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

31–40 of 397 posts

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

#31

Post by WhompingWindows »

pdq wrote: post #22
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 t…

It's mostly hype yes, what do you expect from a startup? The strongest premise is the tunnel diameter is smaller, therefore quicker and cheaper to build. There may be efficiencies to be gained through improved engineering of tunneling machines as well, given SpaceX and Tesla's innovations.

Yes, there are many problems left, however every start-up faces a number of problems. They're basically just lining up to build an MVP, or perhaps that was the previous tunnel and LVCC is the beta version.

In either case, they have a CEO famous for his marketing and overly optimistic promises. If this wasn't an Elon Musk venture, I doubt it'd be getting over-hyped and blasted as much as it is.

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

#32

Post by reaperducer »

closeparen wrote: post #10
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?

Apartments with windows opening directly onto El tracks are discounted in line with the unpleasantness. If you’ll put up a fight over an apartment building 2 blocks away casting a few hours of shade, you’ll definitely put up a fight over frequent clattering metal 2 feet from your bedroom window forming a permanent roof over the street.

I once lived on the corner of Lake and Wells, where the Brown, Purple, Green, Pink, and Orange line trains all transit a frog patch. (It is supposedly the busiest rail intersection in the world.)

Even though I was 25 floors up with "soundproof" windows, it was jarringly noisy at all times of the day and night because of the way the sound waves travel up a building.

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

#33

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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…

>I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before and after the Central Artery.

What did the Big Dig do that a better central artery with more decks wouldn't?

The whole "highways are ugly" argument really is mostly from/for upscale people who don't want their view ruined. Very few people who actually has to use or live/work near the infrastructure really cares all that much about it's presence. It's just a fact of life. Heck, if you painted it like something interesting everyone would stop caring in a couple years (i.e. same thing that happened to the rainbow natural gas tank on the side of I93).

Putting stuff underground is expensive and complicated compare to building above ground.

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

#34

Post by SisypheanLife »

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.

And Seattle avoided all of these:

https://www.king5.com/video/news/local/seattle-tunnel-lesson...

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

#35

Post by rayiner »

reaperducer wrote: post #29
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 ongoi…

These are electric trains—what pollution? Noise isn’t much higher once you’re even a block away. And light and air is a matter of setbacks. Lake and Wells are hardly seedy alleys. There is more light standing right under an L track than in NYC.

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

#36

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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?

>So what’s this fascination with tunnels?

The upscale crowd doesn't like the audio/visual clutter.

There's nothing tunnels do that well planned overhead infrastructure can't do more cheaply (at the cost of being audible and visible).

Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, other than being less offending to the eyes/ears of non-users, what do tunnels do that overhead infrastructure doesn't?

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

#37

Post by bluGill »

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…

I disagree. Cars should be at surface levels. Going below ground or above ground is too expensive: cars (and more importantly trucks which this tunnel doesn't cover at all) are heavy and so they need expensive infrastructure. We can have tunnels and overpass in places where required, but in general cars belong at surface level.

What we should be doing is moving humans up: we should be building sky ways between buildings. Someone on foot (I'll allow wheelchairs) is not very heavy and doesn't take much space: the amount of infrastructure needed to support them is not nearly as expensive as moving cars to a different level. The skyway also allows for heating and air conditioning, something humans like.

When the distances get long we can put in a moving sidewalk if we want. However, for the most part when distances get long humans should move back to ground level and catch a bus/train.

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

#38

Post by reaperducer »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #36
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?

>So what’s this fascination with tunnels? The upscale crowd doesn't like the audio/visual clutter. There's nothing tunnels do that well planned overhead infrastructure can't do more cheaply (at the cost of being audible and visible). Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, other than being less offending to the eyes/ears of non-users, what do tunnels do that overhead infrastructure doesn't?

Cheaply ≠ better.

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

#39

Post by ryantgtg »

pdq wrote: post #22
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 t…

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, there isn't a offramp/onramp in the latest design scheme. When Boring Company first unveiled the design, it had elevators that moved vehicles from grade-level to the tunnel. The vehicles then locked into a track. Then after reaching an "exit" the vehicle is brought back to the surface so the driver can continue the journey within that same vehicle. But they recently scrapped all that. In the current design, there is no locked track and the vehicles never leave the tunnel. This ensures that the tunnels only function with a proprietary vehicle.

There still might be some human ingress/egress issues to resolve.

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

#40

Post by duxup »

SisypheanLife wrote: post #34
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.

And Seattle avoided all of these: https://www.king5.com/video/news/local/seattle-tunnel-lesson...

I think avoided "as much" trouble as the big dig might be more accurate.
Post reply on HN