[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 53 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


>Elon Musk is the only one that realises our cities need to be 3 dimensional and make use of underground space for transport via tunnels
>Elon Musk is also the only one that wants to use said tunnels for an absolutely fucking retarded quasi taxi pool with all of the disadvantages of cars and none of the advantages
Why does it have to be this way
>>
>>1719420
Because enough politicians are foolish enough to dump millions into these obvious cash grab schemes.

Underground traffic tunnels in Florida. FFS. Bring scuba gear.
>>
>>1719420
I don’t think he’s the only one
>>
ty elon for inventing metropolitans
>>
>>1719420
Quasi taxi pool is just sidekick trying to sell main idea.
Tunnels for personal cars (ofc brand locked into Tesla hehehe).
Why such tunnels? Because this demographic (car users) have money to spend and are ready to spend to go around traffic jams. Hobos riding public transit are not good customers, bad target market.
>>
>Elon Musk is the only one that realises our cities need to be 3 dimensional and make use of underground space for transport via tunnels
>>
File: autojet.jpg (51 KB, 1039x449)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
Reminiscent of the Autojet cars from the dystopian film THX-1138. But it's Elon Musk, so let's all willingly be spied on and pay for it!
>>
>>1719420
>Deliberately make tunnels too small to convert to rail transit.
>>
File: GroVH8N.gif (676 KB, 535x576)
676 KB
676 KB GIF
>>1719420
>our cities need to be 3 dimensional
im interested to hear melon rusk's thoughts on this new """third dimension""" invention of his
>>
>>1719420
wait til one of those teslas sparks into hellfire mid tunnel and there are no spinklers or even escape walkways, barely enough room to sqeeze past the line of cars behind it while suffocating on toxic flouride gas.
the taxis come with dashcams right?
it's gonna be kino for the ages.
>>
>>1719420
elon musk didnt invent a 3rd dimension retard
the loop thing is literally just subways but not mass transit and worse
and also impossible to build because it ignores all of the fundamental realities of how tunnels are dug
>>
>>1719420
there wilk be a few kf these bad boys up for grabs when the new tube for london comes in
>>
File: leighvisionarycity.jpg (66 KB, 640x1032)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
we need to go taller / deeper
>>
>>1719763
Damn this looks sick in colour. I need a bigger resolution though.
>>
>>1719420
I always wondered why these tunnels got so much hate.
>cheaper to build
>smaller more frequent stations since the vehicles can move off to the side
>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface route
>vehicles can pull over at station so that the system can always remain in motion and assets can relocate to areas with demand
>automated and on a closed circuit so less human error and 3rd parties causing delays and accidents
>instead of larger vehicles with less frequency you get smaller vehicles with more frequency and the system can adapt to changes in demand and passenger flow
>company is developing vehicle that can transport 12 passengers like a Marshrutka
>jet fans and fire suppression can easily be added to the system and the vehicles
problem with existing transit is that its not appealing to the average car driver because even if you improve the speed and frequency, it still lacks the comfort, privacy, and frequent departure times that a cluster of smaller vehicles can provide. if they price this right it could win over a lot of drivers.
>>
>>1719725
>there are no spinklers or even escape walkways
in Elons concept there isnt, obviously hes going to have to cater to the demands of other municipalities that will demand this stuff. can easily make exits that escape into the adjacent tunnel.
>barely enough room to sqeeze past the line of cars behind it
if its an automated system then all the cars would be able to reverse out of the tunnel in unison if an emergency is signaled and all the cars ahead would continue onwards freeing up the tunnel for emergency responders.
>>
>>1720140
>if its an automated system
Stop. It’s not.

Self-driving has never been demonstrated in the tunnels and was specifically banned by the client. The vehicles are also not a linked system so “reversing in unison” is actually a complete fucking lie. These boring revolution talking points are dumb as fuck.
>>
>>1720247
you sound dumb as fuck, they arent going to test the automation out with random people. the automation is still going to roll out once they get enough test data. they use real drivers first so they can change up their strategies for parking at stations.
>>
>>1720136
>>cheaper to build
show numbers
>>smaller more frequent stations since the vehicles can move off to the side
How do you manage it if those smaller stations get crowded?
>>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface route
You can't build a new route on the surface in a big city, that's the point of the whole underground thing
>>vehicles can pull over at station so that the system can always remain in motion and assets can relocate to areas with demand
If you move assets to an area in demand that area gets clogged by traffic and cars slowing down because the one forward is pulling over at a crowded station
>>automated and on a closed circuit so less human error and 3rd parties causing delays and accidents
Just like some automated metro lines, nothing new
>>instead of larger vehicles with less frequency you get smaller vehicles with more frequency and the system can adapt to changes in demand and passenger flow
Bullshit, metro trains arrive every 2-3 mins on peak hours
>>company is developing vehicle that can transport 12 passengers like a Marshrutka
How do you fit a bigger vehicle in those small ass tunnels?
>>jet fans and fire suppression can easily be added to the system and the vehicles
They can all fail and there are still no escape route, a normal metro system is safer than those fucking cages.
>if they price this right it could win over a lot of drivers.
Or you could build a metro system like all normal countries and stop whining about muh comfort like a pussy.
>>
>>1720136
>cheaper to build
The average cheapest to build by conventional wisdom is pipes or larger-diameter tunnels.
>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface route
>smaller more frequent stations since the vehicles can move off to the side
Teach us how the station spacing works with station length, acceleration & deceleration, headway, line speed, and frequency.
You will need acceleration and deceleration lanes if you want to do that. Not "smaller" anymore.
>can operate above and below ground so if there is a section which is impossible to tunnel they can use a surface route
Is this supposed to be selling or unique? How do you overcome the gradient and intricate web of tunnels with the proclaimed depth?
>automated and on a closed circuit so less human error and 3rd parties causing delays and accidents
Again not unique or selling.
>instead of larger vehicles with less frequency you get smaller vehicles with more frequency and the system can adapt to changes in demand and passenger flow
Again, this seems contradictory and conflicting on passenger capacity, headway, line speed, and frequency. Demand-responsive systems haven't been proven to work at scale.
>company is developing vehicle that can transport 12 passengers like a Marshrutka
You add capacity by being big and long, not small and short.
>jet fans and fire suppression can easily be added to the system and the vehicles
This is mandatory, not "easily be added". Vehicles don't have automatic sprinklers.
Before asking whether longitudinal or transverse ventilation is more appropriate, where do you place the ventilation shafts; and at what cost or quality/reliability is the extensive active fire protection, together with fire safety.
Deep tunnels don't go well with ease and time of evacuation and emergency services access. What fire resistance rating does this have to be then.
>>
>>1720785
+
>>1720136
>jet fans
This makes the tunnel larger. If you put it at sides, it will block the walkway for emergency and maintenance.
>>
>>1719420
>self driving cars
kind of like an existing vehicle you can just hop on to and it'll go places
>tunnels instead of roads
kind of like the tunnels we have instead of carrying hundreds of people like trains it only carries a dozen or two

What is he gonna invent next? Electricity that comes out of walls? Like idk, a fucking wall outlet lmao

eelon musk tru ginius
>>
File: 20211013_085134.jpg (88 KB, 976x850)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>1719420
>Elon Musk is the only one that realises our cities need to be free of niggers and hewisj influence
What did he mean by this?
>>
>>1720140
>can easily make exits that escape into the adjacent tunnel.
If you mean the adjacent bore, you are costing for almost 2 tunnels essentially, plus the cross-passageways. If you mean the adjacent cells separated by a partition wall or tunnel structure, this is now a larger tunnel.
Anyway, then you need walkways and fences, on top of the cross-passageways. If the other side doesn't even stop for safety.
Fyi, you still ventilation for smoke in case of fire. Considering all other necessities and requirements, a large diameter tunnel will accommodate everything needed in different cells in a single bore/tube.
>freeing up the tunnel for emergency responders
That's not how it works. You don't rely on, or wait for this. There will be congestion upstream. No one is risking a head-on collision when going up in reverse from downstream.
A derailed vehicle, spilled cargo, or any obstacles will obstruct the already small working space of a single-lane/track without hard shoulder.
>>
>>1720136
>comfort, privacy, and frequent departure times that a cluster of smaller vehicles can provide
You can work around in a train. If expectations change, trains can always provide all-seats, all-reservations, lounge, bar, dining-car, and whatever amenities needed. It's simply too inefficient for the masses of commuting.
The automation and other equipment on a larger vehicle fleet adds up, both in fixed capital invest cost, and in inspection and maintenance.
Building stations is a significant source of cost underground; not to mention labor cost to operate, if not merely monitoring and responding. This doesn't favor provision of the advertised convenience.
>>
Imagine getting stuck in traffic underground and a hurricane or earthquake hits
>>
>>1720878
There aren't earthquakes in Florida, and hurricanes move slowly and predictably enough that they can close (or even seal) the tunnels before it hits.
>>
>>1719420
Because he makes a shitload of money if and only if the retarded """"solution"""" he's pushing gets put in place, he doesn't give a shit about you or me, and he's just smart enough to be dangerous
>>
>>1720880
But tornadoes and flash flooding does happen in Florida. Ok so tornadoes arent a significant threat if you're in an underground tunnel made of concrete. But they will need pumping systems and power backups in case of flooding.
>>
>>1719420
>Why does it have to be this way
Public transportation confuses and scares most of Americans. It's easier to sell a car tunnels. If Elon makes tunnel digging significantly cheaper, this technology will be mostly used for train and metro tunnels anyway.
>>
>>1720946
City public transportation has no profit in it, poorfags and often outright toxic criminal clientele.
Cars are rich law abiding citizens.
Say whatever you want but Elon always had excellent marketing sense.
>>
>>1721022
>City public transportation has no profit in it
Dumb faggot
>>
>>1719420
>You will live in the subterranean coding mines and you will be happy
>>
>>1721156
But that's correct? Even New York's subways lose like $6 billion a year.
>>
>>1721022
>City public transportation has no profit in it, poorfags and often outright toxic criminal clientele.
Amerifags never leave dysfunctional shithole of a country and think everywhere is a dysfunctional shithole.

>City public transportation has no profit in it
>Implying endless freeways and roads are profitable
>>
>>1721275
>American PT
Dumb faggot
>>
>>1721275
Before the US highway program, the railways were actually profitable. However, with the government covering the cost of the car infrastructure, and the retarded tax system on rails, railways stopped being profitable. However, transportation doesn’t need to be profitable. The government certainly is not making a profit on the roads, no matter how many new suburban developments get built to tax and how much gas tax the collect from driving.
>but added economic activity
Railways did the same thing, which is why most historic towns got built next to the rails. Instantly shot up the land value. But modern rail would also free up the roads of most cars so delivery vehicles could make their trips faster, easier, and safer (less traffic accidents).
>>
>>1721345
Yeah but roads carry goods and services
>>
>>1721346
What is freight rail? The only rail really used in the us at mass scale anymore. Why do you think towns wanted to be on railings? Faster, cheaper, and easier shipment of goods and services, along with the easy opportunity to travel to other towns.
>>
>>1721347
Yeah run a freight rail line to the back of every grocery store lol. And have plumber cars and Amazon delivery cars that stop at everyone’s house. Retard
>>
>>1721345
>the railways were actually profitable.
And railways (freight) are still very profitable and competitive in US, despite highways. Unlike in EU.
>>
Highways and roads don’t need to be profitable because they facilitate all commerce, it’s really that simple.

The Chinese have a saying: 要想富先修路, or, “If you want to get rich, build a road”
>>
>>1721358
I said relight would free up the roads for delivery vehicles, illiterate faggot. This means that with better rails, the roads would still be there (though smaller and better, since less cars on them).
Old style is oxen, donkeys, and horses to transport to the stores, but now would be trucks and vans.
>>
>>1721368
Freight rail already freed up the roads as much as it is possible. In US.
EU uses lorries, they don't like rail.
>>
>>1721388
Passenger rail. Most cars on the road are single passenger. If you had good passenger rail (NYC isn’t good), then you’d free up a lot of traffic. And passenger rail used to be profitable.
>>
>>1721394
>If you had good passenger rail (NYC isn’t good), then you’d free up a lot of traffic.
EU has good passenger rail. But thier
share of passenger car is 85-90%. of passenger*kms in land transportation, rail barely put a dent. You can ban overnight passenger rail in EU, and barely anyone will notice. Ban passenger car then EU collapses.
>>
>>1721402
Overnight gets into plane territory. I’m thinking within urban areas (remember, even in the US, 20% of people live in census designated rural areas, so significantly less than that actually live rurally).
Replace work commutes with passenger rail, since almost all of the cars are one person going to/from work. In Berlin, for example, 51% of the population commutes by bus/train to work. In the US, that was as high as 12.1%, but fell to 5%. In Europe in general about 1/3 of the populace used public transport, and a lot are from 3rd world countries which don’t have infrastructure to support anything other than shitty roads. Still better than the US. If the US had Europe level transit, there would be at least 95 million less cars in your way on the roads (using Europe general levels). Wouldn’t that make being outside better? And, for those still driving, wouldn’t that make driving better?
These numbers aren’t even considering bike use. In the Netherlands, that’s 55% of the population, who otherwise would be traffic on the highways!
>>
>>1721333
The only ones that turn a profit are Asian and Indian ones because they're packed to the gills. You could make an argument that public transport is necessary but not on profit.

>>1721345
You do know that the government did subsidize construction of railroads early on and gave them a fuckton of freebies like giant land tracts that well exceeded the right of way, right? There were only a few railroads that made a consistent profit and even then ridership on rails peaked in 1920 (with a brief but huge spike in WWII to transport draftees).
>>
>>1720136
Cars are just less energy efficient than rail, and these ones have to have batteries too, which are made from non renewable Lithium. You end up with all the expense of a subway with fewer benefits all so Elon can advertize the Tesla brand.
>>
>>1721402
>You can ban overnight passenger rail in EU, and barely anyone will notice
You clearly have never been bottled up on Milan's highways or London highway ring on peak hours. Banning passenger rail would worsen an already tragic situation. And stop telling other people about their country.
>>
It's all a trick to make sure funds that could be used for rail transit are instead used to fund his meme, that way people keep buying cars.
>>
>>1721402
>passenger*kms
There's the statistic problem. Need to find metropolitan regions or commuter belt, daily and work (better if commute is separate from business), and trip/journey in the modal split data. Travel distance needs to be adjusted. The objective for efficiency is to minimize VKT and each km-traveled in PKT, not maximize car use, travel time and distance.
>in land transportation, rail barely put a dent
You forgot walking and biking.
https://www.emta.com/spip.php?article267 Most are equally important.
>You can ban overnight passenger rail in EU, and barely anyone will notice. Ban passenger car then EU collapses.
Yes because all the passengers disappeared without ever existing?
Road traffic worsens far quicker to a halt with more vehicles.
>>
>>1719474
a good analogy, since those were just old lola race cars with fake jet shit glued on the back, rather like elons shittily cobbled together cars that keep catching fire or losing their front wheels.
>>
File: boring vegas expansion.jpg (181 KB, 1200x670)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
Boring Company just got approved by Las Vegas.

>29 miles of tunnel
>51 stations
>tunnel costs are all paid by Boring Company
>stations are paid by station owners
>57000 passengers per hour

To put that in perspective, NY's light rail has 9000 passengers per hour capacity. NY's subways have <50,000 passengers per hour capacity. Thats the busiest mass transport system in the US. Those cant compete with Boring Tunnel mass transport system. NY's subway system costs ~$2 billion per mile to build shouldered entirely by tax payers. Plus another $2 billion per year to maintain the system.

If you want to go from point A to F in a train, you need to go from A->B->C->D->E->F with stops along the way. If you want to go in a boring tunnel, you go from A->F directly without stop.

More passenger capacity
Faster transit time
Less costly in development and maintenance
Cost $0 to tax payers
Can be build within a year
>>
>>1722642
In the interview the number thrown on how much cars will be in those 29 mile tunnel is ~700. They have so much flexibility to how many they want or how many they want to operate at any given time based on demand too.
>>
>>1722642
>57000 passengers per hour
>To put that in perspective, NY's light rail has 9000 passengers per hour capacity. NY's subways have <50,000 passengers per hour capacity. Thats the busiest mass transport system in the US. Those cant compete with Boring Tunnel mass transport system.
Per direction? Tr getting your numbers correct first.
Claiming a theoretical system capacity is worthless if it can't be achieved in actual operation, due to station and tunnel constraint, as well as starting and stopping.
>NY's subway system costs ~$2 billion per mile to build shouldered entirely by tax payers.
Try building one in NYC, not Vegas.
>>1722649
>In the interview the number thrown on
Yes please tell us your capacity calculation methodology, dear free PR volunteers.
>>
>>1722684
+ Holy shit I imagine you can even inflat your numbers by counting the capacity of the entire network, not individual lines and stations. Not to mention the quadruple track, and how obsolete MTA Subway signalling and train capacity is.
>>
>>1722684
>Per direction? Tr getting your numbers correct first.
Entire system. For NY subways and these tunnels.

>Claiming a theoretical system capacity
Theoretical system is necessary to understand the limits of real world capacity limits. The real world capacity depends on lot of external influences which cannot be subject to analysis. Covids, lay offs, nuclear war, mass extinctions, preference, habits, time, etc cannot be calculated properly in a valid metric because the variance these additional uncontrolled scenarios will make any calculations unreliable. In which you could say anything is anything, and nihilism is the only remaining constant.
>Try building one in NYC, not Vegas.
The $2 billion per mile is a NYC's cost estimate and its a very conservative estimate. The actual cost of tunnels in NYC are ~2.7 billion per mile - $3.8 billion per mile. Its absolutely bonkers. All paid by tax payer dollars.
>https://nypost.com/2019/09/16/mta-official-defends-2nd-avenue-subways-6b-price-tag/
>>
>>1722690
>Covids, lay offs, nuclear war, mass extinctions,
>force majeure
Nigger, are you serious?
>>
>>1722700
Yes because your argument is presented under false pretense.

Ofcourse a fucking brand new tunnel system that has only been in service for few months wont have the real world capacity of an established 100 year old system. These things take time to establish and for people to get used to, to understand, to know about it, and become normalized within the city in which these systems become active.
>>
>>1722690
Alright I'll give you a serious answer.
>Entire system. For NY subways and these tunnels.
This is bs, or I don't know what you are comparing. The per line capacity is at least 50000pphppd. Multiply this by the number of lines.
The new heavy metro systems around the world can be built for 60~80k pphpd on the high end. A light metro can easily achieve 20~30kpphpd.
>>
>>1722702
>These things take time to establish and for people to get used to
No, the physics doesn't. The spatial geometry and kinematics are always there. Either you can explain your simulation and modeling, or you don't.build something unproven with low readiness. .
>>
File: MTA-Subway-and-Bus-Maps.png (2.84 MB, 2108x2582)
2.84 MB
2.84 MB PNG
>>1722703
https://new.mta.info/agency/new-york-city-transit/subway-bus-ridership-2020

MTA reports 640 million for the year. Thats 73K passengers per hour across their entire subway network. That includes 6400 subway trains, 472 subway stations, and 665 miles of subway.

Its not per line, its per entire system.
>>
>>1722642
No, the capacity is in fact vastly lower than a metro.
>>
>>1722773
Because "my gut feelings"
>>
>>1719420
>lets go for a drive in Mr Musk's Murder caverns!

Musk is what would happen if H. H. Holmes was alive today and was a billionaire.
>>
>>1722780
No, because it's a basic mathematical fact you fucking cunt. They are literally planning to drive cars that can only hold a maximum of 4-6 paying passengers single file through tunnels. A metro with a modern control system can run trains every 2-4 minutes, each cable of carrying hundreds of passengers, and there are numerous fully automated lines globally. They are already admitting the Tesla's in the tunnels will have human drivers and that they no longer have plans for larger vehicles. The throughput on the convention center loop is far, far, far below what they promised it would be.

Sorry you're to much of an inbred retard to understand any of these facts.
>>
>>1722780
Let make some extremely unrealistic generous assumptions:
- 10 vehicles per minute departing a station
- every vehicle is filled to 100% capacity with 6 passengers each
- that's 10 cars and 60 per minute, or 40 cars and 240 people per 4 minutes

A single metro train running every 4 minutes already has far more capacity than that. And that, as noted, ignores the fact that there's no realistic way to run the Tesla vehicles through the tunnels at that sort of frequency. So even the highly unrealistic theoretical maximum for the cars is far less than the proven real world performance of trains.
>>
>>1722815
10 vehicles x 51 stations x 60 minutes = 30600 cars per hour x 6 passengers = 183,600 passengers per hour.

You don't need to be generous. We can go half that.

6 vehicles (3 coming/3 going with dual tunnels) per minute x 51 stations x 3 passengers x 60 minutes = 55080 per hour.

NYC's entire subway metro runs 73K per hour as per >>1722709 MTA's report
>>
>>1722709
>>1722642
Really its a pretty decent system for which tax payers aren't paying a single dime to develop.

>fast
>cheap
>clean
>efficient
>long

Whats the fucking problem? I don't see a single issue other than "NOOO ITS NOT TRAIN" retards crying about nonsense. An equivalent train or subway system would cost >$100 billion dollar for the same amount of distance, deliver a quarter of passengers, take 10+ years to build.
>>
>>1719420
Hold up it’s a taxi service? You can’t drive your own car?

Jesus Christ it’s even more retarded than I thought.
>>
>>1721275
How much does road infrastructure cost?
>>
>>1719420
Ever heard of the New York City MTA or the Communist Party of China? Elon Musk is just an autistic kid who made his goal being cool. His admirers are almost all men of the “actually” persuasion and his money is just advanced money laundering for the South African White Right.
>>
>>1722836
How is having a 4-10 car train a third rail powering it with an engineer and conductor gonna have higher costs than hundreds of luxury cars each with drivers
>>
>>1722836
Bitch, you already got proven wrong on capacity. Shut the fuck up.
>>
>>1722817
You stupid fucking nigger. You literally just claimed that all of the Loop stations operate simultaneously but that only 1 metro station operates at a time.

Shoot yourself in the head you insufferable fucking troglodyte.
>>
>>1722867
Show your work. Dumb retard. Being emotional and lacking coherent numbers doesn't convince anyone.

>>1722817
>>1722709
>>1722690
>>
>>1722869
The work was shown and you straight up fucking lied about the calculation by completely eliminating all but 1 station from your retarded mental model of metro.

The convention center loop has already proven that your entire claim of capacity is false. Boring admitted it!
>>
>>1722868
Retard. 73k for NY is for the entire metro system's 472 stations. Read the MTAs official source. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall.

>>1722709
>>
>>1722870
>>1722872
>>
>>1722869
Completing making things up about The Boring Company Loop doesn't convince anyone. That's precisely what you've done. The company's own data doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your outlandish and embarrassing assertions.
>>
>A single lane highway is going to have higher capacity then a light rail or subway
How do idiots keep falling for this? The only way that'll be capacity and cost competitive with a metro would be for it to use exclusively trams, which would just make it a low budget metro.
>>
>>1722872
Still waiting on you to show us the measured throughput of the Loop system. Oh wait, you can't.
>>
Even is the Boring Company gives a capacity estimate, remember that the Vegas Convention Centre was supposed to have a throughput of 4,400 people per hour but only managed 580.
>>
>>1722874
Boring Company quotes 53k pph. My estimate has 55k. If you think 3 cars per minute per lane is impossible you're a fucking retard
>>
>>1722878
https://news3lv.com/news/local/lvcva-results-of-las-vegas-convention-center-loop-tests?&ampcf=1

Fake shit doesn't help your argument.
>>
>>1722880
A subway capable of carrying 1000 people leaving each station every 2 minutes, would give this system a theoretical capacity of 1.5 million people per hour if it was a fucking subway
>>
File: DumbassMuskrat.png (18 KB, 1618x972)
18 KB
18 KB PNG
>>1722882
>>
>>1722883
We have a real world data from MTA themselves. You don't need to delude yourself.

https://new.mta.info/agency/new-york-city-transit/subway-bus-ridership-2020
>>
>>1722885
That's usership retard, not theoretical maximum ridership.
>>
>>1722886
It's an established system that's been operating for 100 years.
>>
>>1722642
So if this whole thing is so bad and inefficient, why did LV give them a green light for expansion?
>>
>>1722887
Again, that's how many people use it not how many people can theoretically go through at peak operation. Just look at the Montreal Metro system, that has trains that have a capacity of 1000 people, and is capable of 2 minutes between trains, with 68 stations, giving that system a theoretical capacity of 2,040,000 people per hour during peak operation. That system has 1.4 million daily ridership.

You are a fucking retard.
>>
>>1722888
The answer is its the best system we have. Retards gets filtered by "its not a train" "I hate Elon Musk" or "it's a car"

Rather than looking at cost per mile, passenger capacity, build time, etc. Aka the hard specs.

Retard feels are the problem
>>
>>1722891
If Vegas was going for the cheapest cost per mile/cost per rider, you dumbasses would be using a BRT system instead, Even cheaper then this, with an order of magnitude higher capacity.
>>
>>1722889
Trains don't load and unload 100% at each station. They are fundamentally limited by design of the system. Each train is slowed by the fact that they need to stop at every station. These limiting factors are non issue for Vegas tunnels
>>
>>1722880
It's 1 lane in the tunnels and their own data from the convention center loop proves this estimate is wrong.
>>
>>1722882
You mean like your fake link that goes nowhere? Or do you mean like your fake data that you made up? Or both?
>>
>>1722888
There's a real answer for this (not one made up by this fucking retard in the thread). And the answer is because the city doesn't have to pay for it.
>>
>>1722895
A system that can move 2 million people at peak operating hours doesn't need a high level of point to point efficiency to outperform a system with literally 2% its maximum capacity
>>
>>1722891
Every single thing you said is wrong. You deserve to be held down and have your skull caved in with a claw hammer while you scream for your less than worthless fucking life.
>>
>>1722898
Which makes no sense given as we can see with the Brightline in Florida, the REM in Montreal, and over a dozen systems in Orlando, a private transit system that actually works is viable, so in a tourist city like Vegas you'd think someone would be jumping at the prospect of a private transit system that actually works in the city.
>>
>>1722895
The tunnels would still single lane with hundreds of separate cars competing for that space regardless of destination. Dumbass.
>>
>>1722894
No, BRT costs $80 million per mile. Boring tunnels are ~$10 million per mile. 10 million / 80 million = 1/8 the cost.
>>
>>1722904
Why are you still lying about everything? What's your goal here?
>>
>>1722904
>BRT costs $80 million
* $50 million in 2011 money
>>
>>1722904
>Adding an additional lane to an existing road costs more then burying that road under ground
Even if that was true, which it's not, the capacity would still be well over 8 times
>>
>>1722908
You have no evidence to support this.
>>
The balding britbong from Boring Revolution’s posts are very obvious in this thread. Get a job loser
>>
>>1722909
The network is literally a single lane highway under ground, the evidence is literally the claims by Boring about what it is
>>
>>1722908
Busses would still need to stop at every single stop passengers need to get off to. Tunnel cars is point to point.

Point A to Point Z.
vs
Point A -> Point B -> Point C -> Point ... -> Point Z

Not gonna happen
>>
>>1722911
Wait, my fuck up here. I got confused about who you were and what you were referring to. You are correct.
>>
>>1722912
We have real world BRT networks to compare to the Vegas loop dumbass
>>
>>1722912
And they would be subject to road traffic.
>>
>>1722898
And you think this is a good enough argument to let you dig stuff underground because "the city doesn't have to pay for it"?
>>
>>1722912
Hey faggot, why are you ignoring the fact that all those separate cars still have to share the same single lane tunnels? Why are you ignoring the fact that they have to compete and maneuver for space at and around stations?
>>
>>1722917
Its called stations dumb ass. All maneuverings are done at stations.
>>
>>1722916
No, I don't. It's still an extremely stupid thing. I'm just saying that's a big reason why Vegas is allowing it. Vegas is full of and run by complete fucking morons. This whole idiotic exercise is very on-brand for a place like that.
>>
>>1722918
Congratulations you brain dead inbred, you just admitted that the hundreds of separate cars have to jockey for position with one another, which makes the made up throughout capacity you claimed impossible.
>>
>>1722918
So the cars going from A to B have to share lanes with cars going from A-C, D-B, D-A, B-G, etc etc etc. And when they try to pass through a station they aren't stopping at, they have to contend with the cars that are actually stopping and departing from that station.
>>
>>1722901
Brightline is funded by the government.

IDK about the others, but I checked the REM just to make sure. It costs $7 billion dollars. Thats a hefty price tag
>>
>>1722921
None of those cars will interact with each other.

There's two lanes that never interact with each other. The only "interaction" that will happens is when the two cars leave Station A, each will leave x number of seconds after wards. Neither of them will interact with each other as soon as they're in car. They'll go on their way.
>>
>>1722922
>It costs $7 billion dollars
That's Canadian, it's about 5.6 billion USD and that's with two rounds of cost overruns and Covid delays. It's a public/private partnership if you consider the Quebec Pension Plan to be private (it's technically public but it's run by a private entity to maximise returns). The point is that a profitable transit system that isn't retarded is possible.
>>
>>1722925
$5.6 billion is still a hefty price tag. Its much cheaper than anything in America by far. The California's $100 billion dollar HSR thats been in development for the last 20 years is pathetic.
>>
>>1722916
So now the argument is "NO YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE NIMBY" rather than actual cost considerations. That sounds like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing in a vacuum.

What next? "NOOOO YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE ITS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED"
>>
>>1722927
>The California's $100 billion dollar HSR thats been in development for the last 20 years is pathetic.
True but then that's outrageously expensive compared to basically every HSR ever made due to mismanagement. The people running the project are government bureaucrats who don't understand basic concepts like the fact that in rural areas a HSR is supposed to cut a path of destruction through the existing road and rail lines, with most roads that are cut not being replaced and instead two parallel roads on each side are supposed to be built with a bridge every now and again for cars to go over it. Instead every time it reaches a road they make a mile long bridge for the HSR instead. Just for comparison, the viability studies for a HSR system between Toronto and Quebec City is 32 billion US, and that's with more stops, a longer line on worst terrain that costs more to develop.
>>
>>1722878
You believed a shoddy blog site about this instead of the actual officials who have tested the system's capacity.
>>
>>1722934
The stations are literally too small to make 4,400 hourly throughput possible
>>
>>1722936
They've proven out their concept. You can make magical claims about it in fairy land, but the actual test was done physically with cars and people. 300 people were testing the system and repeatedly going from station to station multiple times to test out the system.
>>
>>1722937
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RPMt_FS-s8
>>
>>1722938
>guy's entire life revolve around "I HATE ELON MUSK"
Are you retarded?
>>
>>1722939
>>1722938
Oh wow, I just took a deep dive even more. These "I hate Elon Musk" is not just a single guy, but looks like an entire industry. How the fuck does that even happen? A fucking industry about "I HATE ELON MUSK."

This doesn't look like a healthy industry.
>>
>>1722940
>How the fuck does that even happen?
Industrial scale bullshit from Musk.
>>
>>1722941
Donate to my patreon

I hate Elon Musk.
>>
>>1722941
Cultish behaviors are unhealthy. Just saying.
>>
>>1722924
This isn't true and TBC doesn't even make this claim. You just completely made it up.
>>
>The worst subway system in the US by capacity has a theoretical hourly capacity of 390,000
57,000 sure sounds impressive to smoothbrains
>>
The Vegas situation is hilarious because they already had a gadgetbahn in the form of the Vegas monorail. But no, that was NOT gimmicky enough, we need an even more delusional approach.

People like to argue about the vehicle size but the thing nobody ever addresses is the ridiculous practice of having the vehicles have independent power sources in the form of batteries when risks like battery fires could be totally eliminated with a third rail in the tunnels. The vehicles should never be leaving the network, so why are they not tailored for the network? Going along the that logic why are guided roadways or train tracks not used instead of wheels? Again, the vehicles don’t need to go anywhere other than the network. Eliminate the steering wheel and have them be guided.
>>
File: 1631423713890.jpg (22 KB, 559x559)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>1719420
Who are you quoting?
>>
>>1722940
It's black PR, aka controlled opposition
Happens all the time
Fuck muh musk though and fuck the retards obsessing over said faggot, it's just bezos with maymays
>>
>>1723536
>The vehicles should never be leaving the network, so why are they not tailored for the network? Going along the that logic why are guided roadways or train tracks not used instead of wheels? Again, the vehicles don’t need to go anywhere other than the network. Eliminate the steering wheel and have them be guided.
Then they couldn't pretend it's Teslas running and that would defeat the purpose of being a pointless advertisement for Tesla cars that the government pretends is private but is completely subsidised and fails at what it's supposed to be.
>>
>>1720878
do you think hurricanes just appear out of nowhere like wtf?
>>
>>1719420
TFW noone got that it's all just ruse. A scam basically to get money for development of the cheapest possible simple tunnel digging wrapped in EV memes. While the true use for the technology is to build collectors (tunnels for all the engineering network from water to cables and shit) under all the major cities, making astronomical money on savings from having to dig whenever something gets fucked up. I don't know how those are spread, but afaik Prague was one of pioneers in this tech.


It's kinda like everyone thinks starlink is made for good internet access for masses, while that's just a byproduct and the tech is gonna make market transactions across the globe faster and not dependant on sub sea cables. And that's where the majority of money will really be made, securing funding for the 40K fleet...
>>
>>1723959
>Tunnels
Fun theory but the tunnel diameter is far too large for any utility tunnel

>Starlink
Stupid as fuck idea. Undersea cables are secure and redundant, Starlink sats sit in decaying orbits and need to be replaced by the thousand every year, necessitating hundreds of launches.
>>
>>1724019
>Starlink sats sit in decaying orbits and need to be replaced by the thousand every year, necessitating hundreds of launches.
It's even worst, they aren't even better then existing satellite internet service which have global coverage with 3 satellites.
>>
>>1723959
>While the true use for the technology is to build collectors
Honestly sort of surprised people haven't figured out Elon Musk's thing yet because this is it. He's a friend (or ex-friend) of Peter Thiel's and follows the guy's advice to the letter. How to do business in 4 easy steps:
1. Find a need that no one is currently capitalizing on
2. Capture it
3. Keep that market captive, shove your competitors out, maintain your monopoly because competition is for suckers
4. Get yourself out before the gig is up
And he did this for years with PayPal, and then transitioned out to defense stuff so that he didn't get fucked as competition started to squeeze in. This is fundamentally a very good way of doing business, especially in tech where gimmicks are king.
And Elon Musk seems to know this. He hires good engineers and even better marketers. Then he sells that to a market he and his team have already worked out. Look at everything that SpaceX has ever done and it starts to make sense. SpaceX is a military hardware company. Starship's stated goal is "move a C-130 worth of cargo anywhere in <45 minutes" or something similar. Could it be anymore obvious? Elon Musk knows there's a shitload of money in the public sector, all he has to do is outcompete the homegrown solutions, which he will always be able to do because his marketing is insane and then engineering is pretty solid.
So you have the Boring Company, which is a bit of a longshot where the goal is to make tunneling cheaper. Which is a good bet if it works, as much of a meme as the Strong Towns guy is he's right about suburbs and rural towns for commuters being financially unsustainable burdens and the maintenance cycles are coming to an end again and there's a market for that kind of infrastructure. And sure there's like zero money or practicality in the hyperloop thing, but who cares? That wasn't the point. The point is an ad.
>>
>>1724224
>which is a bit of a longshot where the goal is to make tunneling cheaper
The problem with this is the same as the problem with SpaceX: for all Musk's claims of making it cheaper, he's not making it cheaper. SpaceX launches cost as much as anyone else's, prices haven't gone down it's just demand that's gone up which is why more companies entering the market hasn't caused them to step on each other's toes. Then there's the Boring Company which is doing literally nothing to innovate, it just bores thin tunnels through low depths that would frankly be better served with rip and dig methods. Musk isn't nearly as smart as he presents himself, he just knows how to market stuff other people make to investors and speculators who don't realise how insane and unrealistic his claims are, who can't be bothered to look at his past history of failure to see what the actual odds are of this time being when things go right despite his presence. Musk is is the most perfect example of someone succeeded through a "fake it till you make it" attitude.
>>
>>1724226
>Musk isn't nearly as smart as he presents himself, he just knows how to market stuff other people make to investors
Yeah, exactly, he knows what his milieu has a history of doing this. I disagree that he's not nearly as smart as he presents himself- He's not that much dumber than he presents, but not in the way he presents himself as smart. He's a corporate officer, and he's very experienced and seemingly pretty good at doing that. Tesla makes money. Sure it's not really by selling cars, but it makes money. And all we really ask as a society that people like him do is make a company make some money.
Which is why the Musk-hate gets old kinda fast. It's just an inverted version of (even more boring) Musk-love. He's on the second-tier of effective corporate officers. Above the no-names but below the Thiels, Gateses, and Bezoses of the world. A good marketeer with a nice portfolio and a solid retirement plan. Assuming he doesn't get himself charged with fraud. People like him will always exist and at least his bullshit is sort of entertaining.
>>
>>1724236
>Assuming he doesn't get himself charged with fraud.
He's currently in an ongoing legal battle over the Tesla acquisition of SolarCity so he's going to loose a few billion when he inevitably looses that case. He's also going to loose most of his net worth when Tesla's stock bubble pops and it falls by about 98% so that the market cap actually reflects its assets and output.
>>
>>1724224
>Starship's stated goal is "move a C-130 worth of cargo anywhere in <45 minutes
Imagine writing all that shit to arrive at something so delusional. E2E Starship will never happen because there is simply no need for it. There is no conflict that needs some form of assistance so fast that it can't be delivered by cargo plane. If you need a problem solved in 45 minutes, you probably need an ICBM
>>
If there’s one thing that’s certainly true about elon musk, it’s that he makes people really want to write/speak massive paragraphs about him online
>>
>>1724226
>prices haven't gone down it's just demand that's gone up
Demand has gone down. The prices have gone down. Starlink is there to fill in the demand by creating their own new revenue stream.
>>
>>1724306
Any publicity is good publicity
>>
>>1724378
Exactly. Elon Musk name is now household name for hundreds of millions. Even though his target customer is <million right now. Tesla is household product name. Its "THE" EV. SpaceX is "THE" space company. Starlink is "THE" satellite internet company.

Shit is insane. Demands for his cars/internet are unlimited right now.
>>
>>1724372
>Demand has gone down
No, it hasn't
>The prices have gone down
Only if you count SpaceX launches done at a loss that are subsidised by their overpriced military contracts, in real terms they have not
>Starlink is there to fill in the demand by creating their own new revenue stream
Starlink isn't financially viable by their own stated numbers when you cut out the bullshit, which is why Musk keeps advertising it in advance of eventually going public with it despite that being a terrible idea if funding SpaceX is the actual goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg&t
>>
>>1724381
>Demands for his cars/internet are unlimited right now
Until people actually look into getting an EV or satellite internet and realise for EVs the competition is usually cheaper and always better quality, while for satellite internet all the competition is cheaper and better quality, and 9 times out of 10 land based internet is faster and cheaper.
>>
>>1720136
>how about instead of one large car, we use a series of smaller cars to transport a lot of people!!!
retard, you just described trains but worse
>>
>>1724519
>train infrastructure cost more to build and maintain
>train stations need to be spaced out further apart
>train stations require a minimum platform size
>trains cannot bypass a delayed train at the station or a station where nobody is boarding or arriving
>trains are horribly infrequent outside peak hours
if that 12 passenger vehicle comes out and they fully automate this shit it could become a good middle ground between conventional public transit and private or hired car.
>>
>>1722709
You STUPID DENSE omega KEK, what happened in 2020 you THICK FUCKING RETARD
"Ah shit I can't pick one of those four annual totals that's pre-covid that would make me look stupid" - You
>>
>>1724566
>train infrastructure cost more to build and maintain
Build, yes, maintain? Hell no.
>train stations need to be spaced out further apart
almost every metro system in existance disagrees
>train stations require a minimum platform size
that's an inherent truism that even the Vegas Loop has
>trains cannot bypass a delayed train at the station or a station where nobody is boarding or arriving
Express trains exist, and people mover systems can be programmed to operate on demand
>trains are horribly infrequent outside peak hours
5 minutes isn't horribly infrequent by sane people standards

The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't a single reason why using EVs that have their own batteries on a closed system with horribly inefficient use of space is a better idea then electric people movers that can actually accomplish the point-to-point travel claimed, with higher frequency, greater capacity, and without the risk of a crappy driver assist program making a random turn into the wall as Tesla's driver assist that's illegally advertised as self drive does regularly enough
>>
>>1724569
>Build, yes, maintain? Hell no.
switch problems among others issues
>almost every metro system in existance disagrees
yeah and the end result is shit for people between stations and high rent for people near them
>that's an inherent truism that even the Vegas Loop has
the minimum size is smaller than what is going on at the LVCC, infrequent stations dont need as many bays as the LVCC
>Express trains exist, and people mover systems can be programmed to operate on demand
dont think a train is capable of making a uturn at the station and going the other way to handle a surge
>5 minutes isn't horribly infrequent by sane people standards
some places dont even get 10 minutes in an evening rush, you have to remember the world doesnt live in kikeyork.
>>
>>1724575
>switch problems among others issues
Switch problems are rare, certainly more rare then Tesla's driver assist given how often it takes turns at random
>yeah and the end result is shit for people between stations and high rent for people near them
Not my fault you live in a place without a decent bus system or bike infrastructure between stations outside the downtown core
>the minimum size is smaller than what is going on at the LVCC, infrequent stations dont need as many bays as the LVCC
LVL is claiming higher output then larger systems with 1000 man trains coming in every 2 minutes using 4 man cars, you're going to need big platforms to accomplish that system throughput
>dont think a train is capable of making a uturn at the station and going the other way to handle a surge
Literally every train can actually, it's the reason why basically every station ever built had track connections to allow for literally that to happen
>some places dont even get 10 minutes in an evening rush, you have to remember the world doesnt live in kikeyork
5 minute off peak service is the norm for subway systems
>>
>>1724468
>you count SpaceX launches done at a loss that are subsidised by their overpriced military contracts, in real terms they have not
This is the thing- SpaceX arguably doesn't need to do anything groundbreaking (or possibly even useful) to make Elon Musk a lot of money, which is his goal. It just needs to get sold to the right people at the right time.

>>1724288
>E2E Starship will never happen because there is simply no need for it.
The military occasionally makes accounting mistakes with price tags in the several billion dollars range, and routinely loses airplane parts, bombs, etc, sometimes leaving them behind to the fucking Taliban. And the people at the top who make those kinds of decisions, along with their warhawk enablers, are who Musk needs to convince to pump money into his scam. Whether it "happens" at all might not even matter if Musk has sold SpaceX or tossed it under new management and is onto the next grift by then.
>There is no conflict that needs some form of assistance so fast that it can't be delivered by cargo plane.
Objectively speaking no such conflict exists or will exist, especially considering the cost of using starship to do that (in almost every term imaginable). But the US military doesn't exist to win wars, it's a mix of research funding, imperial security, and straight up money laundering. Futuristic gadget tech like starship ticks all 3 of those boxes.
>>
>>1724641
>This is the thing- SpaceX arguably doesn't need to do anything groundbreaking (or possibly even useful) to make Elon Musk a lot of money, which is his goal. It just needs to get sold to the right people at the right time.
That wouldn't be too much of an issue if he wasn't blowing it all both metaphorically and literally with his Starship program. He has a facility that was approved for launches to resupply the ISS with a limited number of other launches annually that where for a Falcon 9 scale rocket, the fact they've gone well above and beyond that, given the location of Boca Chico, means the FAA's current ongoing environmental impact study that has shut the place down is basically guaranteed to see the facility shut down.
>>
>have higher throughput comparable to major metro systems at fraction of the cost build in fraction of the time
>BUT ITS NOT TRAINS
Seethe more.
>>
>>1724844
>Always fail to deliver on promises
>Thinks this time will be different





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.