
Elon Musk's tunnel project is a bad joke - Fricken
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/19/elon-musks-tunnel-project-in-los-angeles-is-bad-joke/
======
sweden
Not that I approve or disapprove Elon Musk's idea of building tunnels but this
blog post seems to dismiss the entire idea just for the sake of being
dismissive.

The Boring Company seems to be trying with different thoughts and ideas for
making these tunnels a reality and they have been quite open to the public
with these ideas. It feels to me that the author is taking advantage of this
transparency and using it as a weapon for his own agenda.

The entire "demo" was a proof-of-concept that they can use as a model in order
to see if it works or not, there is nothing wrong with it. It's not like they
will be deploying the current idea to the general public of LA starting
tomorrow.

> Some experts questioned whether the Boring Company had even succeeded at
> improving the cost of tunnel boring. Right now, it’s not altogether clear
> that it did.

Well, they are still developing the technology, aren't they?

> But this design creates congestion at the front end while promising to
> relieve it on the journey. Drivers will need to line up to wait their turn
> on the elevator.

The idea he presented in the press conference is that the tunnels would
complement the current highways and public transportation system, it wouldn't
be a full replacement for those.

Adding new lanes is incredibly difficult because it would require road work,
blocking the entire road to traffic, and also because you are physically
limited to the number of lanes that you can possibly add to the road.

The idea of tunnels is supposed to work around these limitations.

~~~
danso
What was the "proof of concept"? When Boring was first unveiled, it was sold
not as a tunnel for cars to drive through, but a system that included
"electric skates" and subway-car-like pods:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V_VzRrSBI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V_VzRrSBI)

I doubt Boring would have gotten much hype at all if Musk had admitted up
front that it'd be little different than an underground highway, something
which people have been using for decades.

~~~
tlrobinson
"Electric skates" sound cool, but if you've already got autonomous vehicles
with perfectly good wheels why are they necessary?

Yes each tunnel is limited by the speed of the slowest vehicle, but if the
tunneling cost is low enough (it certainly would be lower without skates and
special tracks) you could have a "slow lane" and a "fast lane"

~~~
subculture
I pay a lot of attention to my car's maintenance and tire wear, but that
wouldn't be true for everyone in the tunnels. High speeds are also more
stressful on wheels and ancillary parts. The idea of skates seems like it
would help normalize capabilities/limits of cars in the tunnels.

------
satiani
I really don't understand all the cynicism around this. It's a prototype of a
bold idea, in all likelihood it will fail (like most bold new ideas), but at
least they're trying something new. That's how change happens, through trial
and error, not through foolproof, perfectly executed plans. For better or for
worse, Elon Musk has a track record of taking difficult ideas and beating all
odds to make them a reality.

If you wanna call out Elon Musk for something, call him out for his abusive
management practices and erratic/abusive behavior on twitter. Calling him out
for trying out bold ideas (with all the trial and error that entails) is
really petty and counterproductive.

~~~
bildung
_> I really don't understand all the cynicism around this. It's a prototype of
a bold idea, [...]_

Well, because it isn't. Tunnel boring is an established industry, it's just a
new topic on HN, and apparently for Musk. People don't call him out for being
bold, they are calling him out for doing bad and falling over his own hubris.

~~~
stcredzero
_Well, because it isn 't. Tunnel boring is an established industry_

Yes, but Elon's stock and trade has become:

    
    
        1) look at an established industry
        2) do a 1st principles analysis of how inexpensive the product could be
        3) analyze where the difference comes from
        4) $$$
    

This works especially well with overlooked industries where government
regulation has thrown up barriers and established players have little
competition. That _is_ bold. Following scientific principles to the truth and
profiting from it is bold, flat out.

It's more admirable than imitation of previous successes, at any rate.

~~~
julianozen
Ill add to this. If you listen to his interview with Kara Swisher on recode,
he has a pretty compelling case on what he thinks the established industry is
overlooking. According to him, the technology used for tunneling is very
outdated. The Diesel engines could be replaced by something far more powerful
without hitting thermal limits reducing drill time. Current technology also
fills the tunnel with exhaust that needs to be pumped out with oxygen

It’s not hard to see how trying something high powered and electric/lithium-
ion based might change the cost/benefits of tunneling, and Elon/Tesla also
seems like it might have a uniquely special knowledge of electric motors to
succeed

I see no reason why this isn’t worth the experiment.

~~~
corodra
Yea, that argument makes perfect sense, if you totally ignore that the speed
of tunneling isn't dictated by the drill but by installing the support
structures as you tunnel. The actual tunneling aspect is not the bottleneck
(unless you're doing certain mountain ranges). The bottleneck is making sure
what you just drilled doesn't immediately collapse on you. Along with
evacuating the material out of the way. That's the reason tunneling takes so
long. You have to support the new section of hole so it does't collapse due to
pressure or a damn random earthquake happens to hit. To do that too, you need
to properly get rid of the material out of your way so the structure is
stabilized. The drills normally (80%-90% of the time) outpace the support
structure building process already. You can only go so far until you have to
wait for them to catch up.

Do I agree that electricity would potentially help? Yes. Mostly for exhaust.
As long as you can equal out the torque as well. Motors that large don't
always have the same amount of torque as their fuel counter parts. But massive
batteries overheat as well and are an explosive risks. Diesel at least needs
to be well aerated to pose as an extreme fire risk. Running a large battery
for that long would be an issue. You still have the heat, but at least the
exhaust problems are potentially not there. Even though large lithium
batteries still produce fumes when run hot. But I'm not sure as to what ppm
until those fumes are dangerous/equal to carbon monoxide.

~~~
stcredzero
_The bottleneck is making sure what you just drilled doesn 't immediately
collapse on you. Along with evacuating the material out of the way. That's the
reason tunneling takes so long._

From what I've read, Boring Company is very aware of this. Give me a 1st
principles analysis for why those things can't be done cheaper and faster?

------
pseudometa
There is a fatalism mentality when it comes to writing about big technology
ambitions like this. Maybe people are just jaded and used to being let down so
much. There is zero doubt in my mind that this endeavor will cost more than
expected, take longer than expected, etc... but at the end of the day the
effort alone is going to spur other tunneling companies to push for
innovations as well. Who knows if any of these early prototypes prove useful,
but it sure is clear that Elon sees a lot of room for improvement in the
technology, and at this point I wouldn't bet against that.

~~~
gamblor956
There's fatalism about this because Elon hasn't actually proposed anything
innovative. Literally everything Elon has said he wants his boring machine to
do, other boring machine companies have already been doing for 2 or 3 decades.

The only remotely "innovative" thing that Elon has suggested is recovering the
boring machine after tunnel digging. Even this isn't innovative--the reason
most boring machines aren't recovered is because it would cost too much to
extract them from the surface. Elon's proposed method of extraction (digging
down from the surface) is the method the industry already uses in those
situations where it is cost-effective to recover the machine.

The boring machines that BoringCo is using are used boring machines that were
recovered using the "innovative" method that Elon proposed. It was cost
effective to do so because they're relatively tiny, as far as boring machines
go.

------
lewis500
I don't understand why Musk is so invested in the idea of cars in tunnels.
Does he really have a substantially better tunnel boring machine/tunnel boring
workflow? If so, there are lots of things to use it for other than car
tunnels. It's kind of like if he started making electric cars and then said,
"I am launching the world's first all-electric pizza delivery service."

The O'Hare airport connector in Chicago is a better example of what cheap,
fast tunneling could be used for than the car skate mechanism. This article
points out how remarkable it would be if things go according to plan:
[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/for-1-billion-
elon-musks-tunnel-to-ohare-would-be-a-miracle/562841/)

~~~
userulluipeste
I think his primary interest is around tunneling technology. If one follows
his thoughts on developing extraterrestrial settlements, the need for
experience in development of underground tunnels becomes obvious. That would
be the best bet for inter-settlement transport infrastructure given the
hazardous conditions anywhere outside our planet. From this prospective, the
current project - the improvement of LA or whatever, is just an intermediary
goal.

------
PaulHoule
I dunno.

It seems like we don't need a "revolution" in tunneling costs, even a 30%
reduction would be material. The incumbents here have grown fat (like ULA in
rockets) on cost plus contracts, it is not like going up against General
Motors, Toyota, etc. where is really competitive.

Even if the technology only works in favorable ground (can't choose exactly
where it goes), ultra-low-cost tunnels could be good for other uses such as
storing parked cars. Los Angeles gets around a cubic kilometer of rainfall a
year and if they just had a place to store it, they would not need to import
water at all.

~~~
simias
> Los Angeles gets around a cubic kilometer of rainfall a year and if they
> just had a place to store it, they would not need to import water at all.

Now that's a bold idea but storing one cubic kilometer of water in an
artificial reservoir seems rather complicated and I'm not really sure the
technology developed by the Boring company would help greatly.

If I'm not mistaken and given a diameter of 3.8m you'd need 87 thousand
kilometers of tunnels to store one cubic kilometer of water. You could circle
the world more than two times with a tunnel that length.

~~~
PaulHoule
You don't need to store the whole 1 cubic kilometer to make a big impact.

You could get that 1 cubic km of space by damming up the area where the Los
Angeles River drains out out to where the depth of the ocean really drops off.

Practically it can be done on a small scale. Some communities are starting to
realize that they can either spend $1M on upgrading their sewer line or spend
$3M and get a really nice and verdant park.

~~~
simias
Right, I'm not saying that's a bad idea, just that it only seems tangentially
related to what the Boring company is doing. If you want to store water then
those tunnels don't seem very appropriate. If you want to transport water then
they seem too large.

Of course it's not like I have any expertise in the domain, I'd gladly be
proven wrong.

------
Shivetya
I never found the idea compelling because all the distances spoken of were so
short that getting to and getting out would eat much of the time saved.

that and this example is a paltry little tunnel in no way useful without the
required safety of a parallel tunnel and such.

the real game changer going forward is still autonomous vehicles. combined
with EV technology they will disrupt both the automotive industry on a scale
many do not fully imagine as well as public transport and providing freedom
for people to live further apart. it will give even more people the freedom of
travel

~~~
notable_user
You’ve clearly never lived in a city like LA or New York. Sometimes it takes
45 minutes to drive a few blocks.

And Boring Company plans on using parallel tunnels, for safety and for
increased capacity (two directions of travel).

------
tlrobinson
Obviously Elon likes publicity stunts like this, and the current prototype is
very far off from something that can compete with traditional subways, but
it's not obvious to me the idea of many "dumb" tunnels with many small to
medium-sized autonomous vehicles is a bad idea.

Subways are kind of like circuit switched networks (more raw capacity), this
is more like a packet switched network (more flexibility/overall efficiency).
And with cheap enough tunneling it becomes horizontally scalable.

------
tekkk
Hmm gotta agree with the authors that it pretty much looks like a subway
without the actual efficiency of one. Purely from layman's perspective it
doesn't seem plausible that subway could be replaced with a tunnel full of
people driving their own cars. The space, the logistics, the everything.
Subways and their tunnels are very much utilized to their maximum, could a
tunnel full of separate cars have the same throughput of people? I'd say it's
highly improbable.

But, as the article mentions Boring Company seems pivoting more to "a tunnel
for rich people to drive in". That seems like a more plausible use-case. Or
well just build a subway. And as another perspective as European, public
transportation is pretty cool also. No need for expensive tunnels. Would
probably help with the congestion too although it seems like a lost cause in
the US.

~~~
chrisco255
How many cities in the U.S. would actually benefit from a Subway system? The
density of most U.S. cities isn't high enough to support NYC or DC style
metros. It's completely unrealistic to expect cities to invest in them when
people are already spread out over mass expanses of suburbia. Face it, America
was built around the car. Most of our cities developed long after the car was
already a staple. Building tunnels for cars, to solve traffic, is very smart.
There are many cities where there's little room to expand highways. A tunnel
network that avoids a lot of the exhaust problems (due to restricting traffic
to electric vehicles) would encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, would
relieve traffic on main highways, and would be practical for most cities,
without the maintenance costs of a Subway system.

~~~
gamblor956
Why would it be cost effective for a city that isn't dense enough for a subway
to waste time and money digging an underground tunnel for 1 lane of cars
instead of just expanding their existing streets by 1 lane for a fraction of
the time and cost?

~~~
chrisco255
Because in many cases the highways are as wide as they can get and they would
have to imminent domain a ton of private property to expand...which is time
consuming, prone to litigation and increases the cost of highway
construction...plus you have the three-four year disruption in existing
traffic flows.

------
danso
I give Musk credit for at least mostly/nearly meeting his previously tweeted
deadline of Dec. 10. Being sincere here, because I thought it likely it'd end
up as late/unfulfilled as his estimates about self-driving, albeit tunneling
is a safer goal than self-driving.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1054164543922823168?lang...](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1054164543922823168?lang=en)

------
simias
I think the author mostly makes a compelling case (especially the point about
how it's effectively a subway but less efficient and for rich people) but I
don't get this particular point:

>L.A.’s highways are congested. Simply putting new ones underground doesn’t
really solve this problem.

I mean, more capacity should mean less congestion, shouldn't it?

>Drivers will need to line up to wait their turn on the elevator. If the
tunnels were really able to deliver lightning fast commutes across Los
Angeles, demand would likely be quite high.

That also doesn't make sense to me. The tunnel will be unsuccessful because
it'll be too successful? People won't want to use the tunnel because too many
people will use the tunnel? If Musk reaches that point he'll probably already
have won.

~~~
alexhutcheson
> I mean, more capacity should mean less congestion, shouldn't it?

Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to induced
demand[1].

> That also doesn't make sense to me. The tunnel will be unsuccessful because
> it'll be too successful? People won't want to use the tunnel because too
> many people will use the tunnel? If Musk reaches that point he'll probably
> already have won.

I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a
significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few
people would actually be able to benefit.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)

~~~
simias
>Somewhat counter-intuitively, the answer to that is often "no", due to
induced demand[1].

I see what you mean but couldn't you raise the same objection if somebody
wanted to, say, create a new subway system or something similar? More people
in the new transport system means fewer people in cars on the streets means
induced demand... I don't see why this particular project is different.

>I think the point being made here is that ingress/egress imposes such a
significant bottleneck that total throughput will still be low, and very few
people would actually be able to benefit.

I agree with that, it's also a problem with hyperloop. It seems like Musk's
vision of the future is great if you're rich, not so much if you're poor.

------
vegetish
Just let the man build some tunnels. Also, just because the demo shows a Tesla
model X doesn't mean that other services like the pods are discluded, as the
article states. It's simply a matter getting some 7+ seat cars and stuffing a
bunch of people in them.

------
dleslie
> But reporters arrived to find out plans have apparently changed from a
> public transit system to a private system for rich drivers.

The author missed a solid opportunity to make a Stonecutters joke.

~~~
lawlessone
a private road network? the libertarians will be all over this..

------
mpweiher
"A full build out of the concept could end up being a private uncontested
highway system mirroring the congested public one for use only by a very rich
few."

That was exactly my thought when I read about the test. I have a hard time
seeing how this can scale in capacity. But getting _himself_ out of the
gridlock...now that's...something at least. Speed similar to a helicopter ride
above the traffic without all the hassle of getting on and off and finding a
place to land.

Not sure it's a good thing.

~~~
Buldak
Yes, I think this is what people defending Elon and other would-be disruptors
neglect. The criticism isn't just that certain attempts at innovation are
stupid or likely to fail, but that they betray the privilege or insular
perspective of the innovator.

------
anonymfus
[http://existentialcomics.com/comic/other/17](http://existentialcomics.com/comic/other/17)

------
creeble
I don't get Musk's math on this one.

Even if the tunnels were significantly cheaper than building new freeway
lanes, a tunnel is a single lane, with single entry and exits. Ingress and
egress overwhelm any gains from potential speed improvements in the tunnel.

Besides this, it doesn't matter how much improvement in traffic capacity is
gained from tunnels, or lanes. Induced demand always renders improvements in
capacity moot over the longer term.

------
mindcrash
Since this is the second hit piece on Elon today added to the HN frontpage I
am really curious about something.

What on Earth did Elon do to attract the ire of the far left? Because
obviously both articles were written by people who are evidently into far left
ideology according to their Twitter feeds.

I suppose everybody else either don't really give a crap about his experiments
or think they are useless but pretty cool (hello, personal flamethrower),
across these circles SpaceX is considered to be pretty rad, and while Tesla
might not be perfect I'm pretty sure they are one of the trailblazers towards
a future of self driving electric cars.

So can anyone explain to me - and I mean this genuinely - why the raging hate
from this particular part of the ideological spectrum?

Thanks.

------
celerrimus
When I saw the video yesterday, have a lot of laughter.

Real breakthrough!!

------
DanCarvajal
Has the Boring Company even said anything about how they plan on so
dramatically cutting the cost per mile of tunnel building?

~~~
larkost
Yes, there is a pretty good video of an interview with Musk and the chief
engineer on the project:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwX9G38vdCE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwX9G38vdCE)

From memory, the important points: 1\. They want to have the drill work
continuously. Apparently current technology winds up drilling less than half
the time, partially because the drills stop when putting in the wall sections
that make up the tunnel. 2\. Switch the drill and the waste train (that takes
the dirt from the drill) to electric using batteries that the train brings in.
This reduces the construction of pipes and infrastructure in the tunnel during
construction. 3\. Work to speed up the drill head by using the materials
scientists from SpaceX. 4\. Make bricks out of the waster material on-site.
Right now disposing of the waste material is a big headache/cost.

~~~
gamblor956
The thing that Elon and his "chief engineer" did not bother to learn before
making that video is that boring machines are already electric. They are
merely suggesting replacing the electrical wires with batteries. The
consequences of this is that the drill still only drills half the time,
because you have to stop to swap out batteries. And unless Elon has access to
superbatteries that he hasn't revealed yet, they'll be swapping batteries once
or twice an hour for any boring machine large enough to construct subway-sized
tunnels.

Also, the reason the drill stops to put in walls sections every X feet is
because in soft-soil like LA, the tunnel will collapse without walls. Unlike
the Elontunnel, the walls built by the machine during this stage are the final
walls, which is why they take so long--they're subject to the full
construction process (measuring, building, remeasuring, inspections, sign-
offs, etc.) before the tunnel digs a new section.

When you're digging under other people's property, it's better to go slowly
and do things right the first time. It's more expensive to fix something like
a tunnel after the fact, and that's something BoringCo is about to learn.

As for number 3: different materials require different drill heads and speeds.
For example--with soft soil drilling to fast can "liquefy" the soil. Material
science won't change that--it's physics that the boring industry has decades
of research in.

------
lmilcin
The real joke is people who can't recognize how early stages of development
look like. That's because the details are usually hidden from view by business
people who insist it is embarassing. It is not. This is how real world r&d
looks like.

