>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 advantagesWhy does it have to be this way
>>1719420Because enough politicians are foolish enough to dump millions into these obvious cash grab schemes.Underground traffic tunnels in Florida. FFS. Bring scuba gear.
>>1719420I don’t think he’s the only one
ty elon for inventing metropolitans
>>1719420Quasi 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
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.
>>1719420>our cities need to be 3 dimensionalim interested to hear melon rusk's thoughts on this new """third dimension""" invention of his
>>1719420wait 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.
>>1719420elon musk didnt invent a 3rd dimension retardthe loop thing is literally just subways but not mass transit and worseand also impossible to build because it ignores all of the fundamental realities of how tunnels are dug
>>1719420there wilk be a few kf these bad boys up for grabs when the new tube for london comes in
we need to go taller / deeper
>>1719763Damn this looks sick in colour. I need a bigger resolution though.
>>1719420I 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 walkwaysin 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 itif 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 systemStop. 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.
>>1720247you 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 buildshow numbers>>smaller more frequent stations since the vehicles can move off to the sideHow 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 routeYou 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 demandIf 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 accidentsJust 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 flowBullshit, metro trains arrive every 2-3 mins on peak hours>>company is developing vehicle that can transport 12 passengers like a MarshrutkaHow 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 vehiclesThey 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 buildThe 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 sideTeach 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 routeIs 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 accidentsAgain 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 flowAgain, 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 MarshrutkaYou 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 fansThis makes the tunnel larger. If you put it at sides, it will block the walkway for emergency and maintenance.
>>1719420>self driving carskind of like an existing vehicle you can just hop on to and it'll go places>tunnels instead of roadskind of like the tunnels we have instead of carrying hundreds of people like trains it only carries a dozen or twoWhat is he gonna invent next? Electricity that comes out of walls? Like idk, a fucking wall outlet lmaoeelon musk tru ginius
>>1719420>Elon Musk is the only one that realises our cities need to be free of niggers and hewisj influenceWhat 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 respondersThat'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 provideYou 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
>>1720878There aren't earthquakes in Florida, and hurricanes move slowly and predictably enough that they can close (or even seal) the tunnels before it hits.
>>1719420Because 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
>>1720880But 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 wayPublic 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.
>>1720946City 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 itDumb faggot
>>1719420>You will live in the subterranean coding mines and you will be happy
>>1721156But 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 PTDumb faggot
>>1721275Before 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 activityRailways 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).
>>1721345Yeah but roads carry goods and services
>>1721346What 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.
>>1721347Yeah 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”
>>1721358I 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.
>>1721368Freight rail already freed up the roads as much as it is possible. In US. EU uses lorries, they don't like rail.
>>1721388Passenger 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.
>>1721402Overnight 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!
>>1721333The 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.>>1721345You 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).
>>1720136Cars 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 noticeYou 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*kmsThere'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 dentYou 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.
>>1719474a 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.
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 hourTo 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 capacityFaster transit timeLess costly in development and maintenanceCost $0 to tax payersCan be build within a year
>>1722642In 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 onYes 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 majeureNigger, are you serious?
>>1722700Yes 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.
>>1722690Alright 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 toNo, 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. .
>>1722703https://new.mta.info/agency/new-york-city-transit/subway-bus-ridership-2020MTA 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.
>>1722642No, the capacity is in fact vastly lower than a metro.
>>1722773Because "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.
>>1722780No, 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.
>>1722780Let 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 minutesA 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.
>>172281510 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>>1722642Really its a pretty decent system for which tax payers aren't paying a single dime to develop. >fast>cheap>clean>efficient>longWhats 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.
>>1719420Hold up it’s a taxi service? You can’t drive your own car?Jesus Christ it’s even more retarded than I thought.
>>1721275How much does road infrastructure cost?
>>1719420Ever 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.
>>1722836How 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
>>1722836Bitch, you already got proven wrong on capacity. Shut the fuck up.
>>1722817You 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.
>>1722867Show your work. Dumb retard. Being emotional and lacking coherent numbers doesn't convince anyone. >>1722817>>1722709>>1722690
>>1722869The 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!
>>1722868Retard. 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
>>1722869Completing 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 subwayHow 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.
>>1722872Still 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.
>>1722874Boring Company quotes 53k pph. My estimate has 55k. If you think 3 cars per minute per lane is impossible you're a fucking retard
>>1722878https://news3lv.com/news/local/lvcva-results-of-las-vegas-convention-center-loop-tests?&cf=1Fake shit doesn't help your argument.
>>1722880A 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
>>1722883We 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
>>1722885That's usership retard, not theoretical maximum ridership.
>>1722886It's an established system that's been operating for 100 years.
>>1722642So if this whole thing is so bad and inefficient, why did LV give them a green light for expansion?
>>1722887Again, 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.
>>1722888The 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
>>1722891If 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.
>>1722889Trains 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
>>1722880It's 1 lane in the tunnels and their own data from the convention center loop proves this estimate is wrong.
>>1722882You mean like your fake link that goes nowhere? Or do you mean like your fake data that you made up? Or both?
>>1722888There'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.
>>1722895A 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
>>1722891Every 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.
>>1722898Which 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.
>>1722895The tunnels would still single lane with hundreds of separate cars competing for that space regardless of destination. Dumbass.
>>1722894No, BRT costs $80 million per mile. Boring tunnels are ~$10 million per mile. 10 million / 80 million = 1/8 the cost.
>>1722904Why 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 groundEven if that was true, which it's not, the capacity would still be well over 8 times
>>1722908You have no evidence to support this.
The balding britbong from Boring Revolution’s posts are very obvious in this thread. Get a job loser
>>1722909The network is literally a single lane highway under ground, the evidence is literally the claims by Boring about what it is
>>1722908Busses 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. vsPoint A -> Point B -> Point C -> Point ... -> Point ZNot gonna happen
>>1722911Wait, my fuck up here. I got confused about who you were and what you were referring to. You are correct.
>>1722912We have real world BRT networks to compare to the Vegas loop dumbass
>>1722912And they would be subject to road traffic.
>>1722898And you think this is a good enough argument to let you dig stuff underground because "the city doesn't have to pay for it"?
>>1722912Hey 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?
>>1722917Its called stations dumb ass. All maneuverings are done at stations.
>>1722916No, 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.
>>1722918Congratulations 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.
>>1722918So 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.
>>1722901Brightline 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
>>1722921None 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 dollarsThat'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.
>>1722916So 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.
>>1722878You believed a shoddy blog site about this instead of the actual officials who have tested the system's capacity.
>>1722934The stations are literally too small to make 4,400 hourly throughput possible
>>1722936They'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.
>>1722938>guy's entire life revolve around "I HATE ELON MUSK"Are you retarded?
>>1722939>>1722938Oh 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.
>>1722941Donate to my patreonI hate Elon Musk.
>>1722941Cultish behaviors are unhealthy. Just saying.
>>1722924This 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 390,00057,000 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.
>>1719420Who are you quoting?
>>1722940It's black PR, aka controlled oppositionHappens all the timeFuck 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.
>>1720878do you think hurricanes just appear out of nowhere like wtf?
>>1719420TFW 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>TunnelsFun theory but the tunnel diameter is far too large for any utility tunnel>StarlinkStupid 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 collectorsHonestly 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 on2. Capture it3. Keep that market captive, shove your competitors out, maintain your monopoly because competition is for suckers4. Get yourself out before the gig is upAnd 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 cheaperThe 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 investorsYeah, 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 minutesImagine 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 upDemand has gone down. The prices have gone down. Starlink is there to fill in the demand by creating their own new revenue stream.
>>1724306Any publicity is good publicity
>>1724378Exactly. 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 downNo, it hasn't>The prices have gone downOnly 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 streamStarlink 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 nowUntil 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 hoursif 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.
>>1722709You 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 maintainBuild, yes, maintain? Hell no.>train stations need to be spaced out further apartalmost every metro system in existance disagrees>train stations require a minimum platform sizethat'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 arrivingExpress trains exist, and people mover systems can be programmed to operate on demand>trains are horribly infrequent outside peak hours5 minutes isn't horribly infrequent by sane people standardsThe 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 disagreesyeah 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 hasthe 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 demanddont 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 standardssome 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 issuesSwitch 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 themNot 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 LVCCLVL 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 surgeLiterally 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 kikeyork5 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 notThis 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 TRAINSSeethe more.
>>1724844>Always fail to deliver on promises>Thinks this time will be different
>>1719420I am curious how this will pan out. This may not be a solution in a dense city like nyc, but for most american cities, it could work. Most critics to musk don't have answers to the following:1. If batteries are safe and reliable and cost what they cost now, what is the advantage of having an electried rail?2. If self driving vehicles on roads works and is reliable, what is the advantage of trains stopping at each stop compared to point to point travel?
>>1725415>1. If batteries are safe and reliable and cost what they cost now, what is the advantage of having an electried rail?They don't have a level of safety, reliability and cost that makes them better then electrified rail.>2. If self driving vehicles on roads works and is reliable, what is the advantage of trains stopping at each stop compared to point to point travel?Tesla's level 2 Driver Assistance isn't reliable either, though making an automated people mover on rails is actually fairly simple which begs more questions about why the Vegas Loop is making it more complicated by making it a road instead.
>>1725424The arguement you make is that it doesn't exist which isn't the point. My point is, assuming it does, what advantages does having electrified rails and trains on tracks have? Elon Musk has made the point electried vehicles are inevitable since fossil fuels will eventually run out. So it is a matter of when not if. Batteries and self driving is the same thing. You may not agree we are currently at that point, but it is inevitable we will get there. Elon thinks the same way, so why not design for the inevitable solution?
>>1725443>what advantages does having electrified rails and trains on tracks have?Inherently safer, cheaper and faster to maintain, less polluting to make, and that's if you can solve the issue of their spontaneous combustion issues that Tesla still hasn't solved>Elon thinks the same way, so why not design for the inevitable solution?Because in an isolated, enclosed system like that, it serves literally no purpose other then to needlessly make operating and maintenance costs higher, throughput capacity lower, safety significantly lower, and that's when all these things improve 10 years down the road when the promised developments actually become a reality because when the system opens all these things will be far worst. The fact the Tesla semi is meant to operated entirely on its own batteries (making it incapable of carrying anything other then low mass, high volume items) instead of being developed with electrified highways in mind shows Musk has no idea what he's doing, which should have been clear when he fired the people who founded Tesla who actually knew what they where doing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg
>>1725454This whole post has the same energy as a cagetroll posting some manifesto about how much they just know a new light rail line in their neighborhood would fail, ruin the neighborhood, yadda yadda yadda. Quit being such a NIMBY about the loop and let’s see what it’s got.
>>1725454Looking the Loop, it's already75% cheaper with capital costs saving $150 million over the next cheapest bidder. How long would it take before a comparable mass transit system to recoup the costs of operation assuming the cars go self driving? IIRC, even paying drivers to drive cars was something like 2-3 million/yr, so 50-75 years before operating expenses catch up with operating cost.>Inherently safer, cheaper and faster to maintainAssuming tunneling costs are the same (though Boring Company is saying they are lower than others), how is running high voltage lines cheaper than batteries? What's the costs of running electric lines? From this source:https://www.freightwaves.com/news/is-electrifying-the-freight-rail-network-cost-prohibitiveThey use $2 million / mile. That's like 200 car battery packs. I wonder about maintenance as well. Modern packs seems like they can last 10+ years with no maintenance.
>>1725415>If batteries are safe and reliable and cost what they cost now, what is the advantage of having an electrified rail?Batteries break eventually and electrified rail is easier to maintain. Especially if the goal is to reduce waste in the long run. If you were really, really devoted to using tires for some reason there's no reason why you couldn't run a line above the cars and just operate on battery power in emergencies though. But at that point, since they're purpose-built for this tunnel, why not lower the friction with some rails and just put smaller, Tesla branded cars on them?>>1724904also this tbqh it's pretty likely the whole thing goes far over budget and/or doesn't work at all. If it works, neat, maybe we should how far we can get on removing cars from the road on elon musk branded self-driving taxis or some shit.
>>1725517>though Boring Company is saying they are lower than othersThey aren't cheaper, they just make smaller tunnels. When you compare the volume of dirty moved their costs are industry standard, just like everything else Musk loves to pretend he's making cheaper.>200 car battery packsThe cost of driving a Tesla (which for the next decade will need a driver even in optimistic conditions) is more then just the cost of a battery. There's the higher cost of maintaining paved road over two rails, the massively higher rate of attrition of rubber tires over steel ones, the lower maintenance costs due to lower downtimes that are also shorter, and all that is on top of the spontaneous combustion problems Tesla's have that electrified rail Tesla pods wouldn't have.
>>1719763Based. We need more layers in both directions.
>>1719420The solution is not more individualized transit, it is more mass transit. His underground tunnel idea is just a fancy toll road. Cars do not need to be "self driving" you can easily just replace all these "autonomous vehicles" with a subway and get the same results, cheaper. Musk has futuristic ideas but they don't beat the traditional ones in most categories.
>>1720136It is needlessly complex and expensive. These do not cost less per rider than traditional subways.
>>1725619Who cares how big the tunnel is if it gets me from point a to b? And my 2 million dollar/mile is only to electrify the rail line. Including the track and signals is even more lopsided in battery powered road transport.
>>1725772>Including the track and signals is even more lopsided in battery powered road transportNot when you factor in the increased maintenance costs and the fact that for at least a decade the Teslas will have a manned driver because we aren't even at level 3 self driving and you'd need a level 5 self driving for any approval for commercial use, while automated people movers and subways are already a tested technology.
>>1725749>with a subway and get the same results, cheaper. Subway trains don't run door to door without intermidiate stops and line changes.
>>1719457>Hobos riding public transit are not good customersGovernments are.
>>1725916And the government gives Musk a lot of money. I think US federal spending makes up the majority of Tesla’s income.
>>1725916In case or the public transportation government is bad customer too. They force you to let smelly hobos and petty criminals into your premises this allienates paying customers and creates bad (and it's fair) image of your service. It's so controversial matter you don't want to touch it with 10 feet pole. Your are damned If you let hobos in and damned if you do. Only way to win is not play.This is what musk does, his vision of tunnels for Teslas has no trash people, they are left outside by income and legal census.
>>1725960>This is what musk does, his vision of tunnels for Teslas has no trash people, they are left outside by income and legal censusToo bad for his speculators his system is only useful for low population, low density, high sprawl, tourist centric cities without an existing network. Vegas is basically the only place where the factors collide for the system to be justifiable in any way as a means of getting tourists from place to place.
>>1726081Its akshually also very useful for high density cities so high income customers can abandon disgusting cattle wagons and commute to work door to door via car avoiding traffic jams and disgusting low life public in general. Live in you own parallel world.
>>1719420Name one other underground traffic network that has RGB lighting. I'll wait.
>>1719420>Elon Musk is the only one that realises our cities need to be 3 dimensional and make use of underground space for transport via tunnelsreject modernity, embrace traditionmusk is just a wannabe robert moses
>>1726756Its all up to the costs really.What is cheaper tunnels or elevated roads.(id say elevated pedestrian ground and streets)
>>1719420He's just building technology that will be used to colonize Mars. Electric vehicles and tunnels are part of that plan
>Limited to tunnelling under public roads>Somehow supposed to be the only time in history boring is cheaper then dig and cover>Also using a company that builds at a rate of 0.5 miles per yearThe extended Vegas Loop will happen as fast as the Tesla Semi hits the road: never
>>1719538Still big enough for utility tunnels.
>>1724019>the tunnel diameter is far too large for any utility tunnellolwut?
>>1725415>what is the advantage of having an electried rail?Bigger payload, power-to-weight ratio and much lower downtime.>what is the advantage of trains stopping at each stop compared to point to point travel?Much bigger capacity, very high reliability.Also, by saying "point to point" I can say that you're american and can't comprehend the idea that railway stations may be destinations worth visiting, whether it's work, houses or leisure.
>>1727039>Also, by saying "point to point" I can say that you're american and can't comprehend the idea that railway stations may be destinations worth visiting, whether it's work, houses or leisureEven funnier when you remember the Vegas Loop is only connecting tourist destinations and the airport
>>1726986>Can't tell the difference between "then" and "than" Argument is invalid
>There actually people in this thread advocating for each vehicle to carry a volatile, heavy battery and all the stupid issues it causes instead of just running an electrified rail which would make each vehicle simpler to build, lighter, faster, able fo take more passengers and make the system an order of magnitude safer Actually delusional, what the fuck
>>1727078To say nothing of the fact that even if you're obsessed with low volume point-to-point transpiration, electric wired units running on rail actually can run autonomously right now while Tesla's level 2 driver assist won't be ready for level 5 self drive for at least a decade at current development speed,
>>1719420but underground is already being utilized to transposort, water, sewage, gas, electricity, and data. its crowded down there.
>>1727089Yeah. Like sure, you can have your gimmicky little 4-pax 'pod' but at the very least put it on some guided railway. It never fucking leaves the tunnel so it's unbelievably absurd to think it needs some level 5000 skynet AI to follow a path when it could just have a rail and completely solve the issue forever.
>>1727078Volatile gas tank vs volatile battery vs volatile oxygen that people breathe in vs volatile germs that people touch.
>>1727078Building small rail way cars is may be interesting idea (obviously Elon is not interested becuae his business is selling teslas)But using electrified rail is just no in the small form factor. There is no place were power rail can be can placed safely. Normal suwbay cars get way with this because they are tall and can achieve good separation of passenger door and teh rail. But small cars would not have such luxury.
>>1720136i understand what you are going for, but using EVs instead of dedicated cars is a waste of time and energey, and also adds uneeded complexity.i suggest that they turn it into a richfag friendly light rail, where it would reach higher speeds than conventional metro cars, maybe it would use rubber tires since steel on steel wouldnt have enough traction to go quick around corners.either both ideas are retarded, this is an underground street for the rich.
>>1729022>but using EVs instead of dedicated cars is a waste of time and energey, and also adds uneeded complexityWhy? EVs already exist. Creating a new dedicated rail system, creating a new dedicated carriage system, and maintaining that with a new dedicated maintenance crew is complex/costly/energy intensive/etc. If the Tesla they use fucks up, they just take it to one of the thousands of local mechanics that can fix it. They can just replace the whole thing in few hours with a call to local car dealer. All the parts are common mass produced parts and the car can be changed to better/newer variants every year or so without expensive investments.>i suggest that they turn it into a richfag friendly light railLight rails would take up a lane space above ground and would be extremely expensive to lay out rails on the ground, plus would impede the traffic as the build out of that would take a long time to plan.>where it would reach higher speeds than conventional metro carsI don't think so. With light rails, you'd have to stop at each station and the speed would have to obey the local traffics, which will be ~10-15 mph avg accounting for stop/go of traffic/various station stops along the way.>either both ideas are retarded, this is an underground street for the richRenting a car for $5-10 for a ride doesn't make you a rich lmao. If you have 3 people riding it costs cheaper than a bus ride. It goes faster and without stopping at every station.This is a dedicated uber ride as public transit and cost is cheap as bus ride.
>>1729032>dedicated uber ridededicated ONDEMAND uber rideCars will be waiting for you instead of you waiting for cars/bus/trains/uber. Which means instant access to your destination.
>>1719420>3D>but not upward into the sky, where you don't have to move infinite amount of earthWorld smartest and richest man everyone.....
>>1725863Are you crippled? That is what your feet are for.
>>1725863If musk is so smart, why doesn’t he build subway trains that run door to door without intermidiate stops and line changes?
>>1729513Exactly. We don't need transportation. We have feets.
>>1722642I haven't seen anything on how they are planning on managing exiting and entering the tunnel. Presumably you'll have to have some sort of on-ramp (which would back up with cars trying to merge into above ground roads) or some sort of elevator system (which will majorly back up). Even if you have multiple elevators, there will have to be some sort of waiting area, which will also face congestion. This is all to say: I don't see how this can possibly be faster than a train. You say that you'll be able to go to point A-F without stop, but even if they have tunnels diverging off the main track, what if one of these get backed up? Then the entire system shuts down, because it's a single lane highway. I want to know where they're getting the 57,000 passengers an hour number from. Additionally,>can be built within a yearNo large-scale tunnelling project moves that quickly, especially not this one when Musk inevitably runs into preexisting underground infrastructure that he seems to be forgetting exists.
>>1719420Any transport with more than five people in it is literally comunism
>>1729782>I haven't seen anything on how they are planning on managing exiting and entering the tunnel. Presumably you'll have to have some sort of on-ramp (which would back up with cars trying to merge into above ground roads) or some sort of elevator system (which will majorly back up). Even if you have multiple elevators, there will have to be some sort of waiting area, which will also face congestion.Come on, there's plenty of videos on how these systems work. Both on youtube and on article mode. The LVCC has been in operations for few months now. I don't see why you have to assume anything. These things are real. You don't need to make up fake hypotheticals.>This is all to say: I don't see how this can possibly be faster than a trainAgain, the LVCC (the smaller initial variant with 3 stations) has already tested and verified 4400 pph capacity. >what if one of these get backed upWith stations A <-> Z, if tunnel track between C <-> D are blocked due to some random emergency, then the tunnel will operate from A <-> C and E <-> Z. These things are so modular that its a non issue. What happens if a train track gets backed up? The entire train line gets backed up thus makes the entire system unusable. This isn't the case with a modular car system. Think this through carefully.>I want to know where they're getting the 57,000 passengers an hour number from.Numbers they've come up with a engineering numbers based on initial rough estimate. They'll test out the official capacity just like they did with the LVCC when they got 4400pph with live demo.>No large-scale tunnelling project moves that quickly, especially not this one when Musk inevitably runs into preexisting underground infrastructure that he seems to be forgetting exists.10 stations come up online in first 6-12 months. Then they plan on addining a dozen or so stations every year. Each new station coming online means the stations will be usable from get go. They don't need to wait.
>>1729513Why do have public transit at all...
>>1729797>Come on, there's plenty of videos on how these systems work. Both on youtube and on article mode. The LVCC has been in operations for few months now. I don't see why you have to assume anything. These things are real. You don't need to make up fake hypotheticals.I have seen these videos, and that is where my hesitation originates. The LVCC isn't really an accurate representation of operation in urban areas. Sure, I'll believe that there is a 4400 capacity for a loop transporting people around a convention centre campus, but downtown San Francisco or New York City? I have my doubts. Additionally, the "engineering numbers" you are referring to would be more accurately described as "marketing numbers."What I've described aren't "fake hypotheticals," either - they are realistic scenarios in a high-density urban area. Think about this: you implement this system in a large city like NYC (which is something that they're planning on doing). The single-lane on-ramps are not going to be enough to support traffic merging onto crowded New York streets, and will result in the system backing up. If you tried to alleviate this with a station, you're now tearing down buildings to put up parking garages where people can wait to merge into traffic. >With stations A <-> Z, if tunnel track between C <-> D are blocked due to some random emergency, then the tunnel will operate from A <-> C and E <-> Z. These things are so modular that its a non issue. What happens if a train track gets backed up? The entire train line gets backed up thus makes the entire system unusable. This isn't the case with a modular car system. Think this through carefully.Ignoring the condescension, it is quite literally the same with this tunnel of yours. A train backing up doesn't result in the entire system being unusable. Stations between the congested section (just as you described in the above example) are still available for use via rerouting.
>>1729797Also: "backing up" doesn't just entail middle sections being blocked due to a "random emergency," I'm talking about on-ramps, which are way more likely to be congested constantly during normal operation, which would prevent drivers from exiting the tunnel which would prevent other sections of the tunnel from running.
>>1729820>it is quite literally the same with this tunnel of yours>Train has A B C D E F G stations.If station C<>D are blocked, train station D E F G are useless, A B C are locked up after 3 trains parking at station A B C. >Tunnel has A B C D E F G stations.If station C<>D are blocked, station D E F G are still functioning on their own. Cars can go from D to E F G, G to F E D, etc. They can go back and forth and continue as a smaller system on its own.
>>1729820>The single-lane on-ramps are not going to be enough to support traffic merging onto crowded New York streetsIf they made a boring tunnel system for NYC, it would be a lot different. LVCC has 3 stations and that's perfectly fine for the system. The expansion has 51 stations, and its got 51 different exit points in the system. Train stations only has 1 exit point. 1 failure mode = the whole train system fails. For the entire boring system to fail, all 51 exits must fail at the same time. If 1 exit fails, then 50 stations will still function just fine.
Boring Tunnels are a brainlet filter lmao. Retards can't think about who these system work since this is the first of its kind and can only either compare to trains, which are slower/10x-50x more expensive or buses which are slower/2x-4x more expensive/take up traffic lane. People are so fucking retarded.
>>1729826>C<>D are blocked, train station D E F G are useless>what are sidings>If station C<>D are blocked, station D E F G are still functioning on their own. Cars can go from D to E F G, G to F E D, etc. They can go back and forth and continue as a smaller system on its own. So as more and more stations become backed up (which they will, because of induced demand and the fact that the system is inefficient to begin with when dealing with actually getting on and off the loop) the distance that can be travelled on the loop becomes less and less, decreasing the benefit of travelling on it in the first place when factoring in entering and exiting the stations.
>>1729827So you admit that they only have a working concept for a relativity low-density area? And that the concept might fail for high-density areas?>>1729828Nice try.
>>1729829Right, for the system to be useless, all 51 stations need to be backed up at the same time.Meanwhile a single train station backed up = entire forward stations become useless. Each additional train arriving backs up a previous station. The boring tunnel system is exponentially more robust.
>>1729830>So you admit that they only have a working concept for a relativity low-density area? And that the concept might fail for high-density areas?Are you retarded? I said their plan is only for 51 station in Las Vegas. Not that they can't scale to NYC system. To make NYC system work would require a slightly different design. Just like how 3 station LVCC is different from 51 station Las Vegas. Each exit node would be dependent on private owner of those exit node. If its a high density node, then the private owner will have to make it a multi lane exit node. God holy shit. People are fucking retarded. You can't read context and you can't extrapolate the utility of the station. Did your mother drop you on your head as a baby? How the fuck do you even function in life without someone holding your hands all the time for every little new thing that you experience in life?
>>1729836There's no need to get angry - we can be civil. I'm also trying to understand your point of view, and you have convinced me on the modularity agreement - the system is superior to trains in that sense.All I meant by: >So you admit that they only have a working concept for a relativity low-density area? And that the concept might fail for high-density areas?Is this:1) The LVCC (only current working model) is for a low-density area with relatively low traffic 1 a) Current model works well for its intended purpose. I agree with this.2) There is talk of expanding the system to other urban areas.3) I don't think this will work, citing potential issues I see arising in a city (such as NYC) like the inflow and outflow of traffic into the system. 4) you agree, saying that a design in NYC would have to be different. All I am saying is that I don't think it can be scaled.
>>1729839>All I am saying is that I don't think it can be scaled.Based on personal feelings that has stemmed from the initial negative feeling towards the project. Rather than trusting the engineers/city council who have verified their modeling correctly, you let your feelings do the talking with bad analogies and ignorance of the system.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/traffic/lvcva-president-work-on-underground-vegas-loop-could-begin-within-year-2464385/Work will now begin within the year. 57,000 pph51 stations
>>1729868I'll believe it when I see it. Oh sure they might actually make the 51 stations and connect them, but like hell are they getting 57,000 pph.
>>1719420You're falling for Elon Scam. He takes hundreds of billions of public money to waste on shitty projects. We had a solution to this over 120 years ago: The Underground. He's just reinventing the wheel while wasting taxpayer money.
>>1730322>He's just reinventing the wheel while wasting taxpayer moneyHe's not even doing that, he's just making a less efficient underground at similar costs by volume of dirt removed as is already standard.
Why do redditors worship Elon? Cause he's "TONY STARK BUT REAL"?
>>1730324He's a salesman who's good at selling his wares. Forget the fact that SpaceX is completely dependent on overcharging the US military to fund itself, constantly delayed in its developments for NASA and Starship is a fundamentally dumb idea, that Starlink isn't the first or only satellite internet service (or even will be in the top 3 when it's online) or the fact that even by its own estimates it will be insolvent when operational, or the fact that even if Tesla reaches its 2030 goals the stock is worth 8 times what it should be for that level of output, or the fact that their self drive is over a decade behind schedule. He's a fraud, plain and simple, and the question is if, when it all comes tumbling down, will Tesla survive or will it be just another footnote in history?
>>1730317LVCC is already operational with 4400pph confirmed and verified throughput capacity. Its been in operations for few months already. This is merely an extension to LVCC. So you already saw it, you can go down to las vegas convention center to touch the physically and use it yourself. But you already knew that. You don't don't really care about what you see, you only care about what believe in. What your heart tells you is whats true to you, not whats out there in reality. What your heart tells you is what media tells you to believe, whatever you consume on daily basis whether its reddit/cnn/fox/bloggers/twitters/facebook/etc. You believe those over what is real.
The LVCC Loop reminds me a lot of the cybertruck in a lot of ways. They both symbolise a defeatist retreat from society, the loop in that in you’re in this private underground line just for you and for the cybertruck, you are literally hiding in an armoured box on wheels. You’ve said it’s all too hard, the world’s too mean, this is my space and I’m not sharing. Instead of addressing the issues in society causing my dismay I’m going to rely on my wealth and adoption of technology to close myself off into this private line away from the others. And for a while it’s probably fine to live like that but after a while the cracks appear in the armor and the weight of societal degradation crumples the walls put up by Silicon Valley IOT techbro bullshit products. There is no technological solution to human problems. Transport in places like Japan is amazing not because of some secret unshared technology that only they have but because they solved intangible, human issues that we have yet to figure out. We have all the technology but tech is no replacement for a healthy, generous society. The cybertruck, the loop, other products like Amazon’s home surveillance cameras; these are products created from fear. They do nothing but temporarily reassure you as the country collapses around you.
>>1730421>LVCC is already operational with 4400pph confirmedNo, it isn't
>>1730453>I’m going to rely on my wealth and adoption of technology to close myself off into this private line away from the others. BASED.Begone, dirty peasants!
>>1730523https://news3lv.com/news/local/lvcva-results-of-las-vegas-convention-center-loop-testsRegardless of your personal feeling of insecurities, reality won't change.
>>1730535>One car does a full cycle>Multiple that by number of cars being used>Thinks that's how it'll work in practice
>>1730538Failing to appreciate verified capacity of LVCC, now you continue to make strange strawmans. This is your typical nu-"septic" behavior. Lacking critical thought and purely BS's their way to conclusions based purely upon their feelings of inferiority.
>>1730540Do you realise how unviable getting 4400 people per hour through the LVCC actually is? Even if the cars could manage it without congestion at the bottlenecks, you aren't getting people in and out of the two surface stations at that rate with people fighting that traffic crossing the road those cars use.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RPMt_FS-s8
>>1730541>DEBOOONKJust as expected of NPCs who lack the critical thought.
>>1730541Conspiracy theories are tiring. Do something better with your life.
>>1730542>Uncritically believe the claim of a government entity that doesn't want to admit it blew 50 million on a crap product>Reject the numbers being crunched and common sense pointing out the numbers are impossible>Pretend the definition of critical thinking is being an NPC who lacks critical thoughtThe term Muskrat isn't used without reason
>>17305441) There's no government money. Its LVCC and Boring Company's own money.2) Numbers crunched by people who have no idea what the project is, has problems with basic facts, ignores actual verified numbers by LVCC and Boring Company in favor of their own make belief number3) Lacking critical thinking is using youtube to prove your point. Of which the video is just other retards who talk the same way you do. Thats not critical thinking. Thats retardism.The whole video is full of people that are too stupid to even do basic research.
>>1730544Government wants Boring Tunnel as a tourist attraction and as a people moving transportation. I don't see why thats a bad thing.The whole skepticism about Boring Tunnels seems to be a giant pieces of fake news and fake facts spread around to make fake conclusions and fake narratives about how its bad. This whole thing seems like a big conspiracy nonsense to me.
>>1730545>Its LVCC and Boring Company's own moneyLVCC is owned by the City of Las Vegas dumbass, why do you think a project as much of a spectacular failures as the Vegas Loop didn't have The Boring Company sued to oblivion when they switched to Teslas form the pods they originally sold?>Numbers crunched by people who have no idea what the project is, has problems with basic facts, ignores actual verified numbers by LVCC and Boring Company in favor of their own make belief numberThen release the raw data if it's so airtight and managed to defeat the basic math and logic>Lacking critical thinking is using youtube to prove your point. Of which the video is just other retards who talk the same way you do. Thats not critical thinking. Thats retardism.Ah yes because Musk's inability to ever once actually deliver on his promises and only giving at best a small fraction of what he promised isn't uncritically believing that this is another case of Musk being unable to deliver what he promised. Actually solid evidence or it didn't happen. Not hearsay, not a politician covering his own ass, actual solid, hard evidence.
>>1730546>I don't see why thats a bad thingIf it was just that, it wouldn't be. The problem is that there are false claims being made that the current Loop can handle 4400 people per hour and this extended system will be able to handle 57,000 people per hour, both of which are so laughably false that there is no good faith means of arguing it's true.>The whole skepticism about Boring Tunnels seems to be a giant pieces of fake news and fake facts spread around to make fake conclusions and fake narratives about how its bad.As with everything Musk does, it's the fake news that hypes it up. The Boring Company hasn't dropped boring costs by volume, it's industry standard rates, similar to SpaceX's launch costs. People think the prices for these are going down but they haven't.>This whole thing seems like a big conspiracy nonsense to me.It's not conspiracy nonsense, it's just rags propping up Musk because pretending he knows what he's doing and his promises will accomplish what he says gets easy clicks.
>>1730548>The problem is that there are false claims being made that the current Loop can handle 4400 people per hour and this extended system will be able to handle 57,000 people per hour, both of which are so laughably false that there is no good faith means of arguing it's true.Where's the falsity? Both LVCC and Boring Company have confirmed these through actual demonstrated tests. Your claim that these are fake seems to be primarily driven by your personal and emotional hatred of Musk, which has nothing to do with any critical analysis as its basically a personal issue.>It's not conspiracy nonsenseIts conspiracy nonsense. To deny what's real in favor of youtube nonsense, thats conspiracy.
>>1730547>>1730548And look I get it, you hate Musk but what I don't get is why? Why such a radicalized hate towards a man you've probably never met, with such viscious venom in the words, it must be a very seething hatred.
>>1730552>Why such a radicalized hate towards a man you've probably never met, with such viscious venom in the words, it must be a very seething hatred.I've only been stating facts, how about I ask you why you're defending a fraudster who you've never met who has always failed to deliver on time, to the promised quality, and is only hyped up by rags that pretend he's the next coming of Steve Jobs. People who worship Musk are the real annoyance, they know nothing about what they're talking about and shit up discussion on these topics in places like here and basically anywhere related to industries or subjects Musk has a company involved in. It's the brony problem all over again.
>>1730554I think I understand now. You've been talking about Musk all this time and you think others are talking about Musk because of Boring Company tunnels. Thats why you feel Musk is a fraud because you feel threatened by Musk right?That sort of mental delusion is what is expected of a trauma victim. So again, I ask what show me on the picture where Mr Musk touched you.
>>1730565You forgot picture.
>>1730565>Thats why you feel Musk is a fraud because you feel threatened by Musk right?What is a guy who owns a rockery company and a tunnel boring company that both have standard industry rates for their woke going to make me feel threatened by? I don't care about Musk fleecing morons, hell all the more power to him taking money from idiots, it's his annoying cultists who I have issue with because you people have no idea what you're talking about, you inverse reality to accuse those speaking facts of being incapable of critical thinking as if you are able to understand what that even means, and everywhere you go you people make discussion of anything drop in quality because on top of knowing nothing about what you're talking about you're innately hostile to anyone who does. It's not Musk and his lies that are the problem, it's you.
>>1722888BRIBESsorry i mean lobbying and lunch meetings
>>1719420how long before the first massive fire and/or tunnel collapse
>>1730453While one may dismay at the current state of cooperation when looking at Japan, it takes someone from South Africa to tell you how much worst it can get. Ultimately in a climate of gross polarization between cager nazis and nwo pod-men (and that is the smallest issue) there are just projects that won't work.The success of communist revolutions have shown that the power of money is no match for the power of the human spirit, the spirit of spite and the ability to wage war against opposition regardless of the costs. A mere assignment of paper and numbers ultimately matters little when it is to be upended with the overturning of the social contract itself.The center can not hold.as the worstare full of passionate intensity. Prepping for survival through the collapse is the prudent play.It may be best to be on another planet altogether, who knows what civil war with fanatics with nuclear weapons look like~
>>1729775Only after you do everything to stop pointlessly moving around and then pretending "we" have to pay for it.>>1729800Cause people keep pointlessly moving around. Walk to work and fix every problem.>>1729793Which would be fine if people had any goddamn spines. One bum shits or masturbates on a bus and people run for the hills! And don't forget to keep putting cloth seats in there!>>1729828>>1729829We can't even bury power lines, why does anyone think we are gonna bury roads? "The Big Dig" is just a way to steal from 50 states and lit it on fire. >>1730453Made we finally figured out communism has to freely outcompete capitalism by being willful and have better outcomes.The only thing worse is "freedom" at the end of a gun (U.S. foreign policy).>>1730544>muskratOooo that's good. Im not from Michigan so I wouldn't have thought of that. >>1730552That right. Why did King Kong climb the Empire State building? Cause we let him. >>1730891>success of communist revolutions...of the revolution....>money no match for human spirit. Thats a good story. Probably cause its not true.>Prepping but you can't stop communismPick one
>>1730891>The success of communist revolutions Newsflash communists lost to money.Also on their roting way to lose they didn't produce anything of value for progress.
Why not build over ground? Its cheaper than digger holes
>>1731918It's more expensive to build and maintain then traditional dig and cover. If you want an economically practical transit system look at private ones.
>>1731927I find that hard to believe. There's gotta be way less material and work to put up an elevated rail than doing the same AND putting it in a tunnel.I think the main impediment to elevated lines is people don't like them, and you have to have awkward, intrusive stations for them.
>>1731930It it was cheaper, private rail lines would do them instead of what they do now.
The Vegas Loop is just a less efficient Morgantown PRT
>Remove battery, no need to have one when the vehicle can be powered by a cheap and safe 3rd rail >Replace tires with wheels and roads with tracks to reduce rolling resistance and vehicle maintenance cost>Flatten floor of vehicle to give better access to wheelchairs and the disabled>Make doors automatic and sliding to improve convenience >Extend vehicle so one driver can transport lots of people, reducing personnel costs >Change frunk and trunk parts of vehicle into standing space to make better use of it>Remove signaling, windscreen wiping and other unnecessary featuresMusk should hire me to make this innovative underground hyperpod, also known as a train
>>1732243>>Change frunk and trunk parts of vehicle into standing space to make better use of it
>>1732261MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN A MOVING VEHICLE THIS ISN’T RIGHT MY BRAIN IS MELTING AAAAAAAA
>>1732396There can whole world of difference between just multiply passengers and commies favorite """efficient utilization of standing space."""
>Point to point transportation is a new, revolutionary idea>4 people per vehicle in autonomous self driving is revolutionary >It's totally not 3 because Tesla self drive is at least a decade away from functionalityForget comparing it to the hyperloop, it's an interior version of 70s technology that never caught on because most places don't have the overlapping rare geographic circumstances that make it a better idea then alternatives. Vegas would be better served with a surface level automated metro light rail system.
>>1732402Are you psychotic? Why would you not want to employ the most cost efficient vehicle for the job? The service is run to make money, not for fun. >Making a vehicle that can take more passengers so you the operator can make more money is communismWhat fucking planet do you live on
>>1731918Monorails will never be viable
>>1732604>Why would you not want to employ the most cost efficient vehicle for the job?because it's fucking miserable you soulless bug
>>1735332Then how did Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore fail with their overground rail?
>>1735336Start riding the steamship across the atlantic rather than a jet because it's more 'soulful' then you dumb faggot
underground space is used for the transport o utlitlies
can't believe there are so many retards defending this shit projectWow you Americans are really that dumb