4 ms·

That people think a city should ban a company from building underground transit without even letting them try when the alternatives are robustly known to be alm

That people think a city should ban a company from building underground transit without even letting them try when the alternatives are robustly known to be almost literally (if not just literally) too expensive, too slow, and too encumbered to build, is exactly why transit is too expensive, too slow, and too encumbered to build. It shocks me to no end how much people want to shoot themselves in the foot.

jakelazaroff 3y ago
What alternatives are you talking about? We know a subway would be significantly better than what they’re building now.
- rayiner 3y ago
  How much would a 68 mile subway under Vegas cost?
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Probably marginally more than a 68 mile tunnel system for cars?
    - Veedrac 3y ago
      > The US has a range of subway construction costs of $600 million to $2.6 billion per mile. The US median price cluster is $800 million to $1 billion per mile. 68 miles would cost the city around $50B, if past trends hold true. Contra, Vegas Loop is being fully covered by private funds. In defense, one subway mile is likely worth more than one Loop mile.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      A modern 68-mile subway system under Vegas would cost probably $100 billion. LA just expanded its subway system for $1 billion a mile. In comparison, the Boring Company did the 1.7-mile Las Vegas Convention center tunnel for a $47 million fixed price.
ethanbond 3y ago
Really? It seems totally reasonable to think that a failed solution is actually worse than no current solution. For example, are these tunnels going to be an obstacle if the city decides to build a real subway someday? Is a failure here going to destroy public appetite for "similar looking" projects? Can the people behind this project be trusted to build it in such a way that it doesn't become a death trap and strain on emergency services? There are a variety of totally legitimate reasons not to let just anyone try to do something like this.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
Is this an alternative, though. Loops don't provide the same capacity, frequency, or efficiency, of the underground train. For starters, the cost of Tesla vehicles needed to transport the same number of people as a train, with the same life span, would be prohibitively expensive. Another thing is that Tesla tunnels are completely bare, with pretty much zero safety and accessibility measures [0]. Tesla build them in Vegas because it is a dry, mostly stable environment. This would be a complete disaster pretty much anywhere else in the world. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/22/review-of-elon-musks-dc-to-baltimore-loop-system-reveals-safety-concerns/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/22/review-of-elon-musks-dc-to...
- Veedrac 3y ago
  To pick just one point, vis a vis Brandolini's law, > For starters, the cost of Tesla vehicles needed to transport the same number of people as a train, with the same life span, would be prohibitively expensive. Some quick math: > ...the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) plans to spend $3.686 billion in the order. The contract is split into three parts: R211A, R211S, and R211T. The majority of the 535-car base order will comprise 440 R211A cars... $3.686B / 535 cars / 30 seats/car ~ $230k/seat. Of course, you can sardine people into trains more than you can squeeze people into cars, but we've ignored the cost of rail, larger tunnels, and large underground stations needed to run subways, and cars can handle load variance more cheaply than trains, which often run near-empty. And anyway, $3.686B / 535 cars / 240 sardines/car ~ $29k/sardine. If there's an advantage to train cars here, it's not as obvious as you state. Maybe the cost of mass produced road cars is somehow worse, but it's certainly not obviously worse enough to make the project illegal over.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    You ignored the lifespan of a train vs a Tesla vehicle. Maintenance is also a big cost factor. You can run a train for decades with very low maintenance costs, which is just not true for a car fleet. Your average car would suffer from some critical, perhaps non-repairable condition, at 300,000 miles. Train cars last for decades. > Of course, you can sardine people into trains more than you can squeeze people into cars, but we've ignored the cost of rail, larger tunnels, and large underground stations needed to run subways, and cars can handle load variance more cheaply than trains, which often run near-empty. It seems that you are really concerned about personal space, but anyway. "Larger" tunnels and stations are needed for several reasons, one of them being able to handle passenger volume and accessibility. What you are saying is, essentially, that underground train infrastructure is "more expensive" because it is just better: it can handle more passengers, has to comply with safety regulations, and needs to be accessible.

jakelazaroff 3y ago

What alternatives are you talking about? We know a subway would be significantly better than what they’re building now.

rayiner 3y ago
How much would a 68 mile subway under Vegas cost?
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Probably marginally more than a 68 mile tunnel system for cars?
  - Veedrac 3y ago
    > The US has a range of subway construction costs of $600 million to $2.6 billion per mile. The US median price cluster is $800 million to $1 billion per mile. 68 miles would cost the city around $50B, if past trends hold true. Contra, Vegas Loop is being fully covered by private funds. In defense, one subway mile is likely worth more than one Loop mile.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    A modern 68-mile subway system under Vegas would cost probably $100 billion. LA just expanded its subway system for $1 billion a mile. In comparison, the Boring Company did the 1.7-mile Las Vegas Convention center tunnel for a $47 million fixed price.

ethanbond 3y ago

Really? It seems totally reasonable to think that a failed solution is actually worse than no current solution. For example, are these tunnels going to be an obstacle if the city decides to build a real subway someday? Is a failure here going to destroy public appetite for "similar looking" projects? Can the people behind this project be trusted to build it in such a way that it doesn't become a death trap and strain on emergency services? There are a variety of totally legitimate reasons not to let just anyone try to do something like this.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

Is this an alternative, though. Loops don't provide the same capacity, frequency, or efficiency, of the underground train. For starters, the cost of Tesla vehicles needed to transport the same number of people as a train, with the same life span, would be prohibitively expensive. Another thing is that Tesla tunnels are completely bare, with pretty much zero safety and accessibility measures [0]. Tesla build them in Vegas because it is a dry, mostly stable environment. This would be a complete disaster pretty much anywhere else in the world. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/22/review-of-elon-musks-dc-to-baltimore-loop-system-reveals-safety-concerns/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/22/review-of-elon-musks-dc-to...

Veedrac 3y ago
To pick just one point, vis a vis Brandolini's law, > For starters, the cost of Tesla vehicles needed to transport the same number of people as a train, with the same life span, would be prohibitively expensive. Some quick math: > ...the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) plans to spend $3.686 billion in the order. The contract is split into three parts: R211A, R211S, and R211T. The majority of the 535-car base order will comprise 440 R211A cars... $3.686B / 535 cars / 30 seats/car ~ $230k/seat. Of course, you can sardine people into trains more than you can squeeze people into cars, but we've ignored the cost of rail, larger tunnels, and large underground stations needed to run subways, and cars can handle load variance more cheaply than trains, which often run near-empty. And anyway, $3.686B / 535 cars / 240 sardines/car ~ $29k/sardine. If there's an advantage to train cars here, it's not as obvious as you state. Maybe the cost of mass produced road cars is somehow worse, but it's certainly not obviously worse enough to make the project illegal over.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  You ignored the lifespan of a train vs a Tesla vehicle. Maintenance is also a big cost factor. You can run a train for decades with very low maintenance costs, which is just not true for a car fleet. Your average car would suffer from some critical, perhaps non-repairable condition, at 300,000 miles. Train cars last for decades. > Of course, you can sardine people into trains more than you can squeeze people into cars, but we've ignored the cost of rail, larger tunnels, and large underground stations needed to run subways, and cars can handle load variance more cheaply than trains, which often run near-empty. It seems that you are really concerned about personal space, but anyway. "Larger" tunnels and stations are needed for several reasons, one of them being able to handle passenger volume and accessibility. What you are saying is, essentially, that underground train infrastructure is "more expensive" because it is just better: it can handle more passengers, has to comply with safety regulations, and needs to be accessible.