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.
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!".
Think of it as a pilot project for your first client. Typically you bill a very low price that doesn't really even cover the bills, even in a SW Project.
> 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.
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.
If you read further down the page it says this Dodger loop will be their first test track, to replace a previously proposed test track in Sepulveda. It's not meant to make money, it's to prove it works. The money will be made in future systems.
One important property of a test track is that, if things don’t work out as intended, you can take it down for indefinite periods for upgrades or even take it down forever. Test tracks don’t have SLAs.
? what Tesla describes here is not a test track, or at least shouldn’t be.
They aren't proposing these numbers with any more context than the article, (This is a pilot running alongside existing infrastructure) so I'm really unsure about what you are asking?
I'm saying the numbers are so astronomically off that there is no viable path to profit without public subsidy, for any theoretical future system, big or small.
Their path to profit is the Chicago airport loop, which is proposed to cost a fair bit more and have much more consistent ridership. This is a pilot project, a technology tester.
There is some disagreement among experts that this project is ever a path to profit, given that the projected construction cost is ridiculously low.[1]
From the looks of it they want to test this system and if it proves to be a viable method of transportation, they will present this to governments and construct it for them. They don't have to run it. They can just make it and sell it.
> 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.
What? No! Public as in "open to the public". At least in the German equivalent "Öffentlicher Nahverkehr" thats exactly what it says ("öffentlich" = "open to the public").
Systems like the MTR[0] also show that it is indeed possible to have a public transportation system that is directly profitable at scale.
In the US, "public transportation" means "transportation system owned by the public". This is opposed to "private transportation", which is owned by private entities.
All tranport systems are available for use by the general public.
Also, the MTR infrastructure is government subsidized.
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.
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.
If this one works, they can do similar projects in places where they can build, own and charge for huge parking garages. Build parking in cheap location, then provide a way for people to get to the location they actually want to br (downtown, stadiums/event centers, airports). If that still makes sense when we have self riding cars - I don't know (probably only for the most high density destinations).
I'd prefer they do a pilot out in the desert or something, or from e.g. the tesla megafactory to the nearest bus stop, not under city ground - it'd cause problems (or maybe provide a head start) if the city wants to build a metro there.
They want people to use this, so it makes to do it in a place where there are actually people, and an incentive for those people to choose this form of transport over others, like driving.
The same would happen with the Tesla Gigafactory in NV, the closest "city" is sparks(Reno), which is where all the wrokers live. So a link from there to sparks would make sense. The downside is a bunch of that land is all BLM, so it would take dealing with the feds to make it happen, which might be difficult and delay things crazily.
I had the exact same questions. I'm pretty sure the answer to question 1 is hidden in their systems about the originally planned Sepulveda proof of concept tunnel. According to them that one hadn't been planned to take any passengers so it would have been a total loss and poor proof of concept. This tunnel would still be a loss but probably a smaller one and a much better proof of concept and marketing show piece.
I'm imagining something like in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Perhaps as you're traveling through the tunnel there are adverts playing along the walls as you go or perhaps even just the "windows" of the "skates".
Ya for sure. They picked the stadium for their test because they can demonstrate the system for a lot of randos who come to ballgames. It’s not solving any problem, besides getting a few folks home faster.
It seems an awful solution compared to the worst underground line.
Modern lines, as I said, can transport more passengers than they move per day in a mere minute...
If you add the time to make 3.6 miles probably they will complete the journey in 10-15 minutes.
Why would they waste the enormous amount of additional money it would take to construct a normal metro line, when the entire premise of the company is the proposition that it is possible to construct a useful underground transportation system which is much simpler and therefore much less expensive than a normal metro?
Don't underestimate that if those 5% instead of taking the car take this Loop, there'll be less cars and less traffic. So a higher % will be home faster.
Nr of cars vs congestion follows an S-curve with a very narrow/steep middle section. Removing a single digit percentage of cars/passengers can mean the difference between 'busy but only a little slow down' and 'complete stand still'. I don't know about the numbers in this specific case, but transport systems work in not very intuitive ways.
While induced demand is definitely a thing, they're not going to start selling more tickets to baseball games because the road to the park isnt quite as congested. Induced demand is because of the effects it has (encourages more spread out development and 1PV usage).
Depends on your standards for “problem”, which is conceptually a statement I myself find frustrating, so i can see where you’re coming from.
But, we should try and be considerate when we define “problem”. LA has no shortage of serious transportation problems. This solves exactly none of them. Outside of Startupland, a problem is usually something that gets acknowledged before you find it.
From a marketing perspective it may be a publicity stunt, but from an engineering perspective it looks like a sensibly-scaled prototype. You have to start somewhere, and it makes sense to start with a small-scale project that will get some public use without becoming critical infrastructure.
Ah yes, I see how you can read it either way. Even at $10 a ride under the same assumptions that seems light as I assume something like this would cost 100's of millions upfront and then fairly decent running costs.
So VERY guess work but if it was 10x under the same generous assumptions this is ~$45mil/year revenue
What are cost...
- $15m for 5% interest on $300m debt?
- $15m for running cost and maintenance?
Then a $15m buffer, would not be a margin bad margin for infrastructure if he can start building a bunch of these. Maybe cheaper rides to grow the concept..
> So what else is happening to make this financially viable?
I'd guess: retail areas at the station, higher travel class with expensive tickets, local transport, parking, advertisements, internet access (maybe on a longer loop).
If I'm understanding this correctly the traffic will be towards Dodgers Stadium before the event, and away from Dodgers Stadium after the start of the event.
> 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?
Elon needs to distract people from Tesla's and his legal trouble.
Seriously? 2800 passengers per day? On the Crossrail just two trains can transport more people (3000).
And at peak time there will be 2 trains per minute...
I would say that crossrail will be much higher capacity than that, since it aims to have 41 stations and London is a big city, so there is potential for the same train to carry one group from Station A to Station D, someone else from station C to Station G, another group to replace the first from station D to station K, etc. Large networks are just more useful than ones with 2 nodes.
Most subway lines will have peak scheduled throughputs of about 26-30 trains per hour, or a train every 2 minutes or so. The tracks can support more, but it's a good idea to have some schedule slack so you can send more trains through if things go wrong. Moscow's Metro does manage 45TPH, but that is achieved mostly by having a simplified track layout with no revenue branching.
"Keeping the tube lines consistently running ~2 minutes apart is barely achieved..."
The Victoria line has been quite successfully running 36 trains per hour (100 second headway) at peak times for the past year. Peak = about 3 hours each in the morning and evening.
Per game. Still it is a weird design choice for something where you need a lot of people to move at the same time. They need to decrease the distance of the skates, chain them together or get bigger ones. Automatic people movers are nothing new, but if this is what it takes for the US to be excited about infrastructure then I am all for it. Half of the utility if these types of systems tends to be in the overall design though. The interior of the vehicles, the location and design of the terminus, how long you have to wait etc.
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.
At this stage of a project, claims like that should be regarded as pure speculation. Elon Musk is not known for rigorously meeting deadlines. But even assuming that all the claims are accurate, what good does it do to build it more quickly if you have to kill >95% of the project value?
Smaller diameter tunnels mean lower cost of boring, certainly.
But some of the costs of satisfying external stakeholders, like buying land; getting approval from regulators, politicians and the local community; and so on would be independent of tunnel size.
IMHO the main reason not to install a conventional metro line is Musk wants to demo something going 150mph, and I've never seen a metro line going that fast.
> IMHO the main reason not to install a conventional metro line is Musk wants to demo something going 150mph, and I've never seen a metro line going that fast.
It may seem counterintuitive, but higher speeds mean less throughput. Most metro systems are concentrated on trying to move high numbers of people, so bumping train max speeds to 150mph just makes no sense. The sweet spot for speed appears to be around 50-70mph, which most metro trains will do when they're cruising between stations.
But anyways, anyone who is complaining that local mass transit ought to be going 150mph is someone who hasn't looked at why local mass transit can't go 150mph or is someone who doesn't want the "mass" in "mass transit".
Taking the concession as a given as you requested:
It's like the difference between running everything on one very beefy server versus having a horizontally scaling architecture on commodity hardware. Each have pros and cons, so its not as simple as supposing that just because one is less beefy than the other, the total value of running on a supercomputer versus a cluster is >95% value for the supercomputer relative to the cluster.
If you have the goal of being able to scale to an arbitrary amount of traffic, building one very fast and expensive computer doesn't meet the traffic needs as well as building a lot of computers. A lot of things start leading to this conclusion. Economies of scale which come in when doing tons of a particular thing rather than just doing it once. Benefits of automation starting to factor in heavily for repeated projects rather than one off projects. Amortized costs of resources for repeated projects rather than one off projects.
Another way you can approach understanding the differences in benefit of this project compared to a subway is by thinking about above ground transportation. Why are roads good, since we already have highways? Why are lifts at ski resorts good, when we have airports? What benefit is there to a boat, when we have cargo ships? Why have cars, when we have trains? All of these questions are intended to point toward there being some value in a cheaper solution relative to a much more expensive but less practically extensive solution.
Yet another way you can understand the potential benefit relative to other transport costs is to imagine trying to optimize sign up for a site. If you reduce the number of fields in a sign-up form with the goal of making it easier to register, it is alike to reducing the cost of adding additional transport. In one case, the probability of a register increases. In the other case, the probability of a project which increases transport capacity increases. This analogy is imperfect, but I'm trying to give a analogy that technology people will understand through their experience: drive down cost, increase usage.
Finally and I think this is one of the key things that needs to be understood about the proof of concept: its intended to be a first and not a last. The idea in driving down costs in tunneling is that there is an arbitrary amount of untapped transport capacity going unused beneath us. Making use of the tiniest fraction of it will only have a tiny benefit, much like making use of a single commodity computer will only have a tiny benefit. Making use of a hundred thousand tiny fractions of it will have a much more pronounced impact, much like making use of thousands of computers can have substantial benefits. You need to keep in mind the end goal, because a journey isn't its first step: one of the superhuman evaluations of a position supposes that the value of a position is the value of the expectation of where you end up, not where you are
You can't. The tunnel is cheaper because it's not for a subway. The tunnel for this 'Dugout Loop' is a simple tunnel lined with concrete and possibly some lamps for lighting. That's it. It doesn't require any of the expensive things that a subway requires like tracks, electrical systems like a third rail or overhead cable, fire suppression systems, etc. The dugout tunnels can probably also be steeper and have sharper angles, which allows more possibility for routing that a subway wouldn't be able to do (vehicles on train tracks can't go up very steep inclines or take very sharp corners).
Another substantial part of this is that the Dugout Loop vehicles ascend to the surface through an elevator or ramp, which allows the station platforms to be built above ground. The platforms can also be smaller (they only need to fit a couple car-sized vehicles, not an entire train). This reduces cost substantially, as building out a large underground train platform is often one of the most expensive parts of a subway build.
It will definitely have some sort of tracks. They've shown demos of a Model X on tracks in their demo tunnel.
The project will also have to deliver on the same demands wrt. fire suppression as any other tunnel.
The station building iself must be sized according to the number of people per hour, not the train length; the physical platforms that you use to step on/off trains on subways typically extend into the tunnels.
>It will definitely have some sort of tracks. They've shown demos of a Model X on tracks in their demo tunnel.
The website linked specifically says that it will not have tracks. The concrete itself acts as the 'guide' for the skates without needing any type of other tracks (such as traditional metal train tracks).
>The project will also have to deliver on the same demands wrt. fire suppression as any other tunnel.
This is also address by the website. Fire suppression isn't needed because the tunnel is made only of concrete. There is no concern about other materials (asphalt, high-voltage electrical, etc) catching on fire.
>The station building iself must be sized according to the number of people per hour, not the train length; the physical platforms that you use to step on/off trains on subways typically extend into the tunnels.
I'm not sure what you mean. Train stations are definitely sized according to train lengths. In my hometown, a significant roadblock to expanding our public train system is that we started off with short trains (and short stations to match), and it is very expensive to extend the length of the stations now that we use longer trains.
So they may not have metal tracks, but they will be limited to similar turning radii as a subway line just to maintain passenger comfort going at 120 mph. No trains travelling faster than 60 mph are limited in turning radius by mechanical properties.
Wrt. fire suppression: Tesla can state whatever they want, but they will either have to fulfill the demands set forth in NFPA 502 for fire suppression in tunnels, or they will never be allowed to open to the public. Civil engineering is very strict on these things, for a very good reason.
For an underground train, you can have the train platform extend well beyond the actual station building. If you've ever taken the subway/tube in NY or London or similar you know what I mean.
If not, look e.g. at this Google Maps of the Gloucester Road tube stop:
The station building is the small square labeled Gloucester Road tube stop. But the platform extends all the way under the shopping mall (Waitrose's etc) out to the intersection between Cromwell Road and Ashburn Place.
Why wouldn't it need a fire suppression system? Because once a battery pack has started catastrophic failure, they are all dead anyways? The proposed system has more need for fire suppression than conventional subway, not less.
Because the tunnel is pretty much just concrete and nothing else. There's no flammable asphalt or high-voltage electrical cables running through it that could cause or contribute to fires.
The article clearly states the tunnels with have a tunnel ventilation system, which is standard fire suppression strategy for underground tunnels for subways.
> electrical systems
They're already laying power cables for the tunnel lighting system which is presumably for their autonomous driving system with cameras, which now has a single dependency on their tunnel lighting system.
The rest, sure, I agree can be cheaper comparatively to a subway tunnel.
> steep inclines/sharper angles
Why would you want steep inclines (more than 5% standard for metros) if you're already underground and use lifts to ascend? The electric skates will still have a kinematic envelope that the tunnel has to adhere to, especially if they're for standing passengers. I don't see how this differs substantially from subway tunnels to allow steeper inclines/sharper angles.
>The article clearly states the tunnels with have a tunnel ventilation system, which is standard fire suppression strategy for underground tunnels for subways.
Standard subway systems have to have much more in regards to fire suppression than just ventilation. The entire tunnel has to be protected from fire damage with insulation, some tunnels have sprinkler systems, etc. These wouldn't be needed in the dugout tunnel.
>They're already laying power cables for the tunnel lighting system which is presumably for their autonomous driving system with cameras, which now has a single dependency on their tunnel lighting system.
A power cable for low-voltage lighting is much, much, much different than the electrical systems required for powering a subway train. It's like the difference of running an extension cord to your lamp versus laying mains wiring for an entire house.
There's also no reason to believe that the vehicles would be dependent on the lighting system. Many cars on the market today already come with sonic- or LIDAR-based cameras that do not need lamps to detect obstructions. Tesla's own autopilot on its cars works just fine on unlit roads. There are also automated subway systems all over the world that don't depend on the tunnels being lit, and they don't seem to have any issue avoiding collisions.
>Why would you want steep inclines (more than 5% standard for metros) if you're already underground and use lifts to ascend? The electric skates will still have a kinematic envelope that the tunnel has to adhere to, especially if they're for standing passengers. I don't see how this differs substantially from subway tunnels to allow steeper inclines/sharper angles.
You wouldn't want them, but not being bound to the grade and angle restrictions of a tracked metro train means that you have more flexibility of where your system can go if you need to. It makes it easier to route around existing tunnels, piping, sewers, etc without having to make huge detours or being forced to use elevators.
An example of this is given in the linked website where they talk about the eastern terminus of the tunnel - it uses a ramp (from the looks of it, a ramp with a steepness that a subway train would never be able to use). If space allows for such a ramp, it's probably cheaper than using an elevator.
> Standard subway systems have to have much more in regards to fire suppression than just ventilation. The entire tunnel has to be protected from fire damage with insulation, some tunnels have sprinkler systems, etc. These wouldn't be needed in the dugout tunnel.
No they don't. There's no insulation for underground tunnels for subways; just steel liners and reinforced concrete, at least according to NFPA 130. No sprinkler systems. So no difference here.
> LV vs HV
Yes, true. HV cables and other supporting systems are more expensive. So the only difference here is batteries, which are far more combustible than cables in concrete.
> LIDAR cameras
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, Tesla has removed LIDAR-based cameras in their lineup.
> There are also automated subway systems all over the world that don't depend on the tunnels being lit, and they don't seem to have any issue avoiding collisions.
Yes, I know. And those trains communicate via access points placed on the tracks, each of which are run with fibre and power cables. Now that bare tunnel is no longer bare.
> incline
Sure, it's more flexible. It still doesn't address the claim that this will help make those tunnels cheaper.
>No they don't. There's no insulation for underground tunnels for subways; just steel liners and reinforced concrete, at least according to NFPA 130. No sprinkler systems. So no difference here.
Not sure where you're getting that info. I just looked up NFPA 130 and it specifically calls for multiple types of insulation (for cables as well as concrete and steel) as well as automated water sprinkler systems, and even standpipes for firefighters.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, Tesla has removed LIDAR-based cameras in their lineup.
Tesla doesn't use LIDAR but they do use ultrasonic sensors. Tesla's existing autopilot systems works just fine on completely dark, unlit roads. I don't see why these skates would be any different.
>Yes, I know. And those trains communicate via access points placed on the tracks, each of which are run with fibre and power cables. Now that bare tunnel is no longer bare.
Even with fibre and low voltage power for access points (if even needed), you're still leagues away from the cost and complexity of a full tracked third-rail system.
>Sure, it's more flexible. It still doesn't address the claim that this will help make those tunnels cheaper.
I'm not sure what you mean. Flexibility is cheaper. Being able to use a tunnel that is 500 feet long at a 10% grade is cheaper than having to build a tunnel that is 1500 feet long at 3% grade.
> Not sure where you're getting that info. I just looked up NFPA 130 and it specifically calls for multiple types of insulation (for cables as well as concrete and steel) as well as automated water sprinkler systems, and even standpipes for firefighters.
You're moving the goalpost and earlier insinuated that tunnels for subways require lining and other fire suppression systems. They do not. The automated sprinklers are needed for stations, but not the tunnel itself. Same for standpipes.
The insulation for cables are a given, because you will need it for ALL tunnels. Not just HV cables, but ALL cables, including fibre and low-voltage cables.
Thus, no difference.
> Tesla doesn't use LIDAR but they do use ultrasonic sensors. Tesla's existing autopilot systems works just fine on completely dark, unlit roads. I don't see why these skates would be any different.
Does Tesla's existing autopilot system using LIDAR/ultrasonic cameras have automated collision protection that does so without having to communicate with the other cars behind it traveling at 120mph to 150mph? No. You will need to modify the system to do this, and you will need to add the mesh network to the tunnels, among other things I described.
> Even with fibre and low voltage power for access points (if even needed), you're still leagues away from the cost and complexity of a full tracked third-rail system.
Agreed. Tracks and third rail are not cheap, comparative to not using them at all.
> I'm not sure what you mean. Flexibility is cheaper. Being able to use a tunnel that is 500 feet long at a 10% grade is cheaper than having to build a tunnel that is 1500 feet long at 3% grade.
How? If the total length of the overall tunnel is the same, the cost of materials are not substantially different.
>You're moving the goalpost and earlier insinuated that tunnels for subways require lining and other fire suppression systems. They do not. The automated sprinklers are needed for stations, but not the tunnel itself. Same for standpipes.
I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever. My original comment, which you replied, to, specifically said that a significant part of the cost savings of this project involves the differences in station construction. Stations have always been part of the discussion.
I think you may be confused by the terminology. "Tunnel" does not mean only the trackway where trains travel. Subway stations can also be part of the "tunnel". This is why in my earlier comment I specifically said that "some tunnels require water sprinklers" - because the tunnel parts that are stations require them, even though the tunnel parts that are trackway do not.
>The insulation for cables are a given, because you will need it for ALL tunnels. Not just HV cables, but ALL cables, including fibre and low-voltage cables.
Sure, and the fact that you need significantly less cabling for this tunnel means that you will save on having to insulate those cables.
>Does Tesla's existing autopilot system using LIDAR/ultrasonic cameras have automated collision protection that does so without having to communicate with the other cars behind it traveling at 120mph to 150mph?
Yes? I'm not sure what the point of this question is. Tesla's current autopilot functions every day relying only on cameras and no communication with surrounding vehicles. If anything, the fact that you're removing the variability of cars on the road and will only be interacting with other skates makes this less of a problem.
>How? If the total length of the overall tunnel is the same, the cost of materials are not substantially different.
The total length of the tunnel isn't the same. In my above example, 500 ft vs 1500 ft.
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.
It's a bit more complicated than that. These train cars will be going somewhat faster, and accelerating and decelerating a lot more than a typical long distance highway journey. Of course I'm sure they'll employ regenerative breaking, but even so, it's a lot of energy to load and unload from the battery over and over again.
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.
I don't quite see the purpose of illuminating the entire tunnel unless they're using their autonomous driving tech which uses a camera. If so, they've just put a single point of failure on their lighting systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why indeed. If someone were to propose a new airline that used 50 Cessna Caravans instead of one 737, people would rightly claim they've gone off their rocker.
But Elon is on record being no fan of public transport:
"I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people (...)" [1]
So I think its fair to say they're sacrificing capacity/efficiency for the sake of comfort and "the premium experience".
From my perspective, this could serve as a decent proof of concept for building cheap, barebones tunnels (the tunnel for this project is literally just a concrete lined tunnel with lighting - no additional costs like laying tracks, providing electrical third rails for the trains, etc) that self-driving vehicles can easily use.
If this works well enough for something like a car-sized, self-driving, self-powered vehicle, I could see it being scaled up to use bus- or train-sized vehicles, while still utilizing the cheap, barebones tunnels.
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.
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.
And why this should be a big idea instead of a stupid one?
All the passengers that they plan to transport in a day (and even more) are moved in a minute by two Crossrail trains.
I can’t really see the advantage of taking 1440x the time to move the same amount of people...
Have subways been successful in moving all transportation underground? No. Because they are too expensive, too slow to build, and therefore have extremely limited points of entry/exit. This (specifically a car that can ride on an electric skate) has the potential to combine the best of both worlds.
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.
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
> 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'
When high speed steam locomotives were first invented, critics stated that women would not be able to travel on such trains because the high acceleration could cause their uterus to prolapse.
> 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).
> 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.
The tickets are $1 per person. I think the boring company wants a real implementation, they are not looking for profits out of this. Less people/ smaller cars are better to manage and work with.
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?
It's more of a guess than a conclusion. Because the tunnel is linear, the failure of a single skate affects the entire line, so running, say, 100 skates concurrently would make overall failure 100 times more likely.
One option is to make the skates incredibly fault-tolerant, but that seems to go against the simple / cheap ethos that this system seems to be going for.
Just to make this more concrete, if your skate platform breaks down just once every 10 years, then banging 100 skates in the tunnel will see this breaking down at about once a month or so.
If you have a flat failure curve, sure. If you have the more traditional bathtub curve, after the initial problems, failure rates should be much lower.
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?
Sensors in the tunnel and the skates, that communicate with each other? It's not rocket science, that's how it's worked for years with trains and subways and even car tunnels have continuous monitoring and signage to alert other drivers.
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.
As someone who gets the train a lot (Brit) - the big expensive ones have to stop due to issues very frequently because of this head-of-line blocking issue. I'd say ~1/4 of the trips I take half a delay of some sort for this reason. (I am trying to make some effort to account for the observation bias of it being f*cking annoying.)
Because the failure rate per passengers transported is much much lower in a traditional transportation system.
All the passengers that they will move per day (and a bit more), with 187 travels, are moved in one minute by just two trains in an underground system.
So you have to multiply the risks by the increased travels needed to move the same amount of people.
A ratio of ~95 seems quite a lot to me..
For the most common types of failure that aren't safety issues, I imagine the skate behind the broken one could push it (of course at a much slower speed).
Musk is full of vim and vigor and it’s having real-world benefits. His delivered products and projects are creating a scaffold for others to accelerate their own sustainable transport projects.
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.
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.
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
SF also has a giant hole in the ground that is years out from being done. Even if the Boring project runs 3x as fast and 1/4 as expensive it'd still cost hundreds of millions and take a few years
Seattle tried to build the largest-diameter highway tunnel ever constructed, digging through a bunch of century-old fill material used to extend the shoreline with an enormous, one-of-a-kind tunnel boring machine. The tunnel was eventually completed, after years of delay, and WSDOT is currently building out a double-decker, multi-lane highway within its shiny new monster tunnel.
At the same time as this boondoggle megaproject was going on, Seattle also built five ordinary subway tunnels for its light rail network, using the same bog-standard railway-sized TBMs which have been used successfully all over the world for years, and these projects were completed on time and within budget.
The premise of the Boring Company is that useful transportation infrastructure can be accomplished more cheaply by constructing even smaller, simpler tunnels with standardized tunneling machines. Their tunnels are literally just concrete tubes with concrete floors, and they are saving even more money by skipping the enormously expensive underground stations necessary with a traditional subway by using "skates" small enough to be shuttled back to the surface in an elevator.
The Seattle project was enormously ambitious; the Boring Company plan is clearly designed to be as boring as possible.
It took 17 months to bore the 17 km City Tunnel train tunnel in southern Sweden.
But the City Tunnel is actually two tunnels not one (+ cross-passages), it's 3 times longer, and has twice the diameter.
For the City Tunnel, the whole construction including 3 elaborate stations, all the traditional track infrastructure including 2 different signaling systems and connecting it to the existing rail took 5 years. That's probably the part the Boring Company is trying to save on, not so much the actual tunneling.
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.
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.
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?
>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.
So its an upgrade transport system with cost savings, ie carriages that can use the basic concrete tunnel controlled by software like AI road trains to avoid collisions maximising the transport of people and stations above ground for the cheaper space required when carriages need to stack up side by side whilst people engage in the rather slow activity of getting in and out. I cant see why they cant make a profit from that model.
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.
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 overestimating 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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
If you have a fixed track that is also free from environmental interference, why do you need a complex, camera-based system at all to find the route?
> I don't get it. How does this improve on the underground subway?
It's basically Personal Rapid Transit, which combines all the high infrastructure costs of subways with all the throughput issues of roads. Of course, the technology is being renamed to hide the fact that PRT is not exactly a new technology, and PRT has never really worked.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
reply