
Elon Musk’s idea for fixing traffic suffers from one fundamental problem - davidf18
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/19/14005504/elon-musk-tunnel-traffic
======
davidf18
In NYC we've had many tunnels for beginning about 100 years ago -- for the
subways and also for trains and cars under the Hudson River.

Recently there have been tunnels made for the Second Ave subway which should
be opening soon. Last year, there was a tunnel made for subways below 42nd st
for the 7th Ave extension from Times Square to the Javitts Convention Center.
Another tunnel from commuter rails in Queens to Grand Central Station.

Many of the subway lines have tunnels for 4 tracks: for both local and
express, the later which skip multiple stops.

Incidentally, like Tesla cars, the subways are electric powered but hold 2000
people. In the case of the NYC subways, much of that electricity comes from
very green hydroelectric from the Canadian province of Quebec.

Other US cities should be drilling more tunnels, but for subways.

"“Sixteen brand new, concrete-lined tunnels now exist under New York City
where none did five years ago,” Joseph J. Lhota, the agency’s chairman, said
in a statement. “The conclusion of tunnel boring reminds us that New Yorkers
remain capable of great achievements.”

For seven machines, the end of tunnel boring has also meant new destinations
or, in some cases, a final resting place..."

[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/molina-a-200-to...](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/molina-a-200-ton-
machine-completes-a-journey-under-the-city/)

------
wahern
It's interesting that when discussing car traffic, knowledgeable people rely
heavily on concepts like induced demand, and remedies like congestion charging
and mass transit.

But when the issue is net neutrality, issues about fairness and equality reign
supreme. The complete opposite approaches are preferred--flat fees,
minimization of priority routing, more exchanges and less centralization, and
a commitment to maintaining the packet-based IP infrastructure rather than
moving to more specialized (if less flexible) "mass transit" protocols.

Obviously there are plenty of good reasons for the dichotomy to exist. And I'm
not challenging the normative goals regarding net neutrality, nor net
neutrality as the means. But certainly in the short-term net neutrality can
require expensive solutions (technologically, financially, and politically).
We do it more-or-less successfully because so-far the consensus by-and-large
is that long-term it provides an optimum environment for technological growth
and economic mobility.

While I'm all for mass transit projects, I think our community really sells
short the benefit of personal transit. And especially in the United States, we
fixate on solutions that are basically untenable. Yes, the fiscal, technical,
and structural problems with personal transit only grow more significant at
scale, but recognizing that does not require admitting defeat.

The U.S. is unlikely to ever see mass transit on the scale of London, Seoul,
Tokyo, and various Chinese cities. For social and geopolitical reasons, our
future is almost certainly going to rely heavily on personalized transit. I
hope and expect subway systems to grow by leaps and bounds, but the
demographic shift back to the dense urban core will have its limit, and in
absolute terms suburban commutes are likely to continue to dominate transit
planning. Also, as the rich swap places with the poor and working-class, an
excessive focus on mass transit will only exacerbate inequality of income, of
wealth, and of economic and social mobility.

I say this as someone who _loves_ mass transit. I'd cut off a finger if it
made a Geary Blvd subway a reality in San Francisco.

------
hsaxony
The central premise of the article is fatally flawed. Induced demand is a
myth, a fairy tale urban planners tell their kids at night

[https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-
myth](https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth)

------
hsaxony
And this

[http://www.newgeography.com/content/004781-urbanists-need-
fa...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004781-urbanists-need-face-full-
implications-peak-car)

~~~
hsaxony
Also note that Vox trundles out this exact same article fairly regularly.

