4 ms·
Higher throughput with higher latency. I am not strongly opinionated about tbc, but I've seen many comparisons of Las Vegas loop results compared to bus/train.
by guepe 4y ago
Higher throughput with higher latency.
I am not strongly opinionated about tbc, but I've seen many comparisons of Las Vegas loop results compared to bus/train.
Sure throughput is lower.
But latency is too! And users experience latency first.
It's an interesting trade-off. They hit the target throughput. Its done.
What's not to love on this project?
- rhaway84773 4y agoWhy would there be higher latency? Tokyo, NYC and London all run subway trains during peak hours within 2 mins. That’s almost certainly better than what the Boring loop achieves. And these are subway systems. What you would run would be an autonomous light rail system with 1-2 cabins like you see running in airports all over the world.
- Laaas 4y agoThe latency is likely lower since you don't need to look for parking. Slightly off-topic: The current Tokyo subway system has the unfortunate property that it turns off between midnight (~0) and early morning (~5). The Loop thing wouldn't have this likely, but I don't understand why Tokyo does this, especially for the trains that don't have a driver.
- rippercushions 4y agoMaintenance is far easier when you don't have live trains running. If anything, NYC is an outlier for having 24 hour services, and it shows in their abysmal on-time record.
- rippercushions 4y agoIt's very, very difficult to run trains with headways of under 2 minutes (as in, under two minutes from one train closing doors to the next train closing doors). The record holder is apparently Paris Line 1 at 85 seconds during peak hours, and some lines of the Moscow Metro do 90 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway
- twixfel 4y agoI mean it doesn't scale in the slightest so it doesn't solve any problems really, so there's that. In terms of latency it depends, every decent underground system will have passengers waiting no more than a few minutes. Worst I saw was in Naples where I waited over 15 minutes. 15 was too long, but I'd rather wait a few (<10) minutes to ride a train than wait some amount of time less to ride a Tesla. In fact, I would wait just to avoid riding a Tesla at this point.
- andbberger 4y ago> What's not to love on this project? literally all of it
- cozzyd 4y agoA ski lift would work better.
- xracy 4y agoWhat are the "latency" numbers you're talking about on the LV loop? Like, what is the actual metric you're measuring for that, and what's the value you've been quoted for that measure. If you count time waiting in traffic, I bet trains have better latency...
- VHRanger 4y agoNonsense. If the throughput is lower, the latency is necessarily higher because you'll be waiting on the dock longer for a car to pick you up.
- cycomanic 4y agoWhat do you mean by higher latency? What do you think the latency for the Las Vegas loop would be if it needs to carry 1000 passengers over e.g. 20min? Sure if there's only 5 people waiting it's quicker, but if there is only 5 people wanting to go a certain path, why do we need a tunnel at all? The road would be faster. The whole point to build tunnels is to take away congestion.