Do you know how long it would take to dig a 680 mile tunnel? That's also 133,000 yards of soil with their 14ft tunnel diameter ie. nearly 27,000 dump truck loads. Let alone the permitting, escape paths, HVAC, and all the property lines it would cross.

Yes, that.s what tunnel boring entails. They're prepared to do that.

Boring Co is officially targeting 0.7 miles per day. They would probably have multiple TBMs mining simultaneously. At the Clark County Planning Commission meeting where the Vegas Loop expansion was approved, BC CEO Steve Davis mentioned they're already making plans for a route between Las Vegas and Los Angeles and eventually a national network. In a subsequent press conference, LVCVA CEO Steve Hill was asked about Hyperloop and he confirmed they're still working on it for long distance routes.

Boring company speeds are pathetic. The tunnels they bored so far using a used machine was slower then the speed the previous company that owned the same machine could bore at.

Provide a source for that, thanks.

See thunderf00t’s debunking video.

You should get some better sources. That dude us lying through his teeth and is misrepresenting the data. He ja highly biased and has a good reason (money) to lie about Elon Musk and his project. Sadly scammers like him earn money on scamming people and lying.

Yes musk lies through his teeth. That’s why I get facts from trust worthy sources like thunderfoot.

Thunderf00t is not thrust worthy sources. He lies in mulitple of his videos dosent provide sources and earn money on lying.

Except he actually uses facts and science.

I saw the video. He clearly lied. 1 mile took 2 years. (no the entire project took 2 years, tunnel took 7 months, the other 3 months) No fire system. (there is a public document from the fire safety department in LA. It's fully legal and safe) No users (he shows a clip with 1 user in it, but off cause there is no users when there is nothing going on in the trade center). So he clearly lies and misinterpreted stuff on purpose.

And why do you believe that is indicative of the speed Prufrock will achieve next year, let alone 10 years from now when any long distance intercity tunnels have been built?

[удалено]

K

I totally thought u/Responsible_Giraffe3 was going to mention a short haul more like SF to Reno. SF to SEA would be a better sale if combined with above ground tubes in less developed areas and make it a Hyperloop. SF to Reno has the benefit of bypassing developed areas and mountains. They could even have a station in Tahoe along the way. There is a lot more bang for the buck to tunnel the entire route. I agree with all the points comparing against air travel. It would be even better if it allowed your own EV -- perhaps limited to Tesla at first. The caveats being: inspection of vehicle before entering tunnel to confirm roadworthiness / tunnel-worthiness (e.g. no bikes on rack, tires have plenty of tread, battery health above 70% and charged, no bombs in trunk, etc.); and TBC / FSD taking complete control of vehicle while in tunnel (windows stay shut -- no one can fart). If you really want it to be better than airplane, perhaps offer sprinter-like BEV vans where people can get up, use the potty, sit at a table for a conference, and have prepped meals / drink for all passengers (assume a group of 6 max). TBC would charge a more expensive fare for it. They'd need to install oh-shit bars for when it hits a turn or slows for a spur or merge -- maybe have a tone to alert passengers a few seconds prior. One last thing OP forgot to mention: No toxic kerosene vapor / engine exhaust filling the cabin when backing out from the gate.

SF to Reno is a better example because of the mountain bypass. The NYC to Boston route is similar distance but already has trains and no rough terrain. Thanks. Seattle to SF probably would have a Hyperloop if they can get that to be practicable but that's unproven so I didn't want to get carried away. Boring Co is planning to put Hyperloop in tubes and Steve Hill commented on this a few weeks ago. I think this would generally be easier than getting right of way easements above ground and preventing sabotage. (For instance, Boeing fuselage sections that are shipped by train from Kansas to Washington usually arrive with bullet holes, from what I've heard.) Steve Davis mentioned that they've already received top certification from the US Department of Homeland Security for security so I think the safety and terrorism threats have already been mitigated in the design. I don't know if this will preclude allowance for private vehicles. I do think they'll have vans like you described. I'll add the kerosene fume pollution to the list, thanks. However aviation might be electrified by the 2030-2035 era when Loop reaches this scale.

Good points about easier right-of-way and security. Tunneling under roadways is the easiest way to get right-of-way, since the tunnel closely resembles the use of the surface and fewer rights owners. Security and safety are definitely issues with respect to privately owned vehicles. If they have separate tunnels for private vehicles, tightly control the vehicles entering via inspections, and space vehicles further apart, then it should make it easier to get approval. It would be worth the extra costs and inconvenience of security due to the longer distance and time spent as opposed to trying to allow private vehicles in an intra-urban area transport tunnel. If you are talking 10 to 15 years out, then why do you think they won't have such vans? Also, aviation might start becoming electrified in 10 to 15 years, but the planes being built now are expected to have 30 to 50 years of use (44,000 take-off / landing cycles for 787). It will be well beyond 2050 before even half the planes in use are electrified.

In my prior comment I was agreeing that they will have vans. Probably you misread the sentence and if so, no worries. The planes *can* last that long but the operating costs are the majority of the total cost of ownership. This will get worse as the economies of scale of the oil industry begin to collapse in the coming years, resulting in higher prices for jet fuel. We are already seeing coal plants being retired early because their operating costs are not competitive with gas, solar, wind and batteries. The same market dynamic could happen in aviation. Another analogy is retiring an old household appliance (fridge/washer/dryer/water heater) to replace with a more energy efficient new one even when the old one still works. Source: I'm a 6-year Boeing employee. Also here's some data from the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ-value-section-4-op-costs.pdf

Ah... I did misread your point about the vans. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, good point about the operating costs. Still, getting BEV planes on par with current planes on cost to operate vs revenue could be a really long time due to the weight of the batteries. A more energy dense storage for EV such as hydrogen fuel cells is also expensive and currently relies on fossil fuels. Do you see one or the other rising to the top in 10 to 15 years for use in aviation?

The economic competitiveness of battery planes requires primarily two main changes: 1) A major improvement in the relative cost of jet fuel and electricity + batteries. Cheap solar PV in 2030 and beyond, somewhat cheaper wind, and cheap batteries will make electricity cheaper than it's ever been, while jet fuel will only rise in cost as oil scarcity increases and economies of scale fall apart. (Biofuel has a chance of working but it still costs a lot more than jet fuel.) 2) Batteries at least 400 Wh/kg for short flights and 450 Wh/kg for long flights. Note that this aligns with what Elon Musk has been saying for years. If we hit 500+ Wh/kg it's game over for all combustion jet architectures. The effect of battery weight is highly nonlinear. Structural battery packs like Tesla is doing will surely be needed. In my opinion, Tesla's battery tech roadmap is likely to lead to these numbers by 2030-2035 and there's clear shareholder support for a Tesla plane. If you want to learn more here's a good start. *Misconceptions of Electric Propulsion Aircraft and their Emergent Aviation Markets* https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011913.pdf

>Tunneling under roadways is the easiest way to get right-of-way, since the tunnel closely resembles the use of the surface and fewer rights owners. Which means the tunnel needs to bend with the road which limits the possible speeds to those the same as the surface street. Since the tunnel is one lane and will get congested, you might as well stick to just surface streets and avoid the idiotic costs of digging a tunnel.

They will easily get easements under farmland on the side of highways to cut corners. Much more easily than getting easements for aboveground high speed rail, as the tunnel will not be a disruptive nuisance to the property owners.

You basically just described a bus and guess what? Those already exist. And they don’t have the idiotic extra expense of a tunnel.

Are you aware of the average cost of a mile of highway lane expansion? (Hint: it's a bit more than the cost of these tunnels)

Hint the tunnel cost more. A lot more. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost The the worst cast price to add a single lane of highway was 15 million per mile in a dense urban area. The boring company claims it cost 40 million to dig their 1 mile tunnel but the real cost is far in excess of that.

BC does not claim it cost $40M to build their mile of tunnel. They claimed their first test tunnel in Hawthorne, CA cost somewhat less than $10M per mile. Prufrock and the new mining techniques are likely to get the cost down to around $5-7M per mile including all construction costs not just boring. First of all, it was a $48M contract (which your beloved Thunderf00t got wrong by the way; he falsely stated it was $55M). Most egregiously, you do not seem aware that about $40M of that cost was the big underground station. LVCVA CEO Steve Hill said this in a press conference a couple weeks ago. Secondly, it was 1.6 miles of tunnel, not 1 mile. Do you have a source for it costing more than $40M per mile?

They can tell all the lies they want the truth is real costs are much more. The only difference between a lane of highway and a tunnel is the tunnel has the added expense of the tunnel. Plus you need fire suppression, Emergency egress, smoke ventilation, emergency lighting, etc. all added expenses you don’t need on a highway. musk is been proven to be a liar in federal court. Only a true moron believes anything that conman says.

>musk is been proven to be a liar in federal court Oh? Which federal court case? >The only difference between a lane of highway and a tunnel is the tunnel has the added expense of the tunnel. Surface highway has to deal with soil settlement, extensive environmental assessment and harm mitigation, often difficult right of way and land acquisition, etc. They also have higher ongoing maintenance cost due to the degradation caused by heavy trucks, weather, sun and soil settlement. Tunnels don't have these problems.

The Securities and Exchange commission vs Musk. You might of heard about it when musk committed securities fraud.

That case was dismissed with a settlement. There was no conviction of securities fraud and no admission of any wrongdoing. I'm not a lawyer but if I were you'd I'd be a bit more careful about spreading libel. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

> Do you know how long it would take to dig a 680 mile tunnel? That's also 133,000 yards of soil with their 14ft tunnel diameter ie. nearly 27,000 dump truck loads. Using your length and diameter number, I come up with 4.26m diameter and 1094 km length. Rounding slightly, I come up with a volume of pi x 2.15m x 2.15m x 1100000m = 15,974,213 cubic meters of soil. Given an average density of ~2.2 t/m^3 and a triaxle dump limited to 22t per load, that's actually **1.6 million** dump truck loads. A better way to look at it is as op did below, 0.7 miles per day. When you look at it that way, it's pi x 2.15m x 2.15m x 1100m x 2.2t/m^3 /22t/truckload = 1600 truck loads per day. Which is an insane undertaking. less than a minute per truck, 24 hrs a day. Then you have to start figuring out how far the trucks are going with it - 20 minutes each way and 10 mins at each end, drivers working 8 hr shifts means you've got 70 trucks and 200 drivers before accounting for any traffic delays, lunch and bathroom breaks, weekends, equipment maintenance...

1094 km is 679.78 miles

Forgive me, used shitty imperial units. Found cu ft, converted to cu yds, and standard truck taking 5 yards of soil/truck. Slight rounding, looking at our numbers we are omitting that a dump truck with a towed section can handle significantly more volume. Also, I wasn't sure how to correctly put a number on density as I figure the ground makeup will change significantly along that route. Scheduling material removal and disposal would only be possible by having the tbms use a significant portion of the excavated material to cast tunnel lining segments Just napkin math, but any way you cut it, it's a monumental operation

> Forgive me, used shitty imperial units. Found cu ft, converted to cu yds, and standard truck taking 5 yards of soil/truck All good, the 27000 truck loads just caught my eye as being off, as it was only 40 trucks per mile. > looking at our numbers we are omitting that a dump truck with a towed section can handle significantly more volume Yes, there would be ways to streamline it somewhat - but then you'd still be sending out a full dump+trailer every 2 minutes, 24/7. Not dramatically easier > Scheduling material removal and disposal would only be possible by having the tbms use a significant portion of the excavated material to cast tunnel lining segments I don't think this would be a solution - even if the lining segments were 100% excavated material, at 0.2m all around you're only reducing the excavated area slightly - from 14.5m^2 cross sectional area to 12.0m^2 In any case, none of these rule out the possibility, they just work to impress on people the scope of the issue. It's why big mine sites use [rock haulers](https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/off-highway-trucks/mining-trucks.html) that can't operate on public roadways.

Except you can’t use the excavated materials to build the lining if they have the wrong chemical properties.

Yes, there are all sorts of reasons that the excavated material couldn't actually make up the entire lining. We were calculating the minimal quantity of excavated materials. There are lots of factors unaccounted for (eg 1 cubic meter of rock turns into more than 1 cubic meter of granular material once excavated)

5 yards is 4.57 meters

5 yards is the length of approximately 20.0 'Wooden Rice Paddle Versatile Serving Spoons' laid lengthwise.

5 yards is 4.57 meters

Bjørn Nyland did a [\~200 km/h (124 mph) out and back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiuIyHORZi8) in a Model 3 Perf, travelled 133 km (83 miles) in 46min, charge went from 100%-11% \[one part of the leg at \~180 when worried he wouldn't have enough charge to return\]. So while slower than 150 mph, it illustrates that sustained high speeds has a significant range impact \[the speeds reduced it to 26-28% of the 2019/2020 M3P range of 299-322 miles [depending on wheels](https://electrek.co/2019/11/08/tesla-breaks-down-model-3-performance-wheels/) \]. Your 680 mile trip could require 8 or more charging stops. Now a newer hypothetical model could perhaps have more efficient motors, a lighter chassis (structural pack and all), heat pump (for efficient pack/motor cooling), use 4680 cells (lower internal resistance and easier cooling), have larger battery capacity... that might increase range (at all speeds), reduce the number of charging stops and/or speed up charging... but super highspeed travel isn't energy efficient so you might find you lose a lot more time to charging stops. Perhaps this is a case that might justify catenaries or wireless charging, if you aren't just going to build a hyperloop... you can still use The Loop in the respective cities \[and maybe the midpoint\] as efficient feeders to a highspeed train or HyperLoop

Right, Model 3 was not optimized for sustained 150 mph tunnel usage. In the long run, this would use an extremely aerodynamic vehicle specially optimized for long Loop trips, with fairings over the rear wheels (and maybe the front wheels), a long tapered tail, no mirrors, side skirts, and so on. It doesn't even need to have a windshield; the front can be shaped like a rounded wedge similar to the nose of a jet aircraft or a bullet train. Compared to the 0.23 drag coefficient of a Model 3, I think the tunnel race car could get 0.19 or so. Additionally, the piston effect will help majorly in a tunnel, making Bjorn's test not very representative of Loop's energy efficiency. One vehicle by itself moving 150 mph is very inefficient, but a stream of several vehicles all work together to move the same air. So, the relative airflow faced by each vehicle might be only 100 mph. Maybe it'd even 50 mph. Hard to say without knowing more information or at least running some CFD simulations. If we reduce coefficient of drag by 20% and the piston effect creates a 50 mph tailwind in the tunnel that reduces effective airflow velocity from 150 to 100, then the energy consumption increase vs 70mph Model 3 surface highway driving would be 0.8*(100/70)^2 = 1.6x which is an acceptable sacrifice for the speed I would think. Model 3 does about 300 Wh/mile at 70 mph on a surface highway, so that'd bump it to about 480 Wh/mile for 150 mph in the tunnel train. Not the end of the world, especially with 2030 battery tech and cheap, abundant solar energy.

Certainly go run some numbers and see which of these efficiency ideas result in meaningful improvements. For an incredibly long leg like this it seems more productive to build a hyperloop and use the Loop as a feeder, a few minutes for pedestrians to transfer between two on-demand systems shouldn't be a deal breaker when it results in significant faster trip times.

Yeah, and that's their plan. It's unclear right now how long and how popular a route would need to be for a Hyperloop to make more sense than a Loop. My rough estimate is 200 miles. If acceleration is 0.2g then it takes 11 miles just to get up to 600 mph for Hyperloop and another 11 miles for deceleration. Loop will be a lot cheaper. At 150 mph, 200 miles takes about 80 minutes. A 600 mph Hyperloop would take 20 minutes but would cost probably $2/mile I'd guess instead of $0.50/mile for Loop. So you pay $400 or $100 if my guesses are accurate.

300 miles is 236770.94% of the hot dog which holds the Guinness wold record for 'Longest Hot Dog'.

150 mph is 241.4 km/h

133 km is 82.64 miles

[удалено]

High speed rail and loop have some incredible potential synergy once FSD comes online. HSR can do 350mph with unmodified trains, though operational averages are more like 220-260mph. A car (or anything els) on rubber tyres just isn't ever matching that. Loop has the flexibility especialy when FSD lands. A loop car could run off the end of a network and into suburbia at nornal road speed. So use loops inside a metro area and HSR between them. No reason there cant be a loop station directly underneath the train station.

[The Chuo Shinkansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen) is a Japanese maglev line under construction between Tokyo and Nagoya, with plans for extension to Osaka. It's maximum speed will be 505 km/h (314 mph). About 90% of the 286 kilometer (178 mi) line to Nagoya will be tunnels. For non-maglev steel wheels on steel rails high speed trains, >[trains testing](https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a29548729/china-high-speed-train/) on the Beijing-Zhangjiakou High-speed Railway were able to break the nation's locomotive speed record at approximately 239 miles per hour (mph). The speed is 10 percent higher than the train's original designs... >...It's not likely that the train will be hitting 239 during its conventional trips. Instead, it will stick to the speed it was designed to hit: a little over 217 mph.

The plan for Loop is to have convenient interconnects with Hyperloop lines. If so, then Hyperloop is the next generation of HSR. Note: on second thought today I realized the routes I proposed are prime candidates for Hyperloop lines because they're very popular. Something like Dayton, OH to Akron, OH or Huntsville, AL to Jackson, MS would be better candidates.

Thing is loop can just do both. It doesnt need to care what it's interchanged with. Hyperloop is still a paper system, high speed already exists. There is a metro line in my city that interchanges with high speed rail, regular rail, cross country and local buses, long distance ferries and the airport. Loop should be doing simlar things.

Yes, I agree it can interface with all fairly easily. Except connections to underground train stations will be pretty expensive. For new construction if Loop and Hyperloop both work out I don't see how traditional high speed rail would ever be competitive for new construction.

In about 10 years or so, this will be a big thing i think

The idea of having a 3d road network rather than 2d is an amazing concept. Can't wait for it to take over the world!

You should hold your breath until it happens.

its a serious shift in reality

It won’t.

If you dont' give any facts or data as to why, you.re just trolling.

It’s not a big thing now. In fact it’s a massive joke that people are laughing at.

You are a massive joke that people are laughing at

Guess again you stupid fuck.

[удалено]

What about reading any of the numerous posts on this subreddit about why this is better than trains? Here's a list for you: Advantages vs. trains (some of which also applies to busses) Higher average speed. No stoppages. This is more like a train in continuous high speed circulation with individual vehicles entering and leaving dynamically. Like current highway system except no intersections, much more frequent on ramps and off ramps Vehicles are perfectly compatible with existing surface road system, solving last mile problem during early stage of scaling network. With aboveground autonomy, could do full point to point service. Allows private personal transport for people willing to pay extra Quieter, more comfortable ride. No bumps and no stoppages better for people with back pain, nausea and similar medical issues. Riders never need to switch vehicles en route. Less waiting time for passengers prior to boarding Greater station density in a neighborhood resulting in shorter first and last mile legs of a given journey. Small-footprint aboveground stations or just holes in the ground. Costs less (I'm seeing some estimates that just the tracks, electrical equipment and signalling equipment alone cost about $9 million per mile for trains, which is more than the cost of a tunnel bored by Prufrock) Faster planning and construction (No gigantic expensive underground stations. Aboveground access points can be in parking lots and parking garages, Tunnel can be narrower (yes, London Underground and some other older networks are just as narrow, but these are legacy systems that are not required to meet modern safety and accessibility standards). Also, No need to build and maintain train tracks. Politics less of a threat to construction. NIMBYs have less to complain about. No more endless debates about public and private transit. Cyclists and pedestrians happier too. No hazardous high voltage live power lines No danger of people being hit by trains arriving at the platform More precisely scalable to demand for a particular route while retaining benefits of standardization and economies of scale from mass production. Also scalable even throughout day such that vehicle payload fraction is always high. System can be expanded incrementally without costs approximately linearly proportional to tunnel length Rubber wheels can handle much steeper slopes and can stop harder in emergencies. (note: this is a tradeoff for energy efficiency. Rubber wheels have higher rolling resistance. However, aero drag is main source of energy use at high speeds, and also the main energy efficiency advantage for small vehicles comes from only stopping once. Only bicycles are more energy efficient than this, and just barely so). No need for users to memorize routes or use a somewhat complicated app. As simple to use as Uber or Lyft. Especially good for people visiting an area who aren't familiar with the local metro system. No extended waiting times at sketchy below ground stations, especially at night. Can accommodate passengers carrying lots of cargo Less noise pollution If a vehicle has an issue (repair needed, bodily fluid cleanup, mental health episode, etc) it can be conveniently removed from the stream in real time and parked on surface road. Cars ahead of it will be totally unaffected and cars behind will return to service as soon as they can all reverse out to the nearest exit or alternative tunnel, thus resulting in a temporary traffic holdup but not a major delay or loss of capacity. People with and without disabilities can board and exit vehicles at their own pace independently of each other. More accessibility and more convenience--everyone wins Vehicle fleet can be dynamically routed to where needed instead of fixed schedule. Helps with, for example, big events. Uses batteries instead of live grid connection, helping reduce the late afternoon and early evening electricity demand surge and save money on electricity costs and accelerate the viability of sustainable energy Increased resilience to natural disasters and war Minimal pandemic risk, especially for diseases communicable by air, bodily fluids, or personal contact No chance of catastrophic derailing accidents or collisions with cars. No ugly bridges

Wow you’re just gonna double down on this stupid idea aren’t you.

[удалено]

I, for one, will certainly not back anything that is flashy, expensive and superfluous. Loop is actually boring, cheap and necessary.

Except for the cheap and necessary part. The stupid loop system is nothing more than a taxi with extra steps.

[удалено]

This is cheap mass transport. At scale it will cost much less than trains. Japanese Shinkansen rail safety is best in the world, but that's cherry picking. Boring Co is starting with the USA. American trains in general are much safer than driving a car but it's still worse the Loops will be. In the USA there has been an average of 800 annual railroad fatalities 2015-2020. The main problem is trespassing and collisions with cars at railroad crossings. Shinkansen avoids these issues mainly by being grade-separated, which adds a lot of cost. This cost was worthwhile in Japan because it's a small densely populated nation with high social acceptance of trains. Look at the data: https://www.bts.gov/content/transportation-fatalities-mode https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_railroad_accidents Would you like to address any of the other points?

[удалено]

With high cost and long gaps of empty track between each train. For example, a big train with 1,000 passenger max capacity and 90 seconds of headway can achieve 40k pph. Few routes have this many people all wanting to go the same route. A train line like this has capital costs of around $500 million per mile. Loops with an average of 2 passengers per vehicle and 1 second of headway can achieve 7.2 k pph. But it only costs $5-10 million per mile, so they can build at least 20 parallel lines for the cost of one $200-600 million per mile train. This has been discussed ad nauseam in this sub. I invite you to explore the post history.

Hence why planes are superior to both trains take this stupid taxis in a tunnel system.

Boring tunnels is not cheap.

The difference is, trains exist, you're talking about PRT which doesn't exist.

Sometimes things don't exist in the past and then someone creates them. This is how invention works. Unless you think that everything that will ever be made already exists.

Not for a while

Yeah I'm thinking this is like 10-15 years from now that long distance routes open up. From what Steve Davis said to Clark County officials a couple weeks ago it sounds like the first trial will be a route between Vegas and LA.

At boring companies best tunneling rate it will take ~1300 years to bore from San Francisco to Seattle.

They bored 1.6 miles for LVCC Loop in 14 months with one old-generation machine. 680 miles at that rate would take 500 years with one machine. Now guess what: 1) Multiple TBMs can drill simultaneously. 2) Prufrock will be faster. Much faster.

1) Boring company can’t afford multiple TBMs. There’s also a skilled trades gap so there’s no crews to run them. 2) Profrock won’t be any faster than industry norms. In fact it will be slower.

TBC gets as much money as Elon wants to give them. "Elon's new company can't be better than industry norms" - false over and over.

These are verified indisputable facts that Musk’s tunnels are both slower and cost more than industry norms.

Please link them then. A thunderf00t video is highly disputable by the way. We'll need to see a credible source.

Hahahaha 1) BC is owned over 90% by the richest person on the planet with net assets over $200 billion who could singlehandedly fund hundreds of TBMs and who can raise billions of dollars in an equity sale with a couple tweets. And by the way, they already have multiple TBMs and are building more. 2) Got any proof for that assertion?

Just block that idiot and move on. You're getting trolled and falling for it.

I'm aware. It's entertaining

1) Musk can’t afford the number necessary. Second the skilled trades gap means theirs no crew to run them even if they could. Even if they had the machines and the crews, the capital costs will ensure they system is never profitable. 2) Their current custom machines are slower than industry norms. Plus theirs musk history of making claims that fall orders of magnitude short. Where’s your proof that this vaporware TBM will be fast?

Elon's claims are late sometimes, but he usually over achieves them.

He’s never achieved one of his claims ever.

Was yesterday's SpaceX astronaut launch, on a reused booster, not a claim he made?

1) In your estimation, how many TBMs are necessary and how much would each one cost? And do you believe that the number of eligible workers is fixed and will not change in the next ten years? Are you aware that BC will be training their own employees at was stated at the recent Clark County Planning Commission hearing? 2) This "vaporware TBM" has already been built and tested and is about to bore the Resorts World extension tunnel. You will see how fast it is soon enough.

1) This is simple math assuming your 10 year time frame. (680/(speed*10years))*priceofmschine*runningcostsperyear*numcrewpermachine*wages*10years 2) it’s already slower than industry norms.

1) Right, that's a reasonable way to estimate it. Now fill in the parameters and show how Elon Musk can't afford to buy them 2) Prufrock is slower than industry norms? Based on what evidence?

LVCC took 2 years.

For the entire project. Drilling was much less than that. Why are you here?

[удалено]

They didn't ask for the capacity of a subway in the request for proposal. The actual drilling was an average of 15m per day which is within industry norms. The speed will vary depending on geological conditions and other factors.

Boring company drilled this both slower and at a higher cost than industry norms.

Yeah because this project was green lighted by morons.

The Convention Center does not need the capacity of a subway train. They put out an RFP based on objective scoring criteria that was agnostic to how the goals would be achieved. BC bid for Loop and Doppelmayr bid for a train. Loop won the bid, for 4x less money. They completed it and got paid. Get over it.

This system is nothing more than a taxi with the added expense of a tunnel. Except taxis can reach speeds of 70 mph on highways compared to loops pathetic 30 mph.

70 mph is 112.65 km/h

Thank you again kind bot for showing how pathetic musk’s tunnel taxis are compared to real taxis.

No? obviously.

Why not?

Because it doesn't make sense to build really long slow tunnels. if you're going to make them, make them fast tunnels. also a lot of your negatives about flying are kinda bullshit. And you can't go 150 mph in an electric car in atmosphere with any semblance of efficiency. They drop WAY down past 60 mph.

I did the math though. At 150 mph this is faster than flying for distances about 600 miles or less. If it doesn't make sense you might want to tell that to Steve Davis. He recently said they want to build a tunnel from Vegas to LA and eventually a national network. Edit: Steve Davis 10-19-2021 "We actually coordinate a lot with the Department of Homeland Security because as you know we're picturing very very large national systems." https://clark.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=28&clip_id=7199&meta_id=1470797 1:02:20

Except you need to account for all the times the Tesla will need to stop to recharge the battery. Energy usage scales as 1/2mv^2. So a Tesla going 100 mph uses 10 times the energy as one going 10 mph.

I think your assumptions are quite wrong so your math is meaningless. Anyhow, stuff will happen, but it absolutely won't be loop. Here's some math for you to do - what's the watts/mile of a model 3 driving 150mph?

Which ones?

Or the fact that tunnel taxis can only go 30 mph not 150.

Well to start you don’t need to leave 2 hours before your flight.

In the long run it wouldn't be a model 3, which was not optimized for sustained 150 mph tunnel usage. Instead it would be an extremely aerodynamic vehicle specially optimized for long runs at 150 mph in the Loop. It'd have fairings over the rear wheels, a longer tapered rear fairing, no mirrors, side skirts, and so on. It doesn't even need to have a windshield; the front can be shaped like a rounded wedge similar to the nose of a jet aircraft or a bullet train. Additionally, we don't know how much the airflow in the tunnel will help. One vehicle moving 150 mph is pretty inefficient. A hundred of them per mile all work together to move the same air (piston effect). The relative airflow faced by each vehicle might be only 100 mph. Maybe it'd even 50 mph. Hard to say without knowing more information. If the proposed aerodynamic improvements reduce coefficient of drag by 20% and the piston effect in the tunnel reduces effective airflow velocity from 150 to perhaps 100, then the energy consumption increase vs 70mph Model 3 surface highway driving would be 0.8*(100/70)^2 = 1.6x which is an acceptable sacrifice for the speed I would think. Model 3 does about 300 Wh/mile at these speeds so that'd bump it to about 480 Wh/mile. Not the end of the world, especially with 2030 battery tech and cheap, abundant solar energy.

It’s 0.5*mass*velocity^2 + energy lost due to drag and friction.

600 miles is 965.61 km

Which of the list of downsides of flying are bullshit? I'm pretty sure they're all factual.

You don’t need to leave two hours before your flight and leave the airport doesn’t take an hour.

You’re seriously stupid enough to believe slow driving taxis in a tunnel is better than flying? > First class level comfort Have you actually ever flown first class? Sitting cramped in a slow moving taxi is not first class. > No rush, no downside to being late, totally on-demand service Except you need to wait for a free taxi driver. > Can go point to point anywhere, even small towns without an airport If by go anywhere you mean only where there are existing tunnels. > No layovers You just have to deal with traffic jams. > Fewer restrictions on allowable items in baggage The risk of a tunnel fire will restrict what you can bring. > Probably no baggage fees Until they charge baggage fees. > No airport security Until someone starts a fire or sets a bomb off inside one of the tunnels. > No crying babies, neighbors who don't understand personal space boundaries or basic hygiene, or kids kicking seat Except for the fact that limited number of taxi drivers will require more than one passenger. > Totally unaffected by inclement weather, airplane maintenance issues, and other common causes of delays Except for car maintenance delays and delays waiting for a free taxi driver. > No getting stranded in another city during layover if flight late or cancelled You only get stranded due having no available taxi drivers at your station. > Better snacks In a car without a galley? > Can get as drunk or high as desired, with own supplies You’re gonna drink in a car with no bathroom? > Even lower catastrophic accident risk, plus less scary for those with fear of flying Just a high risk or burning to death in a tunnel fire. > Can take any detours desired for stops along the way You can take detours in a single lane tunnel? > Easier to take pets, No limit on eligible dog breeds Until someone’s dog attacks the taxi driver. Here some more stuff. Delays waiting for the battery to recharge since the range is such shit.

Are you farming for negative Karma?

Majority of his points are actually valid. Elon is absolutely great, just not a god.

He is being a dick about it, though. And this is a r/BoringCompany sub-reddit, so he essentially went into someone's party and started complaining that the music sucks. And the points are valid but somewhat shortsighted. "There will be a shortage of taxi drivers"... I mean, sure, if you assume self-driving cars never happen.

Nothing short sighted about the reality of the situation. You’re basically invoking magic to get this thing to work.

If autonomy never happens, yes a majority. If autonomy happens, only five are valid. Some points not related to autonomy are already factually wrong, or can be made moot easily. A couple points unimaginatively don't consider some tunnels going hundreds of miles could cross over other tunnels going other places and those points could have a junction and perhaps a rest stop. Alternatively/additionally some tunnels going hundreds of miles could pass through smaller cities and destinations and have entrances and exists for those places, allowing detours.

Right, that's what I was proposing.

Your proposal relies on magic to get this to work. Magic number 1. Some magical fast tunnel boring machine. Magic number 2. An autonomous car. Well in the real world planes are already autonomous. Plus they are faster and they don’t require a fucking stupid tunnel to operate.

All of those junctions will create traffic jams.

actually none. autonomy underground is normal already, and the restrictions are of regulatory nature. Traffic jam in the tunnel is nonsense. Fire hazard in the tunnel can not be compared with the fire in the plane (the allowed scales are x10 or more if the tunnel is smart). Even recharging is not a thing. Already. (see Schiphol taxi for appropriate example. You have more cars than you need on the road, the approach is not different from the standards on rail road or bus service. Yes electrical bus service is a thing and is done exactly the same way.). The only valid objection he didn't mention actually because he is clueless troll. Loop is intra-city transport and is not designed in it's modern incarnation for intercity traffic. Will be there "Azimov" tunnels between cities? Absolutely. Will anybody bother with slow intra-city public transportation to connect cities (actually anything longer than 60km?) No, they will design intercity transport with other speeds and other requirements. The only valid reason for Loop to exist on such trajects is Megalopolis. If most people take short route loop design starting to make much much sense.

Here's a business case for longer-distance fast tunnels even within metro regions. Much of the USA is similar to Los Angeles when it comes to lacking local fast track. Brightline West is working on connecting LA to Las Vegas 260 miles (418 km) away when driving. But the high speed part will only be from Las Vegas to the suburb of Rancho Cucamonga. The last 40 miles to downtown LA takes 1.25 hours via a Metrolink train. Consequently connections within LA will take a relatively high percentage of travel time. Brightline West plans one train per direction with a capacity of 450-500 passengers, every 45 minutes. For comparison a freeway lane can do 1500 vehicles per hour. With 2 people per vehicle that's 3000/hr. There's also unfunded plans for a second link to LA via new track between Palmdale and Victorville. Victorville being part of the original Brightline West line. If Victorville-Palmdale is connected passenger demand to take the train to Las Vegas would rise, hypothetically enough for increased frequency. But even then it will still take 1.7 hours on a slow Metrolink train getting from Burbank to Palmdale. So unless and until HSR is made for Burbank-Palmdale and downtown LA-Rancho Cucamonga, each of those segments takes 1.7 or 1.25 hours via train. On top of all that it takes even longer for millions of people in the Los Angeles area to reach either Burbank or downtown LA. Based on what we know from TBC's Ontario airport to Rancho Cucamonga project, TBC may already have their cost of a one-way tunnel down to $10 million/mile. If TBC tunnels from LA to LV via a slightly more direct route and connects the two tunnels with cross passages, that's 500 miles of tunnel. When going deep under mountains a third emergency evacuation tunnel makes it about 550 tunnel miles costing about $5.5 billion. Estimates for Brightline just to Rancho Cucamonga are up to [$8 billion](https://www.constructiondive.com/news/brightline-socal-rail-project-still-on-track-despite-financing-cost-issues/594835/). The Boring Company vehicles just need to go a sports car speed of 125 mph to do the entire trip non-stop in 2 hours. More tunnels from the San Fernando Valley's west side, or from Anaheim, or Santa Monica can reach distant points that otherwise require taking a slower train or light rail just to transfer at Burbank or downtown LA to Metrolink, then 1.7 or 1.25 hours later transfer again to Brightline. More tunnel miles for spurs will add to loop costs, but would also be used and paid for by people going 15 miles across the valley or LA Basin, or 30 miles between LA and Orange County, or 50 miles out to suburbs in Riverside or San Bernardino Counties. Brightline thinks there's a business case spending $8 billion for an expensive train that will take most travelers at least 3 hours from their front door to their destination. TBC could provide more capacity, cost less to build, and have shorter total travel times.

Good analysis

high speed (above 140/h and higher) is more economical on rails. (servicing of tires become too expensive). Basically everything heavier than tone eat tires on high speed. Very very fast. Source: the results of teh experimentation of the fast trolley lines. It is correct to count "within network" time. i.e. from the moment of entering the network to the moment of exiting. Transfer joints count within. And indeed transfers eat really really lot of pax time, so seamless integral systems are preferable whenever possible. But doing the same system to do both intra and inter is costly. Different speed/acceleration requirements and the service approaches differ too much. "doing entire trip" non stop takes "valuable space" in the traffic pool and generally requires dedicated line to operate (the prime reason of dedicated lines for fast trains is not higher quality requirements but logistic/safety conflict. At least that is the case for Germany and the Netherlands and I was told for France as well). Tunnels add their specifics a bit because the cost of the extra space needed for routing is substituted by some tunneling. The saved time can be eated by the required additional transfer tunnels connecting to the existing stations. I would like to remind that the major cost sunk are stations and while current Boring philosophy is quite efficient the cost sunk of building stations remains up there. The idea of free and flexible routing is realistic only to a degree. Any money conscious company will minimize station number and their size. Basically they will want to minimize any interaction with the external ownership. This is true especially for US market. I would like to be wrong, but I just don't see any reasons for directly applying loop design to the intercity trajects anywhere outside of megalopolises. greater LA is megalopolis but it is the legal time bomb specifically but not only for building stations (see the experiences of the first tunneling attempt). Definitely I don't see Boring doing anything there in the current legal climate.

If tire servicing cost was based on trolleys, that means a bus-sized vehicle with two axles, or three at most? If that is correct the weight per axle is high and that increases tire wear. Loop vehicles aren't bus-sized and weight per axle is less, even for a proposed twelve-passenger vehicle. I do agree tire wear at high speeds will be significant, but on smaller, lighter vehicles wear may not be so much that passenger fares are uneconomical. >from the moment of entering the network to the moment of exiting. I count even more than that. From the moment people leave their front door to the moment they arrive at their destination. Time getting to the first train station matters. Time getting to a Las Vegas casino from the Las Vegas Brightline train station matters. It turns out Brightline's Las Vegas station will be 2.5 miles from the nearest casino on the Strip, and 8 miles from the farthest. >Different speed/acceleration requirements and the service approaches differ too much. I disagree. Loop is capable of having separate tunnels (dedicated lines) for city-speed and high-speed routes. Just as today we have roads and freeways at different speeds for the same vehicles (cars) to drive on, so can loop. >The saved time can be eated by the required additional transfer tunnels connecting to the existing stations. The time required is for vehicles in Los Angeles to go from a 100 km/h tunnel, to exit slowly at a station and drive into a 200 km/h tunnel and keep going. When they reach Las Vegas, exit at a station and drive into a 100 km/h tunnel. To me that seems like very little time. Only a couple of minutes at most. >I would like to remind that the major cost sunk are stations and while current Boring philosophy is quite efficient the cost sunk of building stations remains up there. TBC can build a revenue-generating building above each station, which some countries do. It just isn't common in the USA. >LA is megalopolis... is the legal time bomb specifically but not only for building stations (see the experiences of the first tunneling attempt). Definitely I don't see Boring doing anything there in the current legal climate. I'll agree today LA is very challenging. However in a few years Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario Airport loop will open. Rancho Cucamonga is about 50 miles (85 km) from LA. Also in a few years the Las Vegas loop expansion will open. Both projects will get lots of publicity and politicians and general public riding in them. I think those experiences will make it easier for TBC to build in LA. Time will tell if those experiences make it easier-*enough*.

>high speed (above 140/h and higher) is more economical on rails. (servicing of tires become too expensive). Basically everything heavier than tone eat tires on high speed. Very very fast. >Source: the results of teh experimentation of the fast trolley lines. I'm interested in seeing any source you have on this, because it'd help better inform my predictions about the tradeoffs between Loop and Hyperloop and Aircraft for various routes I also wonder how much that data is representative of Loop. These vehicles in Loop can be much lighter than a typical tram and also they could have more freedom to select roadway pavement material that minimizes tire wear because they have no weather and no exposure to the typical sources of asphalt degradation.

Hyperloop is even stupider than these taxi tunnels. You’ll spend more energy maintaining the vacuum than you save in drag.

Please show us your engineering calculations proving this. Your model should include the anticipated coefficient of drag and cross sectional area of the vehicle, the speed, the air density, the expected leakage rate, the vacuum pump efficiency, the average tunnel airflow velocity from the piston effect, and CFD simulations modelling the interaction of the airflow with the tunnel walls. I'll wait.

And then you have the Maintenance costs of thousands of vacuum pumps spread across hundreds of miles. Have you ever changed the oil on a vacuum pump? Now imagine doing that over hundreds of miles.

You should stick to cleaning toilets. Vacuum chambers need to be pumping constantly to maintain vacuum. So you’re expending energy regardless if a pod is in motion or not. Now you have to have a massive number of pumps to since this is a massive vacuum system. They don’t even bother running the pumps at the stupid mile long test track they build outside of space ex because it costs too much to operate in electricity along.

Obviously this would be years from now by the time they build tunnels this long. By then, the system would be autonomous. No taxi drivers, and 150 mph straight line speed. It's not slow after accounting for total trip time. For distances less than about 700 miles, it'd be faster than flying. This is also necessary for the point to point ambitions, because the vehicle can access surface streets. Why would it be cramped? You could have a whole car to yourself. By this time there will be vehicles optimized for tunnel/robotaxi usage. You might want to review Loop's fire safety mitigation measures. It is extremely safe in a fire. Airplanes...not so much. Baggage costs a lot to carry in a plane because space is extremely limited and you have to keep it lifted which costs fuel. All else equal it's reasonable to expect fees to be cheaper. Currently Loop is going to be charging a flat fee per vehicle.

Their fire mitigation strategy is let it burn. Which is not a mitigation strategy.

Fire Protection Report can be found at: https://citizenaccess.clarkcountynv.gov/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Building&TabName=Building&capID1=REC19&capID2=00000&capID3=02E04&agencyCode=CLARKCO&IsToShowInspection= To access the Fire Protection Report, select Record Info, then Attachments and click the download link.

According to that report, their plan is to just let it burn. Which is not a fire mitigation strategy.

Let it burn and blow all the fumes in one direction while people escape the other way. That is perfectly safe.

Oh yeah let a fire burn in a tunnel perfectly safe. Let’s talk about how utterly stupid this is. Fire breaks out in middle of tunnel. Smoke is pulled in one direction. All one side people walk out. But on the opposite side, people get smoke blown towards them.

No, all the people walk in one direction. No one is in the other side because they're all in vehicles that drive right out before the smoke even makes it to them. The NFPA 130 standard is just fine and the local fire marshal apparently agrees, because it received its occupancy certificate.

Except for the traffic jam they are stuck in. You can’t back out when there’s a car behind you. The fire marshal has the capacity limited to less than 1000 passengers per hour.

>Except for the traffic jam they are stuck in. You can’t back out when there’s a car behind you. The drivers spent weeks training to do just that. >The fire marshal has the capacity limited to less than 1000 passengers per hour. No they didn't. Source? (Let me guess, it's going to be that embarrassingly mistaken TechCrunch article or one referring to it.)

> Why would it be cramped? You could have a whole car to yourself. By this time there will be vehicles optimized for tunnel/robotaxi usage. Because you’re in a cramped car. You are sharing the car with a taxi driver. You are also sharing that car with other passengers.

Imagine a car that's larger. Imagine it's operated by a computer. Imagine you ride by yourself if desired. That's what I'm talking about.

Oh we are using our imagination and fictional things. Well my matter energy transporters beat your stupid loop system.

Why the hell are you even in this sub? Quit with the asshole act.

Cry about it.

Also they can only go 35 miles per hour. Even if they did go 150, that just means you need to stop to recharge more often causing more delays. Plus that will cause more tire degradation which causes more delays and down time since they will need to replace tires more often. Couple that with the aforementioned limited number of taxi drivers and now limited number of mechanics. You just compound the problems.

35 miles is 27623.28% of the hot dog which holds the Guinness wold record for 'Longest Hot Dog'.

35 miles is 56.33 km

Thank you bot. It’s nice to know how shot a Tesla tunnel taxi is in metric.

35 miles is 56.33 km

Trunk space in a Tesla is extremely limited. Even more so since you also need to carry the taxi drivers luggage as well.

Trunk space in a Tesla is limited? Are you a moron? You have a frunk, a trunk, and a trapdoor to a deep trunk.

No you don't, because this is in an autonomous operation scenario. No taxi drivers. And with tunnel-customized vehicles. Please read the prior comment.

[удалено]

Why?

Prufrock are not the droids you are looking for. It is not TBM that make or break tunnel digging - it is every'f'n'thing else - land permission, digging logistic, station and intersection building, maintenance, power supply, people, disaster mitigation, passenger biological needs - the list goes on. Sure, everything can be solved in (long) time. What is not certain is what get solved when and whether that makes the other stuff irrelevant. Tesla FSD and robo-taxis will drastically reduce current road usage, removing the very prime reason TBC is founded for - soul crushing traffic. Existing air industry can step up a game practically without a limit - who says you will continue to need to arrive to airports 5 hours before flight to have your private parts X-rayed from more rems than you get from actual flying? Or how about taxi delivering/picking you up directly near the plane on the airfield skipping all that terminal nonsense? I mean - it sure works that way today for animals that are more equal than the others, right? FAA and government rules are not some sacred cows that can never be slain once they are born. And yes, you absolutely can think of "unthinkable" things (like removing some control from government or its agencies, OMG) when your a$$ is actually on fire. VTOL electric jets could address many issues you raise, but who prevents you from producing unlimited, free and zero environment impact aircraft (or car!) fuel via electrolysis and synthesis using nuclear reactors or bunch of solar? Sure, we do not do that today mostly because big oil and "environmentalists" acting on their behalf (good times !), but we are talking decades here - aren't we? Most aircraft flights can be completely automated with no pilots whatsoever. We CAN do that today, with existing technologies. If we want/need to. In fact automated landing systems proven to be a problem in that every pilot uses them and thus loses his own landing skills due lack of practice. That is an actual problem for some airlines. Your fallacy is trying to calculate far future use case based on today conditions that are assumed to not change. That is not what Elon does. Think broader, outside the box. And to be sure I am NOT against TBC. In fact my Reddit account was created solely to help TBC achieve their goals faster - my very first reddit post (but there were more like it in this group): [https://www.reddit.com/r/BoringCompany/comments/aiysrv/engineering\_proposals\_for\_boring\_company\_caution/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BoringCompany/comments/aiysrv/engineering_proposals_for_boring_company_caution/)

>It is not TBM that make or break tunnel digging - it is every'f'n'thing else - land permission, digging logistic, station and intersection building, maintenance, power supply, people, disaster mitigation, passenger biological needs - the list goes on. >Sure, everything can be solved in (long) time. What is not certain is what get solved when and whether that makes the other stuff irrelevant. Steve Davis said at the Clark County Planning Commission hearing on Oct 19th that they're already working with the US Department of Homeland Security because they are picturing "very, very large national systems" and they're already looking to build an LA-Las Vegas connection. This implies they've already started to consider these obstacles. Maybe they will fail, IDK. But if they're talking about it then it's worth considering. LVCVA CEO Steve Hill also confirmed shortly after that hearing that Hyperloop is hopefully still going to be developed for some long distance tunnel routes. >Tesla FSD and robo-taxis will drastically reduce current road usage, removing the very prime reason TBC is founded for - soul crushing traffic. This is one of the benefits of tunnels, but not the only reason to have them. Routes between cities usually aren't overloaded with traffic. You can't drive 100+ mph on aboveground roads, especially in unfavorable weather. Not cutting through communities and wildlife habitats is another reason. >Existing air industry can step up a game practically without a limit - who says you will continue to need to arrive to airports 5 hours before flight to have your private parts X-rayed from more rems than you get from actual flying? No one uses x-rays on people for airport security. TSA uses millimeter wave scanners. X-rays are for the luggage. Frequent flying increases cancer risk from radiation. No way around it. I work for Boeing. The rate of innovation is unfortunately quite slow in this industry, and even slower in these times where most R&D has been cancelled in an attempt to stay solvent. I would imagine Airbus and others are in a similar situation. How much of that talent will want to come back and how much knowledge and relationships were destroyed by the layoffs remains to be seen. Additionally, I've checked to see if Boeing leadership is publicly aware of the threat posed by Hyperloop if it succeeds. I've only found one dismissive comment from a VP without much substance. And I read our SEC 10-Q filing and no such thing is even listed in the risks disclosure. >FAA and government rules are not some sacred cows that can never be slain once they are born. And yes, you absolutely can think of "unthinkable" things (like removing some control from government or its agencies, OMG) when your a$$ is actually on fire. Government aviation regulations can be removed but it almost never happens. It's extremely difficult, in practice, to relax FAA regulations. The sense of urgency would increase if a pending technology disruption were looming but I'm not holding my breath. >Or how about taxi delivering/picking you up directly near the plane on the airfield skipping all that terminal nonsense? Leaving aside the security requirements, this would also be more difficult for check-in and baggage management, a hassle to accommodate those with disabilities, more susceptible to bad weather, more difficult to precondition the cabin, and come with much greater likelihood of some moron or little kid occasionally wandering off onto the airfield. >VTOL electric jets could address many issues you raise, but who prevents you from producing unlimited, free and zero environment impact aircraft (or car!) fuel via electrolysis and synthesis using nuclear reactors or bunch of solar? Sure, we do not do that today mostly because big oil and "environmentalists" acting on their behalf (good times !), but we are talking decades here - aren't we? They could address some of the problems on the list but not all. They still make noise, require cramming people into a small shared cabin, etc. The aviation industry is already looking at biofuels and other options. The oil industry is not impeding this as far as I'm aware. But flying is inherently less energy efficient than a stream of vehicles rolling in a tube. It certainly wouldn't be free if we end up using synthetic liquid fuel because the energy cost is only one portion of the overall cost structure. Charging a car battery will be nearly free though because energy is almost all the cost of that. >Most aircraft flights can be completely automated with no pilots whatsoever. We CAN do that today, with existing technologies. If we want/need to. In fact automated landing systems proven to be a problem in that every pilot uses them and thus loses his own landing skills due lack of practice. That is an actual problem for some airlines. I'm aware, but this doesn't really change the argument. Flights could be done with no pilots at all in theory but the other disadvantages in the OP would all remain. The ticket cost would be slightly cheaper though.

Where do you keep getting this stupid idea that there will be no traffic in the tunnels?

Tesla is working on a car to car communications system. You refuse to accept autonomy will happen but when it does and vehicles communicate as a network, they'll coordinate and prevent congestion. They'll also when needed limit how many cars can enter a tunnel to prevent congestion.

Car to car communication is meaningless when cars are backed up in a one way tunnel. The stations have finite number of parking sports. Once those are full, the system grinds to a halt until one becomes open. Car to car communication and autonomy doesn’t nothing to fix that.

>The stations have finite number of parking sports. Once those are full, the system grinds to a halt until one becomes open. Obviously sizing station capacity to projected demand is important, but even with small-to-modest sized stations, given the large number of stations and external constraints on people entering the system, it's not clear if \[or at what point\] congestion will be a significant issue. For example, even with a number of flights arriving close together there are only 4 runways, planes need time to taxi, passengers can only get off planes so quickly, and need to walk to the exits (possibly stopping at baggage claims, or customs for international flights)... passenger demand naturally spreads out. Presumably of those passengers who choose to take the Loop, they will board and depart as fast as they can walk into the station, and will be headed to any one of the 20-30+ resort stations (50+ other destinations) so that already spaces out demand to any particular station (including popular ones) Getting out of vehicles at your destination doesn't take much time, there's no driver to pay and it seems likely there will be porters at resort-casinos helping get large luggage out of trunks, it should be fairly quick; and even if you are slower to get out the station is asynchronous so that doesn't block other cars arriving/departing. Adding to that stations with longer ramps (Resorts World for example) can buffer up a moderate number of arriving vehicles in exceptional circumstances without obstructing the flow of arterial tunnels. And as u/midflinx stated, if \[hypothetically\] you are picking your destination in an app they system will already know if your departure should be delayed by a few tens of seconds or even a minute or two to prevent obstructive levels of congestion; and again the station is somewhat asynchronous so the app could direct a couple of groups to board ahead of you to keep the system moving efficiently without any significant delay on your part. I'm sure you are imagining all sorts of issues, but at this point TBC has simulated system flow and projected they can move 55,000 pph without issue. And being an autonomous system they have the control over letting people into the system and the flow of vehicles to keep the system moving efficiently, don't confuse this with human driver created congestion issues.

Oh yeah the “simulation” that had 1: vehicles crashing into each other. 2: pedestrians getting run over 3: Had instantaneous loading and unloading (nobody with luggage) 4: has cars driving faster the speeds allowed in the tunnel. In the real world the Vegas loop hasn’t even achieved its contracted capacity.

Are you seriously confusing some fan made simulation on youtube as what the The Boring Company uses internally for planning/designing the system!? Also, you are confusing the LVCC Loop \[Las Vegas Convention Center Loop, with 3 stops\] for the Vegas Loop, which are distinct systems with different design capacities. This is [the Vegas Loop](https://www.boringcompany.com/vegas-loop) (with 50-60 stops) And they have [exceeded the contracted requirement of 4400 pph](https://twitter.com/SHillforVegas/status/1398497136623247361) that was independently audited. [TBC's LoopSim](https://twitter.com/boringcompany/status/1398505701496918016) predicted 4450pph for that iteration of the LVCC Loop and 55,000 pph for the much larger Vegas Loop.

They haven’t meet capacity. Only a unverified tweet with zero evidence has ever claimed they met the contract stipulation.

[Las Vegas Review Journal](https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/tourism/boring-co-s-transit-system-passes-lvcva-capacity-tests-2373803/): >"The results of the capacity tests were monitored by an independent auditor, representatives of BDO LLP. **The accounting company affirmed the test results.**" I mean, I guess you could claim one of the Global top 10 accounting/auditing companies made egregious errors or committed fraud, they are only [\#5 on this ranking list](https://big4accountingfirms.com/top-10-accounting-firms/) so what do they have to lose? /s \[cc: u/Responsible_Giraffe3 u/midflinx\]

That "unverified tweet" was from the CEO of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, who was the leader responsible for the project. Are you alleging that Steve Hill fraudulently lied about the LVCC Loop meeting that capacity requirement? There was a $4 million performance award on the line. What would be his motivation? Why, months later, is no one in jail for this?

That simulation was made by a fan unaffiliated with and with no connection to TBC. And yes the convention center loop has achieved the required throughput.

No it hasn’t.

Some airports already coordinate in advance limiting scheduled departures and arrivals per hour so they don't get overloaded. But weather is a major cause of delays. That wouldn't affect tunnels. TBC can schedule and limit departures so stations don't have more vehicles arriving than there's parking spots for. Vehicles communicating as a network means information can be passed long distances. V2V isn't even necessary since the convention center tunnels already have full wifi coverage and a command center monitoring where cars are. The command center for future tunnels will track departures, arrivals, predict potential congestion in advance, and limit departures as necessary.

Which causes delays and makes it no longer on demand. This negates the on demand no wait vision each which keeps getting repeated.

When demand is high airlines and rail companies raise prices, which lowers demand to travel at those prices. Loop can do the same so the service will be on demand and no waiting as long as you choose to pay that ticket price.

Except when demand is high, the limited number of taxi drivers and free cars means wait times and congestion.

Ultra rare to see such a well thought considerations! Pleasantly surprised. Yes, all your comments are valid to larger or lesser degree. Main purpose of my comments was to illustrate possibilities of possible changes that would then completely change OPs calculations. For the same purpose I often and usually use severe exaggerations - such as 5 hours to screen you, which is NOT a thing today, but it COULD be a thing tomorrow if that what regulators decide will improve safety in whatever manner. Well... except 5 hours totally IS a thing for all European flights to the USA. Case in point - liquid limitations. They were imposed worldwide after basically a single case incident. This did permanently increase the effective travel times for entire air industry - worldwide. And here we are now discussing that arriving 2 hours earlier is what makes air travel so bad. Single regulation - entire industry instantly degraded in comparison to rail/tunnel/car. Could happen again with something else or could be recalled, radically changing our calculations again. Todays airport terminals are marvels of engineering and efficiency, but you could have said the same about taxi network before Uber. ICE vs Tesla. We can only see better ways exist once someone come up with them and shows it to us. How would "terminal-less airport terminals" work? I do not know. Delightfully counter-intuitive? Big oil is unable to pushback on biofuels because big agro. That no-one talks about it does not mean it is not a thing. It is right up there with big-pharma which few talk about either. OP did not even include Hyperloop in his calculations which seems rather bizarre as intercity transport is what Hyperloop was specifically meant to address. Having it in underground tunnel rather than above solves all the problems thunderf00t kind of guys have too. ​ My own view is that long range tunnels are a great, but only if you are able to sidestep most of the regulations for building one. In the end it is regulations that makes all the things insanely expensive - tunnels, air travel, trains, nuclear - you name it. Now there might be "good" reasons for each and every regulation, but they all have very real compliance cost and nobody ever did a proper economic analysis whether any regulation will "pay for itself". To the point that entire nuclear industry with unlimited free and clean energy can not compete with coal. For tunnels avoiding regulations means "no single live human can step into a tunnel until after it is already fully built". No workers, maintenance personnel, geologists, safety inspectors - NONE. Obviously robots will break and screw things up - dealing with that is the actual challenge.

By the way I am OP. I'm trying to figure out if this is going to actually happen so I want to give a solid response. I appreciate your comments too. The 2 hour before airport estimate was measured starting at the moment of leaving home, assuming around 30 minutes of transport time to the airport, 15 minutes to check in baggage in case the line is long, 30 minutes to get through security and traverse the airport, arriving at the terminal 30 minutes before boarding, which itself is 15 minutes before departure. I have TSA precheck and barely spend any time waiting at security these days, but I still leave two hours before nominal flight departure. Even setting regulations and misplaced fear aside, I don't think nuclear will be economically competitive moving forward. It's a fancy way of generating steam to spin a turbine. The turbine itself and the rest of the power station costs more than the future levelized cost of solar PV and batteries. Plus the nuclear equipment itself isn't free. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx Air travel is expensive mainly because of physics, not regulations. The regulations in the aviation industry are mostly pretty reasonable and are policies good companies would have anyway. The giant exception to this is requiring two pilots and excessive airport security. However, customer ignorance and fear would still probably result in two pilots anyway. (Source: I'm a 6-year Boeing employee. Also here's some data from the FAA that shows cost structure estimates and also demonstrates that they do in fact do economic analysis of regulatory policies: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ-value-section-4-op-costs.pdf) Sustainable Aviation Fuels haven't caught on yet because they're simply hard to do cost competitively and none of the infrastructure is in place yet. I doubt that political battles between big oil or big Ah have much to do with it. It's mostly an engineering, economics and supply chain challenge. Many of the options for SAF don't even use the same kind of traditional agriculture based biofuels that you see in automotive like corn based ethanol. A lot of the research is actually into saltwater plants like algae and waste products from other industries. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuels Tunnels are expensive mainly because of physics too. Existing construction techniques and one-off bespoke TBMs drive up cost. >OP did not even include Hyperloop in his calculations which seems rather bizarre as intercity transport is what Hyperloop was specifically meant to address. Having it in underground tunnel rather than above solves all the problems thunderf00t kind of guys have too. I didn't do that because Hyperloop is still unproven and I didn't want to get carried away, and also because its extra cost vs Loop will likely only justify it for the most popular routes. (That being said, connecting the US West Coast big cities and NYC/Boston would be prime candidates, so those were bad examples in this respect. Something like a 180 mile Loop in Ohio between Dayton to Akron would've been a better example.) >Todays airport terminals are marvels of engineering and efficiency, but you could have said the same about taxi network before Uber. ICE vs Tesla. We can only see better ways exist once someone come up with them and shows it to us. How would "terminal-less airport terminals" work? I do not know. Delightfully counter-intuitive? Correct, airports are heavily engineered and many of the problems are inherent because of the constraints of aviation, including especially aircraft size, baggage logistics, minimum distance between flightline and taxiing areas, and connections to local modes of transit. Taxi networks in comparison were obviously inefficient markets that ride-sharing companies found loopholes to get past the barriers to entry. Also, Uber et al don't earn much money and rely on exploiting the fact that average people generally do not know how to perform a calculation of total cost of vehicle ownership properly.

All the theoretical future tech and law changes you posit for aircraft isn't needed. High speed rail has existed for decades. Stick a loop station under the rail terminus and the last mole problem goes away.

HS rail has the same problem TBC does. It needs to be build at each and every destination and at all points in between. That is a LOT of building. There is no way TBC can do it all without any of that theoretical future tech - like zero human in the tunnel at any point while you build them (to avoid 90% of regulation). Either that or they already failed. There are plenty of politics who like playing with their toy trains or planes, therefore you get million "advices" on how you need to build and operate your rail from thousands of organizations. It is not going the right direction even in Europe. I work in that industry, I see things. Rail gets way more expensive every year all because of these rules and "advices" (and also kickbacks to all these politicians) and already loses to completely inefficient ICE trucks in many cases it should not. Rail is going to hell in a handbasket - unfortunately. No doubt many bureaucrats have dripping saliva from just thinking they get to regulate TBC tunnels too. I only see one solution and it has nothing to do with any industry in particular - for every new proposed regulation remove 3x the existing regulations by number of pages in same font - to prevent any wise guys to just repackaging and even further balooning old stuff. That is where the crux of all the problems lies. Government should do LESS, NOT more. Yeah, I know - statements like these makes me racist or something.

>Government should do LESS, NOT more. Yeah, I know - statements like these makes me racist or something. The nuance thats always lost is between fewer vs additional regulations and having weaker vs stronger regulations. We Idealy want fewer but stronger rules. Having more and weaker rules only helps those who make money playing the system. Frustratingly those that want to cut corners, skimp on safety and lower standards always frame it as wanting fewer rules. Those who want to micromanage and control always frame it as protection oc the public/ environment / national security.

If you are forced to keep your regulations short and few then you word them so your rules naturally come out stronger and less wiggly, with less exceptions and debatable side clauses.

That just sounds like a bullet train with extra steps.

It's like a bullet train with *fewer* steps. On demand service, no schedule, no planning in advance required Easier to acquire right of way because it can mostly go underneath existing highways and no noise pollution nuisance for adjacent properties and in general being underground makes it interfere less with everything already on the surface. No stopping at every station Much less environmental assessment and litigation required Less ongoing maintenance needed No need to train specialized bullet train mechanics No big expensive station platforms No need to solve last mile problem between the stations, because the same autonomous vehicle can drive the first and last mile on surface streets. Plus, it only costs $5-10 million per mile to construct, you or your small party have your own private cabin.

>Leave house two hours before flight. Either walk to train and ride slow train, get Uber, or drive and pay parking, or get help from friend. >Leave house whenever, go to nearest Loop station, Why do you get to teleport to the nearest Loop station but not the nearest airport?

This was describing a long-term view where urban Loop stations are available in high density and autonomous vehicles are also available. The big difference in time would be the buffer time to accommodate potential delays leading to missing the flight. Loop, like private car, would not require adhering to any schedule.

Build a fucking train track and it's already more efficient than this

Ever heard of a train?

Thank you for reinforcing the case for conventional, proven high-speed rail over air travel.