The jam goes underground for Elon Musk; More red-light jumping undercover cyclists; lowdown on LTNs; tribute to Devon's Mr Cycling; funding secured for Welsh 'Biking Mecca'; CX champs preview + more on the live blog

peted76 wrote:

I'll admit I've not read all the bumpf on Musk's tunnels, but if the idea was to produce safe routes for 'autonomous electric vehicles' to travel, then I'm kinda on board with the principal. e.g. 1) you can't let AI driven cars just drive around on the streets today 2) you drive in your EV to a gate/toll press the button which says 'autonomous' then sit back watch TV for half an hour while you travel to the other side/gate exit, then carry on with your car journey. 

but before adding addition trunk route capacity, very careful consideration must be given to the local capacity at the the exits.

Do Tesla's pollute the air? 

Yes.

1. During construction I believe the CO2 emiited in building an EV is more than a petrol/diesel though do not quote me on it.

2. During use if the electricity is not generated from renewables

Sevenfold wrote:

1. During construction I believe the CO2 emiited in building an EV is more than a petrol/diesel though do not quote me on it.

2. During use if the electricity is not generated from renewables

Indeed - the average battery-only EV will account for 18 tonnes of CO2 during its lifetime, less than a similar-sized family car (24 tonnes) but 46% of that is the manufacturing pocess. A Tesla using the average US mixed-production electricity supply has to be used for around 13,000 miles before it reaches pollution breakeven against a petrol Toyota Corolla due to the higher CO2 emissions in production. If the electricity comes solely from coal-powered plants, obviously the equation gets considerably worse, with nearly 80,000 miles required before breakeven.

Ah.. that's not what I meant, I meant when in use (not when being built).

The answer to which is actually bigger than just talking about manufacture. Yes EV's do cost more carbon to build at the moment than petrol machines.. BUT they are significantly more carbon effective over the life of the vehicle.. like between 2 and 15 times more carbon effective than a petrol car (the massive differences here  as you state, are mainly dependant on how the electricity is generated/ comes from in order to charge them, 15times better would be if all the energy came from renewables, 2times would be from a fossil fuelled power station. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle for most.

peted76 wrote:

Do Tesla's pollute the air? 

Yes

Tyre scrub, road wear and brake dust are significant sources of toxic pollutants.

There is also the consumable nature of those 3 things - what do you do with worn tyres and pads, and how frequently do you need to replace the road surface. Mind you the typical UK LA seems to have that last one sorted.....

All statements that apply to bikes also.

Although clearly the volume of particales should be smaller from stopping a significantly lighter object.

wycombewheeler wrote:

All statements that apply to bikes also.

Although clearly the volume of particales should be smaller from stopping a significantly lighter object.

Oh come on Wyc....

It also counts for pedestrians, to take the false equivalence even further.

hawkinspeter wrote:

On the one hand, I like the idea of shoving cars underground out of our way

And then filling in the entrances?

mdavidford wrote:

.....

And then filling in the entrances?

Where's Highways England when you need them.....

hawkinspeter wrote:

On the one hand, I like the idea of shoving cars underground out of our way, but is it really feasible? The big problems I anticipate is that drivers sometimes crash and if the tunnel isn't at least the width of 2-3 cars, then you're going to have a severe blockage. The other issue is of pollution - without decent ventilation the tunnels are going to be a health hazard.

Meanwhile, those problems largely disappear if you use the tunnels just for cycling (guessing that pedestrians would rather walk above ground) as there's little chance of a blockage and no traffic fumes to worry about.

It's not remotely feasable due to the trillions it would cost. The Limehouse Link tunnel in London is still the most expensive road in British history from what I understand - 300 million for a mile of road - at 1993 prices.

EddyBerckx wrote:

It's not remotely feasable due to the trillions it would cost. The Limehouse Link tunnel in London is still the most expensive road in British history from what I understand - 300 million for a mile of road - at 1993 prices.

Quite possibly, however, Musk's The Boring Company (excellent name) is supposed to drastically reduce the cost and time taken to dig tunnels.

What he might claim and what he actually does is definitely different things. For example he claimed that it would only cost $10mil per mile but Vegas cost $50 for 1.7mile. and whilst this does look cheaper then traditional, he wasn't really digging in a high building density area like some of the more higher costing ones. The expansion will be interesting as he would potentially going under foundations and high underground utility areas. 

Maybe the other £25mill was spent on the funky lights in the tunnel to make it look futuristic which it seems they have all turned off now. 

Their website also claims that they can drill at the rate of 1 mile per week (6 times the speed of their older machine) and yet this 1.7 mile tunnel took 18 months. Even with the old machine my maths says 10-12 weeks if they were even close to achieving that.

Also their low cost approach is based on the tunnels only ever being shallow, through soil, not rock and all having the same diameter regardless of intended use.

There is some potentially clever thinking in some of what they are doing but it is all aimed at low hanging fruit in terms of tunnel engineering which would not work in well established cities with legacy underground infrastructure. It is not clear how it would cope with complex geology that those countries on the edge of continental plates tend to have compared to those in the middle.

hawkinspeter wrote:

... Musk's The Boring Company (excellent name) ...

Hull's yellow pages directory used to have an entry that read:

Quote:

Boring

See Civil Engineers

That always used to amuse me, particularly as a very good friend of mine was a civil engineer. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

... Musk's The Boring Company (excellent name) ...

Hull's yellow pages directory used to have an entry that read:

Quote:

Boring

See Civil Engineers

That always used to amuse me, particularly as a very good friend of mine was a civil engineer. 

I think all yellow pages did - I certainly used to point it out to civil engineer students when I was at university.

EddyBerckx wrote:

.....

It's not remotely feasable due to the trillions it would cost. The Limehouse Link tunnel in London is still the most expensive road in British history from what I understand - 300 million for a mile of road - at 1993 prices.

Sunk cost fallacy.....

Edit: for those tunnels already built that is.

For future tunnels should we actually accept that transport is for people not vehicles the cost per mile is reflective of the value of moving people - it's just as valuable to move a person on a bike as it is to move a person in a steel container containing a suboptimally occupied 3 piece suite.

And cost in the other deleterious affects of motor vehicles, and tunnels for bikes actually starts to make a lot of sense.

Captain Badger wrote:

EddyBerckx wrote:

.....

It's not remotely feasable due to the trillions it would cost. The Limehouse Link tunnel in London is still the most expensive road in British history from what I understand - 300 million for a mile of road - at 1993 prices.

Sunk cost fallacy.....

Drilled cost, surely?

Unless it starts to leak.

The orginal point was to give an idea of the cost of the project.

Sunk cost is something entirely different in that people make the wrong decisions about an ongoing project because X amount has been spent already.

hirsute wrote:

The orginal point was to give an idea of the cost of the project.

Sunk cost is something entirely different in that people make the wrong decisions about an ongoing project because X amount has been spent already.

 

I understand, and I was covering to say that if a tunnel has already been built at 300m per mile or or whatever, it is still feasible to use that tunnel for transporting people only, without their vehicles - We can't use lime house for bikes/active, cos we spent a lot of money building it for cars = false.

For future tunnels, it is still feasible to make them for bikes only at the same cost, as the return isn't about moving the car, it's about moving the person. In reality the costs are less - eg less heavily engineered, lighter ventilation requirement etc. In addition the ROI is earlier, as the other related costs of motoring to society are reduced.

Clearly roads are also used to transport materials that actually have some purpose in being moved. Remove the extraneous material from the road network that has no purpose in being moved (approx 2t per private car) and the network is much more able to sustain the necessary.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Meanwhile, those problems largely disappear if you use the tunnels just for cycling (guessing that pedestrians would rather walk above ground) as there's little chance of a blockage and no traffic fumes to worry about.

Elon being Elon I suspect his actual vision was/is little electric pod vehicles, but it was easier to grab a load of Model 3's given his other activities.  These tunnels are only really a technology demonstrator.

However outlandish his ideas are - and this V0.1 of one of them - he has a vertical integration vision that few others have the balls to aim for.  Between his companies he owns a huge part of the Electric Car ecosystem, starting from the Power Supply (Solar City) the Batteries (Tesla Giga factory), the cars (Telsa), the Chargers (Tesla SuperChargers) and now the Transport Links (Boring Company).  He also making moves to own the Telemetery channels (StarLink).  If he also isnt contemplating Solar Satellites I'll eat my hat.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Meanwhile, those problems largely disappear if you use the tunnels just for cycling (guessing that pedestrians would rather walk above ground) as there's little chance of a blockage and no traffic fumes to worry about.

However outlandish his ideas are - and this V0.1 of one of them - he has a vertical integration vision that few others have the balls to aim for.  Between his companies he owns a huge part of the Electric Car ecosystem, starting from the Power Supply (Solar City) the Batteries (Tesla Giga factory), the cars (Telsa), the Chargers (Tesla SuperChargers) and now the Transport Links (Boring Company).  He also making moves to own the Telemetery channels (StarLink).  If he also isnt contemplating Solar Satellites I'll eat my hat.

Tesla by name, Tesla by nature...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Meanwhile, those problems largely disappear if you use the tunnels just for cycling (guessing that pedestrians would rather walk above ground) as there's little chance of a blockage and no traffic fumes to worry about.

Are you sure you are a squirrel and not a groundhog? Speaking as a cyclist I would not be thrilled at being forced into a subterranean orifice to ride my bike.

Plus, here in the fens the water table is less than a metre below the surface, so scuba equipment would quickly become essential.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Are you sure you are a squirrel and not a groundhog? Speaking as a cyclist I would not be thrilled at being forced into a subterrainean orifice to ride my bike.

Plus, here in the fens the water table is less than a metre below the surface, so scuba equipment would quickly become essential.

Well, bridges are sometimes used to let squirrels cross busy roads, but I can imagine some logistical problems with building loads of bridges for cycle commuters. At least a tunnel provides protection from the weather.

Interestingly, the Boring Company website suggested that the other alternative they thought of was flying cars, but decided tunnels were better because they couldn't fall on people's heads. A quick peruse of Wiki suggests they may not be possession of all relevant tunnel facts...

At least they've considered a range of options, rather than just having tunnel vision.

I think you're rather undermined their case.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Meanwhile, those problems largely disappear if you use the tunnels just for cycling 

Also Cycling Tunnels are much much cheaper because we require much lower safety standards (apparently).