<story><title>The Boring Company FAQ</title><url>https://www.boringcompany.com/faq</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nihonde</author><text>Tokyo is a much bigger city. They solved the problem by building elevated toll highways. Much simpler solution than digging new holes everywhere and keeping those silly carts running.</text></item><item><author>zild3d</author><text>If NYC didn&amp;#x27;t have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don&amp;#x27;t see why it would reduce the density of cities. Cities are still highly desired to live in outside of work</text></item><item><author>discodave</author><text>The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence!&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The word &amp;quot;must&amp;quot; is a very strong one here, there are other options:&lt;p&gt;* Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping).&lt;p&gt;* Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access).&lt;p&gt;* Increase public transport options (higher passenger density).&lt;p&gt;* Encourage cycling.&lt;p&gt;I feel like only somebody who lives in LA would make the &amp;quot;must&amp;quot; assertion and not think about all the other options... oh wait:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;videos&amp;#x2F;b&amp;#x2F;6e27fcba-309d-494e-b87d-c73fb8bb1750&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;videos&amp;#x2F;b&amp;#x2F;6e27fcba-309d-494e-b...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sien</author><text>Also by going underground. Tokyo&amp;#x27;s metro is fantastic and one of the few globally that has more than 100% farebox recover ratio.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Farebox_recovery_ratio#Farebox_ratios_around_the_world&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Farebox_recovery_ratio#Farebox...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>The Boring Company FAQ</title><url>https://www.boringcompany.com/faq</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nihonde</author><text>Tokyo is a much bigger city. They solved the problem by building elevated toll highways. Much simpler solution than digging new holes everywhere and keeping those silly carts running.</text></item><item><author>zild3d</author><text>If NYC didn&amp;#x27;t have a third dimension for transportation (subway and trains), no amount of busses and bikes would fix the soul-destroying traffic. The listed alternatives are all nice, but none of them allow you to move at 125+ mph. We should be able to get to our destination faster, not just with a bit less soul-destruction. Remote work is of course not for every or even most professions, and I don&amp;#x27;t see why it would reduce the density of cities. Cities are still highly desired to live in outside of work</text></item><item><author>discodave</author><text>The old strategy of hiding your outlandish claim in an assertion in the first sentence!&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The word &amp;quot;must&amp;quot; is a very strong one here, there are other options:&lt;p&gt;* Reduce the amount of travel that people need to do (remote work, online shopping).&lt;p&gt;* Reduce the density of cities (enabled by remote work or longer commutes with better internet access).&lt;p&gt;* Increase public transport options (higher passenger density).&lt;p&gt;* Encourage cycling.&lt;p&gt;I feel like only somebody who lives in LA would make the &amp;quot;must&amp;quot; assertion and not think about all the other options... oh wait:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;videos&amp;#x2F;b&amp;#x2F;6e27fcba-309d-494e-b87d-c73fb8bb1750&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;videos&amp;#x2F;b&amp;#x2F;6e27fcba-309d-494e-b...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>benliong78</author><text>Living in another crowded city, Hong Kong, perhaps I can offer some perspective:  We have tons of elevated tools highways and bypasses aimed at reducing traffic, the problem is all these elevated roads needs to go around a lot of tall buildings.  Going underground with subway already provides us with better solution to a lot more of our traffic problem.  What the boring company&amp;#x27;s proposing isn&amp;#x27;t all that different from the subway solution (we already have subway going three or four level deep), it simply allows cars to transported via subway.</text></comment>