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Above-ground public travel options, like Monorails or buses, are being ditched for underground options, and subways are outdated and not widely considered by these agencies.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
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
