Boring company

[YNM]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, you're talking about actual urban areas (walking cities, like NYC, etc), my "city" is a western, spread out city. Like LA, only far smaller. Many western cities are like this, so think LA, not London.

Interestingly, GLA (well, roughly M25) is about as large as LA's city ! But one houses 8 mil and the other houses 3 mil. Their "metro" houses about the same number of people though (15 mil), but I have no idea of the size.

Western cities are built on the premise of automobiles. As is linked above, this causes every sort of problems today.

But I'd say it's not a reason to not have a public transport. Those autonomous vehicles could be used to replace local busses (or bicycles, if it's too hot) to a transit station - they could solve the problem at the other end. Future developments can be made to be transit - oriented.

Edited January 28, 2018 by YNM

[tater]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Interestingly, GLA (well, roughly M25) is about as large as LA's city ! But one houses 8 mil and the other houses 3 mil. Their "metro" houses about the same number of people though (15 mil), but I have no idea of the size.

Western cities are built on the premise of automobiles. As is linked above, this causes every sort of problems today.

But I'd say it's not a reason to not have a public transport. Those autonomous vehicles could be used to replace local busses to a transit station - they could solve the problem at the other end. Future developments can be made to be transit - oriented.

In the US, anyway, light rail is never cost effective. If priced to pay for itself, people drive, instead, so it ends up massively subsidized.

I agree that autonomous vehicles will end buses in the western US, as point to point wins. You also have to remember that in the US people tend to shop more infrequently, for larger quantities (grocery). Hard to take the bus with 6 bags of groceries, then walk a km in the blazing sun from the closest bus stop to home.

I'm not against transit, I'm saying that in many western cities it is entirely implausible largely because of your observation that the cities largely devolved AFTER the automobile. The best US cities predate cars, making them more European in feel (walking cities). Once a city is spread out, you're stuck with cars. I have seen a bus on my own street, for example. A mini-bus. A neighbor is a child psychologist, and some of her patients come way up here on public transport. I think it is scheduled in some fashion, because it's not on a route, you must have to call and the mini-bus comes from the nearest real bus stop a couple miles away or more. If I needed to go to the nearest book store on transit, it would be a nightmare. It's probably 10 km to Page One. I'm unsure about calling transit here (maybe it's only for medical stuff, for low income people). Even so, I'd then have to likely take 2 more buses to get there, I bet it takes at least 90 minutes each way.

Running transit at a useful frequency requires ridership at all hours to justify it. I suppose autonomous buses might make this a little more plausible. But you'd need those buses coming down every street every few minutes to make it worthwhile to consider, so you know if you need to change buses, you'll never wait more than a few minutes.

[PB666]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Merging traffic with human drivers is nothing at all like efficient. Or people in the left lane not passing. Honestly, in urban areas it's so much worse than Albuquerque. We complain if it takes 5 minutes extra to get someplace 20 miles away because it's rush hour. In LA, the traffic is... horrific. Bad enough for wasted time, but if I could read this forum and type stuff instead of driving (if I lived in LA), it would be fine. The difference of course is speed. Slow downs cause more slow downs, even when not needed A single person needlessly stepping on the brakes causes a chain reaction, even if their actual slow down is imperceptible, the cars behind brake differently, and a jam is created.

LA, particularly eastern part of the metropolis is confined between mountains, although people live in those mountains and outside of those mountains. The freeways are concentrated in the Valleys and on the west LA is confined by the coastline. LaX you essentially take off, look down, its the Pacific ocean in about 10 seconds. And LA foolishly played into the hand of the oil and car industries until it was way too late to reform the transportation system. The way LA expands is unplanned, people build in rural mountainous areas and they essentially start using farm to market roads (i.e. thousand oaks) to commute to work. FMs are basically two land roads with no shoulders. So you have a situation that people live on the other side of a mountain range and try to commute around the mountain range to get to work on freeways that are limited by confinement to expand access.

We had a freeway here, 288, it was built and there was essentially no access, Some politician down 50 miles south wanted a freeway to end in his shopping center. lol. The freeway is finally finished, and people pour in the direction of that freeway. The freeway didn't change, just the number of people trying to use it, until its so clogged people don't want to use it anymore and the flux of people slows down.

You get into situations where your core planning is bad, your city is expanding outward, neither do you have planning outward, but you don't have a core to connect to. IN japan where the city subways end, the private train systems begin. The private trains existed before development because they were servicing villages out at a distance. But so all you had to do is add more stations and you have mass transit. Its expensive, but convinient, and because its there first you can tell the roads folks, go over or go under.

 

[YNM]

32 minutes ago, tater said:

In the US, anyway, light rail is never cost effective. If priced to pay for itself, people drive, instead, so it ends up massively subsidized.

...

Running transit at a useful frequency requires ridership at all hours to justify it. I suppose autonomous buses might make this a little more plausible. But you'd need those buses coming down every street every few minutes to make it worthwhile to consider, so you know if you need to change buses, you'll never wait more than a few minutes.

Yeah. Subsidy. That's it. Get some tax mate. You think TfL makes profit ? Well they just break-even. Been said they won't get anything directly again from the govt soon, guess they just make good use of congestion charging and tolls.

But it is indeed not just about the technicalities. Transportation involves people's perspective. It involve whether people (users and provider) see it viable. A lot of times, you have to make it visible before you decide it's viable. In the UK, this usually involves cycle lanes for urban areas and train routes for rural areas. They can look deserted at first, but if you set everything right, people will come to see how useful they are.

Much like other stories that involves some descending views - when metro-style service was introduced on our commuter railway (previously more like rural service), people think it's not very well. But once the system is implemented, it generated a lot of new traffic such that the frequency has comes down to 5 minutes (in the past it can be half-hourly, and at worst theres a 1h30m gap) and the system has been expanded.

But I guess it's your freedom. It's your choice whether to roll in congestion or actually forget them and provide something that can handle the flow.

[PB666]

37 minutes ago, tater said:

In the US, anyway, light rail is never cost effective. If priced to pay for itself, people drive, instead, so it ends up massively subsidized.

Light rail does not work well because it has to work around alot of expensive and needed infrastructure. Light rail is essentially de-post-facto mass transit planning. Its the aw-shucks we screwed up response to having a subway system. There is an intersection here where they did not want to elevate the tracks (expensive and an eyesore) so they decided to make a right turn and a left turn on city streets. At rush hour for every 1 person the trains commute 5 people have to wait 20 minutes longer to get through a set of 2 lights. Trains are great, but any great thing can be done stupidly.

[tater]

Yeah, but it's now too late to fix it. We have a community in the "East Mountains" which is close to me, but on the other side of the hill (10.678ft hill ). There is a single pass to get into town (I-40 and rt 66 share this, so 4-5 lanes in each direction combining the 2 roads). A winter storm and it's closed.

Elevation is an issue here as well. Buses can work, but trains... not so much. In my neighborhood, you'd need a funicular. That said, I can see "mass transit" out my window:

(that's the old tram, only pic I could find that I already had online. New cars have more glass).

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Light rail does not work well because it has to work around alot of expensive and needed infrastructure. Light rail is essentially de-post-facto mass transit planning. Its the aw-shucks we screwed up response to having a subway system. There is an intersection here where they did not want to elevate the tracks (expensive and an eyesore) so they decided to make a right turn and a left turn on city streets. At rush hour for every 1 person the trains commute 5 people have to wait 20 minutes longer to get through a set of 2 lights. Trains are great, but any great thing can be done stupidly.

Here, Gov. Richardson added the "Railrunner" between Belen and Santa Fe for half a billion $. It is, and I am not joking, like $6 to ride as much as you like all day. For a trip that in the NYC area would be closer to $50 round trip. As a result of not making money, it only runs a few times a day, making it useless, at a cost of many millions a year to operate out of the State coffers (most riders are in fact State employees commuting to the courthouses in ABQ from their offices in SF). It also routinely kills people, because many small crossings have lights, but not barriers (because level crossings cost many millions each). Brilliant.

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, YNM said:

... And that's where you'll just descend down to unsolvable problems. California-style.

NYC has a metro. The Netherlands has a rail system. Traffic on the road can be moved to public transport, and the reach of each transit station can be expanded with the involvement of biking. I'm not suggesting everyone to bike the entirety of their 15 km (10 mi) commute to work - but you could use it to ease stuff.

The Netherlands do have their expressways. Just not in the cities.

 

EDIT : I'm well-aware of the idea for car-based PRT, but they still takes more space than, say, a double-decker bus. If anything, why not an autonomous bus ?

Part of the unsolvable problem is that most traffic is commuting to work, other traffic don't matter much; exception is event places like stadiums who get rush hours during event but this is pretty solvable. 
Even experts fails at this, remember Norway got an new airport farther from capital, the experts in transport planning thought it would be an major traffic chaos, it did not, highway to airport get an peak for commuting, travel to airport is more spread out with an focus on morning flights who is opposite direction of rush.

Why does traffic increase, some is that people switch from bus and train to car but its an minority. The long term answer is that people has an limit on commute time, 30 minutes is nice, 1 hour and it gets long, 2 hour and forget it, here you move or change workplace, note that moving is more expensive than changing workplace.
Know this myself, I work on the other side of capital than there I live, my father could not done that then I was an kid, commute time would be to long. 

Now make an transport system made in heaven, over time people would exploit it like this, you got an nice workplace, 10 minutes drive to hyper loop station, car drive home for wife to use as she start later.
an fast 200 km trip and the car from one in office pick you up and drive you to office, benefit is increased flexibility.  

[tater]

My dad used to commute about 90 minutes a day. Metro North train from Grand Central in NYC to Connecticut. Not that far in distance, but the train was local to Greenwich, then express to 125 th street before heading into GCS. Then he'd have to get to his office (one on 3d Ave for a long time, then Park Ave, much closer). Was not too bad. The reason was that once in NYC, you don't want or need a car to do anything. In places like Phoenix, Tuscon, ABQ, LA, and many other western cities, you need a car. Not "a car is desirable," but really that your life would be terrible without one. In the summer it's too hot to walk (would be OK, but there is simply no shade). Everything is massively spread out. Simple errands of stopping at a couple shops take an hour, min, and most is point to point travel. Transit multiplies that timing.

What @magnemoesays above is true, but here, for example, 30 minutes is worst case for a car commute in the whole city. Any transit has to make many more stops than a car trip, hence it always takes longer. Even with 10 minute buses on every single street, people will wait an average of 5 minutes for a bus change. We're on a grid, so that means that driving time from house to work is the default, T, and transit time is T+5 for the single change, plus any additional time for stops (and buses don't drive super fast). That doesn;t include walking to the station, either. Call it a 5 minute walk on each side of the bus trip. That means that a bus here is going to take almost twice the normal, 15 minute commute, and 50% more than the worst one (though the worst ones probably have 2 changes).

On topic, hyperloop and tunnels would not work here, I think. Too much altitude change (1500 ft from my house to the valley) for one.

Anyone here know about underground property rights?

[FleshJeb]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

Anyone here know about underground property rights?

I'm a Land Surveyor -- This is a good overview: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/land-much-really-right/

[tater]

10 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

I'm a Land Surveyor -- This is a good overview: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/land-much-really-right/

Seems like unless the Boring Company gets mineral rights to extract minerals, they cannot bore under private property without buying those rights.

Wait until a tunnel is right about to go under your land, then charge them millions.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Part of the unsolvable problem is that most traffic is commuting to work, other traffic don't matter much; exception is event places like stadiums who get rush hours during event but this is pretty solvable. 
Even experts fails at this, remember Norway got an new airport farther from capital, the experts in transport planning thought it would be an major traffic chaos, it did not, highway to airport get an peak for commuting, travel to airport is more spread out with an focus on morning flights who is opposite direction of rush.

Why does traffic increase, some is that people switch from bus and train to car but its an minority. The long term answer is that people has an limit on commute time, 30 minutes is nice, 1 hour and it gets long, 2 hour and forget it, here you move or change workplace, note that moving is more expensive than changing workplace.

Then why stick to 2-hour jams ? This often happens.

It's true that most traffic generations in general are commuting. The reason is, most commute happens at the same time and for the same direction. Have you considered what impact public transport could have in such activity ?

 

As for transport hubs (like airport, seaport, rail station etc.), trip generation can be divided evenly, though most often this is not the case - long-distance trips are in essence a form of commute, aligning themself with time of day where most activity occurs. That Norway case might have been simply overestimation.

Growth is caused by new users. That's it.

My point isn't that people have to reorganize their trip time. My point is in "how that autonomous cars could undo traffic" is just BS. They only increase efficiency for a rather inefficient mode. Think coal power plant - the fuel efficiency can't surpass nuclear, but you can make sure that you get as efficient as coal can gets. But if even that becomes inadequate, the answer is always nuclear. Replace "coal power plant" with private transport, and "nuclear" with public and walking.

Edited January 28, 2018 by YNM

[FleshJeb]

Just now, tater said:

Seems like unless the Boring Company gets mineral rights to extract minerals, they cannot bore under private property without buying those rights.

Wait until a tunnel is right about to go under your land, then charge them millions.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but they could use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain and pay fair market value for an easement. Determining the value would be a bit of a challenge. How much is property worth that you're never going to use, and never going to see? It would probably be a function of expected revenue. I'm not sure if The Boring Company is intending to develop a private transit system or public.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Seems like unless the Boring Company gets mineral rights to extract minerals, they cannot bore under private property without buying those rights.

Wait until a tunnel is right about to go under your land, then charge them millions.

Eminent domain. But I agree, if I knew that this was going to happen I would immediately try to buy my mineral rights and then make them sign a contract that basically protected things like privacy, security , blah, blah, blah.

Noone who owns property rights in big cities own their property rights and even if you do, the cities own the easements, so a tunneler can just go right under the easement that someone else has already hard fought out.

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Noone who owns property rights in big cities own their property rights and even if you do, the cities own the easements, so a tunneler can just go right under the easement that someone else has already hard fought out.

Would you like me to comprehensively illustrate how wrong you are, or is my professional certification enough?

[PB666]

18 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Would you like me to comprehensively illustrate how wrong you are, or is my professional certification enough?

Sure go ahead, I'de like to own my own property rights.

[FleshJeb]

8 hours ago, PB666 said:

Eminent domain. But I agree, if I knew that this was going to happen I would immediately try to buy my mineral rights and then make them sign a contract that basically protected things like privacy, security , blah, blah, blah.

Noone who owns property rights in big cities own their property rights and even if you do, the cities own the easements, so a tunneler can just go right under the easement that someone else has already hard fought out.

Depending on the jurisdiction, you may already have mineral right, but may not be zoned for resource extraction. In los Angeles, you might be able to put an oil well on your property, and they'd have to work around it. You would already have privacy and security rights.

So, what I'm not going to get into is a political discussion of where we are on the continuum of Communism to Libertarianism, and what "ownership" means. Building codes are good, cholera outbreaks are bad. (See London in the 1800s, or the results of similar earthquakes in California vs Iran. (We had minor property damage, they had 20000 people die.)) Thus, there are some "reasonable" limitations on what can be done with a property that one owns. Some folks get upset about zoning requirements (like only Single Family Dwellings allowed), or the fact that they have to pay property taxes.

Here's a typical easement, that a private property owner has decided to deed to the City. "Non-exclusive" means the property owner can also use it. Of note, it goes up an their existing driveway.

The picture below is from an old job of mine in a suburban subdivision, within city limits, and it's pretty much a worst-case scenario for property rights. There is restrictive zoning, and it's a very small lot. You couldn't subdivide it, or run a large commercial business out of it. The house in question HAS been expanded, and more bedrooms added since it was originally built. In this case, but not all, the City owns the road (at the top, where the contours are). Sometimes you own to the centerline of the road, and the City has a road easement, with broad rights attached to it. In the case of my map, The City owns to about three feet behind the sidewalk. You can see all the utilities placed within the road/utility right-of-way. There is also a sewer easement running through the property. Importantly, Public easements have limited scope. They typically include the right of access, operation, and maintenance for that utility. You can build what you want within the easement as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of the utility. If the City needs to maintain it, and they damage anything, THEY have to fix it. In the case of a tunnel running through an existing easement on your land, the city would have to re-negotiate the scope of that easement, and pay fair market value, even under Eminent Domain.

Better-case scenario. A nearly 90-acre agricultural parcel that's been subdivided into four parcels. The zoning is fairly permissive, but it does have a ten-acre minimum size. Parcel 3A has a winery on it. All parcels have space for an additional single-family dwelling, or possible commercial use on top of Ag. All the parcels have road/utility easements along the interior lot lines. These are baked in to the subdivision.

Edited January 29, 2018 by FleshJeb
paragraph order, I messed up.

[PB666]

Well my markers are not in the road, which is good because the road and the frontal easement is in the 100 year flood plain, they can keep it, it raises my flood insurance and the ability to add dirt to my property if it is included.
So its better not to. But the backside is essentially its 'on your property you have to maintain it but we can do as we please in a 4 foot zone (8 foot on both sides of the marker. I had some Bamboo back there, they made me move it and trim it away from the utilities. The basic idea is that if any structure other than electric wires or crosses into the easement, it no longer the home owners. You put up a fence, make sure you can move the sections, if they need to replumb they will remove the fence. And I don't own the mineral rights, someone bought those up 100 years ago, and probably my city owns them now.

 

[FleshJeb]

A couple years ago, I did an Elevation Certificate for flood insurance purposes that proved that the structure was an inch above the flood zone. That was a squeaker.

You probably have a five-foot Building Setback Line required by the subdivision or City zoning regs anyway.

Unfortunately property owners can choose to encumber their properties in any number of fun ways. That's why you should always read the Title Report, prepared by the Title Insurance company, before you buy.

[YNM]

I guess that if the government deems it being in the interest of public good they can issue / help with eminent domain.

If not, perhaps they could instead go and make the owners of all of the areas they going to have a tunnel underneath knows and agree to the building, and the portals could be outright owned by Boring Co. / SpaceX / whatever Elon wants.

 

I'm not sure how the legals of such "public" projects are done in the US. What I've seen is for Crossrail.

[tater]

@FleshJeb, would there be any prophylactic stuff that could be done legally to protect land that could be used as a negotiating tool? Say Someone formed a company to make the basements of the future that bore under your property to some ridiculous depth, so you can turn your 800 sq ft house into a 10,000 ft² underground palace. Then when Musk wants to bore under, he either moves the tunnel, or pays you what is enough to make you agree.

[PB666]

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

A couple years ago, I did an Elevation Certificate for flood insurance purposes that proved that the structure was an inch above the flood zone. That was a squeaker.

You probably have a five-foot Building Setback Line required by the subdivision or City zoning regs anyway.

Unfortunately property owners can choose to encumber their properties in any number of fun ways. That's why you should always read the Title Report, prepared by the Title Insurance company, before you buy.

5, lol, this is Texas its 25 feet. But you can get variances if you request them, people who live on corner lots sometimes do that. Because of the flood recovery projects you can no longer build on more than 50% of the area of the property. So that if the Area is 5000 sq.ft you house can be no bigger than 2500 in certain jurisdictions. 250 sq. meters may seem huge for some people, but the typical new house being built in my neighborhood is in the 400 to 500 sq.meter range. We replaced Zoning with coercion a tool cities and counties love to use, particularly because of the huge storms that hit our area. For example if you decide to build a 5000 sq.ft house on a 5500 sq.ft lot, your plans to build that house may sit in a court for two years.

 

33 minutes ago, tater said:

@FleshJeb, would there be any prophylactic stuff that could be done legally to protect land that could be used as a negotiating tool? Say Someone formed a company to make the basements of the future that bore under your property to some ridiculous depth, so you can turn your 800 sq ft house into a 10,000 ft² underground palace. Then when Musk wants to bore under, he either moves the tunnel, or pays you what is enough to make you agree.

You would have bat mans garage!

[YNM]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Say Someone formed a company to make the basements of the future that bore under your property to some ridiculous depth, so you can turn your 800 sq ft house into a 10,000 ft² underground palace. Then when Musk wants to bore under, he either moves the tunnel, or pays you what is enough to make you agree.

I guess there's none of that. But I think tunnels are designed to go below foundations anyway, and driven foundations can go up to 300 ft down (at least here on clay-ish soil - I'm well aware of LA's wet sand).

44 minutes ago, PB666 said:

250 sq. meters may seem huge for some people, but the typical new house being built in my neighborhood is in the 400 to 500 sq.meter range.

Seriously ?! That's 5 times the size of my parent's house land, and the size of the land of my grandfather's house (which is soo spacious it has an "orchard") ! 500 sq.metre of building is overkill...

[tater]

If the land is useful now because of more cost effective boring, then my underground land has more value, and I expect to be paid for it. You don't build a million dollar house on a crappy lot worth 50k, for example. If a length of tunnel under my 1 acre cost 100 million, then I would expect compensation scaled to the cost of the value added.

Partially, if I lived there I'd want to be compensated, partially I'd not want it under my land at all. Why should Musk, et al, make money on my property? Heck, I might be inclined to buy a rig to drill (for a well), and wreck their tunnel.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

27 minutes ago, tater said:

If a length of tunnel under my 1 acre cost 100 million

"Dear sir! Please, be aware that just because your house is built above the underground vault of our bank doesn't automatically mean that you become its owner. Thank you for understanding!"

 

[PB666]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

Seriously ?! That's 5 times the size of my parent's house land, and the size of the land of my grandfather's house (which is soo spacious it has an "orchard") ! 500 sq.metre of building is overkill...

Uh we do things big here. People build a house of size not to live in, they live in it, then they sell it, they build big to sell big. Its silly of course.

I remember I visited a site in Japan near Osaka, it was the ancient city of Asuka. There was some ancient Emperor's Palace there that had a courtyard (defined by a outline of a fence and the outline of the building).  His court yard w/house could fit comfortably into my parent's house (not including the extension).

 

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

"Dear sir! Please, be aware that just because your house is built above the underground vault of our bank doesn't automatically mean that you become its owner. Thank you for understanding!"

 

No problem and of course please mister bank manager never mind me taking a course in welding or that high $ Lincoln arc welder I have in the back of my truck, Im sure its too small to cut through the ceiling of your vault.