3 ms·

The current tunnel conforms to NFPA 130, which is intended for passenger rail and mass transit (whether a bunch of passenger cars counts as this is an interesti

The current tunnel conforms to NFPA 130, which is intended for passenger rail and mass transit (whether a bunch of passenger cars counts as this is an interesting question), and is less-stringent than federal vehicle tunnel requirements. Essentially, the key requirements here are that you need to have no more than 2,500 feet (760 meters) between exits and cross-tunnel passages no more than 800 feet (245 meters) apart. In the case of the LV "loop," it's a single tunnel shorter than 2,500 feet, so they basically don't need tunnel egress; having said that, imagine an electrical fire in a crowded tunnel with hundreds of tourists in varying degrees of intoxication trying to get out using narrow, 3-ft passages on either side of the cars. It's ... concerning.

jandrese 3y ago
> narrow, 3-ft passages Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. Doubly so because there are passages on either side so it's 6 feet of walkway. The low maximum capacity of the system also helps in this regard, it will never need to evacuate thousands of people at once. Just the handful that were in the cars at the time. This might change if Tesla changes out the current cars for higher capacity ones, but it doesn't seem like it should be an issue currently.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rmccue 3y ago
  > Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. The standard width for walkways per NFPA 130 is 3.75 ft, so 3 ft is definitely narrower than the US standard. (The European standard (SRT TSI) is 2.6 ft though.)
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Weird take, 3 feet is still quite narrow. at 2ft wide, most people would not be able to walk down it and have to turn sideways, let alone evacuate. The 95th percentile male hasshoulders ~23 in wide, and eblows protrude further.

jandrese 3y ago

> narrow, 3-ft passages Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. Doubly so because there are passages on either side so it's 6 feet of walkway. The low maximum capacity of the system also helps in this regard, it will never need to evacuate thousands of people at once. Just the handful that were in the cars at the time. This might change if Tesla changes out the current cars for higher capacity ones, but it doesn't seem like it should be an issue currently.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rmccue 3y ago
> Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. The standard width for walkways per NFPA 130 is 3.75 ft, so 3 ft is definitely narrower than the US standard. (The European standard (SRT TSI) is 2.6 ft though.)
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Weird take, 3 feet is still quite narrow. at 2ft wide, most people would not be able to walk down it and have to turn sideways, let alone evacuate. The 95th percentile male hasshoulders ~23 in wide, and eblows protrude further.