dodging the platforms and containers like crazy, and one of the containers almost smashed the car coming down on top of it, but I avoided it. Then I woke up. I had a terrified feeling in my gut when I woke up. It was possibly the only vivid dream I've ever had. It genuinely felt like I was ripped from my time period, car and all, and placed into the future, completely un prepared for it. Freaky
reply
Oh shit. Long story here, but I actually had a pretty detailed dream a while back that I was in a very old car (I assume it was a vw beetle, as I own one, so my dream probably put it in, but It never materialized enough to tell) in the future, where old non self-driving cars were deemed dangerous to be used, and were banned. I was illegally driving the vw in areas it wasn't meant to handle, and I somehow drove into a tunnel that transported not just self driving cars that were clamped on platforms, but also massive shipping containers of some sort, being carried at very high speeds above the cars by mechanical arms. It was a type of future super highway used to transport pretty much everything at great speeds, all over the planet. Occasionally The containers would go down to The cars levels when shifting paths for some reason. The car platforms and containers were moving at speeds a normal car wouldn't be able to travel at normally, let alone a now possibly 100+ year old vw. I was dodging the platforms and containers like crazy, and one of the containers almost smashed the car coming down on top of it, but I avoided it. Then I woke up. I had a terrified feeling in my gut when I woke up. It was possibly the only vivid dream I've ever had. It genuinely felt like I was ripped from my time period, car and all, and placed into the future, completely un prepared for it. Freaky
reply
magellanthecat
Problem with buses: They only run at certain times. They only run on certain routes. In the US(north)A, they are almost never set up to make it easy to change from one route to the other quickly. They are also almost never set up to integrate with other transit systems. Example: my mother wanted to visit me. She would have had to take a bus to one city (35 miles, switch to a different bus line (15 miles, walk 2 miles to a train station, wait an hour for the train. Take the train to the city I was living in (50 miles. Take 2 more buses (with 45 minutes in between, and then walk another 3 miles. This would have taken 15 hours, all told. Or she could just drive her car for an hour and a half to cover the 80 miles directly. Guess which option she chose? Most of the people who support trains think it's a great idea, for other people. Most want other people to take trains in order to free up the highways for their own use. I would love to have a functional mass-transit system. Unfortunately, between politics, and industry, this seems unfeasible in my area. Germany, however, was amazing. To be able to get from one side of Berlin to the other, switching modes of transit 4 times, but not once having to wait more than a minute, was just fantastic. Sadly, California is not Berlin in size, shape, population, or social attitudes toward public transportation.
reply
Problem with buses: They only run at certain times. They only run on certain routes. In the US(north)A, they are almost never set up to make it easy to change from one route to the other quickly. They are also almost never set up to integrate with other transit systems. Example: my mother wanted to visit me. She would have had to take a bus to one city (35 miles, switch to a different bus line (15 miles, walk 2 miles to a train station, wait an hour for the train. Take the train to the city I was living in (50 miles. Take 2 more buses (with 45 minutes in between, and then walk another 3 miles. This would have taken 15 hours, all told. Or she could just drive her car for an hour and a half to cover the 80 miles directly. Guess which option she chose? Most of the people who support trains think it's a great idea, for other people. Most want other people to take trains in order to free up the highways for their own use. I would love to have a functional mass-transit system. Unfortunately, between politics, and industry, this seems unfeasible in my area. Germany, however, was amazing. To be able to get from one side of Berlin to the other, switching modes of transit 4 times, but not once having to wait more than a minute, was just fantastic. Sadly, California is not Berlin in size, shape, population, or social attitudes toward public transportation.
reply
Christian Seehausen
Musk is being a salesman, but the Boring Company, and indeed the hyperloop to a certain extent, always sounded like reinventing the wheel to me. Now, if he were just trying to invent cheaper ways to dig tunnels, so we could more inexpensively and quickly build traditional subway systems, that would be wonderful and something I think would be of great benefit to cities around the world. The problem for Musk is, that doesn't sound great in a magazine article or blog post, because it's just doing the same stuff we're already doing, a bit better. Instead, he's trying to come up with something novel and marketable to the public, which as you so eloquently pointed out, doesn't necessarily address an existing need. Something I think might be a little more interesting would be if he could come up with a way to create bicycle tunnels with a significantly smaller (and therefore easier to fit into public right of way) tunnel opening. Building bicycle highways is something a lot of cities are interested in right now, but are having trouble with right of way issues, and planners are divided about the benefits of bicycle lanes on surface roads. I could see tunneling being a potential solution for this, although I'm skeptical it could be made cost-effective.
reply
Musk is being a salesman, but the Boring Company, and indeed the hyperloop to a certain extent, always sounded like reinventing the wheel to me. Now, if he were just trying to invent cheaper ways to dig tunnels, so we could more inexpensively and quickly build traditional subway systems, that would be wonderful and something I think would be of great benefit to cities around the world. The problem for Musk is, that doesn't sound great in a magazine article or blog post, because it's just doing the same stuff we're already doing, a bit better. Instead, he's trying to come up with something novel and marketable to the public, which as you so eloquently pointed out, doesn't necessarily address an existing need. Something I think might be a little more interesting would be if he could come up with a way to create bicycle tunnels with a significantly smaller (and therefore easier to fit into public right of way) tunnel opening. Building bicycle highways is something a lot of cities are interested in right now, but are having trouble with right of way issues, and planners are divided about the benefits of bicycle lanes on surface roads. I could see tunneling being a potential solution for this, although I'm skeptical it could be made cost-effective.
reply
DrDewott
Well I can see this Boring company mass transit solution work very well in one case: Airport shuttles. Or just any form of shuttle where you have to go from one very busy area out to multiple smaller areas. I mean if you can have a big terminal at the airport and have multiple different shaft stations around the city's vast areas with the vehicles running from those stops at let's say 10 minute intervals, running directly towards the airport, then you have the potential to really make it easier for tourists and business people to get around cities. Now my home city Copenhagen wouldn't be the best fit since the Airport there is already very close to the relatively small city centre and there's already 3 different ways into downtown from there but something like Los Angeles could work well with this solution. Think of the possibility with these vehicles running from LAX to all the touristy areas in LA, like Santa Monica, Long Beach, Hollywood, Anaheim- and so on, and back. Again LA already sees a ton of tourism and has tourists magnets in all directions from the Airport with long distances between these areas. So yeah systems like these could work exceptionally in the right conditions like an LA Airport shuttle service
reply
Well I can see this Boring company mass transit solution work very well in one case: Airport shuttles. Or just any form of shuttle where you have to go from one very busy area out to multiple smaller areas. I mean if you can have a big terminal at the airport and have multiple different shaft stations around the city's vast areas with the vehicles running from those stops at let's say 10 minute intervals, running directly towards the airport, then you have the potential to really make it easier for tourists and business people to get around cities. Now my home city Copenhagen wouldn't be the best fit since the Airport there is already very close to the relatively small city centre and there's already 3 different ways into downtown from there but something like Los Angeles could work well with this solution. Think of the possibility with these vehicles running from LAX to all the touristy areas in LA, like Santa Monica, Long Beach, Hollywood, Anaheim- and so on, and back. Again LA already sees a ton of tourism and has tourists magnets in all directions from the Airport with long distances between these areas. So yeah systems like these could work exceptionally in the right conditions like an LA Airport shuttle service
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
