What do we think of The Boring Company?

[US 89]

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.

[skluth]

Elon Musk might be the most overrated public figure today.

I'd love to be that overrated

[skluth]

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 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:

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:

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:

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.

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[kernals12]

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 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:

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:

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:

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.

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[Dirt Roads]

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.

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.

[kalvado]

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.

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

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.