Dugout Loop
boringcompany.com
boringcompany.com
From some key statements;
> The fares are not finalized but will cost around $1.
> it could be possible to increase ridership per game to 2,800 per game
> Between games and events Dugout Loop would transport 250,000 people per year.
>The Boring Company. This project will be 100% privately funded and will require zero taxpayer dollars.
Say we assume full capacity, 2 events a day and travel both ways. With these metrics the annual revenue is: $4,588,000.
There's no way that covers the investment. So what else is happening to make this financially viable? maybe private car use of the loop lift at a premium? stadium co-funding to promote events?
Question 2:
2 of the image look like single line tracks. Are they assuming as its a stadium that all traffic will go one way, then the other later? 2 tunnels? There must be something about this...
...Anyway never been to a city where the underground/metro isnt a great way to get around so keen to see this space develope.
How do they expect to make money as a private enterprise if these are the numbers they propose?
Public transportation is supposed to lose money, not make it, hence the "public" part. It's paid for by tax dollars, because it is impossible for private companies to make money from it.
Even the private rail systems around the world are largely subsidized pubicly during construction, with only operations being privatized.
⇒ what Tesla describes here is not a test track, or at least shouldn’t be.
They aren't proposing these numbers with any more context than the article, (This is a pilot running alongside existing infrastructure) so I'm really unsure about what you are asking?
[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion...
What? No! Public as in "open to the public". At least in the German equivalent "Öffentlicher Nahverkehr" thats exactly what it says ("öffentlich" = "open to the public").
Systems like the MTR[0] also show that it is indeed possible to have a public transportation system that is directly profitable at scale.
All tranport systems are available for use by the general public.
Also, the MTR infrastructure is government subsidized.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...]
These days, the major expense of building a mass transit system is just buying property. And in cities, these properties are going to be already developed.
Right now, there are individual buildings in US cities that cost over $1billion, so grade-separated ground rail is not going to happen for cheap. That only leaves tunneling, which also isn't cheap.
I'm imagining something like in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Perhaps as you're traveling through the tunnel there are adverts playing along the walls as you go or perhaps even just the "windows" of the "skates".
The number of passengers it’ll transport is like two sections in the stadium. This is a publicity stunt.
How is that not solving a problem? Isn't this the purpose of undergrounds/metros?
If this system can be built more quickly and at much lower cost than traditional transit systems, then it could well be very successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
But, we should try and be considerate when we define “problem”. LA has no shortage of serious transportation problems. This solves exactly none of them. Outside of Startupland, a problem is usually something that gets acknowledged before you find it.
So VERY guess work but if it was 10x under the same generous assumptions this is ~$45mil/year revenue
What are cost... - $15m for 5% interest on $300m debt? - $15m for running cost and maintenance?
Then a $15m buffer, would not be a margin bad margin for infrastructure if he can start building a bunch of these. Maybe cheaper rides to grow the concept..
I'd guess: retail areas at the station, higher travel class with expensive tickets, local transport, parking, advertisements, internet access (maybe on a longer loop).
Elon needs to distract people from Tesla's and his legal trouble.
Also, the article only says the project is privately funded, fares could be subsidized?
Like, I'd be incredibly impressed if they pull it off - I'm just dubious.
Official docs actually say "A train every two and a half minutes at peak time through central London ... trains accommodating up to 1,500 passengers"
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/
So it looks like no. It will actually take crossrail 5 minutes or more to exceed that daily capacity of Dugout loop.
I was always wondering about people running to get the next metro.
The Victoria line has been quite successfully running 36 trains per hour (100 second headway) at peak times for the past year. Peak = about 3 hours each in the morning and evening.
I wish I could see similar writing on more company/project websites.
As for the project itself, I have zero interest in being a consumer in the sports industrial complex so I’m questioning if this is the best route from the perspective of the city’s needs.
But some of the costs of satisfying external stakeholders, like buying land; getting approval from regulators, politicians and the local community; and so on would be independent of tunnel size.
IMHO the main reason not to install a conventional metro line is Musk wants to demo something going 150mph, and I've never seen a metro line going that fast.
It may seem counterintuitive, but higher speeds mean less throughput. Most metro systems are concentrated on trying to move high numbers of people, so bumping train max speeds to 150mph just makes no sense. The sweet spot for speed appears to be around 50-70mph, which most metro trains will do when they're cruising between stations.
But anyways, anyone who is complaining that local mass transit ought to be going 150mph is someone who hasn't looked at why local mass transit can't go 150mph or is someone who doesn't want the "mass" in "mass transit".
It's like the difference between running everything on one very beefy server versus having a horizontally scaling architecture on commodity hardware. Each have pros and cons, so its not as simple as supposing that just because one is less beefy than the other, the total value of running on a supercomputer versus a cluster is >95% value for the supercomputer relative to the cluster.
If you have the goal of being able to scale to an arbitrary amount of traffic, building one very fast and expensive computer doesn't meet the traffic needs as well as building a lot of computers. A lot of things start leading to this conclusion. Economies of scale which come in when doing tons of a particular thing rather than just doing it once. Benefits of automation starting to factor in heavily for repeated projects rather than one off projects. Amortized costs of resources for repeated projects rather than one off projects.
Another way you can approach understanding the differences in benefit of this project compared to a subway is by thinking about above ground transportation. Why are roads good, since we already have highways? Why are lifts at ski resorts good, when we have airports? What benefit is there to a boat, when we have cargo ships? Why have cars, when we have trains? All of these questions are intended to point toward there being some value in a cheaper solution relative to a much more expensive but less practically extensive solution.
Yet another way you can understand the potential benefit relative to other transport costs is to imagine trying to optimize sign up for a site. If you reduce the number of fields in a sign-up form with the goal of making it easier to register, it is alike to reducing the cost of adding additional transport. In one case, the probability of a register increases. In the other case, the probability of a project which increases transport capacity increases. This analogy is imperfect, but I'm trying to give a analogy that technology people will understand through their experience: drive down cost, increase usage.
Finally and I think this is one of the key things that needs to be understood about the proof of concept: its intended to be a first and not a last. The idea in driving down costs in tunneling is that there is an arbitrary amount of untapped transport capacity going unused beneath us. Making use of the tiniest fraction of it will only have a tiny benefit, much like making use of a single commodity computer will only have a tiny benefit. Making use of a hundred thousand tiny fractions of it will have a much more pronounced impact, much like making use of thousands of computers can have substantial benefits. You need to keep in mind the end goal, because a journey isn't its first step: one of the superhuman evaluations of a position supposes that the value of a position is the value of the expectation of where you end up, not where you are
Sure. At some point it's worthwhile to actually built it in order to test the projections. And it looks like that point is now.
Another substantial part of this is that the Dugout Loop vehicles ascend to the surface through an elevator or ramp, which allows the station platforms to be built above ground. The platforms can also be smaller (they only need to fit a couple car-sized vehicles, not an entire train). This reduces cost substantially, as building out a large underground train platform is often one of the most expensive parts of a subway build.
The project will also have to deliver on the same demands wrt. fire suppression as any other tunnel.
The station building iself must be sized according to the number of people per hour, not the train length; the physical platforms that you use to step on/off trains on subways typically extend into the tunnels.
The website linked specifically says that it will not have tracks. The concrete itself acts as the 'guide' for the skates without needing any type of other tracks (such as traditional metal train tracks).
>The project will also have to deliver on the same demands wrt. fire suppression as any other tunnel.
This is also address by the website. Fire suppression isn't needed because the tunnel is made only of concrete. There is no concern about other materials (asphalt, high-voltage electrical, etc) catching on fire.
>The station building iself must be sized according to the number of people per hour, not the train length; the physical platforms that you use to step on/off trains on subways typically extend into the tunnels.
I'm not sure what you mean. Train stations are definitely sized according to train lengths. In my hometown, a significant roadblock to expanding our public train system is that we started off with short trains (and short stations to match), and it is very expensive to extend the length of the stations now that we use longer trains.
Wrt. fire suppression: Tesla can state whatever they want, but they will either have to fulfill the demands set forth in NFPA 502 for fire suppression in tunnels, or they will never be allowed to open to the public. Civil engineering is very strict on these things, for a very good reason.
For an underground train, you can have the train platform extend well beyond the actual station building. If you've ever taken the subway/tube in NY or London or similar you know what I mean.
If not, look e.g. at this Google Maps of the Gloucester Road tube stop:
https://goo.gl/maps/KQwuSz6RCUE2
The station building is the small square labeled Gloucester Road tube stop. But the platform extends all the way under the shopping mall (Waitrose's etc) out to the intersection between Cromwell Road and Ashburn Place.
Why wouldn't it need a fire suppression system? Because once a battery pack has started catastrophic failure, they are all dead anyways? The proposed system has more need for fire suppression than conventional subway, not less.
The article clearly states the tunnels with have a tunnel ventilation system, which is standard fire suppression strategy for underground tunnels for subways.
> electrical systems
They're already laying power cables for the tunnel lighting system which is presumably for their autonomous driving system with cameras, which now has a single dependency on their tunnel lighting system.
The rest, sure, I agree can be cheaper comparatively to a subway tunnel.
> steep inclines/sharper angles
Why would you want steep inclines (more than 5% standard for metros) if you're already underground and use lifts to ascend? The electric skates will still have a kinematic envelope that the tunnel has to adhere to, especially if they're for standing passengers. I don't see how this differs substantially from subway tunnels to allow steeper inclines/sharper angles.
Standard subway systems have to have much more in regards to fire suppression than just ventilation. The entire tunnel has to be protected from fire damage with insulation, some tunnels have sprinkler systems, etc. These wouldn't be needed in the dugout tunnel.
>They're already laying power cables for the tunnel lighting system which is presumably for their autonomous driving system with cameras, which now has a single dependency on their tunnel lighting system.
A power cable for low-voltage lighting is much, much, much different than the electrical systems required for powering a subway train. It's like the difference of running an extension cord to your lamp versus laying mains wiring for an entire house.
There's also no reason to believe that the vehicles would be dependent on the lighting system. Many cars on the market today already come with sonic- or LIDAR-based cameras that do not need lamps to detect obstructions. Tesla's own autopilot on its cars works just fine on unlit roads. There are also automated subway systems all over the world that don't depend on the tunnels being lit, and they don't seem to have any issue avoiding collisions.
>Why would you want steep inclines (more than 5% standard for metros) if you're already underground and use lifts to ascend? The electric skates will still have a kinematic envelope that the tunnel has to adhere to, especially if they're for standing passengers. I don't see how this differs substantially from subway tunnels to allow steeper inclines/sharper angles.
You wouldn't want them, but not being bound to the grade and angle restrictions of a tracked metro train means that you have more flexibility of where your system can go if you need to. It makes it easier to route around existing tunnels, piping, sewers, etc without having to make huge detours or being forced to use elevators.
An example of this is given in the linked website where they talk about the eastern terminus of the tunnel - it uses a ramp (from the looks of it, a ramp with a steepness that a subway train would never be able to use). If space allows for such a ramp, it's probably cheaper than using an elevator.
No they don't. There's no insulation for underground tunnels for subways; just steel liners and reinforced concrete, at least according to NFPA 130. No sprinkler systems. So no difference here.
> LV vs HV
Yes, true. HV cables and other supporting systems are more expensive. So the only difference here is batteries, which are far more combustible than cables in concrete.
> LIDAR cameras
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, Tesla has removed LIDAR-based cameras in their lineup.
> There are also automated subway systems all over the world that don't depend on the tunnels being lit, and they don't seem to have any issue avoiding collisions.
Yes, I know. And those trains communicate via access points placed on the tracks, each of which are run with fibre and power cables. Now that bare tunnel is no longer bare.
> incline
Sure, it's more flexible. It still doesn't address the claim that this will help make those tunnels cheaper.
Not sure where you're getting that info. I just looked up NFPA 130 and it specifically calls for multiple types of insulation (for cables as well as concrete and steel) as well as automated water sprinkler systems, and even standpipes for firefighters.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, Tesla has removed LIDAR-based cameras in their lineup.
Tesla doesn't use LIDAR but they do use ultrasonic sensors. Tesla's existing autopilot systems works just fine on completely dark, unlit roads. I don't see why these skates would be any different.
>Yes, I know. And those trains communicate via access points placed on the tracks, each of which are run with fibre and power cables. Now that bare tunnel is no longer bare.
Even with fibre and low voltage power for access points (if even needed), you're still leagues away from the cost and complexity of a full tracked third-rail system.
>Sure, it's more flexible. It still doesn't address the claim that this will help make those tunnels cheaper.
I'm not sure what you mean. Flexibility is cheaper. Being able to use a tunnel that is 500 feet long at a 10% grade is cheaper than having to build a tunnel that is 1500 feet long at 3% grade.
You're moving the goalpost and earlier insinuated that tunnels for subways require lining and other fire suppression systems. They do not. The automated sprinklers are needed for stations, but not the tunnel itself. Same for standpipes.
The insulation for cables are a given, because you will need it for ALL tunnels. Not just HV cables, but ALL cables, including fibre and low-voltage cables.
Thus, no difference.
> Tesla doesn't use LIDAR but they do use ultrasonic sensors. Tesla's existing autopilot systems works just fine on completely dark, unlit roads. I don't see why these skates would be any different.
Does Tesla's existing autopilot system using LIDAR/ultrasonic cameras have automated collision protection that does so without having to communicate with the other cars behind it traveling at 120mph to 150mph? No. You will need to modify the system to do this, and you will need to add the mesh network to the tunnels, among other things I described.
> Even with fibre and low voltage power for access points (if even needed), you're still leagues away from the cost and complexity of a full tracked third-rail system.
Agreed. Tracks and third rail are not cheap, comparative to not using them at all.
> I'm not sure what you mean. Flexibility is cheaper. Being able to use a tunnel that is 500 feet long at a 10% grade is cheaper than having to build a tunnel that is 1500 feet long at 3% grade.
How? If the total length of the overall tunnel is the same, the cost of materials are not substantially different.
I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever. My original comment, which you replied, to, specifically said that a significant part of the cost savings of this project involves the differences in station construction. Stations have always been part of the discussion.
I think you may be confused by the terminology. "Tunnel" does not mean only the trackway where trains travel. Subway stations can also be part of the "tunnel". This is why in my earlier comment I specifically said that "some tunnels require water sprinklers" - because the tunnel parts that are stations require them, even though the tunnel parts that are trackway do not.
>The insulation for cables are a given, because you will need it for ALL tunnels. Not just HV cables, but ALL cables, including fibre and low-voltage cables.
Sure, and the fact that you need significantly less cabling for this tunnel means that you will save on having to insulate those cables.
>Does Tesla's existing autopilot system using LIDAR/ultrasonic cameras have automated collision protection that does so without having to communicate with the other cars behind it traveling at 120mph to 150mph?
Yes? I'm not sure what the point of this question is. Tesla's current autopilot functions every day relying only on cameras and no communication with surrounding vehicles. If anything, the fact that you're removing the variability of cars on the road and will only be interacting with other skates makes this less of a problem.
>How? If the total length of the overall tunnel is the same, the cost of materials are not substantially different.
The total length of the tunnel isn't the same. In my above example, 500 ft vs 1500 ft.
- reuses technology Tesla have already developed and are familiar with
- increases sales of said tech
- a controlled setting where they can get more data about real-world performance of their tech
- introduces their tech to punters
There's no doubt it will be less efficient, especially since the cars are carrying their batteries but the whole point of this is to cut CapEx by 90+% and eliminating miles of power lines is an important part of that effort.
It's a lower level of importance over this 3 mile trip, but it's not uncommon for power upgrades/maintenance to be a multi hundred million dollar Annual outlay for large transit systems.
A well-executed new metro line development, like the MetroSur line in Madrid, runs at around $60M per mile total cost including everything, all the construction and the trains and the stations and property rights.
If you want to improve on that by 90%+, you can't afford much more than just the batteries and the "skates" for this Dugout line.
Given each of the skates is independently driven, the chance of failure would be magnified by N, for N skates within a tunnel. Seems like failures could be quite common and would affect the entire tunnel?
How did you come to this conclusion?
One option is to make the skates incredibly fault-tolerant, but that seems to go against the simple / cheap ethos that this system seems to be going for.
It makes sense to have the skateboards fully connected as part of their 'autonomy.'
Why not use bus-size vehicles? Assuming the same speed and following distance, moving from 16 to 80 passengers would increase system capacity by 5x, meaning four stations could serve 100% of Dodger Stadium capacity (vs 20).
This part of their plan never made sense to me.
I guess they needed to demonstrate that they have a working tech in-house for this first iteration. I am sure that if it is successful, they can make plans to improve the skates' capacity but it makes sense that they make minimal commitments while Tesla doesn't have a larger model.
1. They're smaller so you need a lot of them, which means wear and tear = possibility of failure is higher;
2. They're inefficient in terms of energy use (gotta charge those batteries first) vs third rail that supplies continuous redundant power;
3. How are the electric skates driven? Autonomous? If they're relying on cameras to do autonomous driving, any disruption in the tunnel lighting will kill them all dead.
4. Lighting those tunnels continuously will not be cheap.
5. If the electric skates are driven independently, how will others behind know if one has broken down in front?
6. How do you maintain headway if the electric skates don't know positions of those in front of them? How do you make sure they don't collide if all you have is a camera?
7. Emphasis on average speed is weird, no passenger actually cares about the average speed of the carriages carrying them, only the frequency between those carriages that they can get onto to get to their final destination.
8. How do those electric skates know they've reached their destination and open the doors for passengers to get off? The illustration shows tightly packed electric skates. Do they travel up the loop lifts and then exit? How will these loop lifts be operated?
This doesn't seem any different from a regular subway, only smaller tunnels, and smaller carriages carrying passengers, without any rail and other wayside equipment. Why not a battery-electric bus?
It's cheaper.
>I'm unconvinced that making the tunnels smaller means that the construction costs will be significantly cheaper and faster.
It's not just about the tunnels being smaller - it's also about the fact that the dugout tunnel is a simple tunnel lined with basic concrete and some lighting elements. It doesn't require the same, expensive stuff that a subway tunnel requires, like train tracks, high-voltage electrical systems to power the train, etc.
The stations also make a big impact - the fact that the dugout vehicles are small and can take an elevator to the surface, where the 'station' is, means that you can avoid the very costly construction of a huge underground train platform.
>4. Lighting those tunnels continuously will not be cheap.
A string (even a long one) of high-intensity LED lights doesn't require much electricity. The costs of lighting the tunnel is probably one of the least costly parts of this whole project.
>5. If the electric skates are driven independently, how will others behind know if one has broken down in front?
>6. How do you maintain headway if the electric skates don't know positions of those in front of them? How do you make sure they don't collide if all you have is a camera?
Just guessing here, but if it's a closed system and you have control over all the vehicles in it, then it won't be difficult to have the vehicles talk to each other (or a centralized hub) to be aware of each vehicle's locations and any breakdowns that occur (similar to how current metro systems monitor train locations and breakdowns).
>8. How do those electric skates know they've reached their destination and open the doors for passengers to get off? The illustration shows tightly packed electric skates. Do they travel up the loop lifts and then exit? How will these loop lifts be operated?
The vehicles being able to know how to get to the station and open their doors is probably not really a concern. This is already done in automated subway systems all over the world. It's not hard to have the vehicle be smart enough to drive to a specific 'dock' and then look for a specific trigger to know when to open its doors. Hell, my $100 roomba can park itself in a similar manner.
As for the rest of your questions about the skates, my impression is that this is meant to be a proof-of-concept for cheap, barebones tunnels that self-powered, self-driving vehicles can use. If successful, I can see it being scaled up to use vehicles that are more bus- or train-sized (while still utilizing cheap barebones tunnels) that would help address concerns about efficiency, rate of failure, throughput, etc.
Not convinced.
> expensive train stuff
Sure, I'll concede it can be cheaper than subways when you remove the tracks, HV power supply, third rail, wayside equipment, stations and just stick to concrete.
I still don't think they're significantly more expensive.
> A string (even a long one) of high-intensity LED lights doesn't require much electricity. The costs of lighting the tunnel is probably one of the least costly parts of this whole project.
Maybe. You will still need redundant power supply and redundant illumination points if you're planning to use the self-driving tech with cameras.
> then it won't be difficult to have the vehicles talk to each other (or a centralized hub)
So then you will need a way for those cars to talk to each other, and typically that means you will need wayside APs to carry that traffic. Now that tunnel is not just bare concrete and some lighting elements, you will need to lay fibre cables, power cables, and put up those boxes somewhere for communication. And oh, you might want to have calibration points on the tunnel floor so that the skates themselves know where they are, to normalize their position and report back true accurate positioning.
> The vehicles being able to know how to get to the station and open their doors is probably not really a concern. This is already done in automated subway systems all over the world. It's not hard to have the vehicle be smart enough to drive to a specific 'dock' and then look for a specific trigger to know when to open its doors. Hell, my $100 roomba can park itself in a similar manner.
You underestimate the amount of engineering work needed to do this safely and proving that it's safe. Are the lifts open lifts where the skates drive on and open up their doors? If so, that "marker" will need to be substantially big to allow for overshoot/undershoot and still be safe to open their doors (think, pinching, trapping, etc).
If so, the lifts will need to be substantially big to allow for a number of these skates to ascend and pick up/drop off passengers.
There's no indication that the skates would rely on lighting whatsoever to be able to function. Existing cars on the market already ship with sonic- or LIDAR-based cameras that can detect obstructions in complete darkness. Tesla's existing autopilot functionality works just fine on dark unlit roads.
>So then you will need a way for those cars to talk to each other, and typically that means you will need wayside APs to carry that traffic.
You've never heard of a mesh network? Even if AP are needed, it's still considerably less wiring than a full third rail setup and still poses no fire risk.
>And oh, you might want to have calibration points on the tunnel floor so that the skates themselves know where they are, to normalize their position and report back true accurate positioning.
This could literally be something as simple as a handful of RFID tags on the floor of the tunnel. Not costly and not hard to implement.
>You underestimate the amount of engineering work needed to do this safely and proving that it's safe. Are the lifts open lifts where the skates drive on and open up their doors? If so, that "marker" will need to be substantially big to allow for overshoot/undershoot and still be safe to open their doors (think, pinching, trapping, etc).
>If so, the lifts will need to be substantially big to allow for a number of these skates to ascend and pick up/drop off passengers.
You're really overestimating the amount of engineering work needed to be done. Again, my $100 roomba is able to park itself within millimeters onto a dock, and it's never had an issue. Automated subway systems all over Asia also operate with only inches of margin for positioning themselves onto station platforms and aligning their doors, and they don't seem to have an issue.
The concerns you're raising are already solved. The 'magic' of this system isn't in the self-driving vehicles part at all, as that's already being done with automated transport systems the world over. The 'magic' is in the tunnel construction itself.
Because the claim is that the tunnels are nothing more than concrete and some lighting. I'm pointing out instances that will require more things in these tunnels.
> You've never heard of a mesh network? Even if AP are needed, it's still considerably less wiring than a full third rail setup and still poses no fire risk.
Yes, I know mesh networks. This is how many trains now communicate with each other. Third rail has some fire risk (incredible odds, however, and likely means maintenance regime is not good), and I agree that if they are removed that removes the fire hazard entirely. However, these skates carry batteries, hundreds of them and operating at significantly high speeds. I'm pointing out that these batteries can and will catch fire too, especially if the self-driving component of the skates fail. It is a more credible risk (but cheaper, sure) and more likely to happen more frequently given that the self-driving component is not perfect and relies on cameras (even LIDAR ones) than third rail catching fire.
> You're really overestimating the amount of engineering work needed to be done.
I'm really not. I work on those automated subway systems in Asia that has automated platform gates for those subways to stop at, and the amount of engineering and safety assurance work to ensure those trains actually align themselves correctly is a lot. Why do you think those platform gates have emergency egress doors all over? Have you ever noticed those trains stopping, then creeping to ensure they're aligned right? Those issues are not there not because they're easy, but because substantial man-hours of work have been done to ensure they are safe.
> The concerns you're raising are already solved. The 'magic' of this system isn't in the self-driving vehicles part at all, as that's already being done with automated transport systems the world over. The 'magic' is in the tunnel construction itself.
And I'm pointing out that there's no magic in the tunnel construction. By the time you have added those safety redundancies you end up with something very close to a subway system, just with smaller carriages running on batteries.
What safety redundancies? You still haven't pointed out any required safety redundancies that would raise the cost of the tunnel any significant amount. Some RFID tags and low voltage wiring and fiber for a couple of wireless access points is still negligible cost compared to a full blown track-and-third-rail system. Your entire argument rests on "what if the cars aren't good at self-driving", but again, we already have vehicles with these technologies on the market that drive thousands of miles a day without issue. Tesla cars drive on autopilot on completely dark, unlit roads all the time without issue. They park themselves in tight parking spots every day without issue. They avoid collisions with other vehicles at high speeds every day without issue.
I'm no fan of Tesla, and I'll be the first person telling you that they fucked up bigtime handling the crash a few months ago, but that still doesn't change the fact that they have existing autopilot systems that are more than capable of handling this 'Dugout Loop' system.
As for your skepticism that the tunnels will be cheaper, go do some research on how expensive it is to build out subway tunnels and the components of those costs. The Dugout Loop system eschews significant amounts of the major cost components.
If you're skeptical because we're talking about Musk and his penchant for cost overruns and missed deadlines, I'd understand. But if you're skeptical because for some reason you don't think a barebones concrete tunnel (even with some additional wiring and networking components) is cheaper than a full blown subway tunnel and station, that's just because you're being stubborn.
Because most vehicles are faster than walking. Seriously, not many people are likely to want to walk down a tunnel that long.
If you have a fixed track that is also free from environmental interference, why do you need a complex, camera-based system at all to find the route?
Why not simply use a guard-rail?
It's basically Personal Rapid Transit, which combines all the high infrastructure costs of subways with all the throughput issues of roads. Of course, the technology is being renamed to hide the fact that PRT is not exactly a new technology, and PRT has never really worked.
This project sounds like it was designed to lose money for the sake of good publicity. I'm sure if it works out well for LA, we'll quickly see efforts to establish similar systems in other major cities with LA as the precedent before refocusing on profitability. If we're all riding in Boring Company trains to work 30 years from now, remember it started here! haha
Londoners were quite scathing about the first underground electric transit service in 1890, mostly due to its small cramped coaches that they called 'padded cells'
128 years later, we have... Better batteries.
So is it going to be publicly owned and privately operated?
Call me skeptical. Seattle tried to build a tunnel and it took... wait is it still happening??
I’d like to know what they’re doing differenty in their digging process.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Elon-Musk-think-he-can-bore-5...
At the same time as this boondoggle megaproject was going on, Seattle also built five ordinary subway tunnels for its light rail network, using the same bog-standard railway-sized TBMs which have been used successfully all over the world for years, and these projects were completed on time and within budget.
The premise of the Boring Company is that useful transportation infrastructure can be accomplished more cheaply by constructing even smaller, simpler tunnels with standardized tunneling machines. Their tunnels are literally just concrete tubes with concrete floors, and they are saving even more money by skipping the enormously expensive underground stations necessary with a traditional subway by using "skates" small enough to be shuttled back to the surface in an elevator.
The Seattle project was enormously ambitious; the Boring Company plan is clearly designed to be as boring as possible.
But the City Tunnel is actually two tunnels not one (+ cross-passages), it's 3 times longer, and has twice the diameter.
For the City Tunnel, the whole construction including 3 elaborate stations, all the traditional track infrastructure including 2 different signaling systems and connecting it to the existing rail took 5 years. That's probably the part the Boring Company is trying to save on, not so much the actual tunneling.
> The fares are not finalized but will cost around $1.
> Initially, Dugout Loop will be limited to approximately 1,400 people (approximately 2.5% of Stadium capacity) per event. Based on City and community feedback, it could be possible to increase ridership per game to 2,800 per game or event (5% of Stadium capacity).
Is this guy for real? That is shockingly low-density. The fair market price wouldn't be anywhere near $1, otherwise the tickets will sell out instantly. What this venue clearly needs is an actual metro station in its vicinity.
The gallery page has a lot of great pictures and video as well.
The tunnels are safe from an electrified 3rd rail and the tunnel / skate design can change over time (likely more easily than railway systems).
Consider that this design, once proven, can be licensed and extended worldwide.
Is there some kind of glut of initiative and capital being directed to genuinely ambitious "zero to one" projects? If not such harping is utterly pointless. Maybe this project will fail. Who cares? This has historically been a hard problem. Let 1000 flowers bloom.
I do agree Elon has proved numerous time he isn't this type of guy, but we've seen failed projects, vaporwares and even crooked CEOs so often that you really can't blame the community for having a higher than normal level of skepticism.
So on the Western Terminus, the 'skates' are parked in a holding lot above the track, then individually lowered via an elevator onto the track as needed.
What I don't understand is why this design is advantageous to just having all the skates in a lot next to/on the same level as the track, and passengers just use an escalator to go down to the skate-parking level?
In my mind that would be more efficient, surely. Both cost efficient and mechanically efficient.
Also, if above-ground space at the connected points is sufficiently cheap, you will usually find most of the connection to be cheaper above-ground as well.
I guess that there are also other factors - for certain locations it could be more difficult (or just impossible) to build road, tunnel is good alternative in this case.
It sounds like a great situation to prove a lot of things, including market demand, and also to improve logistics in many areas like queues, scaling demand, emergency procedures, etc.
I think they need to get it down to 10M to be viable worldwide
Of course, this isn’t a heavy commuter route. In the absence of decent surrounding public transit it seems unlikely to make any real dent in traffic.
Now, if you want to be charitable, you could say that the Boring Company will bore a huge number of tunnels all across LA and install a huge number of stations. That would enable people to enjoy the advantages of individual transport (i.e. being able to go point-to-point) while still removing traffic from the surface streets.
But that's not what is happening here. So far they are just doing a super inefficient mini-subway.
The term you're looking for (and that Boring Company is avoiding) is "personal rapid transit."
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
But Elon is on record being no fan of public transport:
"I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people (...)" [1]
So I think its fair to say they're sacrificing capacity/efficiency for the sake of comfort and "the premium experience".
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-t...
If this works well enough for something like a car-sized, self-driving, self-powered vehicle, I could see it being scaled up to use bus- or train-sized vehicles, while still utilizing the cheap, barebones tunnels.
Edit: apparently in the Crossrail it will be every 2.5 minutes, but I remember that in Moscow it is every minute.
Yes, trains can hold more, but that's not the point of this system. If you build a 1500 person train, you now have to build the stations and platforms to accommodate those kinds of crowds.
And did you forget about the CAHSR project?
Tunnels, when designed properly, are known to be one of the safest places to be during an earthquake. From a structural safety standpoint, the tunnel moves uniformly with the ground, in contrast to surface structures. Additionally, a large amount of earthquake damage is caused by falling debris, which does not apply inside tunnels. Some examples:
1994 Northridge Earthquake: no damage to LA Subway tunnels
1989 Loma Prieta (Northern California) Earthquake: no damage to tunnels, which were then used to transport rescue personnel
1985 Mexico City Earthquake: no damage to tunnels, which were then used to transport rescue personnel