News
Elon Musk’s Boring Company meets opposition over Las Vegas tunnel bid
The Boring Company’s planned 2-mile Las Vegas tunnel is seeing some opposition, with some members of the city’s Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA) expressing their reservations about the tunneling startup’s capability to deliver on the project.
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has stated that a contract has been negotiated with The Boring Company to build a transport tunnel that could move people around the Las Vegas Convention Center. The cost of the project is estimated to be $52.5 million, far less than the cost of a conventional above-ground transit system. In the event that The Boring Company does not receive a certificate of occupancy for the tunnel system, the LVCVA will get back its entire investment.
While the Boring Company’s deal appears to be a cost-effective proposal that carries little financial risk to the LVCVA, some board members have expressed their reservations for the project nonetheless. Board members Michele Fiore and Carolyn Goodman, for one, recently spoke in favor of an alternative proposal from Austria-based Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, which involves the construction of an above-ground transit system.
This Monday, Goodman sent an email to her fellow board members urging them to support the proposal from the Austria-based company, according to a report from the Las Vegas Sun. In her message, Goodman cited Doppelmayr’s experience in the transport industry, comparing it favorably against The Boring Company’s inexperience.
“Doppelmayr has been in existence for 125 years. They already have projects here that are operating successfully. The Boring Co. is three years old and has yet to deliver a final package on anything. (The tourism and convention business) is a $60 billion industry that every part of this state relies on for dollars. This is really about deliverability — we can’t fail on this,” she wrote.
Doppelmayr’s initial proposal to the LVCVA involved the creation of an above-ground transit system that would cost an estimated $215 million to complete. In her letter to the LVCVA’s board, Goodman argued that the Austria-based company would have been able to build a transport system for as little as $85 million. The board member even invited Doppelmayr CEO Markus Schrentewein to give a presentation at a board meeting on Tuesday.
“During the bidding process, if we would have been given the chance to present and explain in more detail our proposal, I believe we would have come up with a more favorable project for the LVCVA campus,” the Doppelmayr CEO said.
Michele Fiore, who also works as a councilwoman in Las Vegas, also expressed her reservations over the Boring Company’s proposal. In a statement to local media, Fiore echoed Goodman’s sentiments about the Austria-based company’s experience. “The risk of the Boring Co. is quite high, while the risk with Doppelmayr is quite low. How do we justify not really looking at Doppelmayr as a solid and proven company? I’m not so sure the Boring Co. is the company to do this job,” she said.
Hill, for his part, noted that The Boring Company’s proposal was initially selected due to cost, timing, and scalability. At $52.5 million, the tunneling startup’s plan is cost-effective, and the project could be completed while the campuses’ expansion work is ongoing. The Boring Company’s transport tunnel could also be expanded to other areas of Las Vegas in the future. “It’s significantly less expensive than any of the alternatives that we reviewed. Frankly, for the funding capacity of the LVCVA, this is the system that we could go forward with. We’re going to bring a contract next week that will eliminate all financial risk from the LVCVA,” Hill said.
In a previous statement, Boring Company President Steve Davis described the Las Vegas project as an opportunity for both the tunneling startup and the city. “People will be excited. They will ride it, and if they like it, we’ll probably get more interest. Nevada looks for a responsible way to say yes. We think it offers a lot of opportunity. I think others see that as well. And we will put in that work to see if it’s the right choice for Las Vegas,” he said.
A Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority spokesperson has noted that the board will vote on the Boring Company’s proposal on May 22, when the board meets for a budget hearing.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
