2 ms·
I get the tunnels. They are an order of magnitude cheaper (or more) even if they are tiny and single file. You could build 10 of them for the same cost as a re
by mdeeks 4y ago
I get the tunnels.
They are an order of magnitude cheaper (or more) even if they are tiny and single file. You could build 10 of them for the same cost as a regular tunnel and you could do it in less time. Makes sense to me.
I do NOT get the cars.
Self-driving does not work reliably enough today and likely wont for a long time. The Model X is expensive too. Why not some sort of simple rail transport? Maybe cars are cheaper in bulk and easier maintenance? Why not fit them with some kind of guide rail then? You just can't have people driving these things. It's nuts.
- gamblor956 4y agoBuilding 10 smaller tunnels actually costs more than building 1 regular tunnel; Boring Co's own projects in Hawthorne and Vegas demonstrate that on a per-mile basis they're only saving a few pennies on the dollar, and all of that comes from avoiding the things like fire escapes (the Vegas tunnels don't have any mid-tunnel), tunnels smooth enough for the vehicle/train to go through at fast speeds (the Vegas tunnels are so rough that speeds are limited to less than 35 mph), stations big enough to handle meaningful amounts of passenger (the biggest station can handle fewer than 1000 people an hour), high-strength concrete and surfaces for the massive volumes of traffic, etc. In other words, Boring Co tunnels are cheap because they're bargain-basement quality tunnels with limited use and lifespan. And so Vegas is getting what they paid for: a "public transportation" system that has less throughput than a sidewalk.
- netsharc 4y agoWell, if they're already building the tunnel they can just add markers every 10 meters or so, and patch their "self-driving" software to recognize these markers.
- elkos 4y agoWhy they didn't do so in the existing tunnel in Las Vegas?