4 ms·

Can you imagine if Clark County and the City of Las Vegas had the creativity to build what the rest of the world calls a Subway? Imagine that, a system that cou

Can you imagine if Clark County and the City of Las Vegas had the creativity to build what the rest of the world calls a Subway? Imagine that, a system that could move 10's of thousands of people efficiently.....

verdverm 3y ago
A few points... By all accounts it is essentially a subway with smaller cars that is more point to point, which would seem to be more efficient. There were proposals, bids, and open reviews. They decided to buy more after seeing the first ones. How's that new subway line going in NYC? Has it finished yet? When I lived there in '08 they were just starting it and last I heard it was not nearing completion, but I ha ent heard in a few years A Tesla owner cannot drive their car into it afaict, so the headline is designed to be click bait This guy is a Boring company nerd and has documented it all in detail: https://youtube.com/@BoringRevolution?si=bk90-9f2xBzCUsUJ https://youtube.com/@BoringRevolution?si=bk90-9f2xBzCUsUJ
- eesmith 3y ago
  > which would seem to be more efficient. Why? More cars per passenger would seem to mean a higher operating cost per passenger as each car needs a full drive train, batteries, sensors, etc. Wouldn't using small cars increase the chance of service interruption? If a vehicle breaks down, then it blocks the tunnel. If there are 5x smaller vehicles and the breakdown rate the same then the tunnel blockage rate is 5x higher with smaller vehicles. Cars needs a minimum separation to prevent crashes in case of problems. With more cars, more of the tunnel length is reserved for separation purposes instead of carrying passengers. Regular subway cars allows people to stand, which increases passenger density. (They also let people roll on suitcases, enter using a wheelchair, push a stroller, etc., which small vehicles do not.) With the lower passenger density inherit in smaller cars mean that station platforms need to be longer and more expensive to build? How many different tunnels do you need for point-to-point service? If you want to go from A to C, do you still go through B and if so, do you need to stop while cars load/unload at B or are there bypass tunnels for each station? I looked at the channel but did not want to watch video upon video to figure out which showed small cars are more efficient.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    You are asking questions that are based on your assumptions. These assumptions are not accurate. One example: > If you want to go from A to C, do you still go through B and if so, do you need to stop while cars load/unload at B or are there bypass tunnels for each station? You are mapping the subway architecture onto a different system. The main lines do not connect directly to the stops, rather each stop has it's own ramps. It's much more like the highway system, where there are on/off ramps at each point, it's just underground to take advantage of space in 3d rather than being limited to the 2d surface constraints.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      Of course I am. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to watch unknown hours of videos to answer my question. As to the topology, sure, that's one approach. It requires many more tunnels, which is more expensive, and acceleration/deceleration lines. I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Why wouldn't that happen here? I've also seen people stopped in the acceleration lane waiting for a gap in traffic. If there are fewer, bigger vehicles each with more passengers then there are more gaps. So you can see why it's not clearly obvious to me that many small cars with point-to-point service is more economical.
      - verdverm 3y ago
        > which is more expensive Is it? What are you basing it on? > It requires many more tunnels Does it? What are you basing this on? Even if more tunnels, is the total volume less, are they simpler and cheaper to create because they are smaller? > I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Backups happen in subways, like all traffic systems. It's something you manage, not eliminate You of course skip the questions about context and the right solution for a city. They had open proposals and review periods and ended up going with the Boring tunnel system. They evaluated in detail and made the choice. If you want to understand their choice, they made it all public The big thing Boring company did was develop their own tunneling machine that is much better than the others out there. This is how they can tunnel faster and cheaper than anyone else, currently. Maybe Vegas made a mistake betting on a new way, but maybe they made a really good call. We'll have to wait and see. When you invest in large scale transportation systems, you plan for many, many decades. These point in time numbers while the system is still being built aren't evidence for success or failure.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > By all accounts it is essentially a subway with smaller cars that is more point to point, which would seem to be more efficient. … Why would that be more efficient? Generally, when you’re trying to eke the last drops of efficiency out of a train system, what you do is use _longer and longer_ trains (this can get slightly silly at the extremes; some train services will actually require passengers to move to a specific set of carriages to get off at certain stations, because the stations can’t accommodate the whole train). Based on their own claims, the system has a peak capacity of 4500/hour. Not per direction (the capacities of train systems are usually quoted per direction); _in total_. 40,000 people per hour is a reasonable capacity for a modern single line fully segregated metro system. 4500/hour would be pretty anemic for a modern _tram_ system. 4500 per hour is a busy single bus route (one 80 person bus a little over every two minutes, two directions); it’s just not really in the conversation as far as metro train lines go. Now, there’s a place for low-capacity transport systems, though I’m not sure why this particular one couldn’t be implemented by just using a bus lane. But something like this simply isn’t competitive with a metro rail line.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    It can be unit wise less efficient while overall more efficient. It's on demand, meaning the system only moves a car when it is needed. It doesn't have to move larger cars on a schedule to ensure availability. Another thing to consider is the context. Does Vegas need to invest in a large scale subway system? Do they have the demand for that? One of the big benefits they saw in Boring is that they could do it piecemeal and I don't think they are paying anything for the system, so the risk for them is quite low. Is there a company that would build and operate a subway system for a city at their own expense?
- ChumpGPT 3y ago
  >How's that new subway line going in NYC? Has it finished yet? When I lived there in '08 they were just starting it and last I heard it was not nearing completion, but I ha ent heard in a few years NYC is boring through solid granite.

verdverm 3y ago

A few points... By all accounts it is essentially a subway with smaller cars that is more point to point, which would seem to be more efficient. There were proposals, bids, and open reviews. They decided to buy more after seeing the first ones. How's that new subway line going in NYC? Has it finished yet? When I lived there in '08 they were just starting it and last I heard it was not nearing completion, but I ha ent heard in a few years A Tesla owner cannot drive their car into it afaict, so the headline is designed to be click bait This guy is a Boring company nerd and has documented it all in detail: https://youtube.com/@BoringRevolution?si=bk90-9f2xBzCUsUJ https://youtube.com/@BoringRevolution?si=bk90-9f2xBzCUsUJ

eesmith 3y ago
> which would seem to be more efficient. Why? More cars per passenger would seem to mean a higher operating cost per passenger as each car needs a full drive train, batteries, sensors, etc. Wouldn't using small cars increase the chance of service interruption? If a vehicle breaks down, then it blocks the tunnel. If there are 5x smaller vehicles and the breakdown rate the same then the tunnel blockage rate is 5x higher with smaller vehicles. Cars needs a minimum separation to prevent crashes in case of problems. With more cars, more of the tunnel length is reserved for separation purposes instead of carrying passengers. Regular subway cars allows people to stand, which increases passenger density. (They also let people roll on suitcases, enter using a wheelchair, push a stroller, etc., which small vehicles do not.) With the lower passenger density inherit in smaller cars mean that station platforms need to be longer and more expensive to build? How many different tunnels do you need for point-to-point service? If you want to go from A to C, do you still go through B and if so, do you need to stop while cars load/unload at B or are there bypass tunnels for each station? I looked at the channel but did not want to watch video upon video to figure out which showed small cars are more efficient.
- verdverm 3y ago
  You are asking questions that are based on your assumptions. These assumptions are not accurate. One example: > If you want to go from A to C, do you still go through B and if so, do you need to stop while cars load/unload at B or are there bypass tunnels for each station? You are mapping the subway architecture onto a different system. The main lines do not connect directly to the stops, rather each stop has it's own ramps. It's much more like the highway system, where there are on/off ramps at each point, it's just underground to take advantage of space in 3d rather than being limited to the 2d surface constraints.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Of course I am. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to watch unknown hours of videos to answer my question. As to the topology, sure, that's one approach. It requires many more tunnels, which is more expensive, and acceleration/deceleration lines. I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Why wouldn't that happen here? I've also seen people stopped in the acceleration lane waiting for a gap in traffic. If there are fewer, bigger vehicles each with more passengers then there are more gaps. So you can see why it's not clearly obvious to me that many small cars with point-to-point service is more economical.
    - verdverm 3y ago
      > which is more expensive Is it? What are you basing it on? > It requires many more tunnels Does it? What are you basing this on? Even if more tunnels, is the total volume less, are they simpler and cheaper to create because they are smaller? > I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Backups happen in subways, like all traffic systems. It's something you manage, not eliminate You of course skip the questions about context and the right solution for a city. They had open proposals and review periods and ended up going with the Boring tunnel system. They evaluated in detail and made the choice. If you want to understand their choice, they made it all public The big thing Boring company did was develop their own tunneling machine that is much better than the others out there. This is how they can tunnel faster and cheaper than anyone else, currently. Maybe Vegas made a mistake betting on a new way, but maybe they made a really good call. We'll have to wait and see. When you invest in large scale transportation systems, you plan for many, many decades. These point in time numbers while the system is still being built aren't evidence for success or failure.
rsynnott 3y ago
> By all accounts it is essentially a subway with smaller cars that is more point to point, which would seem to be more efficient. … Why would that be more efficient? Generally, when you’re trying to eke the last drops of efficiency out of a train system, what you do is use _longer and longer_ trains (this can get slightly silly at the extremes; some train services will actually require passengers to move to a specific set of carriages to get off at certain stations, because the stations can’t accommodate the whole train). Based on their own claims, the system has a peak capacity of 4500/hour. Not per direction (the capacities of train systems are usually quoted per direction); _in total_. 40,000 people per hour is a reasonable capacity for a modern single line fully segregated metro system. 4500/hour would be pretty anemic for a modern _tram_ system. 4500 per hour is a busy single bus route (one 80 person bus a little over every two minutes, two directions); it’s just not really in the conversation as far as metro train lines go. Now, there’s a place for low-capacity transport systems, though I’m not sure why this particular one couldn’t be implemented by just using a bus lane. But something like this simply isn’t competitive with a metro rail line.
- verdverm 3y ago
  It can be unit wise less efficient while overall more efficient. It's on demand, meaning the system only moves a car when it is needed. It doesn't have to move larger cars on a schedule to ensure availability. Another thing to consider is the context. Does Vegas need to invest in a large scale subway system? Do they have the demand for that? One of the big benefits they saw in Boring is that they could do it piecemeal and I don't think they are paying anything for the system, so the risk for them is quite low. Is there a company that would build and operate a subway system for a city at their own expense?
ChumpGPT 3y ago
>How's that new subway line going in NYC? Has it finished yet? When I lived there in '08 they were just starting it and last I heard it was not nearing completion, but I ha ent heard in a few years NYC is boring through solid granite.