Really weird article. Starting with the whole claim that the tunnel built is the Las Vegas Loop (actually known by LVCC) which is the same as the 93 stop full rollout (actually known as Vegas Loop); they are connected but the terminology was very muddying. This makes it really confusing when they're eg. objecting to calling it a underground system and not really making clear what they're talking about (Vegas Loop is very clearly an underground system, the whole loop is underground).

There's a bunch of stuff where both they complain about LVCC not being very much (which is true, it's their first track, and while it was much more affordable than the competing bid and has exceeded requirements, it's also super short) and also in the same post talk about how the operating room doesn't stack up to other mass transit operating rooms (yes, why would it?).

The fire safety comparisons are reasonable but I would still like to ask when people make comparisons with historic tunnel fires, for said people to actually go look up why said historic tunnel fires were so bad. Vegas Loop isn't going to be carrying trucks full of flour and margarine alongside vehicles that stop working when said goods catch on fire. Ultimately the Loop is safe largely by combination of not including the set of things that make tunnels dangerous combined with having small vehicles with good failure isolation (electric powertrains, air filtration, etc.).

Comments about capacity are also a bit weird. LVCC's capacity is more than it needs. Vegas Loop's capacity is not as large as inordinately expensive subway systems, but also it's not an inordinately expensive subway system, and its claimed capacity compares favourably to many existing rail systems across the US. Maybe it's because they misread the passengers per hour stat as a passengers per day stat? That is a big difference!