[MrGoose]

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!

So since the Stats Can website is garbage I had to use the Peel region Data portal to get the commuter flow tables for this specific commute pattern. Convert the .txt file into a .csv file if you want to view it on Excel

Anyways, so this are the columns

So clearly, the volumes of people involved are so low that building a tunnel directly from Brampton to Markham is not worth it.

There aren't even 4000 people who commute from Markham to Brampton.

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!

Well clearly they built a tunnel that doesn't comply with building regulations because people don't actually have to go into it.

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).

Right, and

How are you going to get property easements to build 250 kmph curves underground? How are you going to ensure that passengers don't feel uncomfortable in tighter curves?

How are you going to ensure safety such that if a car breaks down in the tunnel, 7 other cars don't cause a pileup underground. How will people leave the tunnels?

How are you going to ensure that there isn't a giant traffic jam at the tunnel exit? If you're using ramps, how are you going to build the ramps?

How are you going to ensure ventilation across the entire mole-man network? Are you going to turn the ground underneath Toronto into swiss cheese?

How are you going to maintain this network? If you're building it below the water table, you'll have to keep pumps on hand and seal the tunnels.

I'm sure there are some highly paid engineers thinking about this, but the fact is, creating a moleman network under our cities to transport cars is totally uneconomical.

Travelling directly is called an express bus or using the highway

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?

How do you think that Elon Musk is achieving 95% cost reductions? I haven't seen anything that shows how the Boring Company would reduce the cost of tunneling, constructing tunnels, getting property easements etc. I refuted the Boring Company's claims on their website and I don't see anything on your part. Unless you've decided that Musk can speak cost savings into existance.

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?

You build feeder lines with busses,. bike paths, and density around stations

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.

Yea except for the fact that the LVCC loop doesn't even meet the specs that a basic shuttle bus system could've met for 10% of the cost.

 

[sche]

So since the Stats Can website is garbage I had to use the Peel region Data portal to get the commuter flow tables for this specific commute pattern. Convert the .txt file into a .csv file if you want to view it on Excel

Anyways, so this are the columns
View attachment 302479
View attachment 302480
View attachment 302481

So clearly, the volumes of people involved are so low that building a tunnel directly from Brampton to Markham is not worth it.

There aren't even 4000 people who commute from Markham to Brampton.

Well clearly they built a tunnel that doesn't comply with building regulations because people don't actually have to go into it.


Right, and

How are you going to get property easements to build 250 kmph curves underground? How are you going to ensure that passengers don't feel uncomfortable in tighter curves?

How are you going to ensure safety such that if a car breaks down in the tunnel, 7 other cars don't cause a pileup underground. How will people leave the tunnels?

How are you going to ensure that there isn't a giant traffic jam at the tunnel exit? If you're using ramps, how are you going to build the ramps?

How are you going to ensure ventilation across the entire mole-man network? Are you going to turn the ground underneath Toronto into swiss cheese?

How are you going to maintain this network? If you're building it below the water table, you'll have to keep pumps on hand and seal the tunnels.

I'm sure there are some highly paid engineers thinking about this, but the fact is, creating a moleman network under our cities to transport cars is totally uneconomical.

Travelling directly is called an express bus or using the highway


How do you think that Elon Musk is achieving 95% cost reductions? I haven't seen anything that shows how the Boring Company would reduce the cost of tunneling, constructing tunnels, getting property easements etc. I refuted the Boring Company's claims on their website and I don't see anything on your part. Unless you've decided that Musk can speak cost savings into existance.

You build feeder lines with busses,. bike paths, and density around stations


Yea except for the fact that the LVCC loop doesn't even meet the specs that a basic shuttle bus system could've met for 10% of the cost.

I'm actually getting sick of reading and responding to these posts. Like, literally 90% of this is just a bunch of hubristic, sanctimonious, and irrational hatred and FUD. Throwing around these 'technical concerns' and calling it 'uneconomical' is not an argument. If it's technically impossible or uneconomical, then Elon Musk loses his money and nothing else happens.

But Elon Musk is not stupid. He's probably smarter than you (and me). He understands economics, business, engineering, and science better than you and I. Most of the people working at his companies also probably understand business, engineering, and science better than you and I. If Musk decides to put his money into something, and the engineers and employees working there decide to work hours and hours (usually with a lot of overtime) on something, obviously they think it is something that is possible and economical.

 

[MisterF]

One of the reasons that Elon Musk is so fascinating is because he's simultaneously a massive disruptor and a snake oil salesman. On one hand, SpaceX has pioneered new rocket technologies and brought private space flight to the forefront. And while Tesla obviously didn't invent electric cars, it pretty much singlehandedly made them mainstream. Without Tesla the legacy car companies wouldn't be collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars to move towards electric vehicles, and the technology wouldn't be nearly as developed. We'd still be stuck with nothing but inferior compliance cars like the Bolt and Leaf. The fact that the car industry as a whole is waking up to EVs is going to have huge impacts on the oil industry, power generation, air quality, and even geopolitics.

On the other hand, the Boring Company might develop as a premium way for a few to get around, but that model will never be a mass transit system. And hyperloop is a gadgetbahn that will join all the others that have piled up in the dustbin of history, like PRT or that Chinese bus that drives over traffic.

 

[afransen]

like PRT

The Loop system is in essence PRT/GRT. Musk kind of stumbled in that direction without seeming to realize it.

 

[crs1026]

But Elon Musk is not stupid. He's probably smarter than you (and me). He understands economics, business, engineering, and science better than you and I. Most of the people working at his companies also probably understand business, engineering, and science better than you and I. If Musk decides to put his money into something, and the engineers and employees working there decide to work hours and hours (usually with a lot of overtime) on something, obviously they think it is something that is possible and economical.

The whole point of being transformational is, you don’t bat 1000.

Musk definitely hit a home run with Tesla - plenty of missteps and dead ends along the way, but his efforts have disrupted auto design (and even more important battery technology) far more than anyone else. And, so far, the product has resulted in a sustainable corporate entity, that hasn’t had to be liquidated or sold off along the way, as many startups do.

Personally I think the loops/tunnels stuff is a dead end, maybe his ego has gotten ahead of him......but it’s his money, And many are watching, and copying........it will trigger somebody somewhere to do something better.

Howard Hughes was an odd duck. He had his Spruce Goose.... but his aviation accomplishments still stand as valid.

It’s fun to watch, just don’t jump to celebrate too soon.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I really don't get why people think tunnels cannot be built to code in the US. Americans allow billionaires to get away with all kinds of nonsense. Building subpar infrastructure wouldn't be beyond them.

It's telling that all the Boring company ever got as a contract was a short tunnel in a convention center. They can make all kinds of claims to the gullible public. But they clearly aren't having the same success convincing actual municipal and transit authorities elsewhere.

 

[afransen]

It's telling that all the Boring company ever got as a contract was a short tunnel in a convention center.

It's not like they have been trying to sell it for a decade. It's still in development. They may even make a good business for utility tunnels (stormwater, sewer, or utilities).

 

[MrGoose]

I'm actually getting sick of reading and responding to these posts. Like, literally 90% of this is just a bunch of hubristic, sanctimonious, and irrational hatred and FUD. Throwing around these 'technical concerns' and calling it 'uneconomical' is not an argument. If it's technically impossible or uneconomical, then Elon Musk loses his money and nothing else happens.

These technical concerns are the primary reasons why our infrastructure is built the way it is. If you don't address these concerns then it's not getting built. Building infrastructure under a city, designed to move tens of thousands of people a day is a complex, incredibly challenging task. It requires years of planning and construction, along with plans for maintenance and repair throughout the lifespan of the infrastructure's life.

And these technical challenges lead to increased cost and are the reason why our existing projects cost alot.

But Elon Musk is not stupid. He's probably smarter than you (and me).

Smart people make mistakes too.

He understands economics, business, engineering, and science better than you and I. Most of the people working at his companies also probably understand business, engineering, and science better than you and I.

This group of statements is almost certainly not true. Most of Elon Musk's employees are normal smart people, competent yes, but not genius polymaths. They are good at whatever they're specialized in, whether that be marketing or business development or engineering (all the various different sub components).

Elon Musk is not an ubermensch polymath either. He's a businessman, a very good businessman with a vision with some very smart subordinates but he like all of us can be wrong. He's the richest man on Earth and doesn't need you to defend his business practices. He definitely doesn't need you to worship at his feet. Are you sure you're not an Elon Musk fanboi?

If Musk decides to put his money into something, and the engineers and employees working there decide to work hours and hours (usually with a lot of overtime) on something, obviously they think it is something that is possible and economical.

Furthermore, just because Musk puts his money into something does not mean he intends to actually see it through. Again, his primary business is selling cars, and public transit is a threat to his business. So by promoting a scheme that competes with traditional public transit and encourages people to drive the cars that he builds, he is investing in Tesla.

Also just because his employees and engineers work on something, doesn't mean they think it's economical. These people do it because their boss assigned this task to them and their job is to try and find a way for it to work, even if it is actually infeasible. Some might truly believe in whatever they're working on, but most are probably there for a paycheck or to further their careers.

 

[afransen]

And these technical challenges lead to increased cost and are the reason why our existing projects cost alot.

Explain why Madrid can build transit infrastructure so much cheaper than us, then. Are they just not worrying about safety, etc.? I think your attitude is far too complacent about how bad we have gotten at efficiently delivering transit solutions. Letting them be absurdly expensive is another way of denying them altogether. We simply can't afford to deploy them widely.

 

[MrGoose]

Explain why Madrid can build transit infrastructure so much cheaper than us, then. Are they just not worrying about safety, etc.? I think your attitude is far too complacent about how bad we have gotten at efficiently delivering transit solutions. Letting them be absurdly expensive is another way of denying them altogether. We simply can't afford to deploy them widely.

Ok my last response was kinda garbled so I am reformatting it

Madrid/ Spain can do it cheaper than us for a few reasons.

1. They are constantly building, in more ways than one. Because Spanish rail infrastructure projects have been going on continuously for a few years now, crews can stop one project and continue on with the next. In Ontario, our construction is stop-start so we end up having to train crews on how to build rail projects. How to fix this? Build more rail infrastructure projects.

The second part of this is that here, we don't do 24/7 construction. Which further reduces the efficiency because crew have to stop/start every workday as well. To solve this, start constructing around the clock and pass legislation to remove the blockers around this.

2. Different Management of Projects. In North America we use a Design, Bid, Build process, so there is time in between the design process and build process where changes can be introduced and projects killed. Also designs might not take into account what the contractors can physically do. To change this, we can use other methodologies like Design-Build, Integrated Project delivery etc where contractors are more involved.

Also in Spain they allow companies to have a portion of operating revenue, reducing costs that governments have to pay on the front end.

3. Different build types: Using single bore tunnels and deep stations without escalators reduce construction costs of building underground caverns. In addition, our platforms tend to be longer and their fire standards are less stringent than ours. Madrid's soil conditions are easier to dig in than ours (compressed sand vs compressed shale that expands when dug)

Some of these are hard to change because you make tradeoffs in one area relative to another. Cheaper costs but harder for passengers to leave the station.

Steve Munro: What does building a subway cost

According to Hatch Mott MacDonald, if we tried to build a subway in a similar fashion to the way Madrid does, we'd pay about the same as we normally do.

Yea, we've gotten bad at delivering transit solutions. However, the solution is boring and tedious. It's better management practices and changing the way that these things are built. It is not exciting new proposals that only work on paper.

Bad Management is not an excuse to go out and buy shiny FM solutions.

 

[afransen]

Bad Management is not an excuse to go out and buy shiny FM solutions.

We're not buying anything, we're letting Musk play with his own damned money. I would totally understand your position if he were taking a billion dollars from Las Vegas that they would have used to build transit. As it stands, he's gotten a bunch of private businesses to sign up to get connected to his network. The irrational hatred has to stop.

 

[TRONto]

The Ontario government just invested nearly $1 million into self-driving grocery trucks

The Toronto of the future is apparently going to be full of all types of wacky new vehicles, from entire grocery stores on wheels to self-driving t...

www.blogto.com

 

[north-of-anything]

The Ontario government just invested nearly $1 million into self-driving grocery trucks

The Toronto of the future is apparently going to be full of all types of wacky new vehicles, from entire grocery stores on wheels to self-driving t...

www.blogto.com

"The Toronto of the future is apparently going to be full of all types of wacky new vehicles". I know it's BlogTO, but couldn't they have come up with a better, less whimsical way of saying that?

 

[crs1026]

^Not so wacky, but quite an improvement. Two small driverless trucks are a lot safer on narrow city roads that are shared with bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Could lead to a virtual ban on highway size vehicles in the central city... dump trucks, gravel trucks..... Perhaps more expensive to buy two small vehicles than one large, but with no drivers to pay, lots of opportunities to ship one small load every day rather than one large load every two or three days.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

^Not so wacky, but quite an improvement. Two small driverless trucks are a lot safer on narrow city roads that are shared with bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Could lead to a virtual ban on highway size vehicles in the central city... dump trucks, gravel trucks..... Perhaps more expensive to buy two small vehicles than one large, but with no drivers to pay, lots of opportunities to ship one small load every day rather than one large load every two or three days.

- Paul

I don't see larger trucks being eliminated, unless they are banned or the infrastructure not longer designed to accommodate them.