Is it cheaper to put cars under ground or to build a new good city?

[dubu]

It makes sense to put cars in tunnels. You dont have to keep repathing roads over and over and they are out of the way, no one gets ran over. That's expensive and cities don't last forever. If you built a city without cars everywhere then you could build a cheaper nicer city. Or would that cost too much because you need pipes to get water and it probably isn't right next to water. Then you need all that stuff.

[llamaorama]

Build a new city, probably.

In existing cities there are sewers and utility lines underground already and buildings which would be disturbed by tunneling.

In a new development it would be possible to build the tunnels out of concrete at ground level and push dirt up over them.

Disney World is designed like this, so is the Epic Software campus in Verona, Wisconsin.

In Tulsa they are building a park over a road using that method:

Source: Tulsa Frontier:
If you’re wondering when Riverside Drive will reopen, read this

[dubu]

With future technology and that it would make building a new city cheaper. They say we arnt going to have to have power lines in the future or it wouldn't make sense to have them if there's solar and free energy devices. It's kinda cool that they are making a car tunnel in la. I'd like to see la go back to when there wasn't freeways

[llamaorama]

I think wireless electricity is inefficient. More of the energy is wasted in transmission than if it could travel through copper wires.

Solar power will probably reduce the need for power lines in a rural or low density residential area, but not in a city.

[dubu]

I think it will be pretty soon like in the 2020's. I think technology will save the US. Unless we use technology in a bad way like putting 5g everywhere. That's like putting microwaves everywhere, not good for you.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by dubu

With future technology and that it would make building a new city cheaper. They say we arnt going to have to have power lines in the future or it wouldn't make sense to have them if there's solar and free energy devices. It's kinda cool that they are making a car tunnel in la. I'd like to see la go back to when there wasn't freeways

Who is this they? Powerlines are still the most efficient and cost effective way to move significant voltage. You will need to move power from solar and wind farms, even the battery storage facilities. Tesla (the inventor, not the car company), did envision wireless energy transmission, but the near field concent was limited to areas much like wifie, while the broader (far field) technology would have involved beamed power to fixed towers/objects. Both concepts did not consider the radiative danger of the power transmissions, nor did Tesla resolve the issue of loss of power and how to boost the voltage over large distances.

[dubu]

People in the government. I didn't talk to someone but I was listening to a show a month ago about the technology they have. He could be lying but I don't know why you would lie when you arnt making money from it and you don't want to be well known. You could be crazy but highly its unlikely. If show you the show but I wouldn't want the guy to get in trouble. He didn't say that much to be safe. He just said there will be free energy boxes in each home and you can make money from it.

[authentiCLE]

Originally Posted by dubu

It makes sense to put cars in tunnels. You dont have to keep repathing roads over and over and they are out of the way, no one gets ran over. That's expensive and cities don't last forever. If you built a city without cars everywhere then you could build a cheaper nicer city. Or would that cost too much because you need pipes to get water and it probably isn't right next to water. Then you need all that stuff.

You sure about that?

[dubu]

That's the hype right now with the boring company making tunnels

When everyone thinks the idea is good then it's a bad idea heh

[mthd]

neither. it makes sense for people to NOT USE CARS FOR THEIR PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSIT.

sorry about the raised voice.

the ideal modern city would be dense, walkable, have a shared surface network for people, bikes, and electric automobiles with very fast, frequent, completely grade separated (preferably underground) rail transit.

the surface network is needed for deliveries (after hours), the severely disabled, rare trips with tons of packages, high-security VIPs, and the very lazy who are willing to pay whatever a lyft/uber would cost. parking should be highly limited and for the most part clustered in large garages that are more "storage" than parking.

/soapbox

[dubu]

Can you change a car city to a city like that? It would take a very long time I think.

[Sun Belt]

If it weren’t cheaper to start and build a new city, would suburbs exist?

Some cities it makes sense and others the expense of burying roadways, tunnels, garages and even basements in homes makes little sense.

[mhays]

True, cars are extremely inefficient. They'll get more efficient but the fact will remain that you're hauling around a ton of metal per vehicle. The problems are (apparently) tolerable in smaller cities but with size and density other modes are more efficient, and sometimes the only way.

Tunnels vary massively in cost by geology, tunneling method, logistical issues, circumference, and other variables. Retrofitting a city is generally far more difficult and expensive than building on a greenfield site. In an existing city, it'll basically never be worth putting in new tunnels in for anything short of a limited but crucial highway connection.

Covering existing submerged highways is a great idea of course, and will often be relatively affordable.

[dubu]

If it isn't broken don't fix it, leave the suburbs until they fall apart and build new cities. Wish it was easy

[Jasoncw]

Cars have to be purchased by individuals, there needs to be gas stations and car repair shops. The roads need to be engineered for car load and wear and tear, and parking lots and garages need to be built. In suburban residential areas, car stuff takes up about 1/4th of the property, and the roads are usually wide enough for two way travel plus two lanes of parking. In urban areas car stuff takes up a smaller percentage of land, but the land is more valuable and the parking more expensive to build, so the opportunity costs are higher. There's also the cost of gas, insurance, and the societal cost of things like drunk driving.

Tunneling is mega expensive and doesn't solve any fundamental traffic problems (it doesn't make the cars go away it just puts them underground).

Blanketing our cities with high quality transit would be the cheapest out of all options.

[dubu]

In 20 years every city will be 200 plus years old in the us (pretty much, I didn't count Las Vegas). But this city is new but it's just suburbs and I doubt there will ever be skyscrapers and trains here. There's so much land around the middle of the US to build cities. There's also going to be a huge earthquake some day. Crazy times

[Doady]

Originally Posted by dubu

It makes sense to put cars in tunnels. You dont have to keep repathing roads over and over and they are out of the way, no one gets ran over. That's expensive and cities don't last forever. If you built a city without cars everywhere then you could build a cheaper nicer city. Or would that cost too much because you need pipes to get water and it probably isn't right next to water. Then you need all that stuff.

As you have just stated yourself, cities are not permanent, they are constantly rebuilding and evolving, and therefore they are constantly changing. So why do you need to build new ones from scratch?

And there is a huge grey area between a city with cars everywhere and without cars anywhere. Maybe it would be easier to stop the destruction of current cites and build upon what is left instead of building anew. You are from near Portland, so you probably know all this.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Doady

As you have just stated yourself, cities are not permanent, they are constantly rebuilding and evolving, and therefore they are constantly changing. So why do you need to build new ones from scratch?

And there is a huge grey area between a city with cars everywhere and without cars anywhere. Maybe it would be easier to stop the destruction of current cites and build upon what is left instead of building anew. You are from near Portland, so you probably know all this.

Of course I know all this. My family has been here since the beginning of Oregon. I love my state and don't want it to turn into a disaster like everyone. Well most. I'll not give up. Thus government is not going to screw up over

[dubu]

I've been through a lot and I'm not very sterdy. I'm sorry, also I've drank a six pack.

[dubu]

I'm saying is die for my country. I have many people I love here