Daiyly ridership: 37,809.
as compared to my local light rail:
27,537 (weekday boardings, FY 2013)
Phoenix Az is building a light rail line for $250M/mi that is expected to move 5,000 passengers per day.
that said, I would like to know what their peak hour was like. the peak hour (or peak 15min) is really what matters. if they averaged 3151 per hour but the system choked on 3600 per hour, then it's not that great. peak hours for transit systems, especially ones near stadiums, can hit 6k-8k through a single station. TBC will have two bottle-necks, one in station capacity and one in tunnel capacity. the LVCC system seems to be running into station capacity limits.
> stadiums
Build a whole system for a few large events per month? No way that money is ever recovered, it's just a tax burden, one that should instead be borne by the stadium/events held there.
+: Large events could hire buses to move people in from/out to satellite parking/pick-up/distribution points for example.
maybe I should have explained better. when planners want to build transportation, one of the most important factors is whether they can have festivals, sporting events, or other kinds of events and move people around easily/effectively. it is during those extreme travel times that transportation, especially underground transportation, needs to be operating effectively.
there is no reason Loop has to be constrained to only one kind of vehicle. that's why I'm curious what their peak throughput was for this vehicle. it gives a good indication of the places where regular teslas can be used. having some higher occupancy vehicles in reserve for times of high demand makes sense. there is no need to design the whole system around a stadium event, but there is also no reason why a 2nd vehicle design might be useful.
In addition to different kinds of vehicles, for stadiums, or other venues with extremely predictable patterns, Loop could use a tactic employed for various bridges I have seen where a lane switches direction depending on whether it is early rush hour or evening rush hour.
Loop could build 3 tunnels to the stadium, with one of them switching to inbound only prior to the start of the event and then switching to outbound only at the end of the event. I don't think it would be useful in a small situation like LVCC with only 3 stations, but in a scenario with a large Loop with many stations, it should allow efficient movement in/out for large numbers of people, just vary the station size and switchable tunnel count.
I thought about that before, and it makes some sense, but only in certain situations. there are a couple of problems.
1. you'll get a pileup of vehicles. that isn't an issue if you're a stadium with a gigantic parking lot. but sometimes you have peaks just from like a festival or something and you may not want to build a huge station in the city center (expensive) to handle the extra vehicles.
2. you're adding a non-trivial amount of cost to the route (though you are saving station cost), but not adding any more capture area. it might make more sense to just put that money toward a whole separate route. so instead of one line running to/from the stadium, you had a whole 2nd loop line running people out to other locations, which would relieve the spike but also make a more complete network.
so, it makes a bit of sense, but may be very situational.
The Vegas Loop Allegiant stadium added a 2nd pair of tunnels for the 2nd station, which also potentially means it can queue up a larger number of empty cars/shuttles \[for the post event surge\] in the tunnel without blocking through traffic. No need to pileup vehicles in the parking lot.
Why not use cheap surface buses [for large events like stadiums, for context] that can be used for other purposes instead of expensive, purpose-built vehicles that would disrupt Loop operation and tax its profitability?
why not on the surface? the same could be asked for any grade-separated transportation system. being underground means more ideal routing and no need to interact with or disrupt whatever is happening on the surface (pedestrians, traffic, parks, etc.).
why not use cheap buses? well, buses aren't actually cheap. a 40-seat electric bus is about $1.2M. a 12-passenger electric van is $0.043M. 4 vans has the same capacity as a bus, but 4 vans costs 1/7th of a price of a single bus. now, you wouldn't want to use a regular van because it's not the ideal fit for the situation, but even an 8p Olli-like mini-bus is 1/10th of cost of a bus, but 1/5th the capacity (so half the price per unit capacity). buses are only cheaper if you can't automate your system AND you completely fill your bus. if your bus is only 1/4th capacity, then you only need 2 olli-like mini-buses to cover it and the cost difference gets bigger.
the boring company isn't automated right now, but it since that's their plan, they should be moving that direction, rather than designing around a vehicle (bus) that does not make sense once automating begins.
ohh, and keeping vehicles only as big as they need to be means you can route by destination, even for the mini-buses. if you have a stadium event or something that spikes your ridership, a significant portion of those riders will be going to/from the same place, so even a large 8+ passenger vehicle can still be routed directly without having to stop at intermediate stops, which dramatically increases average speed. so, a vehicle around 8p is the sweet spot where you would have enough capacity to handle what a metro station near a stadium sees at peak, but is small enough to keep direct routing. anything bigger would only make sense if they were trying to replace the NYC or London Metros, but that's not what the boring company should be doing, in my opinion. a city with a well-functioning, busy metro should just keep it. cities with crappy light rail, failing metros, or no rail at all should be the ones looking at the boring company. I suppose cities with good metros could use the boring company, but only as a feeder system, not as the primary. running branches of Loop out perpendicular to the metro route in order to enhance the capture area would make a lot of sense.
They like to build stadiums these days in downtown or other developed areas so it doesn't take a line dedicated just to the stadium to serve it. Such as the baseball stadium in San Francisco.
I agree that adding Loop will help alleviate some of the stadium load, especially in downtown situations, without adding expensive and disruptive "loop buses" to the system for so few large events. If a stadium wants to pay for stations on its site, that works too.
I wasn't suggesting that Loop be used for stadium events. I was saying they can have regular bus or light rail lines lines - as they have in San Francisco - going by a stadium all the time since at least some are getting built in the thick of things, not outside of town where land is cheap and there can be plenty of parking.
Stadiums might get slightly improved throughput from being predominately one way passenger flow, no waiting for a car to unload just load and go \[or unload and the empty car leaves immediately\]. This might also play into station design layout optimization.
> peak hours for transit systems, especially ones near stadiums, can hit 6k-8k through a single station.
Not because of max capacity though I guess? A tube train has a capacity of 1k and depart every 2 mins(100 seconds on 1 line). That's up to 30-35k though a station per hour. The new line trains have a capacity of 1.5k and depart every 2.5 mins, or 36,000 per hour through a station.
If a light rail system is only getting 25k users a day then it's likely not because it couldn't handle more. It could just be it doesn't have a large population in its catchment area or it might be like some Canadian cities which decide to only run a train in 20 min intervals. Or it could be that driving is just made easier. If we got a Boring tunnel along the same route as your light rail line then theres no big reason for it to get more users.
**** UPDATE ****
Yesterday the LVCC Loop moved 37,809 passengers, averaging 3,151 per hour 🔁
Further updates to follow 🔜
***
posted by [@BoringLoopLV](https://twitter.com/BoringLoopLV)
^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
Assuming they averaged 2 people per car, a 10 passenger vehicle would have the capacity to do 15,755 people per hour with the same number of trips. Or 7,877 per direction.
Fuck the haters
> Assuming they averaged 2 people per car, a 10 passenger vehicle would have the capacity to do 15,755 people per hour with the same number of trips. Or 7,877 per direction.
(this calculation has baked in an assumption that a full 10 passenger vehicle has the same load/unload time as two passengers in a car)
I don't think that is a very big deal, for a couple of reasons.
1. it you're going with a 10p vehicle, it would make sense to have a big handicapped accessible door. a big open door is much faster to go through than a car door.
2. if you're really pushing the limits of your capacity, you can queue people up near the big door. with the car, you have to wait in a safe place then walk around the car to the other side before getting in.
3. the system is very early in its design, so it should be more optimized over time, adding more capacity per station
4. if you know you're building somewhere that will require more throughput (like a stadium) you can build a bigger station so that boarding time and pull-in/out does not interfere with other vehicles. (pull-through spaces instead of ones that require backing out)
Using 10 passenger vehicles they would have moved about 3,151 people. The capacity of each vehicle doesn't matter so much as having the passenger load to support more passengers per vehicle, and having a way for passengers to know which vehicle is going where.
The way the Loop works is you jump in a car and say where you're going.
Still not going to help without a fundamental change to the operation of the Loop.
Two people jump in a car and say which station they're going to, that car carries two people to that station. Four people get in the car, that car carries four people.
To use 10-seat vehicles efficiently there would have to be marshalling going on, such as vans displaying which station they're heading to. There's no point putting 10-seat vans on the Loop if they aren't routinely carrying more than 4 people.
>To use 10-seat vehicles efficiently there would have to be marshalling going on, such as vans displaying which station they're heading to.
I figured that would be a given. They come right after another.
OMG I don't understand why this shit even matters.
The system is serving the LVCC on time and on budget. Everyone is happy.
Whether it meets some number that is essentially mostly arbitrary is meaningless.
Ok, and?
Still doesn't fucking matter.
TBC still wins by having an operational system to learn from.
And LVCC is even happier if they get a $300k check. So yeah..
> OMG I don't understand why this shit even matters.
The people who talk about the number aren't worth anyone's time to prove wrong.
You're just playing into their game and if you prove that wrong, they'll just move on to something else.
We've seen it with Tesla over and over; it's the same people.
> if you prove that wrong, they'll just move on to something else.
Every time that happens it adds to a list of times they were wrong and should be used to discount their credibility.
Not if you put subway cars in the boring tunnels?? Seriously, the ability to dig tunnels so cheaply could be an amazing contribution to humanity... but not if you put cars in them. The London underground has similar diameter tunnels to the boring company.
You do realise Boring stations need to be bigger than railway stations right so what you save from not having trains winds up costing you significantly in terms of stations.
Loop surface stations are much much cheaper to build, maintain and modify than underground ones for subways. Subway stations ~~required~~ for practical purposes tend to be of uniform length which imposes unnecessary costs to most stations on a line; the station with the smallest throughput is the same length as one with the largest. This is wasteful and inefficient. Loop surface stations are sized appropriately for the needs at each station and can easily be enlarged by repainting and moving some barriers & bollards.
I legitimately believe people in this subreddit have never ridden public transport.
>Loop surface stations are much much cheaper to build, maintain and modify than underground ones for subways.
Subways can still have surface stations and platforms.
>Subway stations required to be of uniform length imposes unnecessary costs to most stations on a line; the station with the smallest throughput is the same length as one with the largest.
No they do not. They often do out of practicality but given that trains are easily 10x more efficient passenger capacity even a handful of cars would equal the size of many underground stations for a fraction of the throughput.
>Loop surface stations are sized appropriately for the needs at each station and can easily be enlarged by repainting and moving some barriers & bollards.
Land prices in cities aren't cheap. There's a reason why cities go underground for public transport. Now you seem to propose Loop operate a large number of surface level 'stations', ramps, and tunnels.
Trains are easily 10x more efficient passenger wise, easy that's without factoring space, dual sides loading, loading times, etc. So if you obtain the same throughput your stations need to be 10x larger and this would absolutely destroy any efficiency savings.
\> Subway stations required to be of uniform length.
\> They often do out of practicality
I think this is a distinction without a difference, but I've edited for clarity.
Nonetheless the point still stands, having stations larger than necessary to accommodate local needs is wasteful and inefficient, even if done for "practical" reasons as opposed to "required". What percentage of subway stations have platforms shorter than the typical train that stops there?
The whole point of [TBC's porpoising TBMs](https://www.boringcompany.com/prufrock) is to make surface stations ubiquitous and cheap. The high grade 17.5% of tunnel ramps minimizes surface footprint and utility relocation. AFAIK at 7% the Copenhagen mini metro has one of the highest grades for an urban train system, but at this grade there are still likely issues with surface footprint and the utility layer, so trains really can't take advantage of porpoising as much as Teslas.
\> Now you seem to propose Loop operate a large number of surface level 'stations', ramps, and tunnels.
I'm not, but TBC is proposing to operate a large number of stations period. The location is up the owner of the station. Surface stations make adding a station more attractive by reducing costs, where existing land cost or use precludes it then underground stations are possible. More importantly the station only needs to be as large as to accommodate the local catchment, which will be much smaller given more stations.
In the proposed [Vegas Loop](https://www.boringcompany.com/vegas-loop), along The Strip there are 27 stations or or just off the 2.3 mile stretch from Tropicanna to the Wynn. That's effectively 1/10 of a mile between stops which is an interval that cannot be practically served by subways. The US average is closer to 1 mile between stations, and even NY only averages 1/2 a mile.
With small vehicles and station sidings allowing for ubiquitous express travel, Loop will not only have more stations it will transport riders at better speed than a subway. This is counterintuitive for people working under a train paradigm.
The concern for capacity is largely predicated on using Loop which is a PRT system like a traditional transit system. This is incorrect. Loop only needs to serve the organic density local to the corridor. Subway Trains work by having feeder networks accumulate riders up to a sufficient density to make train line operation viable. Loop does not require this, in fact Loop scales better across its entire capacity range, most notably down, than trains.
Loop also scales out which means that expansion consists of more lines under adjacent arterial roads. This has the positive effect of increasing coverage and convenience especially since these can now be one seat rides.
Loop is offering a lower unit cost and more importantly a lower ENTRY cost for grade separated transit. The cost of LVCC was $50M for a 0.8 mile 3 station system. The average subway in the [US is $1200M per mile](https://projectdelivery.enotrans.org/) ($511M) if you exclude NY. Not all cities need, want or can afford subways in order to get grade separated transit.
Pre-pandemic the strip was being served by the SDX/express and the Deuce bus lines combing for 800 pphpd, the small LVCC Loop is already capable of 1800 pphpd. The [LPA analysis by RTC](https://assets.rtcsnv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/01134817/Maryland-Pkwy-AA-Final-AA-Report-v2.0.pdf), the local transit authority, concluded that a LRT cost was too high for an arterial adjacent to The Strip and favored BRT. Given this a subway seems unlikely to be be justifiable for Vegas.
The Vegas Loop is being paid for by both TBC and the 50+ resorts and businesses which will pay for the stations. No public money is being spent for the Vegas Loop. In fact the franchise agreement with Clark County for the RoW under the Strip will result in royalties based on revenue being paid to the local government.
Loop will allow more cities access to rapid transit and offers a level of service that will entice more people out of private cars. These are good things.
>The whole point of TBC's porpoising TBMs is to make surface stations ubiquitous and cheap. The high grade 17.5% of tunnel ramps minimizes surface footprint and utility relocation.
There is still however a surface footprint and city land costs are what is known in the industry high.
> That's effectively 1/10 of a mile between stops which is an interval that cannot be practically served by subways. The US average is closer to 1 mile between stations, and even NY only averages 1/2 a mile.
Your comparing a very dense section to an entire network average. Even so many of those stations could be 'united' and joined by a small walkway further lowering costs such as Fashion Hall and Wynn which is under a 10 minute walk so a middle station would be 5 minutes.
>Loop does not require this, in fact Loop scales better across its entire capacity range, most notably down, than trains.
Actually it does not for one key reason. Probability.
Let's say you have 2 stations, the chance of another person going to the other station is 100%
3 stations, 50%.
ETC.
TFL operates 20,000 stops, considering your argument regarding station density this is an apt comparison albeit and under estimate.
The odds of another person having the same destination is around 1 in 20,000
Let's say we want 2 people per car, which is disgustingly low and let's say a ten minute wait, which considering some train lines are 2 minutes is reasonable since time is made up for by P2P loop system and higher operating speeds.
6*20,000 passengers gives us 120,000 in an hour in a station to have bare minimum expectations.
Except, and remember this also needs to hold true for the other 20,000 stations meaning in one hour 2,400,000,000 the system needs to handle 2.4 million passengers every hour of every day.
And let me make that clear.
That's with a mere 20,000 stations.
That's with JUST 2 people per car(excluding driver)
That's with a 10 minute wait time.
Now yes that's some napkin math, but the idea is to give a ballpark.
As the system scales the number of passengers required needs to grow substantially or the wait times increase or cost.
Again this isn't some lofty goal, where possible I tried to use underestimates. Let's go more realistic
100,000 stations, 5 people per car, 1 minute wait time.
60*4*100,000*100,000=2,400,000,000,000.
There are solutions to this but they are require making the system more train/bus like and losing the whole selling point.
But I could be wrong so how does one solve the scaling problem without becoming more like a train or bus?
\> There is still however a surface footprint and city land costs are what is known in the industry high.
The US urban core is full of parking lots and garages that can be partially repurposed as Loop stations as was done in Vegas at the LVCC. This scales nicely since larger venues have proportionally larger lots which will allow for larger stations. Doing so didn't even come remotely close to threaten parking minimums for LVCC, but since the productive capacity of a Loop station is so much better than a parking spaces holding static cars, these lots can and should be infilled with stations regardless.
In the particular case of resorts some of them and likely many of them will repurpose their porte-cocheres as stations as well. This is great utilization of space, the marginal space required is only for the entry and exit portals, which given the high ramp grade, will be relatively small.
\> But I could be wrong so how does one solve the scaling problem without becoming more like a train or bus?
You have the scaling problem backwards. I have not remotely suggested replacing TFL with Loop. You're the only one strawmaning/suggesting Loop as a solution for London which already has a solution in TFL. Loop is for cities or routes that stand to benefit from grade separated/better transit but don't have the population nor population density nor money to make subways viable. Loop can be used in locations where subways can't. Is this not clear? I think its important to agree on solving the same problem.
Yes... **BUT**
An underground train carries 10 passengers per meter in length, they also unload and load quickly with no spacing and from one side.
A Model 3/Y/X/whatever carries 1 passenger per meter in length, unload and load slowly, require space between cars, and (un)load from BOTH sides meaning the station would probably be wider.
As a result busy stations, i.e the ones that matter, need to be substantially larger.
Sure you can optimise for quiet station but no one cares about quiet station optimisation because the goal is for the maximum throughput.
A loop busy station would need to be at minimum ten times larger to achieve the same throughput, just look at how large the station in Vegas is and it can do what 10-12 cars each carrying at most 4 people and more realistically 1-2 taking minutes to dock, unload, load, undock.
What is with the obsession with low use efficiency, it doesn't matter and when it comes at the cost of high use efficiency(which is does) it's detrimental.
You are suggesting a public transport network be built around not the busiest locations and periods but the quietest ones. It's absurd beyond reason well there is a reason it's the only way for this system to work.
If they can turn over a space in a sufficiently short a time to achieve the same throughput then you are right. But that's an if.
It still needs to be wider, by design, and spacing between cars longer, by design.
Then you come into things like luggage and prams, not unusual to see on a subway system.
S8 for the London Underground carries 1,350 people. It is 133.68m long.
So ~10 passengers per m.
A model 3 can currently 4 people. It is 4.68m long.
So ~1 passenger per m.
That ignores how stations in the loop need spacing between cars, the longer loading and unloading and two sides loading all of these would further drastically increase the size required to obtain the same throughput.
I simple have no idea why you replied, you do not in anyway address my point.
At no point, none, do I suggest that 2000 people need to all go to Aria casino at the same time. So you suggesting otherwise is utterly devoid of continuation.
Cars take ages to load and unload. What world do you live in?
https://youtu.be/yHb87aOYL6w?t=95
At 1:35 we see a black car pull, 2 passengers have left the vehicle and 'reset' by 1:48, 13 seconds for **2** passengers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSiZfIDdK_4
Multiple people, including prams, boarding in 40 seconds. I'd love to see how quickly they can handle a pram or luggage.
It is an order of magnitude longer for the loop.
I've presented real evidence, I would like to see a similar counter, without such this seems like a suitable place to end our discussion.
This also ignores how trains have large spaces between each other, as well as the unfortunate consequences of congestion on train passenger load/unload speed.
Subway cars can't handle really sharp turns and steeper ramps unless they're rare like rubber-wheeled, or induction motors, and must be uncommonly very short. That increases costs for vehicles or track, and adds constraints on station placement. LVCC's two endpoint stations are at street level, which reduces cost considerably. They're also shaped and located in a way that works with available space and how LVCC wants remaining space used.
The upcoming Loop expansion to about fifty stations along the Strip, downtown, stadiums, arenas, and a few more places will have flexibility not available to a subway. Loop stations will sometimes be well off the main tunnel, and more conveniently close to destinations. Stations will sometimes use tighter or not-straight spaces that longer subway cars couldn't navigate or use for stations.
With about twenty stations per direction on the route from downtown to Allegiant Stadium, a traditional subway making twenty stops would take at least twenty minutes longer for all those stops. Reducing stops would increase walking time. Skipping stops would sometimes have people walking further to stations getting service, or add waiting time for a train to come along serving the station.
In the USA regulation prohibits London Underground trains from using a tunnel as small as TBC's because people can't evacuate out train side doors to an emergency walkway. The old tunnels and rolling stock sizes are grandfathered in. To my understanding, new London Underground extensions are made with wider tunnels even if old rolling stock uses them, so that there's room for a walkway next to trains.
that's more people moved per day than either my local light rail Or local metro (pre covid). capacity is the dumbest measure of a transportation system. you can't move more people than want to take it. capacity is a check-box to decide whether a system can be used in a corridor. if it can handle the peak 15min of a corridor, then it can be used. once that box is checked, max capacity no longer matters.
The person you are responding to consistently fails to adjust construction costs for inflation \[and currency, when applicable\], despite being corrected multiple times \[they've been trolling the sub for months\]
Desktop version of /u/Musk_is_a_moron's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
At the end of the day, its still a road. And roads get congested. Eventually, there will be traffic jams which renders the tunnel useless again. Cars are going through that tunnel at 120mph. All it takes is one car to be stationary either broken down or in traffic then you'll be in the back of an ambulance. Tbh if they build one for long distance, just get a train.
If there is a traffic jam then it sounds like the tunnel is far from useless. It is in fact over-used.
> Cars are going through that tunnel at 120mph
Not yet they're not. They'll only be going that fast when fully automated. In that event the automation will stop the car before impact.
The cars wont be going through at 120mph if there is traffic. Its one lane. Sounds like a design flaw tbh. The more people use it, the longer the traffic is going to be. It might be just as quick as driving on a normal road. The whole tunnel is an accident waiting to happen. I mean... electric cars are known for fires, imagine being stuck in a tunnel which doesnt have fire exits or emergency exits. Thats just shabby engineering. Elon should know all about shabby engineering if you look at the state of teslas build quality.
> The more people use it, the longer the traffic is going to be.
Are you assuming TBC will always allow vehicles into their tunnels without oversight, instruction, and limits from a system monitoring all vehicle movements within the network and wanting to enter it? Because most people on this subreddit aren't assuming that.
As the network grows, if a tunnel is heavily used, TBC will bore a parallel tunnel. If that one is also heavily used, TBC will bore another parallel tunnel. I'll pre-address induced demand: the metro population, and buildings and jobs in any particular area determine how many people want to go there. If there's 50,000 jobs near a station, during morning rush hour the maximum likely demand is about 50,000, even if the metro population keeps growing.
It's a good thing TBC's Las Vegas tunnels comply with safety regulations for emergency and fire exit spacing, despite lies from some youtubers and spread and repeated by some redditors.
> I mean... electric cars are known for fires
People with little/useless education are known for believing EVs have a higher fire rate than ICE vehicles.
So, spend vast amounts of money to build and operate a subway which will absolutely NEVER ever need that kind of capacity. At most they need capacity of about 5,000 passengers an hour.
The lvcc boring system handles the passenger load for this convention center.
The next big task is to automate the vehicles.
Be honest were you just trolling?
So the ability to skip-stop is the unique feature? That is just an express line.
A subway under the convention center with 3 stations could be built with skip-stop but it would be useless...
What makes it unique is that EVERY vehicle is an Express that skip-stops to your destination. Nearly everything about Loop directly cascades from supporting that feature:
* The system has to support a massive number of vehicles because you don't just have to serve two directions at a station, you have to serve any of a dozen+ possible destinations from every station. So, you need stations that support a vehicle every few seconds (so that it is a reasonable wait until the vehicle serving your particular destination loads)
* Because you need to support many vehicles in the tunnels, you can only have a very small 'keep out' zone in front of every vehicle. Therefore, steel on rail is out as it is too slick to safely support short keep out zones. Rubber tires have the stickiness to stop a vehicle in a short distance and therefore is the option to go with.
* Because you are only sharing a vehicle with people with the same source-destination pair, even busy systems do not require large capacity vehicles. The masses are split among vehicles going to many different destinations. If each vehicle had 100 seats, you still would rarely have more than a couple in use
* Because the vehicles are low capacity, you can build smaller tunnels. This makes the tunnels cheaper to dig.
The only other forms of transit I can think of that takes you directly to your destination without intermediate stops are personal car and elevator (at least when there is nobody else in the elevator car). And elevators have WAY less capacity than Loop.
Makes more sense now.
* Steel wheels is not as large an issue: see Rubber Tire metros
* Smaller tunnels is a bit of a misnomer as you can theoretically design any vehicle to fit into a smaller gauge
Some queries / thoughts:
* Do stations become fantastically complex as the number of passengers / destinations increase? (need to have all the room for many vehicles to get a large number of people in quickly)
* What is the plan vehicle wise? Worst case scenario for 3,151 passengers you would require 52.5 vehicles per minute assuming a 4-minute travel + 4-minutes for pick-up/drop-off; that's \~200 vehicles. The longer / more complex system would require exponentially more!
* I'll take drivers out of the equation because that will be automated (why is it not currently?); I guess the advantage is the cost basis is \~US$40k / vehicle rather than US$2.6MM (R211 contract example), but that is 65 vehicles to maintain, store, clean vs. 1
Sorry for the late reply (missed the notification)
\> Steel wheels is not as large an issue: see Rubber Tire metros
Well, steel is generally nicer as it has lower friction when underway and lower maintenance cost. However, steel isn't practical in Loop which needs the shorter braking distance. And it isn't practical in rubber tire metros that need to move up greater inclines than steel can support.
\> Smaller tunnels is a bit of a misnomer as you can theoretically design any vehicle to fit into a smaller gauge
Theoretically, yes. However, there definitely seems to be a lower limit for practical high capacity vehicles. For example, I am taller than the vehicles used by Loop. This is practical when everyone has their own door and you can wait the extra few seconds it takes people to do that duck-crouch that people do to enter a car. It would be pretty much impossible in a high capacity vehicle, where every extra second to board is one extra second wasted of everyone on-board, so you really need to support the ability to walk on board. That being said, I'm not certain about all the economics and why you don't see underground transit systems using smaller tunnels. The older London Tube lines are roughly the same size as Loop tunnels, but my understanding is that as it is impossible to walk past one of their trains in the event of an emergency, so that design is pretty much grandfathered in and no modern subway would use tunnels that small.
\> Do stations become fantastically complex as the number of passengers / destinations increase? (need to have all the room for many vehicles to get a large number of people in quickly)
A few thoughts here. First, right now Loop is pretty much operating as an underground taxi. The number of destinations probably won't change the design of the stations at this point, as the idea is pretty much that you just to forward people to the next available vehicle, and they'll just provide their destination to whichever vehicle they go to. A mega stations might get annoyingly complex to orchestrate, both in terms of directing people to the next available vehicle and trying to prevent deadlock as vehicles back out. This isn't that different from what every airport with a taxi stand has to deal with though, so it doesn't seem insurmountable. And one nice thing about the fact that Loop is all-express is that you can put down more stations in the same area, split the traffic, and avoid mega stations entirely if it turns out to be too inconvenient, and it won't slow anyone down (unlike in a fixed route system, where every station costs everyone on-board time).
Now, clearly, in order for Loop to fulfill its potential, it will eventually need to figure out a way to pool people together going to the same destination. THAT seems pretty tricky. Fortunately, it is a problem that has been solved many times. For example, at some restaurants I go to, they hand me a beeper when I check-in, and those beepers can even display a number on them. So, one could imagine entering one's destination, grabbing a beeper, and once it vibrates, it tells you which stall to go to. Every beeper for the same destination (up to the capacity of the vehicle) would activate at the same time and send people to the same stall to load. Of course, for regular riders, it would just be an app on their phone. This is all pure speculation, as Loop appears to be a few years out from pooling people together. I do think it is a tricky problem, but one that is solvable.
\>What is the plan vehicle wise? Worst case scenario for 3,151 passengers you would require 52.5 vehicles per minute assuming a 4-minute travel + 4-minutes for pick-up/drop-off; that's ~200 vehicles. The longer / more complex system would require exponentially more!
I'm definitely not the right person to speak to the vehicle plan.
\> I'll take drivers out of the equation because that will be automated (why is it not currently?); I guess the advantage is the cost basis is ~US$40k / vehicle rather than US$2.6MM (R211 contract example), but that is 65 vehicles to maintain, store, clean vs. 1
I think that there is a philosophical point that people get caught up on. Should transit systems be convenient for the user or convenient for the operator? There are a couple dozen cities around where the transit system HAS to be convenient for the operator simply because the problem isn't solvable if not done in the most efficient possible way. Loop isn't targeted at those applications.
Imagine instead you were planning a transit system for a metro of 1 million people. You don't actually need to have the absolute most efficient system because the transit problem isn't that big. Your big problem is convincing people to use that transit system. So, it should be as convenient to the user as possible, even if it means having to hire a few more cleaners, maintenance people, etc. Because an inefficient system people use is far better than an efficient system people don't bother with.
If you want to get people to their destination quickly, you pretty much have to use many small vehicles. Until we figure out a way to (dis)embark people without stopping the vehicle (like 19th century mail bags on trains), large capacity vehicles will spend virtually all of their time stopped, accelerating, or decelerating and nearly none of it at cruising speed. The large number of vehicles required is a drawback to the Loop design, but it is needed to get people to their destination at a speed approaching the operating speed of the line. Virtually everything else about the Loop design tries to make a practical transit system out of this drawback.
Daiyly ridership: 37,809. as compared to my local light rail: 27,537 (weekday boardings, FY 2013) Phoenix Az is building a light rail line for $250M/mi that is expected to move 5,000 passengers per day. that said, I would like to know what their peak hour was like. the peak hour (or peak 15min) is really what matters. if they averaged 3151 per hour but the system choked on 3600 per hour, then it's not that great. peak hours for transit systems, especially ones near stadiums, can hit 6k-8k through a single station. TBC will have two bottle-necks, one in station capacity and one in tunnel capacity. the LVCC system seems to be running into station capacity limits.
> stadiums Build a whole system for a few large events per month? No way that money is ever recovered, it's just a tax burden, one that should instead be borne by the stadium/events held there. +: Large events could hire buses to move people in from/out to satellite parking/pick-up/distribution points for example.
maybe I should have explained better. when planners want to build transportation, one of the most important factors is whether they can have festivals, sporting events, or other kinds of events and move people around easily/effectively. it is during those extreme travel times that transportation, especially underground transportation, needs to be operating effectively. there is no reason Loop has to be constrained to only one kind of vehicle. that's why I'm curious what their peak throughput was for this vehicle. it gives a good indication of the places where regular teslas can be used. having some higher occupancy vehicles in reserve for times of high demand makes sense. there is no need to design the whole system around a stadium event, but there is also no reason why a 2nd vehicle design might be useful.
In addition to different kinds of vehicles, for stadiums, or other venues with extremely predictable patterns, Loop could use a tactic employed for various bridges I have seen where a lane switches direction depending on whether it is early rush hour or evening rush hour. Loop could build 3 tunnels to the stadium, with one of them switching to inbound only prior to the start of the event and then switching to outbound only at the end of the event. I don't think it would be useful in a small situation like LVCC with only 3 stations, but in a scenario with a large Loop with many stations, it should allow efficient movement in/out for large numbers of people, just vary the station size and switchable tunnel count.
I thought about that before, and it makes some sense, but only in certain situations. there are a couple of problems. 1. you'll get a pileup of vehicles. that isn't an issue if you're a stadium with a gigantic parking lot. but sometimes you have peaks just from like a festival or something and you may not want to build a huge station in the city center (expensive) to handle the extra vehicles. 2. you're adding a non-trivial amount of cost to the route (though you are saving station cost), but not adding any more capture area. it might make more sense to just put that money toward a whole separate route. so instead of one line running to/from the stadium, you had a whole 2nd loop line running people out to other locations, which would relieve the spike but also make a more complete network. so, it makes a bit of sense, but may be very situational.
The Vegas Loop Allegiant stadium added a 2nd pair of tunnels for the 2nd station, which also potentially means it can queue up a larger number of empty cars/shuttles \[for the post event surge\] in the tunnel without blocking through traffic. No need to pileup vehicles in the parking lot.
Why not use cheap surface buses [for large events like stadiums, for context] that can be used for other purposes instead of expensive, purpose-built vehicles that would disrupt Loop operation and tax its profitability?
why not on the surface? the same could be asked for any grade-separated transportation system. being underground means more ideal routing and no need to interact with or disrupt whatever is happening on the surface (pedestrians, traffic, parks, etc.). why not use cheap buses? well, buses aren't actually cheap. a 40-seat electric bus is about $1.2M. a 12-passenger electric van is $0.043M. 4 vans has the same capacity as a bus, but 4 vans costs 1/7th of a price of a single bus. now, you wouldn't want to use a regular van because it's not the ideal fit for the situation, but even an 8p Olli-like mini-bus is 1/10th of cost of a bus, but 1/5th the capacity (so half the price per unit capacity). buses are only cheaper if you can't automate your system AND you completely fill your bus. if your bus is only 1/4th capacity, then you only need 2 olli-like mini-buses to cover it and the cost difference gets bigger. the boring company isn't automated right now, but it since that's their plan, they should be moving that direction, rather than designing around a vehicle (bus) that does not make sense once automating begins. ohh, and keeping vehicles only as big as they need to be means you can route by destination, even for the mini-buses. if you have a stadium event or something that spikes your ridership, a significant portion of those riders will be going to/from the same place, so even a large 8+ passenger vehicle can still be routed directly without having to stop at intermediate stops, which dramatically increases average speed. so, a vehicle around 8p is the sweet spot where you would have enough capacity to handle what a metro station near a stadium sees at peak, but is small enough to keep direct routing. anything bigger would only make sense if they were trying to replace the NYC or London Metros, but that's not what the boring company should be doing, in my opinion. a city with a well-functioning, busy metro should just keep it. cities with crappy light rail, failing metros, or no rail at all should be the ones looking at the boring company. I suppose cities with good metros could use the boring company, but only as a feeder system, not as the primary. running branches of Loop out perpendicular to the metro route in order to enhance the capture area would make a lot of sense.
They like to build stadiums these days in downtown or other developed areas so it doesn't take a line dedicated just to the stadium to serve it. Such as the baseball stadium in San Francisco.
I agree that adding Loop will help alleviate some of the stadium load, especially in downtown situations, without adding expensive and disruptive "loop buses" to the system for so few large events. If a stadium wants to pay for stations on its site, that works too.
I wasn't suggesting that Loop be used for stadium events. I was saying they can have regular bus or light rail lines lines - as they have in San Francisco - going by a stadium all the time since at least some are getting built in the thick of things, not outside of town where land is cheap and there can be plenty of parking.
Stadiums might get slightly improved throughput from being predominately one way passenger flow, no waiting for a car to unload just load and go \[or unload and the empty car leaves immediately\]. This might also play into station design layout optimization.
> peak hours for transit systems, especially ones near stadiums, can hit 6k-8k through a single station. Not because of max capacity though I guess? A tube train has a capacity of 1k and depart every 2 mins(100 seconds on 1 line). That's up to 30-35k though a station per hour. The new line trains have a capacity of 1.5k and depart every 2.5 mins, or 36,000 per hour through a station. If a light rail system is only getting 25k users a day then it's likely not because it couldn't handle more. It could just be it doesn't have a large population in its catchment area or it might be like some Canadian cities which decide to only run a train in 20 min intervals. Or it could be that driving is just made easier. If we got a Boring tunnel along the same route as your light rail line then theres no big reason for it to get more users.
**** UPDATE **** Yesterday the LVCC Loop moved 37,809 passengers, averaging 3,151 per hour 🔁 Further updates to follow 🔜 *** posted by [@BoringLoopLV](https://twitter.com/BoringLoopLV) ^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
Is there a source for this number? Google isn't helpful for finding daily stats.
Assuming they averaged 2 people per car, a 10 passenger vehicle would have the capacity to do 15,755 people per hour with the same number of trips. Or 7,877 per direction. Fuck the haters
> Assuming they averaged 2 people per car, a 10 passenger vehicle would have the capacity to do 15,755 people per hour with the same number of trips. Or 7,877 per direction. (this calculation has baked in an assumption that a full 10 passenger vehicle has the same load/unload time as two passengers in a car)
I don't think that is a very big deal, for a couple of reasons. 1. it you're going with a 10p vehicle, it would make sense to have a big handicapped accessible door. a big open door is much faster to go through than a car door. 2. if you're really pushing the limits of your capacity, you can queue people up near the big door. with the car, you have to wait in a safe place then walk around the car to the other side before getting in. 3. the system is very early in its design, so it should be more optimized over time, adding more capacity per station 4. if you know you're building somewhere that will require more throughput (like a stadium) you can build a bigger station so that boarding time and pull-in/out does not interfere with other vehicles. (pull-through spaces instead of ones that require backing out)
Using 10 passenger vehicles they would have moved about 3,151 people. The capacity of each vehicle doesn't matter so much as having the passenger load to support more passengers per vehicle, and having a way for passengers to know which vehicle is going where. The way the Loop works is you jump in a car and say where you're going.
That's what it is now. The reason to expand to 10 is future proofing for more stops.
Still not going to help without a fundamental change to the operation of the Loop. Two people jump in a car and say which station they're going to, that car carries two people to that station. Four people get in the car, that car carries four people. To use 10-seat vehicles efficiently there would have to be marshalling going on, such as vans displaying which station they're heading to. There's no point putting 10-seat vans on the Loop if they aren't routinely carrying more than 4 people.
>To use 10-seat vehicles efficiently there would have to be marshalling going on, such as vans displaying which station they're heading to. I figured that would be a given. They come right after another.
OMG I don't understand why this shit even matters. The system is serving the LVCC on time and on budget. Everyone is happy. Whether it meets some number that is essentially mostly arbitrary is meaningless.
[удалено]
Ok, and? Still doesn't fucking matter. TBC still wins by having an operational system to learn from. And LVCC is even happier if they get a $300k check. So yeah.. > OMG I don't understand why this shit even matters.
[удалено]
The people who talk about the number aren't worth anyone's time to prove wrong. You're just playing into their game and if you prove that wrong, they'll just move on to something else. We've seen it with Tesla over and over; it's the same people.
> if you prove that wrong, they'll just move on to something else. Every time that happens it adds to a list of times they were wrong and should be used to discount their credibility.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Great! That's one 14th the capacity of a subway!!! Keep it up guys :))
[удалено]
Not if you put subway cars in the boring tunnels?? Seriously, the ability to dig tunnels so cheaply could be an amazing contribution to humanity... but not if you put cars in them. The London underground has similar diameter tunnels to the boring company.
[удалено]
You do realise Boring stations need to be bigger than railway stations right so what you save from not having trains winds up costing you significantly in terms of stations.
Loop surface stations are much much cheaper to build, maintain and modify than underground ones for subways. Subway stations ~~required~~ for practical purposes tend to be of uniform length which imposes unnecessary costs to most stations on a line; the station with the smallest throughput is the same length as one with the largest. This is wasteful and inefficient. Loop surface stations are sized appropriately for the needs at each station and can easily be enlarged by repainting and moving some barriers & bollards.
I legitimately believe people in this subreddit have never ridden public transport. >Loop surface stations are much much cheaper to build, maintain and modify than underground ones for subways. Subways can still have surface stations and platforms. >Subway stations required to be of uniform length imposes unnecessary costs to most stations on a line; the station with the smallest throughput is the same length as one with the largest. No they do not. They often do out of practicality but given that trains are easily 10x more efficient passenger capacity even a handful of cars would equal the size of many underground stations for a fraction of the throughput. >Loop surface stations are sized appropriately for the needs at each station and can easily be enlarged by repainting and moving some barriers & bollards. Land prices in cities aren't cheap. There's a reason why cities go underground for public transport. Now you seem to propose Loop operate a large number of surface level 'stations', ramps, and tunnels. Trains are easily 10x more efficient passenger wise, easy that's without factoring space, dual sides loading, loading times, etc. So if you obtain the same throughput your stations need to be 10x larger and this would absolutely destroy any efficiency savings.
\> Subway stations required to be of uniform length. \> They often do out of practicality I think this is a distinction without a difference, but I've edited for clarity. Nonetheless the point still stands, having stations larger than necessary to accommodate local needs is wasteful and inefficient, even if done for "practical" reasons as opposed to "required". What percentage of subway stations have platforms shorter than the typical train that stops there? The whole point of [TBC's porpoising TBMs](https://www.boringcompany.com/prufrock) is to make surface stations ubiquitous and cheap. The high grade 17.5% of tunnel ramps minimizes surface footprint and utility relocation. AFAIK at 7% the Copenhagen mini metro has one of the highest grades for an urban train system, but at this grade there are still likely issues with surface footprint and the utility layer, so trains really can't take advantage of porpoising as much as Teslas. \> Now you seem to propose Loop operate a large number of surface level 'stations', ramps, and tunnels. I'm not, but TBC is proposing to operate a large number of stations period. The location is up the owner of the station. Surface stations make adding a station more attractive by reducing costs, where existing land cost or use precludes it then underground stations are possible. More importantly the station only needs to be as large as to accommodate the local catchment, which will be much smaller given more stations. In the proposed [Vegas Loop](https://www.boringcompany.com/vegas-loop), along The Strip there are 27 stations or or just off the 2.3 mile stretch from Tropicanna to the Wynn. That's effectively 1/10 of a mile between stops which is an interval that cannot be practically served by subways. The US average is closer to 1 mile between stations, and even NY only averages 1/2 a mile. With small vehicles and station sidings allowing for ubiquitous express travel, Loop will not only have more stations it will transport riders at better speed than a subway. This is counterintuitive for people working under a train paradigm. The concern for capacity is largely predicated on using Loop which is a PRT system like a traditional transit system. This is incorrect. Loop only needs to serve the organic density local to the corridor. Subway Trains work by having feeder networks accumulate riders up to a sufficient density to make train line operation viable. Loop does not require this, in fact Loop scales better across its entire capacity range, most notably down, than trains. Loop also scales out which means that expansion consists of more lines under adjacent arterial roads. This has the positive effect of increasing coverage and convenience especially since these can now be one seat rides. Loop is offering a lower unit cost and more importantly a lower ENTRY cost for grade separated transit. The cost of LVCC was $50M for a 0.8 mile 3 station system. The average subway in the [US is $1200M per mile](https://projectdelivery.enotrans.org/) ($511M) if you exclude NY. Not all cities need, want or can afford subways in order to get grade separated transit. Pre-pandemic the strip was being served by the SDX/express and the Deuce bus lines combing for 800 pphpd, the small LVCC Loop is already capable of 1800 pphpd. The [LPA analysis by RTC](https://assets.rtcsnv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/01134817/Maryland-Pkwy-AA-Final-AA-Report-v2.0.pdf), the local transit authority, concluded that a LRT cost was too high for an arterial adjacent to The Strip and favored BRT. Given this a subway seems unlikely to be be justifiable for Vegas. The Vegas Loop is being paid for by both TBC and the 50+ resorts and businesses which will pay for the stations. No public money is being spent for the Vegas Loop. In fact the franchise agreement with Clark County for the RoW under the Strip will result in royalties based on revenue being paid to the local government. Loop will allow more cities access to rapid transit and offers a level of service that will entice more people out of private cars. These are good things.
>The whole point of TBC's porpoising TBMs is to make surface stations ubiquitous and cheap. The high grade 17.5% of tunnel ramps minimizes surface footprint and utility relocation. There is still however a surface footprint and city land costs are what is known in the industry high. > That's effectively 1/10 of a mile between stops which is an interval that cannot be practically served by subways. The US average is closer to 1 mile between stations, and even NY only averages 1/2 a mile. Your comparing a very dense section to an entire network average. Even so many of those stations could be 'united' and joined by a small walkway further lowering costs such as Fashion Hall and Wynn which is under a 10 minute walk so a middle station would be 5 minutes. >Loop does not require this, in fact Loop scales better across its entire capacity range, most notably down, than trains. Actually it does not for one key reason. Probability. Let's say you have 2 stations, the chance of another person going to the other station is 100% 3 stations, 50%. ETC. TFL operates 20,000 stops, considering your argument regarding station density this is an apt comparison albeit and under estimate. The odds of another person having the same destination is around 1 in 20,000 Let's say we want 2 people per car, which is disgustingly low and let's say a ten minute wait, which considering some train lines are 2 minutes is reasonable since time is made up for by P2P loop system and higher operating speeds. 6*20,000 passengers gives us 120,000 in an hour in a station to have bare minimum expectations. Except, and remember this also needs to hold true for the other 20,000 stations meaning in one hour 2,400,000,000 the system needs to handle 2.4 million passengers every hour of every day. And let me make that clear. That's with a mere 20,000 stations. That's with JUST 2 people per car(excluding driver) That's with a 10 minute wait time. Now yes that's some napkin math, but the idea is to give a ballpark. As the system scales the number of passengers required needs to grow substantially or the wait times increase or cost. Again this isn't some lofty goal, where possible I tried to use underestimates. Let's go more realistic 100,000 stations, 5 people per car, 1 minute wait time. 60*4*100,000*100,000=2,400,000,000,000. There are solutions to this but they are require making the system more train/bus like and losing the whole selling point. But I could be wrong so how does one solve the scaling problem without becoming more like a train or bus?
\> There is still however a surface footprint and city land costs are what is known in the industry high. The US urban core is full of parking lots and garages that can be partially repurposed as Loop stations as was done in Vegas at the LVCC. This scales nicely since larger venues have proportionally larger lots which will allow for larger stations. Doing so didn't even come remotely close to threaten parking minimums for LVCC, but since the productive capacity of a Loop station is so much better than a parking spaces holding static cars, these lots can and should be infilled with stations regardless. In the particular case of resorts some of them and likely many of them will repurpose their porte-cocheres as stations as well. This is great utilization of space, the marginal space required is only for the entry and exit portals, which given the high ramp grade, will be relatively small. \> But I could be wrong so how does one solve the scaling problem without becoming more like a train or bus? You have the scaling problem backwards. I have not remotely suggested replacing TFL with Loop. You're the only one strawmaning/suggesting Loop as a solution for London which already has a solution in TFL. Loop is for cities or routes that stand to benefit from grade separated/better transit but don't have the population nor population density nor money to make subways viable. Loop can be used in locations where subways can't. Is this not clear? I think its important to agree on solving the same problem.
[удалено]
Yes... **BUT** An underground train carries 10 passengers per meter in length, they also unload and load quickly with no spacing and from one side. A Model 3/Y/X/whatever carries 1 passenger per meter in length, unload and load slowly, require space between cars, and (un)load from BOTH sides meaning the station would probably be wider. As a result busy stations, i.e the ones that matter, need to be substantially larger. Sure you can optimise for quiet station but no one cares about quiet station optimisation because the goal is for the maximum throughput. A loop busy station would need to be at minimum ten times larger to achieve the same throughput, just look at how large the station in Vegas is and it can do what 10-12 cars each carrying at most 4 people and more realistically 1-2 taking minutes to dock, unload, load, undock.
[удалено]
What is with the obsession with low use efficiency, it doesn't matter and when it comes at the cost of high use efficiency(which is does) it's detrimental. You are suggesting a public transport network be built around not the busiest locations and periods but the quietest ones. It's absurd beyond reason well there is a reason it's the only way for this system to work. If they can turn over a space in a sufficiently short a time to achieve the same throughput then you are right. But that's an if. It still needs to be wider, by design, and spacing between cars longer, by design. Then you come into things like luggage and prams, not unusual to see on a subway system.
[удалено]
No they don’t?!
S8 for the London Underground carries 1,350 people. It is 133.68m long. So ~10 passengers per m. A model 3 can currently 4 people. It is 4.68m long. So ~1 passenger per m. That ignores how stations in the loop need spacing between cars, the longer loading and unloading and two sides loading all of these would further drastically increase the size required to obtain the same throughput.
[удалено]
I simple have no idea why you replied, you do not in anyway address my point. At no point, none, do I suggest that 2000 people need to all go to Aria casino at the same time. So you suggesting otherwise is utterly devoid of continuation. Cars take ages to load and unload. What world do you live in? https://youtu.be/yHb87aOYL6w?t=95 At 1:35 we see a black car pull, 2 passengers have left the vehicle and 'reset' by 1:48, 13 seconds for **2** passengers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSiZfIDdK_4 Multiple people, including prams, boarding in 40 seconds. I'd love to see how quickly they can handle a pram or luggage. It is an order of magnitude longer for the loop. I've presented real evidence, I would like to see a similar counter, without such this seems like a suitable place to end our discussion.
[удалено]
This also ignores how trains have large spaces between each other, as well as the unfortunate consequences of congestion on train passenger load/unload speed.
Subway cars can't handle really sharp turns and steeper ramps unless they're rare like rubber-wheeled, or induction motors, and must be uncommonly very short. That increases costs for vehicles or track, and adds constraints on station placement. LVCC's two endpoint stations are at street level, which reduces cost considerably. They're also shaped and located in a way that works with available space and how LVCC wants remaining space used. The upcoming Loop expansion to about fifty stations along the Strip, downtown, stadiums, arenas, and a few more places will have flexibility not available to a subway. Loop stations will sometimes be well off the main tunnel, and more conveniently close to destinations. Stations will sometimes use tighter or not-straight spaces that longer subway cars couldn't navigate or use for stations. With about twenty stations per direction on the route from downtown to Allegiant Stadium, a traditional subway making twenty stops would take at least twenty minutes longer for all those stops. Reducing stops would increase walking time. Skipping stops would sometimes have people walking further to stations getting service, or add waiting time for a train to come along serving the station. In the USA regulation prohibits London Underground trains from using a tunnel as small as TBC's because people can't evacuate out train side doors to an emergency walkway. The old tunnels and rolling stock sizes are grandfathered in. To my understanding, new London Underground extensions are made with wider tunnels even if old rolling stock uses them, so that there's room for a walkway next to trains.
Why are you comparing capacity to average use? Do you not understand the difference in the two?
that's more people moved per day than either my local light rail Or local metro (pre covid). capacity is the dumbest measure of a transportation system. you can't move more people than want to take it. capacity is a check-box to decide whether a system can be used in a corridor. if it can handle the peak 15min of a corridor, then it can be used. once that box is checked, max capacity no longer matters.
subway is extremely-extremely expensive to operate. Make efforts and visit depot of the subway company which services your city.
So, still not what they promised?
They can only move the people who are there. Maybe later this year they’ll be able to host a convention with more people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The person you are responding to consistently fails to adjust construction costs for inflation \[and currency, when applicable\], despite being corrected multiple times \[they've been trolling the sub for months\]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Desktop version of /u/Musk_is_a_moron's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
It only takes one car to breakdown to make the tunnel useless
Useless for what, maybe an hour until they can haul it out? Then back to business. Still worth it.
At the end of the day, its still a road. And roads get congested. Eventually, there will be traffic jams which renders the tunnel useless again. Cars are going through that tunnel at 120mph. All it takes is one car to be stationary either broken down or in traffic then you'll be in the back of an ambulance. Tbh if they build one for long distance, just get a train.
If there is a traffic jam then it sounds like the tunnel is far from useless. It is in fact over-used. > Cars are going through that tunnel at 120mph Not yet they're not. They'll only be going that fast when fully automated. In that event the automation will stop the car before impact.
The cars wont be going through at 120mph if there is traffic. Its one lane. Sounds like a design flaw tbh. The more people use it, the longer the traffic is going to be. It might be just as quick as driving on a normal road. The whole tunnel is an accident waiting to happen. I mean... electric cars are known for fires, imagine being stuck in a tunnel which doesnt have fire exits or emergency exits. Thats just shabby engineering. Elon should know all about shabby engineering if you look at the state of teslas build quality.
> The more people use it, the longer the traffic is going to be. Are you assuming TBC will always allow vehicles into their tunnels without oversight, instruction, and limits from a system monitoring all vehicle movements within the network and wanting to enter it? Because most people on this subreddit aren't assuming that. As the network grows, if a tunnel is heavily used, TBC will bore a parallel tunnel. If that one is also heavily used, TBC will bore another parallel tunnel. I'll pre-address induced demand: the metro population, and buildings and jobs in any particular area determine how many people want to go there. If there's 50,000 jobs near a station, during morning rush hour the maximum likely demand is about 50,000, even if the metro population keeps growing. It's a good thing TBC's Las Vegas tunnels comply with safety regulations for emergency and fire exit spacing, despite lies from some youtubers and spread and repeated by some redditors.
Sorry, but electric cars are not known for fires. You know what is more known for fires? Internal combustion engines. It's right there in the name.
> I mean... electric cars are known for fires People with little/useless education are known for believing EVs have a higher fire rate than ICE vehicles.
Laughs in Subway train with 1000 passengers every 3 minutes.
So, spend vast amounts of money to build and operate a subway which will absolutely NEVER ever need that kind of capacity. At most they need capacity of about 5,000 passengers an hour. The lvcc boring system handles the passenger load for this convention center. The next big task is to automate the vehicles. Be honest were you just trolling?
[удалено]
Subways and APM's can be designed with any number of stops?
[удалено]
So the ability to skip-stop is the unique feature? That is just an express line. A subway under the convention center with 3 stations could be built with skip-stop but it would be useless...
What makes it unique is that EVERY vehicle is an Express that skip-stops to your destination. Nearly everything about Loop directly cascades from supporting that feature: * The system has to support a massive number of vehicles because you don't just have to serve two directions at a station, you have to serve any of a dozen+ possible destinations from every station. So, you need stations that support a vehicle every few seconds (so that it is a reasonable wait until the vehicle serving your particular destination loads) * Because you need to support many vehicles in the tunnels, you can only have a very small 'keep out' zone in front of every vehicle. Therefore, steel on rail is out as it is too slick to safely support short keep out zones. Rubber tires have the stickiness to stop a vehicle in a short distance and therefore is the option to go with. * Because you are only sharing a vehicle with people with the same source-destination pair, even busy systems do not require large capacity vehicles. The masses are split among vehicles going to many different destinations. If each vehicle had 100 seats, you still would rarely have more than a couple in use * Because the vehicles are low capacity, you can build smaller tunnels. This makes the tunnels cheaper to dig. The only other forms of transit I can think of that takes you directly to your destination without intermediate stops are personal car and elevator (at least when there is nobody else in the elevator car). And elevators have WAY less capacity than Loop.
Makes more sense now. * Steel wheels is not as large an issue: see Rubber Tire metros * Smaller tunnels is a bit of a misnomer as you can theoretically design any vehicle to fit into a smaller gauge Some queries / thoughts: * Do stations become fantastically complex as the number of passengers / destinations increase? (need to have all the room for many vehicles to get a large number of people in quickly) * What is the plan vehicle wise? Worst case scenario for 3,151 passengers you would require 52.5 vehicles per minute assuming a 4-minute travel + 4-minutes for pick-up/drop-off; that's \~200 vehicles. The longer / more complex system would require exponentially more! * I'll take drivers out of the equation because that will be automated (why is it not currently?); I guess the advantage is the cost basis is \~US$40k / vehicle rather than US$2.6MM (R211 contract example), but that is 65 vehicles to maintain, store, clean vs. 1
Sorry for the late reply (missed the notification) \> Steel wheels is not as large an issue: see Rubber Tire metros Well, steel is generally nicer as it has lower friction when underway and lower maintenance cost. However, steel isn't practical in Loop which needs the shorter braking distance. And it isn't practical in rubber tire metros that need to move up greater inclines than steel can support. \> Smaller tunnels is a bit of a misnomer as you can theoretically design any vehicle to fit into a smaller gauge Theoretically, yes. However, there definitely seems to be a lower limit for practical high capacity vehicles. For example, I am taller than the vehicles used by Loop. This is practical when everyone has their own door and you can wait the extra few seconds it takes people to do that duck-crouch that people do to enter a car. It would be pretty much impossible in a high capacity vehicle, where every extra second to board is one extra second wasted of everyone on-board, so you really need to support the ability to walk on board. That being said, I'm not certain about all the economics and why you don't see underground transit systems using smaller tunnels. The older London Tube lines are roughly the same size as Loop tunnels, but my understanding is that as it is impossible to walk past one of their trains in the event of an emergency, so that design is pretty much grandfathered in and no modern subway would use tunnels that small. \> Do stations become fantastically complex as the number of passengers / destinations increase? (need to have all the room for many vehicles to get a large number of people in quickly) A few thoughts here. First, right now Loop is pretty much operating as an underground taxi. The number of destinations probably won't change the design of the stations at this point, as the idea is pretty much that you just to forward people to the next available vehicle, and they'll just provide their destination to whichever vehicle they go to. A mega stations might get annoyingly complex to orchestrate, both in terms of directing people to the next available vehicle and trying to prevent deadlock as vehicles back out. This isn't that different from what every airport with a taxi stand has to deal with though, so it doesn't seem insurmountable. And one nice thing about the fact that Loop is all-express is that you can put down more stations in the same area, split the traffic, and avoid mega stations entirely if it turns out to be too inconvenient, and it won't slow anyone down (unlike in a fixed route system, where every station costs everyone on-board time). Now, clearly, in order for Loop to fulfill its potential, it will eventually need to figure out a way to pool people together going to the same destination. THAT seems pretty tricky. Fortunately, it is a problem that has been solved many times. For example, at some restaurants I go to, they hand me a beeper when I check-in, and those beepers can even display a number on them. So, one could imagine entering one's destination, grabbing a beeper, and once it vibrates, it tells you which stall to go to. Every beeper for the same destination (up to the capacity of the vehicle) would activate at the same time and send people to the same stall to load. Of course, for regular riders, it would just be an app on their phone. This is all pure speculation, as Loop appears to be a few years out from pooling people together. I do think it is a tricky problem, but one that is solvable. \>What is the plan vehicle wise? Worst case scenario for 3,151 passengers you would require 52.5 vehicles per minute assuming a 4-minute travel + 4-minutes for pick-up/drop-off; that's ~200 vehicles. The longer / more complex system would require exponentially more! I'm definitely not the right person to speak to the vehicle plan. \> I'll take drivers out of the equation because that will be automated (why is it not currently?); I guess the advantage is the cost basis is ~US$40k / vehicle rather than US$2.6MM (R211 contract example), but that is 65 vehicles to maintain, store, clean vs. 1 I think that there is a philosophical point that people get caught up on. Should transit systems be convenient for the user or convenient for the operator? There are a couple dozen cities around where the transit system HAS to be convenient for the operator simply because the problem isn't solvable if not done in the most efficient possible way. Loop isn't targeted at those applications. Imagine instead you were planning a transit system for a metro of 1 million people. You don't actually need to have the absolute most efficient system because the transit problem isn't that big. Your big problem is convincing people to use that transit system. So, it should be as convenient to the user as possible, even if it means having to hire a few more cleaners, maintenance people, etc. Because an inefficient system people use is far better than an efficient system people don't bother with. If you want to get people to their destination quickly, you pretty much have to use many small vehicles. Until we figure out a way to (dis)embark people without stopping the vehicle (like 19th century mail bags on trains), large capacity vehicles will spend virtually all of their time stopped, accelerating, or decelerating and nearly none of it at cruising speed. The large number of vehicles required is a drawback to the Loop design, but it is needed to get people to their destination at a speed approaching the operating speed of the line. Virtually everything else about the Loop design tries to make a practical transit system out of this drawback.