If they manage to reduce the cost of tunnel boring then that's super exciting and I congratulate them.
But all this discussion of what to put in the tunnel seems very silly to me.
Are they just re-discovering subways? Do they know that there are subways in the world (e.g. Paris) that run out rubber tires?
Tunneling is currently so expensive that there are few companies doing any innovation on how to properly utilize them. A big part of the problem is actually digging them in a way that is cheap and scaleable. Another part of the problem is the organizations doing the digging and doing the exploitation are typically have misaligned incentives and goals.
For example, expanding subway systems is currently in the hands of very badly run semi government institutions who are arguably quite bad at even utilizing the tunnels they have. E.g. the new york subway system is famously less efficient than ever due to the fact that they keep reducing the speed at which trains travel through it. Digging new tunnels is relatively rare for them; and when they do dig new tunnels, they tend to just use them exactly the same way as their existing tunnels, which is not very efficiently. Also, like most government infrastructure projects, progress is slow and things tend to go way over budget.
Musk's approach is twofold: 1) turn tunnel digging into a scaleable business. 2) provide concrete things to do with these tunnels that are not backwards and stupid that he can sell. For example, if you have autonomous vehicles, you don't need a lot of expensive infrastructure inside the tunnels to get from A to B. Infrastructure like rails, signaling equipment, power lines for the trains, etc. It so happens he has a business for autonomous vehicles already. He sells the whole package. That's why he's emphasizing the use cases.
This is classic Musk, he thinks end to end an he might actually pull it off.
> if you have autonomous vehicles, you don't need a lot of expensive infrastructure inside the tunnels to get from A to B. Infrastructure like rails, signaling equipment, power lines for the trains, etc.
2 lanes of 3 rails that are grade leveled should be relatively less expensive than paved, with rebar grade leveled; especially over time, with the increased wear that liquid has.
His first argument is that it's currently too expensive to have any innovation. This tunnel cost 10 millions $. Sure it's usage is still hypothetical, but you can't say this won't be much more accessible to innovate.
I'm in Montreal, our subway barely changed in the past 30 years. I was lucky, I was affected by one of the only change they did in theses 30 years, 3 more stations on an already completely full line. That came with a 745m$ price for 3 stations that sure allowed people further to take it, but it didn't increase at all the actual capacity. It's hard for any of our administration to even consider any major expansion because of that.
If making smaller projects now make sense, maybe we will see more innovation in the technology, in how they are handled, etc...
Maybe I can provide a bit more context re: Montreal.
Montreal's metro throughput is not gated by the tunnel capacity. It is gated by the amount of trains in operation. Adding additional cars on the 'already full line' would increase the line's capacity. Neither the orange nor the green line are close to full.
The issue with the orange line extension isn't that the lines are full. It's that 1) subway costs are heavily subsidized at the municipal and provicial level, 2) they were extended to Laval which funds the STL, not the STM, and 3) there was no revenue or cost sharing agreement between Laval and Montreal to subsidize the STM in proportion to the burden placed on the STM by Laval riders.
This issue with cross-subsidization also lies at the core of the municipal agglomeration which occurred in Quebec metropolitan regions.
Montreal won't consider additional subway expansion not because of financial and infrastructure cost reasons, but because of political ones, much in the same way that internal negotiations regarding the dual super-hospital projects were intentionally sabotaged for political reasons.
New York subway system is probably the best we have in the US, but it's laughably bad when compared to the top players. I've traveled to Japan and during my trips I've been amazed by their train system. It was always on time and it ran incredibly frequently, so missing a train usually wasn't a big deal. Although I haven't visited there, I've also heard incredibly positive things about China's trains.
My point here is that there's still a lot of room for improvement, even if you limit yourself to trains. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to extend it a bit further to this new emerging system.
Not so hypothetical now that they delivered the first tunnel. I'm guessing that might help him land a few more deals for more tunnels. My understanding is they already closed a few such deals.
Apart from pointing at Asian nations building subways in almost every big city, it might also worth a look to the Arab Peninsula, with also very high speed of digging and building required infrastructure. It is only US who is behind at this sadly.
This is a problem in Europe as well. The new North south line in Amsterdam cost over 3 Billion to complete and took well over a decade to build.
China is indeed digging at huge speed.
My understanding with the Boring company is not that they are doing anything particularly special but merely doing things in a way that facilitates economies of scale. So, they standardize designs, equipment, logistics, etc. and they use automation. If you do a one off tunnel with a machine that will only be used for that tunnel, that doesn't make sense. If you are planning to do many tunnels that makes a lot of sense.
Minor quibble, one thing I would definitely want in these is power. Not only because you can bet someone’s battery will die inside, but also as a way to synergise: fast recharge your Tesla while you ride this really cheap tunnel.
The problem with subway systems is that they are great once they have enough reach and stops to reliably and frequently get you were you need to go without needing a car. However, a small subway system with infrequent service and only a few stops isn't all that useful. If we take the claims here at face value (not saying we should) then this is a solution that provides value immediately for people commuting by car, and if the network becomes widespread enough it becomes easier to rely on it as a pedestrian. Essentially it might be a great way to bootstrap a transition to public transport in car-centric systems.
Also note that if you get an increased amount of people commuting in these tunnels without their own cars, new public transportation built by the city becomes a lot more valuable as well, since there's already a lot of people getting around without cars.
That said it is funny how private companies seem to rediscover public transport. Looking forward to Uber Train.
Uber buying a major cities metro system and making it not shitty would be pretty great. NYC subway is basically what taxis used to be, dirty and hostile toward the user.
Since it seems VCs want to throw billions of dollars into a pit and set it on fire, I guess I'd prefer that pit were the NYC subway system rather than jitney cabs.
During the presentation, Musk specifically compared to subways and how their vision is an improvement. I didn't and won't read the article, since I watched the presentation, but, if it doesn't even mention that fact, this article is a waste of time. The presentation was quite informative of their ideas and visions for using the tunnels and gave clear explanations of how their approach is superior to existing ones.
Montreal and Mexico City also has rubber tire subways. I always found them to be nice since they really are more quiet. Though the jumpy aspects of the tires is unnerving for me.
Lyft shuttles are better buses. Better times, flexible routing, less road damage, and more comfortable rides. And they relieve pressure off the municipal system. It's a win-win, except for people who blame Lyft for public transit's flaws.
But all this discussion of what to put in the tunnel seems very silly to me. Are they just re-discovering subways? Do they know that there are subways in the world (e.g. Paris) that run out rubber tires?