>>12969728It's a parameter, sure, but I wasn't being misleading and no one suggested that it was equivalent to a larger system. These are projects that literally wouldn't get done any other way as the cities couldn't afford them otherwise so referring capacity in an attempt to detract from it just isn't fair and price remains they key consideration. It's not as simple as just suggesting that they should have built a subway or that tunnel size is the only reason why they're cheap, which are two core points made by TBC skeptics. There are multiple ways they've improved the speed and reduced downtime of the boring process, they would be cheaper than a equivalent tunnel made by another company.
>magnitude more passengersBased on what? A larger tunnel could obviously take more people as they could be standing but it isn't clear if a subway would improve capacity with the same size tunnel, seeing as they just confirmed 16 passenger vehicles that would arrive and leave much more frequently than a subway car, at a faster speed for such short distances in between stops such as with the Las Vegas project.
>Why does pointing out the flaw in these comparisons make me angry?It's not you pointing out "the flaw", it's you gatekeeping what you think is real infrastructure or not and calling it a toy. Building tunnels at such a low cost is a tremendous engineering achievement and while you're not obligated to have respect for it, it seems pretty obvious that your distaste is because of other reasons. You wouldn't give a shit about this if Musk's hand wasn't on it.
