Elon Musk's Las Vegas Loop Might Only Carry a Fraction of the Passengers It Promised (techcrunch.com) 119
The Boring Company's Las Vegas Convention Center loop "will not be able to move anywhere near the number of people LVCC wants, and that TBC agreed to," reports TechCrunch. The LVCC wanted transit that could move up to 4,400 people every hour between exhibition halls and parking lots on the Los Vegas Strip. According to planning files reviewed by TechCrunch, "the system might only be able to transport 1,200 people an hour -- around a quarter of its promised capacity." From the report: Fire regulations peg the occupant capacity in the load and unload zones of one of the Loop's three stations at just 800 passengers an hour. If the other stations have similar limitations, the system might only be able to transport 1,200 people an hour -- around a quarter of its promised capacity. If TBC misses its performance target by such a margin, Musk's company will not receive more than $13 million of its construction budget -- and will face millions more in penalty charges once the system becomes operational.
So what is stopping TBC from transporting as many people as both it and the LVCC wants? There are national fire safety rules for underground transit systems that specify alarms, sprinklers, emergency exits and a maximum occupant load, to avoid overcrowding in the event of a fire. Building plans submitted by The Boring Company include a fire code analysis for one of the Loop's above-ground stations. The above screenshot from the plans notes that the area where passengers get into and out of the Tesla cars has a peak occupancy load of 100 people every 7.5 minutes, equivalent to 800 passengers an hour. Even if the other stations had higher limits, this would limit the system's hourly capacity to about 1,200 people.
The plans do not show any turnstiles or barriers to limit entry. Even without the safety restrictions, the Loop may struggle to hit its capacity goals. Each of the 10 bays at the Loop's stations must handle hundreds of passengers an hour, corresponding to perhaps 100 or more arrivals and departures, depending on how many people each car is carrying. That leaves little time to load and unload people and luggage, let alone make the 0.8-mile journey and occasionally recharge.
So what is stopping TBC from transporting as many people as both it and the LVCC wants? There are national fire safety rules for underground transit systems that specify alarms, sprinklers, emergency exits and a maximum occupant load, to avoid overcrowding in the event of a fire. Building plans submitted by The Boring Company include a fire code analysis for one of the Loop's above-ground stations. The above screenshot from the plans notes that the area where passengers get into and out of the Tesla cars has a peak occupancy load of 100 people every 7.5 minutes, equivalent to 800 passengers an hour. Even if the other stations had higher limits, this would limit the system's hourly capacity to about 1,200 people.
The plans do not show any turnstiles or barriers to limit entry. Even without the safety restrictions, the Loop may struggle to hit its capacity goals. Each of the 10 bays at the Loop's stations must handle hundreds of passengers an hour, corresponding to perhaps 100 or more arrivals and departures, depending on how many people each car is carrying. That leaves little time to load and unload people and luggage, let alone make the 0.8-mile journey and occasionally recharge.
No Problem (Score:2)
People gamble in the home-office anyway.
i used to live in San Diego county (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
just last year i had the time & money to visit Las Vegas again and i hated it, it was even more crowded and busier than it was in the 1970's
The system is supposed to be able to move 4,400 people per hour. Even if they are able to do it, who the fuck wants to be anywhere that busy and crowed?
Re: (Score:3)
It's specifically designed for conventions, which are by their very nature busy. The point of the system is to move people around the convention center without forcing them to move through the convention center (which would make said convention center even busier).
It'll do 4,000/hour. Elon never over promises (Score:2, Troll)
Elon Musk never over promises and under delivers. If he says 4,000, it'll be 4,000.
For instance, in 2015 when he said that they'd have fully-autonomous vehicles that could drive across the country without a human driver by the end of 2017. Well, they do have cruise control, so that's close enough!
Or in 2016 when he said they'd make half a million vehicles in 2018. He did almost half as much as he said he would, so close enough!
2018 when he laid off 9% of the workers, "I also want to emphasize that we are
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody would have been crazy enough to have bought all the Tesla shares at $420 each. Each of which are now worth $1760 (4 x $440 due to 4:1 split)
Re: (Score:1)
Tell us more Grandpa! Ooh, do the one about how you hate the circus! No, no, the one about airports!
At least try to make it relevant to trains or something like that. Or maybe a cave, the one you hid your stuff from the revenue agents from.
What luggage? (Score:2)
Remember this system is meant to transport people from one part of a convention center to the other. It's not like an airport train carrying lots of people with luggage.
These should be able to load/unload in around a minute, especially with not that many people per car.
Also I thought there would be multiple standby cars so no need to pause for recharging.
Whatever happens Vegas badly needs something like this as cars suck for driving around the primary area, and the monorail they have has extremely inconven
Re: (Score:1)
Not at real conventions (Score:1)
You obviously haven't been to many business conventions. It is common practise for a large percentage of attendee's to have their luggage with them on the first and last day.
At CES??? I've been to several CES and you only see a handful of people carting bags around first and last day. There just is no room for them, and CES is way too massive to be pulling bags around all day.
Maybe it's a little more common in the morning/evening (I've been to help set up a booth a few times) but then you don't have a lar
Re: (Score:2)
When you grow up, SuperKendall, you may actually attend a convention of this kind of size. Then you will realize that people care stuff around with them.
Commenting on stuff like this just shows how ignorant, and arrogant, people are. Both qualities SuperKendall loves to display.
Maybe try looking at reality? (Score:1)
Then you will realize that people care stuff around with them.
I have been to about four or five CES shows, and maybe 50 other trade shows...
Maybe someday you'll go to a convention and pay attention to what other people are doing? Everyone is "carrying" at most a bag of printed materials or two, not carting around multiple suitcases. Frankly, there simply is not ROOM to carry around much else with so many people in each hall.
For those of you who have not been to any conventions, like dflick here, you can p
Re: (Score:2)
Both are there, do not work. (Score:1)
If people don't have luggage and you only have 3 stations on a fixed route then use light rail or a bus not a car
A) Have you even seen Vegas, just where are you putting that light rail? You would have to take away a ton of convention space to install one above-ground.
B) I have used buses at CES and the SUCK. Have you ever driven anywhere near the convention center in Vegas when CES is in full swing? I have, both in a bus and in my own car - nightmare. Anywhere less than two miles away you are going to b
The math in the article is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, if each station in the loop has a capacity of 800 people departing per hour, and there are three stations, isn't the total capacity 2,400 people per hour?
Second, the fire safety laws limit the number of people queued up, not how fast the queues move. They're leaving 7.5 minutes for people to get out of the car, and another set of people load in, which seems quite conservative. And if people unload and load faster than the 7.5 minutes, then of course the throughput could go up. And 7.5 minutes seems like a very slow estimate of the time it takes 4-5 people to get out of a car, and another 4-5 people get into the car, even with some luggage.
Re: The math in the article is wrong. (Score:2)
Traffic modelling is not that simple.
Re: The math in the article is wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, what he said. +1.
Humans are as bad as cattle when it comes to herding them on and off conveyances. Think escalators. The physical space required to queue up awaiting boarding passengers while still getting the passengers off is no small feat. Doors on vehicles open only so wide, and people take time to move in and out.
I spent the last couple years working on the design of the LAX Automated People Mover, and at capacity is about 10k passengers per hour. There's four cars per train, two doors per car, and (I think) SRO is like 50 people per car. Each stop is about 40 sec dwell time, and the overall end to end travel time for the 5-station, 2.25 mi (~4 km) route is 10 minutes. It's two-lane separated direction so trains can pass without interaction. In a given direction, trains run every 120 sec or so. https://www.lawa.org/-/media/l... [lawa.org]
It's one thing to move bodies along a route - the vertical movement in and out of a station is a huge deal as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, this Techcrunch article is declaring 6 minutes per 5-7 person car to be loaded and unloaded as impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the tech crunch ppl should once go to London or Paris and ride in a mass transit metro.
Those "fire laws" seem not to make much sense either, when I'm in Paris at Gare du Nord, I easily see 1000 ppl at the same time in front of my eyes.
Can't be so hard to have a "fire safe" train station if we have such amounts of ppl in europe all over the places.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the "tech crunch ppl" say it was hard? Did anyone say it was hard? Where is a discussion of "hard"-ness anywhere in the article?
It appears what you are saying is that Europeans understand fire safety and Americans do not. Do you think that their advantage is that they have no fire regulations to hold them back?
Re: (Score:2)
The comments indicated that "tech crunch" came to the conclusion that "1000 ppl per hour" is impossible due to fire regulations. ...
I pointed out that in Paris/London a single train holds more than 1000 ppl
No idea about what you want to nitpick ...
Re: (Score:1)
Again with the lies. The article doesn't say anything is "impossible", it says that "Fire regulations peg the occupant capacity in the load and unload zones of one of the Loop’s three stations at just 800 passengers an hour." It's about fire regulations, not loading speeds, and it concerns what is needed IN CASE OF FIRE.
Ordinary people can understand this, it takes an extraordinary one to continue lie about it.
Also, in your eagerness to jump in on what you perceive as criticism of the article, you'v
Re: (Score:3)
And you left out the even more basic mistake, which is that they think that if one station can load 800 passengers per hour, then 3 stations have a capacity of 1,200, which makes no sense at all. 3x800 = 2,400.
Yes, the author of the article interprets the fire safety regulations to mean that, but when they quote the regulations, the regulations only restrict the number of people allowed in the area, not the throughput, so the author got it wrong. The regulation is that you can't have more than 100 people in
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are as bad as cattle when it comes to herding them on and off conveyances.
Just have a large sign saying "This Way to the Egress" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the area that only allows for 100 people per 7,5 minutes (800 people per hour) only serves the right-hand side of the vehicles, as can clearly be seen from the diagram. The left-hand side comes from the 200-person queue area.
This whole "some guy looked at some fire code filings and decided that the system won't meet capacity" notion is farcical on its face. What is the notion, that nobody in Boring Company noticed? Or that they noticed but decided to do nothing about it because they didn't wa
Re: (Score:2)
And again you are wrong, intentionally. The load/unload area serves the entire vehicle, not just one side. Which side you get into or out the car is irrelevant.
No matter where you step when entering or leaving a car, you're in the load/unload zone.
"This whole "some guy looked at some fire code filings and decided that the system won't meet capacity" notion is farcical on its face. "
Careful, you only post that because it involves criticism of an Elon Musk operation. You want to talk "farcical on its face"
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't even read the article you're commenting on.
The entire article is premised on a fire code filing which shows a maximum capacity of 200 people per 7,5 minutes in the "queue area" and a maximum capacity of 100 people per "7,5" minutes in the "loading area". Except that the latter area only exists on the right-hand side of the vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is complete bullshit, premised on the criticism being leveled at an Elon Musk project and the fact that you can't accept any such criticism as valid.
The load/unload area exists around the entire vehicle when loading and unloading, literally BY DEFINITION. Also, this is only one of the two brazen lies you present to disingenuously discredit the article.
Re: (Score:2)
> First, if each station in the loop has a capacity of 800 people departing per hour, and there are three stations, isn't the total capacity 2,400 people per hour?
It's my understanding that the limit is for the underground station, people getting off the train and the people getting on.
Re: (Score:2)
The Boring Company document in TFA says that the load limit is 100 people per 7.5 minutes, meaning that is their realistic estimate of the time it will take for arriving passengers to exit the vehicles and unload their luggage, then for the cars to move around the platform to the loading points and the new passengers to load their luggage and enter the cars.
Keep in mind that these are just ordinary Tesla cars, not like walk-on underground trains. Not all passengers will be able bodied too, they have to cate
Re: (Score:2)
No, because a person must both enter AND leave, meaning you need 2400 events per hour to support 1200 people per hour.
Also, don't be like REI and SuperKendall and view this as how fast you can get into and out of a car. It's about occupancy standards for the size of the platforms, not whether you have luggage.
A tunnel has a limit to how frequently a car can enter or leave it. You want to exploit that as much as possible but fire codes say there is not enough load and unload area. That's the issue, not whe
Re: (Score:2)
Time to unload and load, times number of vehicles and passengers per vehicle, is what determines throughput capacity.
Number of people in the building at one time is what's limited for fire safety.
The two aren't directly related. If you doubled the size of the building, to allow twice as many people to line up, that wouldn't improve throughput at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The document in the article doesn't talk about separate unloading and loading "events" it talks about the rate of vehicles leaving, meaning that they unload, the new passengers load in, and the vehicle departs.
If it were "events" then they'd be estimating that it would take 7.5 minutes for people to get out, another 7.5 minutes for the new passengers to get in, meaning 15 minute cycle types, which isn't what what it says.
Re: (Score:2)
How people behave in an emergency is at issue here, not whether you need 7.5 minutes on your best day.
Horse Shit. This fire regulation uses is tied to how people behave at peak capacity on your best day, not in an emergency, because that is the data you have when you're planning, before any emergency has happened.
The smart people already walked around with clipboards to compare how capacity in an emergency varies compared to normal, and they took that into consideration when making the rules.
I have an idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The underground railroad, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that the whole thing is just a prototype for the next project, which somehow they have got someone else to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that The Boring Company was built around one purpose: Musk's hatred of public transit. He envisions a world where every single person is conveyed around in a form of private or semi-private vehicle where they don't have to interact with strangers.
We already have that, they're called cars, and they suck in urban areas. Musk's idea is essentially the same as widening freeways, only this time putting them underground so they're less impactful. The problem is that this will not work for the same re
what about building the monorail to airport 1st! (Score:2)
what about building the monorail to airport 1st!
Re: (Score:2)
what about building the monorail to airport 1st!
Oh sure, the monorail gimmick [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The monorail has recently filed its second bankruptcy.
It isn't about moving people around, but keeping conventioneers in a handful of designated hotels.
Proposals for it to go to the airport come up all the time, but it's the cab companies that block it.
hawk, Las Vegas local
Promises vs laws of physics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So.... if one were to write a headline....
"Ahead-Of-Schedule Project Not Finished, But Some Guy At TechCrunch Misinterprets Fire Code Plans And Decides That Company Plans To Not Get Paid For No Apparent Reason; Declared 'Revolutionary Project That Didn't Live Up To Its Promise' Before It's Even Open
"
After what was explicitly called an open-source whitepaper, and which Musk explicitly stated he had no plans to actually buid?
The add-on package for a model that's not
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, fire codes, one of those pesky details of reality that make building metros expensive.
He made the newscast tour explaining to the world how it was just a couple of years away. We had articles here on /. suggesting that new railway projects had better be scrapped and replaced by hyperloops. All of this while the project was
This has been predicted long ago... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because when I want engineering analysis, I always turn to a microbiologist (/facepalm)
Just [youtube.com] a [youtube.com] random sampling [youtube.com] of [youtube.com] some [youtube.com] of his massive mistakes. Long one here [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't about hyperloop you idiot. It was the station not passing fire safety code. Nothing to do with the tunnel.
Why does this sound ridiculously small? (Score:2)
Re:Why does this sound ridiculously small? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it is ridiculously small. It's a tiny contract for a tiny prototype line serving only three stations. Its success thusfar recently gained them approval to build a vastly larger network, however, serving the Vegas strip, airport, and downtown. Success in that will gain them contracts to cover even more of Vegas and help them land contracts in other cities. Repeat.
Again we see this weird thing where people seem to expect companies to just be birthed at mass-scale. Where does this notion come from? I really don't get this mindset. Maybe it's because many people in this site work in software and are used to really short development cycles or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Again we see this weird thing where people seem to expect companies to just be birthed at mass-scale
Or is it because mass transit is hundreds of years old and well understood, and so anyone with any common sense can see that replacing metro trains that can hold 500-1000 people and run every few minutes with individual passenger cars is a complete non-starter?
Even using small bore tunnels is an ancient idea [wp.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"Again we see this weird thing where people seem to expect companies to just be birthed at mass-scale."
No one suffers that delusion more than Elon Musk.
"Where does this notion come from?"
Elon Musk
"Maybe it's because many people in this site work in software and are used to really short development cycles or something?"
Ask Elon Musk
Elon overpromises again! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothin to do with the tunnel and 100% on the station design not complying with fire regulations.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Elon can call up his buddy Trump and get him to repeal the national fire standards. After all, they are just burdensome regulations that saddle companies with needless restrictions that prevent American Innovation, such as inventing means of immolating thousands of passengers simultaneously inside a giant tunnel. That's true innovation, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
they just have to sweep the floors more often
Didn't do the homework (Score:2)
It's about throughput, not accumulation (Score:2)
The article makes a stupid mistake, and then runs with it. The 100 people / 7.5 minutes quantity is the maximum accumulation of people in the station, not the number of people that are allowed to pass through the station. If you can load people in the cars and send them off at the same rate that people enter the station, there is zero accumulation
This mistake was pointed out in the first comment on the story.
My back-of-the-napkin (and not-a-mass-transit-engineer) calculation says that they should be able
SO glad... (Score:2)
so glad we have these "jeniuses" running around to show us all how it's done... badly.
That 7.5 minute headway can be reduced (Score:2)
Packetise the flow. (Score:2)
So, simply apply the lessons Musk learned from inventing the Internet (he invented that didn't he, a few years before he invented packet switching?), and divide the stream into smaller packets which can be routed more efficiently. Divide with an axe, or a high-speed freezer and a log chipper ; reassembly with ... needle and thread? Superglue?
Re: (Score:3)
Its entirely possible (even likely) that Nevada State and/or Las Vegas City Council have adopted fire regulations that mirror the national fire codes and that apply to this particular development.
Re: (Score:2)
Before calling out "government stupidity" which is generally the mantra of those promoting capitalistic solutions, think of the 737 Max. Any large organization can make mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
think of the 737 Max.
You mean the situation where the corp said "our new design is similar enough to our old design that you don't have to look at it too closely", and the FAA said "derp, ok"
Re: (Score:2)
Government stupidity. Go figure.
Found the Republican!
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority is a "public-private partnership" with some board members appointed by cities, and other board members appointed by trade groups.
You know everything is "government stupidity" but you don't even know what is the government, and what actually isn't. You probably think the Chamber of Commerce is the government, too, because you're that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interstate commerce made him do it. Nobody can name any human activity (in the USA) which does not affect interstate commerce, therefore any discussion about people doing anything in the USA, at least indirectly may involve federal regulations in some way, and the constitution is supposedly why. Or at least the constitution has been the reason since 1943 [wikipedia.org]. If you time travel to earlier than 1943, though, anyone who suddenly goes off on a constitutional rants is probably just doing it because they have an axe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are no national fire safety "rules". The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA.org) is a non-profit organization that publishes codes and standards that states or local governments may adopt in part or whole or with modifications.
The only Federal safety laws are like OSHA and PHMSA governing specific things, and they apply everywhere, not just federal land.
Re:And this is why the Constitution matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Except no. This entire article is because someone can't do math.
TBC's goal is a max of 2200 people per hour on this project. The fire code analysis filed by TBC states that, per 7,5 minutes, there can be 200 people on the queue platform and 100 people in "Vehicles load / unload", both of these numbers limited by the square footage under NFPA 130 Sec. 5.3.2. The key part of this regulation [nfpa.org] includes:
As can be seen from the diagram [techcrunch.com], the vehicle load / unload area is on the right-hand side of the vehicles, and only serves half of the people entering and exiting the vehicles (people entering / exiting the right-hand side), but everyone has to pass through the queue area on the way out. So the queue area has to serve double the number of people: 200 = 100 in, 100 out. The load / unload area, by contrast, is 100 people - 50 in, 50 out.
So let's see. 100 people arrive in cars from other stations every 7,5 minutes and get out. 50 of those get out on the right-hand side
100 people get into vehicles - 50 directly from the queue area, 50 from the load-unload area.
3 stations.
100 * (60/7,5) * 3 = 2400. Wow, imagine that, a reasonable ~10%-ish margin of error above their goal of 2200. Almost like they planned it that way.
I mean, seriously, what was the logic here? As if nobody at TBC noticed this? Or that they noticed it but decided to not change their plans one iota and not get paid?
The author then goes on to state:
Gee, 100 or more trips per station per hour from 10 bays. Heck, let's call it 200! ... so 20 per bay per hour. ... so 3 minutes per bay.
I don't know about you, but I've never taken more than 1 1/2 minutes to get in and out of a taxi in *my life*. By all means subtract 5-10 seconds for an automated pull-in and another 5-10 seconds for an automated pull-out. You can load a bloody tram full of people in 30 seconds, much less your mean loading time a small vehicle.
But of course, it's a Musk company. So of course people like Mark Harris are desperately searching for ways to declare that it won't work, like people have jumped at the opportunity to do for everything Musk has ever done.
Re: Except no (Score:1)
Indeed. If the numbers were correct, you'd have to wonder how the London, New York and other metro systems ever transported more than a few thousand people a day, whereas they actually carry 5M plus.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you would not because those systems aren't limited to 3 diminutive load/unload areas nor is 1200 people per hour a mere "few thousand people a day". Furthermore, this is about meeting local fire codes, not London or New York fire codes which may be different.
Without looking at the specifics of the load platform differences, the NY subway system is over 300 times the size of this little project with subways cars that support vastly more efficient transfer of people than a couple of car doors, yet if you
Re: (Score:2)
Can they get out on the right hand side? That looks like a wall, not a platform they can walk on.
The diagram shows that 100 people can exit and 100 people can enter the system per 7.5 minutes, so the platform needs to handle 200 people to account for traffic in both directions. But that means that only 100 people can enter the system per 7.5 minutes per station.
You can't just multiply by the number of stations. In a system like this some are going to be busier than others, with most people moving mostly in
Re: (Score:2)
"But of course, it's a Musk company. "
So REI has to lie on it's behalf.
The goal is 4400 people per hour, 2200 is the first milestone. "All of which you would know had you read the bloody article that you're commenting on."
Somehow REI thinks that the side you get in/out of matters here, because REI can invent twice as many places for ingress/egress by saying that a particular zone is for one side only and there are two sides! If you get in/out on the other side it doesn't count against fire safety rules! Mu
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is 4400 people per hour, 2200 is the first milestone.
That isn't actually your choice, did you bump your head or were born this stupid?
Re:And this is why the Constitution matters (Score:4, Informative)
The actual contract awards TBC:
1) $4,4M for 2200 passengers per hour
2) An additional $4,4M for 3300 per hour
3) An additional $4,4M for 4400 per hour.
The stretch goals can be added incrementally over time; payouts are made at the time of meeting each incremental goal.
All of which you would know had you read the bloody article that you're commenting on.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The system is not due to be completed until January [lvcva.com]. Take it from the LVCVA itself. it remains on-track for its opening date [tsnn.com]. Digging of the tunnels themselves, targeted (but not contracted) at completion by 1 October was completed in May [lvcva.com].
It's funny how everything coming out of the LVCVA is happy with the project, and they even just approved a massive extension. But here we have "felon_musk" to tell us that, no, secretly, it's actually a disaster and everything is BAD. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
"But here we have "felon_musk" to tell us that, no, secretly, it's actually a disaster and everything is BAD. ;)"
Pure projection here, REI. He's calling you out on your lies, and your response is absurd exaggerations and personal attacks on him.
From the article, "which you would know had you read the bloody article that you're commenting on":
'The next big milestone is the completion of the entire working system, which would result in a pay-out of over $10 million. That was scheduled to have happened by Oct
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no CES 2021 so that target date is irrelevant. Actually there IS, but it's going to be an online conference so it's not going to need the loop.
COVID has both caused construction delays and made the original target dates unimportant. The loop should be in operation by the time large numbers of people return to Las Vegas. Whether it will meet expectations remains to be seen, and it may not matter because convention attendance is likely to decrease permanently.
Re:And this is why the Constitution matters (Score:4, Informative)
I cited links to the bloody LVCVA, the source of the contract. Unless you have different links to the LVCVA, you have nothing. Opening has always been targeted to be done by CES in January. Not October. The fact that it's October and they're already doing finishing touches on the stations, your own bloody link, shows how far ahead of schedule they are. As does the fact that the LVCVA was so happy with their work that they just approved a massive expansion.
You can live in this fantasy world where the LVCVA is angry at a behind-schedule under-capacity Boring Company project, but in this reality in which we live, TBC is ahead of schedule and LVCVA is very happy with their work thusfar.
Re:And this is why the Constitution matters (Score:4, Informative)
It's ridiculous how you people constantly insist on moving the goalposts every time you're wrong about something. Slashdot has covered this story for ever since the beginning, and every time it's been covered, the date listed for station opening has been 2021.
Link [slashdot.org]
Link [slashdot.org]
Link [slashdot.org]
But now that they're doing the finishing touches on the station months ahead of schedule, all of the sudden you're demanding a fictional October opening date which never existed. Again, go on and find anything from the LVCVA which mentions this fictional opening date. It has always been 2021. And this date has consistently been mentioned even on the bloody website you're commenting on.
Re: (Score:2)
When you see the big boys playing with numbers, it doesn't mean you get to play with numbers too.
You have to do some math. Not just link to a number. Sorry kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Few would build without following NFPA 130 and other codes. Liability (if nothing else) can be immense even if you can claim it doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is claiming that it doesn't apply. This under-capacity claim is made based on the very drawings created with regards to NFPA 130. Except that the author, to arrive at their conclusions, is assuming that every passenger enters and leaves through the loading/unloading area, where in you can clearly see in the diagram that said area is only for passengers on the right-hand side of the vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because every passenger DOES enter and leave through the loading/unloading area. You can also "clearly see in the diagram that said area" limits entry and exit to right side of the vehicle only, not to mention that your back of napkin calculations ignore that a person must go though an area twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing all of these imaginary "violations" for a system that hasn't even been built yet. (/facepalm)
Re: (Score:2)
Thought you said that it is "on track" for completion literally this month?
You're approaching SuperKendell levels of idiocity here, REI.
Re: finding solutions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Darned physics... DOH!
Re: (Score:2)
This thing was supposed to run in a vacuum and go at the speed of sound.
Well, the speed of sound in a vacuum is 0.0 m/s. So, it really wasn't such a great design anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're confusing Loop and Hyperloop. And Hyperloop wasn't supposed to run in a vacuum, just a rarified atmosphere (it relied on the low pressure to levitate).
Hyperloop was never designed to - nor would it work at - the speed of sound.
Tesla's goal, set five years ago, and widely scoffed at for requiring a ~50% YoY growth rate, was 500k sales per year in 2020. [bloomberg.com]
Guess what Tesla's tar
Re: (Score:2)
> Tesla's goal, set five years ago, and widely scoffed at for requiring a ~50% YoY growth rate, was 500k sales per year in 2020.
> Guess what Tesla's target for this year is? If you guessed "500k", you win a cookie.
Did you forget that in 2016 Elon was saying they'd produce 500,000 cars *in 2018*? They said they'd hit that number within two years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
And getting to that number is still a goal today, four years later.
But hey, they did produce almost half as many as Elon pro
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, one of people spreading BS with zero concern for facts."
Look who's talking! How many posts have you made here with "zero concern for facts"?
Also, "open source transportation concept" what a knee-slapper. Donate your time and effort to creating our next fraud!
Re: (Score:2)
This was not hyperloop, this was tunnel only. Keep up, try to read the article before being a vector of misinformation. The reason why they may have to cut back on the number of people has zero to do with the tunnel .. it has to do with fire safety in the station.
Re: (Score:1)
$75k is the price of a small house in many places, affordable family cars: $25-35k
The Tesla network is far, far short of what they promised. The middle of the country, except for the highways aren't really covered, there are only 1000 stations in the US. Besides the fact supercharging (which isn't every station) takes 20-30m, it's not free.
The vacuum tube was never physically possible, not sure what the state of California has to do with it, they aren't the ones building it. To create a vacuum at NASA or LH
Re: (Score:1)
$75k is the price of a small house in many places
Model 3 (four door sedan) base cost is $35k.
Besides the fact supercharging (which isn't every station) takes 20-30m,
Didn't read the link I included eh. Oh well.
it's not free.
It is to all owners that bought before a certain point.,
Can't deceit I you are lying on purpose, or just ignorant. This being Slashdot... both?
Re: (Score:2)
"Model 3 (four door sedan) base cost is $35k."
One of Musk's many frauds. Can't actually buy one of those and it only technically qualifies by an arbitrary standard. I'd say affordable is 25k - 34,999, now where is your god?
"It is to all owners that bought before a certain point.,"
Which does not include anyone who might of bought that affordable family car, not that there are any.
"Can't deceit I you are lying on purpose, or just ignorant. This being Slashdot... both?"
Look who's talking! You are literally
Re: (Score:2)
It's hysterical seeing SuperKendall going pedantic on another person's post when his entire schtick is being that other person. Just imagine, SuperKendal, that this isn't about Tesla, or Apple, but one of their competitors, then it would be clear you you how valid the criticism is.
Also, this is how you know that SuperKendall is an overly-privileged product of Silicon Valley. He has no concept of what an affordable family car is.
It is well known that Musk promoted this idea as including a partial vacuum an
Re: (Score:1)
If there's no vacuum there's no need for it to be sealed
You are talking about two different things. The Vegas lines not being sealed, does not mean that other sealed lines are not feasible.
It's also not a "Hyperloop", it's just another regular tunnel (at twice the cost).
Yes it's not truly the hyper loop concept, but it is proving out the concept of Teslas tunnels being cheaper to make [bloomberg.com] (despite your unsubstantiated claim to the contrary). That's they whole point of Vegas going with Musk on these tunnels.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he will fund investigators to produce evidence of pedophilia on his critics.