Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

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.

23 of 179 comments (clear)

  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 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
  2. 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!
  3. 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 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
    2. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.
    4. 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?
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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: 2

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

  11. 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.