
Dugout Loop - ot
https://www.boringcompany.com/dugout
======
Gustomaximus
Question 1:

From some key statements;

> The fares are not finalized but will cost around $1.

> it could be possible to increase ridership per game to 2,800 per game

> Between games and events Dugout Loop would transport 250,000 people per
> year.

>The Boring Company. This project will be 100% privately funded and will
require zero taxpayer dollars.

Say we assume full capacity, 2 events a day and travel both ways. With these
metrics the annual revenue is: $4,588,000.

There's no way that covers the investment. So what else is happening to make
this financially viable? maybe private car use of the loop lift at a premium?
stadium co-funding to promote events?

Question 2:

2 of the image look like single line tracks. Are they assuming as its a
stadium that all traffic will go one way, then the other later? 2 tunnels?
There must be something about this...

...Anyway never been to a city where the underground/metro isnt a great way to
get around so keen to see this space develope.

~~~
hkmurakami
This is a pilot. Doesn’t have to be financially viable on its own. Paves way
for future projects and proves utility for the community.

~~~
mozumder
It's not anywhere close to self-funding a real public transport system.

How do they expect to make money as a private enterprise if these are the
numbers they propose?

Public transportation is supposed to lose money, not make it, hence the
"public" part. It's paid for by tax dollars, because it is impossible for
private companies to make money from it.

Even the private rail systems around the world are largely subsidized pubicly
during construction, with only operations being privatized.

~~~
leot
Prior to the destruction of North American light rail systems, a process
accelerated by US auto companies (which bought urban rail cos only to then
neglect them) public transit companies were entirely private and often
entirely capitalized with profits and private investment. Many streetcars used
to profitably have two people working on them: one driver and one toll
collector.

[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)]

~~~
mozumder
This was possible because cities weren't as developed as they are now.
Property was cheap back then.

These days, the major expense of building a mass transit system is just buying
property. And in cities, these properties are going to be already developed.

Right now, there are individual buildings in US cities that cost over
$1billion, so grade-separated ground rail is not going to happen for cheap.
That only leaves tunneling, which also isn't cheap.

------
andrei_says_
I love the Q&A format; the writing is excellent: clear, elegant, to the point.

I wish I could see similar writing on more company/project websites.

As for the project itself, I have zero interest in being a consumer in the
sports industrial complex so I’m questioning if this is the best route from
the perspective of the city’s needs.

------
apsec112
If you're going to do all the work to tunnel under LA, why not just build a
conventional subway? A conventional subway would carry orders of magnitude
more people - 250,000 people a year is a few percent of the traffic that even
a lightly used subway line carries.

~~~
rorosaurus
It seems like they've chosen to not lay power lines down the length, which
simplifies some things and allows them to reduce the tunnel size. But limits
their drivetrains to only short bursts of use before needing to be recharged.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
They are, however, laying power lines to have illumination of the entire
tunnel. Seems more like they're doing batteries because that's something they
have already, not because it's the optimal solution.

~~~
mikeyouse
The lines to power LEDs over a few miles are several orders of magnitude
cheaper than lines and infrastructure capable of delivering power to a Subway
car. The LA Metro runs on 750V DC.. the transmission and
switching/transforming for that amount of power isnt cheap.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
You'll have to switch/transform/transmit exactly the same (or bigger) amount
of power for charging batteries with this solution. And you'll definitely have
more electricity losses when you have to go through a battery.

~~~
mikeyouse
But you can centralize that technology at the terminals instead of burying /
waterproofing extremely thick cables for miles and miles.

There's no doubt it will be less efficient, especially since the cars are
carrying their batteries but the whole point of this is to cut CapEx by 90+%
and eliminating miles of power lines is an important part of that effort.

It's a lower level of importance over this 3 mile trip, but it's not uncommon
for power upgrades/maintenance to be a multi hundred million dollar Annual
outlay for large transit systems.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
OTOH you are forgetting about the CapEx of the batteries, which looks to be in
the ballpark of $1M-$10M depending on number of "skates" etc. That's $1M per
mile of track (order of magnitude), which is the same as what METRANS
estimates is the cost of retrofitting a third rail on existing rail track. As
a rule of thumb, retrofits are significantly more expensive per mile, so I'd
say odds are better than even the batteries are more expensive than a third
rail.

A well-executed new metro line development, like the MetroSur line in Madrid,
runs at around $60M per mile total cost including everything, all the
construction and the trains and the stations and property rights.

If you want to improve on that by 90%+, you can't afford much more than just
the batteries and the "skates" for this Dugout line.

------
NuclearFishin
One question I couldn't see answered in the FAQ is what happens if one of the
electric skates breaks down?

Given each of the skates is independently driven, the chance of failure would
be magnified by N, for N skates within a tunnel. Seems like failures could be
quite common and would affect the entire tunnel?

~~~
indecisive_user
How is that problem any different than other single track transportations
(subway, train, trolley)?

~~~
NuclearFishin
Perhaps it's not, but my gut feel is that those other systems mitigate failure
by using a smaller number of large, reliable and expensive carriages. Whereas
this system is going for a large number of smaller, cheaper(?) skates. It just
feels like it's more susceptible to failure?

~~~
VectorLock
Design the skates so that one can push another at reduced speeds. Bang, built
in redundancy.

~~~
trainmew
How will the skates know that the one in front of it has broken down and need
to be pushed? Especially when it's operating at 120mph?

~~~
trainmew
Yes, I know that. That now means you need a way for the skates to communicate
with each other and maintain a safe distance from each other before they
collide and obviously slower speeds. That bare concrete tunnel is now longer
bare since you will need communication access points, fibre cables for
redundancy, etc.

~~~
VectorLock
They're going to be running cables for lights. Its not much of a stretch to
put in communication cabling as well.

It makes sense to have the skateboards fully connected as part of their
'autonomy.'

------
schiffern
> 2,800 per game or event (5% of Stadium capacity)

Why not use bus-size vehicles? Assuming the same speed and following distance,
moving from 16 to 80 passengers would increase system capacity by 5x, meaning
four stations could serve 100% of Dodger Stadium capacity (vs 20).

This part of their plan never made sense to me.

~~~
Iv
> The electric skates are based around the Tesla Model X platform and are
> propelled by multiple electric motors.

I guess they needed to demonstrate that they have a working tech in-house for
this first iteration. I am sure that if it is successful, they can make plans
to improve the skates' capacity but it makes sense that they make minimal
commitments while Tesla doesn't have a larger model.

~~~
schiffern
So this is best understood as a breadboard for some later, Tesla Semi-derived
system? Interesting take.

------
trainmew
I don't get it. How does this improve on the underground subway? I'm
unconvinced that making the tunnels smaller means that the construction costs
will be significantly cheaper and faster. Further, the electric skates make no
sense from an operational or RAMS perspective:

1\. They're smaller so you need a lot of them, which means wear and tear =
possibility of failure is higher;

2\. They're inefficient in terms of energy use (gotta charge those batteries
first) vs third rail that supplies continuous redundant power;

3\. How are the electric skates driven? Autonomous? If they're relying on
cameras to do autonomous driving, any disruption in the tunnel lighting will
kill them all dead.

4\. Lighting those tunnels continuously will not be cheap.

5\. If the electric skates are driven independently, how will others behind
know if one has broken down in front?

6\. How do you maintain headway if the electric skates don't know positions of
those in front of them? How do you make sure they don't collide if all you
have is a camera?

7\. Emphasis on average speed is weird, no passenger actually cares about the
average speed of the carriages carrying them, only the frequency between those
carriages that they can get onto to get to their final destination.

8\. How do those electric skates know they've reached their destination and
open the doors for passengers to get off? The illustration shows tightly
packed electric skates. Do they travel up the loop lifts and then exit? How
will these loop lifts be operated?

This doesn't seem any different from a regular subway, only smaller tunnels,
and smaller carriages carrying passengers, without any rail and other wayside
equipment. Why not a battery-electric bus?

~~~
txcwpalpha
>How does this improve on the underground subway?

It's cheaper.

>I'm unconvinced that making the tunnels smaller means that the construction
costs will be significantly cheaper and faster.

It's not just about the tunnels being smaller - it's also about the fact that
the dugout tunnel is a simple tunnel lined with basic concrete and some
lighting elements. It doesn't require the same, expensive stuff that a subway
tunnel requires, like train tracks, high-voltage electrical systems to power
the train, etc.

The stations also make a big impact - the fact that the dugout vehicles are
small and can take an elevator to the surface, where the 'station' is, means
that you can avoid the very costly construction of a huge underground train
platform.

>4\. Lighting those tunnels continuously will not be cheap.

A string (even a long one) of high-intensity LED lights doesn't require much
electricity. The costs of lighting the tunnel is probably one of the least
costly parts of this whole project.

>5\. If the electric skates are driven independently, how will others behind
know if one has broken down in front?

>6\. How do you maintain headway if the electric skates don't know positions
of those in front of them? How do you make sure they don't collide if all you
have is a camera?

Just guessing here, but if it's a closed system and you have control over all
the vehicles in it, then it won't be difficult to have the vehicles talk to
each other (or a centralized hub) to be aware of each vehicle's locations and
any breakdowns that occur (similar to how current metro systems monitor train
locations and breakdowns).

>8\. How do those electric skates know they've reached their destination and
open the doors for passengers to get off? The illustration shows tightly
packed electric skates. Do they travel up the loop lifts and then exit? How
will these loop lifts be operated?

The vehicles being able to know how to get to the station and open their doors
is probably not really a concern. This is already done in automated subway
systems all over the world. It's not hard to have the vehicle be smart enough
to drive to a specific 'dock' and then look for a specific trigger to know
when to open its doors. Hell, my $100 roomba can park itself in a similar
manner.

As for the rest of your questions about the skates, my impression is that this
is meant to be a proof-of-concept for cheap, barebones tunnels that self-
powered, self-driving vehicles can use. If successful, I can see it being
scaled up to use vehicles that are more bus- or train-sized (while still
utilizing cheap barebones tunnels) that would help address concerns about
efficiency, rate of failure, throughput, etc.

~~~
trainmew
> It's cheaper.

Not convinced.

> expensive train stuff

Sure, I'll concede it can be cheaper than subways when you remove the tracks,
HV power supply, third rail, wayside equipment, stations and just stick to
concrete.

I still don't think they're significantly more expensive.

> A string (even a long one) of high-intensity LED lights doesn't require much
> electricity. The costs of lighting the tunnel is probably one of the least
> costly parts of this whole project.

Maybe. You will still need redundant power supply and redundant illumination
points if you're planning to use the self-driving tech with cameras.

> then it won't be difficult to have the vehicles talk to each other (or a
> centralized hub)

So then you will need a way for those cars to talk to each other, and
typically that means you will need wayside APs to carry that traffic. Now that
tunnel is not just bare concrete and some lighting elements, you will need to
lay fibre cables, power cables, and put up those boxes somewhere for
communication. And oh, you might want to have calibration points on the tunnel
floor so that the skates themselves know where they are, to normalize their
position and report back true accurate positioning.

> The vehicles being able to know how to get to the station and open their
> doors is probably not really a concern. This is already done in automated
> subway systems all over the world. It's not hard to have the vehicle be
> smart enough to drive to a specific 'dock' and then look for a specific
> trigger to know when to open its doors. Hell, my $100 roomba can park itself
> in a similar manner.

You underestimate the amount of engineering work needed to do this safely and
proving that it's safe. Are the lifts open lifts where the skates drive on and
open up their doors? If so, that "marker" will need to be substantially big to
allow for overshoot/undershoot and still be safe to open their doors (think,
pinching, trapping, etc).

If so, the lifts will need to be substantially big to allow for a number of
these skates to ascend and pick up/drop off passengers.

~~~
txcwpalpha
You seem to be really hung up on the ability of the skates to know where they
are. I'm not sure why.

There's no indication that the skates would rely on lighting whatsoever to be
able to function. Existing cars on the market already ship with sonic- or
LIDAR-based cameras that can detect obstructions in complete darkness. Tesla's
existing autopilot functionality works just fine on dark unlit roads.

>So then you will need a way for those cars to talk to each other, and
typically that means you will need wayside APs to carry that traffic.

You've never heard of a mesh network? Even if AP are needed, it's still
considerably less wiring than a full third rail setup and still poses no fire
risk.

>And oh, you might want to have calibration points on the tunnel floor so that
the skates themselves know where they are, to normalize their position and
report back true accurate positioning.

This could literally be something as simple as a handful of RFID tags on the
floor of the tunnel. Not costly and not hard to implement.

>You underestimate the amount of engineering work needed to do this safely and
proving that it's safe. Are the lifts open lifts where the skates drive on and
open up their doors? If so, that "marker" will need to be substantially big to
allow for overshoot/undershoot and still be safe to open their doors (think,
pinching, trapping, etc).

>If so, the lifts will need to be substantially big to allow for a number of
these skates to ascend and pick up/drop off passengers.

You're really _over_ estimating the amount of engineering work needed to be
done. Again, my $100 roomba is able to park itself within millimeters onto a
dock, and it's never had an issue. Automated subway systems all over Asia also
operate with only inches of margin for positioning themselves onto station
platforms and aligning their doors, and they don't seem to have an issue.

The concerns you're raising are already solved. The 'magic' of this system
isn't in the self-driving vehicles part at all, as that's already being done
with automated transport systems the world over. The 'magic' is in the tunnel
construction itself.

~~~
trainmew
> You seem to be really hung up on the ability of the skates to know where
> they are. I'm not sure why.

Because the claim is that the tunnels are nothing more than concrete and some
lighting. I'm pointing out instances that will require more things in these
tunnels.

> You've never heard of a mesh network? Even if AP are needed, it's still
> considerably less wiring than a full third rail setup and still poses no
> fire risk.

Yes, I know mesh networks. This is how many trains now communicate with each
other. Third rail has some fire risk (incredible odds, however, and likely
means maintenance regime is not good), and I agree that if they are removed
that removes the fire hazard entirely. However, these skates carry batteries,
hundreds of them and operating at significantly high speeds. I'm pointing out
that these batteries can and will catch fire too, especially if the self-
driving component of the skates fail. It is a more credible risk (but cheaper,
sure) and more likely to happen more frequently given that the self-driving
component is not perfect and relies on cameras (even LIDAR ones) than third
rail catching fire.

> You're really overestimating the amount of engineering work needed to be
> done.

I'm really not. I work on those automated subway systems in Asia that has
automated platform gates for those subways to stop at, and the amount of
engineering and safety assurance work to ensure those trains actually align
themselves correctly is a lot. Why do you think those platform gates have
emergency egress doors all over? Have you ever noticed those trains stopping,
then creeping to ensure they're aligned right? Those issues are not there not
because they're easy, but because substantial man-hours of work have been done
to ensure they are safe.

> The concerns you're raising are already solved. The 'magic' of this system
> isn't in the self-driving vehicles part at all, as that's already being done
> with automated transport systems the world over. The 'magic' is in the
> tunnel construction itself.

And I'm pointing out that there's no magic in the tunnel construction. By the
time you have added those safety redundancies you end up with something very
close to a subway system, just with smaller carriages running on batteries.

~~~
txcwpalpha
>And I'm pointing out that there's no magic in the tunnel construction. By the
time you have added those safety redundancies you end up with something very
close to a subway system, just with smaller carriages running on batteries.

What safety redundancies? You still haven't pointed out any required safety
redundancies that would raise the cost of the tunnel any significant amount.
Some RFID tags and low voltage wiring and fiber for a couple of wireless
access points is still negligible cost compared to a full blown track-and-
third-rail system. Your entire argument rests on "what if the cars aren't good
at self-driving", but again, _we already have vehicles with these technologies
on the market that drive thousands of miles a day without issue_. Tesla cars
drive on autopilot on completely dark, unlit roads all the time without issue.
They park themselves in tight parking spots every day without issue. They
avoid collisions with other vehicles at high speeds every day without issue.

I'm no fan of Tesla, and I'll be the first person telling you that they fucked
up bigtime handling the crash a few months ago, but that still doesn't change
the fact that they have existing autopilot systems that are more than capable
of handling this 'Dugout Loop' system.

As for your skepticism that the tunnels will be cheaper, go do some research
on how expensive it is to build out subway tunnels and the components of those
costs. The Dugout Loop system eschews significant amounts of the major cost
components.

If you're skeptical because we're talking about Musk and his penchant for cost
overruns and missed deadlines, I'd understand. But if you're skeptical because
for some reason you don't think a barebones concrete tunnel (even with some
additional wiring and networking components) is cheaper than a full blown
subway tunnel and station, that's just because you're being stubborn.

------
rococode
Whenever I read about high speed underground tunnel travel, I always feel a
little weird because it just doesn't feel safe to me - even though I'm sure
the people working on this are more than capable of running the numbers. I
hope I'll be proven wrong because hyperloop transport is a super futuristic
thing that would be cool to see. I wonder if folks back in the early 1800s
felt the same way about trains?

This project sounds like it was designed to lose money for the sake of good
publicity. I'm sure if it works out well for LA, we'll quickly see efforts to
establish similar systems in other major cities with LA as the precedent
before refocusing on profitability. If we're all riding in Boring Company
trains to work 30 years from now, remember it started here! haha

~~~
dingaling
> wonder if folks back in the early 1800s felt the same way about trains

Londoners were quite scathing about the first underground electric transit
service in 1890, mostly due to its small cramped coaches that they called
'padded cells'

128 years later, we have... Better batteries.

------
chuckdries
They keep calling it _public_ transportation, but say it will be funded by the
boring company?

So is it going to be publicly owned and privately operated?

~~~
kirrent
Oxford at least defines public transportation as that which is merely
accessible by the public that runs on fixed routes. There is certainly oodles
of public transportation throughout the world which is privately funded and
owned.

~~~
solatic
By that definition, airlines are public transportation.

------
kyberias
I like this from their FAQ: "Our goal is to defeat the snail in a race."

------
dev_dull
> _Construction of the tunnel and the two loop lifts is expected to last up to
> 14 months (likely much less)._

Call me skeptical. Seattle tried to build a tunnel and it took... wait is it
still happening??

I’d like to know what they’re doing differenty in their digging process.

~~~
jv22222
The goal was to make the boring machine as fast as Gary the snail. Maybe they
did that. Also, the machine builds the tunnel reinforces as it goes.

[https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Elon-Musk-think-he-can-
bore-5...](https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Elon-Musk-think-he-can-
bore-5-10x-faster-than-any-of-the-thousands-of-tunneling-projects-across-
dozens-of-countries)

~~~
apexalpha
Doesn't every tunnel boring machine do this?

------
SlyShy
I feel extremely curious about the construction costs given that the proposal
says the Dugout Loop will transport just 250,000 a year at $1 fares. I suppose
if it works the press alone could make the investment worthwhile.

~~~
rococode
I imagine they're planning to lose money on it to help push it through
whatever regulators are in the way. Once they have a working proof-of-concept
in a city as big as LA, it'll be a much smoother process to expand to other
cities because they can just say "I mean, it worked great in LA!".

~~~
indecisive_user
And also, if it's reducing traffic congestion and car emissions, state
governments might be willing to subsidize future projects.

------
mdorazio
Wait, so there's no low-pressure component to this project? If I'm reading
correctly it's basically a series of high-speed electric shuttles in the
tunnel rather than anything like the hyperloop concept.

~~~
almost_usual
It’s 3.6 miles. Why over engineer it?

~~~
mdorazio
I had assumed that if they were going to the trouble of digging a multi-mile
tunnel they would use it as a test bed for key hyperloop technologies. It's
obviously not going to make any money, so it seems like it's more of a proof
of concept to help pitch bigger projects to cities in the future. But as-is,
this has lower passenger capacity per minute and more failure points than a
fast lightrail system.

------
Grue3
> Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers.

> The fares are not finalized but will cost around $1.

> Initially, Dugout Loop will be limited to approximately 1,400 people
> (approximately 2.5% of Stadium capacity) per event. Based on City and
> community feedback, it could be possible to increase ridership per game to
> 2,800 per game or event (5% of Stadium capacity).

Is this guy for real? That is shockingly low-density. The fair market price
wouldn't be anywhere near $1, otherwise the tickets will sell out instantly.
What this venue clearly needs is an actual metro station in its vicinity.

------
latchkey
There is several other proposals for projects around the US here:
[https://www.boringcompany.com/projects/](https://www.boringcompany.com/projects/)

The gallery page has a lot of great pictures and video as well.

The tunnels are safe from an electrified 3rd rail and the tunnel / skate
design can change over time (likely more easily than railway systems).

Consider that this design, once proven, can be licensed and extended
worldwide.

------
leot
The amount of skepticism here from those who otherwise have nothing to
contribute to solving this problem is, at best, asinine.

Is there some kind of glut of initiative and capital being directed to
genuinely ambitious "zero to one" projects? If not such harping is utterly
pointless. Maybe this project will fail. Who cares? This has historically been
a hard problem. Let 1000 flowers bloom.

~~~
bsaul
On the other hand, SV ecosystem is crippled with "fake it until we make it"
mentality, and people doing PR stunts just to raise money and have fun while
the illusion stands.

I do agree Elon has proved numerous time he isn't this type of guy, but we've
seen failed projects, vaporwares and even crooked CEOs so often that you
really can't blame the community for having a higher than normal level of
skepticism.

------
King-Aaron
> Passengers will load into electric skates, which access the Dugout Loop
> tunnel from the surface via a ramp or elevator.

So on the Western Terminus, the 'skates' are parked in a holding lot above the
track, then individually lowered via an elevator onto the track as needed.

What I don't understand is why this design is advantageous to just having all
the skates in a lot next to/on the same level as the track, and passengers
just use an escalator to go down to the skate-parking level?

In my mind that would be more efficient, surely. Both cost efficient and
mechanically efficient.

~~~
leot
Underground space is more expensive than above.

~~~
usrusr
Really depends on where you are. When you want to ferry people between huge
parking lots, sure, go for it. But ferrying people between parking lots is a
band-aid at best, compared to a real transit system.

Also, if above-ground space at the connected points is sufficiently cheap, you
will usually find most of the connection to be cheaper above-ground as well.

------
fyhn
I really like the website design. I can just skim over the Qs on the left and
read the As I'm interested in on the right. Somehow it feels better than
having everything in one column.

------
pxtail
Many commenters seems to cling to the fact that this doesn't make sense. Yes
,in current form it won't be profitable at all but I think that this is only
test and true value of this kind of transport system reveals itself if one
takes into consideration connected network of tunnels.

I guess that there are also other factors - for certain locations it could be
more difficult (or just impossible) to build road, tunnel is good alternative
in this case.

~~~
tigershark
In which form a system that can carry only ~100 times less passengers would be
viable?

------
spyckie2
To be fair, it seems like the transportation supply constrained - 20,000
people coming/leaving a stadium and only 2800 will have access to a 4 min
shuttle ride away from a densely trafficked area.

It sounds like a great situation to prove a lot of things, including market
demand, and also to improve logistics in many areas like queues, scaling
demand, emergency procedures, etc.

------
LAMike
How much does is cost the Boring Company to dig a one mile tunnel?

I think they need to get it down to 10M to be viable worldwide

------
CrazyCatDog
The fact that it shares a platform with three Tesla X, implies that The Boring
Company add Tesla can pass along overhead and licensing fees between them...
That could prove helpful if only one of them is public. Smells like a smart
move.

------
incadenza
This would be an amazing step in the right direction, unless I’m missing
something.

Of course, this isn’t a heavy commuter route. In the absence of decent
surrounding public transit it seems unlikely to make any real dent in traffic.

~~~
skgoa
What you are missing is that having hundreds of Model X based mini-busses
going through this tunnel is less efficient (both in costs and energy) than
having one subway train carry the same number of people.

Now, if you want to be charitable, you could say that the Boring Company will
bore a huge number of tunnels all across LA and install a huge number of
stations. That would enable people to enjoy the advantages of individual
transport (i.e. being able to go point-to-point) while still removing traffic
from the surface streets.

But that's not what is happening here. So far they are just doing a super
inefficient mini-subway.

~~~
jcranmer
> So far they are just doing a super inefficient mini-subway.

The term you're looking for (and that Boring Company is avoiding) is "personal
rapid transit."

------
issa
This technology and the practice of putting transportation underground sounds
too good to be true. I'm really curious to see how this plays out. If it works
as promised, this will be revolutionary.

~~~
NegativeLatency
Like a subway?

~~~
chx
The big idea here is to use small electric vehicles instead of a huge ass
train pulling hundreds, thousands of people and speed up.

~~~
ianburrell
But why? The smaller tunnels are the same diameter as the London Underground
deep tube tunnels. Which run standard, if smaller, electric trains that can
carry in two trains as many people as this will carry per day.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
There are two ways to increase throughput of any metro or train system.
Increase the length of the train, or decrease the headway between trains. In
this case, The Boring Company is reducing the headways to probably 10-15
seconds.

~~~
tigershark
The headway is already 30 seconds in modern underground systems. But a train
will transport 1500 people instead of a mere 16..

Edit: apparently in the Crossrail it will be every 2.5 minutes, but I remember
that in Moscow it is every minute.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
I'm not aware of any underground (or above ground) system that has a 30 second
headway unless you're talking about a gondola which is more close to the
capacity that this system can handle.

Yes, trains can hold more, but that's not the point of this system. If you
build a 1500 person train, you now have to build the stations and platforms to
accommodate those kinds of crowds.

------
ddmma
Flying cars could wait, the future is deep underground

------
viburnum
Musk is full of shit and it's having real-world consequences. His vaporware is
creating excuses for people to not do transit projects.

~~~
issa
What was the excuse in the US for not doing high-speed transit projects in the
50 years before Musk came on the scene?

~~~
erikpukinskis
We don’t want to interrupt the freight schedules, so we just stopped doing
passenger rail almost altogether.

------
notatoad
Tesla is being investigated by the SEC? quick, better find something new to
announce.

------
chabes
Hopefully it's being designed with consideration for earthquakes, which are
inevitable in the region

~~~
JauntyHatAngle
From the link:

Tunnels, when designed properly, are known to be one of the safest places to
be during an earthquake. From a structural safety standpoint, the tunnel moves
uniformly with the ground, in contrast to surface structures. Additionally, a
large amount of earthquake damage is caused by falling debris, which does not
apply inside tunnels. Some examples:

1994 Northridge Earthquake: no damage to LA Subway tunnels

1989 Loma Prieta (Northern California) Earthquake: no damage to tunnels, which
were then used to transport rescue personnel

1985 Mexico City Earthquake: no damage to tunnels, which were then used to
transport rescue personnel

