4 ms·

Elon's plan is very expensive and clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity). It's also farcical to prete

by x0x0 8y ago

Elon's plan is very expensive and clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity). It's also farcical to pretend this will happen without enormous piles of public money, both implicit in terms of right of way, and explicit via enormous subsidies. The proposed revenues are a dollar per ride! This thing is an enormous cash fire.

stcredzero 8y ago
clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity) So you're defining "help" == "completely solve." Would you say that a program offering discounts to people who carpool to Dodger's stadium would not help unless it completely solved the problem? Would a gondola going to Dodger's stadium "not help?" It's also farcical to pretend this will happen without enormous piles of public money, both implicit in terms of right of way, and explicit via enormous subsidies. The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation. It's the same overall strategy as was behind SpaceX.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  If our standard is every little bit helps, then how about a midfield helipad? Could probably deliver a dozen spectators and double as pregame entertainment.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Clearly "every little bit helps" is as much of a straw-man as "must completely solve." Replacing a part of the transport for 2500 people, in precisely the part of the trip that is most likely to be congested, using electric vehicles certainly sounds like it would be of more benefit with much reduced carbon footprint and noise pollution than a midfield helipad.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Plus, if you charge enough and supply champagne and caviar, people from the right social class will enjoy it very much.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Take the proceeds from that, and put it to good use.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      You could transport 2500 people for a few thousand bucks using a few buses and setting aside a game-day express lane for those buses. And the best part is, if the East Hollywood/Silverlake trips are popular, you can scale quickly and easily--and even on the fly--by simply using more buses. This is in fact what they already do for Dodgers fans taking public transportation to the game from Union Station.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation. ... I'm not sure I agree. Given that The Boring Company has spent most of its effort on selling its PRT (er, sorry, "Loop", since PRT is apparently so 20th century) technology, and has basically made no attempts to bid for any actual tunneling contracts, it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all. [Citation Needed]
    - pwinnski 8y ago
      The first two-thirds of that sentence was the "citation" for the final third.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Then that is the part that needs citation.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      The Boring Company's own FAQ is a pretty damning citation. There is about one question on tunneling [1]. Most of the page is itself devoted to discussing Loop, and even then, it doesn't actually ask any hard questions, such as how they handle capacity or routing, given that the evidence of earlier such systems (e.g., automated baggage handling; PRT systems) is "this stuff doesn't work well." [1] And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        You're claiming to know the intentions of the Boring Company based on the ordering and number of Frequently Asked Questions? Sorry, but that's not very compelling. And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling. That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those?

by x0x0 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity) So you're defining "help" == "completely solve." Would you say that a program offering discounts to people who carpool to Dodger's stadium would not help unless it completely solved the problem? Would a gondola going to Dodger's stadium "not help?" It's also farcical to pretend this will happen without enormous piles of public money, both implicit in terms of right of way, and explicit via enormous subsidies. The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation. It's the same overall strategy as was behind SpaceX.

tedunangst 8y ago
If our standard is every little bit helps, then how about a midfield helipad? Could probably deliver a dozen spectators and double as pregame entertainment.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Clearly "every little bit helps" is as much of a straw-man as "must completely solve." Replacing a part of the transport for 2500 people, in precisely the part of the trip that is most likely to be congested, using electric vehicles certainly sounds like it would be of more benefit with much reduced carbon footprint and noise pollution than a midfield helipad.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Plus, if you charge enough and supply champagne and caviar, people from the right social class will enjoy it very much.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Take the proceeds from that, and put it to good use.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You could transport 2500 people for a few thousand bucks using a few buses and setting aside a game-day express lane for those buses. And the best part is, if the East Hollywood/Silverlake trips are popular, you can scale quickly and easily--and even on the fly--by simply using more buses. This is in fact what they already do for Dodgers fans taking public transportation to the game from Union Station.
jcranmer 8y ago
> The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation. ... I'm not sure I agree. Given that The Boring Company has spent most of its effort on selling its PRT (er, sorry, "Loop", since PRT is apparently so 20th century) technology, and has basically made no attempts to bid for any actual tunneling contracts, it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all. [Citation Needed]
  - pwinnski 8y ago
    The first two-thirds of that sentence was the "citation" for the final third.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Then that is the part that needs citation.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    The Boring Company's own FAQ is a pretty damning citation. There is about one question on tunneling [1]. Most of the page is itself devoted to discussing Loop, and even then, it doesn't actually ask any hard questions, such as how they handle capacity or routing, given that the evidence of earlier such systems (e.g., automated baggage handling; PRT systems) is "this stuff doesn't work well." [1] And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You're claiming to know the intentions of the Boring Company based on the ordering and number of Frequently Asked Questions? Sorry, but that's not very compelling. And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling. That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those?