News
The Boring Co.’s projects are making transit departments rethink above-ground travel
The Boring Company’s underground tunneling projects are widely-appealing to Transit Departments and Authorities across the United States. Because of the sustainable tone of Elon Musk’s Boring Company, along with the efficiency of an Express-based system, agencies responsible for solving the issue of public passenger transportation are considering underground options more often than ever before. Above-ground public travel options, like Monorails or buses, are being ditched for underground options, and subways are outdated and not widely considered by these agencies.
Elon Musk’s underground tunneling venture has made it from California to Las Vegas, and now, back to California again, as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is considering a new underground tunneling project from the Boring Company. Later today, on February 3rd, the entity will consider the Boring Company’s submission for an underground tunnel that would take travelers from several different locations to the Ontario International Airport, located in Southern California. While the Boring Company has already received the equivalent of preliminary approval from the Transportation Authority, more questions are being asked to secure the tunnel’s place in the densely-populated and traffic-heavy area of Southern California.
In September 2020, the SBCTA Board of Directors approved the release of a Request for Qualifications, seeking qualified entities to submit a Statement of Qualifications for a potential tunneling project in San Bernardino County. According to documents released by the SBCTA, the tunnel will run from the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station to the Ontario International Airport, procuring a design-build and transitional operate-maintain methodology that will have the two transit systems running concurrently to complement one another.
The 31-minute ride from the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station to the Ontario International Airport could be expedited thanks to a new Boring Company tunnel proposal. (Google Maps)
The only thing is, not many companies with expertise in tunneling stepped forward. And by not many, only one did: The Boring Company.
The SBCTA wrote:
“In response to the RFQ, one Statement of Qualifications (SOQ), from The Boring Company, was received on November 30, 2020. A review panel was assembled involving a technical review team and an executive oversight team consisting of representatives from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Ontario, the OIAA, Omnitrans, and SBCTA. The SOQ was deemed responsive and passed all the minimum requirements of the RFQ.”
After an initial assessment from SBCTA Board Members, the Boring Company met the minimum requirements to qualify for further scrutiny. The Boring Company’s Statement of Qualifications only received a score of 58/100. Still, more information regarding financing, timing, ridership, and how the system will operate in conjunction with the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station will likely increase that score. These issues are set to be brought up during the Board of Directors meeting later today.
Ditching Above-Ground Systems for Underground Tunnels
Above-ground systems of transportation have been around for ages. Monorails, trains, and other large-scale passenger transportation systems have been aligned with cost-effective and efficient travel for decades, but a new era has come in thanks to Elon Musk. While many argue that the Boring Company’s system is a simple revision of a subway, it is far from identical. The Boring Company loops use Tesla’s all-electric vehicles for passenger transport, eliminating jam-packed, unsanitary, and oftentimes, uncomfortable situations where underground travel is offered.
Sitting in an automotive seat, likely joined by colleagues, or in some cases, complete strangers, is much more comfortable in a smaller setting, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic rolls on. Additionally, the express-system eliminates the need for unneeded stops, decreasing total travel time.
While the San Bernardino project seems to indicate that the Boring Company will work with an already-operational monorail system, other projects have completely abandoned the idea of using an above-ground Monorail system. One of the most notable is the Boring Company’s Vegas Loop. After the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA) purchased the bankrupt Vegas Monorail system in 2020, it opened the door for the Boring Company to expand its possible tunneling to property exclusive to the Monorail.
The Boring Company has several other large-scale projects in the proposal stage, including one in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois. These projects are in the early stages and will be subjected to the speed at which local authorities move. Some agencies are quicker to get the ball rolling on public transit projects than others. For example, a tunnel between Baltimore and Washington D.C. would eliminate the need to travel on the Maryland Transit Authority’s Lightrail system, a cost-effective, but not time-effective, way to travel from suburbs of Baltimore County to the Nation’s Capitol. This project has been in a stalemate for several years but would expedite the travel time from Baltimore’s Camden Yards, home of the Orioles, to Washington. The Boring Company’s website indicates that an environmental review is pending.
Underground tunnels may be the way of the future, much like electric cars. At the forefront, a South African-born entrepreneur named Elon Musk is leading the charge, changing how human beings will travel from one point to another.
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s Agenda is available below, with The Boring Company’s consideration beginning on page 13.
Tbc San Bernardino Tunnel by Joey Klender on Scribd
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
