Of course I am. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to watch unknown hours of videos to answer my question.
As to the topology, sure, that's one approach. It requires many more tunnels, which is more expensive, and acceleration/deceleration lines.
I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Why wouldn't that happen here?
I've also seen people stopped in the acceleration lane waiting for a gap in traffic. If there are fewer, bigger vehicles each with more passengers then there are more gaps.
So you can see why it's not clearly obvious to me that many small cars with point-to-point service is more economical.
Does it? What are you basing this on? Even if more tunnels, is the total volume less, are they simpler and cheaper to create because they are smaller?
> I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane.
Backups happen in subways, like all traffic systems. It's something you manage, not eliminate
You of course skip the questions about context and the right solution for a city. They had open proposals and review periods and ended up going with the Boring tunnel system. They evaluated in detail and made the choice. If you want to understand their choice, they made it all public
The big thing Boring company did was develop their own tunneling machine that is much better than the others out there. This is how they can tunnel faster and cheaper than anyone else, currently.
Maybe Vegas made a mistake betting on a new way, but maybe they made a really good call. We'll have to wait and see. When you invest in large scale transportation systems, you plan for many, many decades. These point in time numbers while the system is still being built aren't evidence for success or failure.
My "which is more expensive" is based on having more point-to-point tunnels, rather than running single lines approximating a minimal spanning tree.
The more point-to-point direct transit you have, the more tunnels you must have, which makes it more expensive.
My comparison was not directly about small cars in small tunnels vs. large ones in large tunnels.
> is the total volume less, are they simpler and cheaper to create because they are smaller?
I don't know. You claimed it would seem to be more efficient, but in that case, why not compare a small tunnel subway like Glasgow has? 2 lines, 15 stations, 8 million ridership running on a 4 foot gauge and 11 ft width tunnels, built in the 1890s.
It looks like the Vegas Loop uses 12 foot tunnels, so that should be the better head-to-head comparison, yes?
> It's something you manage, not eliminate
Of course, but you manage it with space, which affects the costs. Given the same number of passengers, smaller cars require more space because of the required safety distances between cars.
You get the space with more tunnels and parallel tracks.
> If you want to understand their choice, they made it all public
If it's not easy to summarize in a few paragraphs and requires pouring over documents or watching hours of videos, then how does it seem more efficient simply by saying "a subway with smaller cars that is more point to point"?
I've been to Vegas. They have lousy mass transit, the US is famously anti-public transit in part because the people who make the decisions rarely use it, and there is a long history of trying out hyped technology that doesn't work well.
You'll also note that Chicago, San Jose, and LA have dropped their plans to have similar infrastructure.
> We'll have to wait and see.
Sure, but that's a far cry from making it seem like it's obvious given the design. And given that it's been years and the Vegas Loop has nowhere near as many passengers as the Glasgow Subway is a strong suggestion that car-based systems don't work well.
you should probably look at the plans and existing lines for the Vegas loop before commenting more. It would clear things up or reduce ambiguity for you
The comment about MSP vs point-to-point is off and not accurate to how the system is built. Myself and other commenters are pointing out that point-to-point is the user experience, no stops between start and destination, not the layout of the tunnels, which looks just like a subway system
Sure. Could you point me to a source better than watching hours of video?
What's the cost per length of tunnel? How many people can be carried per hour? What level of service interruption is allowed? How accessible is it for wheelchairs, strollers, and such?
That RJ article also comments that the decision to extend the line was strongly influenced by political pressure: "Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman isn’t sure the project will ever come to fruition, but voted in favor of the extension anyway, due to the urging of the various resorts and other entities in downtown." "“I am one who just does not believe will come to be, certainly not in my lifetime,” Goodman said during Wednesday’s meeting. “Hopefully in the lifetime forthcoming. Moving three and four people at a time does not get this on … I want more accessibility, I want to move people more easily and I’d like it to happen immediately, because we need that movement of people now.”
That makes it hard to accept your view that the decision in Las Vegas was based on technical merit.
> Myself and other commenters are pointing out that point-to-point is the user experience, no stops between start and destination, not the layout of the tunnels, which looks just like a subway system
But getting that experience requires NOT designing like a subway system but rather like a highway system because you need more space/lanes to handle passing, and more space dedicated to inter-car separation. That's why I've been saying that it isn't obvious that it should be cheaper.
As to the topology, sure, that's one approach. It requires many more tunnels, which is more expensive, and acceleration/deceleration lines.
I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane. Why wouldn't that happen here?
I've also seen people stopped in the acceleration lane waiting for a gap in traffic. If there are fewer, bigger vehicles each with more passengers then there are more gaps.
So you can see why it's not clearly obvious to me that many small cars with point-to-point service is more economical.