> The fact is that a 500 capacity train running at 75-100s headways destroys this system capacitywise. This is like that linked tweet: all assertion, no data.

> The fact is that a 500 capacity train running at 75-100s headways destroys this system capacitywise. This is like that linked tweet: all assertion, no data. What are you using to estimate the theoretical throughput of a Boring Co tunnel system vs Skytrain? Let's debate that. Right now it's all just thin air. Assumptions I'm willing to believe, and thus make me interested in this prototype's viability: 1. Cars need less space in between them. 5-10s gaps seem more than reasonable based on highway driving. This seems especially true since these are operated autonomously in highly controlled environments, meaning we might need even less distance between cars than free-wheeling, human-operated highway driving. 2. Most train stops are useless for most people — maybe 3x stops per ride on average? Having only one stop per ride would dramatically improve average speed, since a smaller percentage would be spent slowing down, speeding up, or waiting at a station. 3. Smaller tunnels are cheaper to dig, meaning dollar-for-dollar you can build more of them to make up any remaining capacity difference.