3 ms·

The LVCC Loop is bi-directional – it has two tunnels, one for each direction. I'd say the main reason routing is less of an issue for the loop is not because it

The LVCC Loop is bi-directional – it has two tunnels, one for each direction. I'd say the main reason routing is less of an issue for the loop is not because it is "leisure" (strange phrasing, the LVCC Loop is also public transit) but because it is an underground tunnel, which is kinda the point – tunnels have significantly less issues with routing assuming you can get the digging cost to be much cheaper than status quo, which is the purpose of TBC (and so far I'd say they have demonstrated significant progress in this goal). Definitely agree that a high-speed rail project and an electric car ferry tunnel project are not apples-to-apples comparable, my point is rather that even if you want to call TBC projects "boondoggles" (which again I struggle to see how that is the case even in isolation), the idea that you'd call them boondoggles in the presence of municipal infrastructure projects like CAHSR betrays incredible prejudice (or myopia) on the part of the author.

dambi0 2y ago
I stand corrected on the directional nature. By routing I mean that the choice of destinations for the first phase at least is less constrained than what would it’s possible with a high-speed rail project connecting existing cities. Leisure isn’t the best phrase I agree but for example there is a difference between the ridership of the San Francisco cable car versus the buses and light rail of the Muni. I am not saying that people do not commute on the cable car but I would expect the vast proportion of riders are not commuters. I’m but sure how else to phrase that. By and large I don’t know that have any disagreement with ether the original comment or the reply. I agree completely that we have to be careful when comparing a high-speed rail project to the Las Vegas loop. Whatever your opinion of the former
- fastball 2y ago
  The Vegas loop is also connecting existing infrastructure, not sure why that would be less constrained in terms of destination than any other public transit project. Again though, the reason I was comparing the two is because The Boring Company delivered what they promised on budget and in 15mo, which to me sounds like a success story, not one of the "worst municipal infrastructure boondoggles in recent years", especially when compared to CAHSR which is about a decade behind and $80B (or 250%) over budget (so far). This in turn is why, in my judgement, the response posted by the davidw is not a "good take".
  - dambi0 2y ago
    Are the costs for the loop based on phase one or do they also include the planned extensions of the system? How many different land owners were involved in this phase? How well does the loop integrate with existing public transport infrastructure?
    - fastball 2y ago
      The loop is being extended as we speak, I'd expect more stations to open up in the next few months. Not sure how much existing public transport infrastructure Las Vegas has, but I would expect connecting anything available would be desirable for everyone involved. To my knowledge a lot of the stations are being paid for by casinos/hotels who want to be connected to the network. I assume if the city of LV wants further connection points, TBC will be happy for to build those too.
  - davidw 2y ago
    It's really an apples to kiwis comparison. The California project is certainly worth studying for how far off the rails it's gone, but the LV stuff is a toy project that's not really going to solve any real transportation problems long term. Where it's really at in terms of learning how we could do better is to study places like Spain that are building the Madrid metro as well as long distance, high speed trains for relatively low prices. It's a thorny problem and it's not just "stuff costs less in Spain in general". But what we'll get is more of this huckster selling us flashy stuff and not delivering, as well as California continuing to not deliver either.
    - fastball 2y ago
      > more of this huckster selling us flashy stuff and not delivering But... the LVCC loop has literally been delivered? They are continuing to build it out and more stations will be opened in the very near future. You might want to take a step back and ask if bias is clouding your judgement at all.
      - davidw 2y ago

dambi0 2y ago

I stand corrected on the directional nature. By routing I mean that the choice of destinations for the first phase at least is less constrained than what would it’s possible with a high-speed rail project connecting existing cities. Leisure isn’t the best phrase I agree but for example there is a difference between the ridership of the San Francisco cable car versus the buses and light rail of the Muni. I am not saying that people do not commute on the cable car but I would expect the vast proportion of riders are not commuters. I’m but sure how else to phrase that. By and large I don’t know that have any disagreement with ether the original comment or the reply. I agree completely that we have to be careful when comparing a high-speed rail project to the Las Vegas loop. Whatever your opinion of the former

fastball 2y ago
The Vegas loop is also connecting existing infrastructure, not sure why that would be less constrained in terms of destination than any other public transit project. Again though, the reason I was comparing the two is because The Boring Company delivered what they promised on budget and in 15mo, which to me sounds like a success story, not one of the "worst municipal infrastructure boondoggles in recent years", especially when compared to CAHSR which is about a decade behind and $80B (or 250%) over budget (so far). This in turn is why, in my judgement, the response posted by the davidw is not a "good take".
- dambi0 2y ago
  Are the costs for the loop based on phase one or do they also include the planned extensions of the system? How many different land owners were involved in this phase? How well does the loop integrate with existing public transport infrastructure?
  - fastball 2y ago
    The loop is being extended as we speak, I'd expect more stations to open up in the next few months. Not sure how much existing public transport infrastructure Las Vegas has, but I would expect connecting anything available would be desirable for everyone involved. To my knowledge a lot of the stations are being paid for by casinos/hotels who want to be connected to the network. I assume if the city of LV wants further connection points, TBC will be happy for to build those too.
- davidw 2y ago
  It's really an apples to kiwis comparison. The California project is certainly worth studying for how far off the rails it's gone, but the LV stuff is a toy project that's not really going to solve any real transportation problems long term. Where it's really at in terms of learning how we could do better is to study places like Spain that are building the Madrid metro as well as long distance, high speed trains for relatively low prices. It's a thorny problem and it's not just "stuff costs less in Spain in general". But what we'll get is more of this huckster selling us flashy stuff and not delivering, as well as California continuing to not deliver either.
  - fastball 2y ago
    > more of this huckster selling us flashy stuff and not delivering But... the LVCC loop has literally been delivered? They are continuing to build it out and more stations will be opened in the very near future. You might want to take a step back and ask if bias is clouding your judgement at all.
    - davidw 2y ago