# Elon Musk's Boring Company to build O'Hare-downtown tunnel



## John Bredin (Jun 13, 2018)

Or at least the City of Chicago accepted the Boring Company bid. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/99494771-132.html

I'd love to see this come to fruition, and Musk seems to be the type who can attract investors, *except* that using 16-passenger [del]vans[/del] vehicles make this sound:

(1) less than viable, as it would seem to lack sufficient capacity or through-put, and

(2) a conscious effort by Musk to *not* resemble old-fashioned [del]boring[/del] trains.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 14, 2018)




----------



## Anderson (Jun 14, 2018)

I swear that I remember watching an old cartoon from the 1960s showing off an idea like this, just with personal cars instead of transit vehicles...and IIRC it was implied that those would be self-driving.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 14, 2018)

Also, I know that Musk owns a boring company, but which one is it?


----------



## penguinflies (Jun 14, 2018)

I like the idea of an express train, but most of the pax traffic from/to ord seems to get on west of western. Once I was on a blue line and it ran express from the city to western to belmont to logan sq then local to ord. That ride was real nice and I totally get the allure of an express service. I just wonder how many people will ditch ubers and cabs for their downtown trip. My company directs us to use ubers over all other modes of transport, even when uber is more expensive.

The ride on metra to ohare transfer station is great as well, but the 6pm train to ohare usually only lets out 4-5 people at ohare transfer. Getting from the transfer station to the terminals is easy and a bit of a pain until they open the new rental car facility, which is located literally to the transfer station. Sadly, it appears no one consulted the rail line as it appears with a bit of work, the ohare transfer stop could have been integrated into the rental car facility and it could have been an under roof transfer instead of having to walk out on the street for a bit.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 16, 2018)

Having taken the Blue Line out to ORD as well as having taken a taxi into town, I think the underlying issue is that the ride on the train does start getting a little long without facilities or the ability, as far as I know, to hop off and use them in a station. The lack of a direct connection to the other lines, or indeed any of the rail terminals, in downtown doesn't help if you're lugging luggage, and IIRC the cars really aren't set up for substantial luggage loads.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 16, 2018)

Anderson said:


> Having taken the Blue Line out to ORD as well as having taken a taxi into town, I think the underlying issue is that the ride on the train does start getting a little long without facilities or the ability, as far as I know, to hop off and use them in a station. The lack of a direct connection to the other lines, or indeed any of the rail terminals, in downtown doesn't help if you're lugging luggage, and IIRC the cars really aren't set up for substantial luggage loads.


Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed. I've rode around on the subway with a roller bag/backpack on BART, New York subway, Boston T, DC Metro, CTA Blue Line, and London Piccadilly line with no problem (except for stairs). And if you think the Blue line from O'Hare is a long ride, try riding into central London on the Piccadilly line from Heathrow!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 16, 2018)

Anderson said:


> Having taken the Blue Line out to ORD as well as having taken a taxi into town, I think the underlying issue is that the ride on the train does start getting a little long without facilities or the ability, as far as I know, to hop off and use them in a station. The lack of a direct connection to the other lines, or indeed any of the rail terminals, in downtown doesn't help if you're lugging luggage, and IIRC the cars really aren't set up for substantial luggage loads.


Like most airports, O'Hare and Midway seem to focus on connecting tourists with taxis and rental cars that rush you as quickly as possible into the nearest traffic jam with metro access left as a distant half-measure afterthought. I can make it work because I travel light and I'm fully ambulatory but it doesn't work nearly as well for people who struggle to move or carry lots of luggage. I'm glad the Orange and Blue lines exist, and I'll almost always chose them over a taxi, but they're not close to being as quick and easy as they could be if they were the focus instead of taxis and rental cars.



MARC Rider said:


> Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed.


If that's true then I wonder what what exactly requires all those check-in desks, transport conveyors, cargo holds, and pickup carousels. Some of those systems cost upwards of a half-billion dollars. The airlines didn't start charging for luggage because they thought nobody would bother; they started charging because they knew millions of passengers would be forced to pay.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jun 17, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed.


You must not have flown Southwest “2 free checked bags” Airlines


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 17, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Having taken the Blue Line out to ORD as well as having taken a taxi into town, I think the underlying issue is that the ride on the train does start getting a little long without facilities or the ability, as far as I know, to hop off and use them in a station. The lack of a direct connection to the other lines, or indeed any of the rail terminals, in downtown doesn't help if you're lugging luggage, and IIRC the cars really aren't set up for substantial luggage loads.
> ...


I don't think I've ever checked a bag on a domestic flight. I always take my backpack and a small roller suitcase, and that's it. I just don't need more than that. And I would agree that any normal person going on vacation for a normal amount of time, doesn't need much more than that.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 17, 2018)

And of the dozens of flights I’ve taken for work in the past three years, I’ve never *not* checked a bag.

Anecdotes are worthless.

On average, for every passenger on a flight, there are 1.1 prices of checked luggage. Those that check nothing are more than balanced out by those checking more than two (which isn’t enough information to judge the original claim that “most people” don’t check luggage), but it’s better than dueling anecdotes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 17, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed.
> ...


Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever traveled on business or with a girlfriend? Because I think you're likely to find that "need" can be a relative term.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 17, 2018)

What does going on vacation for a normal amount of time mean, anyway? What defines normal?

And I agree about business travel. I often have two-week trips for work, and dont have time to hunt for a laundromat (and getting the hotel to do laundry is so ridiculously expensive it ought not to be legal). That means bringing clean clothes to last two weeks, plus business shoes and athletic shoes, plus all the stuff I need for work.

If Im traveling for pleasure for only a few days, then sure I can get away with a backpack and maybe a small rollaboard, but if anyone on vacation wants to pick up souvenirs...

Of course, my main issue with this project is that it doesnt actually address a real transportation need in Chicago (at least, not a very big one). And, private funding or not. These resources would be better allocated elsewhere.

Maybe Elon Musk is really Lyle Lanley.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 17, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed.
> ...


Actually BWI is my home airport, I fly mainly on Southwest, and I always check my roller bag. I once tried carrying it on, and it was more trouble than the slight time savings on arrival is worth. I'm not alone, nearly all the bags I see on the carousel are roller bags.


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 17, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


So sayest one who has no small children (diapers, toys, lots of changes of clothes, car seats, strollers and ...) or is not elderly? We used to travel to Europe with an unfull carry-on each but now, it doesn't work that way any more. Nor can we lift those carry-ons into overheads on planes, up the stairs on trains and into trunks of cars.


----------



## Ziv (Jun 18, 2018)

I asked my girlfriend if she needed a 32 ounce bottle of shampoo in her luggage when we were getting ready to fly to Thailand. I was telling her that she could carry a small container of shampoo and then buy a medium sized one when we got there. It was like I asked her to fly there by flapping her arms. She was that mad at me for trying to make her luggage 2 pounds lighter.

I ended up carrying that monstrosity of a bag whenever the sidewalks got rough, too.



Devil's Advocate said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > MARC Rider said:
> ...


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 18, 2018)

Ziv said:


> I asked my girlfriend if she needed a 32 ounce bottle of shampoo in her luggage when we were getting ready to fly to Thailand. I was telling her that she could carry a small container of shampoo and then buy a medium sized one when we got there. It was like I asked her to fly there by flapping her arms. She was that mad at me for trying to make her luggage 2 pounds lighter.
> 
> I ended up carrying that monstrosity of a bag whenever the sidewalks got rough, too.
> 
> ...


She needs to try a shampoo bar. I just heard about them and think they’d be great for traveling.
This is one brand if seen.

https://www.lushusa.com/hair/shampoo-bars/


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2018)

Hey! Ya never know what brand of shampoo you may or may not get in Thailand, you know?


----------



## cirdan (Jun 18, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Most people who fly don't carry much more than a roller bag and a backpack, at least that's what I've observed.
> ...


Old fashioned thinking maybe?

Times have moved on. Airlines haven't?

Charging for check-ins has only encouraged people to stretch carry-on rules to the absolute limit.

That, and airlines continuously losing people's luggage.

It's almost as if they installed this super costly infrastructure and are now doing everything in their power to make sure nobody uses it.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 18, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> What does going on vacation for a normal amount of time mean, anyway? What defines normal?
> 
> And I agree about business travel. I often have two-week trips for work, and dont have time to hunt for a laundromat (and getting the hotel to do laundry is so ridiculously expensive it ought not to be legal). That means bringing clean clothes to last two weeks, plus business shoes and athletic shoes, plus all the stuff I need for work.


Business travellers are typically not very cost sensitive, seeing they can charge everything on expenses.

And also fly high bucket anyway for the flexibility.

So the business market is quite a different one to the leisure market.

I'm venturing a wild guess here, but my general feeling is that, business travellers are also more likely to use taxis, Ubers or other personalized systems rather than bog-standard transit.

Obviously there are exceptions.

I've only done Chicago's Blue Line a handful of times. But I don't recall seeing many suits and ties there, or many particularly large bags either.


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2018)

Actually it is more like reducing the need for further investment in checked luggage infrastructure. Given the rate at which ridership is increasing, there is a lot of incentive to reduce the amount of checked baggage per passenger to handle, and I don't think any airline is feeling that they have a lot of idle capacity for checked baggage hanging around. This is a fantasy of the AU land.





Irrespective of business or otherwise, one has to be crazy to try to take the Blue Line in Chicago with a pile of baggage. The shared shuttle services (Blue Smurfs and others) are quite cost effective and much more suitable for carting around piles of baggage. Indeed, when I traveled to Chicago on business I never even remotely considered taking the Blue Line.

OTOH, in London, even on business trips, I have always taken the Piccadilly Line or the Heathrow Express/Connect, depending on what my destination is within London. The difference is that the Blue Line is just not as user friendly as the Piccadilly Line or the rail services to Heathrow.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 18, 2018)

I disagree with your premise on business travelers not being cost sensitive. My experience in both government and private industries are that the company puts in place rather stringent policies to keep costs down.

Also, a significant number of people don’t have the “just expense it” ability and instead have a fixed per diem. Every dollar of that I don’t spend is free money in my pocket, so I’m much more inclined to live cheaply whilst on travel.


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I disagree with your premise on business travelers not being cost sensitive. My experience in both government and private industries are that the company puts in place rather stringent policies to keep costs down.
> 
> Also, a significant number of people don’t have the “just expense it” ability and instead have a fixed per diem. Every dollar of that I don’t spend is free money in my pocket, so I’m much more inclined to live cheaply whilst on travel.


Yeah, there is no one single paradigm that fits all business as far as their treatment of travel costs go. There is a whole spectrum ranging for complete freedom to do whatever, typically true of private sector senior professionals in small to medium companies, through booking of all travel through designated travel agency enforcing policies, but allowed to spend upto a threshold on daily expenditures and get reimbursed, and to per diem and that's it for food, and sometimes even for local transport.

OTOH, for leisure travel there is a full spectrum too starting from the "minimize cost at any cost at one end to spend money for a good time at the other end. Frankly on many intercontinental flights, I am surprised to see how many people travel on their own dime on vacations in the front cabin of the plane, and also how many "business people" following company policy, are cooped up in the rear cabin. Life is full of surprises I suppose.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 18, 2018)

cirdan said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > What does going on vacation for a normal amount of time mean, anyway? What defines normal?
> ...


Your view of business travel is a bit...off.

The number of people with "not very cost sensitive" travel privileges is small, and dwindling every year. Companies are putting more and more restrictive policies in place on booking travel in order to cut costs (as the Bill Gates character in an old Simpsons episode said: "I didn't get this rich by writing checks"). Employees are often required to book the cheapest fare, or at least cheapest within limits. Paying $1000 for a flexible ticket instead of $300 for a nonrefundable ticket doesn't make sense if you're using that ticket more often than not.

There may be business travelers out there wearing suits, but plenty of folks wear normal clothes on the plane, and change before/after.

I often see plenty of large bags on the Blue Line, though my impression is that they are often tourists going home on a long international flight.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 18, 2018)

cirdan said:


> Business travellers are typically not very cost sensitive, seeing they can charge everything on expenses. And also fly high bucket anyway for the flexibility. So the business market is quite a different one to the leisure market.


That hasn't been my experience at all. Every single business travel expense had a target range and a maximum reimbursable cost. Exceptions had to be preapproved before travel. Only last minute emergency trips were immune to these restrictions.



cirdan said:


> I'm venturing a wild guess here, but my general feeling is that, business travellers are also more likely to use taxis, Ubers or other personalized systems rather than bog-standard transit. I've only done Chicago's Blue Line a handful of times. But I don't recall seeing many suits and ties there, or many particularly large bags either.


No argument there. In my experience it's much easier to explain a $50 taxi charge than a $5.00 commuter rail pass.


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2018)

As for refundable tickets, a fact that is not well known is that many large companies have deals with one or two preferred airlines which includes pooling of unused nonrefundable fares for use by any employee of the company booked through designated travel agent. They also get a post facto kickback for meeting certain usage thresholds specified in the contract with the preferred airlines. So company travelers can basically use nonrefundable fares as if they are refundable as far as the company is concerned. This is what leads to the corporate travel agent forcing you to buy a ticket on a specific airline even with a somewhat higher fare than one can find on the internet. Net net it all costs the company less at the end of the year.


----------



## Blackwolf (Jun 18, 2018)

I _extremely rarely_ travel via public carrier on business, since we're expected to drive 99% of the time ( am a State employee for California.) But, if we are traveling by way of a public carrier (airline/bus/train) then we adhere to the following rules:


No class of service higher than Coach (and including complementary upgrades; we are required to turn them down and insist on the purchased class of service.)
No deeply discounted/bargain fare Coach. Must have flexibility; the State prefers to pay Y - Full Fare Coach.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 18, 2018)

Blackwolf said:


> we are required to turn them down and insist on the purchased class of service.)


Interesting... I imagine that's to prevent employees from pestering airlines and employees for upgrades?


----------



## Blackwolf (Jun 18, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > we are required to turn them down and insist on the purchased class of service.)
> ...


I highly doubt its that, but I'm sure someone somewhere may have added that reasoning. It is undoubtedly all about perception; State employee on State business is a liability if sitting in a better seat (even if, say, Business was less money than Coach and thus was saving tax-payer money). Government employees are treated differently on the West Coast than the East Coast; there is a tremendous amount of skepticism and distrust of anyone in Government here. I get it all the time, and I'm one of the "Good Guys" (firefighter)!


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 18, 2018)

Before I retired, I almost always took transit and skipped the car rentals if possible and especially hated the overpriced, dirty taxis in most cities that had no real regulation of them. Transit, to me, was fun and educational.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 19, 2018)

jis said:


> As for refundable tickets, a fact that is not well known is that many large companies have deals with one or two preferred airlines which includes pooling of unused nonrefundable fares for use by any employee of the company booked through designated travel agent. They also get a post facto kickback for meeting certain usage thresholds specified in the contract with the preferred airlines. So company travelers can basically use nonrefundable fares as if they are refundable as far as the company is concerned. This is what leads to the corporate travel agent forcing you to buy a ticket on a specific airline even with a somewhat higher fare than one can find on the internet. Net net it all costs the company less at the end of the year.


In my company we have freuqntly recurring drives to cut costs. But I have yet to see one focus on the actual costs, but more on asking people whether they need to travel at all and pushing them towards video conferencing and such unless there is a really pressing reason for a face to face meeting.

So I often have to justify, why do i need to make this trip. I have yet had to justify, why so expensive?

The reason being that such trips are mostly booked through an approved travel agent who claims to be more cost efficient. But I always get a booking with checked luggage for example. It's not something they ever ask me about. I can't verify that it is still cheaper nevertheless. I'll have to take their word for it, even if i am sceptical. But definitely when it comes to ground transportation they don't offer any support or advice there but just tell me to make my own way and expense whatever it takes. I always try to be as cost conscious as possible but many of my co-workers don't care. This has never been an issue as far as I know.

And travel flexbility often does matter. Sometimes when a customer''s system goies down it can be because somebody left their coffee mug on the reset button, or didn't realize you need to turn the power on. We can be on the next flight home. Sometimes we need to spend three days troubleshooting, two days waiting for a part, a day installing it and another day testing. These things cannot be predicted.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 20, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Business travellers are typically not very cost sensitive, seeing they can charge everything on expenses. And also fly high bucket anyway for the flexibility. So the business market is quite a different one to the leisure market.
> ...


My understanding is that a number of companies have refundable/exchangable policies, depending on those arrangements. Nobody wants to lose a seat and _then_ have to buy a walkup fare because your immediate superior held you up for another hour at the office (or the client meeting ran long).

And I'm reminded of someone (on here, I think) who was given utter hell by his accounting department for buying a subway pass instead of driving everywhere _in New York City_.

As to the leisure customers "up front", I wonder what portion of those are cash fares and what portion are points redemptions (either full redemptions or upgrades).


----------



## cirdan (Jun 20, 2018)

Blackwolf said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Blackwolf said:
> ...


I concur.

Some of our customers are governments or government agencies or arm's lengh companies owned by governments.

For various reasons, not least of which is keeping well clear of anything that looks like corruption, we are not allowed to offer any presents or perks beyond a certain threshold to anybody who is or may be a government empoyee.


----------



## jis (Jun 20, 2018)

cirdan said:


> Some of our customers are governments or government agencies or arm's lengh companies owned by governments.
> 
> For various reasons, not least of which is keeping well clear of anything that looks like corruption, we are not allowed to offer any presents or perks beyond a certain threshold to anybody who is or may be a government empoyee.


Yes indeed!

And each time some executive screwed up and got fired, we in the trenches were retrained on these matters with additional vigor. In any case it was at least a refresher training once a year on Code of Conduct.

It used to be interesting within the company too, where we are allowed to get and use award upgrades on tickets that were bought according to company rules through the company travel agent. Since I travel a lot on my own dime, I often had a much higher status than many who had their status if any, only through company travel. So there would be many occasions when I would have an upgrade go through and I'd be sitting in First or Business, while my boss and his boss walked by me to the rear cabin. But they knew that I am a travel nut and will go for a weekend trip cross country if I could find a $250 round trip fare, just for the heck of it. One thing good about 757s and wide bodies is that the folks in Y do not have to walk by all of the rows of various upper classes.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 25, 2018)

So back to the actual Muskel - do people see it getting built and opened as planned, let alone on schedule?


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 26, 2018)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So back to the actual Muskel - do people see it getting built and opened as planned, let alone on schedule?


Based on Tesla, I'd guess a few miles will get done but a lot longer than planned with a lot of noise and little action.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 27, 2018)

me_little_me said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So back to the actual Muskel - do people see it getting built and opened as planned, let alone on schedule?
> ...


That's sort of my fear too. I'm wondering if the tunnel gets built and then, bang, it becomes an express CTA line.

I also still can't quite believe the very ambitious start schedule - there is, there are, a lot of complicated infrastructural elements in the path of the tunnel that will need to be accurately mapped and permits to be issued before he can start - I just can't see them having assembled all of that as quickly as claimed.


----------



## NW cannonball (Jun 28, 2018)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > Metra Electric Rider said:
> ...


Reality check. Expect maybe symbolic tunneling. At the price Elon's disposible front corp corp quoted -- A) the mayor was right to sign on. -- B) because the tunnel and line won't ever happen.

Maybe the Mayor and Council will get free flamethrowers !! Maybe every Chicogoan will get a free flamethower !!

There is no way a new tunnel and express service parallel the Blue Line will ever be built or save anyone money or ever make a profit. Maybe at places like Narita or Dulles -- no not there either -- agents of governments and billionaires can take a chopper from Narita or Dulles of Ohare or Kennedy to like Meigs -- haha


----------



## NorthShore (Jun 28, 2018)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I also still can't quite believe the very ambitious start schedule - there is, there are, a lot of complicated infrastructural elements in the path of the tunnel that will need to be accurately mapped and permits to be issued before he can start - I just can't see them having assembled all of that as quickly as claimed.


What is the propsed path?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 28, 2018)

NorthShore said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I also still can't quite believe the very ambitious start schedule - there is, there are, a lot of complicated infrastructural elements in the path of the tunnel that will need to be accurately mapped and permits to be issued before he can start - I just can't see them having assembled all of that as quickly as claimed.
> ...


I don't think it has been determined, although I imagine under or near the Kennedy Expressway would be the most direct route. Quite frankly, if this gets built, I will be quite surprised. It just seem like pie in the sky. Musk seems to be promising everything to everybody.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 29, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > Metra Electric Rider said:
> ...


I keep (well, kept, haven't checked up lately) hearing that it'll run under streets and existing rights of way, so little to no legalities of being under private property. I really don't know much about the law for that here - we have the deep tunnel system for drainage here, I _think_ it runs under private property in places. The cta subway sections here don't run under buildings much, if at all, nor does the old freight tunnel system.

There's still the issue of avoiding underground utilities, though if it's deep enough not an issue, but there is still, you know, geology to deal with, borings and core samples to take. And of course, it'll have to avoid the deep tunnel and you'll need access points to remove tailings, emergency access/egress, etc, on the surface. Depending upon how deep they go it could be through bedrock or through clay if shallower (I'm assuming clay because that's what seems to get removed at high rise construction around here when the drill for caissons or footings). I know the deep tunnel system is bored through bedrock, which around here is limestone.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 29, 2018)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > NorthShore said:
> ...


How deep is the water table? If the tunnel is below the water table, how will they keep it dewatered?


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2018)

By making it watertight?


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jun 29, 2018)

Ryan said:


> By making it watertight?


It must be a hyperloop from O’Hare to Millennium!


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 30, 2018)

NorthShore said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I also still can't quite believe the very ambitious start schedule - there is, there are, a lot of complicated infrastructural elements in the path of the tunnel that will need to be accurately mapped and permits to be issued before he can start - I just can't see them having assembled all of that as quickly as claimed.
> ...


As per the description Boring Company included in their proposal, The Chicago Tribune came up with this-







img src - Chicago Tribune

Musk certainly got more than his share of publicity with this announcement, and I believe Rahm is hoping to influence Amazon's HQ2 decision with this bit of whiz-bang technology. My concern is that if Musk's high-speed butter dishes never materialize, the idea of an airport express will be too toxic for a long time afterwards.

I wonder whether we'll ever get to see the competing bid that lost out to Boring.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 1, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > By making it watertight?
> ...


1) If the tunnel is like my basement, which is sometime affected by rising water tables, it might be difficult to make it watertight. On the other hand there are lotes of underwater tunnels, e.g

Hudson River tubes, a good part of the New York subway, etc, so I guess this can be engineered.

2) But isn't the concrpt of the Hyperloop the fact that the tunnel is a vaccuun? That might make the engineering a bit more complicated and expensive.


----------



## NorthShore (Jul 2, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> Musk seems to be promising everything to everybody.


Sounds like an Illinois politician!


----------



## cirdan (Jul 2, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Consideatble chunks of London's Tube system are below the water table. And they were built more than 100 years ago.

The technique used then was to maintain a higher air pressure in the tunneling shield. Of course that didn't totally stop ingress , just slowed it down, but they also had pumping machines to move that water out.

Another part of the story was that tunnels were intentionally routed through layers of clay with a lower water content. This is why test borings were required beforehand and extensive 3-D geological maps created.

I would assume that 100 years on, a much better job could be done.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 2, 2018)

cirdan said:


> The technique used then was to maintain a higher air pressure in the tunneling shield. Of course that didn't totally stop ingress , just slowed it down, but they also had pumping machines to move that water out.


That's fine while you're digging the tunnel, but the point of a hyerloop is that the finished tube is evacuated and the train runs in a vacuum. I suppose you can seal the finished tube pretty well, but no engineered structure is perfect, so I'm not sure how this is going to be any better than a conventional subway with express stops.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 2, 2018)

cirdan said:


> Another part of the story was that tunnels were intentionally routed through layers of clay with a lower water content. This is why test borings were required beforehand and extensive 3-D geological maps created.
> 
> I would assume that 100 years on, a much better job could be done.


After 100 years, geophysical sounding methods are better, so maybe you don't have to drill so much, but you can't totally avoid it. Also, while there may be clay layers in the downtown area of Chicago along the lake, most of the region is underlain by surficial glacial deposits, and at depth limestone. Limestone is highly permeable; in fact the water flows through open conduits dissolved from the rock, the locations of which can't always be detected from the surface. Not saying they can't do it, but it's going to be expensive as hell, and the geotechnical surveys might require some rerouting which will also drive up the cost. A good chance that the privately-funded project goes belly-up and the public sector is left holding the bag.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 2, 2018)

NorthShore said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Musk seems to be promising everything to everybody.
> ...


Sounds like a politician from every state in the union and every country on earth (and probably every planet in the universe that has politicians.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 2, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


Politicians lie, cheat, and scheme because that's the sort of person who is drawn to high risk/reward propositions and because that's the sort of attitude which convinces millions of low effort casual voters to support you. Any political system worth supporting must account for and mitigate against this.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 2, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > The technique used then was to maintain a higher air pressure in the tunneling shield. Of course that didn't totally stop ingress , just slowed it down, but they also had pumping machines to move that water out.
> ...


You could build the tunnel with a double wall. the outer wall would be concrete and its job would basically be to support the surrounding soil. Although it would be as watertight as possible, som inflow might occur. Remember that any water ingress implies there is a water current outside the tunnel which in turn means erosion of the surrounding soil which could in the long term create cavities and destabilize the soil. So ingress should be minimized not just for nuisance reasons but to assure the long term intergrity of the tunnel.

Water ingress would be colected in a channel on the tunnel floor and pumped out.

Then within that outer tunnel there would be an inner pipe made of steel or polymer segments joined in an airtight manner.A bit like you would do for a water or gas or oil pipeline. Water ingress ito that inner tunnel would be minimal. Space between outer and inner tunnel would be sufficient to allow the passage of inspection robots.

Possibly that space could also be used for cables, service piping etc. This would require service entrances at regular intervals. The easiest way to do this would be through doors from the inner tunnel that can be used at times the hyperloop is shut down.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 2, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> A good chance that the privately-funded project goes belly-up and the public sector is left holding the bag.


This, unfortunately is what I fear.

Which may mean spending money for decades to come on mainaining a flawed system. Money that could have been better spent on the existing system.


----------



## cpotisch (Jul 2, 2018)

cirdan said:


> The technique used then was to maintain a higher air pressure in the tunneling shield. Of course that didn't totally stop ingress , just slowed it down, but they also had pumping machines to move that water out.


Sure, but the exact point of the Hyperloop's tube is for it to be a near vacuum. So maintaining high air pressure in that tube to keep the water out probably wouldn't be the best idea in this (hypothetical) case.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 2, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > The technique used then was to maintain a higher air pressure in the tunneling shield. Of course that didn't totally stop ingress , just slowed it down, but they also had pumping machines to move that water out.
> ...


To be clear, what's being proposed for this O'Hare link isn't hyperloop. It's basically electric vans in a tunnel.


----------



## cpotisch (Jul 2, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


I 100% know that. That's why I said "in this (hypothetical) case."


----------



## NorthShore (Jul 2, 2018)

After seeing that map, I'm excited. Elon Musk is bringing back the #41 bus! (And the #40 to boot)


----------

