Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk's Boring Company To Build High-Speed Transit Tunnels in Chicago (chicagotribune.com)

Chicago has picked Elon Musk's Boring Company to build a futuristic transportation link to the city's airport, The Boring Company said late Wednesday. "We're really excited to work with the Mayor and the City to bring this new high-speed public transportation system to Chicago!' it said in a statement posted on Twitter. Chicago Tribune: Autonomous 16-passenger vehicles would zip back and forth at speeds exceeding 100 mph in tunnels between the Loop and O'Hare International Airport under a high-speed transit proposal being negotiated between Mayor Rahm Emanuel's City Hall and billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk's The Boring Co., city and company officials have confirmed. Emanuel's administration has selected Musk's company from four competing bids to provide high-speed transportation between downtown and the airport. Negotiations between the two parties will ensue in hopes of reaching a final deal to provide a long-sought-after alternative to Chicago's traffic gridlock and slower "L" trains. In choosing Boring, Emanuel and senior City Hall officials are counting on Musk's highly touted but still unproven tunneling technology over the more traditional high-speed rail option that until recently had been envisioned as the answer to speeding up the commute between the city's central business district and one of the world's busiest airports.

179 comments

  1. Just to head off the inevitable... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is for Loop, not Hyperloop.

    Think SkyTran, but faster and underground. And with both passenger capsules and car capsules.

    Also, to anyone who doesn't know how Boring Company is working to reduce tunneling costs... Link.

    --
    I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    1. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      This is for Loop, not Hyperloop.

      /quote>

      This is really just Hype . . . plus a Loop . . . so therefore, it really is a Hyperloop.

      We'll see how the stock market reacts to the Hype.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by mspohr · · Score: 1, Informative

      A few things. The Boring Company is private, no stock, funded fully by Musk himself so no stock, no stock hype.
      The Boring Company actually builds tunnels, not hype. The LA tunnel is ready to open.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re: Just to head off the inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few things. Rei loves Elon's dicks. All of them. Can't get enough.

      Second, he didn't invent the subway.

    4. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nobody seems to be mentioning the fact that boring a tunnel in Chicago may not be entirely straightforward. Anyone who has driven through Chicago on Interstate 80/90 may have noticed that it runs through a huge quarry (the Thornton Quarry) in Silurian Limestones/dolomites. That rock is a lot harder than the Tertiary dirt formations Musk has been experimenting with in Los Angeles. I'm sure that they allowed for the geology in putting together their bid, but it's not like the Boring Company has a vast body of experience to build on. There's also the problem of having to not damage existing infrastructure (water lines, electric cables, etc).

      It'll be interesting to see if they get things right on their first real try.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rei again, but this time he's using obfuscated links. Marketing campaign to determine clickthrough rate? What other reason is there to use a shortened link here, there is no meaningful restriction on character count.

      Slashdot should start charging Rei like they do with the sidebar advertisements.

    6. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by nevermindme · · Score: 1

      Actually up to a point harder the rock the less effort it takes to bore and place the water impenetrable liner as odds of collapse are very small in hard rock. That limestone rock, when crushed is also the cement ag and will be hauled away to build the tunnel an other things. Chicago has Northwests Indiana tons of surplus Steele Slag at hand, known as Klinker and perhaps the cheapest Portland cement prices in North America because of the availability of the steelmaking byproduct and cheap limestone near the surface. Musk certainly will examine and lean on Chicago's "Deep Tunnel" veterans that is much larger scale project to find a realistic cost of building a 15-25 mile tunnel far below existing services. It will a fine show of the municipal cleptocracy that is Chicago when it is determined who "owns" the results.

    7. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention LA is an oil and gas region so there is lots of tar and methane pockets to deal with.

    8. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I have a suggestion. Dig a tunnel under Lake Michigan at my hometown of Ludington, Michigan to Wisconsin. In the middle dig another tunnel perpendicular to this one. Above that tunnel put several windmills. The first tunnel would have the transmission lines to either side for the electricity produced by the windmills. The second tunnel would be used to pump air into it when there is excess electricity produced. When there is a need for electricity and little or no wind than the compressed air would be used to produce electricity. Mason County has already a pumped storage plant and 56 windmills so this would give even more importance to this area.

    9. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by sphealey · · Score: 1

      The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago (now the Midwest Water Reclamation District - I liked the old name better) was during the 1970s and 80s the world's leading user of tunnel boring systems for non-train-tunnel purposes such as the gigantic (wait for it) Deep Tunnel Project. They were a consultant to Fermilab on that organization's Superconducting Supercollider bid which involved a circular tunnel 100 miles in diameter. There's plenty of experience in Chicago in building and operating large deep tunnels under northern Illinois - and none of it has tried to sell the ridiculous system Musk is proposing. Maybe there's a reason?

    10. Re:Just to head off the inevitable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? youtu.be is YouTube's own shortened link domain; that's the link that the Share feature provides. It contains the same video key as the full URL, and goes directly to the video. There's no obfuscation or attached telemetry.

  2. Really ?!? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    We're really excited to work with the Mayor and the City to bring this new high-speed public transportation system to Chicago!'

    How can they be excited, since they work in a Boring company ?!?

    1. Re:Really ?!? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Should the response be something like this? ;)

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    2. Re:Really ?!? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Chicago, and other cities, should probably wait until they see this concept in regular service for six months.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Really ?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chicago, and other cities, should probably wait until they see this concept in regular service for six months.

      Perhaps OTHER cities can now (I mean, when and if completed) observe it in regular service in Chicago. I guess having a first project that could be showcased to attract more customers would be worth taking some loss into account to win a tender, and even going to synagogue in order to meet and talk to some decision makers.

      Assuming this whole thing works as anticipated...

    4. Re:Really ?!? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The "concept" is 100% privately funded so no risk to Chicago.
      If it works, it works. If it doesn't, Musk takes the hit.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Really ?!? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "concept" is 100% privately funded so no risk to Chicago.
      If it works, it works. If it doesn't, Musk takes the hit.

      Ironically, Chicago has already famously demonstrated that private tunnels can pose an enormous risk.

  3. I pity Chicago by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Seems an expensive way to prove that a "transit" idea is idiotic (although how wide are those tunnels? If they're 12' and straight enough then they might at least be able to repurpose them for London Underground deep bore tunnel style trains once the thing fails. I'm kinda surprised those aren't built more commonly, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to build a 12' tunnel than the full-NEC-loading-gauge type stuff most transit authorities insist on building)

    At least no taxpayer's money will be wasted on this.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:I pity Chicago by jbengt · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, Musk will keep costs down by using innovative subtractive 3-D printing technology to make the tunnel.

    2. Re:I pity Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the Civil War, the army of Tennessee is rumored to have traveled with "spare tunnels".

    3. Re: I pity Chicago by Rei · · Score: 1

      I bought TSLA, 2/3rds of it at $264. And was widely ridiculed on Slashdot for doing so because, dontchaknow, Tesla can't make cars and they're going bankrupt any day now.

      Check the stock price now.

      A big shoutout to all of you shorts who handed me your money. I'll use it to pay for my Model 3. ;)

      But please, don't give up on your short thesis. I and other longs look forward to your next surge in short interest, because this next time, THIS NEXT TIME, the bankwuptcy is for REALZ, right? The past 4 short squeezes were just fluke events, rather than a sign that your thesis is fundamentally flawed ;)

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    4. Re: I pity Chicago by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Whether you make money on it or not makes no difference to me, but I find it somewhat amusing that you have the same tone as those people who bought bitcoin at $10,000 and saw the price reach $19,000. They were right... for about 3 months.

    5. Re: I pity Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously comparing stock market with coin market? Check your brain!

    6. Re: I pity Chicago by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Did you use your own money this time?

      https://www.bbc.com/news/busin...

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    7. Re: I pity Chicago by Rei · · Score: 1

      If by "own money" you're referring to Icesave, we won in the EFTA court on all counts. The primary insurer was a private (non-government-backed fund). The secondary insurer was the British/Dutch governments. This info was readily available just one click away from the info page on the Icesave site, and neither the British nor Dutch governments had any complaint with that arrangement at the time - nor was it (as per the EFTA) against European banking regulations. The British and Dutch however thought they could bully our much smaller government into paying their legally binding banking obligations for them when the private fund went under. And nearly succeeded at doing so.

      The case you linked concerning the Kaupthing bankers is entirely unrelated to Icesave, and thus any "your own money" wording. That was concerning the al-Thani case, where they worked out an arrangement with Sheikh al-Thani to make it look like he was investing in a financial product that they knew was worthless, in order to get other people to buy into the product - but it was set up so that al-Thani woudl still profit even when it inevitably went broke. They went to jail for that,and rightly so.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
  4. Graft in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Isn't it great that the working stiffs get to pay for a few billion dollars into Musk's pocket, while the rich people get to jet in and out of the Loop? How about fixing the fucking Blue line, which is late again today? Oh, that's right, black people take the blue line, and that's bad.

    What a beautiful combination of racism and graft packaged in a press release that gets the idiot progressives all wet.

    1. Re:Graft in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad?

      What about the blue people that take the Black line?

    2. Re:Graft in Chicago by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Red Line
                Orange Line
                Yellow Line
                Green Line
                Blue Line
                Purple Line
                Brown Line
                Pink Line

    3. Re:Graft in Chicago by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      eh, it's the Red Line that gets the dredges of humanity, fucking freak show there at night

      white people (and all other colors) already take the Blue Line to O'Hare. All they need to do is have two more express rails, in some places would be over the existing track (proven chicago tech, most the tracks are in the air anyway) but no need to pump billions into Musk's pocket

    4. Re:Graft in Chicago by jbengt · · Score: 2

      RTFA, he's offering to build it out of his own (company's) pocket, in exchange for most or all of the income from it.
      The deal is not done, yet anyway, he's just the "winner" that gets to negotiate for a contract.

    5. Re:Graft in Chicago by bobschneider8 · · Score: 1
      They're apparently giving him free use of the Block 37 transit center in the Loop, which Daley spent something like $250 million to build, and which has sat empty ever since. Musk is not exactly building it all out of his own pocket, but he does apparently get to keep all the revenue in his own pocket.

      Personally, I preferred Block 37 when I could catch a kung fu movie at the United Artists, and then play some pinball at the Treasure Chest magic shop down the block.

  5. Bit low capacity by AC-x · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Chicago system is expected to be able to handle nearly 2,000 passengers per direction per hour

    Capacity's a bit low, isn't it? That's the equivalent of something like a conventional metro train running once every 30 mins...

    1. Re: Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Throughput vs latency, the most famous of tradeoffs.

    2. Re:Bit low capacity by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this one will have an app.

    3. Re: Bit low capacity by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Yeah except underground trains with much higher capacity that are faster and a frequency of say ~5 minutes already exist in multiple cities around the world.

    4. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are bringing in $400 per trip. It will only take 2.5 million trips to break even. (Not counting running costs. electricity, taxes, employees, etc).

    5. Re:Bit low capacity by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure that it's too low, because this is just servicing O'Hare.

      The interwebs tell me that O'Hare hits just shy of 80m passengers per year. Lets say a quarter of the passengers use this, that's 10m. Per day that's about 27,000 passengers. Lets assume that they're concentrated during the roughly 12 daylight hours - that's 2,300 per hour. And since it's listed at 2,000 per direction each hour, and O'Hare passengers are counted coming or going, that puts us around half capacity on average.

      Lots of spitballing and areas for argument with these numbers, but upon first glance, it doesn't look too out of whack. The real issue is if it's a success, the popularity goes up, and it needs to expand. Do they have a plan for that?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    6. Re: Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact high capacity trains can have a much higher frequency. I don't remember if it's in Paris or Tokyo (or both) that some trains have a 90 second frequency at peak hour. It's really the limit though and does not run smoothly at east in Paris.

    7. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quarter of 80m is 20m...

    8. Re:Bit low capacity by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Capacity's a bit low, isn't it?

      Considering O'Hare gets around 60,000,000 passengers a year, 2,000 an hour would be a good hunk (maybe 25% on average). And many of the 60 million passengers are making connecting flights and many others not going downtown.

      What I don't get is the need. You can already get to O'Hare on the Blue Line for $2.50 and about 40 minutes; or take the Metra, which costs more and has fewer trains, but is more comfortable and faster, or drive; or take a taxi, Uber, Lyft; or take a limo; or one of the several hotel shuttle buses. There's already plenty of ways to get between downtown and O'Hare for various prices and convenience. (Actually, most people get to O'Hare by flying.)
      What would really be interesting is a line between O'Hare and Midway.

    9. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capacity's a bit low, isn't it? That's the equivalent of something like a conventional metro train running once every 30 mins...

      Yeah, but this is 2000 people per hour (in each direction) to and from the airport, so it's going to be smaller amounts of people than a commuter train.

      Now, I avoid O'Hare like the plague, because it's one of the shittiest airports to get around in I've ever been subjected to ... so I'll never see this ... but 2000 people in each direction from the airport per hour seems like it will add a fair bit of value in terms of moving people.

      The airport itself, however, is still a place I try very hard to avoid having to use for connecting flights because they have a bad habit of changing your gate to something which is now a mile away.

      I've never had anything but a shitty experience at O'Hare.

    10. Re:Bit low capacity by Albanach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are bringing in $400 per trip. It will only take 2.5 million trips to break even. (Not counting running costs. electricity, taxes, employees, etc).

      Or, looking at it another way, if the system can handle 2,000 passengers in each direction, we have 4,000 passengers each paying $25 or $100,000 of income per hour at capacity. So, 10,000 capacity hours would pay for the system (excluding maintenance and wear and tear). Assuming six capacity hours per day it would take 4.5 years to get the initial $1 billion in revenue, with the other 18 hours per day providing income for operating, maintenance and ROI.

      I'd think that, if it's doable at even twice the cost, it could work. But whether it can be done for even a couple of billion is anyone's guess.

    11. Re:Bit low capacity by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Are the factoring in all those folk's luggage? Load/unload time is important and I don't see that mentioned. Oh wait, this is Elon Musk. Makes sense now.

    12. Re: Bit low capacity by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Frequency does not matter, really! I don't care about getting on a train in 5 minutes if it takes 45 minutes to get to my destination. Taking a car would be only 25 minutes because I don't have to stop at a dozen stations along the route. So 5 minute wait, or no minute wait with faster arrival where I want to go. See, the train looses out to the car. If I can skip the stations along the way then the train becomes much more useful.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    13. Re: Bit low capacity by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      The concept of a transportation service that runs on a schedule is unknown in the US today. There are legends that it was once different, but that may just be an old wives tale.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    14. Re:Bit low capacity by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Not a factor because the loading is done "offline". When the vehicle is loaded, then it enters the main tunnel.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the vehicle is loaded, then it enters the main tunnel requiring all other vehicles already in the tunnel behind it to have to stop.

      This system is retarded and will result in worse through put.

    16. Re: Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if you feel that the 20 minutes you save is worth however much it costs to park at the airport for the duration of your trip, that's your choice to make.

    17. Re: Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not parking, Agent's just going to pick someone up.

    18. Re:Bit low capacity by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The Chicago system is expected to be able to handle nearly 2,000 passengers per direction per hour

      Capacity's a bit low, isn't it? That's the equivalent of something like a conventional metro train running once every 30 mins...

      A bit low if they need to transport more than 2000 passengers in each direction per hour. Or just right if they need to transport 2000 or fewer passengers per hour. Or overkill if they need to transport substantially fewer than that amount. All depends on the forecast usage which can also be limited by limiting supply.

      These are numbers that apparently the government was comfortable with when determining this as the winning bid and putting together the requirements.

      The goal of transportation planning isn't merely to maximize the number of passengers per hour regardless of time and cost. Maybe considering there are multiple modes then they are perfectly happy with increasing the combined total capacity by bringing an additional 2000 per hour capacity into the mix. Or they are happy to limit capacity to save on costs.

      Limiting size in order to save on costs is at the heart of this innovation.

       

    19. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had anything but a shitty experience at O'Hare.

      There's some things I like about O'Hare, but two things make me avoid it when traveling internationally:
      - must exit/re-enter security(/terminal) ... I have no objection to going thru whatever security screening is deemed necessary, but having to do it twice because of poor terminal interconnect is just inefficient & unnecessary hassle.
      - no decent (or hot) food once you pass security @ international terminal.

      Maybe things have changed since I was there last. As I said, these days I avoid it.

    20. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Not counting running costs. electricity, taxes, employees, etc).

      Do you work in the solar industry?

    21. Re:Bit low capacity by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Moreover, a passenger is counted as an enplanement plus deplanement. There is a large percentage of connecting traffic though, which brings the numbers back closer to reality.

    22. Re:Bit low capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Exhibit C of this document by the Chicago Infrastructure Trust, that entity that put out the request for proposals for this project, for estimates of 2045 ridership. I guess this is how these estimates are now commonly done, but one of the sources of data they used to create these estimates is from anonymous cell phone location data from the company AirSage. http://chicagoinfrastructure.o...

    23. Re:Bit low capacity by sphealey · · Score: 1

      The cost of electricity and routine maintenance on the dewatering pumps for a deep underground tunnel alone will exceed your total revenue calculation.

    24. Re: Bit low capacity by Rei · · Score: 1

      I don't care about getting on a train in 5 minutes if it takes 45 minutes to get to my destination.

      It doesn't. The Chicago Loop is designed to take 12 minutes.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    25. Re:Bit low capacity by Rei · · Score: 1

      "40 minutes" is greater than "12 minutes".
      The bid had a requirement that any proposal has to be cheaper for passengers than a taxi, Uber or Lyft.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    26. Re: Bit low capacity by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      12 minutes for what? Was that supposed to be some sort of statement that has meaning? You forgot the part where you give us useful information. Besides, designed for and reality are two different things. I have used the 'L'. Traveling two stations down would take 12 minutes. you could walk it in that time. I almost never used the trains because it was adways quicker to fight the traffic and drive around looking for parking. sorry, 'L' loses out.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    27. Re:Bit low capacity by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      It's not the quantity of the passengers it's their quality. This is business and first class transport for ground travel.

  6. Cost by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    I'll bet in the end this costs a minimum of 10x more than whatever is being quoted right now.

    1. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does not matter, all costs are being paid by Elon Musk, if it costs him more what does city care they still pay $0

  7. Airport connectors by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Airport connectors are almost always a boondoggle. I dislike boarding a shuttle bus to connect to the airport as much as anyone else, but it's infinitely cheaper, more adaptable, etc than building a crazy above ground or below ground, permanent, Disney-style train.

    1. Re:Airport connectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because going to/from airports is a rich people problem, so of course there is public money for it.

    2. Re:Airport connectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you going to take a shuttle bus on the Kennedy Expwy at rush hour? LOL

    3. Re:Airport connectors by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Yes, heaven forbid public money be spent servicing the actual taxpayer.

    4. Re:Airport connectors by jbengt · · Score: 1

      No, I'll take the CTA Blue Line train or, schedule permitting, the Metra North Central train.

    5. Re:Airport connectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, heaven forbid public money be spent servicing the actual taxpayer.

      Show me where public money is being spent on this project. I'll wait.

  8. This Company Is Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's to stop someone from doing the same exact thing and calling their company Interesting Company?

    1. Re:This Company Is Doomed by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      chicago gov. That is why they are negotiating a contract right now.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:This Company Is Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very fitting that your user ID begins with "63". It matches your IQ.

      In other words, Whoosh!

  9. needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river road) by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river road) For local (non airport) express traffic to the big parking lots.

  10. Won't matter by Noodles · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Chicago will still be the shittiest city in the US.

    1. Re:Won't matter by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      If I was the trolling type, I'd say that's still an achievement seeing how low the average sets the bar. Limbo isn't easy, you know!

      But I'm not so I wont.

      Uh... oops? ;)

      Seriously, though, there are a lot of ways to be shitty. You gotta start betterment somewhere.

    2. Re:Won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've topped twinks all over the country and Chicago has the shittiest assholes anywhere :) It's a fucking dingleberry forest!

    3. Re: Won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicago is working hard for it, but I think Detroit still has it beat.

  11. Why Pity Chicago? by boley1 · · Score: 2

    It seems Chicago is getting a pretty good deal. The Loop is being privately financed. And if this follows in the path of previous Musk projects - everyone involved except short sellers will be rewarded handsomely.

    1. Re: Why Pity Chicago? by Rei · · Score: 1

      What subsidies? There is no such thing as "tunneling subsidies".

      And as for Musk's other companies, SpaceX has saved NASA massive amounts of money vs. the ULA monopoly. What's your issue with Musk saving taxpayers vast amounts of money? And the subsidies that you damn Tesla buyers for getting? They were designed by GM. Literally, the size of the battery pack that gets the full credit is the exact same size as the original Volt's battery pack (16 kWh). Any automaker can get them, all they have to do is make EVs. It's their choice if they don't want them. Meanwhile, Tesla faces protectionist legislation in many states in the US that supports its competitors' business models and bans Tesla from operating stores there.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    2. Re: Why Pity Chicago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space EX is a scam. They are hiding the true cost of their launches. They also cut corners and half ass things. Their shit rockets have the worst reliability in the history of rockety.

    3. Re:Why Pity Chicago? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      As political analyst Duncan Black said:

      Take your bets on:
      1) the year they throw a bunch of public money at it to keep it going
      2) the year they throw a bunch more public money at it despite it being clear it will never be built
      3) the year everybody knows it will never be built
      4) the year they finally pull the plug
      5) just how high will the per-trip operating subsidy be?

    4. Re: Why Pity Chicago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're not even trying. How are you supposed to save your short positions if that's all you can manage?

  12. Just build a rail tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's "boring", but a decent train is a good solution.

  13. "Unproven" by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing unproven about the "technology". It is just making a tunnel and putting train shuttles in them, like has been done in airports all over. They aren't doing what Musk was proposing: a series of interlocking tunnels with carts that hold passenger cars which descend from the surface on elevators. Now THAT is a dumb idea.

    1. Re:"Unproven" by sfcat · · Score: 1

      There is nothing unproven about the "technology". It is just making a tunnel and putting train shuttles in them, like has been done in airports all over. They aren't doing what Musk was proposing: a series of interlocking tunnels with carts that hold passenger cars which descend from the surface on elevators. Now THAT is a dumb idea.

      110010001000, dude, we all already know that you hate Musk. Let it go man, let it go...

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  14. Never mind capacity , think Shiny Jetsons! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Or something.

    Quite why this is better than a train that could also do 100mph (yes, amazingly there are such trains Elon, they even run in tunnels too!) which could carry 100x the number of passengers at a time is anyones guess though it probably has something to do with clueles politicians thinking they're being On Message which this expensive sci-fi BS.

  15. Alts for O'Hare-Congress Line? Like express track by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Alts for O'Hare-Congress Line? Like express tracks or full under ground?

    They can have better speeds by just bypassing stations as is used to have A/B stations on that line.

    An small build out by added some more 3rd track parts / more X overs even better. Use the 3rd tracks / X overs to hold local trains to let an express pass.

    Now if they go under ground use the room to add lanes to kennedy expressway Like the pre CTA plan for the road.

  16. I have a better idea... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about you join a load of larger versions of these vehicles together (perhaps 100 people per vehicle, 10 vehicles in total) and call it , I dunno, a "train" maybe? Then put it on steel rails to reduce rolling resistance and hence energy consumption and make it powerful enough to get to 100mph (I've heard strange rumours that in france trains can do over 200mph, but no, that much be witchcraft!), then run each "train" at a 10 minute headway and guess what - you transport far more people! Its obviously a crazy idea, but you never know...

    1. Re:I have a better idea... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      You've missed the point... see, the internet is like a series of tubes... or tunnels

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:I have a better idea... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fundamental problem with subway trains is that because they hold a large number of passengers they have to stop at every station. This limits the number of stations each line can have.

      I can see a market for small, autonomous vehicles that behave like elevators operating horizontally, so they only need to stop at stations where someone needs to get on or off. In this usage there would also have to be 'step aside' capability, allowing multiple cars to operate on one line by being able to pass stopped cars. It would then be feasible to have a hundred tiny stations on your subway line, each one being nothing more than an elevator lobby with a short hop to the surface. An automated system could optimize travel so that each passenger would experience no more than a few sops on the average trip.

    3. Re: I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the poor will be using trains. This is upscale transportation for the super rich.

    4. Re:I have a better idea... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It still has to load and unload passengers plus luggage. The larger the capacity the longer that turnaround time takes.

    5. Re: I have a better idea... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Only the super-rich fly on airports where you're from? Is it possible that perhaps you just view anyone who has more than you to be "super-rich"?

    6. Re:I have a better idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fundamental problem with subway trains is that because they hold a large number of passengers they have to stop at every station. This limits the number of stations each line can have.

      Yes, this is an annoying limitation. You could solve it simply, however...

      I can see a market for small, autonomous vehicles that behave like elevators operating horizontally,

      Sure, that's called PRT. But why not just use trains? You eliminate the engine (and the driver) and control all train cars from a central location. The cars are smart enough to do certain things on their own, like safely approach a leading car and couple to it, or decelerate and stop at a siding once sent to it. Put motive force and energy storage on each car, with each car strong enough to push or pull at least one other car so you can cope with failures. Cars are all flatbeds, and you can load containers or passenger coaches or automobiles onto the flatbeds and transport them.

      Such a design would solve essentially all problems with trains except initial capital cost (which is a problem for every mode of transport; the costs are simply hidden better with other modes.) There is no departure time, because each car leaves as soon as it is loaded. You still get the benefits of platooning (wind resistance) without the drawbacks (increased risk of collision) because it's still a train, and the cars can still couple together. Passenger compartments can ride actual elevator shafts to/from street level and be deposited on subterranean flatcars which will whisk their passengers away towards their destinations. They could even be elevated to street level and be deposited on a flatbed bus chassis for delivery to their final destination.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:I have a better idea... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      note that Musk is promising 100 MPH on the loop. they believe that they will be doing closer to 200 mph.
      And as others pointed out, the train is inefficient. It is fine if you are going 500 miles with no stops, but when going under 30 miles and with multiple stops, the train, like LRT, is a horrible choice. OTOH, if you can get in a small pod and travel at 100-200 mph and go from start to destination directly, it is far far more efficient than a train.
      This is even more true in a tunnel. With above ground trains, they have to be designed to handle running into semi's and items. With underground pods, these things will be lightweight like an aircraft. Far less energy.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:I have a better idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trains are slow and expensive. The Boring company won this contract because they offer something faster and cheaper.

      It is easy to be snarky, but Elon has a long history of actually doing what he said he was going to do. If we are going to fix the world's problems, then transportation needs to be transmogrified. Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff.

    9. Re:I have a better idea... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "And as others pointed out, the train is inefficient. It is fine if you are going 500 miles with no stops, but when going under 30 miles and with multiple stops, the train, like LRT, is a horrible choice"

      What a load of crap. Clearly you don't live in a large city with a metro and have probably never even been on one. They work extremely well, far better than a few hundred "pods" would.

      "OTOH, if you can get in a small pod and travel at 100-200 mph and go from start to destination directly, it is far far more efficient than a train."

      Really? Explain.

      "With above ground trains, they have to be designed to handle running into semi's and item"

      Only if you're stupid enough to build your new metro line with road crossings on it.

      "With underground pods, these things will be lightweight like an aircraft. Far less energy."

      The majority of energy consumption consists of pushing air out of the way, not moving the weight of the vehicle. This is why a 200 ton commuter train is more efficient per passenger than a 2 ton car. Calling a car a "pod" and sticking it in a tunnel doesn't change the physics.

    10. Re:I have a better idea... by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      I live in Highlands Ranch outside of Denver. We take the LRT and regularly it takes LONGER than the roads. Why? Due to large numbers of stops esp in short periods.
      Here is the map. Look at the bottom right and follow e line. 18 stops. Roughly 20 miles. It takes 40 minutes for what I can drive AND PARK in 20 minutes. That is inefficient.

      Now as to drag, the faster that you, the more that aerodynamics figures in. BUT, travelling at an average of 30 mph, like the LRT (20 miles in 40 minutes), means that a lot of time is spent accelerating and decelerating, which it does. As such, lots and lots of energy is wasted because these are several times what those pods will weigh. And as to energy, if you take a 200 ton commuter and start/stop it every mile, i promise you that cars WILL outdo it easily esp. today's EVs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:I have a better idea... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff."
      Are they really? How so?
      Let's hope they pay attention to safety. One collapsed tunnel and they'll have dug a grave.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    12. Re:I have a better idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      There already is a train to the airport. It's slow and difficult to access.
      But thanks for the idea, anyway... whatever... go back to your basement.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    13. Re:I have a better idea... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      As soon as you have multiple 100-passenger cars, you're back where you started with conventional local subways that have to stop at every station. Surface trains can at least have stops off the mainline for local vs express service, but doing this underground in the conventional way is expensive and takes up too much space.

      Musk's 16-passenger single car is basically an enlarged elevator car, and an ideal size for the service I have in mind. It could have a few fold-down seats around the walls, but rides would be so short that most passengers would just stand. What you would see getting on at a station would be exactly what you see at an elevator lobby inside a building, except that each of the ten or so "elevator doors" in front of you would be numbered. Before getting on you would press a button on a line map indicating your destination stop. The system would display a door number, at which you would wait until your car arrives and the door opens. Eventually, an app on your smartphone would set this up as you head down to the transit lobby.

      Because this system operates like the one automated people mover that is already accepted in every culture, it would be the system that gets used. No more expensive civic gambles on subway trains that you have to wait for and which spend most of their time rattling around empty.

    14. Re:I have a better idea... by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Not if the loading is done "offline". Small vehicles can be quickly loaded (or even slowly loaded) then shuttled into the main tunnel.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re:I have a better idea... by swb · · Score: 1

      The fundamental problem with subway trains is that because they hold a large number of passengers they have to stop at every station

      I don't claim to be a mass transit expert, and the proof is getting on a NYC 6 express when I should have paid more attention and gotten on a 6 local.

      As it turns out, express trains don't stop at all the stations.

      The real complication seems to be that adding an express line to a route means you need an extra set of tracks since the express is bound to pass the local at some point and this is a problem if you didn't dig the tunnel with this in mind.

    16. Re:I have a better idea... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I believe there's essentially 2 main approaches they are proposing to take to make boring faster.
      1) Smaller diameter. Because the amount of spoil is a squared function of the diameter, a reduction in diameter helps a lot.
      2) The traditional machines bore a section, then stop to put in the tunnel lining. The proposal is for continuous boring, with tunnel lining put in whilst the boring machine is still propelling itself forward.

      They also propose to create the tunnel linings on site, using the spoil material coming out of the tunnel. So that's more environmentally friendly and presumably cheaper.

    17. Re: I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it will guarantee you will not get mugged on the way to the airport.

    18. Re:I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This system has to stop at every station too.

    19. Re: I have a better idea... by Newander · · Score: 1

      The L already services O'Hare with the blue line. This would be a faster, presumably more expensive alternative.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    20. Re:I have a better idea... by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      If Musk's plan includes autonomous PODs without drivers then the OP seems to have a good point, not "crap" at all. Small pods can overtake each other, stop anywhere, leave out stops, go on parallel lanes, take different crossroad tunnels, etc. The possibilities are mainly limited by the money to build the tunnels. Trains were built so one human driver could transport the maximum number of people and good at the cost of flexibility. With autonomous steering, this concept is obsolete.

    21. Re:I have a better idea... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      Some modern commuter systems use regenerative braking and feed energy back into the power grid while slowing down, so there's not necessarily all that much waste.

      Power required due to drag, OTOH, is proportional to the speed *cubed*. And you additionally have to multiply that by the number of pods vs. one train.

    22. Re:I have a better idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      "Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff."
      Are they really? How so?

      Modern TBMs have better materials for the cutting face, and automatically adjust alignment. Smaller TBMs, used by hyperloops, are much more cost effective than big TBMs used in railroad or highway tunnels.

      Let's hope they pay attention to safety. One collapsed tunnel and they'll have dug a grave.

      Smaller diameter tunnels are inherently safer.

      Any way you look at it, this is superior to a train. Faster to build, faster to run, cheaper, safer.

      The naysayers' arguments are basically:
      1. This is new and different.
      2. This isn't the "Chicago Way"
      3. I don't like Elon Musk.

    23. Re:I have a better idea... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Clearly you don't live in a large city with a metro and have probably never even been on one. They work extremely well, far better than a few hundred "pods" would.

      Take Sacramento light rail, since I've ridden it. To go from Folsom to Downtown takes about 50 minutes via train, or 20 minutes to drive. That's the best case direct route. If you have to transfer to a different rail line, it'll take you 90 minutes to go a distance you could've driven in 20. Why? All the stops. Can it work out better for you if you happen to live in the perfect location in a megacity that has an express train from exactly where you live to exactly where you want to go? Sure, but 99% of people don't live that scenario so we need to think of solutions for everyone else.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    24. Re:I have a better idea... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Great idea. And we'll just increase the tunnel diameter from 14ft to 21 feet. What's that tunneling complexity increases exponentially based on diameter?

    25. Re:I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you think you are driving from Highlands Ranch (even the Lincoln station) to downtown Denver in 20 minutes during normal traffic, you should cut down on dispensary visits. My commute on LR from downtown to Greenwood Village is 55 min on LR versus 45-65 min driving.

      Also, the LR cars use regenerative breaking, so starts/stops aren't as energy intensive as you are making them out to be.

    26. Re:I have a better idea... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh no see you've got it all wrong, in post-post-Net Neutrality America of 2018, you Base Monthly Fee only buys you limited access to the tubes; if you want access to the tunnels, too, then you have to pay an extra Tunnel Subscription Fee.

    27. Re:I have a better idea... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This is what I mean when I cite the conventional surface train approach to offline platforms. Underground, you can afford the space and extra tunneling this requires on only a few crowded big-city lines. Having elevator-sized cars that are able to slide perpendicularly into an "elevator lobby" doorway at stops gives you offfline stops and bypass capability without all the extra space needed by bypass trackage and/or dedicated express tracks.

    28. Re:I have a better idea... by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      I saw a documentary about continuous boring years before Elon "invented" it. They used pre-fabricated concrete panels that gets attached to the walls as soon as the bore head goes past it. Another documentary I saw had them spraying fast-curing concrete instead.

      As for using materials from what was dug up, that really depends on what you're digging through. If it's mud slurry, you're going to have a big problem trying to turn it into concrete.

    29. Re:I have a better idea... by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Maybe subways as designed today are obsolete. It is worth trying a very different approach in New York City. If the idea works in Chicago, it may work on a larger scale in NYC.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    30. Re:I have a better idea... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Japan does well with their express trains that skip a majority of the stops on longer routes. They cost more and the tickets often sell quickly but it can cut hours off commute time per week, depending on how far you must travel.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    31. Re:I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And as others pointed out, the train is inefficient. It is fine if you are going 500 miles with no stops, but when going under 30 miles and with multiple stops, the train, like LRT, is a horrible choice"

      What a load of crap. Clearly you don't live in a large city with a metro and have probably never even been on one.

      I can't speak for him, but as a Chicago native who grew up taking the CTA, the non-express trek from the Loop to O'Hare can be painfully slow, and I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore.

    32. Re: I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to expand on that? If there is a central tunnel where through traffic runs, and stations are sidetracks where cars can decelerate / accelerate and not block the main line, why would a car need to stop where nobody is waiting and nobody wants to get off?

      Don't be an idiot.

    33. Re:I have a better idea... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Japan is one of the very few places on Earth with a sufficient number of huge cities close enough to each other. That's why high speed rail has been so successful there. It doesn't mean it can be applied to most of the planet.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    34. Re: I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no side tracks retard. The whole scam is predicated in reducing tunnel diameter. There is no room for fucking side tracks moron.

    35. Re:I have a better idea... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      You can take the Blue Line from Clark and Lake to O'Hare, but it's going to take close to an hour. It's only 15.5 miles from Block 37 to O'Hare; a pretty short trip at 100mph.

      Travel times by car can be even longer; you can look at historical travel times at travelmidwest.com. It's not uncommon for it to be a 2+ hour trip in the winter.

      The location seems slightly odd to me since it's in a business district. It is only two blocks away from City Hall though and there's an underground pedway.

    36. Re:I have a better idea... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Who are you quoting with the "inventing" in quotes?

      Musk is not an inventor. Who's saying he is? He is what he says he is - an engineer. And engineers construct from existing technologies and improve them.

      And there's plenty of value in that. The Slashdot hive-mind is fucking ridiculous with this stupid idea that nothing ever has an value if there was prior art. There's always prior art.

    37. Re:I have a better idea... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Plenty of value in... doing exactly what other people are already doing? I mean, I don't see how he's improved anything. Maybe there is value in creating more competition, but any other company could've done the same.

    38. Re:I have a better idea... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Your map doesn't specify which stops are express stops, so it must be incomplete because only a total idiot designs a train system with all local trains.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    39. Re:I have a better idea... by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      It's mainly intended mainly for tourist and business people heading to the hotels downtown.

      You don't think its designed for the natives and plebs do you?

    40. Re:I have a better idea... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      there is no express. It stops at ALL STOPS, ALL THE TIME. That is why it is a horrible mistake.
      Heck, it would make sense to have an express, but in typical LRT they did not design it that way. In addition, it would make sense if for events, when they end, if outbound trains would turn to express, stopping at a couple of stops along the way, but continues to hit them all on in-bound. BUT, they do not do that.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    41. Re:I have a better idea... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Why not? I cannot think of a reason express routes cannot be created in certain large US cities, especially when a new line is in the process of being created.

      An express line does not have to move any faster than a normal train, it just does not stop at every station along the way. Simply have a way for the train to get around any stopped trains and everything else is simply scheduling correctly.

      I think the biggest concern in the US would be having trains actually run on time.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    42. Re:I have a better idea... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What's more likely. He's done nothing. Or you don't know what he's done?

    43. Re:I have a better idea... by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's called PRT. But why not just use trains? You eliminate the engine (and the driver) and control all train cars from a central location. The cars are smart enough to do certain things on their own, like safely approach a leading car and couple to it, or decelerate and stop at a siding once sent to it.

      I think this is going to be the only idea that will compete with self-driving cars on traditional roads. If you can have "pods" that can link to each other without slowing down you can get the best of both worlds (fine granularity without frequent unneeded stops). Problem is of course that it will be quite complicated to let a pod in the middle go off to a siding - it needs to decouple both front and aft, get enough distance to be able to take a siding safely (presumably meaning both it and the aft pod decelerates, because the larger train is at cruising speed) while the other pods go straight, and then the aft pod needs to accelerate and hook back up with the 'train'. This will cause quite a lot of inefficiency which might negate the gains from hooking up if it is frequent enough.

      Alternative could be to always decouple the last car in the train, and let people move back and forth between cars. That would negate the "flatbed"/"private pod" idea, but allow for better economies of scale, as everyone in station X can take the pod/car that leaves from X, walk into the main train, and get off by walking to the back of the train.

    44. Re:I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he has done nothing. When you are actually accomplish something you don't have time to hype it to the stratosphere.

  17. Re:I read the summary and the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now go ahead Musk worshipers, masturbate over this.

    Way ahead of you. Already cleaned up actually.

  18. Poor planning by Mes · · Score: 1

    Why didnt the L or Metra connect with OHare in the first place? They connect with Midway. This is a larger problem of cities not connecting transpiration hubs together just to pad the taxi coalition.

    1. Re:Poor planning by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      what?!!!!!!

      Of COURSE L (electric train systems) connects with O'hare, it's the Blue line that goes there.

    2. Re:Poor planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. You know L and Metra, but aren't smart enough to know the Blue Line does stop at OHare.. It's actually inside the terminal, so there's not a walk to the airport. /idiot.

  19. great, screw the cabbies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks Elon, what a humanitarian

    greedy rich people

    1. Re:great, screw the cabbies by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      uh. uber is more of an issue than this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. 18 mile loop 150 mph by trb · · Score: 2

    They say 18 mile loop, but I think they mean 18 miles one way. At 100 mph it's 12 minutes. At 60 mph 18 minutes. I don't see the point in making it go 100 mph plus, to save 6 minutes. It would be different if the trip took hours.

    1. Re:18 mile loop 150 mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's moar faster and shiny.

    2. Re:18 mile loop 150 mph by GreyWanderingRogue · · Score: 1

      If 12 minute trips allow them to move 50% (or even a smaller percentage because of overhead) more people vs 18 minute trips, it makes sense to go faster. There might be limits in the number of cars they want to have in the tunnel at once, or it might save on the number of cars they have to build/buy. The saved 6 minutes might just be a nice bonus to moving more people.

    3. Re:18 mile loop 150 mph by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Throughput. 18 miles each way in a systems they call "Loop" as opposed to HyperLoop or TheLoop.

  21. Autonomous? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Autonomous 16-passenger

    That's not going to fly in Chicago. If nobody is going to be in the train running it, there's going to have to be an employee sitting in a room monitoring a screen for every active train. The transit unions won't have any of this "autonomous" nonsense.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Autonomous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often the union argument is safety, and sometimes they are correct. Manual systems have failure modes which put safety at risk, and the same is true of automated ones. A properly integrated combination, with good training is safer than either. Poorly designed and integrated not so. The question can be how much safety is added, and whether it is worth the cost. The risk of death for a service is not generally posted, so consumers are not typically in a position to make a fully informed choice.

  22. Nothing to see here, really by LostOne · · Score: 1

    This seems to be all very mundane. They are going to make tunnels, which are well understood. Then they are going to put something in the tunnels. From TFA, that something is not anything crazy. For a system like this, there's no reason the capsules can't be automated as long as sensible safety precautions are taken, which are also fairly well understood. It's a closed system so there are no external conflicts to be managed. And if the fancy-ass capsule system doesn't work as expected, it can drop back to a scheduled train style service.

    It seems like the "news" here is really just a bunch of hype because one of Mr. Musk's companies is involved. Indeed, I can't really decide from TFA what constitutes the actual project and what is just speculation based on other things Musk has rattled on about.

    Note that I'm not saying the project necessarily makes sense. Just that it's a fairly mundane sort of project.

    --

    If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all fairly mundane until you consider Elon is involved, once you consider he is involved you have to consider his motivation.

      They guy is building tunnels, and promising rocket powered cars at the same time...
      Elon musk is building an aerospace industry and surface/supersurface transport for the eloi and tunnels for the morlocks...

      He is playing both sides.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here, really by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Not sure how easily the tunnel could be repurposed, since a single path for the bulk of the distance each way with branches off the main line, in a small diameter tunnel isn't really universal infrastructure.

  23. Blue Line is slow by poobah75 · · Score: 2

    Well, I use to live along the blue line between the loop and O'Hare, and I would welcome the new system. What people don't realize (that haven't ever taken that trip), is that blue line Loop to the airport is between 45-50 minutes one way. Faster and cheaper than a taxi during rush hour, but still slow. They say the target ticket price is $1, but I would gladly pay double or triple the L fare to get there in the 10-15 minutes.

    1. Re:Blue Line is slow by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Or just add a little extra track at stations to the blue line to allow for express trains...

    2. Re:Blue Line is slow by poobah75 · · Score: 1

      Or just add a little extra track at stations to the blue line to allow for express trains...

      Easier said than done. Most of that line is either elevated above ground, underground, or snugly nestled in-between eastbound/westbound I-90 lanes. I imagine it would be $$$ expensive to re-do all those support pillars, roads, tunnels, etc. Digging a new tunnel just a little bit deeper probably is a lot more cost effective.

    3. Re:Blue Line is slow by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Two 20 mile tunnels full of 100mph individual autonomous sleds is also easier said than done.

  24. Re:needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river roa by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    we already have that, it's called the Blue Line. heh.

    Really just need to make a set of express rails for Blue Line, no need for tunnels and no need for Musk. In some places the 2nd lines would be up in the air over grade track, which of course is how most the CTA train tracks are anyway, it's 125+ year old proven Chicago tech, we're good at it.

    The stupidity and waste of this proposed project is unbelievable.

  25. They do have a train from downtown to the airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a train line. It doesn't go very fast though. But it is reasonably fast.

  26. Difficult to reject offer by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    In exchange for paying to build the new transit system, Boring would keep the revenue from the system’s transit fees and any money generated by advertisements, branding and in-vehicle sales

    Who could reject an offer like this? Innovative, faster, supported by a celebrity, initial costs fully paid and, apparently, with no risk. For Chicago, this seems a no-brainer. For the Boring side, it looks like a long-term investment assumed to be beneficial in any scenario ("1B losses expected to be recovered in 10 years no matter what? It would be excellent if we could build that innovative thing, but putting some stickers on an old train and doing a bit of PR juggling wouldn't be the end of the world either!"). I guess that this is one of the (rare) occasions when having lots of money gives you an unbeatable advantage. It looks like a bit too boring though.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Difficult to reject offer by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I would reject it.

      It shows the short sighted stupidity of Chicago (and cook county for that matter) not having long term revenue sources.

      Chicago already have sold off other assets for short term book balancing that would have provided many times the revenue for OVER A CENTURY. It's disgusting.

      The mayor of Chicago is one such idiot, that sawed off incompetent runt Rahm Emanuel.

    2. Re:Difficult to reject offer by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      My point was highlighting that Musk isn't getting this project because of the most logical reasons (e.g., being more reliable or offering a better price), but because of basically paying for it. I also meant that if you can afford to lose lots of money, your chances of getting it back together with much more are very high. By assuming that this project is good for the city and there are various bidders, the one offering to pay for the whole construction (+ celebrity + innovation) seems really strong.

      I haven't ever been in Chicago. I don't know anything about its major or the needs of the city. I don't care about whether this system gets built or not. I don't even care about Musk's company failing (at least, not for as long as it has a reasonably honest behaviour). Personally, I don't even find this kind of arrangements too attractive as far as I am not into trendy, marketing, celebrity, dreamy whatever. My comment was exclusively focused on what I think that is the main issue here: lots of money.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  27. Sunshine up Your Musk Hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Chicago is getting a tunnel built with some fairly standard, dinky, 16-passenger cars. If it weren't such a Musk Hole who would even care about this?

  28. Musk is kinig of OPM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk is the master of taking Other People's Money and hyping it to the point where people believe he did what he set out to do.

    1. Re: Musk is kinig of OPM by ryanmc1 · · Score: 1

      In case your interested, Musk is paying for this himself. From the article "In exchange for paying to build the new transit system, Boring would keep the revenue from the systemâ(TM)s transit fees and any money generated by advertisements, branding and in-vehicle sales."

  29. faster AND cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheaper only because they low-bid the project. Buying his way into the market.
    Faster AND Cheaper---we'll see. Cannot wait to see the operating costs as well.
    Like most things Musky---it's going to be all sizzle and gristle, with no steak in sight.

    1. Re:faster AND cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      price is 0 because all costs are paid by company and nothing by city,

      its not "i think it will cost half the money engineers told me, and i will act surprised in 10 years when it turns out to be more",
      it is "it will cost me whatever it costs me, maybe even more than that other guy, but i will pay for it myself, its free for city"

      (he will recoup any costs from tickets that will be cheaper than taxi (%25 per ride)

    2. Re:faster AND cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a done deal. Would love to see what the final contract states, what the service is like, how long it actually runs without a price increase, and how long before it's profitable.
      Also, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

  30. Re:needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river roa by sfcat · · Score: 1

    we already have that, it's called the Blue Line. heh.

    Really just need to make a set of express rails for Blue Line, no need for tunnels and no need for Musk. In some places the 2nd lines would be up in the air over grade track, which of course is how most the CTA train tracks are anyway, it's 125+ year old proven Chicago tech, we're good at it.

    The stupidity and waste of this proposed project is unbelievable.

    Clearly you have never taken the Blue Line. Widening that elevated track would be quite expensive, especially in Chicago and especially on the public dime. Think multiple times the cost of the big dig in Boston. While this might not be the best application/location of this type of transportation, if you are doing it in Chicago doing it privately this way might be the only possibility.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  31. Re:needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river roa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They really need to rip out the above ground rail that makes up the blue line, bury that, and put in additional traffic lanes on the Kennedy. Whatever Musk comes up with can go under the El. Or not. Offsite parking and Lyft have already solved this problem for me.

  32. Re:needs stops at cumberland / Rosemont (river roa by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    you're funny, I live here, have lived here over half a century. take blue and other lines all the time since childhood. would NOT need to widen the portion of blue line that is underground downtown for an express line. that would be above ground and same cost as any other elevated track (and might not even be necessary to build much new track if joined and run around loop with other lines)

    there are already multiple existing plans for doing this over the decades by the way. I'm old, I've seen them

  33. Simpsons did it! Monorail! by modi123 · · Score: 1

    Was anyone at the handshake event for this? Were they able to tell if folks broke out into song singing the praises of the monorail... err.. ahh.. "loop train"?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  34. Nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk hasn't invented anything...ever.
    Nobody cares.
    After acquiring Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field, he will get the credit for all things.
    This is just the way it is.

  35. list is too short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4. Elon's past performance is to be ignored---especially re: Tesla.
    5. Elon needed billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to get things rolling.
    6. Don't lick Elon's ass as well as ShanghaiBill

    ShanghaiBill has spoken. All must obey.

  36. Sure, pal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so you are interested in facts. They say many things in the article.
    1. "The Boring Company says that vehicles “will leave each station as frequently as every 30 seconds." Sounds like this is not well thought out, or I guess they will be moving many empty vehicles.
    2. "Experts warn that things will likely change as they get down to the nitty-gritty of actually building this new underground system." It's a good thing since Elon is no expert. He isn't even an Engineer (yes, capital 'E', as in registered professional engineer).
    3. "The company says that each vehicle would be equipped with [...] luggage storage space...". Yet, the renderings show a few rolling bags on the floor and nowhere else to put luggage.

    We'll see how it all shakes out.

  37. Re:Simpsons did it! Monorail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clever, using this joke as a reaction to a novel transportation system. You could be the very first person to think of it.

  38. Chicago wasting more money on BS. by Chas · · Score: 1

    The city's so far in debt that they're staving off a Detroit incident by a degree measured in angstroms.

    And they're going to spend out for this? What IS it about the problems of public transit that politicians just don't understand?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  39. But nobody goes there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weird. The overwhelming traffic into and out of O'Hare is not going downtown, so you might guess this to be some kind of perk for the elites. But those bozos don't schlep their own luggage, they get met by their (sometimes armored) town car and chauffeured wherever they are headed. I guess dumb old Rahn was just snookered as may others have been by smooth-talking old Elon. There's nothing in here for anyone but Musk.

  40. fact check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is a self-professed engineer.
    Since he owns his own company, he can make his title whatever he wants. Certainly, not a Professional Engineer (at least in the US).

  41. Re:Simpsons did it! Monorail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one has seen this 'novel transportation system' work, but the dream, or idea of it, is now being shopped around. Yup, that's Monorail talk.