The Boring Company. Sorry, but I don't think it'll work...

[timk225]

I've read about The Boring Company, but I don't think the plans to tunnel under Los Angeles is a good idea, nor will it work in the long run.

Why?

1. Loose dirt, prone to cave-ins.
2. Mine subsidence and the damage to structures on the surface, lawsuits, insurance claims, etc, there is enough of that in my area already, what with old coal mines and all.
3. The tunnels would be at or below sea level, so one good earthquake, mistake, or hitting an underground water source that no one currently knows about, and the whole deal is flooded. All that work for nothing.
4. Tunneling under downtown, with huge heavy buildings above? I don't think that would be allowed.

It might work in other places, but not in L.A. . Just deal with the traffic.

Why is Elon driving anyhow? Can't he hire a private helicopter?

 

[Jtrader]

I've read about The Boring Company, but I don't think the plans to tunnel under Los Angeles is a good idea, nor will it work in the long run.

Why?

1. Loose dirt, prone to cave-ins.
2. Mine subsidence and the damage to structures on the surface, lawsuits, insurance claims, etc, there is enough of that in my area already, what with old coal mines and all.
3. The tunnels would be at or below sea level, so one good earthquake, mistake, or hitting an underground water source that no one currently knows about, and the whole deal is flooded. All that work for nothing.
4. Tunneling under downtown, with huge heavy buildings above? I don't think that would be allowed.

It might work in other places, but not in L.A. . Just deal with the traffic.

Why is Elon driving anyhow? Can't he hire a private helicopter?

Your four issues are the least of my concerns. A couple of my concerns are; 1) Having elevators at the entrances and exits seems like a major bottleneck, plus 2) Having the right number of sleds in the right place at the right time seems problematic. Why can't autonomous EV's drive themselves in the tunnels instead of using sleds?

 

[Topher]

1. Loose dirt, prone to cave-ins.

Perhaps some more research on your part is in order. The whole point of the machine is to seal the tunnel as it is being dug. Loose dirt (even if it was a problem at the depth they are digging) is already taken care of.

Thank you kindly.

 

[NikeWings]

I've read about The Boring Company, but I don't think the plans to tunnel under Los Angeles is a good idea, nor will it work in the long run.
Why?
1. Loose dirt, prone to cave-ins.
2. Mine subsidence and the damage to structures on the surface, lawsuits, insurance claims, etc, there is enough of that in my area already, what with old coal mines and all.
3. The tunnels would be at or below sea level, so one good earthquake, mistake, or hitting an underground water source that no one currently knows about, and the whole deal is flooded. All that work for nothing.
4. Tunneling under downtown, with huge heavy buildings above? I don't think that would be allowed.
It might work in other places, but not in L.A. . Just deal with the traffic.
Why is Elon driving anyhow? Can't he hire a private helicopter?

After decdes of haggling and politics, LA built the subway to the sea. I think there is enough seimic and geologic data available to engineer a safe solution. Even Japan visits to understand our sesimic-induced building codes. But I have yet to understand the executable benefit without point-to-point, uninterrupted passage of these tunnels, although haven't been fixated on everything Boring yet.I need to start digging in.

Feasibility and usefulness aside, LA City Council will want a long term pound of flesh (and every other jurisdictional party), or they will roadblock it into perpetuity. And then there is also the risk that a prehistoric worm colony is discovered and quickly placed on the protected species list......the Delta smelt of the southland.

 

[NeverFollow]

Your four issues are the least of my concerns. A couple of my concerns are;
1) Having elevators at the entrances and exits seems like a major bottleneck...

1) ... bottleneck? You mean Carmageddon epicenter! Look at San Francisco Bay Bridge tool plaza.
Imagine the waiting line before getting the next elevator available during rush hours.

2) Having the right number of sleds in the right place at the right time seems problematic.
Why can't autonomous EV's drive themselves in the tunnels instead of using sleds?

This is the main point.

- Why the need of using sleds if the cars are already electric and autonomous?

- Even trucks could become electric and autonomous!

This remind me the complexity of transporting car and trucks in the Euro tunnel between France and the UK.

3) I would add the cost of building underground:

New subway (metro) systems cost nearly 9 times as much as light rail

Costs and delays mount for downtown L.A. subway link
"If you're digging up streets in downtown Los Angeles, be prepared for a circus."
— Jim Moore, USC professor who studies engineering and transportation

4) Just another day in L.A

6) The solution?

 

[Uncle Paul]

Believe the reason for the sleds is to keep the vehicles perfectly centered in the tunnel, allowing the tunnel to be 50% smaller diameter.

Going underground is the only way to reduce traffic congestion. The surface streets are often clogged.

Using vertical elevator shafts take up much less space than ramps for self driving up and down.

Sleds can be automatously shuttled to where ever they are needed by running empty between the cars.

Elon plans to use some of the dirt removed by the excavation to make brick to line the tunnel, saving time, labor and the expense of getting rid of the soil.

Lots of these problems are just made up. Easy work arounds for making the tunnels safe and efficient.

Tunnels are working well all around the world. Just need to be able to make them faster and cheaper. That is the focus of the Boring Company.

 

[NikeWings]

Lots of these problems are just made up. Easy work arounds for making the tunnels safe and efficient.

Tunnels are working well all around the world. Just need to be able to make them faster and cheaper. That is the focus of the Boring Company.

Are there examples of tunnels which require loading & unloading as part of its transport process? The engineering and building of the tunnel is doable, but how is the traffic management of its throughput not affected by onboarding and offboarding actions, or is it expected to have some congestion just less so, as its reducing load elsewhere?

 

[Garlan Garner]

I've read about The Boring Company, but I don't think the plans to tunnel under Los Angeles is a good idea, nor will it work in the long run.

Why?

1. Loose dirt, prone to cave-ins.
2. Mine subsidence and the damage to structures on the surface, lawsuits, insurance claims, etc, there is enough of that in my area already, what with old coal mines and all.
3. The tunnels would be at or below sea level, so one good earthquake, mistake, or hitting an underground water source that no one currently knows about, and the whole deal is flooded. All that work for nothing.
4. Tunneling under downtown, with huge heavy buildings above? I don't think that would be allowed.

It might work in other places, but not in L.A. . Just deal with the traffic.

Why is Elon driving anyhow? Can't he hire a private helicopter?

There are approx. 1200 Tunnels and Turnpikes in America. 95% of them were built before 1972 and 98% of those still exist today. 50% of them are abandoned however still exist.

Keep in mind that we aren't talking about things like mines and such. We are talking about re-enforced tunnels and turnpikes.

Why am I mentioning this? Because the concerns listed above were remedied back in the 40's and 50's as evidence of the tunnels that STILL exist - as pristine as the day they were created.
I live in the Chicaoland area and I have been privy to the coal tunnels that run thoughout the downtown area....including the tunnel that exists below the Willis Tower ( used to be the Sears Tower ) with no ill effect to the tower in over 35 years.

The further a person digs down...the less affect an earthquake would have on an object. For example an earthquake originating a mile below the surface is 800% less traumatic down there because of the density of the earth....than it is on the top. Its like throwing a small stone in the lake and watch the ripples get larger and more violent the further away they get from the rock.

 

[timk225]

I think that instead of digging under L.A., it might be a better idea to build some elevated highways. More entry and exit points, more volume of traffic can flow on it, just get them 20-30 feet off the ground and it can pass over houses, buildings, other streets, etc. As for finding places to put all the support beams? Easy. Eminent domain them right from the start, and no one gets to complain about it and try to stop it. Like it or move away.

And this eliminates the minor problem of ocean water finding a way in and obliterating the entire project in one shot.

 

[immolated]

You know better than the billionaire engineer/rocket scientist and his team? Okay.

 

[timk225]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I've read about The Boring Company, but I don't think the plans to tunnel under Los Angeles is a good idea, nor will it work in the long run.

I'm not the only one to say this, but my suspicion is that The Boring Company is actually meant to develop technologies for Mars colonization.

Terraforming of Mars could conceivably take centuries, during which time colonists risk lots of radiation exposure living on the surface. Tunneling under Mars may be necessary for building safe habitats for pioneers.

So this isn't about the City of Los Angeles. It's part of the plan for the Martian Congressional Republic.

 

[NeverFollow]

think that instead of digging under L.A., it might be a better idea to build some elevated highways.
More entry and exit points, more volume of traffic can flow on it, just get them 20-30 feet off the
ground and it can pass over houses, buildings, other streets, etc.

When is the last time you went to L.A.?

 

[timk225]

I lived in the SFV area of L.A. for 3 years, and just went back to visit from 4/25 to 5/4. The traffic is bad, but not solid bumper to bumper on every road all at the same time. Those photos are fake.

 

[bonnie]

I lived in the SFV area of L.A. for 3 years, and just went back to visit from 4/25 to 5/4. The traffic is bad, but not solid bumper to bumper on every road all at the same time. Those photos are fake.

Whoa! Fake?

Nope. I lived near the 405 and 10 (on Ocean Ave) in Santa Monica for several years. Let me assure you, those photos are an accurate representation of what I've personally experienced. Multiple times.

 

[wolfpet]

> it might be a better idea to build some elevated highways.

We have some elevated highways here in TO area. All they talk about is the enormous maintenance cost as it's exposed to the rains and snow 24/7/365.

 

[adastra]

I think that instead of digging under L.A., it might be a better idea to build some elevated highways. More entry and exit points, more volume of traffic can flow on it, just get them 20-30 feet off the ground and it can pass over houses, buildings, other streets, etc. As for finding places to put all the support beams? Easy. Eminent domain them right from the start, and no one gets to complain about it and try to stop it. Like it or move away.

And this eliminates the minor problem of ocean water finding a way in and obliterating the entire project in one shot.

Not practical to build elevated highway that's more than 2-3 levels, but you can have more levels for tunnels.

Also people get to use what's above ground with a tunnel system.

 

[EV Revolution]

Not practical to build elevated highway that's more than 2-3 levels, but you can have more levels for tunnels.

Have you ever been to Moscow?