Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk Pitches 150 MPH Rides In Boring Company Tunnels For $1 (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the ride-of-your-life dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: At The Boring Company Information Session not all of the talk centered on flamethrowers. Elon Musk and project leader Steve Davis described many details of their visions for an underground network that could alleviate traffic problems in big cities. Musk said "we're not suggesting this to the exclusion of other approaches," but did take a moment to call out flying taxi solutions (like Uber Elevate) right off the bat due to danger and noise.

Earlier in the evening Musk retweeted an LA Metro tweet that said it's coordinating with The Boring Company on its test and said the two will be "partners" going forward. Much of what Musk discussed about how his concept in-city Loop would work has been answered in concept videos and the company's FAQ, but he specifically said that the plan is for rides that cost a $1, and carry up to 16 passengers through hundreds of tunnels to those small, parking space-size tunnels located throughout a city. Test runs in the loop have already hit a couple of hundred miles an hour, and Musk's plan is for vacuum Hyperloop tubes between cities that enable travel in pressurized carts at up to 300 MPH. That's compared to 150 MPH in the in-city Loop carts, all without slowing down due to traffic or anything else. The main concern is hitting speeds that are still comfortable for people inside. The timeframe for when the "weird little Disney ride in the middle of LA" will be available to the public is unclear.

47 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Whee! by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    It's fun until you come to the end of the tunnel.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Whee! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The 150mph tunnels will not be depressurized. It looks like a subway with single cars that get moved to the surface via an elevator (thus eliminating the escalator/step/platform aspects of traditional subway stations). This will probably be point-to-point instead of fixed routes.

    2. Re:Whee! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It's fun until you come to the end of the tunnel."

      And remember, sometimes the light at the end of a tunnel is a train.

    3. Re:Whee! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sparse graph vs. complete graph of direct connectivity of stations?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Whee! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Point-to-point is still a fixed route unless you're moving the endpoints constantly.

    5. Re:Whee! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

      This makes my head hurt. Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...

      They're terms of art in the transportation sector, so it's jargon, not English. The English meaning doesn't have to make sense.

      Generally speaking, point-to-point means no set schedule and no defined order. Fixed route means visit order of each stop is immutable, and usually scheduled. Light rail is the classical fixed route example. The train has no choice about which stations it will pass in which order. (Nor does the train driver, for the pedantic among us.)

      <Insert gratuitous trains-running-on-time unfunny "joke" here>

    6. Re:Whee! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...

      I think they mean that instead of having a number of subway lines with large capacity trains each keeping always to the same line, there will be small "vehicles" or "carts" that can change lines and miss out the stations that the passengers on board do not need. With existing subway systems, to get from one point on the system to another can involve changes onto different lines and also multiple stops at intermediate stations that you do not require yourself.

      But there are many problems and flaws with Musk's idea. Firstly, assuming the vehicles/carts take 16 passengers, you will need to wait around at the starting point until there are 15 other passengers who happen to be going to the same place as yourself (unless the vehicles are allowed to run nearly empty which will kill the system's capacity). Secondly, if the vehicles can skip stations there will need to be passing loops for the though traffic, and the vehicles leaving and joining the loops (inevitably at lower speeds because there is a limit on acceleration) will delay the through traffic anyway (ie there will need to be a sizeable gap in the through traffic if it is doing the claimed 150 mph). Thirdly, individual vehicles, no matter how many there are, and even if full of 16 passengers, will mean that the line will have far less capacity (in terms of passengers per hour) than conventional trains, because the gaps between the vehicles will still need to be as large (or in fact, at 150 mph, much larger).

      As a city subway (the "Loop" versions) it will have nowhere near the capacity of the conventional London Underground for example, even taking one or two changes of trains into account on the latter, and you will probably have a longer journey time due to the wait to get those 16 fellow-travellers together. London Underground trains are only two minutes apart at the peak time so changing trains is no big deal, especially if only cross-platform. Musk's Loop as a city subway will only be advantageous to the passenger if it is very lightly used, like at quiet times, and if it's vehicles allowed to run with only one or two passengers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared with other forms of city rush hour traffic.

    7. Re:Whee! by haruchai · · Score: 1, Redundant

      ""
      In this universe, everything runs on time not necessarily on schedule

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    8. Re:Whee! by hey! · · Score: 2

      It appears to be a hybrid subway/taxi system with autonomously piloted vehicles.

      Since the system's "roadways" would be designed around those vehicles it should be possible to achieve much higher safety than you'd get with autonomous vehicles on roads designed for human drivers.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Whee! by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Thirdly, individual vehicles, no matter how many there are, and even if full of 16 passengers, will mean that the line will have far less capacity (in terms of passengers per hour) than conventional trains, because the gaps between the vehicles will still need to be as large (or in fact, at 150 mph, much larger).

      Why do you think Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains? Roadway vehicles typically carry 1 passenger per vehicle during rush hour, but roadways still have enormous capacity because the vehicles are seconds/single-digit feet apart. I would imagine these carts will similarly be very close together. Autonomous carts merging into a high-speed lane with not much distance between vehicles is certainly a problem to be solved, but how is it much different than an autonomous car merging into a crowded freeway?

    10. Re:Whee! by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the gap between Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains?

    11. Re:Whee! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains?

      ???? I don't. As I said, I'm assuming they will carry only 16 passengers because that is what TFA said.

      Roadway vehicles typically carry 1 passenger per vehicle during rush hour, but roadways still have enormous capacity

      Actually, they do not have enormous capacity in terms of passengers per hour per width.

      .... because the vehicles are seconds/single-digit feet apart.

      Single digit feet apart? Only if they are driving illegally, insanely tailgating, or only at walking pace. The official recommendation on UK motorways is a 2 second gap, which is over 200 feet at 70 mph

      I would imagine these carts will similarly be very close together. Autonomous carts merging into a high-speed lane with not much distance between vehicles is certainly a problem to be solved, but how is it much different than an autonomous car merging into a crowded freeway?

      Keep imagining. The reason it is a lot different from cars is braking distance. The braking distance with steel wheels on steel rails (as I understand the Loop will be) is far more than rubber on tarmac. The Loop cars will not be programmed to travel closer together than their braking distance, just as autonomous cars will not be.

      Irrespective of braking distance, It still remains that Musk's carts (call them what you like) skipping stations (call them what you like) will be impeded by carts ahead of them which are stopping at them and needing to pull in and out. Of course there can be off and on ramps ("slip roads" in the UK) but for 150 mph and remembering that poor braking distance (and anyway, passenger tolerance of acceleration/decelleration) they are going to be very long ramps, which goes against the suggestion that I have heard that the Loop city stations could be very close together.

      I'm quite sure that Musk will get one or more city Loops built, but the more the project unfolds, the more we will see a convergence with conventional subway technology. We have already seen a shift from it carrying cars to carrying people. Some common sense will overtake the hype, even if its promotors and fans continue religiously to avoid using conventional railway teminology.

    12. Re:Whee! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But it's a route between any two points, as opposed to the vehicle only following *certain* routes and never following others.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Whee! by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      ???? I don't. As I said, I'm assuming they will carry only 16 passengers because that is what TFA said.

      I meant to say "Why do you think the gap between Musk's loop carts will be as large as conventional trains?" Slashdot, born in the 90s and still stuck there, does not have a comment edit feature. I replied to myself with the correct sentence but you didn't see it. You answered it below.

      Actually, they do not have enormous capacity in terms of passengers per hour per width.

      1800 cars per hour per lane. Heavy rail (subways) are just about the only thing that's better.

      Roads have enormous flexibility, which equals lower transit times for passengers, or more flexibility in living and working locations, and usually both. Fixed guideway transit requires most popular destinations, including residential, office, commercial, to all be on the route, and usually requires transfers, and it usually still has a last-mile problem. All of which necessitate a certain city configuration which comes with lots of its own problems that urbanists have other excuses for too. Musk is sidestepping all of that.

      You only care about width because the road is at-grade and so requires right-of-way acquisition, which costs money, and wide roads are ugly. Tunnels are below grade so if you need more width, just build it.

      Keep imagining. The reason it is a lot different from cars is braking distance. The braking distance with steel wheels on steel rails (as I understand the Loop will be) is far more than rubber on tarmac. The Loop cars will not be programmed to travel closer together than their braking distance, just as autonomous cars will not be.

      I haven't heard anything about what these carts will use for movement, so steel wheel and steel track is new information to me - I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for it?

      Besides that, the design of this requires no stopping on the loop proper, only on the side spurs, so there's no reason to design for enormous stopping distances on the loop proper. I don't see why large stopping distances preclude stations from being close together. And why are you still imagining subways? People aren't going to use this to go 2 miles, they are going to use it to go 20 from their home to a destination and back.

  2. Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's an airline exec when you need them?

    1. Re:Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      IDK, flying out of a smaller airport (somewhere like Burbank or Long Beach) on a smaller airliner like a Dash-8, ERJ, or Canadair can actually be fun. Especially with 2+1 seating where you get both the window and aisle seat, and can stick your feet into the aisle when the air waitron isn't passing by.

    2. Re:Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't. Sad news about the crash. Also surprising that it was a (US built) 737. I thought Cubana flew mostly Russian aircraft with some Embraers thrown in.

    3. Re:Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      BBC says it was a plane leased from Mexican company called Damojh.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I thought Cubana flew mostly Russian aircraft with some Embraers thrown in.

      Aeroflot (the Russian national airline) won't even fly Russian aircraft.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Transportation isn't supposed to be fun. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I thought Cubana flew mostly Russian aircraft with some Embraers thrown in.

      Aeroflot (the Russian national airline) won't even fly Russian aircraft.

      They've come a long way from the days when some flights were bench seating with no seatbelts

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Re:Edison by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    He'd probably prefer to be compared to Tesla...

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Re:Edison by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Careful with your comparisons ... Tesla was the genius, Edison was the copycatter :D

  5. Snails Pace by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    He also mentioned that his pet snail, Gary, is still 15 times faster than his tunnel boring machine. It looks like there is an upgrade in the TBM's future, as the snail will soon only be 10 times faster!

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Snails Pace by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The big news there is - Musk is apparently a SpongeBob SquarePants fan.

      Or, maybe he secretly sees himself as Plankton, in which case we should be concerned that a coin-operated self-destruct might get included in these cars...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Snails Pace by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Which is probably fine since it's heading for Mars, I just don't see it having any business model on Earth. SpaceX is obvious. SolarCity for panels and batteries too. Tesla for EVs. Starlink for communications. All of those make sense, except for the Boring company for excavation. I don't think Musk will get involved in some random business that doesn't tie into his Mars colonization plans somehow at this point. I mean we built a tunnel under the English channel, does anyone really think drilling needs a revolution? We know how to do it with lots of power and lots of water cooling. He's building a drill for Mars where you have neither, while trying to sell it as some kind of cost revolution.

      Good for him if he can pull it off I suppose, but you don't really have to be a psychic to see where he's going with all this. He's not waiting around for NASA to do their bit, he plans to build most of the pieces himself. He intends to build the launcher (w/refueling). He intends to build the spaceship. He intends to build the lander. He'll have the communications. The power & storage. The rovers. In the Commercial Crew program he'll have to make a human habitat. Basically I think he's collecting all the pieces to make his own Mars outpost. Or at least kill the cost-plus contracts and say for $X billion we'll transport people to Mars, keep them alive there for two years and bring them back. Because I still don't think he's got a business case for going...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Re:Edison by fplant · · Score: 2

    You're not actually believing this are you?
    He did put together some nice animations, and pulled the $1 figure out of... well I don't know where, but where's the engineering analysis and the business plan?
    Why does he think he can be that much cheaper, faster, and more efficient than any other type of transportation? Where are the efficiencies gained?

  7. Re:Edison by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    In 2018 we don't need engineering analysis. Just a lot of taxpayer money.

  8. Re:Edison by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

    You're not actually believing this are you?
    He did put together some nice animations, and pulled the $1 figure out of... well I don't know where, but where's the engineering analysis and the business plan?
    Why does he think he can be that much cheaper, faster, and more efficient than any other type of transportation? Where are the efficiencies gained?

    Every mass transit system in the U.S., without exception, has the same exact problems, and there's no reason to believe that this system will be any different, if it ever gets built at all.

    - Extremely expensive to build, resulting in massive debt.
    - Extremely expensive to operate and maintain, resulting in losing huge amounts of money every year because you can't charge a high enough price to recover your actual costs -- if you did, riding would be so expensive that nobody would every use it. Operating at a loss year after year results in even more debt.

    But Musk doesn't care about any of that. Part of being a huckster is getting others to pay for your pipe dreams. This tunnel project makes less sense then the Springfield Monorail.

  9. Re:Edison by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Edison was the marketing genius, I think Musk has that skill too. :-)

    Tesla was also a marketing genius, all those tesla coil demos and whatnot. Unfortunately, he wasn't a business genius.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Too Dangerous Huh? by mentil · · Score: 1

    but did take a moment to call out flying taxi solutions (like Uber Elevate) right off the bat due to danger and noise.

    This seems a bit hypocritical considering about a year ago, Musk was advocating using SpaceX rockets for point-to-point travel on Earth. Pretty sure a rocket is noisier and more dangerous than a quadcopter. If the rocket only takes off and lands in rural areas, it might be less of a danger to those on the ground than a quadcopter flying in an urban area, but is still likely to be more dangerous for the passengers.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  11. Hmm, I've seen how this one ends... by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    https://www.gameogre.com/falle...

  12. In 10 years why would I leave my house? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I have broadband Internet, video conference, etc. Can't most of us "knowledge workers" work at home and stop commuting every day. In 20-30 years will our grandkids have to go to a physical building for their education? (I work with hardware, but I still do a bit portion of my stuff remotely. using cameras and control/relay boards)

    I suspect the future will be where most things we do can be done remotely. And the percentage of us that absolutely have to be on site will decrease over many years as technology improves.

    I doubt it will go to zero, but if half the people in Silicon Valley didn't need to drive to work our traffic problem would transform over night.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:In 10 years why would I leave my house? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      It's a great idea but if you're a manager or other similar non-productive type, half of your job is randomly stopping by and annoying your co-workers. It's difficult to sexually harass or force mind numbingly idiotic and boring stories on workers if you're not there in person.
          Why else would a technology based company like Amazon need a new HQ with 50,000 workers?

    2. Re:In 10 years why would I leave my house? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      It's a great idea but if you're a manager or other similar non-productive type, half of your job is randomly stopping by and annoying your co-workers

      That's still quite possible to do remotely.

      I had a boss who required we all be on instant messaging at all times, whether in the office or working from home. On my telecommute days he would IM irrelevant crap to me at random times - I assume to check whether I'd respond or not (he would only do this when I was teleworking, never in the office). I'd tell him that having to stay on IM all the time substantially negated the benefit of teleworking, since those were supposed to be my focus-on-longterm-project days - but he would have none of that.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:In 10 years why would I leave my house? by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not in Silicon Valley, and some days my "commute" is about 3 meters. I only go onsite if my client is incapable of physically pushing the button I need pushed, or if there's a hardware failure, or if I feel like there would be an actual benefit to having the client see my smiling face.

      (Or, you know, I actually feel like leaving the house because I'm getting a touch stir crazy, but that's not usually the thing.)

      I honestly have no idea why Google or Apple or MicroSloth or any other tech company would want that many employees in one place, and what I do involves directly making clients happy. Most of their people will never directly interact with a client as a representative of the company.

  13. Re:Edison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    So what is wrong with the US that makes it so bad for public transport?

    It works great in other countries, so why is the US failing so badly?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  14. It's a brave new world by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    At my company managers have direct reports in multiple timezones. Lots of conference calls for me.

    And Anthony Weiner has shown the power of dick pics to harass people from afar.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:It's a brave new world by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!
      I hope you're not saying that your managers need to randomly annoy the shit out of employees to creep them out? That's what the post was about.

    2. Re:It's a brave new world by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Is it annoying to be in a 9pm-10pm conference call with people cycling through their weekly status reports in a monotonous drone to the entire team?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  15. And yet you are wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure a rocket is noisier and more dangerous than a quadcopter.

    The rocket is actually vastly safer than a quadcopter taxi, which could have any number of things go wrong in a very crowded city.

    It's also quieter since, as described in the presentation, the point to point rockets would take off from small islands or other locations miles away from the city.

    but is still likely to be more dangerous for the passengers.

    Rockets are much simpler structures and safer overall. If I could choose any means of transport for safety, rockets would by far be my preference.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:And yet you are wrong by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Does a quadcopter taxi have a 5% failure rate like rockets?

    2. Re:And yet you are wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You seriously think a quadcopter failure rate would be only 5%?

      Not to mention that a cross-world transport service wouldn't start until the failure rate was much lower than 5%. I'm not sure they could ever meet 5% for any quadcopter based system with near constant operation in a city.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:And yet you are wrong by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What quadcopter fails every twenty flights on average?

  16. That is why he's solving those problems by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Extremely expensive to build, resulting in massive debt.

    Which is the whole reason Musk *started* the boring company, because he realized if the technology was improved it was not a stretch to see a 10x improvement in construction costs compared to other underground systems.

    Extremely expensive to operate and maintain

    Which is why he's going for this much smaller car approach, you don't have a ton of tracks and expensive powerful engine cars to maintain, you just have cheap transport cars that can be maintained at a low cost and deployed in much larger numbers to cover a large area.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. Carnival barker by fozzy1015 · · Score: 1

    The amusement rides and hats might be the only thing he can make a profit on. Carnival barker, indeed!

  18. Re:Edison by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Extremely expensive to operate and maintain

    Just like going to orbit

  19. I'm sure the tunnel ride is sufficiently boring... by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    But why would I want to pay $1 to be bored when I can hang out here on Slashdot for free?

    --

    Nonaggression works!