Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk's Boring Company Bids On Chicago Airport Transit Link (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, the city of Chicago opened a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for an express train that would take passengers from the city's O'Hare airport to downtown. The system would have to be completely privately funded -- Chicago says no taxpayer money would be used for it. Elon Musk's Boring Company -- a tunneling company that the SpaceX and Tesla CEO started last year -- will respond to the request. Musk hopes to get to the second round when bidding will take place. On Wednesday evening, he tweeted that his company "will compete to fund, build & operate a high-speed Loop connecting Chicago O'Hare Airport to downtown."
Musk's reference to a "Loop" is explained more clearly on The Boring Company's FAQ page: "Loop is a high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported on autonomous electric skates traveling at 125-150 miles per hour. Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit), or a single passenger vehicle." Unlike Musk's idea for a Hyperloop, a Loop won't draw a vacuum. "For shorter routes, there is no technical need to eliminate air friction," The Boring Company states. The company also clarifies the concept of an "electric skate:" that is "a platform on wheels propelled by multiple electric motors." The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect. The skate would operate in the tunnel's main artery, and it would enter and exit from side tunnels. With this system, The Boring Company says, the skate's average speed would theoretically be able to operate close to maximum speed.
Musk's reference to a "Loop" is explained more clearly on The Boring Company's FAQ page: "Loop is a high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported on autonomous electric skates traveling at 125-150 miles per hour. Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit), or a single passenger vehicle." Unlike Musk's idea for a Hyperloop, a Loop won't draw a vacuum. "For shorter routes, there is no technical need to eliminate air friction," The Boring Company states. The company also clarifies the concept of an "electric skate:" that is "a platform on wheels propelled by multiple electric motors." The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect. The skate would operate in the tunnel's main artery, and it would enter and exit from side tunnels. With this system, The Boring Company says, the skate's average speed would theoretically be able to operate close to maximum speed.
I just can't get excited about that.
So a train then.
Lol. I bet he bids on shit to just scare the old establish places.
Per TFA - actually, per the fucking headline - goddammit ppl, fucking read!!!!
"The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect."
For all of the people out there who have concerns about the Boring Company and tunnels they are planning to build, you really need to read the Boring Company FAQ.
Worried about earthquakes? They talk about it.
Wondering what the heck an electric skate is exactly? They talk about it.
Wondering how they can do tunnels economically? They talk about it.
The starting point of the discussions about using tunnels should be based on the claims they have there, not worries that have already been addressed...
I personally do not see how any surface based approach can possibly cost less than the tunnel approach or be put in as quickly given the huge amount of problems it takes to put in a new rail line over long existing areas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I hope his bid is multiplied by 3X/4X to account for all the graft he'll need to handle.
Normally in procurement RFQ is the acronym for a Request for Quote. For a large contract like this vendors would be qualified with an RFI (Request for Information). When you actually bid you'd use a Request for Proposal (RFP). This is too large a contract to use quotes's on the primary contract.
This matters because RFI's are used early in the process. At those stages the agency may be able or willing to consider more creative approaches.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
When I went to school RFQ stood for Request For Quotation.
Oh, wait. Looks like it still does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
we already have an electric train from o'hare to downtown in 40 minutes, and by the way the realistic time without the marketing hype for this proposed thing is 25 minutes.....so for $33 more than the current price you save a whopping 15 minutes. whoop de fucking do.
Why is Chicago even thinking of pursuing this? The Blue Line departs from O'hare and only takes 35-40 minutes to get to the loop. Seems like an unnecessary risk tunneling underground for minimal gain.
Well, you wouldn't have the expense of digging a goddamn tunnel.
Further, there are existing rail right-of-ways that are unused or underused all along the route from O'Hare to downtown Chicago. The city doesn't even know what to do with them. They've turned some into bike paths, but they hardly get used because you can safely bike anywhere in Chicago.
I'm sure it's good PR for Elon to be bidding on these contracts, but he's not going to get one in Chicago. Maybe it would make sense in a place like Houston, but there are so few people riding existing public transportation there, that I'm not sure anyone would use it. People love their cars in Houston, because for 10 months out of the year the weather is so bad you really can't go outside even for a walk from the parking lot to the Metro trains.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I personally do not see how any surface based approach can possibly cost less than the tunnel approach or be put in as quickly given the huge amount of problems it takes to put in a new rail line over long existing areas.
You might want to look at what happened with the DC Metro. The Red Line started leaking before they even finished it. It ended up costing more to repair the tunnel than it cost to build the entire system. They diverted money from maintenance for so long that the entire system is failing. And the Red Line is still leaking.
Chicago already has a very good alternative to tunnels: elevated tracks. I've only visited a couple of times but their system seems to work quite well.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
(1) There's already an electric train
(2) Why NOT have rails in the tunnel? They add little to the cost compared to drilling a tunnel, they drastically simplify guidance at high speeds, and they act as an electric power return path.
(Also, metal to metal friction is lower than metal to concrete.)
This is basically an automated subway using single cars, without the rails and, thus, with more difficult guidance issues.
It's called the "Blue Line" and it's a couple bucks. Runs you right into O'hare. You can make stops along the way in case you don't want to go all the way downtown. Am I missing something?
no I have concern with complete disregard for where the water table is here in the chicago area in the proposed path, the thing will often be submerged. weather proof is one thing, making a tunnel under water is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. even the kennedy expressway along which the current Blue Line electric train runs has parts that turn into a lake in five inches or more of rainfall as do parts of the highways it joins.
so for passengers that are amphibians, this will be a great system.
And note the real travel time is "20-25 minutes", so you shave 15 minutes off the current Blue Line travel for a mere $33 more. So let's amend that to system for rich stupid amphibians.
First, after reading up on this it's practically unneeded. 20 minutes O'Hare to Downtown? The blue line El Train takes 45 minutes and costs hardly anything. If it took 5-10 minutes, maybe you'd have an argument.
Second, a car leaves every 15 minutes? you're going to need a rather steep cost of tickets to ride this thing. The private sector isn't going to invest billions if they can't make it back. What about upkeep, too? Is the city going to oversee it? Hire a Union (you bet yer sa-sij inna frunchroom there'll be one involved if it's Chicago)?
Third, above poster is correct: the actual cost of this will be about 3x the initial cost. Greasing palms in Chicago is how things get done, whether it's codified like a Union or not.
Fourth... Can someone please explain how any of this makes sense? Maybe it's the start of something great, but Chicago is in a bad spot right now. I'd half guess this is all just Rahm Emanuel grandstanding for political points rather than anything that will ever actually happen.
My one Chicago cent (the other gets taken by taxes and Union dues).
-
You might want to look at what happened with the DC Metro. The Red Line started leaking before they even finished it.
It's not like there are not a lot of tunnels all around the world that go under water and handle leaks just fine. Just because the DC government is notorious for poor choices in construction quality does not mean Musk will be.
Did you know that all through the recent hurricane Harvey, most of the Houston underground tunnels did not flood at all?
Chicago already has a very good alternative to tunnels: elevated tracks.
I've been on them also a number of times, and in other places - but I do not think they are a good alternatives. Have you ever stayed anywhere near to trains on elevated tracks? I have, and it's not at all nice. Any new line would be a huge number of people having to live with this new noise, forever. All of the supports required for a train block an otherwise relatively clean view of buildings and parks around. And external trains can be subject to weather delays as well, in a way a tunnel never will be.
The main reason I don't think Musk will be chosen as the provider of the service is not because of cost or tunnels being less practical - it will be because working with Musk and high levels of automation offers insufficient opportunity for graft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For one thing, there are a ton of old disused tunnels under Chicago. I'd imagine they're poorly annotated given that many of them were completed over a hundred years ago.
If they unexpectedly run into one of those water-filled tunnels, I'd imagine that would be pretty bad.
Plus it's Chicago, so there's going to be major costs of bribery. That goes on the surface of course, but I'm sure local government will work overtime on how to wring more money out boring under, then bill someone for that overtime.
The oldest tunnel still in use under the Thames in London is coming up to its 175th birthday, half of them are over a century old and still dry. It's not that hard.
All they need to do is stick a ground penetrating radar unit on the boring machine that they fire up every 100 yards of digging or so.
But somehow the other companies bidding on the project aren't equally newsworthy?
Is this like all the "on the internet" patents that were granted in the 90s? Now we say "Bombardier is bidding on a people mover between O'Hare and downtown Chicago, meh"
But Elon and Boring Company are bidding, so crank it up to 11, woohoo.
And you thought the Apple fanbois were obnoxious.
upgrade the blue line express can be done to speed up the trip.
Asking people to learn about a subject before writing uninformed rants against it? You act like you're new here ;)
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
That is a solved problem.
The benefit Musk brings is the ability to use small diameter tunnels with less infrastructure than a train tunnel. Specific to ORD, his system {c|w}ould stop at all terminals and have multiple drop-off points within and around the Loop. Rail is much harder to make that work, at least cost-effectively. The solution could also economically be expanded to serve areas north and south.
The only real questions are: could it provide the needed level of service, and can he deliver?
Underground vs elevated... there are some interesting property rights issues in Chicago relative to the railroads-- the air rights are sold, but not sure about the sub-grade rights (and if he can bore through deep foundations...).
If it's successful all they have to do is break even, or at least not go bankrupt.
If it works as promised there are many markets this can be brought to that don't have an alternative. They aren't going for this one because it's the best application, they are doing this as a proof of concept.
Well, you wouldn't have the expense of digging a goddamn tunnel.
You only say that because you have not read the FAQ as I mentioned, because they talk about very reasonable ways in which the cost of "digging a goddam tunnel" is greatly reduced.
Further, there are existing rail right-of-ways that are unused or underused all along the route from O'Hare to downtown Chicago.
Ask the people that live along them if rail lines of any sort should be put in. Now remember that any of them can sue to stop your project.
Suddenly a "goddam tunnel" looks pretty cheap.
they hardly get used because you can safely bike anywhere in Chicago.
I've biked quite a few places around Chicago, well at least around downtown... they even have a nice bike sharing system. I have to admit if I lived there weather would limit my use though.
Maybe it would make sense in a place like Houston, but there are so few people riding existing public transportation there
Holy mackerel have you BEEN to Houston recently? I've been a few times over the last year and taken the tram in and out of the city. It has a lot of people at any time but it is PACKED at rush hour.
For Houston though downtown->airport tunnels make a lot of sense because they do not have great options now. Especially hobby where buses and taxis have to drive through some neighborhoods to get there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seems like if pilings can pierce a tunnel, they aren't all that deep - if you would just read the FAQ you'd note the tunnels Musk has in mind are over 28 feet deep. The Chicago tunnels also are not all that large, so even if they ran across one it would hardly be a big deal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's also pretty short. Contrast with the TransBay Tube in San Francisco, which is having a bit of a mid-life crisis at only 43 years of age.
This is not to say that the problems aren't solvable, just that they have to be thought through.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not exactly sure they NEED this. The chicago blue line is pretty good for exactly what they are talking about. I have taken it many times for that exact reason. The blue line starts underground at the airport and you can get off underground downtown. The blue line is a combination of underground and above ground. Having been on a few metros in my time chicago is one of the better run ones. Whenever I have taken that route it is usually fairly busy.
Most of my former co-workers at a company I used to work for took the thing every day. They were not alone. They did that because getting a parking spot and permit to drive downtown were pretty expensive if you can get one.
To take a taxi is about 30-50 bucks from airport to downtown. You *MIGHT* make it faster sometimes if there is like 0 traffic. Which pretty much does not happen there.
This âloopâ(TM) full of âskatesâ(TM) not only sounds stupid but actually is stupid . And what exactly is wrong with trains, apart from the fact that they already work?
In urban areas, the expense of laying a dedicated through-way for express buses is also extremely high. The land between O'Hare & DT Chicago is very built up; there would be few ways to put in an express lane for a bus without major disruption.
Tunnels dodge a lot of concerns about traffic, safety, land rights, etc. that can add up to big headaches for urban public transit.
That is not a good alternative. The elevated trains are *bone-shatteringly* noisy. I was posted on the 4th floor of a building on Wabash and the effect on productivity was MASSIVE. People think it's no big deal because they're "used to it", but having to mute your conference call every 2 minutes due to train noise is a massive inconvenience. And forget walking! After months of nearly losing my mind walking under those tracks, I finally started hunting down hotels that were far enough away from the tracks that I didn't have to walk parallel to them.
Half a year of working in Chicago and I was ready to murder somebody. It was unbelievably unpleasant.
I lived there, until immediately after Hurricane Harvey. And I lived in the Museum District, one block from the Metro going downtown. Houston has several times the population of Chicago, but they can barely fill a four-car Metro train during rush hour.
There's basically one real Metro line for a metropolitan area of 8.5 million people that's almost as big as the state of Delaware. And the Metro doesn't even go to Minutemaid Park or NRG stadium or the Toyota center. So if you wanna go to a Texans, Astros or Rockets game, it's automobile or no deal.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Old tech -- elevated trains on a concrete elevated viaduct with rails bolted to the concrete (with rubber pads) would be much quieter.
The Blue Line is wonderful. I remember when they were building it out from Jefferson Park to O'Hare. I couldn't wait to ride it. It would be nice if they could do something about the curves between Milwaukee and Chicago, which slows down the ride, but those are some old, very nice neighborhoods and it's probably not a good idea to displace them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There's already a dedicated through-way in Chicago from O'Hare to Downtown. More than one in fact.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Breath in the musk deep and you'll believe.
If elevated lines are easier and cheaper to build (I have no opinion on that), why can't they build them and use skates?
The short bus and smaller sized skates are likely far easier to support and quieter than trains, it's only a matter then if above vs below ground.
From the summary it seems to me the idea if skates is customizable routing in exchange for much reduced throughout vs a train.
I am very skeptical that in practice autonomous vehicles are close to being able to pack the people per linier foot of a busy train line (though wide enough tracks parallel skates could increase that some) especially if they're allowing passenger cars in skates.
The big benefits I see to skates is that busy areas can have wide open (non tunnel) spaces that allow many skates to unload and load without slowing down any other skates (unlike a train blocking the tracks) and probably more convenient routing (never needing to get off and wait for a second skate). Perhaps even vehicle skates could be made expensive enough to use as to disproportionately fund the system.
But my main point was that if skates are so great, why not on an el? Weather I guess?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I'm not saying I'm an expert on the subject - but I do live in the DC metro area and take the red line metro regularly.
As far as I'm able to determine, the maintenance issues they're experiencing are primarily the result of mismanagement and possible corruption. Whatever issues they had addressing water leaks in the tunnels should have LONG since been taken care of as an expected complication of building the tunnels. And yes, they "still leak" in the sense that when we've had a few instances where there was enough torrential rain and/or melting snow -- it caused certain metro stations to be flooded. (I'm not sure that's realistically avoidable? Within a day or so, they had things back under control when that happened, and the system kept running anyway, minus the stations they had to shut down. It wasn't so bad the trains couldn't pass on through them.) Most of the time, any leaking I see is just the slight sound of dripping water, like you'd expect to hear in a cave, and possibly a few small wet spots on the concrete walls. Pretty sure they have pumps in place that are pumping the water back out that's getting in and collecting someplace it's designed to go, and that's where the dripping sound comes from.)
The biggest challenge I see with the DC metro is simply that they designed the whole thing with only 2 tracks ... one in each direction. So any time a track needs repair, they go to "single tracking" to get around that spot, and that causes big delays for everyone. It would have been much more efficient if it was built with at least a third "spare" track they could switch to and use in either direction, as needed, in order to fix one of the main two tracks.
But still? There are obvious questions about where the money is all going with DC metro. Doesn't add up that you can have 24 hour/7 day operation of a subway system like New York City has, and yet their fares are still cheaper and their system that much more reliable overall. (I know they keep saying it's because of the larger volume of users in NYC. And that plays a role ... but that should ALSO mean more wear and tear, and need to hire more staff to manage it all.)
it is not a trivially nor cheaply solved problem, and let's just say those of us in the Chicago area know of important train tunnels that have flooded, even recently.
At a $1B Development budget and ride MARGIN of $25/passenger(fares , advertising, other?) only 40M rides to recoup. This could take a while. Tokyo Narita Express uses mainly existing lines setup for long term bullet trains. While Chicago would benefit from a similar convenient express service seems like a long pay back. If a benefit to City, events , tourism, business residing, then might need other funding sources for cash flow backing long term bonds at low interest rates with tax free municipal type bonds. Anyone see the business case, tech aside?
you can safely bike anywhere in Chicago
Ummm, really?
Aside from the Chicago drivers, have you been keeping track of all the shootings? Here's a good (but snarky) website that does keep track: http://heyjackass.com/
This past Thanksgiving weekend, only 8 killed, 37 wounded, which was much better than 2016 Thanksgiving weekend of 11 killed, 64 wounded.
Houston has several times the population of Chicago
That's not actually correct...whether speaking of the cities proper or metro areas. Chicago is larger in population and has a larger metro population, IJS.
Even if the competition makes the CTA suck less, I'm for it.
It's horrid taking the train from ORD to The Loop and back.
You are correct. I made a mistake. I looked up Chicago city population and compared it to Houston metro population.
I also forgot to add that Chicago is a beautiful, world-class city and Houston is a horrible place to live.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, you wouldn't have the expense of digging a goddamn tunnel.
You only say that because you have not read the FAQ as I mentioned, because they talk about very reasonable ways in which the cost of "digging a goddam tunnel" is greatly reduced.
Further, there are existing rail right-of-ways that are unused or underused all along the route from O'Hare to downtown Chicago.
Ask the people that live along them if rail lines of any sort should be put in. Now remember that any of them can sue to stop your project.
Those lines *already have trains*. They are just (mostly) freight right now. But there's already a passenger line to right outside O'Hare from Northwestern station. You'd just need to bump up speeds and frequencies and add a spur into the actual airport. It's cheap, it's easy, no new lines have to be built and is what they will end up doing.
Elevated tracks can be close to noise less.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
> That is not a good alternative. The elevated trains are *bone-shatteringly* noisy
Not as a rule. In Bangkok there's Skytrain, while it does make noise... nobody blinks an eye.. especially in surrounding buildings.
Maybe it's because Elon is American, but in the rest of the world trains are pretty decent, just build a standard train line, not incompatible nonsense.
I read their FAQ. It's a bit hand-wavey in places but basically sound. I'm interested to see how reliable and efficient their skates prove to be though. They say they are better than trains, but without rails the friction is higher and they need steering. There is also the issue of tyre ware and failure, which is going to happen much faster than with train wheels. A blow out at 150 MPH doesn't sound like fun.
Has anyone simulated this? I'm just a little skeptical about their claim that skates will be better than single rail carriages. They talk about off-ramps and the like, but don't explain why they will be faster or more reliable than points (turnouts) on a rail system.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well to be fair, I do know of one elevated rail system, so quiet they could run it right through the middle of a hotel
You are correct. I made a mistake. I looked up Chicago city population and compared it to Houston metro population.
I also forgot to add that Chicago is a beautiful, world-class city and Houston is a horrible place to live.
If Chicago is a "beautiful" city then I don't want to see an ugly one.
And yes, I've been to Detroit.
>> Elevated tracks can be close to noise less.
Yeah, that's right.
They are noiseless when you stop the trains.
aaaaaaa
Based on my observations, at least after they put in dedicated bike lanes separated from the traffic a few years go, the weather doesn't seem to stop many downtown Chicago bike riders, unless the snow hasn't yet been plowed.
The areas most visitors see are beautiful, some of the poorer neighborhoods, not so much, but not worse than most world class cities.
And yes, I've been to Detroit.
Not nearly as bad as a place like St. Louis, which had 6 dead and 15 injured over the same weekend. While that may appear to be smaller numbers, St. Louis has 1/10th the population of Chicago.
It actually comes from Union Station, and I take that line from Lake County into downtown every day, occasionally getting off at O'Hare.
I wouldn't see the need to run a new rail spur from O'Hare to that line though, since they are already extending the Airport Transit System (a fully automated elevated train that runs on rubber wheels, not rails, which goes to the remote parking lot and the 4 terminals) to the location of a new parking garage/rental car center. This is right near the existing Metra station.
The Metra line doesn't run express, though, and it has a very limited schedule. So you may need to add some parallel tracks to allow a busier, non-stop schedule without interference from other freight and passenger trains.
Currently, Google maps lists the blue line as 39 minutes between O'Hare and Clark & Lake (downtown station closest to O'Hare). I've taken it many times, and you have to allow an hour, including walking to the station.
The blue line and red line already go under the Chicago River in a couple of places, and are undoubtedly under the water table for most of the time they're underground, so why should the water table be considered as so much of a problem for a new tunnel?
Thank you for the explanation. I've posted in this thread so I can't give you points. I was curious if there were other terminology conventions in use. When I worked in procurement we dealt with construction vendors routinely and I never encountered a Request for Qualifications. But I was working in support _to_ procurement and always on the purchasing side, so my experience is narrow.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
Lol, I lived in Houston for two years, didn't think it was too bad. I'm from (and currently still live in after moving back to) Orlando, FL, so I'm used to 8-10 months of heat and humidity you alluded to earlier, heh.
I've always wanted to visit Chicago, actually. Along with New York and a few other places I've failed to travel to, thus far.
"safely bike" -- Well, yeah, that's because the vast majority of cyclists have a "me first" attitude and in no way respect the law or safety of others. The regularly run red lights, stop signs, ride the wrong way down a one way, jump in/out of bus lanes, the sidewalks, I've had them yell at me to get out of their way as they ran a red light and pushed through my walk as a pedestrian.
The bulk of cyclists here that get hit by car are at fault and deserve it.
How many tunnels have they dug? Their FAQ seems to be full of handwaving and not much thought. Have they considered how small a train would be that could fit into a 14 foot tunnel? It certainly couldn't be anywhere near 14 foot in diameter. Then they also talk about the problems of existing TBMs that make tunnelling expensive, like not being able to tunnel continuously and going very slowly. It's not like there isn't considerable pressure on tunnelling cost doesn't already exist. If TBM's are not already using those "obvious" techniques to make tunnelling cheaper, there's probably a very good reason why not.
The whole thing smacks of Dunning Kruger to me. Elon Musk has looked at the problem and declared he can solve it without understanding the engineering needed. It's the same reason why he can't build a production line to make relatively simple cars.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
As others have noted, you can currently get to the main terminals at O'Hare on public transportation in about 40 minutes. The only issue with that is that there's no where to put your luggage, since the trains are the same kind which run on all the other El lines. But that could be easily fixed. If they really want to reduce actual travel times, spend the money on getting people through O'Hare more quickly. It's not much of a benefit to get folks from the Loop to the airport 15 minutes faster, if you still have to get to the airport 2 hours before your flight is scheduled to depart (assuming that it departs on time). If the time to get through the airport could be cut by half an hour (more check in and security capacity, more capacity to get flights in and out, especially when the weather doesn't cooperate, etc) it would save travellers more time. All travellers, not just the ones coming from the Loop. And it would likely be a lot cheaper.
Part of the issue is that NYC's system relies heavily on a dedicated tax, where DC's is mostly dependent on subsidies from DC, MD, VA and the Federal government. That leads to a fractured, undependable revenue source, and led to underfunding of maintenance for years. Like most transit systems, only about half the revenue is from fares in either one.
https://ggwash.org/view/41125/...
If you're on a conference call, you should only be unmuting to talk, and then remuting anyway.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I'm sure they have.
London has several subway lines with 12 foot diameter tunnels. Being 6'5", I don't enjoy riding in them, but they do the job. Add 2+ feet and they'll be fine for just about everyone.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
I think a fully autonomous highway would be a more apt comparison. We always hear all the promises of the benefits of fully autonomous networked cars - with the caveat being that you'd have to get human drivers off the road because our slow, indecisive meat-brains would hopelessly gum up the works.
An obvious solution is to build automated-only roads, especially if all the cars belong to the same organization, whose priority is keeping the roads running smoothly.
Whether it's a bus or a private car then becomes a matter of taste - you can have a whole range of different sized vehicles operating together, with pricing scaling with privacy and responsiveness - a private car to leave immediately will no doubt cost considerably more than the shuttle bus leaving every half hour, but it's all the same to the highway.
It does seem like some sort of "slot car" arrangement would have a lot of potential though - no need to drain onboard batteries while cruising (and thus smaller, cheaper batteries), and the car can just "unplug" when it reaches its offramp.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Since he's talking O'Hare, what reason does he have, other than for show? For those of you who don't know Chicago, the Blue Line subway GOES RIGHT FROM O'HARE TO DOWNTOWN, and has for decades.
And I'll wager it will continue to cost less than Musk's fares.
PS: Chicago's other airport, Midway, is at the end of the Orange line, which *also* goes downtown.
They're not talking about trains, they're talking about cars. Or at most flatbed "skates" sized to carry a car. Those don't *need* to be 14 foot in diameter, even 8 is probably overkill for anything except larger SUVs.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It's not the people per foot that matter, but the people per second - it's a rare busy train line that travels at 150mph. Triple the speed, and you get the same passenger throughput at 1/3 the density.
As for skates on raised lines, I agree it seems like an idea with a lot of potential, and would almost certainly be cheaper - a quick google suggests a lane of raised highway costs ~$20million/mile in LA, versus the ~$1billion per mile for a traditional tunnel. Even if Musk can pull off his planned 10-fold reduction in tunnel cost, it's still considerably more expensive.
But tunnels still have some major advantages. They're impervious to weather for starters, handy in Chicago winters, and mostly to earthquakes as well. They're also invisible and silent from the surface, so you don't have the eyesore problem lowering property values and bringing out the NIMBYs. And traveling at 150 mph is not going to be quiet. They're also much more secure - so fewer worries about kids or animals climbing them.
Are they worth it? Heck, I don't know, I'd suppose it depends on your vision for the future. But as long as you're shoveling political pork it would be nice to see some new options get taken seriously, if only to shake up the competition.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This makes perfect sense as there's an untapped market for people who want to take their cars to the airport, presumably wanting to make use of those "Fly your car to LA for just $69" offers United is always advertising.
Also why has Slashdot changed their colors from blue to green? Ever since Hillary Clinton won the election, I've noticed things are really odd, like the office lunatic who keeps banging on about alternative universes and promised me if I don't shut up about how wonderful it is we finally have a cure for cancer, and have world peace, he'd send me to the worst universe.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
How old is the El and has anyone come up with any advances since in less noisy construction technologies?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The Loop plan is designed with a much larger applicability than just "to the airport" - for the airport scenario I would assume they just (mostly) just carry passenger modules instead of cars. (I assume some of the airport staff might want to bring their cars with them though)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
you are ignorant of civil engineering to make that statement, plenty of other underwater tunnels in the world in different geologies and climates have trouble. cherry picking doesn't prove a point.
Hardly get used??? I am from Chicago and I can tell you are not!
This sorta cracks me up in the sense of what building was that. Where I used to work at 175 Jackson the floor level with the tracks had storage cages and the building had enough insulation that the sound of the trains was not that loud.
Yes, I'm from Chicago. That new trail they put in that runs just West of Ashland Ave around Elston, the "606" is hardly used. The reason it's hardly used is that it's much more convenient to just ride down Ashland or Damen or up those big bike lanes on Elston or even on Milwaukee, which looks like the Tour de France at rush hour Why bother carrying your bike up all the steps just to ride on smooth stones? The 606 is for tourists.
Your unwillingness to use a contraction is very unusual for a Chicagoan who isn't David Mamet.
I think you're bullshitting.
You are welcome on my lawn.