I was intrigued to learn that Musk wanted to build what is essentially a new take on the subway, but after reading this article am totally against the proposal. This is looking far more like an option for rich people to get away from the poors. Short of private helicopters, this is one of the few cities where the public transit option is faster than taking a limo. Musk wants to correct that imbalance by creating a faster option for those who can afford it.
Cities should not support such things. I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen, just that the project shouldn't be given any special treatment, indemnification, or tax breaks. And what do we think will happen to the public option when all the influential people start using the premium service?
Notice also that none of the people in the renderings has any luggage. They aren't even wearing coats. To which magical airport are they headed?
If this project manages to reduce the cost per mile of building public transportation, the public as a whole will benefit greatly in the years to come. I'm not rich and I would love there to be many more subway lines built out in our cities.
It's the Tesla Roadster of public transit: an expensive proving ground for a technology with a mass-market demand. I'd rather the government give breaks to something with at least a sliver of hope of helping the common person - rather than tax cuts to wealthy, etc.
> If this project manages to reduce the cost per mile of building public transportation, the public as a whole will benefit greatly in the years to come. I'm not rich and I would love there to be many more subway lines built out in our cities.
The purported cost savings are primarily coming from making the system as incompatible as possible with traditional subways (i.e., the proposed tunnels are too small to be refit to accept standard loading gauge tunnels). Beyond that, the entire Loop concept boils down to a really low capacity system (subways generally are capable of moving 20,000 people an hour, all you really need is the rolling stock and traction power to make that happen; this system is talking about 2,000 people an hour with no room for upgrades without boring more tunnels--on par with a single highway lane). While the cost per mile might be reduced, the capacity is so low that the actual cost of the full system would be much higher.
>> 2,000 people an hour with no room for upgrades without boring more tunnels--on par with a single highway lane
2000 for a typical mixed-use highway lane. A dedicated/managed lane can move several times that number. 50-person buses at two per minute = 6000 people per hour. For sheer people moving potential, things like escalators and moving walkways actually do pretty good. They are just very slow.
I should have clarified that 2,000 people an hour assumes ~100% single-occupant vehicles. This does tend to be the norm for highways, unless you're talking specifically about HOV lanes or dedicated bus lanes.
Cities should not support such things. I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen, just that the project shouldn't be given any special treatment, indemnification, or tax breaks. And what do we think will happen to the public option when all the influential people start using the premium service?
Notice also that none of the people in the renderings has any luggage. They aren't even wearing coats. To which magical airport are they headed?