i thought that too but then a single lane at 240 kph carries as much traffic as 4 lanes at 60 kph, so there'd have to be more than 4 lanes worth of traffic trying to enter it at once to create a backlog. also those cars would all be queueing up at every single intersection along the route anyway, so having them somewhere else would make travel times on those surface routes much better.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You forget accelerating and decelerating as well as waiting for the entry and exit and a virtually straight track required for these speeds. How long is this thing going to be in order to be viable remains to be seen, I hardly believe it will at all. A "metro type" vehicle as proposed in the video will not go or accelerate any faster than any other metros. Also, a faulty vehicle will mean downtime for hours
This noodle will fall off the wall sooner rather than later.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Seems strange that USA doesn't have bullet trains
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
~$602 billion dollars providing the defacto military for Europe in a post Soviet era might be better spent on such a project.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
that's a good point, but it wouldn't provide a steady revenue stream to all those defense companies congress have shares in.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
I agree.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
thegent (Old Spike)
a lot more would be saved if you took the military back from the rest of the world..
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
same problem as australia, too much space between cities for it to be worth it. here in japan an hour on the bullet train takes you through 5+ major cities of 1m+ people each.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bronobo (Long Spike)
logically, he has me convinced that tunnels are a potential solution. whether it'll work out safety or financially feasible in practice remains to be seen. a big setback so far is that the original plan of the electric sleds was given up on. we'd have to wonder what else in the original plan isn't going to work out.
continually adding more lanes to an inner city highway has a limit. you'd have to buy up real estate, and the routes are fixed, unless a new highway is built. going underground allows you to add many more lanes in layers instead of only side-by-side, and choose any direction as long as there's no underground geological barrier. the surface real estate needed would be for the exits and entrances.
imagine if LA had to purchase 3km length of real estate on the surface, demolish the buildings, and pave a new lane. that would cost a lot more than whatever they spent for this tunnel.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
more and more these days i realize things like this shouldn't be finanacially feasible, because the main beneficiaries are people who don't use them. kind of like how when other people take the bus it's awesome because there are 20-50 fewer cars in front of your car, it'll save a ton of time for everyone not using the tunnel because of all the tunnel cars which aren't filling the same roads you're trying to use. it's reasonable i think to pay more in things like vehicle taxes so the money can be used to reduce traffic, which makes driving easier and cheaper.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dhagon (Old Spike)
And when there's a blowout, mechanical/electronic failure, breakdown, etc. in this small tunnel? Seems like this thing would see a lot of downtime and would be putting that "out of order" sign on overtime.
Comments
(Old Spike)
Yeah, makes total sense, cars queueing up to get in the tunnel rather than people in a metro. This is going the same way the hyperloop is headed. Unless it is meant to be a "fast lane for the rich".
(Old Spike)
i thought that too but then a single lane at 240 kph carries as much traffic as 4 lanes at 60 kph, so there'd have to be more than 4 lanes worth of traffic trying to enter it at once to create a backlog. also those cars would all be queueing up at every single intersection along the route anyway, so having them somewhere else would make travel times on those surface routes much better.
(Old Spike)
You forget accelerating and decelerating as well as waiting for the entry and exit and a virtually straight track required for these speeds. How long is this thing going to be in order to be viable remains to be seen, I hardly believe it will at all. A "metro type" vehicle as proposed in the video will not go or accelerate any faster than any other metros. Also, a faulty vehicle will mean downtime for hours
This noodle will fall off the wall sooner rather than later.
(Old Spike)
Seems strange that USA doesn't have bullet trains
(Old Spike)
~$602 billion dollars providing the defacto military for Europe in a post Soviet era might be better spent on such a project.
(Old Spike)
that's a good point, but it wouldn't provide a steady revenue stream to all those defense companies congress have shares in.
(Old Spike)
I agree.
(Old Spike)
a lot more would be saved if you took the military back from the rest of the world..
(Old Spike)
same problem as australia, too much space between cities for it to be worth it. here in japan an hour on the bullet train takes you through 5+ major cities of 1m+ people each.
(Long Spike)
logically, he has me convinced that tunnels are a potential solution. whether it'll work out safety or financially feasible in practice remains to be seen. a big setback so far is that the original plan of the electric sleds was given up on. we'd have to wonder what else in the original plan isn't going to work out.
continually adding more lanes to an inner city highway has a limit. you'd have to buy up real estate, and the routes are fixed, unless a new highway is built. going underground allows you to add many more lanes in layers instead of only side-by-side, and choose any direction as long as there's no underground geological barrier. the surface real estate needed would be for the exits and entrances.
imagine if LA had to purchase 3km length of real estate on the surface, demolish the buildings, and pave a new lane. that would cost a lot more than whatever they spent for this tunnel.
(Old Spike)
more and more these days i realize things like this shouldn't be finanacially feasible, because the main beneficiaries are people who don't use them. kind of like how when other people take the bus it's awesome because there are 20-50 fewer cars in front of your car, it'll save a ton of time for everyone not using the tunnel because of all the tunnel cars which aren't filling the same roads you're trying to use. it's reasonable i think to pay more in things like vehicle taxes so the money can be used to reduce traffic, which makes driving easier and cheaper.
(Old Spike)
And when there's a blowout, mechanical/electronic failure, breakdown, etc. in this small tunnel? Seems like this thing would see a lot of downtime and would be putting that "out of order" sign on overtime.