The idea that Metro might have future plans to operate in the same area isn’t a serious objection.
Where the heck does this idea that the TBC pods are “snobbish and elitist” come from?? Just because of some hypothetical Metro project that has little chance of materializing??? You can’t just spread an idea by saying in effect “some people are saying this,” then use it to concern-troll the project.
Elon's own comments started much discussion in the media about his attitude to public transport:So, really, no one should be surprised that Elon Musk thinks transit is beneath him. In fact, the tech billionaire hates rubbing elbows with scary commoners on buses and trains! He said this week in an exchange covered by Wired:
On Wednesday, the city’s public works committee backed two amendments proposed by Blumenfield. One stipulates that the city of Los Angeles would be indemnified from legal costs accrued from the project. The other would require Metro and the Boring Company to coordinate so tunnels don’t conflict with future Metro projects.
Quote from: Ludus on 04/20/2018 06:07 pmThe idea that Metro might have future plans to operate in the same area isn’t a serious objection.It's about as serious as Metro wants it to be.
DistantTemple: that’s not just the generic “press,” it’s an anti-car activist site. They don’t like the idea of anything at all approaching or facilitating cars on principle. It’s the similar to those who are against Musk simply because he’s a billionaire and will admit so. This is literally a socialist viewpoint. And while I won’t deny their right to that worldview, it must be acknowledged that it is FAR from a mainstream opinion in the US and shouldn’t be construed as some popular movement but should be acknowledged as a viewpoint far from the mainstream.
Yeah, definitely the mainstream opinion is behind Elon and TBC. That’s why the city council was unanimous. but there are some weirdly vocal people who are against Elon. There’s a well-known and well-funded attack campaign against Tesla. But there’s also some legitimate pushback.I would like to think there is some pushback that is constructive, as well. For instance, the car carrying pod idea just wasn’t as good as one carrying people, so that is valid criticism, and luckily Musk had the sense to realize that, refocusing TBC on passenger transit.
I would like to think there is some pushback that is constructive, as well. For instance, the car carrying pod idea just wasn’t as good as one carrying people, so that is valid criticism, and luckily Musk had the sense to realize that, refocusing TBC on passenger transit.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/21/2018 03:09 amI would like to think there is some pushback that is constructive, as well. For instance, the car carrying pod idea just wasn’t as good as one carrying people, so that is valid criticism, and luckily Musk had the sense to realize that, refocusing TBC on passenger transit.I don't believe the core idea has actually changed, just the presentation.A tesla model s weighs 2500kg or so with passengers - it's reasonable to assume this is a notional load.A lightweight 'minibus' pod, based on the same sled can carry perhaps 18 passengers, with no extra technical work at all, other than perhaps the details around the length of the vehicle perhaps enlarging the vertical lifts..This is of course the best sort of change - change which is free and doesn't affect your original ideas, if you decide to pivot back, you just unbolt the coachwork.
No stations. It’s dispersed. The pods are like getting into a taxi, but they’re on an elevator that brings the whole thing from the surface to the underground tunnel. Watch the video.
There is also the obvious point that if there are more than a couple of destinations, intermediate underground stations - which accumulate a bus-full of people could greatly increase systemic capacity.
Quote from: speedevil on 04/22/2018 04:59 amThere is also the obvious point that if there are more than a couple of destinations, intermediate underground stations - which accumulate a bus-full of people could greatly increase systemic capacity.The Loop concept -- just dig more cheap tunnels -- seems to be to overbuild capacity rather than go for optimal utilization (This worked pretty well during the rapid growth phase of the Internet; once the network goes everywhere you then have real data letting you build non-speculative usage models and can then worry about incremental changes that help you improve utilization).If you're not careful in how you size and place the intermediate stations and how you admit traffic into them they'll end up congesting the network at peak periods and just introduce added delay at off-peak periods when the network has capacity to carry everyone end-to-end without an intermediate stop.
That makes sense. The higher the speed, the longer the acceleration and deceleration ramps at each station, and hence the separation of stations. The pods will be able to travel at different speeds and there will be high speed long distance lines and lower speed local lines. No way of avoiding double tunnels for long distances. Perhaps local lines will have single tunnels making loops to effectively cover more territory... a very interesting optimization problem! User selects destination and computer selects optimal route. Probably higher speed tunnels will run deeper and connections between low speed local tunnels and high speed long distance tunnels will be completely underground (shorter ramps). From the ground you access only loca lines.