>>1972390>There are optimums to tunneling size which is what the boring company is trying to demonstrateAnd it's typical Elon to overoptimize a single thing to the point of absurdity while ignoring every other factor. You end up with a penny-wise pound-foolish system that may have been cheap initially, but now it's locked into tiny tunnels and incapable of expanding without shutting down the existing tunnels completely or drilling completely new tunnels. It's asinine.
>>1972460 is correct, a bus-only surface lane is a far cheaper and scales far better as demand increases.
>It is much cheaper to build a road vs a rail lineYou keep claiming this, and for surface paving vs laying a surface rail line I'd believe you, but when you factor in the cost of tunneling for it you've bumped the price enormously and committed yourself to a fixed, permanent route. If you're going to do this, there is zero reason not to pay marginally more to make it a rail line.
>It doesn't take much more to make it pure batteryAnon, WHY does it need a battery? You have a solution looking for a problem. All modern subways either use 3rd rail or overhead wire. Both methods can use regenerative breaking to put electricity back into the section for other train sets to use. Trying to make all these run on battery is retarded, because then you have to take them out of service to recharge them and you make them heavier, requiring more energy to move.
>We try and fail to do that now with existing systems because it is so expensive>But surely this private company can come in and save the day by locking us into tiny tunnels that can't scale and use his tiny electric cars as rolling stocklol. lmao
>Trying to predict and build out a network a century from now is foolhardy. Cities are organic and grow naturallyDamn, I guess the New York won the jackpot when they built the 7 Train out into the middle of nowhere (Queens)
