What do we think of The Boring Company?

[kernals12]

You may have heard that a few years ago Elon Musk started a new company that was supposed to revolutionize the world of tunnel building. Fitting with Musk's sense of humor, it's called the Boring Company. If you go on their website, you'll see some bold claims, like being able to cut the cost of a tunnel to just $10 million per mile. They claim to do this by using narrow diameters, only 12 feet, by turning rubble into bricks that can be sold, and, most fantastically, by using a boring machine that can drill 10 times faster than a normal one.

If this was true, then clearly the Virginia DOT is leaving a lot of money on the table. They're spending $3.8 billion to add a second tube to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which is 3.5 miles long. You'd think the Boring Company would be chomping at the bit to prove themselves in such a high profile and lucrative contract. But no, what they're building instead is... a people mover for the Las Vegas Convention Center.

I think they're full of it. What do you guys think?

[Bruce]

Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).

Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.

[kernals12]

Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).

Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.

Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.

[Bruce]

Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).

Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.

Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.

The tunneling itself is quite cheap. Building huge station boxes are the biggest expense for our recent light rail projects, and kind of hard to avoid due to the modern standards and lack of expertise in the U.S.

[jeffandnicole]

You may have heard that a few years ago Elon Musk started a new company that was supposed to revolutionize the world of tunnel building. Fitting with Musk's sense of humor, it's called the Boring Company. If you go on their website, you'll see some bold claims, like being able to cut the cost of a tunnel to just $10 million per mile. They claim to do this by using narrow diameters, only 12 feet, by turning rubble into bricks that can be sold, and, most fantastically, by using a boring machine that can drill 10 times faster than a normal one.

If this was true, then clearly the Virginia DOT is leaving a lot of money on the table. They're spending $3.8 billion to add a second tube to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which is 3.5 miles long. You'd think the Boring Company would be chomping at the bit to prove themselves in such a high profile and lucrative contract. But no, what they're building instead is... a people mover for the Las Vegas Convention Center.

I think they're full of it. What do you guys think?

A diameter of 12 feet? That ain't gonna work well for most vehicles.  Even SUVs wouldn't fit. A 12 foot diameter means the roadway would be at or just below the center of the tunnel to allow for a 11 or 12 foot lane. That means at most, there would be 6 or 7 feet of clearance at the center of the lane; less towards the edges of the lane.

[kernals12]

Vaporware until proven otherwise (like Hyperloop).

Local governments should not be burning money trying to buy into his hype until it's proven to work. Conventional TBMs work just fine as long as you don't run into unmarked pipes (sorry, Bertha) or unexpected deposits of other materials.

Tunnels can go for over $1 billion per mile. That's not working fine. Hopefully in the future we'll melt or vaporize rock instead of drilling through it.

The tunneling itself is quite cheap. Building huge station boxes are the biggest expense for our recent light rail projects, and kind of hard to avoid due to the modern standards and lack of expertise in the U.S.

Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?

[SectorZ]

If he can expand that 12' diameter to what is needed for train/roadway tunnel diameters and maybe even get down to $100M/mile (from government typical $1B/mile cost), I would say he could be onto something.

Mock this at your peril. If 10 years ago someone told you he would be the only thing keeping us from depending on the Soviets to get into space, you would have laughed.

[Dirt Roads]

The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many.  Here are a few:  fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect.  It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).

Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques.  There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.

Just a note about passenger evacuation.  One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress).  If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors.  Quick rescue still might not be possible.  Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues).  I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.

[kernals12]

If he can expand that 12' diameter to what is needed for train/roadway tunnel diameters and maybe even get down to $100M/mile (from government typical $1B/mile cost), I would say he could be onto something.

Mock this at your peril. If 10 years ago someone told you he would be the only thing keeping us from depending on the Soviets to get into space, you would have laughed.

You should read about Henry Ford's attempt to go into the rubber business or Thomas Edison's attempt to go into homebuilding.

[kernals12]

The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many.  Here are a few:  fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect.  It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).

Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques.  There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.

Just a note about passenger evacuation.  One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress).  If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors.  Quick rescue still might not be possible.  Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues).  I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.

No shit. But I highly, highly doubt he has achieved that. If he did, he would be looking at more impressive projects than a convention center people mover.

[corco]

Congratulations, Elon Musk, you used your billions to hire intelligent people to invent tunnels! Musk did good with Paypal but is otherwise just an eccentric charlatan who either

A) milks the teat of government and uses taxpayer resources to hire intelligent people to make modest advances to technology while claiming all the credit for it (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX (SpaceX is just the product of a conscious decision to defund NASA and channel its budget to the private sector- Musk hardly gets credit for saving American space travel, he's just the rich guy that was first in line to spend taxpayer dollars to hire people who would have just worked for NASA directly in the 60s and 70s))
or
B) re-invents existing technology with a cool new name and inferior capabilities (e.g. hyperloop, Boring Company)

Either way the dude has a proven history of overpromising and underdelivering - he just keeps moving the goalposts to make things more achievable when he fails - so call me highly skeptical on this tunneling concept.

[cpzilliacus]

The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many.  Here are a few:  fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect.  It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).

Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques.  There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.

Just a note about passenger evacuation.  One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress).  If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors.  Quick rescue still might not be possible.  Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues).  I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.

Interestingly, the safety issues associated with monorail are similar.  What is never discussed are the public safety impacts of emergencies on buried or overhead fixed-guideway projects, and the strain that they invariably place on local fire/rescue/EMS capabilities. 

Even though the first part of the Washington Metrorail opened in 1976, there are still problems associated with response to Metrorail emergencies, such as the January 2015 fatal smoke incident south of the L'Enfant Plaza station.

[skluth]

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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

[Bruce]

Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?

I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.

Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.

[kernals12]

Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?

I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.

Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.

But how much did they cost per mile?

[kernals12]

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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.

[Dirt Roads]

The safety concerns about trains and cars in small tubes are many.  Here are a few:  fresh air supply, passenger evacuation, heat/smoke exhaust, rescue and firefighting, as well as piston effect.  It's funny that a small car could push enough air forward to either blow out the doors at the end of a tunnel, or otherwise compress the air such that forward motion is impeded (both of those problems can be solved with a tunnel at the end of the tunnel).

Putting the allure of transit and roads aside, there certainly will be a strong market for low cost small tunnel boring techniques.  There are many parts of the United States that have obsolete underground structure and in desperate need new fresh water supply tunnels and other types of utility corridors.

Just a note about passenger evacuation.  One technique commonly proposed in tight transit tunnels is to have each car equipped with emergency exits at both ends (as well as multiple doors on both sides for station platform access/egress).  If a vehicle gets stuck in the tube, passengers might be able to evacuate through the train behind it using both of its end-cap doors.  Quick rescue still might not be possible.  Otherwise, it is necessary to have vehicles controlled remotely so as to prevent more than one vehicle between escape routes (and similarly, more than one vehicle between vent shafts for the other safety issues).  I don't know if any modern examples of this exist, but some older subways and railway tunnels do have these same issues.

Interestingly, the safety issues associated with monorail are similar.  What is never discussed are the public safety impacts of emergencies on buried or overhead fixed-guideway projects, and the strain that they invariably place on local fire/rescue/EMS capabilities. 

Even though the first part of the Washington Metrorail opened in 1976, there are still problems associated with response to Metrorail emergencies, such as the January 2015 fatal smoke incident south of the L'Enfant Plaza station.

The industry fire/rescue safety design standard is NFPA-130, which was first released in 1983 long after most of WMATA was designed.  You are correct that many monorail systems still do not address these issues properly.  In part, private transit systems like the above-referenced Boring Company people mover in Las Vegas are often not designed to those standards.  Prior to 1983, most of the transit systems were designed in a hit-or-miss fashion depending upon the specific expertise of the architect/engineering firms.  In the development of NFPA-130, the transit industry got much of their direction from experts in the automated guideway transit (AGT) industry where old, tough DOD-safety protocols and processes were used.  That was well before my time, but I know many of the key players well.

[skluth]

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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.

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.

[kernals12]

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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

If he really came up with a way to cut the cost of tunneling by 90%, he would have come up with the greatest revolution in civil engineering in almost a century and he'd make a fortune offering his services to highway and rail engineers. The fact that he chose a tunnel size that's too small to be really useful tells me that using standard sized tunnels would show him to be a fraud.

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.

Even a slightly wider tunnel would have exponentially more uses. 17 feet could get you subways and interchange ramps. And even at $100 or $200 million per mile for a pair of 32 foot diameter tunnels with 2 lanes each, that would completely transform highway engineering.

[Bruce]

Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?

I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.

Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.

But how much did they cost per mile?

University Link (3.15 mi, 2 stations) cost $1.7 billion, so $539.7 million including the stations. Pair of deep-bore tunnels with deep stations in the heart of the city, so the costs are as expected.

Northgate Link (3.5 mi, 3 stations) is expected to cost $1.9 billion, so $542.9 million per mile. It travels under suburban areas but also around sensitive university labs that required special mitigation.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[kernals12]

Have you not heard about Seattle's experience with a bored highway tunnel?

I referenced it in my post. Building a massive, world-record-setting TBM wasn't the problem, it was a series of mistakes in mapping out underground obstacles and other contractor errors that did it in. We've had several light rail tunnels dug by TBMs recently that have gone smoothly and finished earlier than scheduled thanks to better planning and using a conventional (and reusable) design.

Also, the idea that a tunnel could be approved with less ventilation because it's using electric vehicles is laughable. The biggest vents are needed for emergency outflow (e.g. if there's a fire), not for general emissions. Light rail tunnels serve electric vehicles and still have massive vents.

But how much did they cost per mile?

University Link (3.15 mi, 2 stations) cost $1.7 billion, so $539.7 million including the stations. Pair of deep-bore tunnels with deep stations in the heart of the city, so the costs are as expected.

Northgate Link (3.5 mi, 3 stations) is expected to cost $1.9 billion, so $542.9 million per mile. It travels under suburban areas but also around sensitive university labs that required special mitigation.

There we go, that may not be Big Bertha expensive, but that is still very, very costly.

[GaryV]

If he builds one in France, would the it be called Enterprise Ennuyeuse?

[kalvado]

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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

Ventilation is also required to remove heat - maybe even primarily required to remove heat. Otherwise tunnel life is pretty limited as soil gets warmer and warmer outside.

[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. I'm not sure Boring Company machines work as well in NYC or Amsterdam where their borers would have to build tunnels under water through compressed mud, but I haven't followed this.

I doubt he cares if his company's technology could be upscaled for larger tunnels. He's very focused on his ideas and it would be up to others to upscale it. However, Musk is more Edison than Einstein; he's been investing his money in pushing the current technology to its limit more than inventing anything new so it's not like other talented, ambitious people couldn't do the same thing if they wanted - and spent enough. Most people aren't willing to invest that much.

Ventilation is also required to remove heat - maybe even primarily required to remove heat. Otherwise tunnel life is pretty limited as soil gets warmer and warmer outside.

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).  The primary problem in NYC is staying below all of the existing infrastructure, then trying to keep and pump out stray water.  But nothing compared to Amsterdam.  I was working in the airport and amazed at how many years they take to reclaim land such that buildings, roads/runways and elevated structures can be properly supported.  Ugh, the name Schiphol actually means ship graveyard - literally hole.  They reclaimed the entire airport from an inland lake, which many centuries ago would have been part of a bay.