Elon Musk's Boring Company Bids On Chicago Airport Transit Link (arstechnica.com) 155
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, the city of Chicago opened a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for an express train that would take passengers from the city's O'Hare airport to downtown. The system would have to be completely privately funded -- Chicago says no taxpayer money would be used for it. Elon Musk's Boring Company -- a tunneling company that the SpaceX and Tesla CEO started last year -- will respond to the request. Musk hopes to get to the second round when bidding will take place. On Wednesday evening, he tweeted that his company "will compete to fund, build & operate a high-speed Loop connecting Chicago O'Hare Airport to downtown."
Musk's reference to a "Loop" is explained more clearly on The Boring Company's FAQ page: "Loop is a high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported on autonomous electric skates traveling at 125-150 miles per hour. Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit), or a single passenger vehicle." Unlike Musk's idea for a Hyperloop, a Loop won't draw a vacuum. "For shorter routes, there is no technical need to eliminate air friction," The Boring Company states. The company also clarifies the concept of an "electric skate:" that is "a platform on wheels propelled by multiple electric motors." The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect. The skate would operate in the tunnel's main artery, and it would enter and exit from side tunnels. With this system, The Boring Company says, the skate's average speed would theoretically be able to operate close to maximum speed.
Musk's reference to a "Loop" is explained more clearly on The Boring Company's FAQ page: "Loop is a high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported on autonomous electric skates traveling at 125-150 miles per hour. Electric skates will carry between 8 and 16 passengers (mass transit), or a single passenger vehicle." Unlike Musk's idea for a Hyperloop, a Loop won't draw a vacuum. "For shorter routes, there is no technical need to eliminate air friction," The Boring Company states. The company also clarifies the concept of an "electric skate:" that is "a platform on wheels propelled by multiple electric motors." The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect. The skate would operate in the tunnel's main artery, and it would enter and exit from side tunnels. With this system, The Boring Company says, the skate's average speed would theoretically be able to operate close to maximum speed.
You all need to read the FAQ from the Boring Compa (Score:4, Informative)
For all of the people out there who have concerns about the Boring Company and tunnels they are planning to build, you really need to read the Boring Company FAQ [boringcompany.com].
Worried about earthquakes? They talk about it.
Wondering what the heck an electric skate is exactly? They talk about it.
Wondering how they can do tunnels economically? They talk about it.
The starting point of the discussions about using tunnels should be based on the claims they have there, not worries that have already been addressed...
I personally do not see how any surface based approach can possibly cost less than the tunnel approach or be put in as quickly given the huge amount of problems it takes to put in a new rail line over long existing areas.
Re:You all need to read the FAQ from the Boring Co (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you wouldn't have the expense of digging a goddamn tunnel.
Further, there are existing rail right-of-ways that are unused or underused all along the route from O'Hare to downtown Chicago. The city doesn't even know what to do with them. They've turned some into bike paths, but they hardly get used because you can safely bike anywhere in Chicago.
I'm sure it's good PR for Elon to be bidding on these contracts, but he's not going to get one in Chicago. Maybe it would make sense in a place like Houston, but there are so few people riding existing public transportation there, that I'm not sure anyone would use it. People love their cars in Houston, because for 10 months out of the year the weather is so bad you really can't go outside even for a walk from the parking lot to the Metro trains.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you wouldn't have the expense of digging a goddamn tunnel.
You only say that because you have not read the FAQ as I mentioned, because they talk about very reasonable ways in which the cost of "digging a goddam tunnel" is greatly reduced.
Further, there are existing rail right-of-ways that are unused or underused all along the route from O'Hare to downtown Chicago.
Ask the people that live along them if rail lines of any sort should be put in. Now remember that any of them can sue to stop your project.
Re:You all need to read the FAQ from the Boring Co (Score:5, Informative)
I lived there, until immediately after Hurricane Harvey. And I lived in the Museum District, one block from the Metro going downtown. Houston has several times the population of Chicago, but they can barely fill a four-car Metro train during rush hour.
There's basically one real Metro line for a metropolitan area of 8.5 million people that's almost as big as the state of Delaware. And the Metro doesn't even go to Minutemaid Park or NRG stadium or the Toyota center. So if you wanna go to a Texans, Astros or Rockets game, it's automobile or no deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Houston has several times the population of Chicago
That's not actually correct...whether speaking of the cities proper or metro areas. Chicago is larger in population and has a larger metro population, IJS.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. I made a mistake. I looked up Chicago city population and compared it to Houston metro population.
I also forgot to add that Chicago is a beautiful, world-class city and Houston is a horrible place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, I lived in Houston for two years, didn't think it was too bad. I'm from (and currently still live in after moving back to) Orlando, FL, so I'm used to 8-10 months of heat and humidity you alluded to earlier, heh.
I've always wanted to visit Chicago, actually. Along with New York and a few other places I've failed to travel to, thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
The areas most visitors see are beautiful, some of the poorer neighborhoods, not so much, but not worse than most world class cities.
And yes, I've been to Detroit.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on my observations, at least after they put in dedicated bike lanes separated from the traffic a few years go, the weather doesn't seem to stop many downtown Chicago bike riders, unless the snow hasn't yet been plowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many tunnels have they dug? Their FAQ seems to be full of handwaving and not much thought. Have they considered how small a train would be that could fit into a 14 foot tunnel? It certainly couldn't be anywhere near 14 foot in diameter. Then they also talk about the problems of existing TBMs that make tunnelling expensive, like not being able to tunnel continuously and going very slowly. It's not like
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they have.
London has several subway lines with 12 foot diameter tunnels. Being 6'5", I don't enjoy riding in them, but they do the job. Add 2+ feet and they'll be fine for just about everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not talking about trains, they're talking about cars. Or at most flatbed "skates" sized to carry a car. Those don't *need* to be 14 foot in diameter, even 8 is probably overkill for anything except larger SUVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It actually comes from Union Station, and I take that line from Lake County into downtown every day, occasionally getting off at O'Hare.
I wouldn't see the need to run a new rail spur from O'Hare to that line though, since they are already extending the Airport Transit System (a fully automated elevated train that runs on rubber wheels, not rails, which goes to the remote parking lot and the 4 terminals) to the location o
Re: (Score:2)
In urban areas, the expense of laying a dedicated through-way for express buses is also extremely high. The land between O'Hare & DT Chicago is very built up; there would be few ways to put in an express lane for a bus without major disruption.
Tunnels dodge a lot of concerns about traffic, safety, land rights, etc. that can add up to big headaches for urban public transit.
Re: (Score:2)
There's already a dedicated through-way in Chicago from O'Hare to Downtown. More than one in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
The Blue Line is wonderful. I remember when they were building it out from Jefferson Park to O'Hare. I couldn't wait to ride it. It would be nice if they could do something about the curves between Milwaukee and Chicago, which slows down the ride, but those are some old, very nice neighborhoods and it's probably not a good idea to displace them.
Re: (Score:2)
"safely bike" -- Well, yeah, that's because the vast majority of cyclists have a "me first" attitude and in no way respect the law or safety of others. The regularly run red lights, stop signs, ride the wrong way down a one way, jump in/out of bus lanes, the sidewalks, I've had them yell at me to get out of their way as they ran a red light and pushed through my walk as a pedestrian.
The bulk of cyclists here that get hit by car are at fault and deserve it.
Re:You all need to read the FAQ from the Boring Co (Score:5, Informative)
I personally do not see how any surface based approach can possibly cost less than the tunnel approach or be put in as quickly given the huge amount of problems it takes to put in a new rail line over long existing areas.
You might want to look at what happened with the DC Metro. The Red Line started leaking before they even finished it. It ended up costing more to repair the tunnel than it cost to build the entire system. They diverted money from maintenance for so long that the entire system is failing. And the Red Line is still leaking.
Chicago already has a very good alternative to tunnels: elevated tracks. I've only visited a couple of times but their system seems to work quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to look at what happened with the DC Metro. The Red Line started leaking before they even finished it.
It's not like there are not a lot of tunnels all around the world that go under water and handle leaks just fine. Just because the DC government is notorious for poor choices in construction quality does not mean Musk will be.
Did you know that all through the recent hurricane Harvey, most of the Houston underground tunnels did not flood at all?
Chicago already has a very good alternative to
Re: (Score:2)
Elevated tracks can be close to noise less.
Tracks Yes, trains no. (Score:2)
>> Elevated tracks can be close to noise less.
Yeah, that's right.
They are noiseless when you stop the trains.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the people per foot that matter, but the people per second - it's a rare busy train line that travels at 150mph. Triple the speed, and you get the same passenger throughput at 1/3 the density.
As for skates on raised lines, I agree it seems like an idea with a lot of potential, and would almost certainly be cheaper - a quick google suggests a lane of raised highway costs ~$20million/mile in LA, versus the ~$1billion per mile for a traditional tunnel. Even if Musk can pull off his planned 10-fold r
Re:You all need to read the FAQ from the Boring Co (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a good alternative. The elevated trains are *bone-shatteringly* noisy. I was posted on the 4th floor of a building on Wabash and the effect on productivity was MASSIVE. People think it's no big deal because they're "used to it", but having to mute your conference call every 2 minutes due to train noise is a massive inconvenience. And forget walking! After months of nearly losing my mind walking under those tracks, I finally started hunting down hotels that were far enough away from the tracks that I didn't have to walk parallel to them.
Half a year of working in Chicago and I was ready to murder somebody. It was unbelievably unpleasant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not as a rule. In Bangkok there's Skytrain, while it does make noise... nobody blinks an eye.. especially in surrounding buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on a conference call, you should only be unmuting to talk, and then remuting anyway.
re: DC Metro system (Score:3)
I'm not saying I'm an expert on the subject - but I do live in the DC metro area and take the red line metro regularly.
As far as I'm able to determine, the maintenance issues they're experiencing are primarily the result of mismanagement and possible corruption. Whatever issues they had addressing water leaks in the tunnels should have LONG since been taken care of as an expected complication of building the tunnels. And yes, they "still leak" in the sense that when we've had a few instances where there was
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the issue is that NYC's system relies heavily on a dedicated tax, where DC's is mostly dependent on subsidies from DC, MD, VA and the Federal government. That leads to a fractured, undependable revenue source, and led to underfunding of maintenance for years. Like most transit systems, only about half the revenue is from fares in either one.
https://ggwash.org/view/41125/... [ggwash.org]
Re: (Score:2)
no I have concern with complete disregard for where the water table is here in the chicago area in the proposed path, the thing will often be submerged. weather proof is one thing, making a tunnel under water is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. even the kennedy expressway along which the current Blue Line electric train runs has parts that turn into a lake in five inches or more of rainfall as do parts of the highways it joins.
so for passengers that are amphibians, this will be a great system.
And note the
Re: (Score:3)
The oldest tunnel still in use under the Thames in London is coming up to its 175th birthday, half of them are over a century old and still dry. It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also pretty short. Contrast with the TransBay Tube [cbslocal.com] in San Francisco, which is having a bit of a mid-life crisis at only 43 years of age.
This is not to say that the problems aren't solvable, just that they have to be thought through.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a solved problem.
The benefit Musk brings is the ability to use small diameter tunnels with less infrastructure than a train tunnel. Specific to ORD, his system {c|w}ould stop at all terminals and have multiple drop-off points within and around the Loop. Rail is much harder to make that work, at least cost-effectively. The solution could also economically be expanded to serve areas north and south.
The only real questions are: could it provide the needed level of service, and can he deliver?
Undergr
Re: (Score:2)
it is not a trivially nor cheaply solved problem, and let's just say those of us in the Chicago area know of important train tunnels that have flooded, even recently.
Re: (Score:2)
The blue line and red line already go under the Chicago River in a couple of places, and are undoubtedly under the water table for most of the time they're underground, so why should the water table be considered as so much of a problem for a new tunnel?
Re: (Score:3)
If they unexpectedly run into one of those water-filled tunnels, I'd imagine that would be pretty bad.
Plus it's Chicago, so there's going to be major costs of bribery. That goes on the surface of course, but I'm sure local government will work overtime on how to wring more money out boring under, then bill someone for that overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
All they need to do is stick a ground penetrating radar unit on the boring machine that they fire up every 100 yards of digging or so.
How deep are they? (Score:2)
It seems like if pilings can pierce a tunnel, they aren't all that deep - if you would just read the FAQ you'd note the tunnels Musk has in mind are over 28 feet deep. The Chicago tunnels also are not all that large, so even if they ran across one it would hardly be a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Asking people to learn about a subject before writing uninformed rants against it? You act like you're new here ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I read their FAQ. It's a bit hand-wavey in places but basically sound. I'm interested to see how reliable and efficient their skates prove to be though. They say they are better than trains, but without rails the friction is higher and they need steering. There is also the issue of tyre ware and failure, which is going to happen much faster than with train wheels. A blow out at 150 MPH doesn't sound like fun.
Has anyone simulated this? I'm just a little skeptical about their claim that skates will be better
Strange terminology (Score:3)
Normally in procurement RFQ is the acronym for a Request for Quote. For a large contract like this vendors would be qualified with an RFI (Request for Information). When you actually bid you'd use a Request for Proposal (RFP). This is too large a contract to use quotes's on the primary contract.
This matters because RFI's are used early in the process. At those stages the agency may be able or willing to consider more creative approaches.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Informative ^^ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I went to school (Score:3)
When I went to school RFQ stood for Request For Quotation.
Oh, wait. Looks like it still does [google.com].
ho boy, a redundant system at 10x the cost (Score:5, Informative)
we already have an electric train from o'hare to downtown in 40 minutes, and by the way the realistic time without the marketing hype for this proposed thing is 25 minutes.....so for $33 more than the current price you save a whopping 15 minutes. whoop de fucking do.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is £5 and takes around 50 minutes, but can actually get you more central.
It makes a profit - or at least it did a few years ago (67 million in fares, 60 million costs to run)
Re: (Score:2)
yes but doesn't that show a standard electric train can do the job? we could build another standard electric train line to be "express" with few stops, and the current 50 MPH speed governor limit can be raised to the 70 MPH the units are capable of. that seems like a more reasonable solution to me for business travelers that are in hurry and don't care about cost
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of the Heathrow express runs on preexisting railway lines. The new sections are mostly tunnels.
Re: (Score:2)
ah but we have space to put additional express tracks next to existing runs, that's part of existing CTA plans already. That's *much* cheaper than putting track on new right-of-way or tunneling, no need for an exotic expensive contraption
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It takes 45 minutes during rush hour and less than that outside of rush hour.
Another bonus you don't get with the tunnel is the fun of watching all the cars stopped bumper-to-bumper on the Kennedy expressway as you whiz by.
Re: (Score:2)
You have 18-20 minutes of stops along the blue line, plus a lengthy walk to the station (at least from Terminal 1).
I think the interesting part of it is that it could be more than just an airport - Loop route; it could actually alleviate freeway traffic some as well.
Re: (Score:2)
They did something similar in Tokyo. They had a line from the airport to the city, but built two more. The other ones serve some different stations along the way and shave 5-10 minutes off a 60 minute journey, and cost a little more.
They are popular. People will pay more to go closer to where they want to be, to have a nicer train with in-seat power and a desk instead of a commuter style bench etc. It reduced the crowding on the slower trains that are used by commuters in the mornings and evenings.
It's not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have trouble understanding what you're even picturing that the system is. Perhaps you should read the FAQ [boringcompany.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to bring your car is the whole point, not a penalty. It's not about "dragging it along", it's about letting you take it if you want it. And as for a small "cube" (cube? Where did you get that?), the passenger variants hold 8-16 passengers. How huge is your "group"?
Did you even read the Slashdot summary, let alone the FAQ?
Re: (Score:2)
"And no space to walk away if "rowdy" types get into the same "car" as you."
If they are rowdy, you'd see that on the platform and not get in with them in the first place. But if you do, what the hell, it's a short journey.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not a car. Your car. As in an automobile. And at the end, you drive your car off the side of the train, and you have your car for driving around town.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also talk about "mass transit" options that would have vehicle cabins on top of the flatbed skate things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spot the spoiled guy who's never used public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
To the idea, that you put your own car on a public transport, and disembark somewhere in the same city to use your car for the last few yards, only an american can come.
And you even think: that makes sense?
Redundant (Score:3)
(1) There's already an electric train
(2) Why NOT have rails in the tunnel? They add little to the cost compared to drilling a tunnel, they drastically simplify guidance at high speeds, and they act as an electric power return path.
(Also, metal to metal friction is lower than metal to concrete.)
This is basically an automated subway using single cars, without the rails and, thus, with more difficult guidance issues.
Ex-Chicagoan here (Score:5, Insightful)
First, after reading up on this it's practically unneeded. 20 minutes O'Hare to Downtown? The blue line El Train takes 45 minutes and costs hardly anything. If it took 5-10 minutes, maybe you'd have an argument.
Second, a car leaves every 15 minutes? you're going to need a rather steep cost of tickets to ride this thing. The private sector isn't going to invest billions if they can't make it back. What about upkeep, too? Is the city going to oversee it? Hire a Union (you bet yer sa-sij inna frunchroom there'll be one involved if it's Chicago)?
Third, above poster is correct: the actual cost of this will be about 3x the initial cost. Greasing palms in Chicago is how things get done, whether it's codified like a Union or not.
Fourth... Can someone please explain how any of this makes sense? Maybe it's the start of something great, but Chicago is in a bad spot right now. I'd half guess this is all just Rahm Emanuel grandstanding for political points rather than anything that will ever actually happen.
My one Chicago cent (the other gets taken by taxes and Union dues).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh! And I know i'm not supposed to reply to my own post, but Chicago used to have an airport almost downtown! For the millions of dollars of business lost because Daley bulldozed the thing illegally in the middle of the night, they could have modernized that airport and had the executives fly into downtown just like they used to and been at their office a lot faster than this hyperloop stuff.
Armchair opinion, of course.
It's news for nerds when Elon Musk does it (Score:2)
But somehow the other companies bidding on the project aren't equally newsworthy?
Is this like all the "on the internet" patents that were granted in the 90s? Now we say "Bombardier is bidding on a people mover between O'Hare and downtown Chicago, meh"
But Elon and Boring Company are bidding, so crank it up to 11, woohoo.
And you thought the Apple fanbois were obnoxious.
Re: (Score:2)
1 year ago: The Boring Company? This is just vaporware that won't go anywhere. Wake me up when it's a real company doing real projects. These Elon sycophants are intolerable.
Today: The Boring Company is bidding on a real project? God, who cares. These Elon fanboys are obnoxious.
10 years from now: Jesus, enough with the headlines about a new hyperloop tunnel opening. Nobody cares anymore. These Elon fanboys are obnoxious.
They don't need to make money off this (Score:2)
If it's successful all they have to do is break even, or at least not go bankrupt.
If it works as promised there are many markets this can be brought to that don't have an alternative. They aren't going for this one because it's the best application, they are doing this as a proof of concept.
Better than the Blue Line (Score:2)
Even if the competition makes the CTA suck less, I'm for it.
It's horrid taking the train from ORD to The Loop and back.
Ummm.. Why? (Score:2)
Since he's talking O'Hare, what reason does he have, other than for show? For those of you who don't know Chicago, the Blue Line subway GOES RIGHT FROM O'HARE TO DOWNTOWN, and has for decades.
And I'll wager it will continue to cost less than Musk's fares.
PS: Chicago's other airport, Midway, is at the end of the Orange line, which *also* goes downtown.
Definitely not a train (Score:2, Informative)
Per TFA - actually, per the fucking headline - goddammit ppl, fucking read!!!!
"The platform would operate autonomously without a rail or rails to which the skate would connect."
Autonomous highway (Score:2)
I think a fully autonomous highway would be a more apt comparison. We always hear all the promises of the benefits of fully autonomous networked cars - with the caveat being that you'd have to get human drivers off the road because our slow, indecisive meat-brains would hopelessly gum up the works.
An obvious solution is to build automated-only roads, especially if all the cars belong to the same organization, whose priority is keeping the roads running smoothly.
Whether it's a bus or a private car then beco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I take my car on the subway every day. ;)
(Also, the whole point of Boring Company is to make tunneling not cost the same as traditional tunneling)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not clear to me that the individual skates will require external power. My bet is that he's planning to have some kind of high duty cycle batteries on board. If the skate (with full battery/guidance/motor systems) can be easily detached from the car and replaced with a freshly charged skate, you just need enough skates "in the queue" to handle the load.
Without the need to run high-power electrics through the tunnel, and no risk of human exposure to high-tension power rails or cables, the whole thing could b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Charging losses are minimal in li-ions.
2. Batteries are not "environmentally problematic". Most lithium comes from salars, which is probably one of the least environmentally destructive mining processes on Earth; the rest comes from spodumene, which has no "spodumene-specific" risks over general hard rock mining (the main "environmental concern" is simply suspended solids in wastewater (aka, silt / clay), something that can occur in any mine on Earth that operates a rock crusher). The casing and part of
Re: (Score:2)
1. Batteries are heavy. If you are using an electromagnet to hold the train off the ground, that means more current which means more energy loss. It also takes more energy to accelerate up to speed and to stop.
2. I see you fail to address the environmental cost of disposing of spent batteries except with handwaving.
Re: (Score:2)
How is recycling "hand waving" - they have an excellent point. Batteries are chock full of valuable elements that are relatively easy to extract, pretty much the only thing you'd consider disposing of is the plastic shell. As EVs and grid buffers become more commonplace, recycling will inevitably do so as well. Plenty of people through away $30 laptop/phone batteries because it's not worth the effort of recycling them, but the dynamic changes when you're talking about a $10k car battery. Especially when
Re: (Score:2)
Why *wouldn't* you use external power though? Batteries are getting cheaper and more efficient all the time, but I doubt they'll ever be comparable to a few meters of power rail per car (a few dozen? How tightly will they pack in the autonomous cars during "rush hour"?), especially over the long term.
You might not power the on and off-ramps, easy enough to rely on small on-board batteries for that, and it gives you a lot more flexibility for your terminals, but once you're on the "highway", why bother dra
Re: (Score:2)
Is this you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But with the benefit that a subway moves at 30mph, and stops for 50% of the time, while this moves at 150mph and stops 5% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that as soon as one vehicle stops, all vehicles must stop behind it, or slowly traverse complex points systems. That's not a requirement here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a more apt comparison would be a bobsled? I suspect that the tube will be designed to turn the train. I'd guess that for turns at high speed the skate will be designed to move up the wall, like a car on a banked track.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but around here, buses aren't computer-controlled car carriers (passengers inside) that operate in tunnels.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. A flat-bed bus, then.
upgrade the blue line express can be done (Score:3)
upgrade the blue line express can be done to speed up the trip.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)
The funny thing is, their boring tech is actually rather interesting ;) If their hot-swap liquid-cooled advanced-alloy cutting discs and continuous casing system work as designed, the performance should be amazing. I can't wait to see a video of a TBM operating at something like 1-2 rotations per second (today's TBMs are currently limited to far slower speeds to try to preserve disc life, as wear increases dramatically as cutting head temperature increases (which corresponds with rotation speed), and they can only be replaced when stopped)
Boring Company will never escape the randomness of geology, unmarked utilities, and so forth. But when it's moving - if their design works as intended - it should really move.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm smelling a lot of "if" coming off of this plan...
But I agree - tunnel-boring has not been a big interest of mine, but his plans do seem poised to really revolutionize the field. IF they pan out.
Re: It already exists (Score:2)
As someone that took the Blue Line for years. It's a horrid line. Delays. Broken a lot. Cars that have doors that don't open. Heat that doesn't work in winter. Cooling that doesn't work in summer. The smell from vagrants living on the train having not bathed in who knows how long. People using corners as bathrooms.
Sure it already makes the ORD to Downtown. But its pretty crappy of service.