You may have heard that a few years ago Elon Musk started a new company that was supposed to revolutionize the world of tunnel building. Fitting with Musk's sense of humor, it's called the Boring Company. If you go on their website, you'll see some bold claims, like being able to cut the cost of a tunnel to just $10 million per mile. They claim to do this by using narrow diameters, only 12 feet, by turning rubble into bricks that can be sold, and, most fantastically, by using a boring machine that can drill 10 times faster than a normal one.
If this was true, then clearly the Virginia DOT is leaving a lot of money on the table. They're spending $3.8 billion to add a second tube to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which is 3.5 miles long. You'd think the Boring Company would be chomping at the bit to prove themselves in such a high profile and lucrative contract. But no, what they're building instead is... a people mover for the Las Vegas Convention Center.
I think they're full of it. What do you guys think?
Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).
Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:30:32 AM
Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).
Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.
Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 01:33:38 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:30:32 AM
Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).
Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.
Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.
The tunneling itself is quite cheap. Building huge station boxes are the biggest expense for our recent light rail projects, and kind of hard to avoid due to the modern standards and lack of expertise in the U.S.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 06, 2020, 10:24:26 PM
You may have heard that a few years ago Elon Musk started a new company that was supposed to revolutionize the world of tunnel building. Fitting with Musk's sense of humor, it's called the Boring Company. If you go on their website, you'll see some bold claims, like being able to cut the cost of a tunnel to just $10 million per mile. They claim to do this by using narrow diameters, only 12 feet, by turning rubble into bricks that can be sold, and, most fantastically, by using a boring machine that can drill 10 times faster than a normal one.
If this was true, then clearly the Virginia DOT is leaving a lot of money on the table. They're spending $3.8 billion to add a second tube to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which is 3.5 miles long. You'd think the Boring Company would be chomping at the bit to prove themselves in such a high profile and lucrative contract. But no, what they're building instead is... a people mover for the Las Vegas Convention Center.
I think they're full of it. What do you guys think?
A diameter of 12 feet? That ain't gonna work well for most vehicles. Even SUVs wouldn't fit. A 12 foot diameter means the roadway would be at or just below the center of the tunnel to allow for a 11 or 12 foot lane. That means at most, there would be 6 or 7 feet of clearance at the center of the lane; less towards the edges of the lane.
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 02:30:00 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 01:33:38 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:30:32 AM
Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).
Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.
Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.
The tunneling itself is quite cheap. Building huge station boxes are the biggest expense for our recent light rail projects, and kind of hard to avoid due to the modern standards and lack of expertise in the U.S.
Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?
If he can expand that 12' diameter to what is needed for train/roadway tunnel diameters and maybe even get down to $100M/mile (from government typical $1B/mile cost), I would say he could be onto something.
Mock this at your peril. If 10 years ago someone told you he would be the only thing keeping us from depending on the Soviets to get into space, you would have laughed.
The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many. Here are a few: fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect. It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).
Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques. There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.
Just a note about passenger evacuation. One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress). If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors. Quick rescue still might not be possible. Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues). I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 07, 2020, 08:16:57 AM
If he can expand that 12' diameter to what is needed for train/roadway tunnel diameters and maybe even get down to $100M/mile (from government typical $1B/mile cost), I would say he could be onto something.
Mock this at your peril. If 10 years ago someone told you he would be the only thing keeping us from depending on the Soviets to get into space, you would have laughed.
You should read about Henry Ford's attempt to go into the rubber business or Thomas Edison's attempt to go into homebuilding.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 07, 2020, 11:22:54 AM
The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many. Here are a few: fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect. It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).
Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques. There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.
Just a note about passenger evacuation. One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress). If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors. Quick rescue still might not be possible. Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues). I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.
No shit. But I highly, highly doubt he has achieved that. If he did, he would be looking at more impressive projects than a convention center people mover.
Congratulations, Elon Musk, you used your billions to hire intelligent people to invent tunnels! Musk did good with Paypal but is otherwise just an eccentric charlatan who either
A) milks the teat of government and uses taxpayer resources to hire intelligent people to make modest advances to technology while claiming all the credit for it (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX (SpaceX is just the product of a conscious decision to defund NASA and channel its budget to the private sector- Musk hardly gets credit for saving American space travel, he's just the rich guy that was first in line to spend taxpayer dollars to hire people who would have just worked for NASA directly in the 60s and 70s))
or
B) re-invents existing technology with a cool new name and inferior capabilities (e.g. hyperloop, Boring Company)
Either way the dude has a proven history of overpromising and underdelivering - he just keeps moving the goalposts to make things more achievable when he fails - so call me highly skeptical on this tunneling concept.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 07, 2020, 11:22:54 AM
The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many. Here are a few: fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect. It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).
Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques. There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.
Just a note about passenger evacuation. One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress). If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors. Quick rescue still might not be possible. Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues). I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.
Interestingly, the safety issues associated with monorail are similar. What is never discussed are the public safety impacts of emergencies on buried or overhead fixed-guideway projects, and the strain that they invariably place on local fire/rescue/EMS capabilities.
Even though the first part of the Washington Metrorail opened in 1976, there are still problems associated with response to Metrorail emergencies, such as the January 2015 fatal smoke incident south of the L'Enfant Plaza station.
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?
I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.
Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?
I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.
Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.
But how much did they cost per mile?
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2020, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 07, 2020, 11:22:54 AM
The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many. Here are a few: fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect. It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).
Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques. There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.
Just a note about passenger evacuation. One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress). If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors. Quick rescue still might not be possible. Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues). I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.
Interestingly, the safety issues associated with monorail are similar. What is never discussed are the public safety impacts of emergencies on buried or overhead fixed-guideway projects, and the strain that they invariably place on local fire/rescue/EMS capabilities.
Even though the first part of the Washington Metrorail opened in 1976, there are still problems associated with response to Metrorail emergencies, such as the January 2015 fatal smoke incident south of the L'Enfant Plaza station.
The industry fire/rescue safety design standard is NFPA-130, which was first released in 1983 long after most of WMATA was designed. You are correct that many monorail systems still do not address these issues properly. In part, private transit systems like the above-referenced Boring Company people mover in Las Vegas are often not designed to those standards. Prior to 1983, most of the transit systems were designed in a hit-or-miss fashion depending upon the specific expertise of the architect/engineering firms. In the development of NFPA-130, the transit industry got much of their direction from experts in the automated guideway transit (AGT) industry where old, tough DOD-safety protocols and processes were used. That was well before my time, but I know many of the key players well.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.
Not really useful for your underground freeway tunnel dreams is a limited definition of useful. There are plenty of uses for a 12' tunnel. He's demonstrating that with his transit projects. 12' tunnels could also be used to upgrade underground utilities, from sewer separation (many older metros have combined street/ sanitary sewers) to a fiber optic network. I could see them being used for exploratory mining, especially as open pit extraction continues to fall out of favor. They could also be used for rescue work. Musk also has these plans (https://qz.com/1500961/elon-musks-boring-co-unveils-tunnel-prototype-to-fix-la-traffic/) for electric vehicles going underground to avoid LA traffic.
I think the 12' tunnel may be the perfect size for urban infrastructure improvement. I could see communication and other utilities being run along the edges while electric vehicles run down the center. It's not a failure just because it's not useful to you. My dislike of White Castle and strawberries hasn't stopped either from being popular.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.
Not really useful for your underground freeway tunnel dreams is a limited definition of useful. There are plenty of uses for a 12' tunnel. He's demonstrating that with his transit projects. 12' tunnels could also be used to upgrade underground utilities, from sewer separation (many older metros have combined street/ sanitary sewers) to a fiber optic network. I could see them being used for exploratory mining, especially as open pit extraction continues to fall out of favor. They could also be used for rescue work. Musk also has these plans (https://qz.com/1500961/elon-musks-boring-co-unveils-tunnel-prototype-to-fix-la-traffic/) for electric vehicles going underground to avoid LA traffic.
I think the 12' tunnel may be the perfect size for urban infrastructure improvement. I could see communication and other utilities being run along the edges while electric vehicles run down the center. It's not a failure just because it's not useful to you. My dislike of White Castle and strawberries hasn't stopped either from being popular.
Even a slightly wider tunnel would have exponentially more uses. 17 feet could get you subways and interchange ramps. And even at $100 or $200 million per mile for a pair of 32 foot diameter tunnels with 2 lanes each, that would completely transform highway engineering.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 01:35:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?
I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.
Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.
But how much did they cost per mile?
University Link (3.15 mi, 2 stations) cost $1.7 billion, so $539.7 million including the stations. Pair of deep-bore tunnels with deep stations in the heart of the city, so the costs are as expected.
Northgate Link (3.5 mi, 3 stations) is expected to cost $1.9 billion, so $542.9 million per mile. It travels under suburban areas but also around sensitive university labs that required special mitigation.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 06:02:32 PM
Not really useful for your underground freeway tunnel dreams is a limited definition of useful. There are plenty of uses for a 12' tunnel. He's demonstrating that with his transit projects. 12' tunnels could also be used to upgrade underground utilities, from sewer separation (many older metros have combined street/ sanitary sewers) to a fiber optic network. I could see them being used for exploratory mining, especially as open pit extraction continues to fall out of favor. They could also be used for rescue work. Musk also has these plans (https://qz.com/1500961/elon-musks-boring-co-unveils-tunnel-prototype-to-fix-la-traffic/) for electric vehicles going underground to avoid LA traffic.
I think the 12' tunnel may be the perfect size for urban infrastructure improvement. I could see communication and other utilities being run along the edges while electric vehicles run down the center. It's not a failure just because it's not useful to you. My dislike of White Castle and strawberries hasn't stopped either from being popular.
Maybe a better example is this:
Take a long hallway. Narrow it down to 3 feet wide, 7 feet high and 500 feet long. Add in tubes of wires, both low and high voltage. Now, take yourself and a whole bunch of people you don't know, and run thru the tunnel. Don't touch anything. If you hit the sides, count that as a high potential of damaging and breaking the conduit and wires. The entire tunnel would need to be closed for a significant length of time to repair the damage. Also, while running thru the tunnel, don't run into the guy in front of you. If you two hit each other, everyone behind you has to stay put, while one person walks backwards thru the tunnel to pull the first person out, then someone else walks backwards thru the tunnel to get the 2nd person out.
Many people get frustrated at supermarket aisles where you can barely get two carts side by side. Narrow that down so it's impossible to pass, and in front of you is the person who reads every ingredient on the box.
That's what's being proposed here.
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 08:22:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 01:35:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 07, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?
I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.
Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.
But how much did they cost per mile?
University Link (3.15 mi, 2 stations) cost $1.7 billion, so $539.7 million including the stations. Pair of deep-bore tunnels with deep stations in the heart of the city, so the costs are as expected.
Northgate Link (3.5 mi, 3 stations) is expected to cost $1.9 billion, so $542.9 million per mile. It travels under suburban areas but also around sensitive university labs that required special mitigation.
There we go, that may not be Big Bertha expensive, but that is still very, very costly.
If he builds one in France, would the it be called Enterprise Ennuyeuse?
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
Ventilation is also required to remove heat - maybe even primarily required to remove heat. Otherwise tunnel life is pretty limited as soil gets warmer and warmer outside.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.
I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2020, 01:33:46 PM
Ventilation is also required to remove heat - maybe even primarily required to remove heat. Otherwise tunnel life is pretty limited as soil gets warmer and warmer outside.
Actually, New York City is not as muddy as one might think. While there is several hundred feet of soil around the Village, most of Manhattan is sitting down close to the bedrock (only about 20 feet below the surface in Times Square). The primary problem in NYC is staying below all of the existing infrastructure, then trying to keep and pump out stray water. But nothing compared to Amsterdam. I was working in the airport and amazed at how many years they take to reclaim land such that buildings, roads/runways and elevated structures can be properly supported. Ugh, the name Schiphol actually means ship graveyard - literally hole. They reclaimed the entire airport from an inland lake, which many centuries ago would have been part of a bay.
Elon Musk might be the most overrated public figure today. Ever since he made his billions in the dot-com bubble, all he's really done is a series of flashy projects with cool names that gain him a bunch of loyal disciples but aren't really all that exciting.
Everything SpaceX does would have been done by NASA already if we hadn't defunded them recently...to give money to private-sector companies like SpaceX. Same deal with Tesla. People give him credit for introducing workable electric cars, but Teslas are not still not cheap and the entire business is a vanity project that loses a billion dollars every year. Naturally he's so rich he doesn't care, but as far as I'm concerned, he gets no credit for Tesla until he can figure out how to make it profitable.
Quote from: US 89 on December 08, 2020, 04:15:02 PM
Elon Musk might be the most overrated public figure today.
I'd love to be that overrated
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 08, 2020, 03:22:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 06:02:32 PM
Not really useful for your underground freeway tunnel dreams is a limited definition of useful. There are plenty of uses for a 12' tunnel. He's demonstrating that with his transit projects. 12' tunnels could also be used to upgrade underground utilities, from sewer separation (many older metros have combined street/ sanitary sewers) to a fiber optic network. I could see them being used for exploratory mining, especially as open pit extraction continues to fall out of favor. They could also be used for rescue work. Musk also has these plans (https://qz.com/1500961/elon-musks-boring-co-unveils-tunnel-prototype-to-fix-la-traffic/) for electric vehicles going underground to avoid LA traffic.
I think the 12' tunnel may be the perfect size for urban infrastructure improvement. I could see communication and other utilities being run along the edges while electric vehicles run down the center. It's not a failure just because it's not useful to you. My dislike of White Castle and strawberries hasn't stopped either from being popular.
Maybe a better example is this:
Take a long hallway. Narrow it down to 3 feet wide, 7 feet high and 500 feet long. Add in tubes of wires, both low and high voltage. Now, take yourself and a whole bunch of people you don't know, and run thru the tunnel. Don't touch anything. If you hit the sides, count that as a high potential of damaging and breaking the conduit and wires. The entire tunnel would need to be closed for a significant length of time to repair the damage. Also, while running thru the tunnel, don't run into the guy in front of you. If you two hit each other, everyone behind you has to stay put, while one person walks backwards thru the tunnel to pull the first person out, then someone else walks backwards thru the tunnel to get the 2nd person out.
Many people get frustrated at supermarket aisles where you can barely get two carts side by side. Narrow that down so it's impossible to pass, and in front of you is the person who reads every ingredient on the box.
That's what's being proposed here.
Musk doesn't want bigger tunnels for exactly the reasons you state. He doesn't want underground freeways, or even underground highways. He wants to control how the tunnel is used and that's for his transit concepts for cities. He doesn't want anyone to have any control underground except his authority. Nobody will ever be able to drive in his tunnels. Everything will be controlled, whether by self-driving car computer, little car platforms to carry vehicles through tunnels, or however that Hyperloop works. That's what he wants.
Also, I pointed out that Boring Company tunnels could be used for communication and utilities. I don't know if Musk has ever proposed this. I probably shouldn't have speculated.
kernals12 wrote:
Quote
Even a slightly wider tunnel would have exponentially more uses. 17 feet could get you subways and interchange ramps.
First, see above. BTW, he doesn't like subways either. He want everyone using his personal transit vehicles. Second, a 17' diameter displaces twice as much volume as a 12' diameter bore hole, 72.25π vs 36π cu ft per foot. A 12' diameter bore won't require near as much power and there is half as much ground material which needs a new home.
Dirt Roads wrote:
Quote
Actually, New York City is not as muddy as one might think. While there is several hundred feet of soil around the Village, most of Manhattan is sitting down close to the bedrock (only about 20 feet below the surface in Times Square).
It's fairly easy to see where the bedrock is close to the surface; look for the taller skyscrapers. However, it's all unconsolidated deposits in the central part of Manhattan (about MSG to the Village/East Village). I believe where that's where the ARC tunnel was supposed to be built. Loose soil is also a problem with a lot of the landfill along the rivers and coast. (Boston has similar issues depending on where you are in the city.) You are correct that avoiding all the previous underground infrastructure in NYC is a nightmare issue.
kalvado said:
Quote
Ventilation is also required to remove heat
I never said they didn't need ventilation. In fact, I said "There will be less
(although not zero) need for ventilation ..." (emphasis added) There is significantly less need of ventilation because there won't be exhaust from internal combustion engines. There will still be heat, CO2, and other factors considered for ventilation. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I think Musk is a bloviating, arrogant d-bag. That doesn't mean I don't get what he's doing, even if I don't always agree with it. I'm just defending his viewpoint as I understand it, frustrating as that may be (to me as much as anyone else). I'd love a 17' diameter bore for subways, BRT, and single-lane vehicle tunnels. Unfortunately Musk has shown no desire to build a larger boring machine, so I'm not going there until he does.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. A 12' diameter would be adequate for smaller vehicles. There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust. It's an interesting idea that may work quite well in cities like LA and Chicago. <snipped>
Over the years, I've been involved with a dozen or so transit wannabee technologies. Many of them were dead on arrival, but I felt that we were obligated to provide a thorough review of the proposals and provide the same level of comments as given to suppliers of proven transit systems. (I was vilified for this opinion at certain times). Almost always, the technical comments were tough but gave the "developer" some targets for improving their systems into competitors. Only one of them ever survived to propose on the next project. In the end, our financial evaluations indicated that these "developers" didn't have much skin in the game nor the necessary financial backing to finish testing their systems (much less build one).
Although I share many of the same sentiments about Elon Musk as other posting here, his has proven the ability to pour the necessary resources into a technology to achieve the goals. To be fair, a great many other transit system suppliers couldn't make it through tough financial times in that business.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. <snipped>
Technical response to this statement moved to >Mass Transit> board.
Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2020, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 08, 2020, 03:22:58 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 06:02:32 PM
Not really useful for your underground freeway tunnel dreams is a limited definition of useful. There are plenty of uses for a 12' tunnel. He's demonstrating that with his transit projects. 12' tunnels could also be used to upgrade underground utilities, from sewer separation (many older metros have combined street/ sanitary sewers) to a fiber optic network. I could see them being used for exploratory mining, especially as open pit extraction continues to fall out of favor. They could also be used for rescue work. Musk also has these plans (https://qz.com/1500961/elon-musks-boring-co-unveils-tunnel-prototype-to-fix-la-traffic/) for electric vehicles going underground to avoid LA traffic.
I think the 12' tunnel may be the perfect size for urban infrastructure improvement. I could see communication and other utilities being run along the edges while electric vehicles run down the center. It's not a failure just because it's not useful to you. My dislike of White Castle and strawberries hasn't stopped either from being popular.
Maybe a better example is this:
Take a long hallway. Narrow it down to 3 feet wide, 7 feet high and 500 feet long. Add in tubes of wires, both low and high voltage. Now, take yourself and a whole bunch of people you don't know, and run thru the tunnel. Don't touch anything. If you hit the sides, count that as a high potential of damaging and breaking the conduit and wires. The entire tunnel would need to be closed for a significant length of time to repair the damage. Also, while running thru the tunnel, don't run into the guy in front of you. If you two hit each other, everyone behind you has to stay put, while one person walks backwards thru the tunnel to pull the first person out, then someone else walks backwards thru the tunnel to get the 2nd person out.
Many people get frustrated at supermarket aisles where you can barely get two carts side by side. Narrow that down so it's impossible to pass, and in front of you is the person who reads every ingredient on the box.
That's what's being proposed here.
Musk doesn't want bigger tunnels for exactly the reasons you state. He doesn't want underground freeways, or even underground highways. He wants to control how the tunnel is used and that's for his transit concepts for cities. He doesn't want anyone to have any control underground except his authority. Nobody will ever be able to drive in his tunnels. Everything will be controlled, whether by self-driving car computer, little car platforms to carry vehicles through tunnels, or however that Hyperloop works. That's what he wants.
Also, I pointed out that Boring Company tunnels could be used for communication and utilities. I don't know if Musk has ever proposed this. I probably shouldn't have speculated.
kernals12 wrote:
Quote
Even a slightly wider tunnel would have exponentially more uses. 17 feet could get you subways and interchange ramps.
First, see above. BTW, he doesn't like subways either. He want everyone using his personal transit vehicles. Second, a 17' diameter displaces twice as much volume as a 12' diameter bore hole, 72.25π vs 36π cu ft per foot. A 12' diameter bore won't require near as much power and there is half as much ground material which needs a new home.
Dirt Roads wrote:
Quote
Actually, New York City is not as muddy as one might think. While there is several hundred feet of soil around the Village, most of Manhattan is sitting down close to the bedrock (only about 20 feet below the surface in Times Square).
It's fairly easy to see where the bedrock is close to the surface; look for the taller skyscrapers. However, it's all unconsolidated deposits in the central part of Manhattan (about MSG to the Village/East Village). I believe where that's where the ARC tunnel was supposed to be built. Loose soil is also a problem with a lot of the landfill along the rivers and coast. (Boston has similar issues depending on where you are in the city.) You are correct that avoiding all the previous underground infrastructure in NYC is a nightmare issue.
kalvado said:
Quote
Ventilation is also required to remove heat
I never said they didn't need ventilation. In fact, I said "There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation ..." (emphasis added) There is significantly less need of ventilation because there won't be exhaust from internal combustion engines. There will still be heat, CO2, and other factors considered for ventilation. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I think Musk is a bloviating, arrogant d-bag. That doesn't mean I don't get what he's doing, even if I don't always agree with it. I'm just defending his viewpoint as I understand it, frustrating as that may be (to me as much as anyone else). I'd love a 17' diameter bore for subways, BRT, and single-lane vehicle tunnels. Unfortunately Musk has shown no desire to build a larger boring machine, so I'm not going there until he does.
The Boring Company website claims to be able to drill tunnels 10 times faster than the current state of the art. Surely that's applicable to tunnels of all sizes. Also, one of their claims is that they can turn the displaced material into bricks that can be sold. So if we take them at their word, more material displaced would increase that revenue stream.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
There will be less (although not zero) need for ventilation in these tunnels because the lack of vehicle exhaust.
Your point here is intriguing, but not for the reason you mentioned. One of the biggest cost factors in large tunnels is the huge vent plants needed (primarily for firefighting purposes, think evacuation of dense smoke and chemicals). These are usually large turbines or jet fans, and in many cases they need to be redundant). Smaller tubes need less airflow. But keep in mind that certain sized vehicles will "plug" the tubes and require vent plant operation to be switched over to suction mode in certain cases. A lot of folks want this fully automated, but human intervention is usually required fairly soon after the fans kick on.
I've worked on a bunch of new tunnel jobs that propose all-electric operations to reduce tunnel ventilation requirements. Once the fire safety issues get addressed, almost all of these system end up using diesel maintenance equipment of various sorts. We've had to push to upgrade beyond Tier 4 standards just because its still no fun working in a "low-smoke" tunnel. Plus nobody wants to have variable speed vent plants for maintenance purposes. Thus we end up trying to live with normal airflow and wait until workers are clear to evacuate all of the smoke before normal tunnel operations. In the older tunnels, there's no choices here.
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. <snipped>
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 08, 2020, 10:10:06 PM
Technical response to this statement moved to >Mass Transit> board.
Trying to be as fair as possible, I think that the folks here at AARoads can finally conclude that Boring tunnels and Tesla drone-cars can't be used together for an inner-city personal transit system (unless the tunnels are used to bypass under the inner-city). However, I don't think we can conclude that either Boring tunnels or Tesla drone-cars won't be viable technologies on their own merit. Time is money, but money can make difficult things happen.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 10, 2020, 09:36:27 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Musk wants his tunnels used for personal mass transit with (preferably Tesla-brand) electric, self-driving vehicles. <snipped>
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 08, 2020, 10:10:06 PM
Technical response to this statement moved to >Mass Transit> board.
Trying to be as fair as possible, I think that the folks here at AARoads can finally conclude that Boring tunnels and Tesla drone-cars can't be used together for an inner-city personal transit system (unless the tunnels are used to bypass under the inner-city). However, I don't think we can conclude that either Boring tunnels or Tesla drone-cars won't be viable technologies on their own merit. Time is money, but money can make difficult things happen.
Driverless technology is developed by many players, not just Tesla - and I would bet on it becoming roadworthy in foreseeable future.
Fast tunnel boring by cutting down regulations and diameter... The first one is a must, basically, for survival of US - and that goes way beyond just tunnel construction. Some businesses - e.g. Uber or AirBNB also flourish on cutting corners all the way, and may be cutting too much. Reduction of diameter is much more controversial IMHO. I didn't really hear about fundamentally new technologies, so I am not holding my breath overall
All the discussion about autonomous vehicles in the "Cutting Parking Space in Half" thread reminded me that we never addressed the question about how many 12-foot wide tunnel bores are needed to handle 1,000 pax/hour. In the one scenario of about 250 platooning cars (up to 4 passengers), you can't do this with one tunnel but you might be able to have two parallel tunnels with either an evacuation tube between them or very frequent escape routes/area of refuge rooms. In the other scenario of 1,000 independent autonomous cars, I'd be surprised if two roadway tunnels are sufficient, but this might only need a third [reversible] tube. But that complicates the escape strategy, possibly requiring two evacuation tubes between the lanes.
Anyhow, we can start to see that small autonomous vehicles in urban tunnel settings is going to be difficult.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 23, 2020, 10:49:51 AM
Relocated from >General Highway Talk
That's not how you do that. If a thread split or move is needed, a moderator will do it. Starting a new topic just means we have two threads going on the same subject. I have re-merged the threads.