..and? A car also doesn't carry 500 people.
Factor in cost advantages of the tunnel — 4x cheaper mile-for-mile for the prototype, it seems like? — and the same dollars spent on Boring Co tunnels could actually move a lot more people than Skytrain: you can build 4x the tunnels, moving nearly 1300 people instead of 500.
Even if SUVs can only match the fastest average Skytrain line (50mph), that's still fairly competitive even at the current cost per mile of a Boring Co tunnel. Assuming they can bring cost down further (which is the goal of the company), they could still end up beating trains in terms of people moved per dollar spent.
Listen, I'm not saying it'll happen. But the dismissiveness here reminds me of the "Model 3 will never cost less to build than the price to sell it!!!!!" or "Tesla will never make more than 1000 cars per week!!!" or cash crunch or etc hysteria. I guess Elon attracts that by constantly missing deadlines, but he often still delivers; he just delivers a year or so late.
You're fond of throwing in a lot of utterly implausible figures to support your argument here
This plan is like when a city widens a highway but doesn't touch other parts of the road network? What happens? It just moves the choke point somewhere else in the network.
Almost all assumtions in the discussion start directly in the tunnel, and sometimes at the elevator. Almost no one thinks about: how will cars get into that thing from the road, how the cars will get out of that thing onto the road.
The fact is that a 500 capacity train running at 75-100s headways destroys this system capacitywise.
Musk has a long, long way to go before he shows that this idea of his is better than the 1986 era technology at the core of Vancouver's system.
This is like that linked tweet: all assertion, no data. What are you using to estimate the theoretical throughput of a Boring Co tunnel system vs Skytrain? Let's debate that. Right now it's all just thin air.
Assumptions I'm willing to believe, and thus make me interested in this prototype's viability:
1. Cars need less space in between them. 5-10s gaps seem more than reasonable based on highway driving. This seems especially true since these are operated autonomously in highly controlled environments, meaning we might need even less distance between cars than free-wheeling, human-operated highway driving.
2. Most train stops are useless for most people — maybe 3x stops per ride on average? Having only one stop per ride would dramatically improve average speed, since a smaller percentage would be spent slowing down, speeding up, or waiting at a station.
3. Smaller tunnels are cheaper to dig, meaning dollar-for-dollar you can build more of them to make up any remaining capacity difference.
And we also assume that all cars can enter and exit the system with no delays.
It'll be a miracle if it reaches bus capacity, much less train/subway capacity: https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798...
Basic geometry.
And how expensive was it to build the train? If you can build 3x the tunnels for AVs as you can train tunnels and trains for the same price, actual throughput dollar-for-dollar in infra spend would be much better with Boring Co tunnels.
Update with data: it cost $2 billion to build 50 miles of Skytrain. Apparently this prototype Boring Co tunnel cost $10 million per mile. That's a 4x cost advantage for Boring Co mile-for-mile, and I imagine they'll try to strengthen that advantage even further; after all, that's their whole company's purpose: cheap, efficient boring.