[cornholio]

It's interesting how Loop criticism has evolved over the years: initially, it was claimed Boring Co has no chance of duplicating or significantly improving on the speed and cost of state of the art used by tunneling companies, or that the entire concept is fundamentally impossible or cost-prohibitive to build. After building the first stations, it changed to capacity concerns or that it's not Hyperloop, an completely unrelated high speed concept.

Now, after Loop demonstrated vehicle rates that would beat most light rail projects and many subway systems too - assuming they get adequate automated larger vehicles - the criticism seems to be that it's not build out yet to a significant size, or that it has minor usability quirks.

I sure hope these people understand just how foolish that position risks to become if Boring Co continues good execution and build outs the entire system as planed.

[deepvibrations]

Since when did the Loop demonstrate it could beat subway systems?

A heavy rail subway line can transport 30,000+ people per hour compared to vegas loop which maxes out at 4500 people/hr. Plus every single Tesla in the tunnel requires a human driver, unlike trains. Even IF Elon managed to create these larger Tesla vans, they won't reach those numbers on a single route.

[cornholio]

Loop demonstrated 4500 people per hour with Teslas with human drivers. Hence, the assertion that it can be competitive with most light rail systems is entirely reasonable, assuming, as I said, "they get adequate, automated, larger vehicles". For example, the much hyped but so elusive Robovans.

The largest subways in the world can reach 80,000 pphpd (crush load) but the vast majority of US systems are under 20k, and those are numbers Loop can likely reach with larger vehicles:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BoringCompany/comments/s4r6l4/chart...

Only a handful of the largest US systems really hit the capacities the only heavy rail subways can support, and they do so with eye watering costs, see the famous $2.5 billion mile in New York's Second Avenue extension. So a $10-20mil/mile system with 1/4-1/2 the capacity of a full subway could, if demonstrated, completely change the game in many cities.

[Zigurd]

> Loop demonstrated 4500 people per hour with Teslas with human drivers

In what K hole did that happen? All of the experiences I have heard of involve multi minutes long waits for a car to arrive, and then time to load the car and unload at the far end. That adds up to dozens of people per hour if they are lined up and organized waiting to get in a car. Low hundreds per day, on a busy day is barely plausible.

[cornholio]

Hitting almost 4000 was a requirement of the LVCC bid and they actually hit 4400.

This is all public info available from unbiased sources; preferring schadenfreude and rage inducing bait is, of course, a choice you are entitled to.

[Zigurd]

YouTube has many videos of people trying out the Vegas loop. None of them show something that possibly scales to 4400 riders per hour.

[gamerdonkey]

I'm just coming across this discussion now, but I did a little research that I can add to possibly explain the difference between the advertised capacity and the perceived capacity.

The 4400 number is based on a capacity test that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority performed[1] to certify the Vegas Loop met its contractual requirements, which was 4400 riders per hour. The test was performed with "about 300 people", so results were extrapolated to reach the final number. The LVCVA didn't publish any further information about their methodology, so we can't really comment for sure on how realistic their conclusions might be.

However, a few months after the tunnel opened, there was some criticism[2] saying, "the highest hourly passenger rate hit thus far is 1,355 passengers per hour." It also notied that the ride took 4 minutes instead of the 2-minute goal. A spokesperson from the LVCVA responded:

> “The ride itself does in fact take two minutes,” Nelson-Kraft said. “What wasn’t taken into account are other factors of the Loop experience, like passengers load in and load out time. [...]"

Given that the LVCVA conducted the original capacity "stress test", I think it would be reasonable to guess that they tested only how many passengers can be pushed through the 12-foot-wide tunnel and did not consider loading and unloading as part of overall rates.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210707125245/https://news3lv.c...

[2] https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior... (soft paywall, viewable with JS disabled)

[chickenchickenc]

> After building the first stations, it changed to capacity concerns or that it's not Hyperloop, a completely unrelated high speed concept.

This was the original concept no? It seems like valid criticism that the original prototype is immensely inefficient and slow compared to something even remotely comparable.

> Now, after Loop demonstrated vehicle rates that would beat most light rail projects and many subway systems too

Genuinely curious where you’re getting this.

[stonogo]

I don't think it changed. The claims went from "this isn't an improvement and it's wildly expensive" to "this isn't an improvement, it's wildly expensive, the result sucks, and it does nothing to test the concepts behind Hyperloop," that last bit being part of the original sales pitch.

Asserting that Loop is beating any form of normal rail is a wild claim that I don't think I've ever heard a transit engineer agree with.

In short, I'm not worried about Boring Co continuing good execution, but it would be nice to see Boring Co initiate good execution.

[zippothrowaway]

As a Vegas local I'll say the criticism evolved into "I'm never riding in that death trap after I found out how they skirted fire department approvals".

There is as yet no fire department vehicle that can enter the tunnel. And from here [1]

"Evacuation procedure basically consist of driving the car out of the tunnel, via the next station. If evacuation must be made in the opposite direction, the manual says the driver must await instructions from the OCC, as they are not generally permitted to drive in reverse."

[1] https://computer.rip/2024-08-12-a-pedantic-review-of-the-las...

[Zigurd]

> "I'm never riding in that death trap after I found out how they skirted fire department approvals"

This is why only a small number of cars will ever be in the Vegas loop tunnels. If there were any risk of a collision or a disabled vehicle that would prevent other vehicles from exiting a tunnel, that would be an unsafe and unacceptable outcome.

Not only do subways have a real world measured capacity that is 4X Boring's claimed theoretical capacity, that theoretical capacity would never be allowed to exist in the real world for safety reasons. It's something like 20X the real world safe-ish capacity. 4400 per hour would require hundreds of people in the tunnels at the same time, with no emergency exits.

[kalleboo]

This is why only a small number of cars should ever be in the Vegas loop tunnels. There are already videos of traffic jams inside the tunnels.

[malcolmgreaves]

You need to read the article before you give generic comments.

> it was claimed Boring Co has no chance of duplicating or significantly improving on the speed

The claim holds up. The article shows evidence that this is not faster than existing transport at all. It is in fact slower. How did you not read this??

> Now, after Loop demonstrated vehicle rates that would beat most light rail projects

They did not demonstrate this. Why put this lie out there?

> that it has minor usability quirks

Major usability problems. It is strictly worse than every existing transportation system.

[duxup]

Good execution.

The Vegas loop doesn't seem like that at all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPjODKUxV5g

It looks like a project they just quit on.