Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 397 posts

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#21

Post by perennate »

duxup wrote: post #11
breck wrote: post #2

Yes, it is. With one that caveat that if it's built 10x cheaper than comparable tunnels, it is. Moving our roads underground is a vastly superior transportation system than we have today. It can be safer, better for the air, better for light and noise pollution, unlock vast amounts of land in our urban areas for parks, etc. I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before…

The Big Dig strikes me as what could be as much a reason not to do that thing.

Why do you say that?

Even accounting for the cost, I think many would still argue that it was worth it, replacing a highway system that divided the city with a walkable network of parks that effectively connects different neighborhoods like financial district north end, along with a new series of (underground) highways that provided improved traffic flow.

Before and after photos: https://imgur.com/JbgPur6

If the cost issue were solved, what would be the reason not to do it?

(I suppose it taking well over a decade to complete construction is an issue, but presumably new technology could improve that as well.)

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#22

Post by pdq »

breck wrote: post #2

Yes, it is. With one that caveat that if it's built 10x cheaper than comparable tunnels, it is. Moving our roads underground is a vastly superior transportation system than we have today. It can be safer, better for the air, better for light and noise pollution, unlock vast amounts of land in our urban areas for parks, etc. I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before…

This Boring Tunnel is all hype so far.

The demo tunnel doesn't look to have sufficient ventilation or emergency exits in case of fire, car crash, etc.

They haven't addressed the ingress and egress congestion problems into and out of the tunnel. How can a single elevator go up/down to handle 1000+ cars per hour (4400 passengers per hour)? Basic math gives you 3.6 seconds for the elevator to go down, wait for the car to offramp, go back up, and wait for the next car to onramp.

These are some of the many reasons tunnels and subways get expensive. You can't just build a basic tunnel rigged with cars and say "problem solved" at 1/10th the cost.

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#23

Post by hoorayimhelping »

rayiner wrote: post #6

So what’s this fascination with tunnels? In Chicago, there are overhead elevated train tracks, and they work just fine. They seem a lot cheaper to build and maintain than tunnels. You can even build them over existing avenues. Why don’t we have more of that?

Have you ever lived near an elevated train? They're not pleasant areas, especially compared to subway stations. The area under the tracks aren't very usable, except as a roadway and parking lots. They're loud as hell, people on the trains can see into your home, the spaces around the elevated tracks are great places for people to do drugs and have crusty hobo sex. These criticisms apply equally to elevated roads.

Most times it rained or snowed in New York City when I lived there, New Jersey Transit and PATH would have problems because of the issues of weather on outdoor trains. It only affected NYC's subway when there was flooding (which also affected NJT and PATH).

The fascination with tunnels is that they're a much more ergonomic way to build infrastructure for the humans that have to live near them.

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#24

Post by reaperducer »

ryantgtg wrote: post #19
breck wrote: post #2

Yes, it is. With one that caveat that if it's built 10x cheaper than comparable tunnels, it is. Moving our roads underground is a vastly superior transportation system than we have today. It can be safer, better for the air, better for light and noise pollution, unlock vast amounts of land in our urban areas for parks, etc. I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before…

What's a comparable tunnel? Isn't the Vegas loop a single lane tunnel for personal vehicles? I can't think of other existing/planned tunnels that fit that description, aside from other Boring Co ones. I'm not at all convinced that this design can scale.

It's not for personal vehicles. It's for moving conventioneers from one end of the convention center to another.

Think of it as one of those people movers they have at some airports.

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#25

Post by ianbicking »

rayiner wrote: post #6

So what’s this fascination with tunnels? In Chicago, there are overhead elevated train tracks, and they work just fine. They seem a lot cheaper to build and maintain than tunnels. You can even build them over existing avenues. Why don’t we have more of that?

The El was built along with the city's expansion (often by developers who wanted to make new tracts of land accessible). That doesn't work for infill, where the intrusion and space the elevated tracks require aren't accounted for in current prices and expectations, and where right of way isn't established.

If we had a Robert Moses of transit, then it could happen, just like the highways happened. There are no Robert Moseses of transit. Now the best we can do for new lines is shadow the highways.

Elevated lines like in Chicago also seem very uncommon now, I suspect they aren't actually that great? They certainly take a lot of maintenance and don't have great trip times. I think putting an incredibly large and heavy vehicle on metal stilts isn't a good approach. There have been people who want to instead put relatively light vehicles on stilts [1], with many benefits, but that's been met with almost no interest from people who can make these things happen. (Personally I think it's a missed opportunity.) Though in a sense what's being built here is along those lines, but underground.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#26

Post by duxup »

perennate wrote: post #21
duxup wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Big Dig strikes me as what could be as much a reason not to do that thing.

Why do you say that? Even accounting for the cost, I think many would still argue that it was worth it, replacing a highway system that divided the city with a walkable network of parks that effectively connects different neighborhoods like financial district north end, along with a new series of (underground) highways that provided improved traffic flow. Before and after photos: https://imgur.com/JbgPur6 If the cost…

>If the cost issue were solved

I feel like that's a very very heavy lift.

Lots of things would be great "If the cost issue were solved".

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#27

Post by fabioborellini »

Maybe Elon should visit Europe or Asia and check out an underground mass rapid transit system or two. They have two orders of magnitude larger capacity. And even their capacity is finite.

And keep in mind that the NYC Subway and the London Underground are NOT a good example of a modern mass transit system.

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#28

Post by perennate »

duxup wrote: post #26
perennate wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that? Even accounting for the cost, I think many would still argue that it was worth it, replacing a highway system that divided the city with a walkable network of parks that effectively connects different neighborhoods like financial district north end, along with a new series of (underground) highways that provided improved traffic flow. Before and after photos: https://imgur.com/JbgPur6 If the cost…

>If the cost issue were solved I feel like that's a very very heavy lift. Lots of things would be great "If the cost issue were solved".

Ah okay, that makes sense (but parent comment was talking about Boring Company / other new technology potentially reducing cost in the future; though I'm also skeptical).

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#29

Post by reaperducer »

rayiner wrote: post #6

So what’s this fascination with tunnels? In Chicago, there are overhead elevated train tracks, and they work just fine. They seem a lot cheaper to build and maintain than tunnels. You can even build them over existing avenues. Why don’t we have more of that?

there are overhead elevated train tracks, and they work just fine

No, they don't. They add a massive amount of noise and other pollution to the city, and block light and air, turning normal city streets into seedy alleys. (Ex: Wabash before the recent renovation)

They seem a lot cheaper to build and maintain than tunnels

Build, probably. Maintain, no. The elevated structures require a ton of maintenance that is ongoing constantly because they're exposed to weather, vandals, and other external forces.

Re: The Boring Company will develop an underground “people mover” for Las Vegas

#30

Post by ryantgtg »

reaperducer wrote: post #24
ryantgtg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a comparable tunnel? Isn't the Vegas loop a single lane tunnel for personal vehicles? I can't think of other existing/planned tunnels that fit that description, aside from other Boring Co ones. I'm not at all convinced that this design can scale.

It's not for personal vehicles. It's for moving conventioneers from one end of the convention center to another. Think of it as one of those people movers they have at some airports.

I meant personal in the sense that they're not mass transit vehicles. They're Tesla vehicles with a capacity of 5.

I'll think of it as a people mover once they show us a vehicle that isn't an existing Tesla model.

Post reply on HN