3 ms·

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?
  - jcranmer 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. No, I'm claiming to know it based on what they're actually working on, a passing interest in civil engineering projects that's deep enough that I actually read the Environment Impact Statements and construction plans, particularly with regards to mass transit systems. I might not be an accomplished entrepreneur, but you're not going to sell shiny new tunneling technology with a mass transit system that utterly fails at the "mass" part. Elon Musk has also pretty much said on record (well, on Twitter) that he hates trains because he doesn't want to have to be in a crowd of people, which is a good sign that he's interested in seeing the not-mass transit aspect as the major focus and not the tunneling improvements. > That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those? I have commented on them at least three times in this HN three alone. If you can't figure out what those were, here they are: 1. Digging deeper is not a panacea. You have heat dissipation, drainage issues, and especially vertical (people) circulation problems. 2. No one builds tunnels for $1 billion/mi. The tunneling costs do not drive the cost inflation to $1 billion/mi. 3. Smaller diameter bores are nowhere near as much a cost savings as Musk suggests they are. TFA even points this out. There's lots of other stuff, which keeps getting brought up every time there's a thread on this topic. You'd have to have pretty big blinders if you follow the technology to miss the discussions of how many things just don't add up.

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?
- jcranmer 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. No, I'm claiming to know it based on what they're actually working on, a passing interest in civil engineering projects that's deep enough that I actually read the Environment Impact Statements and construction plans, particularly with regards to mass transit systems. I might not be an accomplished entrepreneur, but you're not going to sell shiny new tunneling technology with a mass transit system that utterly fails at the "mass" part. Elon Musk has also pretty much said on record (well, on Twitter) that he hates trains because he doesn't want to have to be in a crowd of people, which is a good sign that he's interested in seeing the not-mass transit aspect as the major focus and not the tunneling improvements. > That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those? I have commented on them at least three times in this HN three alone. If you can't figure out what those were, here they are: 1. Digging deeper is not a panacea. You have heat dissipation, drainage issues, and especially vertical (people) circulation problems. 2. No one builds tunnels for $1 billion/mi. The tunneling costs do not drive the cost inflation to $1 billion/mi. 3. Smaller diameter bores are nowhere near as much a cost savings as Musk suggests they are. TFA even points this out. There's lots of other stuff, which keeps getting brought up every time there's a thread on this topic. You'd have to have pretty big blinders if you follow the technology to miss the discussions of how many things just don't add up.