Boring company

[YNM]

28 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

they use a smaller version of proven technology, so there shouldn't be much delay to dig the tunnels from that side.

What do you think everyone else has been doing since 150 years ago ?

Not to mention that the biggest challenge to TBMs is soil/rock strata variation along the alignment. Or when the soil above starts to sink.

Then, from support perspective, you very often end up with needlessly strong support where sometimes you need less for it to be enough. Hence NATM. (though NATM is more often used for mostly rock stratas rather than mostly soil.)

[Nightside]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

If they get a grip on underground movement and wet sediments it could work out in the medium run and the main problems could be financing, studies, permits, licenses and all this stuff ?

Surprisingly their Chicago Loop project is planned to be privately funded. It seems like they intend to own, design, build, and operate these loops. This integrated approach can improve efficiency in time and costs but does leave the owner with $millions of dollars at risk if something goes wrong. If they are building and operating without public financing as they claim, then they must be assuming that Loops will actually be profitable, which is not true of all public transit projects. 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

11 hours ago, Nightside said:

Surprisingly their Chicago Loop project is planned to be privately funded. It seems like they intend to own, design, build, and operate these loops. This integrated approach can improve efficiency in time and costs but does leave the owner with $millions of dollars at risk if something goes wrong. If they are building and operating without public financing as they claim, then they must be assuming that Loops will actually be profitable, which is not true of all public transit projects. 

Or, at the very least, are willing to operate at a loss for an indefinite amount of time until the Boring Co network is large enough to support itself. Keep in mind that single pieces of transport infrastructure (a single road, one train line) are, on their own, not very useful. It's only at a certain size that the entire network starts to be worthwhile. Part of the reason it's so hard to justify building bike paths is that when a city is just starting with bike paths, they end up being roads to nowhere, dumping bicyclists right back onto busy streets after a mile or less of path.

[YNM]

8 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Keep in mind that single pieces of transport infrastructure (a single road, one train line) are, on their own, not very useful.

What, a shuttle from downtown to the airport isn't profitable ?

Also, much better to make it a train. Heathrow Express in a tunnel.

Unless O'Hare actually handles much less terminating/starting passengers than transfer passenger.

[Green Baron]

The force to react to posts has not yet returned to me ...

 

That is my thought as well, even public transportation in tubes where a train every 5min can transport 100s of people must be subsidized. That makes me doubt that a system for individual transport that has a much lower capacity than a tube system with light rail can actually earn money. Only if there are enough people willing and able to pay for privacy and speed ...

[YNM]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Even public transportation in tubes where a train every 5min can transport 100s of people must be subsidized.

Say hello to National Rail. (TfL is soon in the list.)

Then there's Brightline.

Lastly you have the private railways of Japan.

As long as you keep a reliable and frequent service, combined with sensible fare, you will generate profit.

I still lament the lack of capacity on the proposed car-pod system though.

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, YNM said:

What, a shuttle from downtown to the airport isn't profitable ?

Also, much better to make it a train. Heathrow Express in a tunnel.

Unless O'Hare actually handles much less terminating/starting passengers than transfer passenger.

The DC Metro (subway) stops 2-3km short of Dulles Airport, but the politics involved in the Metro don't make any sense (at least what I learned in school about how it was started made absolutely no sense.  And it hasn't gotten much better).

I'd expect O'Hare to be largely transfers, being right in the middle of the US.  Maybe not as much as Atlanta, but mostly transfers.  They wouldn't have more traffic than NYC and LA if it wasn't for transfers (plenty of international flights transfer to NYC).

[YNM]

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

They wouldn't have more traffic than NYC and LA if it wasn't for transfers (plenty of international flights transfer to NYC).

Nice then ! At least those two warrant huge highways as well... so fertile ground for airport shuttle...

Also, I'm not sure how many people have realized it, but by what they say in the title "Chicago Loop" they're referring to Downtown Chicago "The Loop". Just saying.

Seriously, that tunnel should've been an express "L" line (specifically the Blue line).

[Nightside]

@YNM, I’m not so sure about that, they refer to 2 other potential projects (in LA and DC) as “Loops”. I believe they are using it as a precursor to “hyperloop”.

There is actually quite a lot of information on their website these days. A big change from when it was just a flammable toy store.

 

[YNM]

28 minutes ago, Nightside said:

I’m not so sure about that, they refer to 2 other potential projects (in LA and DC) as “Loops”. I believe they are using it as a precursor to “hyperloop”.

A Balloon loop on each end would've made the system, pedantically, a "loop".

Again, given the headways and the capacity of each vehicle, I doubt the system can even handle 36,000 pph (as is often the limit on metros). And if they have to use multiple tunnel pairs, a metro can achieve (number of pairs * 36,000) pph in the same setup.

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, YNM said:

Nice then ! At least those two warrant huge highways as well... so fertile ground for airport shuttle...

Also, I'm not sure how many people have realized it, but by what they say in the title "Chicago Loop" they're referring to Downtown Chicago "The Loop". Just saying.

Seriously, that tunnel should've been an express "L" line (specifically the Blue line).

I'd assume that it is more a naming gimick.  The Chicago Loop is already there, has been there for a long time (100+ years?) and is far too small for a hyperloop.

NYC and the SF Bay area would probably work best, especially between long spread subway areas (and commuter rail in San Jose and similar).  DC would also work well, presumably just a single rail for Gaithersburg, Metro Center, Beltsville (Beltway), [Columbia*?], Baltimore.  A "Virginia line" that  meets at Metro Center would probably be next.  There are test builds in DC (easier to get right-of-way in I95 between DC And Baltimore than most such right-of-ways, although I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of the Boring Company: to make the biggest problem the hyperloop faces, right-of-way,  disappear).

[sh1pman]

19 hours ago, YNM said:

Nice then ! At least those two warrant huge highways as well... so fertile ground for airport shuttle...

Also, I'm not sure how many people have realized it, but by what they say in the title "Chicago Loop" they're referring to Downtown Chicago "The Loop". Just saying.

Seriously, that tunnel should've been an express "L" line (specifically the Blue line).

From the F.A.Q. on their website:

What's Loop?

Loop is a high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported on autonomous electric skates traveling at 125-150 miles per hour. Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit), or a single passenger vehicle.

[mikegarrison]

I do not understand these "electric skates". Why make them battery  powered? Seems like that will mean you need a huge fleet of them so that some will be off charging up while others are in service. Why not just run directly off power, like an electric train?

[YNM]

3 hours ago, sh1pman said:

... High-speed underground public transportation system ... traveling at 125-150 miles per hour ... carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit) ...

Do you found anything about their length ? I think I can calculate their minimum headway.

Though TBH this all sounds just like a cable car underground... which isn't that big (most can only handle 3,600 pph, some can do 4500 pph with larger cars).

Edited September 20, 2018 by YNM

[Nightside]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I do not understand these "electric skates". Why make them battery  powered? Seems like that will mean you need a huge fleet of them so that some will be off charging up while others are in service. Why not just run directly off power, like an electric train?

It sounds like the “skate” is basically a Tesla minibus.

It seems like they are designing the requirements so that only Tesla can supply the vehicles. It could be that they hope the “skates” might be able to leave the loop and service secondary destinations. 

@YNM, it says somewhere that they will use the Tesla model X chassis.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Nightside

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

On 9/19/2018 at 3:09 AM, YNM said:

What, a shuttle from downtown to the airport isn't profitable ?

Also, much better to make it a train. Heathrow Express in a tunnel.

Unless O'Hare actually handles much less terminating/starting passengers than transfer passenger.

It probably will be. I just mean that the Boring Co. is aiming for a kind of network that will include unprofitable parts at some point. Although maybe the roads are crowded enough that the inconvenience of switching transit networks won't matter.

I actually agree about trains being better than individual pods for an efficiency standpoint (people-miles/hour) but there are a lot of convenience reasons on the side of individual pods (no waits, can get much closer to your destination, privacy). It also can scale nicely based on how many people are using it, either from minute to minute or over years, just add more pods. That keeps operations costs (theoretically) lower, since you never run empty transports.

[YNM]

10 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

... but there are a lot of convenience reasons on the side of individual pods (no waits, can get much closer to your destination, privacy). ...

36,000 pph :

 

3,600 pph :

 

Spot the difference ?

Edited September 21, 2018 by YNM

[mikegarrison]

London is one of the greatest cities of the world. Their tube system was started more than 150 years ago. That's hard to compete with.

4 hours ago, Nightside said:

It seems like they are designing the requirements so that only Tesla can supply the vehicles.

This is the kind of BS that sounds good but ends up destroying your business. Think AOL online, who thought they could privately compete with the Internet by replicating all the content but keeping it within their own proprietary system.

If Musk deliberately hamstrings his Boring Company in order to give his Tesla company a proprietary market, it's going to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Quote

Alpha ++ cities are cities most integrated with the global economy:

•  London
•  New York City

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by mikegarrison

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

The tube is an amazing example of public transport, and I wish LA would get their rear in gear on building something like that. It's worth noting though that the major traffic jams in LA come from commuters driving in from quite low density suburbs. Using pods that can split up and go their own ways has better potential to help solve the problem of connecting those areas, since it would be cheaper to operate with thousands of stations that would be required so there could be one within walking distance everywhere.

[YNM]

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Their tube system was started more than 150 years ago. That's hard to compete with.

Other cities have done it. In fact, London is among the last to fully implement ATO across their network due to the extensive modification and/or repair and replacement work required (plus worker issues). Look up the 4LM programme.

1 hour ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Using pods that can split up and go their own ways has better potential to help solve the problem of connecting those areas, since it would be cheaper to operate with thousands of stations that would be required so there could be one within walking distance everywhere.

I was actually thinking of promoting Transit-Oriented Developments. Large low-density sprawls ain't healthy, in any way, shape, or form.

Edited September 21, 2018 by YNM

[StrandedonEarth]

22 minutes ago, YNM said:

I was actually thinking of promoting Transit-Oriented Developments. Large low-density sprawls ain't healthy, in any way, shape, or form.

That’s usually how it works once rapid transit arrives somewhere. Pretty much every station on the SkyTrain driverless transit system in Greater Vancouver has sprouted a forest of condo/office towers since they started running the system in 1985 (if they weren’t already there). Which were in great demand, helping to fuel skyrocketing housing costs.  

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

I was actually thinking of promoting Transit-Oriented Developments. Large low-density sprawls ain't healthy, in any way, shape, or form.

I'm in complete agreement with that. The Boring Co. plan sounds better than cars for that, although it remains to be seen whether it's any better than (or different from) subways. I do prefer it to the "make cars so hard to use that bad public transit is a preferable alternative" plan, but that's just a personal opinion.

[tater]

Large, low density sprawl is a given, it's not a matter of "healthy," it's already a thing.

[YNM]

2 hours ago, tater said:

it's already a thing. 

Just because you're already obese doesn't mean that's a healthy thing.

[tater]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Just because you're already obese doesn't mean that's a healthy thing.

I'm not obese, myself (nor is my family), but I get your point.

That said, western US cities (among others, regardless of location in the country) are already spread out, and that is simply not going to change. Transit needs to address the needs of people actually living here, or it's a wasteful non-starter as far as taxpayers are concerned.