SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

ardecila Jun 16, 2018 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 8222898)
Seriously jmecklenborg, what in the ever loving hell is your problem??? You're behaving like a freaking troll right now, and I for one find it to be completely out of line. It's one thing to have doubts about a particular project or proposal's success, it's yet another to continually crap all over every single freaking thing someone does.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Because Musk's rabid fanboys inspire a separate group of equally rabid haters.

While Musk's companies have yet to achieve sustained profitability, others have already pointed out that the finance industry understands and accepts that A) many tech investments will take years to turn a profit, B) many tech investments will never turn a profit, C) the tech investments that do turn a profit will generate enormous profits. Just like at a racetrack, most bets will be losing ones but if you win big enough when you do win, it doesn't matter.

Musk is an unusually charismatic, visionary CEO who inspires lots of geeky-minded people, but that's really no different from how geeks split previously on Apple vs. PC. Gotta pick a side so you have somewhere to belong, lol. That same charisma, though, tends to lower speedbumps for Musk's business plans or just make certain obstacles disappear, which is a key advantage he possesses that others do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8223118)
Well, I wish we knew for sure that was the case. But this city has quite the history of getting roped into bailing out "no public money will be needed" projects. I suspect that's the real reason behind some of the opposition.

Well, that's why we need to see the contract. IIRC it's been stated that this deal will need to go to City Council for final approval so the agreement itself should become available for public review at some point.

bnk Jun 16, 2018 4:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizzo (Post 8222955)
No one will ever be satisfied with any project. This is one that generates the least friction in my opinion. It’s not mired in politics, property disputes, and layers of public financing.

Oh look, it might get done sooner than the navy pier flyover. Shocker.

You’d think all of Chicago would be talking about this? They aren’t or it’s just “yeah it sounds really cool.” Meanwhile people will pontificate over the social impacts and excessive spending for weeks over a single CTA station. The fact that the public seems mum on this project is a good thing. If it gets built it will be a glorious surprise.

I know the National and international news is talking about it a lot. Tons of news articles from every news source in every major language on the planet.


https://news.google.com/stories/CAAq...S&ceid=US%3Aen




Video Link


Video Link


Video Link




https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/14/1...-cost-estimate

Yeah it was dumb for people to spend so much money putting people in aluminum tubes and flying millions of them per day at 500MPH to their destinations. Soooo stupid I can’t believe that anyone was that dumb to waste all that money.
We really shouldn’t attempt further progress. We are just fine how things are. No need to convert any more transportation things to electric and cut emissions. It’s just too expensive and it will make people on the internet mad.



Here is pretty much the abreviated news interview at block 37


Musk really liked the way Chicago can approve and move on projects


Video Link



many other videos to choose from

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ESAA%253D%253D

like this one.

Video Link

jmecklenborg Jun 16, 2018 5:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8223049)
Two quick points:

I find it really odd and perplexing that so many of you guys are against this so strongly. Its like you'll be for California spending like 60 billion(it will be much more) on a rail system that will take two decades to build and will be 100% funded by tax payers but seem outraged at the idea of a private business doing something innovative. Please excuse me when I assume your volatility against the free market may have more to do with your opposition than anything else?

California HSR and an airport shuttle (like the Shanghai Maglev) have absolutely nothing in common.

Please research the history of privately built intercity railroads in the United States (which is all of them except for the 250~ mile Cincinnati Southern Railroad which was financed by and is still owned by the City of Cincinnati) and the innumerable problems it has caused over their 100+ year history.

Please research public transportation when it was privately built and owned. It caused innumerable problems. Streetcars, elevated, commuter rail, and a few of the early subway lines. No free transfers, for starters.

For decades the progressive movement fought for public ownership of streetcar and subway networks, and for public ownership of railroads. It is widely documented that operation of U.S. railroads improved dramatically during WWI, when the Federal Government took over railroad operations to prevent price gouging.

The Interstate Highway System was built by the federal government and made toll-free in large part to shatter the stranglehold of railroads and transit companies in commuting and intercity travel and shipping.

Musk's vision is for a return to the 1800s, when private companies still owned major pieces of infrastructure. Peter Thiel is pro-monopoly as well. Musk wants to privatize Mars as well.

Tech geeks: be very, very careful what you wish for.

LouisVanDerWright Jun 16, 2018 6:52 PM

^^^ Give me a break, the construction of transcontinental steam era railroads in the 1800's has literally nothing to do with the construction of under ground tunnels for high speed electric vehicles in the 21st century. Also, the manifest destiny era was not holy by any means, but you have to admit the incentive systems that drove the construction of that infrastructure were on point. The division of the West via homestead and railway rights of way was the greatest transfer of wealth to the public in human history. The only other historical example that even comes close was Julius Ceasar's relocation of mass numbers of impoverished Roman citizens from the city of Rome to recently conquered territories giving them land in an attempt to fix the long broken aristocratic tenancies of the Republic. And where exactly do you think the Americans of the 1800's got the idea for Homestead? From those very Roman land reforms. I don't think the lack of free transfers is a serious criticism in light of what was accomplished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8223118)
Well, I wish we knew for sure that was the case. But this city has quite the history of getting roped into bailing out "no public money will be needed" projects. I suspect that's the real reason behind some of the opposition.

Yeah the private railways that built the L really fucked us when they went out of business and stuck the tax payers with this useless mass transit sytem that still is operating in most places on the tracks they built...

:rolleyes:

the urban politician Jun 17, 2018 12:29 PM

^ I hear ya, but give Friend of the Friends of the Parking Lot Mr D a break here... I don’t think he was implying at all that this isn’t a good investment.

This is more about Government management. Will us taxpayers be the backstop for cost overruns? We shouldn’t be, and the City Council has an obligation to protect us contractually before blindly rubber stamping this through like they always have in the past.

Busy Bee Jun 17, 2018 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 8223205)

No Tie Day?

Also, "Attrack?"

jmecklenborg Jun 17, 2018 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8223277)
^^^ Give me a break, the construction of transcontinental steam era railroads in the 1800's has literally nothing to do with the construction of under ground tunnels for high speed electric vehicles in the 21st century. Also, the manifest destiny era was not holy by any means, but you have to admit the incentive systems that drove the construction of that infrastructure were on point.


The financing of the eastern railroads (with the anomalous exception of the Cincinnati Southern) was quite different from the transcontinental railroads. There was no homesteading in the east but there was ALL KINDS of trickery and swindling going on.

This extended to the streetcar, interurban, and traction companies. The public HATED these companies because their first priority was stockholders, not service to the public. In my hometown, the streetcar company executives orchestrated securities fraud that combined the buying power of the streetcar company with their own personal cash. So they set the thing up so that the streetcar company was burdened with all the risk. They made money and the streetcar company lost money. Oh well, they got paid.

Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of Silicon Valley want privatized transit and privatized roads. The Boring company's goal isn't to "shatter" LA's traffic, it's to build private highways that only accept travel from Tesla's cars. So the tunnel wouldn't make money but Musk and his investors will make money from the car business with the exclusive roads that only his cars can use.

Khantilever Jun 17, 2018 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8223792)

Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of Silicon Valley want privatized transit and privatized roads. The Boring company's goal isn't to "shatter" LA's traffic, it's to build private highways that only accept travel from Tesla's cars. So the tunnel wouldn't make money but Musk and his investors will make money from the car business with the exclusive roads that only his cars can use.

What, exactly, is the concern here? There isn’t a public alternative that is being displaced by this service (the main competitor is Taxi/Rideshare, not the Blhe Line). The concern with such natural monopolies is that there is overpricing/under provision of services due to the lack of competition—and that might have still been a concern had the City not already placed conditions on prices and services, which is generally the optimal solution for dealing with such natural monopolies.

llamaorama Jun 17, 2018 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khantilever (Post 8223846)
What, exactly, is the concern here? There isn’t a public alternative that is being displaced by this service (the main competitor is Taxi/Rideshare, not the Blhe Line). The concern with such natural monopolies is that there is overpricing/under provision of services due to the lack of competition—and that might have still been a concern had the City not already placed conditions on prices and services, which is generally the optimal solution for dealing with such natural monopolies.

Because people who use the private infrastructure won't see any value in maintaining the public alternative.

LouisVanDerWright Jun 17, 2018 8:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8223792)

Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of Silicon Valley want privatized transit and privatized roads. The Boring company's goal isn't to "shatter" LA's traffic, it's to build private highways that only accept travel from Tesla's cars. So the tunnel wouldn't make money but Musk and his investors will make money from the car business with the exclusive roads that only his cars can use.

This comment demonstrates exactly how little you actually know about what you are spouting off about. Tesla actually owns a huge array of patents for and relating to electric cars. This extends to battery technology, charger technology, distribution tech, and the very cars themselves. Guess what Tesla has done with those patents???

They've open sourced almost all of them and allowed even their competitors to license the tech and use it. Why? Because you are never going to change the entire automobile market on your own, it's too large. Instead Musk has made a point of inovating so rapidly that others can't keep up and then allowing those competitors to use stuff he has developed (like the plug that nearly all electric cars now use) essentially changing and setting the industry standard. It's not good for Tesla to have proprietary parts that only work with their cars. They want you to be able to pull up to a charging station and KNOW your car will work because everyone uses the same connector, the Tesla connector. Tesla is known for being one of the biggest corporate proponents of "open source" and you are suggesting their ulterior motive is to monopolize transportation and lock everyone else out. That literally makes no sense...

This model is even more genius because he doesn't need to open source these patents forever. Tesla can always get everyone hooked on the Tesla plug and then, when their license agreements expire, start charging everyone $10/plug or something like that in the renewal agreement. Tesla is not an automobile company, it is a technology company and it's run from that perspective. Musk will probably never even end up doing what I just mentioned (charging for stuff he once open sourced) because by the time the inital license agreements run out for other users of these patents, Tesla will probably have already made that tech obsolete.

Here is Elon Musk's letter announcing the sharing of all Tesla patents. He doesn't exactly sound like he is motivated by fucking everyone else over like you suggest:

Quote:

All Our Patent Are Belong To You

Elon Musk, CEO - June 12, 2014

Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.

At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.

At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-p...are-belong-you

left of center Jun 17, 2018 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8223049)
Two quick points:

I find it really odd and perplexing that so many of you guys are against this so strongly. Its like you'll be for California spending like 60 billion(it will be much more) on a rail system that will take two decades to build and will be 100% funded by tax payers but seem outraged at the idea of a private business doing something innovative. Please excuse me when I assume your volatility against the free market may have more to do with your opposition than anything else?

Its honestly mostly one person...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8223049)
Second, wouldn't you guys be afraid of the blue line losing some passengers?

The Boring Company tunnel isn't really going to compete with the blue line, even though it looks to be the case when looking at the proposed route, as it mirrors almost exactly the route the Blue line takes.

Taking the blue to the airport costs $2.50 ($5.00 when hopping on from the airport). The Musk project will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25, a much higher price point. The Musk tunnel will be targeting a higher end demographic, particularly business travelers (whose companies pay for their transportation costs) who would probably take a cab to the Loop from ORD rather than the L. Since the Musk tunnel wont have any other stop in between Block 37 and ORD, it will not be cannibalizing any CTA traffic along the route, and will be serving suits and executives who only want to go between the Loop and the airport.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8223049)
Also, I find a lot of small thinking here. He cant do this or that. He has a company that goes to space, yet digging a damn tunnel which we have been doing for centuries seems impossible to some.

Christ, tell me about it. Some people just don't get it I suppose.

You don't need to be a Musk fan boy to be excited for this project. There's two outcomes, it works and its great for the city, or its financially impossible and the project stops. That's it. The city and taxpayers lose nothing.

Not sure why some people are so belligerently against this project...

C. Jun 18, 2018 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8222492)
spacex is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So nasa is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

Again, musk's talent isn't technological innovation, it's getting people to endlessly throw money at his unprofitable activities. It's like the old saying about how the real talents in hollywood are the accountants.

+1

glowrock Jun 18, 2018 4:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 8223857)
Because people who use the private infrastructure won't see any value in maintaining the public alternative.

So you mean to tell me that you don't think people use BOTH public and private forms of transit? And those people can't see value in maintaining the L and Metra infrastructure even if they <gasp!> take the Tesla tunnel thing to O'Hare? Really?

Honestly, I still think everyone railing against Musk's/Boring's proposal is just grasping at straws and clutching their pearls at this point...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Rizzo Jun 18, 2018 5:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 8223857)
Because people who use the private infrastructure won't see any value in maintaining the public alternative.

It’s private infrastructure replacing private “infrastructure”

CTA ridership will not be diminished.

jmecklenborg Jun 18, 2018 5:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 8223857)
Because people who use the private infrastructure won't see any value in maintaining the public alternative.

Correct. We are seeing it already with Libertarians, paid shills, and other dependable public transportation opponents arguing that any and all public transportation planning should be halted since driverless cars will completely, 100% solve traffic congestion, and they'll be here in 2 years (they said 2 years 5 years ago). What these people don't understand is that whatever capacity improvements are enabled by driverless cars will induce more demand. So it's not going to accomplish much. Plus, it's going to be much more expensive to ride in a driverless cab than to take a traditional city bus. And much, much more than a driverless city bus, which will likely actually make money.

Also, it should be pointed out that the same characters who advocate abandoning all rail transit planning aren't out there arguing to abandon highway planning, even though they claim that the capacity of existing highway infrastructure will be increased.

jmecklenborg Jun 18, 2018 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8223878)
This comment demonstrates exactly how little you actually know about what you are spouting off about. Tesla actually owns a huge array of patents for and relating to electric cars. This extends to battery technology, charger technology, distribution tech, and the very cars themselves. Guess what Tesla has done with those patents???

Yeah I know about that. It's a distraction from the vertical integration that Musk is attempting to pull off.

Again, no automobile company has attempted to build its own private roads and in fact we have almost zero private toll roads anywhere in the United States. The whole "skate" issue is troubling because a skate that travels on rails could be considered a railroad under the law, and railroads have the power of eminent domain.

I'll repeat that so people pay attention -- the states and federal government frequently granted the power of eminent domain to privately-owned railroads when they were built in the 1800s and that is still on the books. Just a few million in venture capital can easily buy off a Republican state legislature so we'll have the Muskman firing up bulldozers straight through your town so his Tesla cars -- and only his cars -- can travel on "skates" in some combination of surface and tunnel past and beneath the undesireables.

Imagine that if you lived in LA that your Tesla (and only Tesla owners) could travel from LAX to Wilshire underground, then from that point under the mountains to the San Fernando Valley. That's what this guy is aiming for.

Halsted & Villagio Jun 18, 2018 1:20 PM

Since the beginning of time there have always been guys like this ^^^ guy....... negative people.

When the Wright brothers were trying to fly, there were people like jmecklinborg saying, "it will never work"... "surely they are trying to change travel and take over the world"... and look at what the Wright brothers have accomplished.

When space exploration was first considered, there were those who said we will never put a man on the moon... and if someone does, "surely they are trying to take over the world"... and look at what has happened.

There will always be doubters, people with hidden agenda's and negative nanny's like jmecklinborg... they doubted whether the car could work... whether the T.V. would work... telephone... etc., etc., etc.

THAT IS THE STORY OF PROGRESS.

In this day and age, for Musk to be spending his own money?! ... we all have to marvel at that. The upside if this succeeds is through the roof. The downside if he fails is worth the risk that he succeeds. Conspiracy theories aside, this is as close to a win, win as we will ever see in business and public transportation.

.

the urban politician Jun 18, 2018 1:23 PM

The last time a California billionaire came into town willing to spend his own money to bring something great to the city (George Lucus, cough cough) a bunch of cranky old fuckfaces drove him out of town so that they could keep parking their vans at the Soldier field lot and stuff their faces with ribs and beer before Bears Games.

Vlajos Jun 18, 2018 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8224280)
The last time a California billionaire came into town willing to spend his own money to bring something great to the city (George Lucus, cough cough) a bunch of cranky old fuckfaces drove him out of town so that they could keep parking their vans at the Soldier field lot and stuff their faces with ribs and beer before Bears Games.

Yep, and they are bizarrely proud of it.

glowrock Jun 18, 2018 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8224181)
Correct. We are seeing it already with Libertarians, paid shills, and other dependable public transportation opponents arguing that any and all public transportation planning should be halted since driverless cars will completely, 100% solve traffic congestion, and they'll be here in 2 years (they said 2 years 5 years ago). What these people don't understand is that whatever capacity improvements are enabled by driverless cars will induce more demand. So it's not going to accomplish much. Plus, it's going to be much more expensive to ride in a driverless cab than to take a traditional city bus. And much, much more than a driverless city bus, which will likely actually make money.

Also, it should be pointed out that the same characters who advocate abandoning all rail transit planning aren't out there arguing to abandon highway planning, even though they claim that the capacity of existing highway infrastructure will be increased.

Trolls are going to troll, eh? I swear, you've lost your marbles, dude... :shrug:

Aaron (Glowrock)


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.