Along with the tunnelling speed improvements from what I'm gathering they are using model X chassis vehicles within the tunnels. The benefit of this is that you don't need rails, just line following sensors. There's no brake replacement because of regen etc. The main takeaway is that the carriage system will be able to be maintained by car mechanics and not locomotion engineers. What the stations will look like will be interesting to see because each "carriage" will be able to depart once full instead of waiting for an entire train to fill up.
But rails were invented for a reason - they're drastically more efficient. So doesn't this just trade lower upfront costs for much higher operational costs (in energy consumption per mile travelled)?
I hope this is a joke, but if not please look into the cost and timeliness of subway maintenance costs by unionized workforce’s dealing with things like switching and signaling equipment - your claim is that this is drastically more efficient than some car mechanics?
And if your number is low - you are not counting deferred maintenance which is huge in these systems
Yes, even counting "unionized workforce" cars cannot even remotely compete with mass transit rail on a per capita cost. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
The comparison here is to a transit system that uses vehicles which can be serviced by car mechanics. This will be cheaper.
And rail has otherwise struggled in the US.
The amtrak story is not great. I've tried to use them repeatedly, and outside of northeast corridor it is cheaper to fly then to take them anywhere. Let that sink in, the cost to get you up in air, and FLY is cheaper than rolling along on low friction rails. When you say why is it hard to understand that rail is cheapest it's because folks KNOW that things like buses are MUCH MUCH cheaper.
This is ignoring the absolutely stupid cost to build one mile of rail tunnel.
Building a tunnel and then filling it with cars is a waste of space. The per capita gains don't just come from being underground, they come from density of people - which is abysmal for cars, multiplied by the fact that most people drive alone for most of the time.
Mass transit rail has hardly "struggled" in the US - it has high usage and conflating the distinction between mass transit rail and long distance rail is disingenuous when considering the usecases of Musks tunnels.
Yes, rail transit is far more cost-effective than private automobiles when it comes to getting people from one place where they don't want to be to another place where they don't want to be.
