How does this help people stuck in LA traffic all day?
How does this help people stuck in LA traffic all day?
I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose problems they deem worthy of solving.
As for the OP, are there no long distance transport problems worth solving? Really? It's just a daft and pointlessly negative comment, a variation on lazy whataboutism.
He doesn't, because long-distance solutions depend on integration with local network solutions; you can solve local without long distance but not vice versa.
Most airports just put in parking and sometimes a shuttle bus to move people around their massive parking complex, but even as large as those systems are they peanuts compared to the Airports main concern, Air Travel.
Why are tunnels different?
No, you can't, which is why when commercial airports are actually built, they are either carefully sited near freeways with excess capacity or have new freeways built and/or capacity added to existing freeways, often have local rail connections built, involve major upgrades to local surface roads, and involve other extensions of local mass and individual transit capacity.
There are many viable solutions for many problems. The choice of which problem to give first priority to, given an abundance of viable solutions for many problems, reveals much. As does the claim that only that particular problem has a viable solution.
HN's priorities are skewed toward solving the problems of people who are, on the whole, similar to HN commenters. I happen to think this is a bad thing, and reflects a poor set of priorities; it's not "whataboutism" to suggest a different priority order. "Whataboutism" is commonly misunderstood (by those selfsame HN commenters) to mean an evasion of any priorities.
Not sure if that's short distance enough but it seems like it
The article mentions that the cost of digs are prohibitively expensive. Reducing costs could help LA and the people stuck in traffic all day.