Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ponector | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ponector

If there are no sidewalks - building them will be cheaper and will benefit community more than building a tunnel.

Robots in the tunnel are not fast either.

Looks like a fun startup to burn some VC money.

View on HN

> building them will be cheaper and will benefit community more than building a tunnel

If you think sidewalks would benefit an entirely car-based community, I’d wonder if you’ve ever been to suburbs. You’re suggesting building (and maintaining indefinitely) the length of sidewalks, along with road crossing markings, signs, street lights, and all the rest that walkability comes with, to cover a sprawling area where, crucially, people don’t walk, and you are seriously saying that this startup is the money-burner?

Sidewalks will either fall into disrepair and be useless in a few months, or continuously drain the budget just for the benefit of [slow as hell and easy to steal] delivery bots. At this point, one might consider just moving those bots underground, so that they have no obstacles, are harder to steal, can move faster, can handle really large payloads like furniture/boilers/cars, and you have much shorter distances to maintain because they can go direct instead of being limited to public roads. As you can see, perhaps someone has given it a bit more thought than you.

Of course, you might want to consider decent public transit and replanning the entire area more densely, that would lead to useful sidewalks and actually benefit the community (and probably remove the need for these delivery trains), but in the US it’s never going to fly.

The only alternative to underground trains is armoured aerial delivery drones, and I tell you that’s where it’s at. If you don’t do it today, Musk will tomorrow.

Sidewalk fall into disrepair in few months? Here in my city sidewalks are keeping well intact for more than 10 years.

Is theft a huge problem? Electric scooters are everywhere in the streets.

Underground tunnel which is capable to fit furniture and cars will be extremely expensive. The whole idea for last mile delivery via tunnel is not economically viable.

> Here in my city sidewalks are keeping well intact for more than 10 years.

They are not doing it all by themselves, especially if you live where there are seasons. If you don’t notice maintenance happening, it doesn’t mean maintenance doesn’t happen.

In the best case, sidewalk slabs tilt and settle unpredictably from frost heaves and water movement, and it only takes a small step between two slabs to trip an able person. If a sidewalk is maintained at all the lifted edges will be ground level, a yearly process. Just one example of routine maintenance that I notice.

A last mile solution that accommodates all possible use cases would indeed be expensive. One that handles 50% of deliveries? That seems useful. Would 50% be economically viable? What about 10% or 90%? Hard to know and probably will depend on many factors including the local geography. But even if it can't handle 100% of deliveries, perhaps it will be viable for a significant percentage, even if in just limited situations like a suburb with a sweet spot between the cost of adding subterranean pipes and high enough population density to provide high enough volume to justify the capital investment. Very few solutions are able to work for all use cases in all environments. That doesn't mean they can't be useful.

Pouring squares of concrete might be less expensive than running an 18 inch unpressurized pipe through some terrain but building safe, long lasting, ADA compliant sidewalks is a far more complex endeavor than dumping some concrete on the ground. Do you stand by your statement that it's cheaper because you have in-depth knowledge of the costs involved or are you engaging in motivated guessing to advocate for a desired outcome?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com