8 ms·

Question 1: 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 p

Question 1: 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.

hkmurakami 8y ago
This is a pilot. Doesn’t have to be financially viable on its own. Paves way for future projects and proves utility for the community.
- mozumder 8y ago
  It's not anywhere close to self-funding a real public transport system. 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.
  - cloudwalking 8y ago
    If you read further down the page it says this Dodger loop will be their first test track, to replace a previously proposed test track in Sepulveda. It's not meant to make money, it's to prove it works. The money will be made in future systems.
    - Someone 8y ago
      One important property of a test track is that, if things don’t work out as intended, you can take it down for indefinite periods for upgrades or even take it down forever. Test tracks don’t have SLAs. ⇒ what Tesla describes here is not a test track, or at least shouldn’t be.
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? 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?
    - mozumder 8y ago
      I'm saying the numbers are so astronomically off that there is no viable path to profit without public subsidy, for any theoretical future system, big or small.
      - SECProto 8y ago
        Their path to profit is the Chicago airport loop, which is proposed to cost a fair bit more and have much more consistent ridership. This is a pilot project, a technology tester.
        CaptainZapp 8y ago
        There is some disagreement among experts that this project is ever a path to profit, given that the projected construction cost is ridiculously low.[1] [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion-elon-musks-tunnel-to-ohare-would-be-a-miracle/562841/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion...
  - peex 8y ago
    From the looks of it they want to test this system and if it proves to be a viable method of transportation, they will present this to governments and construct it for them. They don't have to run it. They can just make it and sell it.
  - hobofan 8y ago
    > 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. 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. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR
    - mozumder 8y ago
      In the US, "public transportation" means "transportation system owned by the public". This is opposed to "private transportation", which is owned by private entities. All tranport systems are available for use by the general public. Also, the MTR infrastructure is government subsidized.
  - leot 8y ago
    Prior to the destruction of North American light rail systems, a process accelerated by US auto companies (which bought urban rail cos only to then neglect them) public transit companies were entirely private and often entirely capitalized with profits and private investment. Many streetcars used to profitably have two people working on them: one driver and one toll collector. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...]
    - mozumder 8y ago
      This was possible because cities weren't as developed as they are now. Property was cheap back then. 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.
  - roel_v 8y ago
    If this one works, they can do similar projects in places where they can build, own and charge for huge parking garages. Build parking in cheap location, then provide a way for people to get to the location they actually want to br (downtown, stadiums/event centers, airports). If that still makes sense when we have self riding cars - I don't know (probably only for the most high density destinations).
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  I'd prefer they do a pilot out in the desert or something, or from e.g. the tesla megafactory to the nearest bus stop, not under city ground - it'd cause problems (or maybe provide a head start) if the city wants to build a metro there.
  - gnode 8y ago
    They want people to use this, so it makes to do it in a place where there are actually people, and an incentive for those people to choose this form of transport over others, like driving.
    - zie 8y ago
      The same would happen with the Tesla Gigafactory in NV, the closest "city" is sparks(Reno), which is where all the wrokers live. So a link from there to sparks would make sense. The downside is a bunch of that land is all BLM, so it would take dealing with the feds to make it happen, which might be difficult and delay things crazily.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ajmurmann 8y ago
I had the exact same questions. I'm pretty sure the answer to question 1 is hidden in their systems about the originally planned Sepulveda proof of concept tunnel. According to them that one hadn't been planned to take any passengers so it would have been a total loss and poor proof of concept. This tunnel would still be a loss but probably a smaller one and a much better proof of concept and marketing show piece.
spike021 8y ago
Advertisements, perhaps? 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".
almost_usual 8y ago
Dodger Stadium rarely has two events a day. I’m not sure they had a double header at all this year. The number of passengers it’ll transport is like two sections in the stadium. This is a publicity stunt.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Ya for sure. They picked the stadium for their test because they can demonstrate the system for a lot of randos who come to ballgames. It’s not solving any problem, besides getting a few folks home faster.
  - nickonline 8y ago
    > besides getting a few folks home faster. How is that not solving a problem? Isn't this the purpose of undergrounds/metros?
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      Yeah, it gets 5% of people home faster.
      - evfanknitram 8y ago
        Faster, cheaper (than car) and with less emission right? Seems quite good to me.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        tigershark 8y ago
        It seems an awful solution compared to the worst underground line. Modern lines, as I said, can transport more passengers than they move per day in a mere minute... If you add the time to make 3.6 miles probably they will complete the journey in 10-15 minutes.
chrischen 8y ago
They can also buy up and leasu put retail space at stations.
rorosaurus 8y ago
Based on the section mentioning the timing, it indeed sounds like it's intended to be one-way, switching direction after the event starts.
j16sdiz 8y ago
$1 is the cost, not the fare
- Gustomaximus 8y ago
  Ah yes, I see how you can read it either way. Even at $10 a ride under the same assumptions that seems light as I assume something like this would cost 100's of millions upfront and then fairly decent running costs. 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..
- gt_ 8y ago
  Right. The fare is not finalized.
viraptor 8y ago
> So what else is happening to make this financially viable? 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).
VectorLock 8y ago
If I'm understanding this correctly the traffic will be towards Dodgers Stadium before the event, and away from Dodgers Stadium after the start of the event.
skgoa 8y ago
> 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? Elon needs to distract people from Tesla's and his legal trouble.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
a_imho 8y ago
The mined materials worth something perhaps? Also, the article only says the project is privately funded, fares could be subsidized?
tigershark 8y ago
Seriously? 2800 passengers per day? On the Crossrail just two trains can transport more people (3000). And at peak time there will be 2 trains per minute...
- Ntrails 8y ago
  There can't actually be 2 crossrail trains per minute surely? Keeping the tube lines consistently running ~2 minutes apart is barely achieved... Like, I'd be incredibly impressed if they pull it off - I'm just dubious.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    > There can't actually be 2 crossrail trains per minute surely? 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/ 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.
    - tigershark 8y ago
      You are right I didn’t remember correctly. Still 5 minutes to exceed the daily capacity of this loop is a quite good result I think.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
        I would say that crossrail will be much higher capacity than that, since it aims to have 41 stations and London is a big city, so there is potential for the same train to carry one group from Station A to Station D, someone else from station C to Station G, another group to replace the first from station D to station K, etc. Large networks are just more useful than ones with 2 nodes.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    Most subway lines will have peak scheduled throughputs of about 26-30 trains per hour, or a train every 2 minutes or so. The tracks can support more, but it's a good idea to have some schedule slack so you can send more trains through if things go wrong. Moscow's Metro does manage 45TPH, but that is achieved mostly by having a simplified track layout with no revenue branching.

hkmurakami 8y ago

This is a pilot. Doesn’t have to be financially viable on its own. Paves way for future projects and proves utility for the community.

mozumder 8y ago
It's not anywhere close to self-funding a real public transport system. 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.
- cloudwalking 8y ago
  If you read further down the page it says this Dodger loop will be their first test track, to replace a previously proposed test track in Sepulveda. It's not meant to make money, it's to prove it works. The money will be made in future systems.
  - Someone 8y ago
    One important property of a test track is that, if things don’t work out as intended, you can take it down for indefinite periods for upgrades or even take it down forever. Test tracks don’t have SLAs. ⇒ what Tesla describes here is not a test track, or at least shouldn’t be.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? 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?
  - mozumder 8y ago
    I'm saying the numbers are so astronomically off that there is no viable path to profit without public subsidy, for any theoretical future system, big or small.
    - SECProto 8y ago
      Their path to profit is the Chicago airport loop, which is proposed to cost a fair bit more and have much more consistent ridership. This is a pilot project, a technology tester.
      - CaptainZapp 8y ago
        There is some disagreement among experts that this project is ever a path to profit, given that the projected construction cost is ridiculously low.[1] [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion-elon-musks-tunnel-to-ohare-would-be-a-miracle/562841/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion...
- peex 8y ago
  From the looks of it they want to test this system and if it proves to be a viable method of transportation, they will present this to governments and construct it for them. They don't have to run it. They can just make it and sell it.
- hobofan 8y ago
  > 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. 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. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR
  - mozumder 8y ago
    In the US, "public transportation" means "transportation system owned by the public". This is opposed to "private transportation", which is owned by private entities. All tranport systems are available for use by the general public. Also, the MTR infrastructure is government subsidized.
- leot 8y ago
  Prior to the destruction of North American light rail systems, a process accelerated by US auto companies (which bought urban rail cos only to then neglect them) public transit companies were entirely private and often entirely capitalized with profits and private investment. Many streetcars used to profitably have two people working on them: one driver and one toll collector. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...]
  - mozumder 8y ago
    This was possible because cities weren't as developed as they are now. Property was cheap back then. 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.
- roel_v 8y ago
  If this one works, they can do similar projects in places where they can build, own and charge for huge parking garages. Build parking in cheap location, then provide a way for people to get to the location they actually want to br (downtown, stadiums/event centers, airports). If that still makes sense when we have self riding cars - I don't know (probably only for the most high density destinations).
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I'd prefer they do a pilot out in the desert or something, or from e.g. the tesla megafactory to the nearest bus stop, not under city ground - it'd cause problems (or maybe provide a head start) if the city wants to build a metro there.
- gnode 8y ago
  They want people to use this, so it makes to do it in a place where there are actually people, and an incentive for those people to choose this form of transport over others, like driving.
  - zie 8y ago
    The same would happen with the Tesla Gigafactory in NV, the closest "city" is sparks(Reno), which is where all the wrokers live. So a link from there to sparks would make sense. The downside is a bunch of that land is all BLM, so it would take dealing with the feds to make it happen, which might be difficult and delay things crazily.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ajmurmann 8y ago

I had the exact same questions. I'm pretty sure the answer to question 1 is hidden in their systems about the originally planned Sepulveda proof of concept tunnel. According to them that one hadn't been planned to take any passengers so it would have been a total loss and poor proof of concept. This tunnel would still be a loss but probably a smaller one and a much better proof of concept and marketing show piece.

spike021 8y ago

Advertisements, perhaps? 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".

almost_usual 8y ago

Dodger Stadium rarely has two events a day. I’m not sure they had a double header at all this year. The number of passengers it’ll transport is like two sections in the stadium. This is a publicity stunt.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Ya for sure. They picked the stadium for their test because they can demonstrate the system for a lot of randos who come to ballgames. It’s not solving any problem, besides getting a few folks home faster.
- nickonline 8y ago
  > besides getting a few folks home faster. How is that not solving a problem? Isn't this the purpose of undergrounds/metros?
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    Yeah, it gets 5% of people home faster.
    - evfanknitram 8y ago
      Faster, cheaper (than car) and with less emission right? Seems quite good to me.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - tigershark 8y ago
        It seems an awful solution compared to the worst underground line. Modern lines, as I said, can transport more passengers than they move per day in a mere minute... If you add the time to make 3.6 miles probably they will complete the journey in 10-15 minutes.

chrischen 8y ago

They can also buy up and leasu put retail space at stations.

rorosaurus 8y ago

Based on the section mentioning the timing, it indeed sounds like it's intended to be one-way, switching direction after the event starts.

j16sdiz 8y ago

$1 is the cost, not the fare

Gustomaximus 8y ago
Ah yes, I see how you can read it either way. Even at $10 a ride under the same assumptions that seems light as I assume something like this would cost 100's of millions upfront and then fairly decent running costs. 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..
gt_ 8y ago
Right. The fare is not finalized.

viraptor 8y ago

> So what else is happening to make this financially viable? 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).

VectorLock 8y ago

If I'm understanding this correctly the traffic will be towards Dodgers Stadium before the event, and away from Dodgers Stadium after the start of the event.

skgoa 8y ago

> 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? Elon needs to distract people from Tesla's and his legal trouble.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

a_imho 8y ago

The mined materials worth something perhaps? Also, the article only says the project is privately funded, fares could be subsidized?

tigershark 8y ago

Seriously? 2800 passengers per day? On the Crossrail just two trains can transport more people (3000). And at peak time there will be 2 trains per minute...

Ntrails 8y ago
There can't actually be 2 crossrail trains per minute surely? Keeping the tube lines consistently running ~2 minutes apart is barely achieved... Like, I'd be incredibly impressed if they pull it off - I'm just dubious.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  > There can't actually be 2 crossrail trains per minute surely? 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/ 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.
  - tigershark 8y ago
    You are right I didn’t remember correctly. Still 5 minutes to exceed the daily capacity of this loop is a quite good result I think.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
      I would say that crossrail will be much higher capacity than that, since it aims to have 41 stations and London is a big city, so there is potential for the same train to carry one group from Station A to Station D, someone else from station C to Station G, another group to replace the first from station D to station K, etc. Large networks are just more useful than ones with 2 nodes.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  Most subway lines will have peak scheduled throughputs of about 26-30 trains per hour, or a train every 2 minutes or so. The tracks can support more, but it's a good idea to have some schedule slack so you can send more trains through if things go wrong. Moscow's Metro does manage 45TPH, but that is achieved mostly by having a simplified track layout with no revenue branching.