[afransen]

I really don't understand why you are so annoyed when someone running multiple businesses is trying to expand/promote those businesses. That's literally what capitalism is and how capitalism works. If you don't like that then you can move to North Korea, or maybe Antarctica.

And really, doing things in the frame in an auto-centric city is basically just doing things in the frame of what exists in North America. It's not the job of private corporations to fix urban sprawl. That's the government's job. A couple of zoning changes and we'd already be halfway there. If anything, maybe you should be screaming at Walmart and Home Depot, whose impacts to cities have been far worse. But even then, they just took advantage of the opportunities created by the government in the form of zoning laws and highway infrastructure etc. When there is an opportunity in a market economy, someone will take advantage of it. That's the government's problem, not Walmart and Home Depot's problem.

And if you say we should "ignore what Elon Musk says and look at what he does", then let's take a look, what has he done?
- Started electronic banking via (the precursor of) PayPal
- Made electric vehicles a thing. Nobody cared or talked about EVs before Tesla existed and the entire auto industry was staunchly against electrification. There is no question that Tesla has dramatically accelerated the transition to EVs. If you do not recognize that EVs are far better for the environment, society, and cities compared to ICE vehicles then we have really lost hope.
- Making 100% renewable energy grids feasible via grid scale energy storage systems
- Dramatically lowered the cost of accessing space. Allows economically feasible fast satellite internet for the 50% of people on Earth not currently connected to the Internet, allows more science to be done in space, etc.
- And, the funniest thing about this statement that you've made, The Boring Company is still super early stage and basically hasn't done anything yet. If we "ignore what Elon Musk says" and just "look at what he does" with regards to the Boring Company, the only thing that has happened is the construction of a test tunnel in LA and a people mover-type system, so basically no material impact on cities. OK pedantry aside, this is literally a private company attempting to lower the cost of building tunnels. That in of itself will benefit public transportation putting pressure on the industry to also lower costs, and I think we can all agree that cheaper tunnels = better.

And to answer this: "If Elon Musk created something like the Loop system, where mass transit could go point to point underground. (Ignoring all the safety issues and logistics and cost), why would you even consider transporting cars??????"
Well, if you have excess capacity after fulfilling public transit needs on the Loop system, and you're a private company looking to maximize usage and revenue of your infrastructure, why wouldn't you allow cars? There will almost certainly be excess capacity, since Loop is basically just a one-lane underground highway with self-driving EVs only, and on the highway, headways are like 2 seconds. If you think safety, logistics, and cost are issues, so what? This is a private company. If the cost balloons, that's their problem. If the logistics make it super difficult to build or operate, that's also their problem. If the cars keep crashing, they'll be liable (which is why they'll use self driving only, which will make it much safer than the highway).

Great response.

Musk definitely is a little too fond of cars, in my opinion, but that is the norm for people in North America.

It is really amusing to see how Musk draws out the irrational hatred in some and the ludicrous boosterism in others. I think it would be fantastic for cities if Musk develops a way to profitably move people around cities underground using electric power. The surface can increasingly be dedicated to people, instead of vehicles. And any such solution would tend to be quite competitive with mass public transit in certain applications, providing much better service for similar actual cost (including subsidy). I don't see why we should doom the poor to 90 minute bus rides because we hate smaller vehicles.

 

[MrGoose]

It is really amusing to see how Musk draws out the irrational hatred in some and the ludicrous boosterism in others. I think it would be fantastic for cities if Musk develops a way to profitably move people around cities underground using electric power.

This already exists, it's called running a train and doing transit oriented development around stops.

The surface can increasingly be dedicated to people, instead of vehicles. And any such solution would tend to be quite competitive with mass public transit in certain applications, providing much better service for similar actual cost (including subsidy). I don't see why we should doom the poor to 90 minute bus rides because we hate smaller vehicles.

We don't have to doom the poor to 90 min bus rides.

We can invest in bus lanes so that bus rides are faster.

We can invest in bike infrastructure so that people can ride their bikes to work or the nearest train stop.

We can invest in density so people can walk to work.

Investing in underground highway lanes won't solve traffic. Just like adding lanes to an existing highway doesn't solve traffic.

Traffic is solved by people getting around using anything other than a car, i.e. the single most inefficient mode of transportation.

You wouldn't have to construct an expensive loop system if you invested in literally any other form of transportation other than cars.

The Loop is trying to solve the problem the wrong way, instead of creating more space for cars (the most space inefficient mode of transportation) we should be creating more space for more efficient modes of transportation.

 

[sche]

The problem with all of this is fanboys like you. Elon Musk is a billionaire who sells cars for a living. Relying on him to improve public transit or the public realm is relying on the fox to guard the hen house.

Seriously, I'm not a 'fanboy' or anything like that. I just find these assertions ridiculous. And, nobody is saying we should 'rely' on Musk to build public transit or anything. I literally said it's the government's problem, not private corporations' problem. If Loop becomes a thing, then great, we have more transportation options, if not, who cares.

Better for the environment, sure. Better for society and cities? Probably not. A car is a car is a car and all the ills of urban sprawl (except air pollution) continue to apply regardless if the car has a combustion engine or an electric motor.

Notice how I said "compared to ICE vehicles"?? Please read the post before responding. Of course I prefer public transit and active transportation over EVs, of course I know about the negative externalities of urban sprawl, I've made that position very clear on this forum, including in this thread. But given that urban sprawl already exists, and there will always be cars, EVs replacing ICE vehicles is obviously a positive thing.

Ok I grant you some of this. IDK about Starlink and it's pricing and it's effect on astronomy though. Thats a negative externality that he won't be paying.

Starlink will probably get cheaper over time after the capital cost of launching new satellites is diminshed, and I don't think the effect on astronomy is that serious, as the satellites are only super reflective just after a launch when they have yet to orient themselves, and that's when those pictures of lines of dots in the sky are taken. But anyways, that's not super relevant to this discussion.

If you look at the tunnel he made, it has none of the safety features that are required to keep people safe. The ventilation is minimal, there are no emergency exits or walkways, there are no stairs, just an elevator.

You do realize a thing called the fire code exists, right? And that it mandates safety features like emergency exits and stairs to keep people safe? Do you have any actual information about ventilation in the tunnel? You really think there are no stairs, seriously? This is some serious FUD here.

And the primary reason that tunnel was cheaper, is because it had a smaller diameter. What new innovations did Elon Musk come up with to reduce tunneling cost other than declaring it so?

Did he automate the TBM? Because TBM's are already very streamlined.

Did he make it easier to get property easements? Did he make the construction of stations cheaper?

The answer is all NO.

I'll admit, I don't know if he's made it cheaper, and I don't have any evidence for it other than what Musk has stated. But to be fair, I don't think you don't have any evidence for your stance either. And given Elon Musk's track record, I wouldn't doubt at least some cost savings were found.

And when I say ignore what he says, I mean ignoring his hype. Ignore what he says about supporting public transit when he proposes that he'll allow pedestrians and cyclists to board Loop vehicles.
Focus on the fact that he sells cars. This is all a marketing gimmick. He'll never seriously try to implement the Loop at scale.

Look at the Vegas people mover. Musk dug those tunnels, and tried to create a people mover with only Teslas. However, because of his insistence that people be transported in Teslas and not a bus, the system doesn't meet the spec of 4000 people per direction per hour.

The Boring Company has admitted to the LV Fire Department that it can only move 1200 people ppdh

Why? Because the Boring Company exists as a marketing gimmick to sell Tesla cars.

If you think it's a gimmick, that's fine. If it never works then there is no effect on society or cities, positive or negative.

And tbh, I'm not sure if Loop will ever become a huge thing either, since it's just a random side project to Musk.

And as for the capacity.. they could just replace the Teslas with larger vehicles, you know. But the contract was awarded May 2019, and you can't exactly develop a new vehicle and get it approved that quickly.

I think safety, logistics and costs are issues because these things make any Loop system uneconomical.

If it's uneconomical, that's fine. That's Musk's problem, not anyone else's.

And even though the Boring Company is a private corporation, it affects the general public. It will affect the general public if this system (somehow) comes to life and then a malfunction 20m down causes a tunnel fire, killing 1000 people in the Loop system.

Now this is just FUD. 1000 people? Seriously?
Do you really think Elon Musk is stupid enough to build something like that?
And besides, the same argument could be had for subway tunnels, or airplanes, or passenger ships.

 

[sche]

This already exists, it's called running a train and doing transit oriented development around stops.


We don't have to doom the poor to 90 min bus rides.

We can invest in bus lanes so that bus rides are faster.

We can invest in bike infrastructure so that people can ride their bikes to work or the nearest train stop.

We can invest in density so people can walk to work.

Investing in underground highway lanes won't solve traffic. Just like adding lanes to an existing highway doesn't solve traffic.

Traffic is solved by people getting around using anything other than a car, i.e. the single most inefficient mode of transportation.

You wouldn't have to construct an expensive loop system if you invested in literally any other form of transportation other than cars.

The Loop is trying to solve the problem the wrong way, instead of creating more space for cars (the most space inefficient mode of transportation) we should be creating more space for more efficient modes of transportation.

View attachment 302343

Yes, we can do all of those things, and I fully support doing all of those things.

But, if we are tendering out a public transport project, and the Boring Company offers a compelling bid, why should we reject it? Because it's 'different'? Because it utilizes car technology? If it meets the requirements, and has a compelling price, why not? And if there is a more compelling bid, no one is saying we have to choose to build Musk's Loop.

Or even better, if Elon Musk decides to build or expand a Loop system using their own money, why would we oppose it? It's free infrastructure.

Generally, yes, cars are bad, and incredibly so. But once we start getting autonomous shared electric vehicles, we will find out that they are a lot more efficient and a lot less bad than private ICE vehicles. Still less efficient and worse than good public transit paired with dense neighborhoods and walking/cycling, but the reality is, cars exist, car-oriented suburbia exist, and they will continue to exist. It will probably never be economically feasible to connect these areas with traditional public transit competitive with the car, and it will take a very very long time to densify and rebuild these areas; it might never happen everywhere simply due to the sheer size of the existing built-up area, and the sheer number of people that would need to be added to increase density everywhere to decent levels (although I 100% support any and all efforts to densify existing neighborhoods for obvious reasons).

For suburb to suburb trips (i.e. most trips in North America), the distances involved are too long and the last mile problem at both ends add too much time and inconvenience to any journey via traditional public transit. Even if we imagine every suburban arterial having TTC level bus service with dedicated bus lanes and signal priority, I doubt people would commute via bus from Brampton to Markham, for example. For these journeys, a system like Loop with shared vehicles of decent capacity (maybe 8-12 people) will probably be a good compromise - fast enough to cover long distances in the suburbs, with no stops, not super high capacity but higher capacity than a road, and also potentially travels the last mile. Using smaller vehicles is more suitable for low density areas, where there are less potential riders per unit area - it's hard to fill a large vehicle without slowing down the journey with an excessive number of stops in a low density area.

 

[afransen]

This already exists, it's called running a train and doing transit oriented development around stops.

Ah, you missed to critical word: profitably.

 

[MrGoose]

Ah, you missed to critical word: profitably.

If running a train through a tunnel with 1000 riders isn't profitable, then what makes you think that running a car through a tunnel with 3 people on it will be?

 

[MrGoose]

Seriously, I'm not a 'fanboy' or anything like that. I just find these assertions ridiculous. And, nobody is saying we should 'rely' on Musk to build public transit or anything. I literally said it's the government's problem, not private corporations' problem. If Loop becomes a thing, then great, we have more transportation options, if not, who cares.

You do realize a thing called the fire code exists, right? And that it mandates safety features like emergency exits and stairs to keep people safe? Do you have any actual information about ventilation in the tunnel? You really think there are no stairs, seriously? This is some serious FUD here.

Yea and what makes you think that the cheaper Boring Company tunnels will adhere to the fire code?

Look at this video. There are no fire suppression systems, no emergency walkway, no sprinklers etc. The only ventilation is a blower fan in the entrance.

Its a tunnel with a guideway that a Tesla drives through. A full tunnel would have more lights, a walkway, emergency exits etc.

I'll admit, I don't know if he's made it cheaper, and I don't have any evidence for it other than what Musk has stated. But to be fair, I don't think you don't have any evidence for your stance either. And given Elon Musk's track record, I wouldn't doubt at least some cost savings were found.

The Boring Company is making the assertion that their tunnels will be constructed cheaper than existing TBMs. It is up to them to prove that cost savings were found and for them to show how they did it.

I don't assume hyper competence on the part of tech corporations.

In doing your work for you I went to their FAQ

They give a few ways of improving speed

1. Surface launch
- Not practical in an urban area because where are you going to find the space to do this

2. Continuous Mining (installing precast segments simultaneously with mining)
- Maybe this would work in soft soils where you don't need pressure against the rock to mine it, but obviously you can't just grind rock away with a traditional mining head.

3. Increasing TBM power
- Maybe this would work in soft soils again, but the way a TBM works is that giant hydraulic jacks push up against the rock so that cutter heads can break the rock up and carry it away

4. Eliminating Rail
- Honestly, how much faster can this get?
- Also a TBM machine tunnel is basically the ideal location for a rail system, theres only 1 end point so otherwise you'd be wearing a path into the lining.

They also give a few ways of reducing costs

1. Vertical integration (making everything in house)
- Not going to give 10 fold reductions in price

2. Reducing and Standardizing Tunnel Diameter
- Tunnel Diameters are already largely standardized. Usually about 20 feet. Also there aren't so many TBM's built that standardization of parts is necessary. Each TBM is basically a custom machine because of local rock conditions.

3. Repurposing Dirt: (Turning Dirt into Bricks?)
- Again, rock != dirt and we already do this
UTILISING EXCAVATED ROCK MATERIAL FROM TUNNEL BORING MACHINES (TBMS) FOR CONCRETE
Tunnel rock recycling: Wikipedia

4. Using All Electric Tunneling Equipment
- As though existing TBMs weren't running on electricity and their incredibly high power draws didn't require custom infrastructure anyways.
Feeding the Monster

So, what does this show us? The Boring Company is full of shit. There are no innovations making drilling revolutionarily faster (2-5x faster), maybe an incremental improvement (2-5%) faster.

There are no significant cost reductions aside from reducing diameter.

So overall, there is nothing backing up their claims of significant cost reductions.

If you think it's a gimmick, that's fine. If it never works then there is no effect on society or cities, positive or negative.

And tbh, I'm not sure if Loop will ever become a huge thing either, since it's just a random side project to Musk.

And as for the capacity.. they could just replace the Teslas with larger vehicles, you know. But the contract was awarded May 2019, and you can't exactly develop a new vehicle and get it approved that quickly.

You can buy a vehicle off the shelf to fit in the tunnels. It's called a bus.

If it's uneconomical, that's fine. That's Musk's problem, not anyone else's.

Now this is just FUD. 1000 people? Seriously?
Do you really think Elon Musk is stupid enough to build something like that?
And besides, the same argument could be had for subway tunnels, or airplanes, or passenger ships.

Yea sure. Tunnel fires are incredibly deadly. If the loop is operating on 2 second headways and the cars are moving at 100kmph and the car in front of you catches fire, then you are getting into a pileup underground. The smoke and fire will choke out other people in the tunnel without proper ventilation.

If you let Musk build these tunnels without regulations in the name of "letting a private business do what they want", then absolutely people will die if something goes wrong.

 

[MrGoose]

Yes, we can do all of those things, and I fully support doing all of those things.

But, if we are tendering out a public transport project, and the Boring Company offers a compelling bid, why should we reject it? Because it's 'different'? Because it utilizes car technology? If it meets the requirements, and has a compelling price, why not? And if there is a more compelling bid, no one is saying we have to choose to build Musk's Loop.

Because the bid is likely shit.

Compare what they say on their web site vs what they told the fire department

basically the passenger stations have a capacity of 100 people per 7.5 min = 800 people per hour.

Generally, yes, cars are bad, and incredibly so. But once we start getting autonomous shared electric vehicles, we will find out that they are a lot more efficient and a lot less bad than private ICE vehicles. Still less efficient and worse than good public transit paired with dense neighborhoods and walking/cycling, but the reality is, cars exist, car-oriented suburbia exist, and they will continue to exist. It will probably never be economically feasible to connect these areas with traditional public transit competitive with the car, and it will take a very very long time to densify and rebuild these areas; it might never happen everywhere simply due to the sheer size of the existing built-up area, and the sheer number of people that would need to be added to increase density everywhere to decent levels (although I 100% support any and all efforts to densify existing neighborhoods for obvious reasons).

They can be densified very quickly with zoning changes. Furthermore investments in bike infrastructure can make Toronto much more friendly to bikes, increasing the amount of people that will take a bike to work or the nearest train station.

For suburb to suburb trips (i.e. most trips in North America), the distances involved are too long and the last mile problem at both ends add too much time and inconvenience to any journey via traditional public transit. Even if we imagine every suburban arterial having TTC level bus service with dedicated bus lanes and signal priority, I doubt people would commute via bus from Brampton to Markham, for example. For these journeys, a system like Loop with shared vehicles of decent capacity (maybe 8-12 people) will probably be a good compromise - fast enough to cover long distances in the suburbs, with no stops, not super high capacity but higher capacity than a road, and also potentially travels the last mile. Using smaller vehicles is more suitable for low density areas, where there are less potential riders per unit area - it's hard to fill a large vehicle without slowing down the journey with an excessive number of stops in a low density area.

How many people commute from Brampton to Markham??

And if you read back, you'll see that I advocate for auto-shuttles to solve that last mile problem. Other potential solutions to the last mile problem include, increasing density around stations and encouraging bike infrastructure.

Why have Loop? If you have bus lanes, then have the shuttles drive on the bus lanes on the surface.

 

[afransen]

If running a train through a tunnel with 1000 riders isn't profitable, then what makes you think that running a car through a tunnel with 3 people on it will be?

If the train costs $500M/km, and the smaller tunnel costs $25M/km that may play a role in the economics. What happens when you don't have 1000 passengers to move? Only densest areas get service?

 

[afransen]

If you let Musk build these tunnels without regulations in the name of "letting a private business do what they want", then absolutely people will die if something goes wrong.

I don't know where you get this idea that they're building tunnels that don't comply with building regulations. It's all permitted and inspected!

 

[afransen]

And if you read back, you'll see that I advocate for auto-shuttles to solve that last mile problem. Other potential solutions to the last mile problem include, increasing density around stations and encouraging bike infrastructure.

Why have Loop? If you have bus lanes, then have the shuttles drive on the bus lanes on the surface.

If you read back, you'll see a discussion of why AVs are not a panacea for surface congestion. I also strongly support the use of bikes and building our cities in a more transit oriented fashion. However, that is going to be a century long project to fix our cities.

Better people have bet against Musk and been humbled. By all means, criticize him but don't expect others to automatically buy into it. Particularly when he is doing something with his own resources, not taxpayers'. There is a lot of room for legitimate criticism for Musk's approach, but some of the irrational hatred for him blinds people to what he is actually doing. Thunderf00t did multi-part video series about how the Vegas project is a disaster. TF demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what the whole point of the project is. Of course a 1 mi tunnel is of dubious use as a transit system--this is a test bed, funded by Musk out of his personal fortune and if it fails to deliver, the LVCC is out basically nothing. Worst case, fill the system back in with sand.

 

[afransen]

How many people commute from Brampton to Markham??

Uhm, literally thousands. Probably in the tens of thousands. You're kidding, right?

 

[nfitz]

Uhm, literally thousands. Probably in the tens of thousands. You're kidding, right?

Surely they must be. Or have never driven the 407 in rush hour ... an expressway that literally goes from Brampton to Markham - and is a lot less busy west of Brampton and east of Markham!

 

[north-of-anything]

If the train costs $500M/km, and the smaller tunnel costs $25M/km that may play a role in the economics. What happens when you don't have 1000 passengers to move? Only densest areas get service?

When you don't have 1000 passengers to move, you use surface transit. Maybe elevated. But you don't dig tunnels that long for less than 1000 people!

 

[afransen]

When you don't have 1000 passengers to move, you use surface transit. Maybe elevated. But you don't dig tunnels that long for less than 1000 people!

It honestly depends on how much the tunnel costs. Tunnels can provide speeds that impossible on the surface in a city, and that is without Musk's fanciful visions of 250kmph cars in his tunnels. Even travelling fairly directly without stops at 80-100kph blows the doors off any other urban transportation short of helicopters (and possibly eVTOLs that are actively being developed). Of course, it should be possible to travel that fast or faster without significantly increasing risk (250 kph is just too risky IMO in the event of any kind of mechanical issue).