[HN Gopher] An underground delivery train comes to the Atlanta s...
___________________________________________________________________
An underground delivery train comes to the Atlanta suburbs
Author : contingencies
Score : 74 points
Date : 2023-12-20 02:19 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/mDvRv
| paulkrush wrote:
| So they can send up to 40 bananas in a pipe rover going 45mph...
| Hyperloop for lunch sounds like a good idea to me.
| paulkrush wrote:
| Wait, they can literally send a Subway pork sandwidge in a
| pipeline pig... That's funny.
| chris_va wrote:
| I'm just waiting for this:
| https://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_...
| function_seven wrote:
| I think that's the best thing I've ever read.
|
| Thank you.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| Omg I couldn't tell if that was real or not. I thought it
| couldn't be but damn they put so much detail into that article!
| simbolit wrote:
| strong recommendation for everything Maciej Ceglowski has ever
| written.
|
| especially the talks are very much worth your while:
| https://idlewords.com/talks/
| kgeist wrote:
| I wonder what's their plan when a vehicle gets stuck?
| hasoleju wrote:
| I assume they are planning to have some kind of rescue vehicle.
| But the problem with this will be the traffic jam the stuck
| vehicle will cause. Not only will all the vehicles behind it
| need to stop as well, they also need to be rerouted in order to
| let the rescue vehicle pass.
|
| The main difference of pumping water or gas through pipes is
| that the consumer does not care which part of the pumped
| product he gets. It's all the same. Delivering customer
| specific goods through pipes requires a very good management of
| the vehicle flow.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Simply back the other vehicles out, it's not rocket science
| skullone wrote:
| At first I was like "good luck getting humans to back out
| orderly" then I remembered these were autonomous and can
| just get ordered to go back.
| rnimmer wrote:
| Rocket-powered delivery vehicles would be pretty exciting
| though.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-line_working
|
| They're likely only running a single tunnel during very early
| testing in order to keep costs down.
|
| Their idea is basically a cargo-carrying, miniature version
| of a rubber-tyre metro:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro
|
| ..which is a century old concept. Thus well-understood, as
| evidenced by the wikipedia article listing their benefits and
| downsides versus rail.
| nvy wrote:
| Yeah but if a Paris Metro train gets stuck, the tunnels are
| enormous and your maintenance staff can walk from the
| nearest station to repair and un-stuck the train.
|
| It's not clear to me that these tunnels will be
| sufficiently large.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| You send a recovery vehicle down the line to fetch it,
| capable of hooking it, and strong enough to tow/ drag it
| to an exit point or service "vault" just like "vaults" on
| underground tunnels for power, data, gas, etc. The tow
| vehicle basically just needs to weigh enough.
|
| Or you send a human down the line on a platform with
| wheels. The tunnel would have to be at least as high as
| those crates and at least twice as wide.
|
| There are far bigger challenges here, like the absolutely
| massive cost of digging / boring the tunnel and trying to
| amortize that over what you're delivering. You have to
| move a fuckton of Big Macs to have this make financial
| sense, and your competitors include "a guy on an electric
| bike making tips who uses a few KWhr of electricity over
| an 8-10 hour shift."
|
| It's really hard to compete against massively subsidized
| public infrastructure (roads and ICE vehicles) when
| you're not subsidized at all.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Has any private company in the last decade or so had a
| successful startup that had to build massive
| infrastructure?
|
| While I'm no fan of Musk and his management of Twitter
| has been a shit show, I must begrudgingly admit that he
| is damn good at building companies that produce real
| tangible hardware based products that require
| infrastructure
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| Ok get this. We make a spider bot that suctions to random
| cars going in the general direction that we want to
| deliver the package. If the car turns to go in the wrong
| direction, the spider bot jumps off and hitches to the
| next vehicle. Free transit, no infrastructure costs.
| smolder wrote:
| Considering this for kicks: People probably wouldn't like
| their fuel economy being tanked by the extra weight and
| aerodynamic drag of your spiders. So, as a driver, I
| might try to make my car slippery or otherwise
| ungrabbable. Alternatively, I might try to let off the
| gas so that the other cars end up having to do the work
| of hauling the spider. Naturally if everyone does this,
| the whole gang slows to a halt.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| You could design all vehicles to be capable of some basic
| rescue functions.
|
| I would bet the most common situation is the stuck vehicle is
| just stalled and could be pushed and/or pulled by the car
| behind or in front of it.
|
| For pulling, you might use an automatic coupler like railways
| use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_coupling#Automatic
| _cou...
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Service pipes?
| 01100011 wrote:
| > Instead of using suction, which can be unreliable, Pipedream
| uses electricity to run a small battery-powered autonomous
| vehicle
|
| This.. has to be a joke? Surely they don't believe a "battery-
| powered autonomous vehicle" is more reliable than a pneumatic
| tube network?
| bluGill wrote:
| Seems like it would be to me. So long as you monitor your
| battery charge you know the vehicle will get there and it can
| tolerate many imperfections in the tube. Pneumatics need a
| tight seal to the tube and thus cannot tolerate
| imperfections.
| simbolit wrote:
| > So long as you monitor your battery charge you know the
| vehicle will get there
|
| ahem, a BEV has __a lot__ more failure points than just
| "empty battery"...
|
| sending a complex machine down a tube will _always_ carry
| the risk of the complex machine reading down. pneumatic
| tube "vehicles" are simple, they can not break down.
|
| I am not an expert, I don't know which one is better or
| more reliable, but your claim that once you monitor battery
| charge, everything is hunky dory is wrong.
| bluGill wrote:
| While what goes into the tub is less complex, the
| tolerances on the pneumatics are much tighter and so it
| is less able to handle problems.
|
| I don't know how the factors compare, but tubes are not
| perfect.
| roland35 wrote:
| A powerful plunger!
| neilv wrote:
| > developed by the logistics startup Pipedream Labs
|
| Great company name.
|
| (Other tunnel-related company with a clever name: The Boring
| Company.)
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > Pipedream Labs
|
| Unlike the WSJ piece, the company web site has as you'd expect,
| no paywall:
|
| https://www.pipedreamlabs.co/
| Animats wrote:
| There's a project in Switzerland to build an underground network
| of cargo tubes.[1] Cargo Sous Terrain has been making animated
| videos since 2016, though, and as yet has very little hardware to
| show.
|
| Their proposed tunnels are 6 meters in diameter and have 3 lanes,
| traversed by AGVs.
|
| [1] https://www.cst.ch/en
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Even the Swiss, who are experts at public works (and tunnels
| for trains and cars) know that tunneling is really fucking
| expensive.
|
| When the guys sitting on piles of nazi gold and the money from
| dead foreign despots say "nah fam, that shit's too expensive",
| there's no way anyone else could afford it.
| Xylakant wrote:
| "Expensive" is always a relative term. The Swiss have a good
| overground rail network and for example branch lines
| sometimes run combined cargo/passenger trains. No need for
| dedicated tunnels here. Payoff in a city, especially with
| little existing rail infrastructure may look different.
| Hamburg for example tried to establish a 45cm diameter tube
| mail system in the 1960ies
| https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrpost_in_Hamburg and that
| seems like a more viable concept for a city than a full
| fledged rail tunnel. The system ultimately failed for
| multiple reasons, but one was that the vibrations cause by
| cars and trucks damaged the tubes :(
| Animats wrote:
| If the alternative is building more road and rail through
| mountains, a 6M tunnel might look like a good option. Less
| rock to remove.
| creesch wrote:
| Tunneling is indeed expensive, if that is how this will be
| build. Given that the footprint of such a system likely will
| be relatively small it might just be build in the same way we
| build other underground infrastructure of a similar size.
|
| Or do you think they also didn't bother building sewers in
| Swiss cities and towns and are still all using outhouses?
|
| > When the guys sitting on piles of nazi gold and the money
| from dead foreign despots say "nah fam, that shit's too
| expensive", there's no way anyone else could afford it.
|
| lol, that's one hell of a top tier hyperbolic stereotyping
| trope supported "argument".
| adrianmonk wrote:
| I was curious how the package is loaded and unloaded, given that
| it's underground, but they seem to have some kind of crane, and
| at the destinations they have basically a package locker.
|
| At least, that's what the video seems to show:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZJyfAl5bU
|
| Putting a package locker at every location seems kind of
| expensive. Maybe it works if you're delivering to bigger
| buildings like offices or apartment buildings, but it doesn't
| seem very practical for single family homes.
| hanniabu wrote:
| I can imagine people sending sabotage packages, like a spray
| foam can set to release on a trigger, or sending down a car
| airbag, or straight up dumping oil or flammables into the shoot
| or other trash.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| It doesn't even have to be malicious.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The cost of a package locker would pale in comparison to the
| cost of digging or boring the underground line.
| senectus1 wrote:
| sounds like a boring company project
| echelon wrote:
| Didn't think I would see Peachtree Corners on HN.
|
| While Atlanta has 71 streets named "Peachtree" [1] and Peachtree
| City (where people drive golf carts instead of cars [2]) comes
| close, Peachtree Corners names _everything_ Peachtree. Highways,
| bridges, businesses. Moreover, it 's a planned community, and
| they did it _intentionally_.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachtree_Street
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachtree_City,_Georgia
| sepen77 wrote:
| First time I'm seeing this concept myself and it's intriguing at
| first sight! (will obviously have to do some scrutiny before
| drawing conclusions though).
|
| It's evoking memories of Omashu & factorio-like games :)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's a mini Rubber-Tyre Metro for cargo. Low RoW maintenance (I
| think), high vehicle maintenance/wear, high energy usage.
|
| The challenge to me: "just put it underground" isn't nearly as
| easy as people seem to think. There's a _lot_ of people-placed
| stuff underground, and the companies doing it have likely been
| around longer than you, are pretty regulated, and nobody is going
| to want to change any of that for your Sandwich Delivering
| Subway. Especially because it is limited in purpose (cargo
| delivery, and fairly small cargo at that.)
|
| Then there's all the shit that's in the ground not from humans.
| Roots. Boulders. Water. It's really fucking expensive to dig or
| tunnel, and there's no way delivering sandwiches and amazon
| packages is going to pay enough for it.
|
| Assuming all that works out, there's still the matter of energy
| efficiency (which is terrible for RTM), speed, and capacity. I'm
| sure they can scale the "train" up to at least a few containers
| particularly if the container 'cars' are self-powered but non-
| rail vehicles use a lot of power. That means heat, not just the
| expense of the the power and hassle of either storing or
| transmitting it.
|
| This does solve the main problem with pneumatic systems - even
| more tightly constrained cargo size limitations and _massive_
| power consumption.
|
| Frankly, the Dutch are giggling at all this, I'm sure, because
| "just build a protected bike lane or shared-use path" is a much
| cheaper, easier, multi-benefit idea. Then not only can people get
| their sandwiches and packages delivered via a guy on a bike in a
| very energy-efficient way (a cargo bike uses about a tenth of the
| electricity even the best EV cars do), but they can safely bike
| to/from their office complex or home to other places. You've got
| something emergency vehicles can use in a pinch, too.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| The bike can be self driving too, no? Should be easier that
| SDVs if we limit it to a few well known paths. Add digital
| guiderails if needed.
| delegate wrote:
| Anyone who played Factorio knows that belts, especially
| underground ones, are the thing.
| keyboard_slap wrote:
| To a point. Their usefulness is typically eclipsed by trains,
| drones, and direct insertion in the late game.
|
| Let's extend the metaphor. If you're trying to move a small,
| intermittent supply of products from around 1km away to your
| base, do you build an underground belt (this startup's
| gadgetbahn) or connect it to your rail network (existing roads
| and sidewalks)?
| project2501a wrote:
| So, Adam Something: "Elon Musk's Loop is a Bizarrely Stupid
| Idea", but instead of loop "We have the USPS already, convince
| Congress to stop destroying it"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACXaFyB_-8s
|
| https://jacobin.com/2020/09/usps-postal-service-mail-voting-...
| ponector wrote:
| Not clear why they want to put that into the tunnel. There are
| already autonomous solutions for last mile delivery: robots using
| pedestrian sidewalks. No need to bore anything, easy to navigate
| and to rescue if there is an issue.
|
| >>Underground tubes are already the transportation method of
| choice for essentials like water, sewage, and Wi-Fi.
|
| Underground tubes with wifi? Good joke
| Sharlin wrote:
| Presumably "Wi-Fi" these days means "any Internet connection
| that's not cellular". And to be fair, cellular data mostly
| travels underground too.
| ponector wrote:
| In many places method of choice for WiFi is a cellular
| connection. Such poor wording is not acceptable for business
| newspaper.
| creesch wrote:
| > There are already autonomous solutions for last mile
| delivery: robots using pedestrian sidewalks.
|
| I have to say, it is a bold choice labeling those as a
| solution. Given the amount of deliveries done all day
| neighborhoods would be crawling with robots like this. So for
| neighborhoods that actually do have sidewalks, pedestrians
| would be hugely inconvenienced. Then there are neighborhoods
| that don't have sidewalks where these robots would need to
| share the road.
|
| There is also the amount of resources needed for each solution.
| These robots are fairly complex, require batteries, etc. If
| they take off in a huge way that means a huge amount of future
| e-waste being created. Batteries need replacing often, these
| robots will break down, certainly in certain climates, etc.
|
| Of course an underground system needs to be build at some point
| as well. However, it is much more of a one time upfront
| investment with lower costs down the road to maintain the
| system. At the very least you are not creating another
| environmental strain by having to fabricate a ton of batteries.
|
| An underground system is also more likely to just work in
| various challenging climates. No overheating electronics in hot
| climates, no snow and ice related challenges in colder
| climates.
|
| Delivery robots are cool. But they are, in my opinion, nothing
| more than a band-aid.
| anileated wrote:
| Delivery bots using pedestrian sidewalks are 1) limited to
| places that _have_ pedestrian sidewalks, 2) are really, really
| slow, and 3) can very easily be stolen. If we're talking
| suburbs, they are likely off the table.
|
| Now, armored aerial delivery drones... dissuading dronejacking
| with robust self-defense/self-destruction capabilities,
| adequately advertised to avoid potential lawsuits... that's the
| future we're waiting for.
| ponector wrote:
| 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.
| anileated wrote:
| > 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.
| ponector wrote:
| 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.
| anileated wrote:
| > 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.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| 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.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| 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?
| divbzero wrote:
| This is an interesting idea and I'll be curious to see if the
| economics works out, but I hope the company realizes that "pipe
| dream" does not have positive connotations.
| samtho wrote:
| I actually thought the name was cute/clever considering the
| ambitions they have. It also conveys an awareness that this is
| a moonshot product which is also suggests they are grounded in
| some rationality.
| p1mrx wrote:
| See also: Boom, Soylent.
|
| Are there any other negatively-named companies?
| jstarfish wrote:
| The Boring Company.
| krallja wrote:
| Slack, Glitch
| alwinaugustin wrote:
| This article hits home for me! I've been daydreaming about
| underground delivery systems for years, especially as I watch
| traffic pile up and delivery bikes swarm the streets. Imagine if
| food delivery went entirely underground - meals would arrive in a
| flash! The same could revolutionise e-commerce, eliminating
| delays for in-stock items at local warehouses. I've floated this
| idea to friends, but they often dismissed it as too futuristic or
| requiring impossible infrastructure. Seeing this pilot project in
| Peachtree Corners gives me immense hope! Maybe my underground
| delivery dream isn't so far-fetched after all.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| If you're already trenching tunnels through suburban
| neighborhoods, seems like adding residential fiber would be a no
| brainer. Could make the whole thing a lot more sustainable.
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe, but it isn't clear as if you do this and one system
| breaks the other system also has to be taken down for repairs.
| Sure you can put fiber in these tubes, but if the tube needs to
| be replaced you have to cut/splice the fiber inside. Likewise
| if a tube collapses (more likely to break the fiber than if it
| was surrounded by dirt) you have to do something about that
| fiber to get it out. So long term it could be worse to do this.
|
| Note that we are talking about small tunnels here. A large
| tunnel that a human could walk in allows more flexibility.
| throw310822 wrote:
| If any Dutch entrepreneur is listening: I have been dreaming
| about the same delivery mechanism for the Netherlands. Difference
| with Atlanta? There are canals everywhere, inside and outside the
| cities. It might be possible to just lay a waterproof pipe at the
| bottom of many existing canals to create an extremely cheap
| network for autonomous robotic deliveries.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| It feels like repairing such a system would be significantly
| more difficult - if you get a crack or a leak, your whole
| system is suddenly flooded, and if you need to repair just one
| section, you have to find a way to keep the rest dry.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Repairing it seems easier than if it is underground, but
| certainly it has a failure mode (leak/ flood) that a normal
| underground pipe doesn't have.
|
| However we're talking about fairly shallow canals (a few
| metres). I wonder what is the failure rate for reasonably
| priced semi-flexible prefabricated pipes with a diameter of
| maybe a metre, or even less.
| treis wrote:
| Probably can keep it pressurized enough to keep water out if
| there's a crack.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Seems like keeping them pressurised would add yet more
| costs. I would rather let the sections fail (assuming it's
| rare) and have automatic valves sealing the failed section
| from the rest (something very simple, like an inflating
| balloon that fills the entire diameter of the pipe).
| finnh wrote:
| why not use boats, on the surface of the water?
| throw310822 wrote:
| I think that moving inside a dedicated pipe makes it possible
| to deploy vehicles that are very simple yet fully autonomous.
| The only things a vehicle inside a pipe must take care of is
| keeping a reasonable speed, slowing down if there is an
| obstacle in front, and turning left/ right at marked
| intersections.
|
| Boats are much more like traditional vehicles: they need to
| take in account the existing traffic, navigate a complex
| environment, and deal with weather conditions.
| oooyay wrote:
| When I worked in sewer inspection I heard a lot about the rate of
| degradation of in-ground infrastructure. One thing that was
| touted a lot was that the math doesn't work out at present; we
| can't replace infrastructure as fast as it degrades in net. I was
| curious if the 10 years since I've been NAASCO certified if
| things have changed or if non-water/sewer infrastructure was
| potentially different. Turns out, costs average out in the long
| term between above and in-ground infrastructure:
| https://www.roads.maryland.gov/opr_research/md-03-sp208b4c-c...
| jstarfish wrote:
| I'm curious if Atlanta has the same issues as you're familiar
| with. Under a thin layer of topsoil the ground is impermeable
| clay, and they don't have earthquakes. Known problems with the
| sewer systems go neglected without incident for decades.
| maCDzP wrote:
| I wonder how long it's going to take to break even. It's pretty
| expensive to install piping. Even if you use no-dig tech.
|
| Also, if they go out of business the infrastructure built isn't
| going to be taken away.
|
| The problem being that a huge part of rising construction cost in
| infrastructure is poor documentation of current infrastructure.
| You have a lot of stops in production when you encounter unknown
| piping.
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends on the local legal framework. Many states have a
| one call program, and if you properly call the number anything
| you encounter that isn't marked isn't your problem if you go
| through it. (you still need to be careful as things can kill
| you, but legally you are not at fault for breaking anything
| that wasn't marked)
|
| The hard part is in places where there are things of
| archeological interest. Most of the US doesn't have this as
| North America has a lack of easily accessible materials that
| will last and so the ancients mostly used things that didn't
| last. In most of the world (and parts of the US) ancient
| civilization often left things behind that are of interest.
| gosub100 wrote:
| I wonder if they could supplement their income by being an ISP?
| the "last mile" is (apparently) the single biggest cost in that
| industry as well. For the low, low cost of a few fibre lines
| (which can snarf down 100s of gigabits these days) you can
| provide "last mile" services to anyone at the end of your
| tunnel thanks to 5G. If you got even more fancy, design the
| system so you can drill into it anywhere along the way, and
| robotically add new taps (not to the fibre, but to copper or
| microwave lines) along the way. They have directional drilling
| already for drilling under highways or angled oil/gas
| pipelines.
| juujian wrote:
| They cite pneumatic tubes as an inspiration. Why not straight up
| build pneumatic tubes of their own?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Maintaining pressurized grids is hard enough for the systems in
| use in hospitals, and any small failure in a pressurized pipe
| has the potential for a huge disaster.
| black6 wrote:
| Chemical plants, on the whole, seem to manage pressurized
| systems quite well.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Yeah, but these tend to be enclosed inside of a factory,
| with no external factors like cable-seeking machines (i.e.
| your average backhoe) or terrorists to take into account.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| They also don't allow random people to shove something
| into a box, and then shove that box into the tube.
| skywhopper wrote:
| What a terrible idea. The pilot only has one pipe that goes
| between two locations. There's no indication of how they would
| scale this to actually be useful for local delivery. And
| maintenance when the trolleys break down would be a nightmare.
| Just like the Boring Company tunnels, the folks who dream this
| stuff up don't think about how it can scale beyond a demo. They
| just figure they'll figure it out later, but real-world tech is
| not like scaling a SaaS product.
| thedrbrian wrote:
| But VC money to burn.....
|
| They should add AI in there somewhere
| jstarfish wrote:
| > The pilot only has one pipe that goes between two locations.
| There's no indication of how they would scale this to actually
| be useful for local delivery.
|
| This must be the same group that pitched MARTA.
| hyperific wrote:
| What happens to the tubes if the company goes out of business?
| simbolit wrote:
| The same as with other assets: Someone will buy it from the
| bankruptcy auction.
| mountainofdeath wrote:
| This isn't a new concept. NYC (among other cities) had networks
| of Pneumatic tubes to shuttle intra-city mail around.
|
| For NYC:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube_mail_in_New_Yor...
|
| For Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_pneumatic_post
|
| It will be interesting if the economics work in suburban sprawl.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Hence, the article:
|
| > As the company's name teases, the idea may seem futuristic,
| but it's far from new. Let's call it a cousin of the pipe-
| forward delivery solution favored in the 19th and early 20th
| century -- the pneumatic tube. In cities like London and New
| York, networks of pipes that snaked underground and through
| buildings allowed people to send urgent packages, telegrams,
| checks, and at least one sick cat whooshing through offices,
| banks and mailrooms, powered by compressed air.
| divbzero wrote:
| Pneumatic tubes are also still in use on a smaller scale: for
| trash collection [1], in hospitals [2], and in stores [3].
|
| [1]: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/4/12/17226296/new-york-
| infrastruc...
|
| [2]: https://www.swisslog-healthcare.com/en-
| gb/company/blog/how-a...
|
| [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Costco/comments/zt29bw/my_costc
| o_st...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I always wondered why things like this weren't more prevalent,
| and the only answer I could come to was "jobs".
|
| That is, given the networks of underground infrastructure that
| already exist, it seems like this would be totally plausible for
| pretty much any midsize+ city to build this out to replace all
| conventional mail delivery (that is, basically anything that can
| fit in a standard size mailbox). But that would result in tons of
| mailmen/women being made redundant.
|
| Am I just misunderstanding the complexity of building out one of
| these systems? Long term it seems like it would be much cheaper
| than current last mile delivery. I also realize that there are
| tons of processes that are kept inefficient due to "jobs
| inertia", so I don't think this is something new. Whenever I have
| to wait in line at the neighborhood pharmacy to pick up a
| prescription, I always think "How is pharmacist still a job?"
| Everything seems like it could be made much more efficient if
| pill cases were standardized and you could just pick things up at
| something resembling a vending machine. I'm not saying I never
| have questions for a pharmacist or want them to review something,
| but like 50% at least of the stuff they do should be automatable.
| Deprecate9151 wrote:
| I think for the pharmacists its simply economics. It's cheaper
| to have 3 or 4 pharmacists and a bunch of much lower payed
| techs on staff to do the work manually then develop and
| maintain automation while complying with existing regulations.
| I know some hospitals have automatic medication dispensing, so
| I'm assuming they have much higher volume where it makes sense.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Pharmacists can also catch obviously-wrong prescriptions -
| "This should be milligrams, not grams. If you take 20 grams
| of this, you'll die, in a spectacular and gruesome fashion."
|
| (Granted, pharmacists can also _miss_ things like this -
| which is why technology, checklists and humans working
| together are probably the best solution.)
| imtringued wrote:
| Underground infrastructure is expensive. If anything gets stuck
| you are screwed. The most inefficient part of parcel delivery
| isn't the vehicle, it's having the delivery guy wait for the
| recipient to open the door for them. You could easily solve
| this problem by putting parcel lockers outside the building.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The costs and complexity of working underground are huge. Most
| cities have fairly poor documentation and location information
| on any underground utilites that are more than 40-50 years old.
| Locally here we have a big project going on to expand municipal
| fiber. The contractors are every week hitting water lines, gas
| lines, or sewer lines that aren't exactly where they "are
| supposed to be" I can only imagine the final costs will vastly
| exceed estimates when all this damage is taken into account.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Am I just misunderstanding the complexity of building out
| one of these systems?_
|
| The answer to this question is _always_ yes, regardless of the
| system in question - unless it 's one you're very familiar with
| yourself.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Long term it seems like it would be much cheaper than current
| last mile delivery
|
| yes, long term it might be cheaper, but to get to that long
| term you need to fund the huge upfront cost.
|
| Why as a consumer would you want a pipe to your door, as you
| are now reliant on a single company for all deliveries. if they
| suddenly turn shit, thats it, you're stuck with them.
|
| Its only really makes sense as a way for an uber dense city to
| reduce van traffic. but even then its probably cheaper and more
| efficient to use cargo bikes.
| keyboard_slap wrote:
| What problem is this system trying to solve? It seems to be, in
| this initial deployment, that the office park is too far away
| from the restaurants its employees want to visit, compelling them
| to drive there. I feel like a better solution would be permitting
| denser and mixed-use development, so employees can walk to their
| favorite restaurants on the ground floor instead of driving >1km
| to them or paying for a delivery tunnel.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| And/or encouraging more use of things like bikes. I'd bet that
| painting a bike lane and putting up concrete barriers is
| cheaper than trenching out a three-quarter mile pseudo-
| pneumatic-tube-system.
| cpursley wrote:
| Have you spent any time in Atlanta in August? Biking outside
| is not just biking, but also swimming - through the humidity.
| I don't mind it (avid all-season mountain biker) but most
| office workers wouldn't opt for that in their fancy office
| clothing just for a sandwich.
| thorncorona wrote:
| Seems to work fine for singapore / dc.
| cpursley wrote:
| Everything is closer in Singapore meaning longer
| distances (which is the key, a build environment for
| humans, not cars, first).
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I think it's hard to say things are fine when there's
| still huge gender disparities, in DC area it's something
| like 2:1
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Seems solvable with an e-bike or other micro-mobility
| options. "You're not made of sugar, you won't melt."
| quantified wrote:
| Peachtree City has tons of golf cart lanes. Really a good
| solution for the problem.
| conductr wrote:
| I feel like comments like this always come up. Basically
| reducing it to, why not just become Manhattan?
|
| They want a solution for today, not decades from today which is
| what urban planning would take. But also they likely want the
| neighborhood they built/moved to. They don't want to live in a
| super dense mixed use plaza. They also want solutions that the
| plethora of communities like theirs can replicate. They just
| want a little upgrade to their bucolic life. They don't want to
| hit the reset button. It seems way more reasonable to upgrade
| than try to reinvent it.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Classic straw man argument, there's a pretty big difference
| from a walkable and incrementally more dense neighborhood and
| Manhattan.
|
| We're not going to tear down and rebuild everything all at
| once, it's going to take time and work to get us out of the
| massive car dependent hole we've dug for ourselves. It seems
| Atlanta has massively oversupplied (to it's own detriment)
| parking and prioritized space for cars, and neglected to
| consider that cities depend on attracting a sufficent density
| of humans.
|
| https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2022/07/11/atlanta-.
| ..
|
| > Studies conducted prior to the pandemic indicate that only
| 30% of nearly 100,000 parking spaces in Downtown Atlanta are
| used during peak hours.
| wizerdrobe wrote:
| There's nothing straw man about it, it's reality of
| suburbanite life.
|
| I've worked in "walkable" office parks and have the time
| the guys at the office would get in a car and still drive
| elsewhere. It doesn't solve for the overall problem.
|
| The only way to actually eliminate the drive-to-a-place
| problem is dense Manhattanesque cities where vehicles are
| prohibitive for the average Joe and robust public transit
| exists to allow Joe to make a quick jaunt down the road.
| dingnuts wrote:
| Your quote only adds to the GP's point -- Atlanta is so far
| from being walkable that it will take half a century of
| very good urban planning before the problem solved by the
| article is solved in the way that would make the r/fuckcars
| posters that show up in every thread on this site about
| transportation would like it to be.
|
| People arguing that Atlanta should just permit "denser and
| mixed-use development, so employees can walk to their
| favorite restaurants on the ground floor instead of driving
| >1km" as a short-term solution to the massive sprawl that
| is Atlanta have absolutely no idea of the gargantuan
| undertaking they are proposing and it's sort of ironic that
| they propose that undertaking as an "easier" solution to
| the problem than the one in the article.
|
| I think it's telling that the person who made this comment
| used km -- it's obvious they are not American, and know
| very little about Atlanta or about the suburbs around it or
| how people live there. I, on the other hand, have first-
| hand experience.
|
| Don't ask me about it though, I don't read replies to my
| comments on this hellsite
| keyboard_slap wrote:
| I'm American and have lived most of my life in American
| suburbs. I don't like them very much, and I don't like
| the imperial system.
|
| I don't think denser development is a short term
| solution, but I don't like short term solutions either.
| Short term planning is part of what made traffic in
| cities like Atlanta so bad. And IMO it seemed like a fair
| suggestion because extending these tunnels to every house
| in suburban Atlanta wouldn't be a short process either.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Atlanta as a metropolitan area should not be used to set
| a bar for walkability. It is a massive city. Instead, one
| should take neighborhoods and start there. Atlanta
| certainly has walkable neighborhoods, what it lacks is
| efficient infrastructure to get from one neighborhood to
| another.
| conductr wrote:
| It's not mutually exclusive, we can implement this while
| working on urban planning/re-design since that takes so
| long. But, we should start that in places already primed
| for it, like the straw man you mentioned, Downtown Atlanta
| parking lots.
| treis wrote:
| I'll never understand these sort of objections to convenience
| in favor of density. This is awesome and I can see it being a
| utility similar to water pipes or electricity going to a house
| for the same reason we all have mailboxes. Delivery is
| convenient and this could make it cheap and fast.
| keyboard_slap wrote:
| I'm not objecting to convince in favor of density because
| there isn't a choice to be made between the two. You can have
| convenience in low or high density development. The
| difference is in cost and complexity; high density
| development has all the convenience with fewer delivery costs
| conductr wrote:
| What's the cost of rebuilding our existing tangible cities
| for density? Is that without complexity? What about
| consideration for time?
|
| It's not as easy as hitting "new game" on Sim City
| keyboard_slap wrote:
| On this small scale, rebuilding would likely be more
| expensive than this tunnel. But extending this network to
| every home would be (IMO) on the same order of magnitude
| as redevelopment in cost, complexity, and time.
| Redevelopment is complicated during construction but this
| system is also complicated forever. Our cities are
| already being rebuilt piece-by-piece every day; I'd just
| like zoning laws to permit rebuilding with mixed use and
| higher density development
| flukus wrote:
| If something like this is financially viable (doubt) then it
| sounds like the density already exists and the problem is the
| restaurants aren't near the people. All the replies are focused
| on the density you mentioned but mixed use is probably the
| bigger and far more easily solved problem.
|
| Letting restaurants open nearby to where there are clearly a
| lot of people is a tried and proven solution, not gadgetbhan
| for food.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _The pipe is 18 inches wide -- large enough to fit 40 banana_
|
| Americans will use literally anything except the metric system.
|
| And bicycles, I guess.
| cpursley wrote:
| Heck, try to get them to use their legs. We had neighbors two
| houses over that would always DRIVE to visit us - from their
| house. They thought our car was broken down whenever I walked
| half a mile to the grocery. America is weird.
| quantified wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted.
| cpursley wrote:
| People who don't care to walk, I suppose.
| sojournerc wrote:
| No, I think it was generalizing an entire country of
| people with an "us" vs "them" tone
| rgmerk wrote:
| I think it's pretty fair to suggest that the United
| States (with very limited exceptions) is the least
| pedestrian-friendly country in the developed world.
| sojournerc wrote:
| Fair, but that doesn't mean every American is so lazy as
| to lack the ability or desire to walk places, as was
| suggested.
|
| Also, the US is a big country and shouldn't be treated as
| a single thing.
|
| Colorado, where I live, has an amazingly active
| population relative to other states.
|
| It's worth applying a little nuance, instead of broad
| brushes based on stereotypes.
| mfld wrote:
| But how can you successfully deliver food if a pizza doesn't fit
| in?
| maxglute wrote:
| Downgrade from above ground futurama tubes.
|
| Also feels like good bomb delivery network.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-20 23:01 UTC)